My Dad's crazy betting system

[snootyjim]

It's a fairly moot point though, because it's pretty rare to get odds of 1.8 on a team like United.

Take their next game - it's against Villa, 13th in the table and in poor form. They're around 9/1 to win.

United, correspondingly, are priced up at 1.36. If you wanted to take a team at odds of 1.8, you're looking at Chelsea away to Sunderland - Sunderland in good form, Chelsea with a habit of failing to win; City away at Birmingham - very tough game at St Andrews.

If you took the games where you could get 1.8 on United, it would probably be against Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City, and if United are at home maybe not even all of them. Perhaps some of the tougher away fixtures. And, correspondingly, they won't have a 60% probability of winning those games.

[munk]

As snootyjim says really.. you just won't get those kind of odds. But generally what he's saying is spot on in terms of that is what everyone on here is trying to do, find the best possible odds on any team to play so you're in an arbitrage situation and can lock in a profit OR just punt it knowing that you got the best possible value for your bet. That and make sure you take as many bonuses as possible to increase your edge/profitability.

[TheWanderer]

Yes he did talk about using free bets in addition to real money to increase the return. I told him not to though - I said it was not an efficient use of a free bet (SNR) to put it on a short priced favourite and that it would be better to use the free bet in a different way.

[Eddie]

He will lose all his money, it might not be next week, or even next year but ultimately there will come a run of games which will wipe him out. This is a martingale system however you dress it up.

Odds of 1.4 imply a result that is expected to be close to 60% likely (plus the bookies markup). Odds of 1.8 imply a probabilty of only 20%. So 60% chance implies wins 60% of the time, 20% implies wins 20% of the time. ManU and Arsenal will most likely win more than 50% of the time so if you can get odds of 1.8 on either it seems a good bet.

This quote is full of basic factual errors. A price of 1.4 equates to a 71.4% probablility and if one strips out a 5% bookies margin then about 67%. A price of 1.8 equates to 55%, not sure where you get 20% from (maybe just a typo). If a team wins 50% of the time at average price 1.8 you will lose, not win. A strike rate of 50% would require average price of over 2.0 to achieve a positive long terms yield. I'm afraid these figures you are throwing about show that you have neither researched the records of results and prices for these top teams, nor that you understand the probabilties of prices. I am sorry if I am sounding a bit rude but I don't want you to lose all your money. I am no expert but I have a decent fundamental knowledge of Value betting and probabilities and believe me when I say that pro gamblers spend hundreds of hours studying these things and developing ideas, computer models to aid predictive analysis and back testing on historical data, and even with all this work they can perhaps gain a small edge in the long term. Having said all that, even if you had a small edge on the bets you are making, by employing a martingale system you will come a cropper. Understanding risk is one of the cornerstones of successful serious betting and the use of a martingale style staking plan is about as wild in terms of staking that you can get.

[TheWanderer]

Hi Eddie,

It's not my system - it's my dads and what you have said is more or less what I have relayed to him - especially about the research element and the hours that pro gamblers put in. I did also say above that some of his calculations were wrong but that it was more the overall logic of his argument that I wanted to test.

I did also say this:

Combining the two teams' results from the 2009-2010, Man Utd and Arsenal won a total of 50 out of 76 matches, which is equal to 65.6%. So you would need better odds greater than 1.54, on average, to have a chance of making a profit. I think this is correct although it is entirely possible that my own understanding is still lacking.

The purpose of me posting is a) to stop my Dad wasting money, and b) to help me fully understand where he is going wrong.

This is my dad's system but I'm trying to use the idea to improve my own understanding of probabilities. I hadn't looked up historical pricing because I really just wanted to make sure I had a good grasp of what would be needed in order for such a system to work.

Believe me I have been rubbishing this system all along but I needed to have it clear in my own head so that I could point out the flaws to him with any credibility.

[Eddie]

Yeh, sorry mate, I meant it to be addressed to your Dad, I realise that you are trying everything to stop him. But it's sounding llike he can't be stopped Kind of funny that you have become the reasonable, sensible adult and he the naive kid with the dream of easy money and bookie bashing systems

The essential flaw in his plan is the staking plan, point that out to him. It is as old as the hills and the casino's best friend.

[TheWanderer]

Yeah you are right, Eddie, think it has been since he retired, although I think part of it is him trying to find some common ground for us to chat about.

Another one he came up with a year ago was keep betting on whatever horse is in stall number one until you get a winner. Think it was Martingale staking system again. I had to sit through that one as well and try and explain why it wouldn't work. It is quite frustrating but at least it makes me think things through as well I guess.

[Shark]

This is why the system fails:

Sunday, 26 September 2010
Barclays Premier League

Bolton 2 - 2 Man Utd

Saturday, 2 October 2010
Barclays Premier League

Sunderland 0 - 0 Man Utd

Saturday, 16 October 2010
Barclays Premier League

Man Utd 2 - 2 West Brom



3 games in a row Man Utd were big favourite and didn't win. Your Dad would have increased his bet size each to win back what he had lost from the previous match.

[Eddie]

My dad and his cousin, when they were young, were both keen gamblers and enjoyed the whole betting thing and the maths of it all, they went to Chelts and over the three day meeting no favourite won. Had you martingaled the favourites each race starting with a twenty quid stake by the last race you'd have been up to something like a 30k stake being needed just to break even.

[Eddie]

Whatever happened with this Wanderer, is he still doing it, or did you talk him off the ledge?