Tips for Tikay

[Dekka]

Doobs point about the e/w prices on the F1 being far better than the podium prices is exactly why I read this thread.  What's not to like about a free win bet?

Peter clearly knows his stuff on Motorsport, I worked in F1 and usually (but not always) agree with much of his reasoning but I don't always understand his staking suggestions.  

EG: Peter put up this bet earlier.  To Reach Q3 - Carlos Sainz @ 7/5 with the exchange. The Toro Rosso won't be as strong over one lap, but this should be closer to EVS than 7/5. Suggest £10.

If we're getting 7/5 about an even money shot why are we only putting a tenner on?  

In the same post Peter suggested £50 on Lewis to win P3 at 4/5 because it was "considerably overpriced".  Was it really that much more overpriced than the Sainz bet?

Or am I missing something?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm grateful for all the tips I follow on here win or lose but I'm genuinely a bit baffled by the recommended stakes on some of the F1 bets.

I have myself pointed out that deciding my stake size is somewhere that I lack and could improve. I tend to decide my stake through a combination of the amount of value in the bet, and the likelihood of it happening. This does work for the most part (76.57% ROI on motorsport in 2015 for me personally), however there's no reason why that couldn't improve. If you have suggestions, I'm all ears

P.S. Actually, on this specific instance, it was a typo! Personally I bet £20, although it was ultimately a loser. For the record, I didn't say EVS, I said closer to EVS - to be pedantic.

P.P.S Who did you work for? I worked for Williams at one point, albeit predominately in the hybrid power division, rather than F1.

Sorry Peter, I must've missed an earlier post/discussion about staking sizes.  I didn't mean to bring up something that had already been covered on here.  I guess my point was if Sainz and Hamilton were both similarly overpriced then the stakes should also be similar.  It felt by your suggested stakes that you felt the Hamilton bet was 5 times the value of the Sainz one.  "ish" ;-)

It's irrelevant that it was a loser.  If it was value it was a good recommendation imho.

I worked on the marketing side of F1 rather than the technical side.  Spent a few years with Jonathan Palmer's Palmersport operation which meant spending a lot of time with McLaren and Williams and their respective sponsors in particular.  At that time it was Clare Williams and Christian Vine (David & Tim's brother) that I worked alongside on all sorts of deals.

It's good to be betting on F1 again as I lost faith when I had the inside info that the Mclarens were going to be quick in the '98 season.  I was on Coulthard to win in Melbourne at 40/1 only for him to pull over and let Hakkinen take the victory.  I thought I was over this.  Clearly I'm not yet!

[DungBeetle]

Okay - maybe you are correct.  Away from motor sport and this debate I just think it's easy to pick holes in any 50-1 or 150-1 shot whether it be golf, football, cricket whatever.  I just got the impression from the weekend that Doobs had put up 2 long shots with reasoning and within one or two posts you had immediately shot him down.  I think I could tear up pretty much every tip that is 25-1+ if I wanted to because by definition they aren't likely to happen and there will be shortcomings with the selection.

I guess my feeling was that you didn't take the tips in the "unlikely" realm that they were suggested.  

As you say, if you genuinely think Alonso tip should be 66-1 and Bottas tip should be 250-1 then you are absolutely correct to point that out.  However, I didn't get the impression of that level of consideration from your posts (and after all determining if something is 40-1 or 50-1 is a lot less exact science than determining than if something should be favourite or not).

Hope that makes sense!

Yeah, I can completely understand that.

I do always try to provide justification when I post something, but obviously that didn't come across as well as I would have hoped in these posts. What more could/should I have said? I'm trying to avoid this happening again 

Doobs point about the e/w prices on the F1 being far better than the podium prices is exactly why I read this thread.  What's not to like about a free win bet?

Peter clearly knows his stuff on Motorsport, I worked in F1 and usually (but not always) agree with much of his reasoning but I don't always understand his staking suggestions.  

EG: Peter put up this bet earlier.  To Reach Q3 - Carlos Sainz @ 7/5 with the exchange. The Toro Rosso won't be as strong over one lap, but this should be closer to EVS than 7/5. Suggest £10.

If we're getting 7/5 about an even money shot why are we only putting a tenner on?  

