I wouldn't know where to begin with the maths, but isn't this key? Your model assumes that APers who "mug" 4/1 are no more able to make better selections than non-APers. I would imagine that those here who "mug" it have acquired skills that help them pick out the value punts and therefore3 that the offer is +EV for them. APers "mugging" can't be assumed to be the same as non-APers "mugging", can it?
Originally Posted by HMex
If that's so, then surely you're just showing why Bet365 will continue to offer 4/1... it's -EV to actual mug punters, but could still quite possibly be +EV to APers mug punting. So maybe the debate isn't whether the OFFER is / isn't +EV (as your title suggests), but FOR WHOM the offer is +EV, and to what extent via what skills? Eg. how much % +EV does a skilled APer add by taking the early prices that then BOG? etc.
[I should point out I've never done 4/1 as I hate betting on horses, and my Bet365 account was long dead before I read about it. Very -EV of me to kill it on football ]
Join in next friday for c4 racing
Originally Posted by WantFriesWithThat
WantFriesWithThat, thank you for post. I agree with everything you have said.
Almost anyway, my model doesn't actually make any assumptions about APers taking less value than mug punters, since I was only modelling average mug punters. I never set out to model 4/1s effect on advantage play.
The purpose of this thread was to show:
- "4/1" is break-even at best and certainly -EV most of the time for the average mug punter taking both EP and SPs on favourites (or any selection) regardless of what the absolute odds are.
- BOG changes nothing with regard to the first point.
- Those on the chat-box simply asserting that 4/1 is +EV are misrepresenting the complexities of "EV" and the offer.
- You need a long-term return of ~86%, before manual adjustments, on selections with odds greater than 4/1, for the offer to turn you a profit. This means you need a strike rate of 18%+ on these selections. I never disputed that it was possible to obtain this for the APer but the margins are tiny at these odds - you need to be really really good.
- Taking close matches on the exchange, i.e. using the exchange as a benchmark for value odds, is not good enough to sure a good strike rate. This may not hold true for "steamers" and other interesting anomalies that an APer can use to their advantage.
- Odds of 4/1 (5.00 decimal) are not arbitrary and you can show using a simple model (my first post) why this threshold was chosen. Contrary to what the marketing wants you to believe it has nothing to do with Channel 4. This was the primary purpose.
I agree with this, I'd jump in laying your qualifying selections for zero loss, right away.
Originally Posted by Nintendo2k
HMex, in your opening post you said "I just want to ensure people aren't disillusioned into thinking the offer is a ticket to long-term profits without other good AP practices."
Originally Posted by Fella
I appreciate you are setting out a view/graph not to represent an AP'er but rather an 'average' punter, but if the bolded part of what Fella said is correct and your laying of the bets rather than straight punting "doesn't substantively affect EV" then what is it that you do in terms of other good AP practices which makes this an +EV offer?
Laying off the qualifier does make it "+EV", but not in the straightforward way. No wagering pattern can change the value of the offer, but an +EV bet is almost certainly a precondition of being able to lay at all.
Originally Posted by musicbox
Backing at odds of B and laying at odds of L (effectively L/0.95 - 0.05 after comm.), assuming unknown fair odds of P and laying for no loss (unit stakes, back stake = lay stake):
Long-term value on wins: (1/P) x ((B-1) - (L-1))
Long-term value on losses: (1-1/P) x (1 - 1) = 0
Total value on your bets works out to: (B-L)/P
At first you can look at some standard assumptions regarding B & L:
L = P (Lay price adjusted for commission is a fair price)
B = 0.85P (The bookmaker maintains a 15% edge)
(B-L)/P -> (0.85P - P) / P = -0.15, which shows locking in the negative value of 15%, on the assumed 85% payout at the bookie regardless of odds. This means when the lay price is fair you get the same EV as mug punting the qualifier.
The problem here though in every situation in which you can lay off your qualifier, where you are looking for close odds, (B-L)/P tends toward 0 EV - regardless of the actual true odds P.
This simply changes the "0.85" in my first post equation from 0.85 to a figure much closer to 1.
Importantly, it doesn't necessarily mean you've taken value odds at the bookie (365)...the value could still be all be on the exchange side so even when you're laying for no loss (£52.41 or whatever) you're still taking a value bet that makes the long-term EV of the offer appear positive.
This also explains why taking narbs/arbs on your lays doesn't always result in a long-term profit on your 365 account - the value was always at the exchange.
My 365 account is around break-even after adjustments, and my Betfair account on horse racing bets (all lays) is highly up. This suggests in my case P has, on average, been higher than L but lower than B.
The offer only introduces value long-term when P is between B and L and B is at least 0.86P (this 0.86 isn't an assumption like the 0.85, it's reverse engineering from the 4/1 offer itself).
Don't wish this to sound aggressive or anything else, but what a load of utter cobblers.
I can't say it any less offensively than that.
re. the earlier bf sp discussion, I was under the impression after reading something somewhere a while back that over a large sample the bf sp was infact very accurate in terms of actual probability of result. I can't remember where I read it but I'll look and see if I can find it again. If you have any links or info about it not being the case then I'd be interested to see that.
Care to offer some +EV to the forum and elaborate?
Originally Posted by Fella
Haha, sorry m8, I must be confusing you with someone else.
I thought you were the guy who posted endless drivel in the chatbox, 99% of which is you complaining that you can't find a good match for.....oh, whats the offer now.......um.....something to do with 4/1?
I hadn't realised you'd been adding +EV to the forum, I must have missed it. If you could just point me in the right direction I'll go & have a read. Anything that helps TGT-ers make some dough would do for starters.
Since you apparently haven't noticed, this specific thread isn't about helping TGTers make more money.
Originally Posted by Fella
Perhaps you should spend some of your precious time reading "How to disagree" by Paul Graham instead...maybe I'll thank you for it next time you come trolling.
Tags for this Thread