joustmaster
offcumdun
coral
Football betting and odds, discussion and other gambling stuff
- Thread starter ffsear
- Start date
adidaswoody
Like a star
I'd have lost ten pounds? The idea is to build slow and steady profit, not lose money lol
adidaswoody
Like a star
Withdrew my 20 so I've definitely broke even and turned my 50 into 61.03 
done for tonight I think! Let's have some fun with sky bets money xD
done for tonight I think! Let's have some fun with sky bets money xD
Athos
Well-Known Member
I thought the idea was to have fun? Becasue if it's to win money then this scheme - rolling the whole amount on to short odd propositions, day after day until you hit £150 - is about as ill-conceived as they come!
adidaswoody
Like a star
Well it's worked for me so far so can't be that much of a bad idea...?
Yes, that's exactly how probability works.
Athos
Well-Known Member
It hasn't 'worked'; it's still in progress.
To turn £20 into £150, by betting on propositions with 1.07 return (i.e. each with a probability of 0.9345 in a 'fair' book) would require you to place 30 consecutive winning bets. Given that the the price is almost certainly less than the true odds, then, if we assume the true odd of, say, 10% less i.e. by increasing the chance of it not happening by 10%, then subtracting that from 1, you get 0.92795. Then the combined probability of all 30 bets hitting is just under 10%. So you're beting on a 10/1 proposition for a 15/2 return i.e. you're giving away a big chunk of value. You could find prices of 15/2 which represent true odds of about 8/1 anywhere!
Also, the 10/1 figure of success shows that, for every time you hit £150 i.e. win £130 (about once a year), you are likely to lose £200. That's fine, I have no issue with anyone spending their own money on something they enjoy, and £70 a year isn't going to get most people in any financial trouble. But at least be honest about the real figures. This is not a sensible way to go about making money from gambling. In fact, it's the absolute opposite; it necessarily gives away value, which is the antithesis of what you must do to beat the bookies in the long term.
I accept that the above is predicated upon the idea that the bookies have a better assessment of value than you do, about which I cannot be certain. But I think your chances of finding value on such short odds 30 times a month are vanishingly small.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but you could roll that £40 onto Midnight Cantaria in the 2:15 at Market Rasen today, on which you can still get 9/2, at the moment. A win would more than hit your target, and a place would mean you have only lost £2, so you get another life! (Not that I would bet like this even within the arbitrary confines of trying to turn £20 into £150 in a month.)
Last edited:
ffsear
Well-Known Member
It hasn't 'worked'; it's still in progress.
To turn £20 into £150, by betting on propositions with 1.07 return (i.e. each with a probability of 0.9345 in a 'fair' book) would require you to place 30 consecutive winning bets. Given that the the price is almost certainly less than the true odds, then, if we assume the true odd of, say, 10% less i.e. by increasing the chance of it not happening by 10%, then subtracting that from 1, you get 0.92795. Then the combined probability of all 30 bets hitting is just under 10%. So you're beting on a 10/1 proposition for a 15/2 return i.e. you're giving away a big chunk of value. You could find prices of 15/2 which represent true odds of about 8/1 anywhere!
Also, the 10/1 figure of success shows that, for every time you hit £150 i.e. win £130 (about once a year), you are likely to lose £200. That's fine, I have no issue with anyone spending their own money on something they enjoy, and £70 a year isn't going to get most people in any financial trouble. But at least be honest about the real figures. This is not a sensible way to go about making money from gambling. In fact, it's the absolute opposite; it necessarily gives away value, which is the antithesis of what you must do to beat the bookies in the long term.
I accept that the above is predicated upon the idea that the bookies have a better assessment of value than you do, about which I cannot be certain. But I think your chances of finding value on such short odds 30 times a month are vanishingly small.
Don't latch onto the 1.07 price that i gave as an example so much. A couple of 1.2, 1.25's thrown in their can reduced the length of the task.
ffsear
Well-Known Member
example.. 17 bets at odds on prices
20
1.07 21.4
1.2 25.68
1.07 27.4776
1.1 30.22536
1.07 32.34114
1.07 34.60501
1.07 37.02737
1.25 46.28421
1.09 50.44979
1.16 58.52175
1.07 62.61827
1.14 71.38483
1.07 76.38177
1.25 95.47721
1.07 102.1606
1.25 127.7008
1.07 136.6398
"Value is an expensive word if you can't pick a winner"
20
1.07 21.4
1.2 25.68
1.07 27.4776
1.1 30.22536
1.07 32.34114
1.07 34.60501
1.07 37.02737
1.25 46.28421
1.09 50.44979
1.16 58.52175
1.07 62.61827
1.14 71.38483
1.07 76.38177
1.25 95.47721
1.07 102.1606
1.25 127.7008
1.07 136.6398
"Value is an expensive word if you can't pick a winner"
Athos
Well-Known Member
And increase the chance of it failing on that particular day!
