Jump to content
Announcements
** November Poker League Result : 1st Danshot, 2nd Rivrd, 3rd Elliott Sutcliffe **
** November Naps Competition Result: 1st adamross, 2nd andellio, 3rd Craig bluenose, 4th Redphil57. KO Cup Winner vangovin. Most Winners MCLARKE: **

GhostLetter

Regular Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That was going to be my exact question too! What is the plan? That most recent bet takes waggy to over £27,000 down on their threads on the Glory Hunters section of the website - and very close to £28,000 down. (I think perhaps a bit more, as there is some suspicion about incorrectly recorded results too.) Also, that latest bet moves waggy’s losses to over £50 per day, across the 120 days since they resumed this thread in March. That’s some going! These are extremely concerning statistics, and I’d love it if waggy would spend some time coming up with some justifications and solutions - rather than wasting their time on losing more and more money, on the same select few markets every week.
  2. And, I think, must be won by two clear legs? (With a single-leg tie-break after a certain amount of extra legs?) Or have they got rid of that format? I seem to remember they dropped that at some point, but I’m not sure if that was a temporary, Covid-related reason, or a permanent decision?
  3. I’m not sure you’ve described the format correctly at all?! It seems a bit all over the place, if that’s the format! Why are some rounds ‘best of’ and some rounds ‘first to’? Also, why are some rounds ‘best of’ an even number, and some rounds ‘best of’ an odd number?
  4. I’m a bit lost as to what you’re still confused at here. I think you may be over-complicating things in your calculations. It’s simply the odds of that player scoring, multiplied by the odds of Germany winning GIVEN THAT WE KNOW GERMANY SCORE AT LEAST ONE. Effectively, we can use the Germany (+1) odds - I think - or if you want to make it more complicated, the chances of Germany winning, out of all possible results where Germany score at least one. That should boil down to roughly the same thing, as far as I can see. When I did the calculations on Bet365, it worked out almost spot on - player to score, multiplied by Germany (+1) odds.
  5. I’m not sure how to say things differently, as it’s not my intention to come across that way! I said to both you and harry_rag that I admired your gambling knowledge, to show that it wasn’t a personal attack in any way. There’s very little on this forum that I am knowledgeable about, but when I see someone writing something that I disagree with, especially if I know it to be mathematically impossible, then I will stand up for what I think is correct and stick to my beliefs!
  6. Your maths is wrong because you are still calculating them as independent events, rather than dependent! In your example, you said that Smith fails to score in 2 matches out of 3, (overall). There is no way that someone who fails to score in 2 out of 3 matches overall also fails to score in 2 out of 3 matches when their team wins. That doesn’t make sense. For a start, you’ve just removed all matches when the team didn’t score at all, from the equation. We are now looking at a completely different set of probabilities - those related to England wins only - and that significantly decreases the chances/increases the odds of Smith failing to score. In my Harry Kane statistics - taken from his actual England career - he scores in 47% of matches and fails to score in 53%. However, in matches where England win, he scores in 62% of matches and fails to score in 38%. So that’s the significant jump I was talking about. You wouldn’t get the same anytime scorer odds for matches where England win, that you would for England matches as a whole. Two different sets of probabilities, equates to two different sets of odds. You could just as easily flip it the other way. In Harry Kane’s England career, they have won 62% of matches he has appeared in. However, that figure jumps to 82%, for matches he scores in. These events are clearly and indisputably linked. I’m struggling to follow what you’re asking, or where the confusion lies, in your second example. Yes, the odds would be around 4.5 for the double, the same as the odds for Kane, doubled with England (+1). And yes, that would be the same effect as having the single bet on the goalscorer, that bet coming in within the first minute and then reinvesting that on an England win. I think I’ve thought of a different way to solve/explain this. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what you seemed to be suggesting to Torque yesterday, was that the bookies had just ‘removed’ some potential value from these prop. bets - the value had effectively vanished into thin air, or into the bookies’ back pockets, more likely! If you look at the Germany vs. Spain game tonight. Again, Lea Schuller to score first is 11/2. The match odds are Germany, 9/5; draw, 12/5; and Spain, 29/20. You were saying that these odds should be combined, if you were trying to form a double. However, if we look at the double odds, for Schiller to score first and each of the three potential outcomes, it’s 9/1 Germany; 25/1 draw; and 40/1 Spain. Those aren’t the calculations you suggest. Germany are much shorter than you suggested they should be, but draw and Spain are both now much longer. That is because, as I suggested, the Schiller first goalscorer odds have been combined with the Germany (+1) odds, of Germany, 8/15; draw, 3/1; and Spain 4/1. Hopefully that makes more sense, to think of it from that point of view. If Spain are 29/20 to win the match, surely you can see that those odds have to be significantly higher, for a match when a Germany player scores first? If you still disagree, then you’re about to become very rich. If you think the bookies have removed a lot of value from the player to score and their team to win market, then I’m bringing you great news - by your definition, all that value now lies on the other side, on a player to score, and their team to draw or lose!