In the same post Peter suggested £50 on Lewis to win P3 at 4/5 because it was "considerably overpriced".  Was it really that much more overpriced than the Sainz bet?

Or am I missing something?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm grateful for all the tips I follow on here win or lose but I'm genuinely a bit baffled by the recommended stakes on some of the F1 bets.

I have myself pointed out that deciding my stake size is somewhere that I lack and could improve. I tend to decide my stake through a combination of the amount of value in the bet, and the likelihood of it happening. This does work for the most part (76.57% ROI on motorsport in 2015 for me personally), however there's no reason why that couldn't improve. If you have suggestions, I'm all ears

P.S. Actually, on this specific instance, it was a typo! Personally I bet £20, although it was ultimately a loser. For the record, I didn't say EVS, I said closer to EVS - to be pedantic.

P.P.S Who did you work for? I worked for Williams at one point, albeit predominately in the hybrid power division, rather than F1.

Hi Peter,

Dekka made a fascinating post as to his motor racing background, & then replied further to a question from me, here.....


http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=56581.msg2135757#msg2135757

Ahh, I remember the post, did not remember the username.

I'm 24 years old, and while I have been gambling since before I was 18,

For some reason I thought you were much older than 24.

Were you confusing Peter with me?

I am older than 24.

In San Diego yesterday (thin...) we got on a bus, & there was half price travel for Senior Citizens, defined as being over 60. Thought I may as well have a bit of that, so presented the Driver with my Passport. He never even looked at it, just cast a quick glance at me & insta said "no need for proof Sir, I can see you qualify".

Bastard.    

You're older than 24? You don't look a day over 16.

I guess what would be useful for me from a selfish point of view would be a comparison of a long shot McLaren tip at (say) 40-1 and a Force India long shot at (say) 20-1.  Both unlikely but I guess a really useful analysis with your knowledge is the comparison?  Why the differential is greater than the odds suggest.  Why is Force India (in our hypothetical example) a bet but McLaren isn't.  I know McLaren are still poor but I guess how many runnings of the race are required before the long shot actually comes in so I can see how much the bookies are taking my pants down with 40-1!  

[Dekka]

"I've got a great idea lads.  We'll have our centre forward, a great header of the ball and the Premier League's top goalscorer taking all the corners" -  Roy Hodgson (England Manager)

[DMorgan]

Peter, a couple of links for you about stake sizing

Kelly Criterion Calculator: http://www.albionresearch.com/kelly/default.php

Kelly is a pretty aggro strategy (for example if we could be sure that we are getting 7/5 about a true 11/10 shot then we should be betting 10% of bankroll to achieve maximum growth) so most people go half kelly or even a quarter. The smaller fraction you take the lower your expected growth rate in exchange for smaller variance. It uses estimated probability of winning rather than estimate of true price but you can get to the %age chance by taking the reciprocal of the decimal odds, so if you think that your bet is a true 11/10 shot then estimated chance of winning = 1/((11/10)+1) = 1/2.1 = 0.476 = 47.6%

Have a play around with the calculator and you'll get a decent feel for how various edge sizes should be staked.

Unfortunately we do often encounter trouble getting more than £50 on a lot of things, but even if we can only get on for the full stake amount for a third of our bets, that will greatly increase the £EV of that weekends bets

Kelly Discussion: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/3-questions-kelly-criterion-1208498/

This thread approaches Kelly as a model for determining what your stake size should be relative to bankroll in heads up SNGs but the principles are the same.

glgl tomorrow

[DungBeetle]

"I've got a great idea lads.  We'll have our centre forward, a great header of the ball and the Premier League's top goalscorer taking all the corners" -  Roy Hodgson (England Manager)

Yeah - just posted this on the other thread.  Great performance apart from that though - we are making Russia looked dreadful.

[sonour]

I'm 24 years old, and while I have been gambling since before I was 18,

For some reason I thought you were much older than 24.

Yes, pretty impressive in so many ways for 24 years old.

[Ledders]

One of the problems is that we as humans are terrible at statistics and mathematics.

We have some sharp minds in this thread when it comes to evaluating sport but it's not a mathematical approach mostly.

