Understanding Odds

Rich had a comment on my "For Entertainment Purposes Only" post.

Discussing "value" as related to the probability of the result of a sporting event shows a fundamentally flawed understanding of what the odds on offer means. I quote "Odds makers will tell you their job is not to predict an event's outcome but, rather divide the public as to who it thinks will win. "When the oddsmakers have set a point spread properly," said Howard Martin, a noted expert on how odds are calculated, "there will be an equal number of people betting each side of the line."

Although that comment refers to US sports spreads, it's equally true of all odds.

I have to disagree, since it all rather depends on the source of the odds.

The odds you will find at a US Sportsbook or a UK bookmaker have a large built-in over-round which is not found on betting exchanges. No one would suggest that the price offered by a bookmaker could be translated directly into an implied probability, but when using prices from a betting exchange, you can often do this, especially in liquid markets. 

One study using the prices for the 2006 World Cup showed that "analysis of outright betting on the 2006 World Cup revealed that Betfair's book on the top twelve teams in the betting market was betting to an over-round of 100.92 against an average over-round of 112 elsewhere." 

Look at today's upcoming NFL game between the Baltimore Ravens and Kansas City Chiefs. A quick look at the current prices on offer from William Hill are 1.57 and 2.55 respectively, (102.91%) while on Betfair you can get 1.58 and 2.7 (100.33%). If you hold out for 1.59 and 2.72, the book becomes under-round. Betfair's implied probabilities for today's game have Baltimore at 63%, Kansas City at 37%. (At least William Hill know that Kansas City (a city) is the team's geographical location rather than Kansas (which is a state). I've written on this subject before, and it's pathetic that a company the size of Betfair can't get this right. And just so you all know, most of Kansas City isn't even in Kansas - it's in Missouri!)

Also, it's worth mentioning that a study by economist Steven D Levitt in 2004 actually showed that US sportsbooks do not set prices in the NFL to clear markets, as was commonly assumed, but set prices to maximize profits. "His data supported the theory that bookmakers are better able to predict both the outcomes of NFL games as well as bettors’ tendencies. This predictive superiority allows bookmakers to establish betting lines inducing uneven betting favoring the less likely outcome, increasing bookmaker profits despite the increased risk." I think it would be naïve to think that UK bookmakers didn't take a similar approach, at least in some sports.

Agreed that anyone who thinks that a bookmaker's odds reflect probability "shows a fundamentally flawed understanding of what the odds on offer mean", but the best prices offered on an exchange are, for the most part, from individuals who have no interest in building an over-round book.

Serie A / La Liga

Serie A and La Liga action today, and the single strong draw pick is Chievo Verona v Palermo. Three weaker draws are Osasuna v Getafe, Sampdoria v AS Roma and Cesena v Genoa.

Home value picks are AC Milan (1.61) v Udinese, Parma (2.0) v Cagliari, Lazio (1.42) v Lecce, Espanyol (1.89) v Real Zaragoza, and Racing Santander (2.0) v Sporting de Gijon.

If Manchester United v Liverpool were a league game, 1.72 is a value price on United. I'm in for a small punt, hoping the game is played as if it were an EPL match.

And Eddie Howe has a big decision to make. He is, of course, hugely popular at Bournemouth, and rightly so. He has turned Bournemouth around on a shoestring, and his loyalty to one club is something we don't see often these days, and now he has to decide whether to join a sleeping giant of the game, go to Charlton Athletic, or stay at Bournemouth. Three clubs currently within eight league places of each other. I hope he seizes the opportunity of a lifetime and comes to south London - SE25, not SE7.

Betting: For Entertainment Purposes Only

A refreshing response to my comment on the Expat Punter's post from earlier. I was hoping that it wouldn't be taken the wrong way, and Rob made a considered reply which deserves posting in full here.

You're spot on there when you say that you got the feeling it was published in a hurry. It was, kinda. To be honest I wanted to post something that wasn't just a few lines of text followed by a P&L and recent BF forum posts steered me towards that subject. Though it may seem like it my post wasn't designed to be an exercise in fishing but I'll bet there's plenty who have read it will think to the contrary.

There are many folk out there who are quick to proffer their advice to the newbies (like obtain value, staking plans etc) but I wonder just how many practice what they preach on a daily basis. I was discussing your post with a friend over breakfast and wondering how to respond without coming across as a total know nothing (since I've read and re-read my original post and I now realise I could have maybe written it a little differently).

I'm not advocating that you should dive into a market regardless of the price, far from it, but I do think that the whole concept of 'value' is basically subjective. One man's meat is another man's poison. You can still be a loser overall by obtaining (your own perceived) value IF your particular selection method sucks. Just because your selection wins doesn't mean that it was a value price. For me value has no bearing on the outcome whatsoever, all it does is maximise your actual betting bank balance IF your selection method does not suck.

The crux of all of this though lies in the attitude of the individual and what his reasons for betting are. The way I see it is that a very small percentage of people do this for a living - there's no such thing as a 'fun' bet for those people. The rest are made up of complete mugs, thrill bettors, hobbyists, wannabe pros, etc etc. For the majority it doesn't really matter if they are really obtaining value from one bet to the next as they aren't thinking in terms of being in it for the long haul as undoubtedly the professional punters do.

