Waffling

On the subject of 500 to 0's retirement from the world of blogging, and one hopes for his sake, the world of betting, I see my name to the fore over at A Football Trader's Path.

The blog owner, Mr Soccer Dude (not his real name) writes:

Personally, I do enjoy Cassini's blog. He waffles on a little bit too much about American sports (which, as we all know, are not really sports at all), and he should perhaps move his little friendly tipster league reports off somewhere else as I can't see them interesting anyone but the individuals involved. But besides these minor gripes, there is a lot of content there; Cassini is eloquent, writes well and covers a broad spectrum of subjects. For my money, one of the best out there.

Point taken on the Friendly Tipster League. I actually used to post it over at the boring old Gold All Over, but I've got a little away from that in recent weeks. It actually takes quite a lot of effort each week to maintain, so if the consensus is that it is boring, I will probably do away with it. I'll continue to track my own XX Draws and the professional services for my own records, but if anything, it just goes to show how difficult it is to make money on football, which is precisely why I "waffle on a little bit too much" about the opportunities in less popular sports, or indeed politics.

Anonymous chimes in with:

Cassini is just a master of the cut and paste never too much original content other than patting himself on the back to be fair. Although I have noticed now he's charging he likes to mention super PC every other post and stick in the odd cherry picked screenshots as often as possible like all the other leeches in this 'profession'.

Yes, seems fair. I do copy (not cut) and paste comments and other information I think people might find interesting, but I see nothing wrong with that (obviously). It seems that Anonymous doesn't either, or why we would he, and about 619 (on average) others visit this blog each day? There's little point in blogging if you are the only reader, and if an article I read on another blog or from another source is of interest to me, there's a good chance it's of interest to like-minded readers out there. Of course, the fact that Anonymous hasn't yet mastered the art of winning is clear, as he refers to those who have, as 'leeches', so a little jealousy is to be expected. I'll take it as a compliment.

Henke commented on my last post (no apologies for the copy and paste, it's relevant):

After briefly glancing through the 500 to 5000 blog, I was just wondering if the main difference between a punter like you or someone like him is the difference on the amount of money each individual risks on each bet. Not that I am saying anyone can make huge profits without the proper knowledge, research and experience, but seeing so many people making huge profits, and so many with failing to do so, I was just curious about the reasoning behind it. What I mean is, we all know that, at the end of the day we cannot know the outcome of many games, there are some which we really believe in, and some we are not so sure of.

After seeing the screenshots of your very well played NBA games (Lakers a week a go, and Knicks yesterday) I was just wondering if the huge winning differences occur since you play much bigger amounts (of course in relative to say, an average player, like 500 to 500, who probably cannot wager 1xxx pounds a game) when you have much more confidence in your bet, and some one else, even if they are confident with their bet, cannot do so. Perhaps totally wrong, but It is my impression that it may be easier for someone to make 500 into 5000, rather than 50 to 500 . Because I always had the impression that when you play small, you cannot create a lot of safety margin on your wins (that is profits enough to cover further losses), and even if you win quite a few times on low amounts, your potential profits are not raised significantly as they will be drained by the losses you make.

If I had 50 pounds on my Betfair account today, and if I bet 20 percent of it on a very confident Knicks game, I would only make profits of 8.4 pounds which is only 4.2 times the minimum stake amount. Thus 2 failures from football (which, usually is less secure than a basketball game, obviously depending on the condition), would drain my profits by a lot, while on the other hand if I had 5000 on my account and bet 1000, a profit of 840 pounds create much bigger margin for losses depending how I figure my own minimum bet stakes, depending on the game.

Well everybody knows this is obvious, but its just shown me again that winning on this thing, like everything else in the world, depends on the initial investment a lot. Perhaps for this reason, quick ways to make small amounts into more significant amounts fail easily, heh?

As I have written before, stake size is all relative, and the initial investment doesn't need to be large. My initial (and only) investment was £98.50 (after fees), and I have had a balance as low as £21.40. Start small and build up. There's no hurry, and it's far more important to focus on the principle of finding value and making profits, however small, than focusing on the profits themselves.

This is a hobby for most people. I played with £2 stakes for over a year when a win of 50p was significant and much enjoyed. Whether you start with £100 or £100,000, without an edge, your bank will steadily decrease. Odwyer was of the opinion that his supposed edge derived from bank size, but he's wrong. If your bets aren't value, you will lose.

Henke gives an example of betting 20% of his 50 bank on a basketball game at 1.84, and winning 'only' 8.40. He then compares this to the minimum stake, which is nominally £2, but can easily be any amount you like, but it's irrelevant anyway. Not too mention that 20% is way too high a percentage of your bank to be risking on one bet, whatever your bank size. 2.5% is my best advice.

And what does the statement that football "usually is less secure than a basketball game" mean?

If Chelsea can be layed at 2.0, and the Knicks can be layed at 2.0, how is one bet any more "secure" than another? 2.0 is 2.0. The comment hints at Henke struggling to make money from football, but finds it easier to obtain value at basketball, and as mentioned earlier in this post, I tend to agree. So the recommendation is to start with small stakes, and build your bank up on events where you are able to find value.

It goes without saying that you don't start with money you need, but small wins add up, an as your bank builds, you will increase your stakes in actual size, if not in terms of percentage, and playing the percentages is what this is all about.

Left, is a cherry-picked screenshot from last night, to show that not all nights end in profit. I hope Anonymous enjoys it.