giraldi

As I said many times, I am strongly against  blindly follow tips without make your own deep assesment.
The "Suggestions" module of my software just applies a few set of rules (written by me of course) then provide a few suggestions. Of course I keep an eye on the output to not be extemely strange "suggestions". The start, first 2-3 weeks, was extremely bad (it was -70% at some moment) but after a few changes it seems OK and now we have around -10% yield from almost 70 games. The last 30 days (42 bets) had +13% overall with an incredible 75% on draw maket from 12 games    
Again, this module just gives a few games, selected based on some stats, without taken into consideration the last info..etc (here is your work)
 
The "Suggestions" module gives today 9 games to think about, more than usual.
In particular, I am very interested in Inter and Real games where the software indicates a great value on draw. Might be strange bet but did not exclude the bets because the program has given a 75% yield on the draw market last 30 days (12 games).
Please make your own analysis then play accordingly.
 

On the Tables section, last 2 columns, you can see now not only WDL market but a few more.
In this example, at a glance, we see that Wolves scored against all teams but away against Liverpool and Leicester.
Might be useful...
Don-t forget to use "?" mini-buttons to learn more.
 

This feature has been asked by too many expert users so finally, I managed to finish it.
 
It is about saving in XLS or CSV format all that is happening in the Live Statistics module. The old button "Export to" works like before but I added a new button "Save" that will save instantly without any other message the table to XLS or CSV, depending on what you set on the right side.
 
The "Autosave" button allows you now to set an interval between 0-30 minute. Each time will be saved all that was not saved since the last save. For example, you can set it to 10 minutes then every ten minutes will be saved in the "Export" folder a file named  YYMMDDHHMMSS in XLS or CSV format with all data since the last save.
 
All data can be studied later, minute by minute to see odds, score, percent...etc.
 

 

I defined similar games as those games where the home/away teams had similar ELO to the selected home/away teams.
Now, similar ELO means that the ELO is inside a given interval, for example Home team ELO  +/- 75 points. Of course the shorter is the interval the better are the results but the sample may be not so good. If the interval is large, the sampe is big but the results are not so accurate. 
I strongly believe that the ELO coefficient is a very good indicator of the relative value of a team, compared to the other teams, inside the same league. The teams win or lose ELO points depending on their value and the opponent value. Burnley will get a lot of ELO points from Norwich  but Manchester United or Liverpool  not so much  and so on.
My software calculates and keeps ELO value starting with the moment the team is added in the system then the coefficient is not reseted ever,  for new season, relegation, promtion....etc. This is because the ELO coefficient needs 20-25 games to calibrate then to take his place in the league ELO table
 
Here you can see the ELO graph for the first two teams, Liverpool and Manchester City.   That explain it best what happend so far
 
 
 
 
 
 

As I promised, I went further with the last improvement and now can see the number of games where the home/away values come from
For example, Preston won 100% at home against similar opponents in 5 games and Charlton lost 60% away in 10 similar games
It's much better now that we can see the sample

As I promised, I went further with the last improvement and now can see the number of games where the home/away values come from
For example, Preston won 100% at home against similar opponents in 5 games and Charlton lost 60% away in 10 similar games
It's much better now that we can see the sample

A new important feature in UPCOMING section!
The values can be calculated against teams similar to the current opponent not just against all opponents
For example, Lincoln won 70% home games but won 100% against teams similar to Bolton - today's opponent It might be useful!
 

A new important feature in UPCOMING section!
The values can be calculated against teams similar to the current opponent not just against all opponents
For example, Lincoln won 70% home games but won 100% against teams similar to Bolton - today's opponent It might be useful!
 

I think that, as a general rule, is a bad idea to bet just based on everybody knows. I am pretty sure that the recent results are very well known and accessible.
Of course, if the form or trend are very good, the team has great probability to win but will not get a correct price for sure
On the other hand, if not check the recent results, what else to check? Ok, will check the players, the field, ...etc. but how will put this in numbers? Can somebody tell me how will affect the performance if 2 important players are missing? will have 15% less chances to win, maybe 20%? The odds have value? I would calculate how the team performed without those palyers...in the recent games.
Finally, the recent results are the best  we have to start with  and to have a starting number (percent). If we are not able to find more and to adjust those percents in a direction or another the best option is to drop the game and to look for something else. 
 