It was refreshing to read that you think that one can actually have an edge without being aware of what exactly it is. I think too many people think they possess this edge factor when in fact they don't. I personally don't claim to have anything Holy Grailish up my sleeve though there's days when I wish I did. One thing I have taken away with me from your post is that I can certainly do better that I currently am. If you started with a hundred quid and now pay PC then IT CAN BE DONE :-)

I think one of the biggest factors affecting our individual circumstances, good or bad, is basically down to that other giant in the world of betting advice - discipline. Without a disciplined approach to all this there's no amount of value, edges, or the like in the world that will keep us from drowning. I'd like to thank you for picking on me (kidding) as you've given me some food for thought. Best wishes and good luck.

Just a couple of comments before the Indianapolis Colts v New York Jets game gets underway. Agreed, that a winner doesn't mean the bet was value. Nor does a loser mean that the bet wasn't value. You could be offered 2-1 on a coin toss, and on a single spin you will win or lose 50% of the time, but 2-1 is a value price every time. A lot of people, especially older punters raised on horse-racing, fail to understand this. As for the majority of bettors being "complete mugs, thrill bettors, hobbyists, wannabe pros, etc etc. For the majority it doesn't really matter if they are really obtaining value from one bet to the next as they aren't thinking in terms of being in it for the long haul as undoubtedly the professional punters do", that's fine with me. As Mouldhouse said, anyone serious about making money from gambling needs all the above, and lots of them, because obviously, without losers, there would be no winners. Oh, and yes, we need discipline.

Saints Go Marching Out

With no Premier League games today, I assumed that there would be no selections for Peter Nordsted's Drawmaster system, but I was wrong. Rather oddly, he dipped into League Two for his picks, and probably wishes he hadn't. None of the three picks of Crewe Alexandra v Wycombe Wanderers, Southend United v Chesterfield and Stockport County v Gillingham finished drawn, and two of the three were decided by three goals or more - 3-0 and 1-5. Even if all three had been draws, I would still question the decision to force three selections for this system rather than just wait for a week. Anyway, the result is that having had just two blank weeks in the first eighteen of the season, the system has now come up empty three weeks in a row.

Also drawing a blank today were Football Elite, who had Real Sociedad at 3.0 to beat Sevilla. They led 2-1 at half-time, but lost 2-3.

The first NFL Wildcard play-off game is currently in progress, and the 1.22 Saints price I suggested was too short drifted out to 10.0, and I am 'green all over' after the early signs were for a straight run to 1.01 for the Saints. American Football games are seldom decided in the first quarter though, and while it's easy to panic when it seems all is lost, keeping a clear head and making rational decisions is the way to go, and it's a lot easier to do when your stake is 'sensible' and you can see the big picture.

d'Alambert

I didn't know until today that Stevenage Borough are now just Stevenage. A bit unfortunate when your nickname is "The Boro". This wasn't the only big change to their entry in my spreadsheet with their 'shock' victory over Newcastle propelling them to top spot in the League Two ratings. I'm still not convinced that I should transfer points between teams on cup days, because one result can make a big difference, but the big benefeciaries are teams that I seldom use the ratings to bet on anyway, and the teams that suffer probably shouldn't be losing at home to Notts County or at Stevenage anyway!

A good comment on my previous post about "Finding An Edge", which was a little provocative. I can be like that. Mouldhouse took the time to say a few things.

"The answer is that if you are profitable long-term, then you have an edge, whether you are aware of it or not. If you are not profitable long-term, then you do not have an edge."

Not necessarily a cause and effect thing. A small minority will have made money thanks to one decent score, with no edge whatsoever. Usually a multiple bet of course. Think "lottery ticket".

This is why I qualified my statement with 'if you are profitable long-term', and while a million pound lottery winner would (I would hope!) be profitable long-term, I rather meant to exclude such exceptions.

"No one serious about making money can be happy with a price that isn't value."

Again, not 100% accurate. Some of the biggest winning traders I know are constantly happy taking prices that are not value, because they know the markets they operate in, and know they will be able to sell those bets back at even worse value and lock in a green screen. I'm sure you must do this as well sometimes. I'm sure lots of winners have laid 1.0x for "insurance", knowing they are giving money away and that at the price they are giving away value, but happy to lock in a large gain on the event.

Yes indeed, but the key here is that your experience of the market tells you that the probability is high that you will be able to exit your position for a profit. I might lay at 1.05 not because I expect the layed selection to win, but because I am confident that I can exit at 1.1 at some point. Is 1.05 value to back or lay? If the bet goes on to win more than 95.24% of the time, then arguably it is. But what if 55% of the time it goes out to 1.1 before coming in to win?

"It is rather sad to read about people waiting for pay day before they can put their next deposit into their account, and then pulling funds out to pay for incidental expenses."

Yes, it is, but without those guys, you won't be winning on betfair. Without people like that in the long run you wouldn't be winning anywhere with people like that, because the sharks would eat each other on the exchanges, and the bookies wouldn't be profitable enough. Its one of those things about being a +EV player - its a nice feeling, but you are never going to be Robin Hood. Via the conduit of the middleman, be it betfair or the bookmaker, sadly you feed on the shortcomings and lack of ability of the rest of the pool. Doesn't stop me sleeping at night to be honest.

Fortunately for us, there seems to be no likelihood that optimism will conquer realism any time soon. Evidence such as the never-ending demand for Roulette and Lottery betting systems shows that logic takes a back-seat for many people. Or the idea that a funky staking system can somehow turn a losing system into a winning one.

