The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

[The Saint]

The lower the odds' date=' the higher the stakes.[/quote'] I'd argue that is in fact the opposite if what u should do... Sorry I can't add any flesh to the bones at the moment :(

[The Saint]

I'd argue that is in fact the opposite if what u should do... Sorry I can't add any flesh to the bones at the moment :(

Still can't get on a computer so am gonna have to wing it on phone... Surely the amount u stake should depend on the edge u hav rather than the price... Your percieved edge anyway. Here is an extreme example... If u make Man U a 1/2 shot and u are offered 4/6 do you get involved and for how much? If your offered evens then you're probably more inclined to play... Lets just say (in a fantasy world) that your offered 4/1!!! Surely your likely to have more on at that price than u would have done at 4/6? To be fair and transparent, I back to level stakes as punting large on horse outsiders kills me in the head!!

[Fedar]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Still can't get on a computer so am gonna have to wing it on phone... Surely the amount u stake should depend on the edge u hav rather than the price... Your percieved edge anyway. Here is an extreme example... If u make Man U a 1/2 shot and u are offered 4/6 do you get involved and for how much? If your offered evens then you're probably more inclined to play... Lets just say (in a fantasy world) that your offered 4/1!!! Surely your likely to have more on at that price than u would have done at 4/6? To be fair and transparent, I back to level stakes as punting large on horse outsiders kills me in the head!!

I don't agree here. If you have a team priced at 5.0, for which you believe the real price should be 4.0, this should be considered huge edge - practically 20%. With all due respect, I will never put high stakes on a 5.0 (or 4.0 in my perception) bet - it is still very unlikely to come through. You put high stakes at lower prices, if you have that edge - than you have an already high probability assigned by bookies, made even higher by your own perception, information, knowledge. For instance, during the international qualifiers, there was a very popular bet here - "San Marino not to score", which at early prices was around 1.20-1.22. Most punters here considered this was way overpriced because of stats and because they watch games of San Marino and knew how pathetic they are and what kind of miracle they need to score goals. Hence, according to the punters, the real price for "San Marino not scoring" should be around 1.020. This is a huge edge in the lowest probability segment and it justifies a very high stake and this been has been rock solid so far. In another example, most of us here considered price of 1.90-2.00 for United to beat Liverpool way too high. The opinion of the majority was that there is very huge class gap and this price is purely based on stereotypes about the big derby leveling chances. We were right - United indeed was very dominant and judging from the run of game, the price for home win should have been not more than 1.60. Still, putting very high stakes here would have been dangerous, because we are not talking about the highest probability and there is more variance involved here (I call it luck factor). And indeed, although United was way better then Liverpool, in the end it could have easily turned into a draw, after Liverpool scored one lucky and was close to another in the last minutes. So, regardless of the edge, you cannot go very high in stake if the probability is not really solid, otherwise you risk a lot. The only exception here is under "special circumstances", where your edge is abnormally huge. I had such example last spring in the local league, where the leader had an away game for which the bookies had priced away -1.5 handicap at 2.30. However, I knew that the home team announced they are going to play only with junior players (kids aged 15-16) as a form of protest against unfavorable referee treatment. From my experience with local football, I know that this is just another way to give away the victory to a friendly team, without having to play too much of a theater on the field. I don't know for what reason, but the bookies did not react much to these news and kept the price. I had real edge over them and went with the biggest stake I have had so far on a -1.5 away handicap. The final score of the game was 0-7, and it could have been easily double digits.

[Jase82]

Don't you have to work on the average odds you take over the course of xxxxx amount? Rather than looking at individual bets? I think the approach is different between the Saint and Fedar here too, as horse racing will often involve backing big prices, where as the majority of football bets are using average odds of 2 - 3. Or most punters that would back long shots probably wouldn't risk a huge amount each bet. It's all about risk for me as a lot of punters see short priced favourites as having extremely low risk, when its actually the opposite IMO.

