Prediction, Probability and Value

More clarifications for Anonymous:

Re: liquidity comment on asian handicap. You were worried there wouldn't be enough liquidity and you may have been "stuck" with your position. Hardly a shrewd comment or one in keeping with someone who has had what they perceive to be a value bet.

I wouldn’t have taken the initial position if I hadn’t perceived it to be value. The comment wasn’t meant to be “shrewd” – it was meant to indicate that I was aware going in that I would most likely not be trading out due to an illiquid market not being likely to offer a value opportunity to trade out. I was ok with that.

Re: predictions. You seem to think you predicted things quite nicely. Again, not a sign of a shrewd punter. It's all about value. If, say, you backed an "over" at, for example, a price of 2.5, and the game finished as an over, would you be saying you predicted it correctly? Or would you be saying you had a value bet that won?

Not to sound pompous or anything, but I don’t “think” I predicted things quite nicely – I know I did! Your point is correct about value though, but if you have read this blog for a while, you will know that I am the last person you need to talk about that.

In my opinion, (hence the prediction), the Germany – Argentina game was more likely to go Over than Under – i.e. the probability in my opinion was > 0.5. With a price of 2.3 on offer, this represented, in my opinion, very good value.

Predicting an outcome is not the same as backing an outcome. To take an extreme example to make the point clear, had the price on Overs been 1.5, I would still have predicted Overs, but only backed it if I considered the probability to be > 0.67. The Unders may well have been the value bet.

I think we’re on the same page with this, so I’ll move on, but for future reference when I make a “prediction” in a two-outcome market in this blog, it means that I expect the event to happen, i.e. P > 0.5.

Re: Australia being tipped up - an obvious type. It's the same point as above. Successful bettors don't necessarily bet on what they think will happen.

Value, value, value...

What is an ‘obvious type’?

I guess if it’s the same point as already made, I don’t need to worry too much. Of course successful bettors don’t necessarily bet on what they think will happen! We bet based on probabilities – on an event that is more probable than the odds suggest – in other words, we bet when we have value. My blog is full of this all-important message.

Re: coming back for more. I like your blog, it's well written and in many ways is an interesting read. However, a lot of your methodology, your comments and so on are misleading to the average punter. I like to draw attention to these matters. But you seem to think every anonymous is the same one.

Agreed that Green All Over is the best blog of its type out there by some distance, and while some have described the style as pompous and arrogant, I can’t say that I have ever seen the slightest hint of that.

I’m also not sure how it can be true that a lot of the methodology and comments contained within it are misleading to the average punter. I do assume a certain level of knowledge and understanding of the betting markets, but perhaps the average punter is a little less sharp than I give them credit for. It’s revealing that for the most part, it does only seem to be Anonymous(es) who have trouble understanding most of the posts, and if clarification is sought, I do try to find time to respond.