Now Is The Time To Bet Like Men!

We are 9/4 with Bet365 to win on Saturday. That represents a 31% chance.

We have won 3 of 10 league games at home (30%). None of those three victories was achieved with Hammill, White or Long in the side. Reasonable to assume therefore that our actual chances on Saturday might be slightly better than 31%. Wigan have won 3 of 10 away games this season (30%). Yet their best price to win on Saturday is 5/4 (44%). And their recent form has dipped, compared to their overall season record (haven't won any of their last four).

Our goals tally of 28 in the league is only one goal poorer than Wigan's. The downside of that of course is our conceded total (36 against 20). We have the feelgood factors of Hammill's extended contract, a place at Wembley still a distinct possibility, and the fact that we have now only lost one of our last five (all competitions). When we played at Wigan in the JPT, our fans made up getting on for 25% of the crowd. Hard to see the Latics replicating that at Oakwell on Saturday. Add to that it's Christmas, and our fans will be full of cheer (pissed).

None of this is to say that we are certs on Saturday - just that we have a chance to bet with the odds in our favour, as compared to the true statistical chance of us winning.

Now is the time to bet like men!

 

I can't remember the last time we had a good period at Christmas and Easter games where we won more than we lost, usually we get a couple of draws and that's about it, but let's hope we can break this jinx

 

Herein lies the point, Dubai. Are we really still in a "jinx"? It's four games since we've lost. Sometimes the bookies don't update their assessment as quickly as they should do. Anyway, with it being the last game before Christmas, I can see the crowd being in a good humour, which will hopefully help us.

 

Why

are you encouraging people on here to gamble?

It's bad enough that you can't watch the Telly without Ray b****y Winson and the rest nagging us to throw our hard earned cash away.

I think the phrase "I gamble responsibly" is a perfect example of an oxymoron.

 

Re: Why

The bookies will gub you if you start winning regularly......

As a lifelong punter, I have to say it seems pointless. If you lose then fine....but start taking a bit off em regularly and you get gubbed straight away. Four bookies have banned thereev lately for winning.....and it was not huge amounts either but just a steady stream over 3 or 4 months.

The email received blathered on about not betting in accordance with their business plan so therefore you are restricted (banned/gubbed/whatever).

Best thing to do is set ure own bookies up and do just as they do.....encourage losers and ban anybody who dares to win regularly.

hth

 

I am not a betting man, and to be honest, I am never likely to be. Nevertheless, your betting posts do interest me because I am interested in logic and your betting posts are well written. Nevertheless, there are some things about them that I do not understand.

How do you convert the odds to a percentage. For example, how does 5/4 become 44%, and for that matter how does 9/4 become 31%. Assuming the draw also has a percentage, what percentage represents the bookies standard margin of profit.

I have always assumed that betting odds were set by the market. That is, the more money that is staked on a Barnsley win, the lower the price will be, and the higher the price of the other options so as to encourage more money on the alternatives in order to balance the bookies books. Your post suggesting that the bookies have made a mistake flies in the face of the market setting the prices of each bet. Please explain.

During my studies (many, many years ago), the role of the bookie was contrasted to that of the insurance broker. Both collect together premiums/bets which are used to pay out the customer/punter in case of a certain risk/result coming to fruition. The insurance market adjusts premiums according to the likelihood of a certain risk actually happening, just as the bookie does, and the insurance market does this by keeping records of payments, so that it can adjust its rates according to the risk that it faces. For a bookie, they must have a method of calculating the opening market prices, which presumably become redundant as the punters set the market with the amounts of cash that they invest on each of the options. How does a bookie calculate the opening prices.

Although I have no interest in betting, basically because I am just so tight fisted, I am interested in numbers and these questions have been long in my mind. They probably just display my naivety, but I would appreciate your comments.

 

5/4 is approx. 44% because if you add the 5 and the 4 together you get 9. 100% then divided by the 9 is approx. 11(%) so if you times the 4 by 11(%), you get 44%.

Similarly, 9/4 is approx. 31% because if you add the 9 and the 4 together you get 13. 100% then divided by the 13 is approx. just under 8(%) so if you times the 4 by just under 8(%), you get around 31%.

hth

 

Or, just divide the bottom figure of the odds by the total of the top and bottom figures. So, for 9/4, 4 divided by (9 + 4) = 0.307 or (rounded up) 31%.

The odds for our game are around:

Barnsley 9/4 (31%)
Wigan 5/4 (44%)
Draw 5/2 (29%)

You will see that added together, the total percentage is 104%. That is what is known as the "over-round" or bookies' profit margin. So the bookies (assuming bets are all placed in proportion) will return 100 for every 104 that is staked with them. Their profit margin on the market is therefore 4%. The bookies all have their own odds compilers who assess what they think initial prices should be offered. It is true to say that they will adjust those prices should they see a weight of money (or lack of it) for one or other of the options. But they do not make a large number of micro adjustments - they simply seek to ensure their book is not becoming lobsided.

