Captain Webb denies that his flattery had an underlying motive, and then goes on to write a post for me. Very nice of him.
Haha! That wasn't the reason I was nice (honest). I have posted on here before but this username is new and setup for the use of my blog. Sorry for the incorrect address it's actually http://betfairbanter.blogspot.com/Agreed that a lay at 1.1 may or may not be value. If the odds are correct, then 9% of lays will go on to win, but of the 91% that go on to lose, some will trade higher before losing. The trick is for your exit point to be hit often enough to pay for the losers. Example, lay 100 to win 1000 at 1.1 - if the price drifts out to 1.5 27% of the time and you even up your position, you will come out ahead. If you trade out if the price drifts to 1.2, then you need this to happen about 54% of the time.
I can see the value in laying short prices in play with plenty of game time left but the odds aren't always that wrong at the time and your gambling on things changing which they often will from 1.1. My question is when you've traded a 1.1 and it got to 1.5 and you didn't trade out and it went on to win do you think this influences your next trade where you lay at 1.1? i.e. do you think you will be more inclined to get out at around 1.5 because of the previous result?
It's for this reason I think manual inplay betting (without bot) can be tough and I would think most people would do better letting each lay bet run without trading out. Have you ever done any calculations to see what your results would be if you did this? I read recently on the betfair forum that by 'greening up' you had to find 2 value bets rather than 1 (or at least one at correct price and you are also paying commission on most markets. If you trade out only when your bet is looking like a loser you can red out and your effectively getting a winning bet without paying any commission. Would be great to hear your thoughts on this.
In practice, it all depends on how you are reading the game whether you scratch, get out for a small green, or hang in there for a massive pay day. There is no one-size-fits-all here; if your risk aversion is low, or as one commenter put it recently, you have big danglers, you might hold on for the 1.5 or more, if you are a nervous Nellie, you might lock in your green at 1.11!
Value is something that you will get better at identifying after watching lots of games. The Suns v Nets game last night saw a decent lay appear at 1.3 when they had been trading well above that up to that point (1.4 / 1.45). Yes, the Suns were on a small run, but nothing that warranted a plunge in price of that nature, in the third quarter. Unfortunately, I did not let the bet run - tiny danglers you know.
The Spurs v Blazers game ended up being a non-event, with the hoped for early Spurs lead failing to materialise.
As for the question about previous results influencing the next move, I would like to say no, but that is probably not completely true. As human beings, it's very difficult for us to bet / trade completely without emotion - senza emozioni as we say in Italy - so it is always likely to influence us to some degree, but I have watched the markets for so long now, that the impact is negligible.
Football now, and Griff sent in his EPL draws for this weekend, and they are Liverpool v Stoke City (4.7), West Bromwich Albion v Norwich City (3.5) and Swansea City v Arsenal (3.75).
The always interesting My Football Facts web site had a table showing the average points per game for the EPL teams in 2011. The top teams are
1 comment:
Thanks for adding my blog and also giving your views on this. What you've said makes sense but it would still be good to see how your trades would compare with letting the initial entry point run. Even if you just showed the comparison for your last 20 markets or something, I think it would make interesting reading.
Post a Comment