  7. The chances of the bookies having got all the parts of the prop bet wrong are surely tiny though? You’d be better isolating which specific part of the prop bet you think is value and focusing on that. If anything, due to the profit margins that bookies build into their odds, the more parts you add to a prop bet, the more you are allowing the bookies to offset/cancel out any part of the prop bet they may have got wrong. I think it’s a lazy market, aimed at part-time gamblers. And from what I’ve seen here, you’re far better than that!
  8. Where you are wrong is your lack of understanding of the difference between independent and dependent events, in terms of probability. Or, your lack of understanding of what counts as a related contingency, in terms of gambling. First, in terms of probabilities - if you wanted to work out the combined probability of there being rainfall at the moment when you step outside in the morning AND of you tossing a single, fair coin, and it landing on heads, before you leave, then you’d simply multiply the probabilities of those two INDEPENDENT events together. On dry days, you would expect to land 50% heads and 50% tails and on wet days you would also expect 50% heads and 50% tails. That is how independent events work. One event is not changing the distribution of the other. There is no grouping or lack of grouping between two outcomes - such as wet and heads, or dry and tails. However, if you wanted to calculate the probability of there being rainfall the moment you step outside AND of you standing in a puddle on the way to work, then those events are clearly related, so we are looking at DEPENDENT probabilities. If you stand in a puddle on 5% of days, and it is raining on 20% of days, you don’t multiply these dependent events together and say, the chances of both happening on the same day are 1%. Hopefully you can see that doesn’t make sense? That would mean that the other 4 out of 5 times you stand in a puddle would be on dry days. So, you would be 4 times more likely to stand in a puddle on a dry day, than a wet day! Again, I hope you can see the logical fallacy there? In this case, there will clearly be a grouping between wet days and the days you stand in a puddle. And also the opposite grouping - of dry days and the days when you don’t stand in a puddle. So, that means we need a different formula, for calculating the combined probabilities of dependent events. The calculation for finding the chances of two dependent events both happening is P(A) x P(B|A). That is the probability of event A happening, multiplied by the probability of event B happening GIVEN THAT WE KNOW A HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. So, that’s what I was saying earlier, in my Germany and Spain example. If you’re betting on a player to score, when you then look to combine that bet, with another outcome in the same match, you don’t multiply by that second event’s original probability, you multiply by its probability given that the first thing has occurred. Which, if you were betting for a team to win the match, as in the example we used, would mean you are multiplying by the odds for that team to win, with a one-goal head start, (+1 on the handicap betting). If you don’t understand the explanation in terms of probabilities, I thought the Harry Kane example and statistics I gave earlier, showed it quite nicely in terms of gambling and related contingencies. Those weren’t numbers I made up, those were the actual stats. That wasn’t a biased pick by me, that was the first player that came to mind. We could use Lukaku or Lewandowski and look at their international goals, or look at any player’s club goals - it would take much longer to gather all the statistics - and we’d always see the same pattern. Whatever percentage of matches a player scores in overall, over a reasonable enough sample size, that will ALWAYS be skewed towards a higher percentage of matches scored in when the team wins, to a lower percentage when the team draws, to an even lower percentage when the team loses. Those events are clearly related. How could they not be? It is ludicrous to say that if a player scores, their team’s chances of winning/drawing/losing the match are still the same as in matches when that player doesn’t score. That’s what you are claiming here, with your lack of understanding of independent events and dependent events. I genuinely am baffled that we are wasting our time having this debate. If you still think the bookies have their odds so wrong on this, then you have just unlocked a huge gold mine, and are about to become very rich. And probably also very famous, as you have just changed some of the most basic theories of statistics! We can drill down into this further if we need to, but I’m hoping at some point soon the penny will drop and you will see where you have been going wrong with this?!
  9. I’m more than happy to have a wager. We only have to check the odds that bookies offer, to see that I’m correct! I think you don’t understand - or have temporarily got muddled - as to what a related contingency is. I’ll use Harry Kane playing for England as an example. Harry Kane has scored in 47% of his appearances for England. From your argument, this would mean we would also expect him to score in 47% of England wins, 47% of England draws and 47% of England defeats, across the matches he has appeared in. OBVIOUSLY, that is ludicrous. He is far more likely to have scored in matches England have won, and vice versa, England are far more likely to have won in matches he has scored in. And so the stats show: In England wins, he has scored 62% of the time. In draws, he has only scored 24% of the time, and in defeats that figure drops to 18%. The chances of ‘Harry Kane scoring’ and ‘England winning’ are clearly linked to each other and therefore group together more than if they were independent events. That’s why the bookies don’t give you the odds of multiplying the two separate bets together. If your ‘Harry Kane to score’ bet is a winner, you now effectively have a one-goal head start on your other bet, ‘England to win.’ Therefore, presumably the actual combined odds for ‘Harry Kane to score’ and ‘England to win’ would be the odds of Harry Kane to score, multiplied by the odds of England (+1) on the handicap betting. I’ve just checked this now, for the Germany vs. Spain match this evening. Bet365 have Germany to win at 15/8 and Lea Schuller to score first at 11/2. If you combine those odds (as if they were independent events/unrelated bets), by multiplying the odds, you would get close to 18/1. However, the odds offered for the ‘Wincast’, for Schuller to score first and Germany to win, are 9/1 - that is the same odds as if you combine Schuller to score first at 11/2, and Germany (+1) at 8/15. (Schuller scoring first gives your other bet a one goal head start.) I hope that makes sense? Out of all the people on the forum, you would have been the last person I expected to be explaining odds and statistics to. I worry someone has hacked your account - or your brain!
