Datapunter
-
Posts
7,496 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Datapunter
-
-
Re: Stat Attack Analysis/Trends for Betting Not what this forum is for.
-
Re: 'Favourites' at stupid odds: 11 bets, 12.7% ROI What is your definition of a "favourite" ? A football team at odds of 3.xx+ can hardly be called a favourite imo.
-
Re: Fair or not fair ? " Unless value is 0 ..... " We need a universal translator for this thread :lol
-
Re: Fair or not fair ? Eh ? what's the stake got to do with it. "Fair odds" are those odds that represent a selections true chance of winning its event. If the odds reflect that chance they are called "fair". Does the average of a group, no matter how accurate that average is, reflect the accuracy of each individual ? No. In other words the average may be accurate it does not mean this average reflects the "fair odds" of each individual member. How close are the "fair odds" of the individual members to this average ?
-
Re: Fair or not fair ?
Well, yes and no, how unfair is fair ? What we know, or can accept as axioma, is that the average of a set of odds is accurate. But does that tell us anything about the distribution of the members in the group ? From my example with a correct average of 2.00, it is possible members range from 1.66 to 2.50, but it is also possible they range from 1.50 to 3.00, and it is also possible they range from 1.95 to 2.05 ..... hmmmmm, not forgetting a large group of 1.95 and a few individuals of 10.0...... also average 2.00 can we draw any conclusion as to the make up of this distribution ? I don't think so, we just don't know.We can say, though, that it is more likely that a set of odds is 'unfair' than fair, due to the nature of chaotic systems -
Re: Why Bets Lose...
Blimey, i seem to be agreeing with Onedunme quite a bit. Extremely important to distinguish data to be independent from other factors or not, for example in tennis "First serve %" is independent, doesn't matter who's on the other side of the net. Whereas "% second serve won" depends greatly on the individual opponent and cannot simply be taken to be the same "strength / weight / value" from match to match. Huge mistake to say player A is stronger than player B because his "% second serve won" is much bigger. That depends greatly on who they've been playing. ps. sorry got no examples from football, someone else ? anyone ?You're ignoring the quality of the opposition? -
Re: Fair or not fair ? 1) it si possible to win in sports betting ? Sure. 2) it is possible to win with value bets ? Sure. 3) it is possible to win 50% strike rate, odds à 2.00 and a good staking plan ? No.
The whole point is that you cannot conclude they are or aren't. No matter how accurate the average it says nothing about the fairness of the odds on each individual selection.it's really sad that nobody can prove mathematically that the opening odds are not fair -
Re: Why Bets Lose... Look at it from another angle, imagine for a moment you are able to calculate the true % of the chance of a team winning their next match, imagine for a moment you can do that down to one thousands of a %, an you calculate a particular team to have a 74.253 % chance of winning their next match, and you know for a fact this is absolutely true and accurate, why do they lose ? Because there is still a 25.747 % chance they lose. No matter how accurate you get it.
-
Re: Fair or not fair ? Close enough :lol everybody should have a good read of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy really, it's what this whole thread is about.
-
Re: Fair or not fair ?
I am not disputing the statement that bookmakers opening odds are accurate on average, i don't need a test, i'm perfectly willing to accept that as a fact. What i do dispute is the conclusion that follows: a) that from that information you can deduct the "fair odds" of a selection, you cannot. b) that if you simply bet on all selection above that average that you'll make a profit, you may or may not, it is by no means a certainty. Hence the correctness of opening odds, accurate as they may be, does not show you where the value is.With all respect, especially for you Datapunter, if you failing to understand what r2 analysis means (and most likely did not bothered yourself with the table I've presented earlier). I've made a test for specific odds 2.10, 110 bets in total. Result ("hit rate") is 47.27%. If it tells nothing to you, then we are from a different planets. -
Re: Why Bets Lose... With the factors that can be measured, how close to the true chance of winning do you think you can get ? Within 10% , within 20% , more ? only 50/50 , or closer plus minus 5% btw. you need to distinguish between a shag and a blowjob, shagging takes more energy ;)
-
Re: Fair or not fair ?
IF ???? that's like saying water is wet, well yes it is. there is absolutely NOTHING in this whole thread that can lead to the conclusion there will be more profitable bet/series than non-profitable ones. Nothing.and I stay on my position that the positive periods will be better than the negative periods if the system produce profit in the long term.
Sure, but you're not going to get there on the basis of opening odds. At least you cannot draw that conclusion on the basis of opening odds and drifting odds.It is quite elementary that one could be profitable if his strike rate and odds are in positive balance
I just read it somewhere."if you stay in the game long enough, you'll see everything, win evething and lose everything"
What about opening odds are you confident about ? What exactly has not been proven ?i'm confident on opening odds. Nobody has proven reverse. -
Re: Best way to play this Your choice, nothing more to it than that.
-
Re: Fair or not fair ? Keep thinking, you'll get there in the end. And please note you are certainly not the only one who doesn't get it. I'll do a summary with each step tomorrow.