Interesting discussion, but I'm afraid it will never have a definite answer, it is highly subjective matter, everyone has opinion and believes it is right.

1.
This all goes to personal skills on how to estimate the value and calculate your own odds... and bit of luck during the match itself; I remember few matches where one team had like 70% or 80% ball possesion and 20 shots on goal vs 2 shots on goal by their oponent, yet the oponent endured all attacks and materialized one of those two shots to win match 1-0, despite being completely outplayed.

Take as an example West Bromwich tonight; I am surprised to see it at ~2.30; based on table position and recent form, it should be 1.70, max 1.80. I see no major injuries on both sides, but they say that Stoke’s coach Nathan Jones has left the club; it means club is not satisifed with recent results and atmosphere is probably not good; so it brings the price down to 1.60, hence 2.30 is massive value.

However, odds compiler might be niece of that brother-in-law of manager’s wife, and have some insider information that mere mortals do not have, and argue that coach replacement is actually beneficial for players morale, hence they priced it as it is, 2.30.

So is it value or not? I don’t know now; I will not know in about 8 hours, when this match ends, either; I can only know after I placed a hundreds of bets on matches based on the same selection criteria – if I earned a profit after that amount of matches, yes, all my bets were value (and I probably do not care what’s the name for that, let alone to bother with selling those predictions, as some wise businessmen do); but if I lost money, I am not good at spotting a value; I might write nice analyses, present stats and reveal insider info, but if I don’t make long-term profit, there’s no value in my bets.

In other words, I do agree with your statement in last paragraph of point 1. :) Some they say good indication is movement of odds at Pinnacle – if you place a bet at odds which drop subsequently, you spotted value before Pinny; but at the end it has the same black/white outcome, no grey area there –you are making profit or you are making loss.

2.
Gambler’s falacy, in my opinion, is not applicable to football matches, or any other sport event, at all. It applies to independent events, as you mention, but in terms of football matches, independence means “lack of duration”, so to say. What I mean; white ball and red or black slots are absolutely the same throughout the process of spinning, they do not change from the moment of spinning the wheel untill it stops, probability of each event remains the same for that duration of time, 18/37 for black and red, and 1/37 for the house; you spin the wheel, and you are sure that those probabilities do not change in those dozens of seconds untill it stops. In a football match, however, even if there are two perfectly balanced teams from all aspects (including tiredness impact from previous matches that you mentioned), so we are sure that probability of each outcome is 1/3, each match lasts for almost 100 minutes and it will develop differently throughout that period – a key player can sustain an injury or receive red card after 5 minutes, a sloppy keeper can commit an own goal, an incompetent referee can make a crucial mistake, etc. – a lot of human, unpredictable occurences that send match beyond calculated probabilities.

In your example, if a team has 5 wins, is it worth laying it with Martingale? If that team plays in major, well known leagues, and odds are close to evens, as originally meant for Martingale, then yes, go for it by all means – I am pretty sure no team will ever win 100 consecutive matches in Premier league or La Liga (while I would not be that sure for, say, Ethiopian regional league... or even Serie A, I'm afraid), so that team is bound to fail to win sooner or later, and you’re bound to win those 10 quid at the end, provided that you start with 10 quid, you have bank comparable in size to that of Ronaldo, and you know a bookmaker willing to accept stake of ~10 million quid in case your team goes to another 20 winning streak, let alone if they go to all 100. :)

On a more serious note, it goes back again to available odds – Martingale is originally designed for even odds in each leg; whereas odds for each match fluctuate, hence you have to adjust the stakes each time; it doesn’t affect final outcome, but affects your stake, and thus number of matches you can afford

to bet on before you have to give up, either because of your bank, or because of bookmaker limit.

A few days ago I had a discussion with some friends about two very controversial topics.
I opened the discussion here because both topics are the basis for many betting strategies.
It's about "gamblers fallacy" and "value in betting"
 
There are probably just a few who don't know what we are talking about here, so I will remind them:
Value, in betting, appears when the odds are suggesting that the chances to happen the event are smaller than they really are.
And
according to Wikipedia: The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa).
Now, the problems in discussion were, and I would appreciate your opinion
1.
We talk every day about value but is it possible to calculate the exact value for a price so we can tell if we will have profit on long run?
If we have the price 2.10 for 50% event like coin flip  it is a clear value and will have profit on long run  but,
For example we have 1.90 odds for home team win and we know with 15 minutes earlier than anyone else (my brother’s best friend is  brother in law with the wife-s manager) that the away team will play with the second team or something similar.  
On this particular situation the odds 1.90 is a certain value and should hurry to get it?  Why? Common sense tell us that should be value, but based on what? We bet based on common sense or based on value?  What is the probability for home team to win event? What way is calculated?
I agree that there are way more chances to have value but my opinion is that will never know if we bet with value or not. Until will see that checking the money into accounts of course.
2.
I have often warned about the danger of “gambler’s fallacy” but I was right regarding to betting on football?
We have an average team that won 5 in a row. Would be correct to start a strategy like Martingale against them?  At first sight would be terrible wrong if looking to “gambler’s fallacy” concept.
But, extremely important, the concept is about independent events. If there will be red 100000 times the next red/black will have the same 50% probability to appear.
This is the same thing for our team?  The next game is not affected at all by the previous games? Some players are probably getting more and more tired.  And many other similar things that affects next games.  
I am against Martingale in betting but my opinion is that is am extremely good strategy in some very particular situations.
 
 

A few days ago I had a discussion with some friends about two very controversial topics.
I opened the discussion here because both topics are the basis for many betting strategies.
It's about "gamblers fallacy" and "value in betting"
 
There are probably just a few who don't know what we are talking about here, so I will remind them:
Value, in betting, appears when the odds are suggesting that the chances to happen the event are smaller than they really are.
And
according to Wikipedia: The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa).
Now, the problems in discussion were, and I would appreciate your opinion
1.
We talk every day about value but is it possible to calculate the exact value for a price so we can tell if we will have profit on long run?
If we have the price 2.10 for 50% event like coin flip  it is a clear value and will have profit on long run  but,
For example we have 1.90 odds for home team win and we know with 15 minutes earlier than anyone else (my brother’s best friend is  brother in law with the wife-s manager) that the away team will play with the second team or something similar.  
On this particular situation the odds 1.90 is a certain value and should hurry to get it?  Why? Common sense tell us that should be value, but based on what? We bet based on common sense or based on value?  What is the probability for home team to win event? What way is calculated?
I agree that there are way more chances to have value but my opinion is that will never know if we bet with value or not. Until will see that checking the money into accounts of course.
2.
I have often warned about the danger of “gambler’s fallacy” but I was right regarding to betting on football?
We have an average team that won 5 in a row. Would be correct to start a strategy like Martingale against them?  At first sight would be terrible wrong if looking to “gambler’s fallacy” concept.
But, extremely important, the concept is about independent events. If there will be red 100000 times the next red/black will have the same 50% probability to appear.
This is the same thing for our team?  The next game is not affected at all by the previous games? Some players are probably getting more and more tired.  And many other similar things that affects next games.  
I am against Martingale in betting but my opinion is that is am extremely good strategy in some very particular situations.
 
 

A few days ago I had a discussion with some friends about two very controversial topics.
I opened the discussion here because both topics are the basis for many betting strategies.
It's about "gamblers fallacy" and "value in betting"
 
There are probably just a few who don't know what we are talking about here, so I will remind them:
Value, in betting, appears when the odds are suggesting that the chances to happen the event are smaller than they really are.
And
according to Wikipedia: The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa).
Now, the problems in discussion were, and I would appreciate your opinion
1.
We talk every day about value but is it possible to calculate the exact value for a price so we can tell if we will have profit on long run?
If we have the price 2.10 for 50% event like coin flip  it is a clear value and will have profit on long run  but,
For example we have 1.90 odds for home team win and we know with 15 minutes earlier than anyone else (my brother’s best friend is  brother in law with the wife-s manager) that the away team will play with the second team or something similar.  
On this particular situation the odds 1.90 is a certain value and should hurry to get it?  Why? Common sense tell us that should be value, but based on what? We bet based on common sense or based on value?  What is the probability for home team to win event? What way is calculated?
I agree that there are way more chances to have value but my opinion is that will never know if we bet with value or not. Until will see that checking the money into accounts of course.
2.
I have often warned about the danger of “gambler’s fallacy” but I was right regarding to betting on football?
We have an average team that won 5 in a row. Would be correct to start a strategy like Martingale against them?  At first sight would be terrible wrong if looking to “gambler’s fallacy” concept.
But, extremely important, the concept is about independent events. If there will be red 100000 times the next red/black will have the same 50% probability to appear.
This is the same thing for our team?  The next game is not affected at all by the previous games? Some players are probably getting more and more tired.  And many other similar things that affects next games.  
I am against Martingale in betting but my opinion is that is am extremely good strategy in some very particular situations.
 
 

One bet no-one ever seems to want to place is on 0-0, so maybe with some filters that could be a fruitful strategy - although I remember years ago someone on here tried to turn a profit backing 0-0 but I don't recall it being successful. Probably not much of a useful contribution from me reading this back 

With the occasional post using the "holy grail" hook to attract attention I thought I'd post some thoughts and a question.
If I ever found a genuine "HG" I'm pretty sure I wouldn't reveal it on here or post many of my bets. I also wouldn't come on to do any of the "cock inflating" hinting and teasing that we occasionally see. Ultimately I'd keep it to myself to preserve the edge because a genuine edge is obviously a fragile and valuable thing.
It's my view that if there is a HG to be found it will involve selling on the spreads. As most people want to buy a thrill (e.g. bet on lots of goals/corners/cards/runs/tries etc.) this is reflected in the prices so that any value is likely to be on the sell side. As Kevin Pullein often points out, the best bargains are often to be found on the bets that no-one wants to place rather than the ones that are obvious and appeal to the majority. Also, most people are more inclined to overestimate how many of these things there will be in a game/match.
In the early days of spread betting (pre-internet and the wide availability of detailed statistics) there were some crazy prices offered, e.g. corners might have been 16-17 or even higher. The opportunity to blindly sell total corners at 16 in every game would yield a substantial guaranteed profit in the long run. Over time the firms and the punters got a better understanding of things, shrewder punters started to sell clearly wrong prices and the markets settled at a point much closer to reality. Despite that, the greater demand from buyers continues to inflate prices to a degree (remember Muppet's successful HG corners thread which ran for years).
So all that gets me to pondering, are there certain markets in certain sports where one could make a profit by blindly selling? Or, perhaps slightly more likely, by applying a limited set of filters such as minimum price and maximum "market" spread width? To give an entirely hypothetical example:
Sell player performance in cricket as long as sell price is 40 or more and spread width is 1 or less. So if a player is 40-44 with both firms that would be no bet but if one firm went 43-47 then that would signal a sell at 43 (as the market price would be 43-44 and the spread width just 1).
Assuming anyone makes it this far (I appreciate there aren't that many spread aficianados on here) the question I'd welcome feedback on is:
Are there any markets that you think are worth looking at from the point of view of the spreads always tending to be on the high side, offering value for a strategy based on selling?

I would say to not believe such things and just find out yourself what means dropping odds, why the odds are dropping, what values remain for odds after dropping...and so on then will decide if it is OK to risk your money
 
 
 

I hope we all agree that the value can be found in very small odds but, as in real life, to study the small things you need fine tools and a lot of patience, otherwise you destroy them. It is best to avoid small odds, in my opinion. Is best to avoid very "crowded places" as well. No value where are too many players.
My first impression, as did my colleagues above, was that such a strategy simply applied cannot be mathematically winning.
 
I checked all the matches in September considering the difference at least 10 places for the league positions, see picture no.1.
157 out of 1635 met the condition and, as expected the results would have been not extraordinary as you can see in picture no.2


 
Now, lets-s see what if will consider the places in the home table for home teams and in the away table for the away teams. We have some improvements already. Almost 7% profit for home win. It makes sense because we filtered teams with a good play at home vs teams with a bad play away (and too many players consider only overall teams performance)
See pictures no.3 and no.4
 


 
Now, let-s go a little bit further and check for  home teams placed between 1-5, so they are very strong at home, and the odds over 2.00 (the potential has not been seen yet by the majority of the payers). 
See pictures no.5 and no.6


 
The results are much better. See picture no 7.

 
Of course, the results are based on aveage odds but I am sure you got the idea. Don-t play what another 99% play becasue it-s not possible to have 99% of players winners on long term.
 
Finally,
of course, I will not be a hypocrite and to say that I did not want to show off the possibilities of my program. 
 

My opinion is that sport betting is learnable for sure but the problem is that you will need more and more resources (time for instance) as you are closer to real profit. Not everyone has patience and resources to do that. (I have not )
It is relatively easy and with a minor effort to study some afticles, books..anyone can transform betting from a black hole into a thing that will not give money but will not suck your money neither.  Maybe will just pay the correct price for the "fun" you have when your bet is win/lost in 92 min.
If you want to win money from betting, first off all you need to check if you "deserve" it.  Did you forget about luck/badluck and accept that s about knowledge and hard workl? Do you know more than other 99% of the bettors the teams involved in your selections? Are you able to calculate in short time complex probabilities?...and maybe there are another 10 similar questions. If you have just a single "NO" then is not good and... back to school.
Regarding the previous comments, probably what posted notanotherdonkey is not related to betting but it brings to attention a very impotant problem the begginers have to learn: the gambler's fallacy concept.  On short, from Wikipedia : " is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa). "
 
 
.     
 

My opinion is that sport betting is learnable for sure but the problem is that you will need more and more resources (time for instance) as you are closer to real profit. Not everyone has patience and resources to do that. (I have not )
It is relatively easy and with a minor effort to study some afticles, books..anyone can transform betting from a black hole into a thing that will not give money but will not suck your money neither.  Maybe will just pay the correct price for the "fun" you have when your bet is win/lost in 92 min.
If you want to win money from betting, first off all you need to check if you "deserve" it.  Did you forget about luck/badluck and accept that s about knowledge and hard workl? Do you know more than other 99% of the bettors the teams involved in your selections? Are you able to calculate in short time complex probabilities?...and maybe there are another 10 similar questions. If you have just a single "NO" then is not good and... back to school.
Regarding the previous comments, probably what posted notanotherdonkey is not related to betting but it brings to attention a very impotant problem the begginers have to learn: the gambler's fallacy concept.  On short, from Wikipedia : " is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa). "
 
 
.     
 

@Rey86 Of course anything can be learned if you have the will and discipline to do it, but sports betting is different.
Blackjack Basic Strategy - lots of people think they know this, but you'll be amazed how many get it wrong and you only need to make a handful of wrong decisions to make that low 0.25% house edge roar into a 5% edge. I was sat next to someone in the MGM a couple of years back who said he knew how to play basic strategy, yet refused to surrender or take another card every time when he had 16 against the dealers 10, or JQK  
Poker - there's a hell of a lot of skill here, but to be honest you're often playing the player not the cards.
Sports Betting - oh jeeesus where do I start!  
One thing you must have is discipline or you're doomed, this means managing your betting bank properly and being patient. The other major thing you must have which can take quite a long time, is the understanding of value, overround and how to compile your own odds, which is often a gut feeling to an extent, but of course based on stats and form.
I've often tried to explain in quite simple terms what value is, and I'll repeat it again here.
Liverpool are playing Norwich at home and are fully expected to win....
Would you back Liverpool at 1.01? If not, why not.
Would you back Liverpool at 1.05? If not, why not.
Would you back Liverpool at 1.10? If not, why not.
Basically, there is always a point where you will back that team and the odds dictate the bet, not the team. So where's the line? Apply that to each bet and you won't go far wrong.