  10. I can’t wait to hear this..... I’m not sure where your logic has gone wrong, but I’m interested to see! I studied statistics at university, so maybe I would fall into that category you mentioned, of having a far deeper understanding of statistical probability?! I don’t claim to be an expert, and much of statistics is beyond me, but I think what we are debating/discussing here are fairly basic statistical concepts.
  11. From what I have seen, you are the most knowledgeable gambler on this site. I am therefore very surprised at what I am reading from you here! England to win and White to score are obviously very much related! If White scores, England are more likely to win. If England win, it is more likely that White has scored. One outcome happening vastly increases the chances of the other also happening. Therefore, if you combined them both - at the 2/1 odds for each that you used as an example - you certainly wouldn’t get 8/1. As I said previously, that is a perfect example of a related contingency. You can check/confirm that on most bookies’ websites. Find an anytime/first goal scorer bet. Find the odds of their team to win. Then find the bet that combines them - is it called ‘wincast’ or something like that? - and the odds will be much less than simply multiplying the separate bets together. That’s not down to the bookies knocking a sneaky bit of value off - that’s down to it being a related contingency. In statistical terms, these are dependent events, rather than independent events, so the calculation is not as simple as multiplying together the chances of each separate event. That is the calculation for independent events.
  12. Torque - looking at the Wimbledon Singles Finals that took place over the weekend, and now today’s Euro 2022 matches, you seem to be a bit obsessed with these prop. bet trebles at the moment. I’d totally agree with harry_rag and say that I can’t see any value in them whatsoever. You seem knowledgeable when it comes to sports and betting, but everything about these bets screams that they’re aimed at mug punters. I don’t understand why you’d go anywhere near them. They seem very random and over-complicated. I think you should look for simpler bets, rather than bets on three different things to all happen, in the same match. Feel free to prove me wrong in the long run, but none of your ten prop. bet trebles I have seen over the past few days have struck me as value. Having said that, harry_rag, I think your calculations in simply combining the individual odds weren’t correct on this occasion. There were definitely related contingencies involved, which would therefore reduce the odds. If a certain player/certain players have a shot/shots on target, then obviously their team are more likely to score and also more likely to lead at half time or win the match. Some of the bets there are perfect examples of related contingencies. So, the odds aren’t necessarily much different to the individual odds - rather that the bets are a bit too complex and unlikely to come in.
  13. I would like to follow these bets, mainly for a bit of interest, but also because you seem to do quite well on them! I don’t think I have access to a Paddy Power account. Are they the only company that offers 4 places on these, or are there other places that do too? I’d imagine if it was two places paid instead of four, any potential value would be gone. Also, I don’t really understand how each-way payouts work. I see you have said that yesterday’s bet was a 100/1 bet and a 25/1 winner. I know those odds sound impressive, but if we add up all your bets yesterday, does that make 11 points staked and 13 points returned? Or am I calculating that incorrectly? Thanks
  14. I didn’t mean to be confrontational. I hoped that by breaking my post down into the separate points I was trying to make, that it would avoid coming across as confrontational or aggressive! I may have missed the mark with that objective though.
  15. I’m pretty baffled by these bets, for any number of reasons..... 1. I think you said your outright bets already mean you would much prefer Jabeur to win than Rybakina? I don’t see what reason there is to add to that, on what is by all accounts a very tough match to call? 2. As I mentioned previously, Women’s Wimbledon Finals don’t tend to go long. A couple of your bets are going against that trend. Not a smart move. 3. All your bets include Jabeur to win the match. I don’t see why you are so confident of that outcome. I’m surprised she’s the favourite. I’m watching the match on the BBC and they’ve had a plethora of former Grand Slam champions as pundits, all of whom seem to be leaning towards Rybakina. I haven’t had a bet myself since Medvedev lost to Nadal in Australia, but it’s taken all my willpower and more to not break that run, and have a big bet on 2-0 Rybakina today. 4. Your bets are all overly-complicated. The common thread in all of them is Jabeur to win. If that’s what you think, then just be bold and go big on that. Don’t over-complicate it and turn a good prediction into a losing bet!
×
×
  • Create New...