Saturday, 15 March 2014

Mixed Messages

On Friday, Peter Nordsted emailed a link to his Premier Betting Account Subscribers, the first two selections being:

Less than 24 hours later, and we read on Twitter:
The preview concludes with "So my recommended trade for this game is Over 2.5 goals at around 2.00."

So what changed from Friday to Saturday? The Unders (whether 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 or whatever) is either value or it isn't. The Under 1.5 can't be value yet the Over 2.5 also be value, so I just don't see the rationale of recommending one bet to subscribers and the exact opposite to another audience.

Peter has also been Tweeting a link to a post titled Using a Patient Approach to Profit in the Betting & Trading Markets. Rather ironically, the post includes these words:
In the betting world there are literally hundreds of tipsters and tipping sites on the internet offering tips and systems that it is no real surprise that the average punter simply does not know which way to turn and consequently they end up making poor decisions and losing focus.
It's hardly surprising that the average punter doesn't know which way to turn when the same source says diametrically opposite things! He continues:
The bookmakers obviously know this and there is nothing more they love than a confused and ill-disciplined punter who is flitting from one system to another in search of the so called Holy Grail.
And there is probably nothing a subscriber loves less than paying for advice that says "Back Heads" and then reading a preview recommending backing Tails because in the last ten spins dating back to 1909, Tails came up seven times.

Using historical data such as this is, as I have pointed out before, useless. It's a curiosity, but all it tells you is that in the past, 7 of 10 spins were tails. The mistake some people make is to believe that somehow past head to head results are a clue to the future, which it isn't.

Football matches are not completely random in the same way that a coin toss is of course, but what sense does this type of paragraph make:
As far as goals are concerned and with the line set at 2.5, then we have some fairly mixed stats here. When looking at both sides last 10 respective home and away matches, 14 of the 20 matches contained 3 or more goals. However when we look at Spurs recent home form, 10 of their last 15 home games have seen 2 or less goals. When looking at Arsenal’s recent general away form then in 14 matches this season only 5 have seen 2 or less goals scored. Over 2.5 goals can be backed at around 1.97 and looks to offer value.
All matches are not the same. Who were those 20 or 15 or 14 matches against, and how / why were those sequences selected? Rather important to know, you might think, and was the result or the goals scored a fair reflection of the game?

"Looks to offer value"?  What does that mean exactly? To make such a statement and be taken seriously, Peter must have his own price on the Over 2.5 goals market. What is it?

Personally, I have the Unders priced at 1.82 (the market is currently at U/O 1.945/2.05 so the value is on this side in my opinion, although not by much). Over 2.5 has drifted, so presumably represents even bigger value now.

There's a good chance I will be wrong of course, one result proves nothing, but drawing conclusions from irrelevant data over a random period of time doesn't seem to be like a long-term profitable strategy, and that is the key to making a profit. Patience should be a given, but the danger is that it takes too long to realise that your edge is a negative one.
The best part of the post was actually the comment from Richard:
Wise words as usual Pete!
I’m all in favour of a patient approach and I’m a firm believer that short term results are basically completely random. That said, I’m not a big fan of developing “systems” and “sticking with them through good and bad”.
The reason I don’t like “systems” is because I think they imply a one dimensional approach. Some people seem to think that bookies are unaware of these systems and that some generalised tactic will work across the board.
To use an example, I know of a misguided tipster that thinks that betting very short priced over 1.5 goal bets in leagues with loads of goals (ie. Dutch Jupiler) will somehow make a long term profit even though he knows nothing of the league other than the goal averages, his approach is purely statistical.
His problem is that he believes profit is about winning bets (and avoiding losing bets) but he has absolutely no concept of value. He plods away betting 1.20 shots (that probably should be 1.25 shots) and he justifies to himself the system by bragging about his “hit rate” but never mentions his actual profit or ROI. His attachment to his system has trapped him and it actually prevents him from seeing the bigger picture.
The only “system” any punter/trader/tipster will ever need is a system of odds compiling that generates true odds that are genuinely accurate, if you know the true odds, you bet when the price available is of the desired margin of value. The only other thing you need to worry about is a staking plan. That’s it, its pretty simple. systems are over-rated!
My other concern is that if you are recommending sticking with a system for an extended time, the danger is that if the system is actually no good, it will take quite a hit to your time and bank before you realize its a loser. Better to check the prices of your betting selections at Kick-Off and compare to the prices you took. If your selections are regularly getting smashed then you are doing something right. If everything is drifting like a barge you probably need to go back to the drawing board.
One dimensional and simplistic systems do not work long-term, and as Richard says, you need to know the 'true' odds and bet only when you have "the desired margin of value". If your prices prove to be correct, then you use Kelly to determine the stake size, and if your level of confidence in your prices isn't there, 2% is a reasonable figure.  

3 comments:

Pete Nordsted said...

Please see my comments on a previous post regarding the same subject http://green-all-over.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/red-all-under.html

Pete Nordsted said...

With reference to the paragraph on goals in the Spurs v Arsenal game It should have read 'when looking at both sides last 10 respective home and away games to similar opposition.

This is an error on my part and I apologise for the confusion this may have caused.

Danny Murphy said...

Another tipster's confidence shattered!Isn't Pete's main sport Baseball??? In that case he should be able to take a bit of hardball from the Sarf London slayer.