I hope we all agree that the value can be found in very small odds but, as in real life, to study the small things you need fine tools and a lot of patience, otherwise you destroy them. It is best to avoid small odds, in my opinion. Is best to avoid very "crowded places" as well. No value where are too many players.
My first impression, as did my colleagues above, was that such a strategy simply applied cannot be mathematically winning.
 
I checked all the matches in September considering the difference at least 10 places for the league positions, see picture no.1.
157 out of 1635 met the condition and, as expected the results would have been not extraordinary as you can see in picture no.2


 
Now, lets-s see what if will consider the places in the home table for home teams and in the away table for the away teams. We have some improvements already. Almost 7% profit for home win. It makes sense because we filtered teams with a good play at home vs teams with a bad play away (and too many players consider only overall teams performance)
See pictures no.3 and no.4
 


 
Now, let-s go a little bit further and check for  home teams placed between 1-5, so they are very strong at home, and the odds over 2.00 (the potential has not been seen yet by the majority of the payers). 
See pictures no.5 and no.6


 
The results are much better. See picture no 7.

 
Of course, the results are based on aveage odds but I am sure you got the idea. Don-t play what another 99% play becasue it-s not possible to have 99% of players winners on long term.
 
Finally,
of course, I will not be a hypocrite and to say that I did not want to show off the possibilities of my program. 
 

I think it is a very important topic.
Until one of the experienced guys will help us with the answer I will say my opinion.
 
I think that one of the mistake the player does is to increase the stake too early.  We have to understand that betting is a game of probabilities and the probability to lose all bets for the rest of our life is not 0. It is extremely small but is not 0. Of course this is an extreme example..
The most logical answer is to increase to 2 units when your bank is 200, in order to keep 1% from bank. Probably this would say most of the players.
The second logical answer would be to never increase the stake,  and to save every 100 you get. Probably this would say just a few.
 
I prefer a combination: I would keep the stake 1 until I have 300, then save 100 and increase the stake to 2. 
Now I have 200 and stake 2, still 1% but have 100 saved (my real pofit). A few comments here: Another mistake can be done is to think that the balance you see on your bookie, under your account are yours. No, the money are yours only when save them to your bank account.
 
Will keep it until I have 400, then save 100 and increase to 3...
And so on  
 
As I said, this is what I think in this Monday early morning, the worst hours for my brain in the entire week

I received a lot of criticism, obviously, and some referred to the fact that the complexity of the program is overwhelming for those who have just discovered football statistics (and not only).
That-s why I created a Light version of the software for beginners or for those that just want basic football statistics.
It works like "the mother software" with regular updates...etc but has only the main sections and inside sections, the main features.

I think it is a very important topic.
Until one of the experienced guys will help us with the answer I will say my opinion.
 
I think that one of the mistake the player does is to increase the stake too early.  We have to understand that betting is a game of probabilities and the probability to lose all bets for the rest of our life is not 0. It is extremely small but is not 0. Of course this is an extreme example..
The most logical answer is to increase to 2 units when your bank is 200, in order to keep 1% from bank. Probably this would say most of the players.
The second logical answer would be to never increase the stake,  and to save every 100 you get. Probably this would say just a few.
 
I prefer a combination: I would keep the stake 1 until I have 300, then save 100 and increase the stake to 2. 
Now I have 200 and stake 2, still 1% but have 100 saved (my real pofit). A few comments here: Another mistake can be done is to think that the balance you see on your bookie, under your account are yours. No, the money are yours only when save them to your bank account.
 
Will keep it until I have 400, then save 100 and increase to 3...
And so on  
 
As I said, this is what I think in this Monday early morning, the worst hours for my brain in the entire week