Jump to content
Announcements
** October Poker League Result : 1st avongirl, 2nd McG, 3rd Rhino_Power **
** October Naps Competition Result: 1st internetmails, 2nd Donnyflyer, 3rd vangovin, 4th Peter York. KO Cup Winner mickyftm32. Most Winners waggy: **

Joe

New Members
  • Posts

    1,374
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Pinnacle is really just as good, but you have to take into account the favourite-longshot bias for bookmaker odds which you don't get at an exchange. The bias isn't a sign that the odds are unwise, it's just a bookmaker-imposed inefficiency that they use to protect themselves against greater liabilities on mistakes made on longshots. Punters are happy to accept relatively inferior value on low-probability outcomes so its easier for bookmakers to do it like this. At short odds, odds at bookmakers and exchanges are more or less the same.
  2. Yes, Betfair is about as wise at it gets: http://www.12xpert.co.uk/betfair.gif Data is from volume weighted average odds for 50,000 football games played in 2004/05. BTW, I can't seem to get formatting to work properly for my replies here, so apologies for that.
  3. By definition, the bookmaker's price represents a public wisdom of crowds. When you bet with a bookmaker, you are not really betting against their expert(s). You are betting against all their other customers. OK, so a bookmaker has to take an initial opinion when he opens his lines. That what its experts will do, i.e. set the line to as close as is accurate. Then customers start rolling in and he will adjust his price to manage the liabilities. This is how a bookmaker like Pinnacle Sports operates. Pinnacle is really just like Betfair, taking a commission. Now UK bookmakers still have an old school mentality to all of this. Their traders still see themselves as competing against their customers, which in my opinion is silly. But they do it, and this means that they will more likely open lines with prices that intentionally try to encourage punters to take a nibble, i.e. they deliberately offer loss leading value. Subsequently, they are less likely to shorten prices, because they like to continue to advertise their value via the odds comparison. Hence, their prices are less likely to represent crowd wisdom. So when a smart punter exploits their generosity, they will manage that risk in other ways, by limiting stakes and then closing accounts. That's why the likes of Stan James and others ban winners and Pinnacle Sports do not. But that's also why it much harder to beat the Pinnacle Sports market even though their margin is smaller, because their prices are much "wiser". I can't see how a wisdom of crowds system is going to work at a bookmaker where prices are already wise. I will work at somewhere like Stan James, but they will just ban you.
  4. How can this system actually work? Presumably the betting price you find at a bookmaker is representative of the crowd wisdom. In fact, it should be wiser than your source because it will presumably be based on many more opinions, especially at large bookmakers. The wiser, the price, the more efficient it is, and the closer it should be to the "true" price (whatever that might be). But betting true prices will not give you an edge. it's just tossing coins. OK, so then some bookmakers offer better than true prices, but these bookmakers will ban you quickly as they realise that you are targeting those prices. At an efficient brand like Pinnacle, you will find "wise" prices but you won't find value price, at least not with this method. Unless of course your crowd happens to be wiser than the crowd at Pinnacle, but I would imagine that is unlikely. Anyway, as the previous post asked, I'm also intrigued to know what your "crowd" source is.
  5. Re: Soccer Hot Favourites System ( at -15% ) I agree. If you didn't get Stan James' 1.25 earlier today then I would not back this at anything less. The only thing going for Benfica is their goal fest against weak oppostion in their last 2 games in the league.
  6. Re: Soccer Hot Favourites System ( at -15% ) Apology appreciated, Stephen. I was just about to contact my lawyer to file a libel suit ;) As for my comment about draws on page 185, you'll note that I didn't say "completely random" but "as random an event in sport as one can find" although watching Andy Murray play tennis does make me wonder if that needs re-evaluating.