Taking an average of 1.15 would require 15 consecutive winners. Again, assuming the true odds are 10% away from the price, the probability of success is still around 10% i.e. 10/1 odds for a 13/2 payout.
Whichever way you cut it, it doesn't make financial sense to bet like this. Even within the arbitrary confines of seeking to tur £20 into £150 in a month, your best chances of doing that are to put it all on a 13/2 shot to win, where the true odds are as close as possible to the price (or, very rarely, in your favour). By combining bets, you are leveraging the bookie's spread between the price and the true odds, over and over again. Whilst it has an instinctive attraction as a money-making scheme, the maths show it's very, very poor. (Though it might be fun.)
Last edited:
ffsear
Well-Known Member
Athos
Well-Known Member
What don't you understand?
Maybe take it a step at a time. Do you understand the concept of value i.e. the difference between true odds and market prices? If so, do you understand how a deficit in value can be magnified by combining bets?
ffsear
Well-Known Member
Your also getting this wrong. An over round of 10% is for the entire book - not the individual odds in each market.
Saying the odds are 10% away is incorrect.
Athos
Well-Known Member
The 10% was an average figure for illustrative purposes. But the fact remains that there will be a difference between the true odds (as assessed by the bookie) and the price on each of the bets. Combining bets compounds that difference.
The exception being where a punter can consistently sniff out value in very short prices, which is almost impossible long term.
ffsear
Well-Known Member
Its not an average figure at all! You were applying it to each bet, which is wrong. You need to go back and re work your maths. On an over/under market, the over round is about 2%. So 1% per bet, not 10%. You have massively overstated the bookies edge here.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Whatever the figure, combining bets magnifies the difference!
Athos
Well-Known Member
And, even if I were to accept that the 10% figure is unrealistic, the point remains the same. In fact, taking the example I gave in post #187, and assuming you got prices which reflected only a 1% difference from the true odds (and overlooking commission), the chances of getting 30 (the number you'd need to turn £20 into £150) consecutive winners at 1.07 is still around the 10% mark. Which, for a return of 13/2 represents worse value than you could get on a one off bet at that price.
ETA: realised what I was doi ng is adding 10% to the chacnes of not winning, so the effect is almost the same as taking 1% from the chacnes of winninng, which is the figure you preferred.
ETA: realised what I was doi ng is adding 10% to the chacnes of not winning, so the effect is almost the same as taking 1% from the chacnes of winninng, which is the figure you preferred.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
I accept that the above is somewhat of an oversimplification, and that, generally the way that an overround is distributed means shorter prices give a relatively higher yield. But that is more than counteracted by the effect of magnifying those (individually smaller) relative disadvantages together. The reality is that, probably, the best bet would be to take the £2400 for the decade and lump it on a short price which represented value (albeit that fell outside the scope of what you were trying to do i.e. turn £20 into £150 on a month-by-month basis).
Last edited:
ffsear
Well-Known Member
15/2 represents a probability of 11.76% and you're saying the real chance is only 10%.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
are you seeking entry to the prestigious ranks of the überpedants?
Athos
Well-Known Member
15/2 is 1.13. So the difference is about a third as much again - massive.
ffsear
Well-Known Member
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
15 divided by 2 traditionally 7.5.
ffsear
Well-Known Member
Yes but it includes your stake back so its always +1
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
but it's not included in the odds
when you stick on a fiver at double carpet you don't see 34/1 on the bloody slip.
mauvais
on reddit or something
How To Convert Odds To Their Implied Probabilitybut it's not included in the odds
Athos
Well-Known Member
Sorry, yes, you're right. Mishit the calculator.
As a ratio of the true odds to the price, you're giving away a lot, though. I reckon you could find a one-off 15/2 bet with significantly more value once a month.
ETA: It should be 13/2, anyway! Not sure how we both overlooked that. Which makes the probability 13.3% i.e. increases the difference between the chances of it happening, and the payout if it does.
Last edited:
