sports betting is for winners!

[duffman]

Okay, I'm new to forums but have been researching betting for quite a while now. After reading a post from 'goodolegill' on the football forum about sports betting being for fools, I'm interested in sharing my strong opinion on only way to make money from sports betting and also how to become lucky.


So to be narrow-minded for a minute, I believe there are 2 types of punter


1. Those who bet to try and win money
2. Those who bet socially out of interest – winning is a bonus


If you're in category 2 then fair play, there's no harm in that. But you're never going to win over time. However, if you are in category 1 and you stake money with the bookmakers on bets without caring what the odds are, then you really are a fool...


Bookmakers and casinos are minted because they are continuously betting against you with the maths in their favour. For example:

1. Bookies creating a market will decide that the probable chances of a team winning is 7/4 and will then offer you 6/4, taking their cut. So even if they lose, they will still win over time offering 6/4 when the real chances are 7/4.

1. Casino's (taking roulette for example) make you bet 50/50 on red/black on a casino table when the actual chances are 47.37/47.37 (taking into account the green 0's), and will keep that small percentage for themselves each spin.

These percentages add up big-style over time so my point is: The only way to win in betting is to continuously bet on odds that are in your favour. That's what bookies do, that's what casino's do.


So, the way to make money this way is..


Step 1/ Only bet when you think you know something most people don't. Then use your knowledge to pick out associated markets. This doesn't have to be something as obvious as a goalkeeper injury but may a differing opinion to others as regards team confidence, players condition or motivation.


You might notice things by mere observation(become an expert), or find them from someone else's stats/analysis/opinion (get the most info you can). Therefore, if you're inkling is correct then the odds should be slightly higher or at the very least equal to what they should be.


Step 2/ Get the best price available using an odds comparison site (p.s. pay attention when a bookmakers odds are significantly better than exchange odds – the exchange odds always take into account the latest information).


An old betting fable...say you bet on a coin to land on 'heads' at the unfavourable odds of 4/5. It lands on 'heads' and you win. Was this a good bet? Answer: No,....if you do the same bet a hundred times you will eventually come out a loser. So the moral is..if you continuously bet on favourable odds you will eventually come out on top.

[aliando]

to PL duffman


great first post and looking forward to your thread here - good luck!

[Jonne]

Very good post on value, can't have enough of those

[2good4u]

Hello all,

I do not know if this is the right thread but I want only to present some of my ideas regarding the "value betting". Although I very well understand the "value betting" theory, there is very little use of it in real life. My questions to "value betting" punters are:

1. How many bets would you consider as value bets in the thread "Simple system by Sonix" (16 out of 18 correct, doubled bank in 1 month)???
2. What is the meaning of the so-many-times-repeated phrase "you will loose in the long run if you do not bet on value" (what is the long run)???

Please, do not give me example with coins because football and coin toss are 2 uncomparable things (at least for me) since there is an endless list of factors that affect the outcome of a football game. Also, please do not give me examples such as "would you bet on team x to win team y if odds were 1.01 instead of 1.30 (see odds in thread "Simple system by Sonix"). And the last example I would ask you not to give me is "if they played 100 games under same circumstances, there would be x home wins, y draws and z away wins and therefore you should bet only on value" (2 teams will never play, not even 2 games, under same circumstances and therefore I do not see a point in any of those examples.After all, you may tell me that Sonix was just lucky and that "he will lose in the long run" but with what facts you support it?
In my opinion, he was just picking the winners based on his stats/strategy/feeling or whatever.

Expecting your answers and best regards to all!

[duffman]

Okay, I'll try to give my best answer to those two, but first off the coin example is only to illustrate “true chance”.


With a coin we know for a fact that the true chance of heads is 2/1. Now with football, you're right there are millions of things that can happen so that's why nobody knows the actual “true chance” of say 'a team winning'. So the bookies make an very educated guess. And that's where value punters decide if these guesses are slightly off and try to take a slight advantage. You cant really say there is 'no real use of this' – most pro gamblers are value based and 'pricewise' in the racing post certainly influences on opening prices big-time.


Anyways to Question 1:


Okay, from what I can gather from Sonix's posting he actually is trying to find value with or without realising it and the system should win in the long run ( i'll get onto that later)
i.e.

“Only choose a few selections each week”
“Don’t put money on teams that will play CL/Uefa coming week or against teams that are near degradation (end of season)”
“Westerlo is a team in the middle of the table so their should lack any motivation. Genk is 2 points behind Anderlecht in the table and need to win”


So the system is being selective and finding teams are properly focused on the match. A lot of information that is taken into account especially with football is very subjective and open to interpretation. For instance a team needing to win may actually play worse rather than better. Sonix knew his stuff and got this one right. However, I think what may be misleading for those who like to 'pick the winners' is that fact this selection was long odds-on anyway. So take this into account. One of the posts on Sonix's thread a poster wrote:


“Barca game was tight though. 22 shots by them to 4 and they finally put one in in the 91st.”


