Sportsbetting - Does research give you the edge?
Just browsing and reading some forums and blogs from tipsters etc and i see that many can maintain a 55%+ strike rate on sportsbet which is enough to make a consistent and in some cases a vast profit.
Now i fully understand that bookies never offer the true odds of an event occuring but to put it simply, if you constantly pick winners at least 55%+ on odds of at least 1.70-1.80 then you should be in profit. (Give or take a little as this is rough maths)
Obviously picking winners cant be done blindly so is anyone of the view that if you do enough research and make solid picks that over the longrun you should be in profit?
Or will the bookie always win in the long run?
What do you mean by "solid picks"? Very much doubt any amount of research can give you the edge over bookie or better still betfair which is supposed to be the perfect price at any given point (given it consists of thousands of users). Course you could get lucky over almost any period of time but I wouldn't fancy trying my luck.
Originally Posted by Human123
IMO doing your homework definately pays and gives you the edge. Obviously its better to study for your picks rather than just blind picking.
Bookies have to price up every match and every market and in those 1000's of markets they do make mistakes. We the punter have the advantage of just picking and taking what we want to
IMHO the reason 95% of punters lose is because they dont use high enough stakes, Most people want a big return for their money and if they are using £5-£10 stakes the only way they will make a big profit is by doing accas which of course are the bookies favourite bet as every selection added only increases your chances of losing... £10 on a 4/5 shot is £8 profit and the avge punter out there isnt happy with just making £8, so they add more selections, now £200 @ 4/5 is £160 profit and a good wage for 2 hrs "work"
if someone puts in the time and effort then 20pts a month profit is easilly achievable, now just say you are using £1-£2 a point then you will only make £20-£40 a month which isnt worth your while and using £1-£2 stakes you would need like 300 pts to make it woirthwhile
now just say you bet £100-£200 a pt then 20pts a month is making you £2000-£4000 which is a very nice monthly wage or 2nd income
even if you have a slow month and only make 10pts profit then you are still making £1000-£2000 a month
In football you need money to make money, anyone who thinks they can make a consistant living using small stakes IMO is wrong and cant be done!
If you use high enough stakes you only need small monthly pts profits to make a living.. Use high enough stakes and you can make a living with just 4/5 bets a month
I don't really understand this argument Todd. Clearly, you can beat bookies when their price becomes out of line for whatever reason but how about the prices on betfair? Are you saying that research can somehow give you an edge over the combined market of potentially thousands of people (let's say a 1x2 market on a prem game rather than a tiny market)? If not then the commmission will eat away your profits leaving you eventually with a loss.
Unless there's some link to information which no-one else has I can't see how researching how many games they've lost away/at home etc can matter as that's all been factored into whatever the current price is...
What i was trying to say was..
Yes we know the prices arent giving us true value most of the time, BUT if you can actually pick winners more then you pick losers you will make profit surely?
I think im getting at sportsbetting being more of a skill game then luck?
From what im reading the main reason most punters lose is their bank management, as in alot of punters will probably deposit £100 and do two bets of £50 each and either get lucky or go bust and rinse and repeat.
Originally Posted by tod1999
If your betting 1-2% of your bank you can ride out the variance of a losing run etc
Human is right, its all about finding winners and having enough winners at the odds to make it profitable
if you back even money shots anything over 50% strikerate will see you profitable, back 4/5 shots and anything over 55% strikerate will have you profitable
there is over 10,000 different bets a week you can bet on and its not really that hard to be finding just 1/2 out of 10,000
carson..... betfair prices are still wrong, last night man city were favs to win away at stoke when there is no way in a million years man city should ever be favourites to win this match, man city just 3 away wins all season against wolves, pompy and blackburn (all poor teams) and stokes only 3 home defeats were against man utd, chelsea and birmingham (all tough teams) Bookies just over reacting to the fact city are the richest club in the world but it doesnt change the fact they are nothing more than an avge team who are just woeful away from home. Everytime man city step onto the pitch they are underpriced, they will be favs for the cup replay no doubt when stoke should be the favs
last night there was more chance of stoke winning that match than man city and IMO this was a mistake made by the industry
stoke down to 10 men, then went 1-0 up, man ciy scored with their 1st shot on target which took until the 85th min, stoke also had a perfectly good goal dissallowed in injurytime and should have won, this all with 10 men and they were meant to be the underdog.
its not often but there is a few mistakes every week
Goes without saying that if you can pick more winners than losers at the right price you'll come out on top. It is interesting however to think about the efficiency of befair which given its mass I've always been led into thinking is just about a perfect market. All those factors which you mention above will already have been included in the current price i.e. there are enough people out there who think man city are crap away to balance out those who place too much importance on their star players hence the price is the "correct" one.
I know it worked out last night but that doesn't mean the man city price was effectively "wrong". What you seem to be saying is you know more than the combined mass of betfair which with repsect seems implausible to me but I may well be wrong or not understanding you properly!
Basically it is all opinion at the end of the day, one mans "value" is another mans "lay"..
Originally Posted by Carson
Would anyone agree that in sportsbetting the true odds are probably more of an "opinion" then strict maths like bj and roulette are?
Which in theory should mean if you have a better knowledge of the sport then the general public you should be able to make better decisions?
betfair prices are still wrong because the layers know the mug backers out there will take poor prices on man city. betfair just work off what bookmakers do. if bookmakers have man city as favs then so will BF abut just at slightly better odds
anyone who thinks man city have more chance of winning that match away than stoke do at home just doesnt know anything about football (no offence)
teams reputations always come into place and the fact man city are the richest team in the world with high played players automatically makes them the favs regardless of anything else. This is just wrong IMHO and one mistake the shrewd layers of man citys picked up on.
chelsea were 1.29 away to hll which was just a joke of a price considering how dreadul they were against burnley in the match before. just because betfair have chelsea at 1.29 doesnt mean the price is "correct" they lay those odds because they know the clueless mugs out there will take 1.29 just because it is "chelsea"
the true price of a chelsea win was more 1.44-1.50 and the shrewd layers came out on top after a 1-1 draw which chelsea werel ucky to get as hull should have been 3-0 up before drogba scored (from a freekick that was never a freekick)
dont make the mistake that becuase there is 1000's of people on BF that the price is always right. Man ciTy favs to beat stoke away is WRONG!