[Fedar]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Don't you have to work on the average odds you take over the course of xxxxx amount? Rather than looking at individual bets? I think the approach is different between the Saint and Fedar here too, as horse racing will often involve backing big prices, where as the majority of football bets are using average odds of 2 - 3. Or most punters that would back long shots probably wouldn't risk a huge amount each bet. It's all about risk for me as a lot of punters see short priced favourites as having extremely low risk, when its actually the opposite IMO.

I personally always look at individual bets. Looking at average odds over course of time makes theoretical sense, but in real life it is about each individual bet and is it worth taking it. Even when I have a strategy to follow with my bets one particular team for which I have seen they systematically perform better than odds, I still take an individual approach to each game. This means that if for the particular game I feel they are weakened (missing players, mid-week football exhaustion, inconvenient opponent), I don't take the bet, regardless that "on average" it is good to back this team. The average trend does not have much to do with an individual bet which has its own complexity and constraints. You say that "a lot of punters see short priced favourites as having extremely low risk, when its actually the opposite IMO". You are right that there is psychological phenomenon involved here and it is about mis-perception of actual risk when you bet on a low risk - low stake game, but you don't realize that if you bet on the same game three times in a row (to break even), then the risk is actually much higher than the individual bet. Maybe this is what you meant Jase, when you mentioned the average odds. However, I still believe in individual approach to each bet, it is just that at low odds you have to evaluate the actual risk involved in the light of the price assigned by bookies. Nevertheless, a similar psychological phenomenon of risk misperception exists also with the long shots. It is that with long shots you put less money and when you hit a winner, you collect bigger earnings, hence people tend to over-value the won money and under-value the lost ones, even if the latter exceed the former. The extreme example here is with big parlays which in essence are very long shots. Punters put on a regular basis a small amount of money on these parlays, so they tend to disregard the losses that accumulate slowly over time. And whenever they win, they win very big relative to their stake, and they have a delusional feeling that they are winning in the long run, when it is in fact the opposite. I personally tend to distance myself a bit from the major principles and axioms of value betting, where bets below 1.80-2.00 are taboo and very and unlikely odds are often considered "value" just because of individual perception of punter. I would take most bets where I see higher probability than price assigned, regardless of whether the price is low. In fact, I would rarely take a bet above 2.50, because I believe that value perception may get very polluted at too high price ranges. That's because almost any bet above 2.50-3.00 would require also significant contribution from the "luck factor" to come through. And I prefer to focus on things other than luck when considering value.

[The Saint]

I don't agree here. If you have a team priced at 5.0, for which you believe the real price should be 4.0, this should be considered huge edge - practically 20%. With all due respect, I will never put high stakes on a 5.0 (or 4.0 in my perception) bet - it is still very unlikely to come through. You put high stakes at lower prices, if you have that edge - than you have an already high probability assigned by bookies, made even higher by your own perception, information, knowledge. For instance, during the international qualifiers, there was a very popular bet here - "San Marino not to score", which at early prices was around 1.20-1.22. Most punters here considered this was way overpriced because of stats and because they watch games of San Marino and knew how pathetic they are and what kind of miracle they need to score goals. Hence, according to the punters, the real price for "San Marino not scoring" should be around 1.020. This is a huge edge in the lowest probability segment and it justifies a very high stake and this been has been rock solid so far. In another example, most of us here considered price of 1.90-2.00 for United to beat Liverpool way too high. The opinion of the majority was that there is very huge class gap and this price is purely based on stereotypes about the big derby leveling chances. We were right - United indeed was very dominant and judging from the run of game, the price for home win should have been not more than 1.60. Still, putting very high stakes here would have been dangerous, because we are not talking about the highest probability and there is more variance involved here (I call it luck factor). And indeed, although United was way better then Liverpool, in the end it could have easily turned into a draw, after Liverpool scored one lucky and was close to another in the last minutes. So, regardless of the edge, you cannot go very high in stake if the probability is not really solid, otherwise you risk a lot. The only exception here is under "special circumstances", where your edge is abnormally huge. I had such example last spring in the local league, where the leader had an away game for which the bookies had priced away -1.5 handicap at 2.30. However, I knew that the home team announced they are going to play only with junior players (kids aged 15-16) as a form of protest against unfavorable referee treatment. From my experience with local football, I know that this is just another way to give away the victory to a friendly team, without having to play too much of a theater on the field. I don't know for what reason, but the bookies did not react much to these news and kept the price. I had real edge over them and went with the biggest stake I have had so far on a -1.5 away handicap. The final score of the game was 0-7, and it could have been easily double digits.