Still, these people are in good company. Even the famed mathematician Jean le Rond d'Alambert famously erred in claiming that the probability that at least one head should appear in two consecutive tosses of a fair coin is 2/3 rather than 3/4.

Bank Edging Up

The latest post from The Expat Punter is titled Finding An Edge, and he writes:

The edge is that thing that you must possess that gives you an advantage over your fellow bettors in your chosen betting medium, be it football, horses, tennis or whatever. This is the thing that you absolutely must have if you are to survive over the longer term as a bettor.

So far so good. If you're backing coin tosses at evens, you have no edge - commission will erode your bank away. To make it worthwhile, you need an edge. He continues:

Personally I don’t think I have one but then again maybe I do but don’t realise it.

The answer is that if you are profitable long-term, then you have an edge, whether you are aware of it or not. If you are not profitable long-term, then you do not have an edge.

I know a couple of really good staking systems (for laying) that can be applied to pretty much any market – maybe they are an edge of sorts.

No - the stake cannot create an edge. Either a bet is value or it is not. The stake size has no effect on this. And laying is no different to backing.

I read a lot about people moaning over their failure to capitalise on a particular event (a goal scored or whatever) because they were waiting for a price and the event occurred before their price was reached. This ties in with another biggie subject and that is the contention that you must always seek value if you are to succeed. So while you are sitting waiting for your ‘value’ price to appear a goal gets scored and you miss out. Or better yet you get your value price and the horse falls at the first fence. My take on value is that if you are happy with a price, regardless of whether it is truely a value price, then step in. I would say that the vast majority of punters, and I count myself here, could not price a market to save their lives so any thoughts of finding value goes straight out the window.

No one serious about making money can be happy with a price that isn't value. If your 'value' price is accurate, and one would hope that it is otherwise you'll be easy prey for those on the exchanges who know the true price, then why would you accept anything less? Never 'step in' unless a price is value. Well, not if you want to be a winner. My wife is from California where there are a number of casinos which are allowed to advertise on TV and radio. When a casino advertises that they have the 'loosest slots', they're not offering you value - they are saying that long-term, for every dollar you give us, we'll give you 90 cents back. If that's your attitude to betting, i.e. entertainment only, then don't wait for the value price, just take any price, and have fun.

Anyway, back to the subject. So, if the markets are so efficient that it’s impossible to gain an edge mathematically how else do we do it?

There is no other way - you find value or forget about betting as a money-making venture.

The form books are there for all to read, the racing press is available in every corner newsagents in the land. That nails the door shut there – if I can spot an unusual trend that proves profitable over a long term then so can the next guy who reads the same paper. Edge gone. It’s all very baffling if you ask me. I think those who genuinely do have some sort of leg up on the rest of us are the truly dedicated sort who actually do the legwork and work their arses off to find those little clues that the majority of us are too lazy to uncover. Either that or they have horseshoes up their jacksies.

It's all very baffling to me why people in 2011 are still obsessed with horse-racing. Yes, 25 years ago, horses and dogs, the football pools, Miss World and the General Election was about it for choice, but not today. We are spoilt for choice these days, and why anyone would think they have a better chance of finding the winner in a midweek race at some small track with twenty horses entered than in a two-outcome event like tennis, ice-hockey, darts, snooker, football (some markets), basketball, or whatever your preference is, just isn't logical. To be profitable from horse-racing, you need to be in the know, and if you're not in the know, then the time spent looking at the form for 20+ runners could be much better spent looking at other sports. Yes, there is racing nearly every day, but so what? The great advantage we have is that we don't have to bet. We can wait for value.

I don’t usually proof read my stuff until it’s actually posted so the above might just be the biggest load of bollocks ever but it’s my load of bollocks and I offer it to you free of charge.

Yes, probably for the best, since I doubt that you'd be able to sell that advice!

Now, you might be thinking after having looked at my pathetic account balance that I know feck all so why listen to me but you’d be wrong. I know stuff, plenty of stuff, but right now I have to content myself with Mickey Mousery for a while until I can build a balance that I can actually do something with.

If it's taking too long to get the bank to build up, then perhaps you don't have that edge yet? If you have an edge, it doesn't take long to built up a bank plenty big enough for most purposes.

That’s another thing I see a lot – advice to the tune of ‘set aside some money and use it only for betting. Don’t use the betting bank for anything else’. That’s a great idea – build a massive betting bank and just have it sitting there growing bigger. Don’t bother to occasionally pay yourself some money to go and buy something – oh no, that would be sacrilege. Bollocks I say – make some money then pay yourself then make some more and repeat the process ad infinitum.

I think you've misunderstood somewhere along the line. The advice is not that you shouldn't ever pull money out and spend it on yourself, but that your betting bank should be initially seeded with money that you can afford to lose, and that you shouldn't be pulling funds out if you then need to put them back in later. Do you plant a seed and then keep digging it up every few days? Leave it alone! My initial deposit on Betfair was less than £100, (which evaporated to £21.40 at one time), and while I pull funds out to pay for things like weddings and vacations, I have never put more money back in. Indeed, had that initial deposit all been lost, I would have walked away from it all. I'd spent over a year trying different ideas, and if I hadn't found something that worked after that time, then it would probably have been smart to move on. If you have an edge, the bank will build itself, and if you don't have an edge, there are better ways to put your money to work. It is rather sad to read about people waiting for pay day before they can put their next deposit into their account, and then pulling funds out to pay for incidental expenses. Just leave the betting bank alone to build up and when it reaches the point where there is more than you need in there, withdraw some, and invest it elsewhere.

Anyway, I don't mean to pick on Mr Schofield. His blog is a lot more interesting than many out there, and I get the feeling that he published the above in something of a hurry.

Wildcard

A couple of winners yesterday, with AC Milan winning at 2.22 and Roma - Catania going Over 2.5 goals before half-time. I like those quick wins. Brescia disappointed by losing 1-2 at home to Cesena though, and Football Elite came up short with Recommended Bets Bologna and Lecce both failing to win.

A limited menu this weekend with France and Germany messing around with resting and a few friendlies, while in England we have the entertaining, but not for serious betting, FA Cup 3rd Round. So that leaves Spain and Italy, and of the three La Liga games on Saturday, two are weak draws with Barcelona too short at 1.28.

I think I shall be focusing on the NFL Wildcard play-offs this weekend. Two games on Saturday and two on Sunday and the schedule means one game at a time. Liquidity should be good, which means good trading pickings.

History shows that home field advantage is often no advantage at all, and "rest regularly leads to rust". Wild Card Weekend is traditionally the most unpredictable of the three rounds that comprise each conference's tournament. Since the current four-division format was instituted in 2002, the visiting and lower-seeded team has won 14 of the 32 opening-round matchups, or roughly 44 percent. Over the three most recent seasons, exactly half (6-of-12) of the Wild Card entries prevailed on the road and advanced to the next week.

So with that in mind, here are Saturday's games:

NFC: New Orleans Saints @ Seattle Seahawks: The Seahawks are a poor team, losing 7 of their last 10 games, scraping into the post-season by virtue of playing in the weakest division, and should lose to the current champions. They are getting 10.5 points, making them the biggest home underdog in play-off history. Having said that, the Saints aren't as good as last year but at 1.22, that's a little short for a pre-game back.

AFC: New York Jets @ Indianapolis Colts: Manning is a better QB than Sanchez, but the Jets have the advantage in the running game, rating fourth in the NFL, while the Colts are only 25th defending the run. Indianapolis are favourites at about 1.8. No pre-game play on this one, but if Manning is off his game, and the Jets are running riot, look to lay another home team. Even if the Colts go ahead, they have a habit of allowing backdoor covers if the handicap is your choice of poison. The spread is just 2.5 here, so this 'should' be the best trading game of the day.

Finally, I haven't met too many billionaires in my life, but in the summer of 1997, I got to meet, and have a casual dinner, with one of America's wealthiest men - Don Tyson, who as a billionaire, had just a little more money than I ever will. A real down to earth guy, who loved to party and game fish, and when he found out I was English, told me several back to back Essex Girl jokes. His response to "What have you been up to lately Don?" was "Drinking and f***ing, not necessarily in that order". He died yesterday aged 80, after an 'interesting', and religion free, life. He was quite a character. It still amuses me that when the bill for dinner arrived, I felt obliged to offer to pay my share.

Trading Fingerprint

A mixed bag on the picks tonight. 1 for 1 on the Over 2.5 goals bets for a net profit and a help to the PC, but Bolton Wanderers gave up a late equaliser to Wigan Athletic, so a loser there. A good night for anyone laying the favourite, with just Newcastle United and Everton winning. Contrast with Saturday when all eight favourites won!

Serie A is back after a short winter break, and no strong draws. Genoa v Lazio is a weak draw pick, but of course it is at the shortest price of all the Serie A draws for tomorrow night. Brescia at 2.1 v Cesena are my home value pick, and AC Milan (2.22) away to Cagliari look value also. Roma v Catania at 1.99 for Over 2.5 goals also. I should point out that the Over 2.5 goals tips are more for my own benefit in reducing the PC than out of any conviction that long-term they will be profitable. I'll be happy for these to break even, and I'm looking at games where essentially the Over / Under is a coin-toss but the ratings spreadsheet shows an edge.

I've had a couple of e-mails regarding circumvention of the PC, and they are appreciated, but I am a little concerned that the penalty for getting caught is rather harsh. From the Betfair forum, there was this post, which if true, is enough to scare me away from using another account, which in theory at least, would be easy enough to set up. I guess everybody has their betting / trading style, and it's not hard to imagine that Betfair have software that is sufficiently sophisticated to match the 'fingerprint' from two or more accounts.

Betfair suspends player account and debits €32,000 in premium fees
12/26/2010 12:49:50 PM

Betfair (SBR rating A) has charged a player €32,000 in premium fees. On December 2nd, the player's account was suspended. On December 15th, Betfair reopened the account after debiting the player's account for what it said was "suspicion of premium charges evasion". The player states that he has only bet in 150 markets over the last 4 months, and therefor should not have to pay the assessed fee. Betfair justified its seizure to the player by stating that he and four other accounts from his country made similar market bets. The player denies having any relationship with the other four account holders. Betfair responded to SBR's request for comment by stating the following:

Response from Betfair:

Unfortunately, as before, I am unable to comment on the specifics of any such case (though hopefully this won't lead to you to the conclusion that the players version is always true) where fraud may be an issue.

Some general points that may help you here though.

We have a premium charge that is payable by a very small proportion of our customers. Some customers may try to avoid paying the premium charge by structuring their betting in a particular way. If we find a customer has tried to do this, then we deduct the relevant premium charge from their accounts in accordance with our terms and conditions. All those liable to the premium charge are made aware of these terms and conditions.

I imagine that Betfair have based their decision on slightly more than a 'suspicion', but that aside, I think arbing is the better way to go, both using different markets within Betfair, and by using other trading accounts. Or do Betfair consider, for example, backing 0-0 on the Correct Score market, and laying No Next Goal as "Premium Charge evasion?"

It's Back

As I'd suspected it would, the latest update from the Betfair Premium Portal confirmed that I will be paying over £400 in Premium Charges this week. My Total Charges percentage dipped below the critical 20% level to 19.82%, and for the first time since March 17th last year, I get hit. Time to get serious about reducing it.

The football bets helped last night, with Blackpool failing to win, but Over 2.5 goals coming in at 2.06 for a small overall net profit, as well as adding a losing bet. For tonight, Bolton Wanderers at 1.83 look good value at home to Wigan Athletic and I'm on Everton v Tottenham Hotspur at 2.14, and Aston Villa v Sunderland 2.08 Over 2.5 goals too.

Poldhu

Three EPL games tonight and the ratings suggest three home wins, but Fulham at 2.28 v West Bromwich Albion doesn't look great value considering current form. Fulham have won just two home games all season, but they were both against teams starting with a 'W'! A compelling statistic for some maybe, but I'll pass.

At a slightly higher 2.38, Blackpool are more tempting, with form giving them a 0.83 goal superiority, but the value bet here looks Over 2.5 goals to me at 2.08. Blackpool at home are 6 for 6 on Overs, conceding in every game, and Birmingham City away are over 5 and 4 so I'm going for Blackpool and Over 2.5 goals. One concern is the drifting price on Overs, but I'm in now.

Big Home Dogs

The Atlanta Hawks duly covered the -1.5 spread this afternoon against the Los Angeles Clippers and as midnight approaches, that'll be the last activity on the account before Betfair draw their arbitrary line in the accounts and determine whether or not to apply the Premium Charge next week. How solid this midnight deadline is, I am not sure. As I wrote earlier in the week, actually last year, I had a four figure win settled at 00:07 on Monday and unless this was somehow included in the total for last week, then it looks like I will be hit despite my best anti-PC efforts.

Speaking of arbitrary lines and the NBA Handicap markets provide a nice segue into the subject of the lines in basketball, which as I have commented on before are extremely accurate.

How the point spread is set may be of interest to some. From what I can find out, a company called Las Vegas Sports Consultants (LVSC) establishes the odds for approximately 75% of the licensed sports books in Nevada, with most illegal and online books in and out of Nevada drawing their odds from here. These lines are posted at 8am Pacific Standard Time (4pm UK) on game day and can fluctuate until each game’s tip–off. Of course, on the exchanges the line stays set but the price of the line will adjust. The generally accepted assumption is that these opening betting lines are set to equalize the amount of money bet on each side of the betting line, minimizing the bookmakers’ financial risk and guaranteeing their revenue.

There are clearly some inefficencies with these lines. While the betting line is designed to balance the betting market, it does not correspond to the incentives of the teams: the teams care about wins and losses. A win is a win. There is no incentive for a team to win by anything more than one point, and though the line may be set at 13.5 for example, a team won't care if they win by 13 or 14 points, just so long as they win. You see this all the time in games - if the favourite is comfortably ahead, the game becomes far less intense. Starters are rested, the crowd gets distracted, the commentators start talking about upcoming games, and there's a general atmosphere of going through the motions. The intensity only picks up again if the underdog starts to close the gap and get within single figures, at which point the starters go back in, the crowd gets back into it, and the game resumes in earnest.

All very interesting to notice, but is there a way to profit from this?

A study of results in the NBA suggests that there is an advantage on playing the big handicaps. (Big is usually accepted as being those in excess of 12 points, while small spreads are those at 6 points or less - presumably because six represents the usual maximum from two possessions, which is the signifier for a close game). In the 18 NBA seasons up to 2007, the ratio of favourite to underdog wins was 7805:7822 (49.95%:50.05%), but when you look at the large spreads, there's an advantage in backing big 'dogs.

How big an advantage, I hear you say?

When the spread is 12.5 points or more, the 'dog covers the spread in 53.05% of all games, but teams tend to play better at home than on the road, and when we are a lot more selective, and only back big 'dogs playing at home, the numbers get very exciting. The problem is that you need to be very patient, because these opportunities don't come along every night.

Big 'dogs at home cover the spread in an astonishing 70.52% of games. Overall, the home 'dogs cover just 48.96% of the time, but for every handicap from 7 and up, home underdogs cover more than 50% of the time. Now all you need is to find the right price on the exchanges.

The Accidental Winner

I'm not very good at this PC reduction thing. Last night I placed a bet on the New Orleans Hornets giving 1.5, and another on the Washington Wizards straight up. The idea is of course that any result other than a one point win by the Hornets results in a profit. The Hornets -1.5 bet was duly matched at 1.99 but someone forgot about it, and only checked as the game was winding down. Result: The Hornets won by 11, so the error resulted in a bigger win than should have been the case. Not quite the billion illustrated though, but it all helps.

There is one game today that fits the 1.5 bill, although Betfair have not yet put up the handicap markets for the Toronto v Boston and Cleveland v Dallas games. The Atlanta Hawks are -1.5 v the Los Angeles Clippers and are about 2.0. Straight up, the Clippers are backable at around 2.1.

Overall, New Years Day was a good one, but it could have been so much better. I layed a sizeable bet at 1.15 in the College Football Rose Bowl game between the Horned Frogs of TCU and the Wisconsin Badgers with TCU up by eight points and Wisconsin driving. Eight points is a touchdown and the two-point conversion, and Wisconsin did score the touchdown. Unfortunately, they couldn't convert the two point try and I was left with a four figure green on the losing team and a two figure loss on the winning team - a little frustrating but the 1.15 lay was a value bet and I'll be looking for more similar bets during the next few days as College Football ends its season. Liquidity picks up during the Bowl games, and if you stay patient, opoortunites do pop up.

No football bets of my own today, but I did follow Football Elite with a punt on Wigan (DNB) to beat Newcastle United. A 0-1 loss meant that both FE and Drawmaster lost on this game.

A word of warning before anyone goes crazy on the final week of the regular NFL season. This final week can be a minefield, with play-off bound and eliminated teams both resting players, albeit for different reasons. As the GoldSheet says:

Recent history provides some interesting Week 17 numbers; since 2007, favorites have outperformed the dogs each season in final weekend action, with a cumulative 27-18 mark vs. the line. Which is somewhat illuminating, as spreads in the final week often become inflated because of the pre-announced personnel changes (often involving backup QBs), and squads such as last year's Buffalo end up laying points to teams they'd normally not be favored against in a normal regular-season week. As always, it's a good idea to handicap these games individually, not collectively.

No pre-game punts for me, but I'll probably get involved in-play when the attitudes and personnel for the teams is known. As the article said, some of these final week games resemble the pre-season exhibition games, and in the NFL, teams benefit from losing in that not only do they receive a weaker schedule the following season, but they also move up the draft ladder - no draft lottery such as the NBA has.

Gold All Over

No joy for the strong draw today, with Stoke City defeating Everton, but winners in the other two recommendations with West Ham United winning at 2.1 and Sunderland at 1.99. A good start to the new year.

Football Elite were also on Sunderland, continuing their good run, and Pete Nordsted's Drawmaster system also picked the Stoke City v Everton game. They also had Birmingham City v Arsenal and tomorrow's Wigan Athletic v Newcastle United.

A good day for favourites in the Premier League today, with all eight winning. It augurs well for Chelsea and Wigan tomorrow.

The Premium Charge avoidance strategy came a cropper when Arsenal opened the scoring at Birmingham before I had layed off on the Next Goal market the 0-0 backed on the Correct Score market. No serious damage though, but a 0-0 in one of these games would be nice!

Three years ago today, I started the year with a £5,105.02 loss. I had finished 2006 on a strong note, and over-confidence got the better of me as I had my worst day ever on the exchanges. It was a good lesson though, if expensive, and after that day, any New Year's Day had better be relatively good!

I'm not sure yet what format to use, but for 2011 I am going to track the value bets I put out on here, along with the results from Peter Nordsted's Drawmaster picks and Football Elite's Recommended Bets. The 'sister' blog is Gold All Over and it is intended solely to be the boring P&L blog based on 1 unit bets and not including commission. I may get bored with it, but we'll see how it goes.

Top / Bottom 2010

Just for the heck of it, at the end of 2010, the following are the top and bottom three teams in each League that I track. Not too many surprises, and where the favourite isn't the top rated team, they're not usually far behind (e.g Borussia Dortmund, Olympique Lyon, Chesterfield, Crawley Town, Dunfermline Athletic). Something to look back on at the end of the season.

EPL: Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal / Wolverhapmton Wanderers, West Bromwich Albion, Wigan Athletic.

Serie A: AC Milan, Internazionale, Juventus / Bari, Cesena, Lecce.

La Liga: Barcelona, Real Madrid, Valencia / Levante, Sporting de Gijon, Malaga.

Ligue 1: Olympique Marseille, Lille, Olympique Lyon / Lens, Caen, Arles-Avignon.

Bundesliga: Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, Bayer Leverkusen / Koln, St Pauli, Borussia Moenchengladbach.

Championship: Queens Park Rangers, Portsmouth, Nottingham Forest / Crystal Palace, Scunthorpe United, Preston North End.

League One: Brighton and Hove Albion, Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday / Dagenham and Redbridge, Yeovil Town, Walsall.

League Two: Wycombe Wanderers, Port Vale, Torquay United / Barnet, Lincoln City, Hereford United.

Blue Square Premier: Luton Town, Crawley Town, York City / Hayes and Yeading United, Histon, Altrincham.

The top and bottom teams in Scotland are Rangers / Aberdeen; Falkirk / Stirling Albion; Ayr United / Dumbarton; Annan Athletic / East Stirlingshire.

Hello 2011

A new year, but hopefully the new one will continue as the old one ended. December was my third best month ever, behind only the Januarys of 2008 and 2009. On a daily average, it drops to fourth place behind February of 2009, but by any measure it was a stellar month, made all the more exciting because of the relatively disappointing eight months or so that preceded it. The Benford number for December was a rare 9 for those interested in these things.

The last three Januarys have all been very profitable with football so the pressure is on to make it four in a row. Why is January so profitable? Football is in full swing, as is the NBA. American Football reaches it's climax in both the College and NFL formats, and golf and tennis both get underway again. The profits from football are especially pleasing these days. It was a tough nut to crack, but it does seem that some good progress is being made, with more ideas for the year ahead.

February sees the tenth cricket World Cup, and the betting is wide open. India are 4.6 favourites, followed by four teams at 6.6/6.8 - Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Ashes holders England.