Arbboy laughs at this a lot as he's been in the game for so long he actually does price things up in his head I think and then looks at prices. Whilst the rest of us have a look at the odds and contrast/compare and figure out if something is worth betting.

From reading Peter's posts, I think this is what he does when he decides whether to recommend a bet or not. He's looking at data but he's not coming up with a tissue and then betting off that I believe. Which is why this 40/1, 50/1 stuff is a bit futile. We simply don't know.

Hector posted up someone winning a set at evens in the French open which he said was 1/3. Markets are wrong but I don't think they're ever that wrong and Arbboy and co scoffed a bit. As DMorgan says, with Kelly we should be putting absolute lumps on if this were the case. I backed the selection and watched the game and think his reasoning was sound as the game was fairly tight but the better player ultimately won in straight sets with 2 tie breaks I believe. If it was a 10/11 shot and we took evens we're making plenty in the long run.

I think people are sometimes a bit concerned about putting up marginal spots so want to sound supremely confident when they do.

We don't have to believe we have a gigantic edge to be betting on something. Getting 7/1 about a 6/1 shot is a fantastic spot.

[DungBeetle]

One of the problems is that we as humans are terrible at statistics and mathematics.

We have some sharp minds in this thread when it comes to evaluating sport but it's not a mathematical approach mostly.

Arbboy laughs at this a lot as he's been in the game for so long he actually does price things up in his head I think and then looks at prices. Whilst the rest of us have a look at the odds and contrast/compare and figure out if something is worth betting.

From reading Peter's posts, I think this is what he does when he decides whether to recommend a bet or not. He's looking at data but he's not coming up with a tissue and then betting off that I believe. Which is why this 40/1, 50/1 stuff is a bit futile. We simply don't know.

Hector posted up someone winning a set at evens in the French open which he said was 1/3. Markets are wrong but I don't think they're ever that wrong and Arbboy and co scoffed a bit. As DMorgan says, with Kelly we should be putting absolute lumps on if this were the case. I backed the selection and watched the game and think his reasoning was sound as the game was fairly tight but the better player ultimately won in straight sets with 2 tie breaks I believe. If it was a 10/11 shot and we took evens we're making plenty in the long run.

I think people are sometimes a bit concerned about putting up marginal spots so want to sound supremely confident when they do.

We don't have to believe we have a gigantic edge to be betting on something. Getting 7/1 about a 6/1 shot is a fantastic spot.

I remember that tennis match as well - was nip and tuck all the way.

Guess your post sums up why I made my original post - Doobs made some "banzai" selections with reasoning so I'm not sure why they were both shot down so quickly.  With the reasoning they both seemed well thought out to me.   It seems a bit nit picking to say they are 50-1 rather than 40-1.  The US Open golf is on this week and I'm sure a couple of 100/1 shots will go up.   I can post "missed last 2 cuts, doesn't drive far enough, missed last cut on this course, should be 125-1" but I'm not sure what that adds?
 
Anyway I'm sure this has been discussed enough!

[sonour]

Peter,

Did you understand Doobs point about the EW betting ?

Perez and Hulkenberg are both 250/1 with WH 1/5 1,2,3.

So if you back them each way you are getting 50/1 to podium.

I think you suggested them to podium at 14/1+.

So it's obviously much better to do it this way.

[sonour]

One of the problems is that we as humans are terrible at statistics and mathematics.

We have some sharp minds in this thread when it comes to evaluating sport but it's not a mathematical approach mostly.

Arbboy laughs at this a lot as he's been in the game for so long he actually does price things up in his head I think and then looks at prices. Whilst the rest of us have a look at the odds and contrast/compare and figure out if something is worth betting.

From reading Peter's posts, I think this is what he does when he decides whether to recommend a bet or not. He's looking at data but he's not coming up with a tissue and then betting off that I believe. Which is why this 40/1, 50/1 stuff is a bit futile. We simply don't know.

Hector posted up someone winning a set at evens in the French open which he said was 1/3. Markets are wrong but I don't think they're ever that wrong and Arbboy and co scoffed a bit. As DMorgan says, with Kelly we should be putting absolute lumps on if this were the case. I backed the selection and watched the game and think his reasoning was sound as the game was fairly tight but the better player ultimately won in straight sets with 2 tie breaks I believe. If it was a 10/11 shot and we took evens we're making plenty in the long run.