I think the difference between us is that ur a football punter and I'm on horse racing... With your Man U vs Liverpool example (ignore the ridiculousness of this proposal) IF Man U were offered at 4/1 (bot gone wrong, Fred special whatever) then surely you'd be getting on as much as possible!! Their pre-game chance remains the same, there is no corruption as there is with horse racing but the value u r getting is greater.... Seems a no-brainer to me...

[Josh1568]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Yeah I always wondered what type of betting these so called professional gamblers engage in?Because in my opinion nobody is ever going to be a long term winner if backing in traditional bookmakers.It's just simple maths.If your not getting value you will never win in the long run.Simply like flicking a coin and getting 1.95 odds on either heads or tails.Eventually you will lose.Casino's have demonstrated this for years also.The house always has and edge' date='just like the bookmakers.[/quote'] I am one of these people. You are absolutely correct about the house having the edge and meaning you can never win in the long run. you are wrong however in thinking that the house has the edge with every sport and every bet type. I fell very ill a few years ago and like pretty much everyone on this site I decided to dedicate my time trying to find a way of consistently making money. I was bed bound for around a year and spent all day every day trying to achieve this 'dream'. After that long experimenting with every sport and every staking plan I came across my own strategy for sport betting which I have yet to come across on this site and I now make a living from gambling (a very good one at that). The route of it comes down to, as you say, having an edge on the house on every single bet. I have been discouraged from ever telling people what this is and I will not do so now but I will say that it is out there. No one may ever read this post but if you do. There is a sport on traditional bookmakers and within that sport there is a way of consistently beating the house and if you want to find it you will.

[pinkisntwell]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

I am one of these people. You are absolutely correct about the house having the edge and meaning you can never win in the long run. you are wrong however in thinking that the house has the edge with every sport and every bet type. I fell very ill a few years ago and like pretty much everyone on this site I decided to dedicate my time trying to find a way of consistently making money. I was bed bound for around a year and spent all day every day trying to achieve this 'dream'. After that long experimenting with every sport and every staking plan I came across my own strategy for sport betting which I have yet to come across on this site and I now make a living from gambling (a very good one at that). The route of it comes down to' date=' as you say, having an edge on the house on every single bet. I have been discouraged from ever telling people what this is and I will not do so now but I will say that it is out there. No one may ever read this post but if you do. There is a sport on traditional bookmakers and within that sport there is a way of consistently beating the house and if you want to find it you will.[/quote'] Can you give a hint on that strategy of yours? What sport is it about? Does it involve a computer program or can it be done by hand? How many bets per week does it give?

[littleal]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. after reading all that from you mug punters, it is no wonder i could trun 4 digit returns after only a few months..

[thecurlyone1]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

after reading all that from you mug punters' date=' it is no wonder i could trun 4 digit returns after only a few months..[/quote'] You should start a thread and enlighten all us mugs.

[Jase82]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

after reading all that from you mug punters' date=' it is no wonder i could trun 4 digit returns after only a few months..[/quote'] If you read all 6 pages you have my respect!