No big summer football tournament this year, but there's another World Cup in 2011, with Rugby Union's seventh edition being hosted by New Zealand, favourites at around evens.

As a year, betting wise 2010 was nothing special, being the worst year since I started taking it seriously in 2005 apart from 2007, but how you finish is all important. A 1-1 draw in football is a much different result if you equalise in the last minute as opposed to if you give that goal up in the 5th minute of stoppage time to a penalty after leading for most of the game (yes, I am talking about Crystal Palace at Bristol City last week, month, year) but at least they are still in business. Their future was looking extremely precarious for a time there.

The strong finsih to the year means I am almost certain to be back in the Premium Charge zone but armed with a new spreadsheet, I have a few ideas to at least reduce it, if not avoid it altogether. I tried the tactic of backing the favourite on the handicap and the underdog on the Match Odds market last night, and haven't been caught yet, but I do limit this to the +1.5 or +2.5 basketball markets to reduce the risk. The trouble is that these lines are generally very accurate, which makes me nervous, so I end up trading the Match Odds market to try and cover the gap.

The blog saw a record 437 posts this year - where does he find the time? The average lifespan for betting blogs sometimes seems to be about two months, so this is one of the elder statesmen of the betting blog world. Although some days there's just nothing that springs to mind to write about, I still enjoy taking a few minutes out to post something most days. The number of hits per day is currently around 300, and I've had some nice compliments so I must be doing something right. I should hit the 1,000 posts mark this year, and 300,000 visitors by year's end isn't beyond the realm of possibility. I received a couple of books for Xmas (thanks kids) that may provide some inspiration, although I forgot to take any to the gym with me yesterday, so I was forced to read the small print on the treadmill. I noticed a warning, which said something along the lines of "Stop exercising if you feel short of breath". Er, isn't that kind of the point?

If you're finding value, you won't need luck, but it helps. Be lucky in 2011.

Ace Puzzle

Courtesy of "Betting The Odds - The Hidden Mathematics Of Sport" by Rob Eastway and John Haigh, comes this little puzzle - a doddle for sharp-minded readers I'm sure.

You are at home with the TV in the background and the sound turned down. You notice that Andy Roddick is in the middle of a match with Andy Murray and Roddick is serving. He serves an ace, and goes on to serve five more consecutive aces.

At this point you turn the sound up, to hear that Murray currently leads the match. What is the match score at this point - in sets and games?

A Happy and Winning New Year to all.

Gambling: Then And Now

Courtesy of USA based Forbes, here's a well-written commentary on the legalisation of Internet gambling, looking back on the history of opposition to gambling (religious busy-bodies) as well as presenting a sensible view on the subject with some salient facts in the face of continuing illogical opposition.

In 1388 Richard II passed a statute requiring people to buy items necessary for the martial arts and to stop spending money on "casting stone, and other importune games." A century and a half later, Henry VIII passed a law against gambling on the grounds that it diminished military ability because people spent leisure time gaming rather than practicing archery. Or so the bowyers, fletchers, stringers and arrowhead makers claimed in their petition. If you cannot compete, then get the government to outlaw the competition and disguise your motives with patriotic or moral outrage.

The Puritans condemned gambling because they opposed "idleness." The Massachusetts Bay Colony in its first year of existence outlawed not only the possession of cards, dice and gaming tables, but also dancing, singing and all "unnecessary" walking on Sundays. The Blue Laws of Connecticut in 1650 denounced gambling because it fostered too much "unfruitful" time.

Only in 1737 did the Massachusetts legislators change anti-gambling laws, noting that lawful games and exercises are innocent and moderate recreations.

Unsurprisingly, religious institutions often fought gambling. It was competition for people's leisure time, for their small change, and for their view of life too. Buying $10 worth of lottery tickets meant betting for better life on Earth in contrast to $10 on alms that implied bets for a better afterlife. Religious institutions eventually wanted all gambling outlawed, except for Church raffles and bingo in Church basements.

By the 20th century new interests emerged to attack the gambling industry. In the 1920s the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce opposed gambling on two grounds. First, it argued that retailers and established sources of entertainment such as movie theaters lose business during the racing season. Second, petty crimes "increase enormously."

Closer examination reveals that crime is linked more with tourism than with gambling: Large, transitory crowds provide easy prey and criminals disappear more easily in crowds. People may preach for competition in principle, but companies do not like it in practice and will fight with words to crush it.

In Florida opponents of the liberalization of gambling laws included Disney World. With casinos commissioning family friendly Cirque du Soleil, Disney's opposition is not that surprising.

Some anti-gambling crusaders argue that the industry is a drag on a nation's cultural aspirations. These opinions are also unfounded. Opera and ballet flourished when casinos financed them, including St. Carlo and La Scala. The casino profits essentially paid for new ballets and new operas. A remnant of the arrangement survived in Monte Carlo.

Las Vegas has updated this once customary financial and entertainment combination. It has supported everything from cabaret acts to Cirque de Soleil, Celine Dion, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Steve Wynn's impressionist art collection.

A recent study has found that 86,000 Quebecois spend a median amount of $856 gambling online per year, mostly unmarried males under 44. The average amount is a much higher $9,903 because of a few high rollers. These numbers are misleading, because these players likely get back a rough average of 50% as winnings.

Allowing for the adjustments, these gamblers spend $35 and $412 per month, hardly more, respectively, than going out for a movie, a few cans of beer or a good restaurant with a good wine or, for that matter, an orchestra seat at the Metropolitan Opera.

