Shy10ck Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Just a statement open for discission. Two football matches, 50% winning chance each, and odds 2,2 each (10% value) With a stake of 100 you win as singles, (2,2 x 100 x 2) x 50% = 220 you win as double, (2,2 x 2,2 x 200) x 25% = 242 Come with your ideas, opinions or thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moggis Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles I hope you dont mind,I am around for today so I would like to point out that if you have an edge then you would be foolish not to bet in doubles ,trebles and even accas. Its the same reason why bookies love people who do multiples-cos they generally make more money from them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchicore_saint Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles Once you go into trebles I find things get messy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy10ck Posted September 5, 2011 Author Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles I am not sure what you mean. Multiples = Accus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles The correct way to back them would be with singles (assuming 50%) do win as you are guaranteed 20pts profit With the doubles you could realistically still end up with nothing. edit ( I should have added backing just 2 bets at a time) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moggis Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles yeah,by multiples I mean any bet thats not a single. funnily enough Barry,who posted on the other thread last night got a 9-way acca a couple of weeks ago,and when he told me the market that he had bet on I did a perm of any 3from 5,any 4 from 5 and all 5 the next time it was available...and they all won. I had looked at the stats and in this particular market,over the last 3 years,80%of all games had more than 2.5 goals!! NEXT season I shall be betting 1000s on this market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moggis Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles in multiples,natch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapdash Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles It's true that, if you have an edge, then multiples will give you a higher ROI. But that doesn't mean they're better. Multiples will have higher risk/variance, and that more than outweighs the increased ROI. If you just increased your stakes on the singles to get the same expected profit as with the multiples, then you would (obviously!) have the same expected profit as with the multiples, but your level of risk would be lower in the long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy10ck Posted September 5, 2011 Author Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles I hope you dont mind,I am around for today so I would like to point out that if you have an edge then you would be foolish not to bet in doubles ,trebles and even accas. Its the same reason why bookies love people who do multiples-cos they generally make more money from them... If we agree multiples = accas, what is your point then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moggis Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 weeeellll,the person who wrote what is arguably the best-received soccer-betting book ever actually only ever does trebles or even 4 or 5 way bets... whats my point? if you have an edge dont bet in singles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy10ck Posted September 5, 2011 Author Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles The correct way to back them would be with singles (assuming 50%) do win as you are guaranteed 20pts profit With the doubles you could realistically still end up with nothing. edit ( I should have added backing just 2 bets at a time) I dont agree. 8 matches, 2,2 odds and 50% winning chance, stake = 100 pr match 8 singles = 8 x 100 x 2,2 = 1760. You win 50% = 880, = 80 profit (880-800) 4 doubles = 4 x 200 x 2,2 x 2,2 = 3872. You win 25% = 968, = 168 profit (968-800) Betting the same 8 matches, you gain a profit 88 if you bet them as doubles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles whats my point? if you have an edge dont bet in singles But you are presuming that you will hit the theoretical 25% of doubles. What if all your doubles are win x lose you still are getting your 50% sr but not as doubles.... POP bank gone. On paper and theoretically it looks good in reality not so good :ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy10ck Posted September 5, 2011 Author Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles It's true that, if you have an edge, then multiples will give you a higher ROI. But that doesn't mean they're better. Multiples will have higher risk/variance, and that more than outweighs the increased ROI. If you just increased your stakes on the singles to get the same expected profit as with the multiples, then you would (obviously!) have the same expected profit as with the multiples, but your level of risk would be lower in the long term. You are right that the variance is higher for multiples, but please show me how you will increase your stakes on singles and have the same profit as for multiples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy10ck Posted September 5, 2011 Author Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles But you are presuming that you will hit the theoretical 25% of doubles. What if all your doubles are win x lose you still are getting your 50% sr but not as doubles.... POP bank gone. On paper and theoretically it looks good in reality not so good :ok It is as good in reality as in theory. You could say, that you are sacrifying good value 75% of the time, but in return you 25% of the time, is aloud to accumulate the value with the same money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles I dont agree. 8 matches, 2,2 odds and 50% winning chance, stake = 100 pr match 8 singles = 8 x 100 x 2,2 = 1760. You win 50% = 880, = 80 profit (880-800) 4 doubles = 4 x 200 x 2,2 x 2,2 = 3872. You win 25% = 968, = 168 profit (968-800) Betting the same 8 matches, you gain a profit 88 if you bet them as doubles. Singles = 4*100*2.2= 880 - stake 800 = 80 profit Doubles Personally I thought that there were 28 possible doubles in 8 singles (I may be wrong but I dont think so) Wouldnt that make it 28.57 (800/28) per double (not 200) 4 correct would give you 6 doubles 2.2*2.2*28.57*6 = 829.67 - stake 800 = 29.67 Singles = 80 profit Doubles = 29.67 profit Hmmmm 1 of us is wrong somewhere :ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy10ck Posted September 5, 2011 Author Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles Singles = 4*100*2.2= 880 - stake 800 = 80 profit Doubles Personally I thought that there were 28 possible doubles in 8 singles (I may be wrong but I dont think so) Wouldnt that make it 28.57 (800/28) per double (not 200) 4 correct would give you 6 doubles 2.2*2.2*28.57*6 = 829.67 - stake 800 = 29.67 Singles = 80 profit Doubles = 29.67 profit Hmmmm 1 of us is wrong somewhere :ok I am not talking permutation. I think that is where you go "wrong". 8 singles, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8. 4 doubles, (1,2), (3,4),(4,5) and (7,8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
