Originally Posted by westv
I'm 99% certain which side the value is on, if I wasn't then I would match that bet out. Admittedly not enough bets yet to get a true long term picture.
That's impressive stuff , I've been doing something similar but not fully mugging I was just mugging interwetten bets and any arbs under 50 . I know I've made more money than I would have matching them off .
The problem I see with doing this on every value bet is , do you stick to maximum bet ? Because when united were playing arsenal the other day there what's lots of arbs on united , would you just mug a set amount or the max you were allowed on the line ? Thanks
Just for contrast, here's a graph showing the results of my value betting experiment. From almost the same time as BB (October 6th), I started doing a little experiment with mugging smaller bets up to around odds of 3 mainly (although there are a few long shots, 23 and 35) - mostly on bets where I was either very limited at the bookie so couldn't lump a lot on or where there was a good chance the bet would be palped.
The primary plot line (Running Total Mugged) in blue are the bets placed on selections that would have netted at least 1.5% profit if I'd laid them off optimally. The purple plotline (Running Total Matched) is just the running total line based on a 2% profit ratio (ie from 100 units of total stakes backing/laying off, 2 units are made as profit) which is roughly what the average p&l would have been per bet. As such that line isn't 'gospel' but isn't far from what it would have been had I laid off the bets optimally.
I've included the stake size in red and the odds in decimal in green (although it's quite hard to make out what the value of the smaller bets were, couldn't remember how to increase the plot line size for just that one axis/plotline). The average odds were 2.2 (although taking off the larger odds bets of 23 and 35 the average is only 1.8).
I placed all of these bets with no conviction whatsoever. The idea of the experiment was to see what the profit/loss would be by placing bets on selections which statistically were out of line / value bets. I never thought to myself 'that has a good chance of winning', I only ever placed the bets if they were considerably out of line.
So quite a small sample size, but then what would be a good sample size? Throws up a lot of questions really - how do you know that the bet you're placing is actually out of line? Why should the market be 'right' about what value a selection should have? What if you only ever pick those selections that the market got wrong (I seemed to manage that quite well )? Was I just incredibly unlucky compared to BB or given a large enough sample would things have evened out over time? Exactly *how* unlucky was I and how would I work that out (considering looking at stripping out just the short priced favourites and comparing the p&l for those, there are quite a few bad beats)?
Very impressive stuff from BB, in particular for having the determination to follow the value in this way. Regularly seeing balances build up in the square books does strongly tempt you to just go with the value.
With that in mind, I should bust out of Dafa fairly quickly..... right?
Yeah this was a point I made earlier in the thread. The market leaders are reacting to "something".... maybe they are over reacting? Therefore you can't expect every bet to be guaranteed value, but then again.... if you was taking the position of a tipster and acting only on your knowledge and analysis..... you wouldn't be right every time either would you?
Originally Posted by munk
His graphs seem to tell a pretty conclusive tale.
Well bookmakers must think that taking "value" must be profitable over time or they wouldn'y try to limit/ close down those that do. The fact that maybe there's only a small amount of value over a huge number of bets over a very long time doesn't seem to matter to them. Give a punter 0.0000001% potential advantage and bookmakers will cry foul!
I should also add I've definitely had some luck, the purple patches have been a lot better then the bad ones. (Although still had a few testing days) My staking plan started off as £300/300eu/$500, this was easily less then 0.5% of my total bank. About a month ago I moved up to £500/500eu/$1000 (although sometimes I have been naughty and bet more if I think there is more value then on average)
If I ever go over my planned stakes then I leave my planned stake to ride and match off the excess, these profits are not included in the graphs.
Of course another option (has this been mentioned in the thread) is to weight your matched arbs towards the perceived value side so that, if the value wins you make more profit and, if the perceived value loses you don't lose anything.
I am really sorry if this is considered as necroing, but I couldnt find any recent similar thread.
Anyways, this is something I am thinking about for few months now, but just dont have guts to do it (because of variance and streaks).
I have noticed that since I started arbing, and that is like 1 year now, my Betfair overall balance is always in minus. And my friends too (he is also in arbing).
Does any1 have positive balance at exchanges (and doing arbing)?
In my opinion, Betfair is very good indicator of value, meaning real odds are at Betfair, and value ones are at bookies side.
I took all my arbs against Betfair last season, and conclusion was that I would make much more money without laying, even with much smaller stakes than I invested in arbs.
I like idea of leaving portion of arb not covered, as bet. As always, this is theory, practice is usually something different.
I dont know what criteria to put here tho, I mean, how much odds should differentiate from BF odds? This part I am uncertain.
Like is a 2.05 at books value when I have lay odds @2? I should go for some percentage here I think.
What do you guys think about it?
Before arbing I was punter, not successful one, but since I started arbing, I educated myself a lot about odds, and now I see that only way to make profit in betting is betting on value odds.
I have to say that I not sports fan, I'm in it just for the money, so I dont have emotions involved in it (but I like to bet against Arsenal or when I see ridiculous low odds in Premier league).
Tags for this Thread