Just as there are alcoholics, diet-obsessed anorexics, sex addicts and workaholics, there is no doubt that a minuscule percentage of people are addicted to gambling. Yet, while the alcoholic beverage, food and diet industries are all subject to regulation, gambling is singled out for special condemnation.

People know Dostoyevsky's classic novel The Gambler, which describes a weak man who promises himself every evening to abandon his addiction, but cannot. Few know that Dostoyevsky himself was passionate about gambling and worked feverishly to pay down debts necessary to pursue his passion.

He wrote his best novels, Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, The Possessed and The Gambler during the time he gambled. He married, and by 1871 he stopped gambling. His creative period ended.

Although there have been plenty of movie adaptations of Dostoyevsky's novels, we do not know of one that shows him overcoming his gambling problem and settling into calm domesticity. But "calm domesticity" does not sell TV shows or movies. The gambler who gets into debt, commits crime and jumps out of high-rises does. There will always be isolated tragedies. Exaggerating fears and fictionalizing the past can ruin the future.

Worrying about youth and potential addiction has merit, but there are solutions. Software is available for identification, verification and automatic monitoring to warn or to discipline the player. Controlling compulsive behavior may be easier online than off-line. There is nobody to tap them on the shoulder to suggest they should call it a day in a dark, land-based casino.

Why is Internet gambling back on the political agenda now? Money. Falling revenues are Mothers of Invention in business and for governments.

Legalizing online gambling and regulating it properly would help establish an already thriving global industry, attract investment, retain entrepreneurs and brains specialized in this business, while increasing employment and tax revenues, just as it currently does in London. If the U.S. wants a thriving new industry, then it should not just legalize internet gambling, but de-monopolize it and, as with all industry, hold the companies accountable for their actions.

Fink Tank

Looking ahead to this weekend's Premier League games, the value bets appear to be West Ham United at 2.1 v Wolverhampton Wanderers with Sunderland at 1.92 v Blackburn Rovers worthy of mention. I have West Ham -0.9 and Sunderland at -0.74, and Sunderland have come in from 1.99 in the last 36 hours or so. 1.99 was available on Thursday morning. West Ham have actually drifted slightly, so you win some, lose some with these movements.

The one strong draw is the game between Stoke City and Everton. Strong draws in the EPL continue to be 'strong' and are hitting at 38.1% currently.

I've recently started using the Fink Tank website to compare my expected goal superiority numbers. Rather than use goals in their rating model, Fink Tank uses Shots On Goal, which as I have written before is a much better option. It's noticeable that they tend to rate the away team stronger than I do, but with big-priced away wins such as Wolves win at Liverpool this week, Wigan, WBA and Newcastle at Arsenal and Blackpool at Newcastle, following their value picks overall is profitable this season. Last season's profits came from the home selections though, so how reliable these numbers are is still open to debate, but it's always interesting to see other ideas and ratings.

Playing The 0-0

A nice win tipped up here for the Minnesota Vikings at Philadelphia Eagles last night which puts the Premium Charge ever closer. I checked the account, and if Betfair draw the line for the week at midnight, then a four figure profit that was settled at 00:07 on Monday may well have been the proverbial straw. Not complaining though.

Inspired by Ben, I am putting together a spreadhseet to monitor as best I can, the status on a day-by-day basis, and it's giving me a new, and very liberating, attitude towards losses. With a view to adding in a few 'losing' bets, I have backed 0-0 on the Correct Score market at 21 and layed No Next Goal at an average of around 18.5. It's not exactly Slicer's miracle (albeit non-existent) bet, but it should work. I also jumped on the Under 2.5 goals which is a bet that usually makes me nervous, but with the attitude that the worst that can happen is that I lose, (and thus reduce the profit on which I pay the PC) I am far more comfortable letting the bet run.

As we approach half-time, the game is still scoreless, and the 0-0 is down to 6.0 making me wish I'd never bothered laying it off on the Next Goal Market! While any result means a win on one market, and a loss on another (good for PC), a four figure win and corresponding loss would be a much bigger help!

Ooh - Drogba just hit the post!

Sunshine In December

Many thanks to Ben who patiently and clearly explained how backing at close to value can indeed reduce the Premium Charge for someone who is 'in the penalty' as they say in basketball. The strategy he outlines can certainly increase the bottom line, although if you are in and out of the Premium Charge zone, care needs to be exercised before employing this strategy. Of course, after all this, the Premium Charge didn't apply! Yet. I am on 20.06% now, down from 20.4% last week, which means that I'm probably just one decent win away.

No big win last night, when the Utah Jazz failed to come back from a nine point deficit. It seems they need to be down double-figures before they come back and win.

I did make some on the Monday Night Football games between Arsenal and Chelsea and later between the Atlanta Falcons and New Orleans Saints, and today's football was a winner with West Ham United v Everton finishing a draw at 3.45, although Fulham turned the form-book upside down to win at Stoke City. There's more football in a few minutes when the first NFL weather postponement in 80 years is re-scheduled for two days later. Philadelphie Eagles are very short v the Minnesota Vikings. A little too short methinks.

December is now my best month since January of 2009. Not just the most profitable but I am also the proud winner of Rob The Builders's Gambling Cos Building's Up The Spout Quiz. I believe first prize is a holiday for two to somewhere sunny, so I look forward to receiving my tickets and expense money in the near future.