The "too good to be true" paradox

[Paparazzo]

Dear guys, I don't know if you experienced the "too good to be true" paradox... Let me go a bit in detail: I'm talking about a "valuebet" approach where is essential to calculate the fair odd to be compared to the market odd. I found, in various systems I'm testing, that if the expected advantage is above a certain level, it's better to bet the opposite selection (in an AH market only because the 1X2 market is tricky due to short DC odds) Let me show an example : Man U- Southampton selcetion 1 AH-0.5 Fair odd 1.35 Market odd 1.83. At first glance one should happily bet ManU with a huge advantage : (1.83-1)/(1.35-1)= 237% ... Well strange to say, but when the advantage is above approx. 170% maybe is worth to consider avoid betting or just bet the opposite! There can be many explanations, but right now I'm just willing to see if this happens also with other bettors, to enhance my idea and maybe built a filter or another strategy into the main strategy. Thank you all. Cheers

[De Graaf]

The most likely explanation for this kind of circumstances is that your calculation is wrong. That kind of discrepancies between fair and market odd seldom exist. Just a suggestion, hope you don't find it rude.