[Skittle]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Not too sure whether to poke my head over the parapet here, although I seem to manage it easily on the section next door { GH } so here goes. I've read the majority of the posts on here and seen a varied response as I would expect. Some of you will know of my threads next door and know that I operate very much in the 'gutter' price area. What is the driving force behind a decision to turn 'pro'? Is it need, desire, personal situation or any of the other possibilities? On a personal note my move into this area is driven by a medical situation close to home, enough said. This could be a small part, or a bigger part depending upon the circumstances, of the key to success. The reason/drive of why you are doing it is very important in the mind as it should help with the focus and may even make the job easier. With some people it could easily be the reverse though, we're all as different in the mind as we are in our betting. As mentioned elsewhere I don't like the term 'professional gambler' and would shy away from the terminology, preferring the simplicity of saying I was betting for a living. I hate the term 'gambler' as I feel there's a big difference between that and 'bettor'. In my view it really is the phrase and what's in peoples heads, the psyche. It comes with the all important patience and discipline theory although that doesn't always apply to some. It would depend upon an individuals approach to betting as there's a fair few options around and we're all different. For those who don't know I prefer to be backing the 1.01 shots and/or laying the 100/1 prices. There's always a few of these that can trip you up, as with any bet, but as well as using the old 'stats and research' route I believe in adding the 'gut feeling' side of things to my betting. Of course there are parameters to a 'system' that you would use as a guideline, but should these parameters be there to guide you or stop you doing a certain bet? They still apply regardless of the price range and have to be considered. Summing up, there's so many variables in the betting styles, the people themselves and not forgetting the 'drive' that there is no single simple answer. I'm sure there are other points I will have missed/forgotten here but I hope I've covered most of what I wanted to get across.

[MPLouis]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

I seem to manage it easily on the section next door { GH }

Sorry Skittle - what doesn 'GH' mean?? :unsure

[Al_Shrew]

Glory Hunt. Don Skittles is the Godfather of that corner of the forum ;)

[JohnPR]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Sorry Skittle - what doesn 'GH' mean?? :unsure

Glory Hole?

[Skittle]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Glory Hunt. Don Skittles is the Godfather of that corner of the forum ;)

Thank you for that accolade. :ok..............however, my youngest lad thinks you're barmy. :unsure

[Guest]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. My two cents (pence) I came into sports betting as a combination of 2 interests; football & statistical analysis. To begin with it was never about making money as such, obviously it is a motivator but I set out to enjoy myself and get the best possible yields that I could. I also wanted to prove some people who I knew wrong - they claimed to be 'experts' and I knew they were not, so I enjoyed challenging them to see who could deliver the best value over a season, etc. I have begun to take it more seriously now, although I am lucky to have a job (unemployment in the UK sucks) and actually look to get something out of this in a financial sense, maybe a holiday or whatever. I'm not going to bet away my savings, but if I can consistently make more than 5% a year (in reality it is a lot higher than this) then I'm beating what I'd get in the bank. It's a good starting point at least. I find a lot of the concepts behind the sports betting market fascinating, I did a lot of finance at university and a lot of things can be applied to one another. I'd like to work towards building some systems this year as well, trying to translate a knowledge of the market / gut feeling into a quantitative process. For me, the biggest turning point in terms of finding value was realising its not me vs the bookie, its me against the thousands of mug punters. PL has been a fantastic resource and told me almost everything I need to know that I haven't picked up through personal experience. There is something very satisfying about not only beating the over-round but making money on top of that as well. Anyway, I just want to say thanks to everyone on here for the support and help (and banter) and look forward to another successful season for everyone!

[MPLouis]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

For me' date=' the biggest turning point in terms of finding value was realising its not me vs the bookie, its me against the thousands of mug punters.[/quote'] It's all about getting an 'edge' over the market as a whole I think. Every 1% edge you have over the rest helps.

[horseburger]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Well, professional handicappers are a very special few However there are tonnes of Bonus hunters/ loophole finders. I myself have made £60,000 in over 3 years from betting. And to those that say accumulators are not value, well if theyre not, then your value or edge didnt exist in the first place. Accumulators multiply value just as easily as they multiply the overround.

[BetBouncer]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Just read this thread. One thing nobody has mentioned is the reality of statistical model based betting syndicates. I'm sure you have all heard of them - SmartOdds, Atass Sports, Football Radar, Gambit, StarLizard etc. These guys make millions, year in, year out. 250k in a season - they do that on 1 match. There is your proof!

[pinkisntwell]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Just read this thread. One thing nobody has mentioned is the reality of statistical model based betting syndicates. I'm sure you have all heard of them - SmartOdds, Atass Sports, Football Radar, Gambit, StarLizard etc. These guys make millions, year in, year out. 250k in a season - they do that on 1 match. There is your proof!

No, we have not heard of them. How did you learn about them?

[BetBouncer]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. You've been a member of a betting forum for 8 years and were not aware of the existence of betting syndicates? Just type those company names in to Google to find their websites. Only Gambit Research is not very explicit about what they do.