  7. Re: Soccer Hot Favourites System ( at -2.66% ) Hello Stephen. Someone drew my attention to the following: 1.i wrote the book and i know its longterm flaws. 2.play this "system" for a decade and if you make any wothwhile profit call me. 3.joe's "system" bows and i do mean bows to mine.(mainly coz he tried to copy my interpretation.) sorry joe but eventually you get f*cked. 4.the margins are too tight. I don't suppose you could enlighten me into exactly what you meant by 1 and 3. As far as I know, I have not come across a book about the favourite-longshot bias that is written by a Stephen. The only ones I know of would be the book by Vaughan-Williams (so is this you?) and my own. There are certainly countless journal papers on the subject but not books, as far as I know. As for bowing to your "system" I do believe I have never come across your system and am certainly unware of trying to copy anbody's interpretation. What I do recall is studying my own data and making my own findings, and then researching the existing academic literature to support these findings for the purposes of my book. You can reach me on joseph@football-data.co.uk or you can make your reply in the forum thread and address the points that I have raised here, and the point that libi71 has raised also.
  8. Re: Soccer Hot Favourites System ( at +2% ) Excellent comments in the last few posts. I will try to address them, although DataPunter has pretty mcuh already done it for me. Allways a problem with any system I guess, however, this is why I don'k we'll be killing the goose. 1) There are hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of online punters. 2) To date I suspect only about 500 to a 1000 of them are aware of what I'm doing, or have independently figured it out for themselves (that inlcudes a few academics like Vaughan Williams), or believe that it has any merit. 3) Of those, perhaps a third have given more than a passing look at the system, and that's mostly those on my mailing list, plus others that have taken an interest in this thread. 4) Of those, I suspect maybe half or more will eventually ditch the system, either because of a bad run and question why anyone would be mad enough to bet £1 to win 10p, or because they think 2 to 4% ROI is simply a waste of time. 5) This will leave a hard core of followers, perhaps a 100 to 200 who will follow this system to the death. 6) The effect of this will certainly be that bookies will more readily shorten odds when some big stakes have been placed, meaning many will miss out. However, there are usually other bookies that get close to the best odds. 7) What won't happen is a significant shift in the way bookie price markets simply because of the numbers we're talking about above. For every one committed backer of this system, there will be 2 or 3 dropouts, 3 to 4 non-believers, and 10,000 never heard ofs. Of the 10,000, probably half or more will forever want to back an underdog because it's what makes betting fun (chasing the lure of the big win, I should know, I do it too). And it's this that drives the market inefficiency (pricing bias), or at least one major factor. The upshot of all that is that no matter how much I try to convert people to this system, there will always be so so many otheres that will never know, or not be interested. Additionally, the fact that a positive ROI can be made on betfair alone, where I would have expected the shrewdness of punters to deliver fair odds shows that even the shrewdest of punteres still can't bring themseleves to accept the idea that backing very short prices makes sense, which what creates the inefficient market in the first place, seemingly even at betfair. Good question. In fact the the scheme of things I make almost nothing from the 1X2Betting.co.uk memberships in comparison to other income sources. The reason I charge is, well, obviously to score a little financial reward, but largely prevent too many people reading the system. Yes, this contradicts everything I said above, but giving it away freely makes the likelihood of bookies taking that little bit extra notice more probable, and also means that if thousands of members were following the system, only a very tiny percentage would get the best price. Indeed, I strongly believe that any tipster should limit his clientelle to no more than a few hundred (although I'll probably go and break that rule too ;-))
  9. Re: Soccer Hot Favourites System ( at +5% ) Hi zbrochu Sorry for not replying sooner. I tend not to check my PL private message a lot, although I've sent you one. Always better to get me on the e-mail, joseph@1x2betting.co.uk or joseph@football-data.co.uk :)
  10. Re: Veresov Value System(Give it a try)!! according to your system, which may or may not be accurate. Do you have an historical betting record that would lead one to believe that your assessment of 50% being the probaility that West Ham or Preston will win is an accurate assessment?