-
Re: Fair or not fair ? Indeed Mulkis, indeed. I love wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FallacyFALLACY: In informal logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments
Where do arrive at the figure of 50% strike rate ? Examine again how the group of 200 is formed out of the 1000, It could be 50% but it could just as easily be 40% or even 60%, both profit as well as loss are possible on those 200 bets, there is no certainty, you just don't know. That is where your fallacy lies.Indeed, how to be in losing with a odds @ 2.25, a 50% strike rate and always 1u / bets ? (we are agree with this) -
Re: Fair or not fair ?
You may or you may not make a profit, there is no certainty at all that you will. Think about it, this is exactly where your logic goes into a fallacy, all the components to get this have been explained. This is the nasty thing about fallacies, they always appear obvious, they are obvious to those that get them, and obvious to those that don't. Why are you certain you will make a profit ?for your last scenario : yes i will make profit (+ 25 u for 1u/bet and if we ignore the 800 bets at 2.00) and yes i'm sure. -
Re: Fair or not fair ?
Think about it, that is actually the same question as mine.is it valid for these 200 as well? -
Re: Fair or not fair ? Ok, so now you do agree there is profit and it is certain there is profit, now we come to the key question, the one this whole thread is about, Guys, please let ChrisB answer this one first, he needs to be clear in his own mind about it.
On this occasion you decide to ignore the 800 bets that are offered at 2.00, and you decide to bet ONLY on the 200 ones offered at 2.25. So the average of the group of 1000 is still 2.00 and it is completely accurate as you get a strike rate of 50% when you bet on all 1000. The 200 you bet on have odds of 2.25 which is above that average. Do you make a profit on those 200 ? and is it certain you make a profit ?Still same scenario, I present you with 1000 bets, 500 have fair odds of 1.66, 500 have fair odds of 2.50, they are distributed in the group of 1000 completely random, you know the strike rate is 50%, on 800 bets i offer a price of 2.00, on 200 bets i offer a price of 2.25, -
Re: Win a pair of tickets to World Snooker Final - Draw made 11am Friday Does it include a plain ticket ? easyjet will do :tongue2
-
Re: Fair or not fair ? That question was ages ago, but i'm glad you got there in the end. Now we're still on this:
The scenario is still the same: Quote: What i did was i took 500 bets with an expectation of 40% translated in "fair odds" of 2.50 Then i took 500 bets with an expectation of 60% translates in "fair odds" of 1.66 And then i mixed them all up completely randomly. If you bet on all 1000 bets at odds of 2.00 you will break even at the end. Therefore the odds of 2.00 are COMPLETELY ACCURATE..... on average. But here's the key: they are only accurate if you actually bet on all 1000 bets. As soon as you bet on a sub-group the accuracy is no longer valid. When you bet at odds of 2.00 when the odds should actually be 2.50 you will end up making a loss. But as you also bet at 2.00 on each bet where the odds should be 1.66 that profit compensates the loss made on the 2.50 ones. So on average the numbers add up perfectly. I'm beginning to really like ChrisB and because of that every 5th bet i'm going to offer him odds of 2.25 . So out of 1000 bets 200 are offered at 2.25. Great, ChrisB bets on all of them and makes a very tidy profit. After all 200 of them have odds above average and therefore result in profit. ChrisB, you agree you make a profit ?datapunter, with your scenario, i will not make profit.
Either you do agree you will make a profit and it is certain you make a profit, or explain why you think you won't make a profit or it is not certain you make a profit.I present you with 1000 bets, you know the strike rate is 50%, i.e. you will get 500 winners and 500 losers, on 800 bets i offer a price of 2.00, on 200 bets i offer a price of 2.25, you bet on all 1000 bets. Please explain how you do not make a profit ? -
Re: Fair or not fair ? ChrisB, please stop and listen for 2 seconds, i have already explained numerous times why it is flawed but you just don't listen. Simply answer the question. If i don't know if you agree or not i can't move to the next step.
-
Re: Fair or not fair ? It hasn't changed, still the same scenario. Still 500 bets at 1.66, 500 bets at 2.50, totally random distribution into a group of 1000, strike rate 50%.
-
Re: Fair or not fair ? betting-palace, in the presented scenario there is no timeframe yet, it's exactly as stated, you are offered 800 x 2.00 and 200 x 2.25, you bet on all 1000 right away at those odds, do you make a profit, and is that a certainty ?
-
Re: Fair or not fair ? We'll get to the 200 only, but first ChrisB needs to get there's is a mathematical certainty you make a profit if you bet on all 1000. Or explain why you don't.
How do Free Bets work?
in Betting Systems & Strategy
Posted
Re: How do Free Bets work? no, not always, you simply need to check the conditions of the specific bookmaker. Bet365 , if i recall correctly from memory, has a bonus added to the balance. That means stake returned but with a high rollover before payout. Find the T&C that apply to you specifically, ( which can also be dependent on your country of residence ) then come back here if there's anything in them that's not clear.