Say Barcelona was your first bet. Barcelona were 1.27 to win that match. Say they never scored that goal and the bet went down. It would taken 3 more winning bets at 1.27 to get most of your money back. So you are still in debt and you're overall record is '3 wins out of 4'...which is misleading



My answer to question 2 is..


..Say a perfect punter in a perfect world consistently finds value and bets 1 quid on 10/1 shots that should only actually be 8/1. After 8 bets he will be 2 quid up. This makes sense and that is 'the long run' for him - 8 bets.


Now, since nobody is a perfect punter and its not a perfect world then it will take each punter a varied amount of time since it a) depends on the odds he is betting on and b) depends on the value of his bets. So if someone is betting on very long odds (100/1) and not finding value then his 'long run' will be infinite.


And one last point (sorry!)


Say for this years European Cup Final you fancied Milan to win..everything points to Milan – played class in the semi final, will want revenge for 2 years ago, will be odds-on favourites. Then say you were given 1000/1 on Liverpool winning – would you put money on it?

[cavelloman]

"value betting" theory, there is very little use of it in real life."

1. All my bets are based on the fact that I believe I'm getting better odds then the true odds.

2. When I study a set of soccer matches or horse races I create a price about certain events happening.

In my power rating thread I try to highlight teams that are overpriced based on my statistical methods. For example last weekend I considered Roma overpriced at 3.5. In my opinion the true odds were about 2.75. So a bet was advised. I would not have backed Roma at 1.8. Because many people are incapable because of laziness or lack of knowledge they criticise the concept of value and just look at strike rate.

Btw I have advised value bets at 1.3 or less this season

Phil Bull the founder of Timeform would never place a bet unless HE considered it value. The same applied to Alec Bird.


Value is the key to winning long term. The difficult bit is adopting the correct methods to pinpoint value bets.


Maybe I'm in a parallel universe

[Jonne]

2good4u do you believe in destiny?
Because if you don't, then there would be no "picking winners", as the winner is not decided before the game. Or maybe you could say, that "picking winners" is a thing that can be done, but why would he miss out on 2 bets then, if he just picks the winners?
Picking a winner must mean he knows who wins, if he doesen't know who wins, then that's admitting there is a chance of the other team. If you have admitted this, then the question is only how big is the chance of the other team winning, and is it worth it considering the price?
That is what value betting is.

[2good4u]

To Duffman:

1. In your answer to my first question you are talking about Sonix's strategy not about value betting. He never said in any of his posts "I bet on this because it is a value bet". He said better form, motivation, etc. and he stakes always different amount of points, which leads me to conclusion that his staking is completely confidence based. Let's be honest: none of "value betting" punters would consider putting money on any of his selections (ok, maybe 1 or 2) due to low odds.

2. Speaking of the long run, I was trying to make a point that it is perfectly applicable to coin/die tosses or roullete spins but not to football because every single football game is a separate event with specific circumstances for only that one game. Your example for the game Milan-Liverpool is 100% correct in theory but those odds do not exist in a real life. We are talking about Champions league final and you are giving me the example with odds 1000/1?! And if you want the answer: I would bet on Liverpool with 1000/1 but those odds are not possible, even not in punters' wet dreams, so I do not see a point in such examples. It would be the same as if I asked you:
Would you bet on a team whose chances of winning are 10000/1 and you have odds offered 50000/1? That would be a looooot of value, wouldn't it? However, I am pretty sure you would not bet on it because there is not enough lifetime for that long run to pay out.

To Jonne: Of course, no one knows the outcome of the game before it ends and when I said picking a winner I meant beleiving/being confident (isn't that what all of us trying to do?)who is going to win regardless of odds (please do not literally read this regardless and give me the examples of 1.001 etc.) I am reffering to odds in Sonix's selections and all of them were between 1.20 and 1.40 and those odds are perfectly acceptable for me, even if not a single game has so-called "value".
At the end, I have a question regarding your signature:
Whenever you say no value for, let's say, home win, why don't you bet on other two outcomes because value should be there (or not?). Why you are so confident that you will win in the long run if you bet only on value bets? It works only in theory.

Regards to all!

[duffman]

2good4u,

1.

I didnt say Sonix was intentionally looking for value, but I did say that by being selective and correctly analysing form he is potentially analysing it better than the odds compilers and selecting teams whos prices are slightly higher than they should be......and thats why the system may work over time. Also, if you notice that each time Sonix is more confident of a team winning, the bookmakers are also more confident of the team winning (thats why they offer a lower price).

