I'm trying to track every market this week to get it exactly right. I would have thought it was from midnight Sunday going into Monday, but that doesn't quite appear to be the case.
Anyway, I mentioned that the Super Premium Charge is strangely liberating, and since I was playing with taxable profits, I threw a little on Manchester United to beat Braga. What could possibly go wrong? Well, in the end nothing, and I even doubled down at 0-1. At 0-2, I did not re-double (this isn't backgammon with my son, and I always lose when I play him), and consoled myself with the thought that I would have lost half of the stake to Premium Charge anyway. In the end, it all worked out, and I won some money that, were it not for the Super Premium Charge, I never would have gone for.
What I mean by this is that it is a lot easier to make the optimal decision if you are genuinely unconcerned (almost) about the outcome. There was one very sensible poster on the Betfair Forum a few years ago who went by the name of Lori, and he went so far as to only look at his numbers from time to time, confident enough in his selection process, and anxious to avoid the influence of emotions that can lead to playing too loose or too tight, to borrow the poker terms.
With sports betting, changing your style isn't usually a good idea. Find a profitable approach and stick with it. And yes, that means any time of the day, day of the week, or time of the month / quarter / year!
Gundulf posted a comment, which was:
Cassini, whilst I appreciate that the various selections you and the others make for your Friendly Tipster League are essentially straight backs I can't help wondering how often over the last season a late goal such as Falcao's on Sunday snatches defeat from the jaws of victory?As I've mentioned before, unless there is any reason to suspect that the price after 85 minutes (or any arbitrary number of minutes for that matter) is wrong, then there is no good reason to trade out. Having said that though, if you have identified the draw as value at say 3.5 pre-game, then it is reasonable to assume that as the game stays goalless and the price drifts lower, your edge will slowly reduce, meaning that unless you do lay off as the game goes on you, by default, become over staked as measured by Kelly. So there is an argument for laying some off as the game goes on. I just don't buy into the idea that laying off after a certain number of minutes is going to increase profits in the long term.
I'm sure you keep good records and am further wondering what effect on your p&l and roi a simple hedging at say 85 minutes (or 40 mins for the H/T selections) would have had?
Just for fun, I looked at how many games saw the draw taken away in the last 10 minutes of a game - or rather the 81st minute on - and the total is 34 out of 277, which equates to a price of 1.14. Could I lay at that price at 80 minutes? Would it make sense to do so? I don't monitor the prices on these games, but if anyone knows how they typically compare to 1.14 after 80 minutes, it would be interesting to know.
It's a new bet, and thus a very small sample, but for the 32 matches with no goals at 40 minutes, six saw the HT 0-0 bet lose, implying a lay price of 1.23 would be needed.
Yes, it certainly seems that goals such as Falcao's come along all the time, but they don't. It makes no more sense to me to lay off after 5 minutes than it does after 85 minutes, or anywhere in between, but as I said earlier, it does make some sense to lay off as the price drops during the game.
On the flip side, how many games were 1 down, 2 down etc at 81mins but went on to finish a draw?
ReplyDeleteHow many were a draw at 81mins and went on to finish a draw?
If you only lay winning bets at 81mins but dont lay losing bets at 81mins then to me you are only cutting profits, or increasing your losses on a system that is not profitable to start with.
It always amazes me how many people put bets on, whether singles or accumulators and want to lay bets off with x number of mins left or 1 leg to go on an accumulator that doesnt kick off until 4pm the following day. Yet the same people never lay the bet off 3 lefs into a 6 team acca when the 3rd team is getting beat 1-0 at half time.
3 legs that should read, not lefs!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the answer, Cassini. I don't profess to avidly studying the FTL - but it does seem that late goals feature frequently in your write ups! Perhaps that's an illusion, and, as Tony rightly points out they can cause as well as wreck a draw!
ReplyDeleteI'd love to see the draw at 1.14 at 80 minutes... but reckon it doesn't usually hit that price until nearer, or beyond, 90 minutes.
The FTL table doesn't show the Strike Rate for the various combatants, and I'm not mathematically adept enough to work it out from the figures given (don't even know if that's possible!) - worth another column in the spreadie?
I'm having a similar debate with myself at present. My tactic on my Over 1.5 Blog on SBB, is to back said outcome at odds of 1.3-1.45 pre match. If a goal is scored in the first 10 or certainly 5 minutes of the match, it is usually possible to trade out sub 1.10. This of course plays with my mind.
ReplyDeleteShould I have the conviction to stick with my prediction and expect a second goal by the 90 minute mark and take full credit for the selection?
Should I lay my stake to protect my bank, retaining the majority of my conviction and potential profit, whilst turning pussy for the outright backing fraternity?
Or should I "green-up", full-on trading style, taking the lesser profit but knowing I will profit regardless?
I should also explain at this juncture that my staking is a "part roll-up" bet. With half the profit from the previous bet being re-invested into the next. I have had runs of consecutive wins up to 19 in the past with an 11, 9's but most frequently not getting beyond 7 consecutive correct predictions. To provide the strategy with profit a run of 4 consecutive correct from 5 over the long term will suffice. Therefore, I feel that what I do as far as "sticking and twisting" in play is concerned should be about where within the run of results I might be. Say, sticking with my selection 100% for at least the first four bets, perhaps laying my stake back sub 1.10 if available for the next 2-3, and then looking to green up if the opportunity to do so at sub-1.10 occurs from successful bet 8 onwards.
I could, should I feel inclined to, go back in time and research records from an attempt with this strategy 2 years ago to see how often a goal was scored in those games within the first ten minutes and the game finishing 1-0 either way. My instinct is telling me, and my memory, having sat through every game, is agreeing that it wasn't often at all. That was then but I am dealing with now, or more specifically, later, and I am getting to a point where I am questioning if I can be a bettor and a trader all at the same time (dependng on what stage of a winning run I am at), or should I just be one or the other. I'm feeling the latter, with the mindset that profit is profit whatever, and if some profit is lost as opposed to losing some bank it is an opportunity not to be spurned.
You can see the turmoil the mind puts itself too in these situations; solace in this instance being that should the current selection strategy not be effective and profit not being gained, I wouldn't even be in this quandry