Football betting and odds, discussion and other gambling stuff

[Athos]

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.)

Lost! Pulled up.

 

[adidaswoody]

Lost! Pulled up.

So, following your advice my 50 would've became 40 then became 0, great advice really wish I'd have listened to you now ! Following the guide and advice from OP about small almost guaranteed bets, I have now hit the 80 pound mark profit, which is enough for my fortnightly food shop so I've withdrew it and I've had lots of fun while doing so!
Roll on next fortnight!

 

[Athos]

So, following your advice my 50 would've became 40 then became 0, great advice really wish I'd have listened to you now ! Following the guide and advice from OP about small almost guaranteed bets, I have now hit the 80 pound mark profit, which is enough for my fortnightly food shop so I've withdrew it and I've had lots of fun while doing so!
Roll on next fortnight!

You're not playing by the rules, though i.e. keep rolling over the winnings until the £20 becomes £150! Had you done so, the odds are massively in favour of you having lost the lot, too. And, if you'd followed my advice (which was within the constraints of trying to hit the £150, and, as I explained, not how I'd bet ordinarily), you'd be square, becasue you held back the £20. I can almost guarantee you that's better than you'll do most months with this scheme! It's a bit worrying that someone would gamble a quarter of their food budget without realising this fact.

 

[adidaswoody]

You're not playing by the rules, though i.e. keep rolling over the winnings until the £20 becomes £150! Had you done so, the odds are massively in favour of you having lost the lot, too. And, if you'd followed my advice (which was within the constraints of trying to hit the £150, and, as I explained, not how I'd bet ordinarily), you'd be square, becasue you held back the £20. I can almost guarantee you that's better than you'll do most months with this scheme! It's a bit worrying that someone would gamble a quarter of their food budget without realising this fact.

I know I didn't follow the rules, but op stated it was for a monthly food shop perhaps? I shop fortnightly as I'm paid cash weekly, so im happy with my winnings as its suffice, I could just do it fortnightly rather than monthly as it would work out better for me for my shopping
Either way, I win you lose

 

[Athos]

I know I didn't follow the rules, but op stated it was for a monthly food shop perhaps? I shop fortnightly as I'm paid cash weekly, so im happy with my winnings as its suffice, I could just do it fortnightly rather than monthly as it would work out better for me for my shopping
Either way, I win you lose

Mug.

 

[ffsear]

Take them as guidelines rather then rules. Mix it up, Make it your own.

well done adidaswoody , now where's my cut?

 

[Athos]

Take them as guidelines rather then rules. Mix it up, Make it your own.

well done adidaswoody , now where's my cut?

Between you, you're about even, aren't you. You lost £60, and he claims to have won a very similar amount (albeit he didn't say what he was betting on before the result). Of course, he didn't play by the rules of he challenge, though (else he would be overwhelmingly likey to have ended down, too).

 

[ffsear]

Between you, you're about even, aren't you. You lost £60, and he claims to have won a very similar amount (albeit he didn't say what he was betting on before the result). Of course, he didn't play by the rules of he challenge, though (else he would be overwhelmingly likey to have ended down, too).

I lost £40 not £60.

 

[Athos]

I lost £40 not £60.

Then you're up a tenner each, on average. Enjoy, becasue it's statistically better than average for this scheme!

You still didn't address the issue of compounding the bookies edge by combining bets in this way.

 

[ffsear]

I never denied the issue, I just pointed out that you maths was completely incorrect and you had hugely over stated it.

All you're doing is repeating shit we already know.

 

[ffsear]

15/2 is 1.13. So the difference is about a third as much again - massive.

and this....

 

[Athos]

I never denied the issue, I just pointed out that you maths was completely incorrect and you had hugely over stated it.

All you're doing is repeating shit we already know.

It wasn't hugely overstated, at all. I had simply come at it by adding 10% to the chance of the c.1/9 outcome not hapening, which is almost the same as your preferred method of taking 1% off the chacne of it happening!

Out of interest, what do you consider the the difference between true odds and price that you wouold give away on a 30-fold accumulator at 1.07? And how would you calculate it? I guess this should also include transaction fees. And what do you think is the best you could get on a single 15/2 proposition? Genuine questions.

If I take your figures of the overround on an over/under book being 2%, then, using the formula O = B1 × B2 × ... × B30 × 100 − 100, where each of B1, B2, B30 etc. = 1.02, then the combined overround for the 30 books (the number you'd need to tuen £20 into £150 at prices of around 1.07) is about 80%. How and where does that impact on the punters?

 

[Athos]

and this....

Yeah, I've already acknowledged I was fat fingered, there!

 

[ffsear]

To do as the OP hopes i.e. to turn £20 into £150 with 10/11 prices (at the longest), would take a minimum of 20 bets. If we assume a reasonable overround of 10% on each, the combined overound accross the whole is massive: something like 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 x 100 -100 = 640% i.e a total book of 740%. No wonder bookies love it!

If I take your figures of the overround on an over/under book being 2%, then, using the formula O = B1 × B2 × ... × B30 × 100 − 100, where each of B1, B2, B30 etc. = 1.02, then the combined overround for the 30 books (the number you'd need to tuen £20 into £150 at prices of around 1.07) is about 80%. How and where does that impact on the punters?

Ok well you given us better chance then the first time you tried calculate it. Or was that a fat finger too?