[lawalahmed]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. @BetBouncer, I search for these sites u mention but all these sites dont have subscription menu neither the previous result ? My question is how can one benefit from these sites and also how to subscribe to their service

[BetBouncer]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. You can't subscribe to their selections, they are betting syndicates, not tipsters. They exist to make money for themselves, not other people.

[lawalahmed]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. But then how did you know they make money from punting (betting) ?

[MPLouis]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

One thing nobody has mentioned is the reality of statistical model based betting syndicates. I'm sure you have all heard of them - SmartOdds' date=' Atass Sports, Football Radar, Gambit, StarLizard etc. These guys make millions, year in, year out. 250k in a season - they do that on 1 match.[/quote'] I haven't checked all these, but SmartOdds and Atass Sports are research companies - they provide information. They are not syndicates - http://www.smartodds.co.uk/About/Overview http://www.atass-sports.co.uk/who-we-are

[BetBouncer]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. Smartodds is the research company for Matthew Benham, owner of Brentford FC. ATASS (and Starlizard) do work for Tony Bloom, owner of Brighton FC. Type those names in to Google, there is even a Wall Street Journal article about them.

[MPLouis]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Smartodds is the research company for Matthew Benham, owner of Brentford FC. ATASS (and Starlizard) do work for Tony Bloom, owner of Brighton FC. Type those names in to Google, there is even a Wall Street Journal article about them.

I'm sure you're right about that - I was just pointing out that these companies aren't actually syndicates themselves - but gamblers and/or syndicates use them.

[Baccarat4life]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living. In fact i used to make a living from gambling. But i am not a bettor

[moggis]

Re: The reality of sports betting/trading for a living.

Still looking through the older threads, I know his initial nonsence is there somewhere. But have come across some belters on the way. From http://forum.punterslounge.com/threads/109665-Bairn-s-Value-Away-Wins Hmmn, a tad strange from a pro, he must have forgotten he had mentioned this earlier (from http://forum.punterslounge.com/threads/102626-How-to-beat-the-bookies-%96-a-value-betting-guide-%28inc-spreadsheet%29). Infact that whole thread just sums moggis up, as he has literally no idea about the concept of value. Just like he mentions in Bairds thread previously that he had no real knowledge of football. Hmmmn, intriguing.

Would anyone object if I albeit rather belatedly replied to some of the comments on this thread? I must admit this is the first time I've ever seen some of them.At the time I was dealing with the imminent death of my mother from Alzheimer's and feeling immense guilt for not visiting her enough etc etc and the last thing I needed was to read comments I expected to be criticising me. I realise that it's possible that one or two posters might not see this so I will endeavour to be as fair as possible. Id like to start with Scottys statement that I have literally no idea about the concept of value if that's ok? Ok,here goes.... When betting on 90 minute markets you need to find value. There. Is that good enough? The thing is though is that I only bet on long-term markets.Have done for 15 years now. And apparently ,even though I am possibly the only person on this whole forum who only bets on long term markets, it seems that I HAVE to agree ( by which I mean that otherwise I am ridiculed) with all those people who have NOT spent 15 years betting solely on long-term markets!!! Hmmm. Heh ho.Have it your way. The bets I do on long-term markets are apparently value.No problem. Now at first I wasn't quite sure what point he was making when quoting me concerning the tipster. But I think he might be saying that why would I subscribe to a tipping service especially one apparently giving value tips if I am as I say a pro?And also someone who has said that his bets aren't value? To which my answer is why not? Apart from anything else if I discover a tipster who s any good I can then tell my friends about him. I don't do the bets myself as I have very little interest in betting on short -term markets.However I DO have an interest in pretty much all aspects of soccer betting. As for me saying that I have no real knowledge of football it's a pity I wasn't given the actual quote but anyway this did bring a wry smile to my face. I certainly don't need much knowledge of football to profit from betting on long- term markets. But I have been a football fan since the age of 7 and I'm now well and truly middle-aged so if I said it I was probably comparing myself to the people on here who really really study stats etc etc Okie dokie that will do for my first reply I think.