Monday, 9 November 2009

Never Say Never

I don't know how often I have written about this, and I suspect it is more than once before, but one of the most ridiculous things I keep seeing in blogs or on betting forums is the notion that one should never back at odds-on.

This is absolute bollox. It makes no more sense than saying "never back at greater than 4/1" or for that matter "never back the home team".

As I've said before, and will no doubt say again, value can be found at any price, and there is nothing in mathematics that says this rule stops at evens. It's complete and utter nonsense.

Evens, or 2.0, simply means the implied probability is 50%. If the true probability is higher than this, back it, if it is less, lay it.

4/1 (5.0) means an implied probability of 20%. If the true probability is higher than this, back it, if it is less, lay it.

1/4 (1.25) simply means an implied probability of 80%. If the true probability is higher than this, back it, if it is less, lay it.

It's not rocket science.

I seriously question whether someone who affords this stupid rule any credibility at all should be betting. Probably not, since the concept of value clearly eludes them, and no one will be a long-term winner unless they are finding value.

It's hard enough finding value as it is without ruling out a large number of possibilities simply because they fall below an arbitrarily chosen number.

York City to beat Chester City - by 2. (Odds-on, but value...)


JS said...

No one can win long term backing odds on it's just common sense. Gambling is always for mugs and trading is the only way you can ever make money

Anonymous said...

LOL, who said irony was dead??

Anonymous said...


I'll ignore the first sentence in your comment and leave that for Cassini to address!

As for your second sentence, assume you had 10 gamblers in a room. Im assuming that given long enough, they'd all lose money? If so, who/where are they losing that money too? Arent those very people who are gambling with the gamblers (ie taking their bets) gambling as well? If not, why?


Anonymous said...

But as Peter Webb has blogged previously: "In short , it’s possible to be right but still lose money because your staking method is shot to bits."

Full post is here:

I'm no relation to Peter Webb nor do I use his products (!), just thought it might be of interest as it is relevant to the post. Not sure if it is bad form to link to a different blog in the comments field of another? If so, apologies.

JS said...

Hey Cassini I'm not sure if you noticed yet but there is an anonymous poster who is winding you up. I made him look rather stupid on my blog and prevented him from posting, ever since he's been using my initials and posting stupid things to try and get a reaction out of people. Just thought I would give you a heads up mate.