froment Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles :loon I also had the idea something was wrong with math, but couldn't figure out what. Now, you two seem to look things from different point of view! Monkey Nest is indeed correct about number of doubles, 28; but Shy10ck didn't have that idea - out of 8 matches he places ONLY four doubles; then one out of those four doubles should be winning (that's why he calculates with 25%, 1/4, not 1/28) - possible outcomes of doubles are Won - Won Won - Lost Lost - Won Lost - Lost, which gives his figures correct... :unsure Edit - Shy10ck was typing faster than me, sorry for outdated post now... :p Quite interesting thread btw! :ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy10ck Posted September 5, 2011 Author Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles You are right Froment, that was what I meant and so is Monkey Nest with the 28. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles Are you real or taking the piss 4 doubles, (1,2), (3,4),(4,5) and (7,8) How do you manage to get the correct 4 pairs from the 8 selections without perming ? Are you some sort of superstar ? Why should one be correct 1 wins 2 loses 3 wins 4 loses 4 loses 5 wins 7 wins 8 loses Fck nows where six went Your wrong just trying to worm your way out of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moggis Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 looks like this thread has got legs... regardless of the maths,in the end it comes down to personal choice and how much risk you want to take. Plus,theres the excitement factor. Not being funny,but if I was a woman,I wouldnt wanna sleep with a guy who only bets singles....:unsure although,once I had married acca man,I might well encourage him to bet singles only(£5 a time odds on):D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy10ck Posted September 5, 2011 Author Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles Call it permutation if you like, up to you. But match (7,8) does not have to have odds (be playable), when you bet match (1,2). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles The least you can guarantee to get 2 from 8 if 4 correct is 7 doubles So before you start telling people they are wrong get your own facts in order first 1-2 1-7 2-7 3-5 3-8 4-6 5-8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
froment Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles How do you manage to get the correct 4 pairs from the 8 selections without perming ? That was confusing me in the beginning; the way I see it, he doesn't place all available doubles - in that case your math is correct; he rather places "consecutive" doubles, and theoretically, he wins every fourth one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles Call it permutation if you like, up to you. But match (7,8) does not have to have odds (be playable), when you bet match (1,2). :rollin SIGH 1 born every day :eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles That was confusing me in the beginning; the way I see it' date=' he doesn't place all available doubles - in that case your math is correct; he rather places "consecutive" doubles, and theoretically, he wins every fourth one.[/quote'] But he can also end up with nothing so he hasnt got an edge. Thats what I said in my first post. Hes so full of it Ill just leave him to it Horses and water springs to mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy10ck Posted September 5, 2011 Author Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles The least you can guarantee to get 2 from 8 if 4 correct is 7 doubles So before you start telling people they are wrong get your own facts in order first 1-2 1-7 2-7 3-5 3-8 4-6 5-8 I have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. Guarantee? and telling people they are wrong? Explain please, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
froment Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles you win as singles, (2,2 x 100 x 2) x 50% = 220 you win as double, (2,2 x 2,2 x 200) x 25% = 242 But at the end of the day, this math says that bigger the acca you have, bigger the profit you made: numerator contains exponent of your odds (2.2), and denominator contains exponent of true odds (2.0 ->> 50% = 1/2^1; 25% = 1/2^2, etc.); you said you have edge, your odds always higher than true odds, so numerator will rise faster than denominator, and at, let's say, 12 fold, you would get return of (1 * 2.20 ^ 12 * 1.200) / 2.00 ^12 = 3.766,11 units for profit of 2.566,11 units, while 12 singles would return only (12 * 2.20 * 100) / 2.00 = 1.320 units, for profit of only 120 units. So I would say, this math doesn't prove superiority of accas over singles! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moggis Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Paul Steele wrote the classic soccer betting book"profitable football betting".......... and he advocates trebles,4-way,5-way and even the occaisional 6-way bet! on the other hand,I have no doubt that one of the most respected betting tipsters,Kevin Pullein,would turn deathly pale if you were to mention doing multiple bets then again his most popular tip is "no bet"-usually after half a page of analysis.. (doubt whether he got much "action" when he was young) especially in antepost markets,but I will say no more about that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy10ck Posted September 5, 2011 Author Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles But at the end of the day, this math says that bigger the acca you have, bigger the profit you made: numerator contains exponent of your odds (2.2), and denominator contains exponent of true odds (2.0 ->> 50% = 1/2^1; 25% = 1/2^2, etc.); you said you have edge, your odds always higher than true odds, so numerator will rise faster than denominator, and at, let's say, 12 fold, you would get return of (1 * 2.20 ^ 12 * 1.200) / 2.00 ^12 = 3.766,11 units for profit of 2.566,11 units, while 12 singles would return only (12 * 2.20 * 100) / 2.00 = 1.320 units, for profit of only 120 units. So I would say, this math doesn't prove superiority of accas over singles! My mission is not to prove that accas is superior to accas overall. Accas can have so high a variance that you never will cash in. My mission was only to point out, that if you have found value in fx 4 bets, you can with favour play them as 2 doubles instead of 4 singles. You can also, as moggis suggest, play them 4 right on. With higher profit, but with to high variance for my taste. I think I, as a single bettor, should start to use accas reguarly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moggis Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Re: Accumulators superior to singles wow,100 posts!!!:cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.