But I think what is definitely confusing you is that these teams are odds on, its no big deal when they win - e.g. if a team is 1.2 and they win five times out of six, youre only back where you started!

2.

I know prices like 1000/1 dont exist in real life when the real price for liverpool should be 2/1. But what if someone offered you 3/1 ? Its the exact same thing...betting on odds higher than they should be...finding value...you see?


I dont know if youre winding us up, but i'd just ask to give our previous posts one more read. I also used to believe in the 'winners only' philosophy but the more you read and think about it, the value way is the only way (i like that )!

[duffman]

2good4u

Just one more point i forgot with number 2 there..

You admit that you would bet on Liverpool. Why would you waste money betting on Liverpool when you are so sure Milan were going to win?

[2good4u]

Originally Posted by duffman

2good4u,

1.

I didnt say Sonix was intentionally looking for value, but I did say that by being selective and correctly analysing form he is potentially analysing it better than the odds compilers and selecting teams whos prices are slightly higher than they should be......and thats why the system may work over time. Also, if you notice that each time Sonix is more confident of a team winning, the bookmakers are also more confident of the team winning (thats why they offer a lower price).

But I think what is definitely confusing you is that these teams are odds on, its no big deal when they win - e.g. if a team is 1.2 and they win five times out of six, youre only back where you started!

2.

I know prices like 1000/1 dont exist in real life when the real price for liverpool should be 2/1. But what if someone offered you 3/1 ? Its the exact same thing...betting on odds higher than they should be...finding value...you see?


I dont know if youre winding us up, but i'd just ask to give our previous posts one more read. I also used to believe in the 'winners only' philosophy but the more you read and think about it, the value way is the only way (i like that )!

So, what you are actually saying is that each of his bets was a value bet? (he is potentially analysing it better than odds compilers). Beleive me, I am not at all confused with what you are saying and as I already said I understand "value betting" theory and I agree with it 100% but what I am trying to say is that it is not applicable to football, basketball, tennis, any sport in real life.
Regarding your question for Liverpool: It was a hypothetical question and therefore you got a hypothetical answer (the same like in the example I asked you with odds 50000/1 but you did not answer). In reality, I will bet on draw in that game (because in my opinion it will be draw, not because of odds or anything else)

Let's take a real example: you estimate that odds for win of team x should be 2.30. The odds offered are 2.50. You obviously have a value here. Now, for example you have 10000 such games (odds offered are always 2.50 and your estimation is always 2.30 ). My question is: Do you beleive you will have profit after betting on each of those 10000 games? If you do, please explain me on what facts you base such beleif?
All "value betting" theory is based on examples with coins/dice/roullete but I do not see how any of those can be applied to human beens' sports in the real life with real examples and real odds.

Best regards!

[duffman]

2good4u - to your questions

"Would you bet on a team whose chances of winning are 10000/1 and you have odds offered 50000/1? That would be a looooot of value, wouldn't it?"
Yes I definitely would. Because if its true that the team will win once every 10000 matches and the odds being offered is five times that, i'd definitely take it.

"So, what you are actually saying is that each of his bets was a value bet?"

I'm not saying that at all...maybe some were, maybe some were not. I'm was just trying to be nice by saying that I hope it comes good in the long run. It's only takes a couple of losing punts at odds-on to do away with a lot of hard work. its also a fact that someone can double their bank simply by having only one single bet at 2.0

"I will bet on draw in that game (because in my opinion it will be draw, not because of odds or anything else)"

If you could only bet at 1.5 on the draw for that game would you take it? Even though it its a statistical fact that on average only around 27% of all football games end in draws and you should be getting between 3.0 and 4.0. the fact is, its a football game like any other any nobody knows for a fact what will happen, you just have to play the probabilities.

"Do you beleive you will have profit after betting on each of those 10000 games"

Yes. If I knew for a fact that I was getting 2.5 instead of 2.3, after 10000 bets at 1 quid each gives me on average (I'm not saying i'll win every time) a profit of 20p each bet. So after 10000 bets I would have a profit of about 2000 quid. The fact to support that is..

..theres a thing called probability theory and it applies to everything (including football). 2.3 means that out of every 23 games the team will win 10 times on average. Sooner or later this statistic catches up on itself. If someone offers you two extra games (25 - 2.5) to get this right you'd take it. Its used in practice to compile odds and create casino games. Value punters are aware of this and look for misjudgements. If everyone backed only 'winners' then we would see bookmakers begging on the streets and casino's without 30 foot dancing water fountains...

[oses32]

I do not know why do you discuss I know MANY tipsters who say that they are play value bets and they are profitable so...