I think people are sometimes a bit concerned about putting up marginal spots so want to sound supremely confident when they do.

We don't have to believe we have a gigantic edge to be betting on something. Getting 7/1 about a 6/1 shot is a fantastic spot.

I remember that tennis match as well - was nip and tuck all the way.

Guess your post sums up why I made my original post - Doobs made some "banzai" selections with reasoning so I'm not sure why they were both shot down so quickly.  With the reasoning they both seemed well thought out to me.   It seems a bit nit picking to say they are 50-1 rather than 40-1.  The US Open golf is on this week and I'm sure a couple of 100/1 shots will go up.   I can post "missed last 2 cuts, doesn't drive far enough, missed last cut on this course, should be 125-1" but I'm not sure what that adds?
 
Anyway I'm sure this has been discussed enough!

Dung,

I, like you, winced a little when Peter disagreed with those bets. Sure, you can disagree with a bet put up by anyone, but to do so about £10ew on a 150/1 shot, where we were getting 30/1 to podium, put up by Doobs who is an expert amoung experts on betting and on so many sports too was probably unnecessary.

[Doobs]

Peter,

Did you understand Doobs point about the EW betting ?

Perez and Hulkenberg are both 250/1 with WH 1/5 1,2,3.

So if you back them each way you are getting 50/1 to podium.

I think you suggested them to podium at 14/1+.

So it's obviously much better to do it this way.

I will just add that the shape of the race is fantastic for each way betting.  I have backed 4 (including the two I have mentioned, plus Perez and Hulkenberg).  I thought Bottas was best and have more on.  I love the talk of Kelly, but I was maxed on Bottas and Alonso.  Bottas was a day earlier, so I caught the "trader" in a generous mood.  He wasn't as kind with Alonso and the max was £12.50 e/w.  I have probably backed too many, and I am not backing anymore given I have been referred twice already.  The prices are now better than I got on most of these, so I wouldn't put anyone offf. 

You don't have to go for big outsiders, Raikkonen is 50/1, so you get 10/1 the podium rather than the best priced 11/2;  Verstappen is 20/1, so you get 4/1 the place rather than 13/5.  You are probably giving a way quite a bit on the win side on these two, but still think they must be +EV.     

[HutchGF]

Peter, a couple of links for you about stake sizing

Kelly Criterion Calculator: http://www.albionresearch.com/kelly/default.php

Kelly is a pretty aggro strategy (for example if we could be sure that we are getting 7/5 about a true 11/10 shot then we should be betting 10% of bankroll to achieve maximum growth) so most people go half kelly or even a quarter. The smaller fraction you take the lower your expected growth rate in exchange for smaller variance. It uses estimated probability of winning rather than estimate of true price but you can get to the %age chance by taking the reciprocal of the decimal odds, so if you think that your bet is a true 11/10 shot then estimated chance of winning = 1/((11/10)+1) = 1/2.1 = 0.476 = 47.6%

Have a play around with the calculator and you'll get a decent feel for how various edge sizes should be staked.

Unfortunately we do often encounter trouble getting more than £50 on a lot of things, but even if we can only get on for the full stake amount for a third of our bets, that will greatly increase the £EV of that weekends bets

Kelly Discussion: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/3-questions-kelly-criterion-1208498/

This thread approaches Kelly as a model for determining what your stake size should be relative to bankroll in heads up SNGs but the principles are the same.

glgl tomorrow

It is posts like this that draw amateur punters like myself to this thread. I am very grateful to DMorgan for this as I can see myself spending a lot of time playing with this software and becoming a better punter for it.

Many thanks!

[TightEnd]

Are posters intending to put stuff up for Royal Ascot during this week?

would like to think so

[Doobs]

Are posters intending to put stuff up for Royal Ascot during this week?

would like to think so

Confirmed.   Can't justify spending £200.

[TightEnd]

anyone want to put me off the Croatia, Poland, Germany treble today?

pays around 9/2


after switzerland and wales yesterday the late Russia equaliser and i quote one compiler, and adjust for hyperbole, "saved the industry a few profit warnings"