 

[Athos]

Ok well you given us better chance then the first time you tried calculate it. Or was that a fat finger too?

Err... no, the second time I used the figure you preferred i.e. the 2% overround.

But what's your answer to the questions in post #222?

 

[adidaswoody]

Take them as guidelines rather then rules. Mix it up, Make it your own.

well done adidaswoody , now where's my cut?

Thanks mate it's in the post, honest

Between you, you're about even, aren't you. You lost £60, and he claims to have won a very similar amount (albeit he didn't say what he was betting on before the result). Of course, he didn't play by the rules of he challenge, though (else he would be overwhelmingly likey to have ended down, too).

Well between me and him were up 20 between us, and between you and uhmmm nobody...? You'd have been MINUS, so clearly, Your right. I'm a 'mug'

 

[ffsear]

This question?

Out of interest, what do you consider the the difference between true odds and price that you wouold give away on a 30-fold accumulator at 1.07?

 

[Athos]

Thanks mate it's in the post, honest


Well between me and him were up 20 between us, and between you and uhmmm nobody...? You'd have been MINUS, so clearly, Your right. I'm a 'mug'

A stopped clock is right twice a day. But the fundamentals demonstrate that this is a bad way to try to make money.

 

[Athos]

This question?

Yes, and the others:
'Out of interest, what do you consider the the difference between true odds and price that you wouold give away on a 30-fold accumulator at 1.07? And how would you calculate it? I guess this should also include transaction fees. And what do you think is the best you could get on a single 15/2 proposition? Genuine questions.'

 

[ffsear]

If I take your figures of the overround on an over/under book being 2%, then, using the formula O = B1 × B2 × ... × B30 × 100 − 100, where each of B1, B2, B30 etc. = 1.02, then the combined overround for the 30 books (the number you'd need to tuen £20 into £150 at prices of around 1.07) is about 80%. How and where does that impact on the punters?

This only affects our profit, it does not affect our actual chance of success. Success comes down to our discretion in which bets we decided to take.

 

[Athos]

This only affects our profit, it does not affect our actual chance of success. Success comes down to our discretion in which bets we decided to take.

But the more the potential for profit i.e. the price, is below the risk i.e. the true odds, then the more you will lose over time. And that differential is increased by combining bets in the way you propose.

How are you getting on with the answers to the questions in post #222?

 

[ffsear]

Yes, and the others:
'Out of interest, what do you consider the the difference between true odds and price that you wouold give away on a 30-fold accumulator at 1.07? And how would you calculate it? I guess this should also include transaction fees. And what do you think is the best you could get on a single 15/2 proposition? Genuine questions.'

That depends on how you define "true odds" on an event, that involves humans, that does not adhere to any mathematical laws. I can pull a load of stats outs, give an opinion on the current form. But I nor the bookie can ever define "true odds." Its mathematical opinion, nothing more.

Roulette, Blackjack, yes we always know the true odds. But not in sports.

 

[Athos]

That depends on how you define "true odds" on an event, that involves humans, that does not adhere to any mathematical laws. I can pull a load of stats outs, give an opinion on the current form. But I nor the bookie can ever define "true odds." Its mathematical opinion, nothing more.

Roulette, Blackjack, yes we always know the true odds. But not in sports.

Well, unless you think you can consistently predict better than the bookies, let's take their assessment as being the nearest available proxy for true odds, and work on that basis. What would your answer to the questions be then?

 

[ffsear]

But predicting better then us is not how the bookies make money! If the odds were true, they would still need to balance their books

 

[Athos]

But predicting better then us is not how the bookies make money! If the odds were true, they would still need to balance their books

Ok. Let's come at it from the other angle.

Do you accept that the overround represents the bookie's advantage, and, therefore the punter's disadvantage?

Do you accept that by combining bets, the overround is disproportionately magnified?

 

[ffsear]

Ok. Let's come at it from the other angle.

Do you accept that the overround represents the bookie's advantage, and, therefore the punters disadvantage?

Do you accept that by combining bets, the overround is disproportionately magnified?

1) The overround is the bookies advantage over the entire market, but not the individual.

2) For the bookie it is, for me as an individual it makes no difference. A bet is a bet.

You have to remember that when short odds favorites come in, the bookies get slammed.! They make their money (overounds) on the longer prices coming in.

 

[ffsear]

p.s i'm shooting to work now, see you tomorrow

 

[Athos]

2) For the bookie it is, for me as an individual it makes no difference. A bet is a bet.

But the overround will be distributed accross all the prices. So each price will inflated beyond the bookie's assessment of the true odds, by a certain percentage. Multiplying those percentages together by combining bets magnifies the disadvantage to you.

 

[Athos]

p.s i'm shooting to work now, see you tomorrow

Ok. When you get back, google 'why bookies love accumulators' and 'accumulators for mugs.'

 

[adidaswoody]

A stopped clock is right twice a day. But the fundamentals demonstrate that this is a bad way to try to make money.

Haters gon' hate
As you've already proved, your 'back this horse it's a sure winner' strategy is fucking shite
With gambling there is no sure way of winning anything, but in the past I've made more profit doing things this way, then I have slamming it all on 4/1 horses or whatnot. It works for me and it's simple as that.
The only time I've significantly won lots of money betting normal bets was the World Cup, I won a lot then too