BTTS, Win To Nil, And Clean Sheets

I had an email from Tony, who wrote:

It's always interesting to see your line on a game.

I'm assuming this comes from your ELO methods and certainly picks up on the fact Everton now haven't conceded a home league goal in 636 minutes.

My own line, which is 'not active' as its based on insufficient games this season has Everton at 1.77 and the under/over at 2.08/1.93

It made me think you might see value in the both teams to score market.

My line for that is 1.93 which is where the market is - your model has a higher Everton likely score so your chances of Newcastle being zero must be higher.

First of all, to clarify - it is Elo, not ELO. Elo is not an initialism. Elo ratings are named after Arpad Elo, a chess master who come up with the basic idea for the United States Chess Federation to improve upon the Harkness rating system they formerly employed.

The Both Teams To Score market is simply another derivative of the goal expectancy values. As I have write before, if your estimate of these numbers is more accurate than the market's, then there are multiple ways to profit. If your estimate is lower, then there is obviously going to be value in the Unders markets, and in all of them, not just the Under 1.5 and the Under 3.5, but also there will be value on the draw and on Both Teams Not To Score, as well as several Correct Scores and assorted other related bets.

In my opinion, too many people complicate their betting unnecessarily. If you expect less goals than the market, back the Under at whatever level your risk tolerance is best suited. If you like short losing runs, back the Under 3.5 or Under 4.5. If you're comfortable with longer losing runs, bet at the Under 2.5 level, and if you like the longer prices and can tolerate the associated even longer losing runs, back the Under 1.5 or even the 0-0. They all offer value, if your expectations are correct.

As well as the Both Teams To Score market (essentially a double bet - you are betting using tonight's game as an example, on Everton scoring [Yes or No] and on Newcastle United scoring [Yes or No]), there are also markets such as Everton Win To Nil, (another double - Everton have to score, Newcastle United have to not score), and Newcastle United Clean Sheet? (i.e. Everton not to score), but the point is that all these markets are determined by the goal expectancies.

On the subject of Doubles, I mentioned on September 9th that:

Skeeve maintains his first place, but worth mentioning is the bad luck he has had with his official double bets, having had six all so far come up empty, or rather come up with one winner and one loser. If your double is going to lose, at least the selections could have the decency of both losing or both winning!

In the long run, it makes no difference if you back selections in singles or doubles. Two selections can both win, both lose, or win one and lose the other. On a coin toss, you will win 3 units one time in four, and lose one unit the other three times and thus break even. You might as well just back them in singles so far as I am concerned, and doing just that, Skeeve would be up by approximately 1.57 points rather than down by 7.81. I say approximately because I use the Pinnacle closing prices while the Official bets are recorded earlier by Skeeve. While such a discrepancy is unlikely to last, (a couple of doubles coming in will soon reduce that difference), I'm not sure the irritation of one winner / one loser splits is a price worth paying for the rarer longer priced winning double. Again, it's all down to risk tolerance. If you can detach yourself from the short-term and see the big picture, then it makes no difference as I said, but if you prefer a smoother ride, then singles are the way to go.