  11. Re: Making the Martingale System Work Suppose your average redhot favourite price was 1.2. Suppose you aim to win 1 unit for every play, and when you lose, you aim to recover the previous loss(es) and win the 1 unit profit. For odds of 2, the stake progression is simple. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 etc. For odds of 1.2, the stake progression is: 5, 30, 180, 1080, 6480 Basically, the approrpriate Martingale multiplier (assuming all you bet odds are the same each time) is simply odd/(odds-1), where odds is in European decimal notation. With my system you are usually betting on several selections at once so to make a Martigale staking plan work, you'd probably have to have about 5 of them running in parallel. However, assuming that one could back the selections one after the other, it's easy to see that 2 losers on the trot lands you in deep sh.it. Suppose your first 5 unit stake equates to £50, the third 180 stake is £1,800. I'm not sure how many times there have been more than 2 losers on the trot, and given that several bets are usually placed at the same time. From memory the worst day was 4 losers out of 7. I ran a 1000 iteration simulation to test a +5% yield system with odds of 1.20 for every bet, a 250 bet sequence, and starting stakes (i.e. the first stake and the stake after a win) of 1 unit. Staking progression is: 1, 6, 36, 216, 1296, 7776, 46656 etc. Based on the simulation, the probability of your maximum stake being one of these in a 250 bet sequence (roughly one season) is: 1, 0% 6, 2% 36, 62% 216, 30% 1296, 5% higher than this, much less than 1%. Your seasonal expected profit is going to be 43.75 units, or (1.05/1.20)*(1.2-1)*250, yet in almost every season you're going to have to stake almost this much (and sometimes much more) at least once (or more usually more than once). Basically we can assume that in the very best case scenario, having to stake 216 means you've gone bankrupt, so the chance of total failure is at least one third. Regardless of this, if your 1 point = £10, then often you're going to have problems getting a £2,160 bet on at the advised price simply because the bookie won't take the stake. That's assuming you've got the balls to place it in the first place. And all for a projected seasonal profit of 43.75*£10 = £437.50 But as I said before, why bother applying a disaster like Martingale to a proven level stakes plan that delivers 10 winning months out of 12 and an 85 to 90% chance that you'll finish the season ahead. Simply bet £100 level stakes and you've got your family a Carribbean holiday at little risk.
  12. Re: Making the Martingale System Work Don't do it, Sco. I can show you a simple mathematical example of why Martingale won't ever work in the long run. If you can get an edge over the bookmaker, then you don't need Martingale anyway. If you can't, then give up betting, or bet just for the fun of it. Martingale breaks the 2 most important rules in gambling: don't gamble more than you can afford ot lose (ultimately you have to after long losing runs) and don't chase losses (intrinsic to the system). You have been warned. ;)
  13. Re: joe Thanks David. Anything you want explaining just mail me. :)
  14. Re: "How To Earn A Living From Football Betting"... Hit, read back this sentence a few times and soon you will realise how, if that figure is true, he has made that much. ;);) Clue: he doesn't need to bet ;);) One day when I'm wealthy enough I will take all these con men to court and win. Until then, the best advice, as 2damnhype says, is don't buy it. Buy my book instead :D In all seriousness though, I would never claim to make anyone rich buy reading my material. But what I would claim is: I don't bullshit You will only get valuable information from me. Poppy on e-bay is a sh.it of the highest order, the stuff in the book wouldn't be worth wiping your arse with. I know, because I've seem countless similar material, even reviewed some of it. All crap, could be condensed into 3 pages for the novice gamble and will not make you a single dime long term. The only credit I can give him is he got the nouse to make a seriously large wad from fools prepared to be suckered by the advertising. However, I could never sleep at night behaving like this, and when he meets his maker he'll get a damn good seeing to for being so immoral.
  15. Re: A new Intelligent Roulette System Where do I buy it Andric? This looks amazing. 97% strike rate. Fantastic. This is what I have been looking for. How much is it? Do I pay you? Please advise.
×
×
  • Create New...