I mainly use Pinnacle for dutching and having just checked my p/l for the last 23 months there, it is -£23700!
No way I'd have the nerve to mug everything though.
The price at the asians and the exchanges combined is backed up with $$$, ranging from tens of thousands up to millions on major events, whereas at a bookie that's slow (or won't care) to cut you'll be lucky if they'll accept $100 on that particular bet. That's the main reason why I believe the asians/exchanges make a good estimate of a probability for an event to happen.
Originally Posted by Landprofits
As for the profit/loss figures at the asians/exchanges, you need to take into account that you've probably been employing a poor bank-management system. In other words, you've probably been placing bets of various sizes on various odds making variance a big factor. For example, let's assume that you've placed 10 bets you know are value, with a tenner each on the first nine bets, and 1000 on the 10th bet. You're in a situation that no matter how valuable your bets are, the only thing that will decide if you'll be in profit or in loss is the 10th bet as the first nine ones bear little weight. Due to this high variance, I believe that the few months worth of bets and the p/l figure that comes out of that is not very relevant.
It's a good point, and I agree to a certain point, but I still don't totally believe that it is totally safe to assume the asians represent the true proabability - those lines are so volatile that the market may be overreacting to news. The price is based on market sentiment, whether or not this represents the true probability of an event is another matter.
Originally Posted by dulence
I think the figures posted in this thread are going to suggest it though - and I guess i'm playing devils advocate a bit but I would still not blindly assume that the Asians represent the true probability, only what the market thinks the probability is.
Its an interesting one, I think long term it is more profitable (slightly) to simply mug all your bets as long as they are/were value to start.
(I dont have figures/statistics to a fraction of what some others do I often just scribble down on a post it note when I have withdrawn somewhere with the date and once paid I bin it or after a week chase it a little. So I cannot prove that with evidence)
I treat every bet on its own merits, there is many factors I consider when deciding how much to back/lay, dutch, whatever you want to call it. You bring up a few of the main very very good ones in the opening post. Im waffling now, but to respond to the point "is it more profitable" then yes I think it is definitely more profitable to underlay/completely mug your bets. I cant prove that though. But it is one of the reasons I would hedge my bets to make most profit on the original selection/value choice. Net profit is not the only thing I consider though.
Have a plan and stick to it
So... could another possible reason for only mugging bets be that you effectively prolong the life of a bookie account to some degree by not laying off bets?
Reasoning being that any time you win (especially at longer odds) the book you win at is more likely to limit you in future which effectively decreases the future value of that account (because in future they are less likely to allow you to win as much from them, not to mention being excluded from bonuses etc). As a result in those terms you're actually adding some intangible value to your wagers.
It's another one of those things that's hard to prove one way or another but generally to some extent it usually seems more right to not make a profit if a profitable arb/bet loses (especially if it's a less desirable book).
Right, I've updated my earlier post as I now have all the Betfair p&l figures to combine (which I've done). Considering I use BF a lot less now (well, a lot less since discovering dutching a while back!) it's good to see just how much commission I've paid compared to my overall p&l there... enough for a small family car eh!
Good point however my various bet sizes are no where near that extreme, a couple years worth of records I think would be enough evidence.
Originally Posted by dulence
I agree to some point that market moves just come out of nowhere, there seems to be no apparent reason why its happening and you are not even totally sure the odds you are taking is value. But sometimes there is a good reason for the market move, the asians/exchanges will react and the bookies will stand still. When you know exactly why there is a market movement then you know you're taking value odds on the bookie side. For example Scott Parker picks up an injury the day West Ham play, more then likely the odds of West Ham winning will drift out and the other teams odds will shorten.
Originally Posted by Landprofits
Yeah but the price drift on West Ham is due to public sentiment.
Originally Posted by blowingbubbles
What if you had access to stats which revealed that though Scott Parker is a good player, West Ham win almost as often without him? I've seen stats like this before, not in relation specifically to West Ham/Scott parker but certainly on other teams, that they win almost as often without their star player. But when the star player gets injured the betting market will react causing the drift, and since the stats show different to what the sentiment is doing the asian will actually be the value, and that sentiment is amplified since, as dulence points out that's where the money is.
What I am saying there that that news could actually put the value in the opposite place to where you (and everybody else) would think.
The first time i ever heard of EV was on this site , i never really was knew or was interested in value or probability before .
I get the basic idea but i think that its impossible for us to do it to the level it needs to be done to be an exact science. The variance could wipe us out very easily , the problem is NOBODY knows what the exact chances of something happenning is and most bookies will follow suit with others and if there not inline there prices will be backed in so they can be layed on the exchanges .
The idea that the asians are giving the true probablily of an event happenning doesnt really do it for me . How can anyone know for sure that a bet is value? , if the asians put a price up and everyone backs it , it will move , so who is deciding value ? the regular punter , so if punters are moving the lines then they must be winning if they are taking value .
I dont know about it all , Germany were 3.25 to beat England ??? Alot of people i spoke to that do well betting had that as a huge price , so the asians and betfair are wrong ? Or does the weight of money on england push the germany price out .
I dont think its as simple to go back value lines and assume overall you will win , even the bookies dont win all the time .
Very interesting thread this.
Also - as BB points out in his first post, you have vig at the books and commission at the exchanges which I think accounts a lot for any losses made there.
If you were to instance bet on a coin flip at the exchange at 2.0 and turned over £100,000, you would (statistically speaking) lose £50,000 and win (£50,000 x 0.95) = £47,500.
The result would be a betting p & l of (-£2,500). The affect at the asians is similair because of the vig.
I would actually say at this stage that the vig accounts for more of the losses than does taking poor value.
Tags for this Thread