Hull City v Manchester City about to start, and a big discrepancy in the odds I have calculated for Hull - I have them at 2.45, but they are available at 3.1 on BETDAQ which seems to be splendid value.
Update: Well, apparently the value was in laying Manchester City, or at least in trading out at 1.7 when Hull took the lead!
About Me
- Cassini
- I have had a life-long interest in sports and after studying Pure Mathematics with Statistics at secondary school, have been fascinated by odds and probability. The first system I came up with was a simple one - back the favourite and double up after a loss until a winner. Simple enough in theory, and I told my Dad about it. Not being a betting man himself, he ran it by some of his colleagues, and came home to tell me that it wouldn’t work because a long losing run would mean that the bank would be empty. Then there was always the possibility that the winner would be returned at odds-on, meaning that the total returns would not match the outlay. Not what a ten year old wants to hear! Only slightly daunted, I then went on a search for the Holy Grail, the secret to riches that I knew was out there somewhere. Finally in 2004 I stumbled across an article about Betting Exchanges and four years later I was able to make a steady profit.
Cassini, did you work out your expected growths on a "Hull back" or "Man City lay" before hand? Whichever was the greater, should have been the bet to make. All depends upon the prices they "should" have been at kick-off. - JPG
ReplyDeleteHi JPG - I had Hull at 2.47 and Man City at 3.15. I must admit that right now I am just playing with small amounts and backed Hull with a view to going Green-All-Over if they went ahead, which in fact they did, so I did make some money. As the ratings continue to mature (some mean person told me it takes close to 30 games... I shall see whether a back or a lay appears to be the most profitable course of action). Thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteNo worries mate. With the "Should" prices of Hull @ 2.47 and Man C @ 3.15 and the actual prices of Hull @ 3.1 and Man C @ 2.5, the expected growths of each bet is: Back Hull = 1.5%, Lay Man C = 1.47% (assuming a full Kelly Criterion stake.) Therefore, a Hull back was marginally a better bet to make. Note, you do have to make the Kelly bet to achieve the actual growth %'s but you dont have to make the Kelly bet to decide which provides the greater growth. So, using this example, using much smaller stakes will decrease the expected growth on both outcomes, but the Hull back would still be marginally a better bet.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the analysis - I'm not confident enough yet to apply Kelly, but I hope to be there one day!
ReplyDeleteThe actual use of the Kelly Criterion stake size is an arguable one but the maths surrounding it can be very useful. Its worth using just as another tool (like help deciding which is the better bet in this match!) without using it for your actual staking methods.
ReplyDeleteTrue enough - I read Fortune's Formula: The Untold Story of the Scientific Betting System That Beat the Casinos and Wall Street by William Poundstone earlier this year - it's a good read if you've not read it. I think the full Kelly is too volatile for my liking, but 1/2 is more like it.
ReplyDelete