[Jonne]

Anybody who makes a living of betting are value betters, so I do not really have the need to discuss this any further, if you do understand what value betting is, but don't believe it works, then so be it, just know that anybody living from betting are valuebetters and on top of that most probably very good at moneymanagement.

[rich46]

Are we those of us who log in to Punters Lounge and the like not value bettors ? By that i mean we are looking for knowledge, trying to gain an edge, thereby exploiting value. We take this route because we are serious about our betting/investments. If not we would join those who gladly throw their money at the bookie on a Saturday without research,care or fore thought. Without doubt we cant suceed without value and good risk/money management.

[allthethings]

Interesting discussion, and I think duffman is spot on.

I occasionally bet on outcomes offering poor odds, but not often. The reason is that anything can happen in any game. If the outcome of every game is 50-50, and you consistently get only 40, over time you will lose money.

I think the one thing missing from this thread is the acknowledgement that a bookie doesn't set a line based on what he thinks will happen in a game. He sets a line based on what he thinks the public thinks will happen. The idea is to split the public down the middle so that in the end he profits from every game. If he is wrong, and the public bets primarily on one side, the line goes up until bettors start betting the other side.

The bookie knows the keeper is injured, and you know the keeper is injured. A good bookie knows not how much this will hurt the team's chances, but how you, the bettor, will react to this news.

I have done much better since I realized that no matter what I think I know about a game, the odds of my preferred result occurring is still 50-50. Ultimately if you're betting play money, you'll risk $100 to make $20...but if you're betting real money, it hardly seems worth the risk.

[duffman]

really liked that post allthethings - so the key to find value is to try and find reasons to go slightly against public opinion... Thats why theres always value in betting on the teams england play against, because most of the public expect them to win. Theres a good idea to do this that ive actually just posted on another thread to compare bookies prices to betfair prices - if the betfair price is higher then its value (the public opinion is represented on betfair ; and what the bookies think the public opinion is - minus their cut - is represented in the bookies odds) This mightnt happen very often so would anyone know any easier way to do this than clicking round oddschecker all day?

[duffman]

sorry..meant to say 'if betfair price is lower and than the bookies'...then the bookies price is value..

[AlanDB]

Originally Posted by duffman

sorry..meant to say 'if betfair price is lower and than the bookies'...then the bookies price is value..

Just to add my 2 pennorth to that. If ever the Betfair price is lower than the bookies then there is the chance of an arb - back with the bookies, lay with Betfair. Be careful of working out commission etc but it may be possible to lock in a bit of guaranteed profit.

[2good4u]

Originally Posted by allthethings

Interesting discussion, and I think duffman is spot on.

I occasionally bet on outcomes offering poor odds, but not often. The reason is that anything can happen in any game. If the outcome of every game is 50-50, and you consistently get only 40, over time you will lose money.

I think the one thing missing from this thread is the acknowledgement that a bookie doesn't set a line based on what he thinks will happen in a game. He sets a line based on what he thinks the public thinks will happen. The idea is to split the public down the middle so that in the end he profits from every game. If he is wrong, and the public bets primarily on one side, the line goes up until bettors start betting the other side.

The bookie knows the keeper is injured, and you know the keeper is injured. A good bookie knows not how much this will hurt the team's chances, but how you, the bettor, will react to this news.

I have done much better since I realized that no matter what I think I know about a game, the odds of my preferred result occurring is still 50-50. Ultimately if you're betting play money, you'll risk $100 to make $20...but if you're betting real money, it hardly seems worth the risk.

I like this post very much and that is why I said the theory of probability is not applicable to football. Just take a look at this example: the real odds for away win are let's say 10 and a bookie offers 8 (the value is on his side). People start betting on away win and what a bookie does? Reduces the odds on away win in order to attract public to bet on other two outcomes. Now, have you ever heard of a casino changing roullete odds just because majority of people at the table are betting on the same number? Of course not. So, while both of them (bookie and casino) are having a value on their side they will react differently. Why? Can the market change the outcome of a game? Of course not (please exclude fixed games, etc.) Because the casino owners' profit depends on the constant mathematical probabilities while bookies' profit depends on changeable probabilities involving humans.

To Duffman: You asked me would I take 1.50 for the draw. Please, let's focus on the real life examples. Find me a game (no need to be the Champions League Final) in which the odds for draw were 1.5 (or even 2). If you like theory so much take this example: Give me your odds for Man.Utd (or Real, Milan, Bayern, etc...) losing any game with a scoreline 10:0 and I will give you ten times better odds? (that is a 10 times value, right?) Would you bet on that? If your answer is still yes, then we have nothing to talk about anymore.

However, at the end of the day what matters is if your bank is growing or not and if you are making profit no one cares if you play value bets or not. (and vice versa)That is what I wanted to say from the very beginning that value betting is not the only way to make profit.

Regards!