When I say the bookies have made a "mistake" I am of course simply expressing my opinion. The bookies' price represents their opinion. They will look at stats, mainly. In our favour we have local knowledge. So the bookies will see we have recently been on a long losing run and are in the drop zone, whereas Wigan are in the playoff positions. We can see that we have now not lost for four games, we now have Hammill, White and Long, and that a modicum of 'feelgood' factor has returned to the club this week. As I said, the 9/4 (31%) mirrors what we have done up until now in home games this season, i.e. won 30% of them. But the aformentioned factors give hope that our next run of games might see some improvement on that. That's why I question the bookies' 31% estimate of our chances. Similarly, Wigan's percentage of away games won (30%) would not seem to justify a price for this game (5/4) which represents a 44% chance of winning.

What I should say is that these are of course fairly crude calculations, and there are all sorts of factors which you could assign some mathematical significance to. And we are dealing with humans. Nevertheless, the way to profit in betting in the longer term is always dependent upon getting odds which are at least a little in excess of the true percentage chance which you ascribe to your selection.

In horseracing, in broad ballpark terms I aim to achieve a winning strike rate of at least 33%, and for the average price of my selections to be 2/1 (33%) or better. For this calendar year I am operating at 35%, which is good news! This does also mean that 65% of my selections lose, and it requires a certain mentality to handle that, even knowing that these percentages will yield a profitable outcome.

Thanks for your post Red Rain. I could bang on about this topic until the New Year, and there are very likely people on here who are more knowledgeable about it than me. Happy to answer any further questions though.

 

note to mester kaht....I too love arsing about with odds and fractions!!

 

Which is of course why thereev is the meister of the Double Star Nap!

 

Re: Why

You need to spread it about a bit, Mr Reevy. And I'm only talking about your betting!

 

........Now Is The Time To Bet Like Men!

What a strange statement..........has anyone actually looked through the window or door of a betting shop and actually seen, what I would describe as, a proper man stood in there.

Because I haven't..........arn't Betting Shops the domain of the 'low lifes' of society?

Suggestion..........re-name all 'Betting Shops'.......to.........'Idiot Shop'

 

The insurance metaphor is a very good one Red Rain. In the traditional bookmaking scenario the bookies actually operate as 'middle men' between punters that win and punters that lose. They make their own probability assessments and determine their initial prices from this assessment. Different bookies will take differing amounts of cash on each of the outcomes to a race or match. Hence they have different liabilites on each of the outcomes. So the situation doesn't resemble a 'perfect market'.

This altered a few years ago when betting exchanges came to the fore. Here, individual punters put up an amount of cash at a price at which they are prepared to take the bet of another punter. Or they may offer to back a particular selection for a certain amount at a certain price. This method of betting does far more closely resemble the 'perfect market' situation. And these days, the prices available on such as Betfair influence the prices of the traditional bookmakers, all of whom are linked up to the system. So whereas a few years ago you could go to the races and walk up and down the bookies line seeking out a price that was out of line, these days you are less likely to see much difference in the prices offered by the various on-course bookies. With no betting tax on off-course bets these days, the attraction of being on course is lessened, except for the spectacle of seeing the races. That's why big attendances on course are generated by attracting those going for a huge piss-up or for a concert after racing (or both!).

The quote, by the way is one made by the late great Richard Baerlein, who was the doyen racing correspondent of The Guardian. After witnessing Shergar winning the Sandown Classic Trial in April 1981 he exhorted his followers to get on the Aga Khan's horse for the Derby ("Now is the time to bet like men!"). My use of it is flippant, given that my bets are to level stakes - which is probably the only realistic way you can bet to the percentages in the way I described above.

 

See above, Nudger.

 

Thanks for the comprehensive and very interesting information. I had already worked out that a bookie is simply the middle man who arranges bets between his clients, just as an insurance underwriter is a risk manager between his clients. It is an interesting analogy. I am also surprised that the bookie is only making a mark-up of only 4%, though if the odds are not calculated perfectly, I guess that it could be a bit more or a bit less depending upon the result. I guess that is not a unfair mark-up given the risks, and much less than the Rolls Royce expectations that I had.

 

It's probably fairly typical, RR. By comparison, I just checked the odds Bet365 are offering on tonight's Championship match:

Wolves 1/1 (50%)
Draw 5/2 (28.5%)
Leeds 16/5 (24%)

As you can see, that's 102.5%, so the margin is only 2.5% on that one. And of course whether they make a profit on the match as a whole will depend on whether the two teams (and the draw) have been backed in corresponding proportions. On a typical match day they'll bet on all the Prem and league games scheduled, and they will expect that taking all the results into account, they will win in total - even though some games may be losing games for them.

They are able to bet to those fairly small margins because there are only three possible outcomes. Compare this with the Grand National, where there are usually 40 runners! The most recent edition, won by Many Clouds, saw an overround of 165%. How the bookies must love that race! They get away with this because a good proportion of the bets on the race will be from once a year punters who do not overly concern themselves with value.

 

Very interesting.

I must confess, it took a while to understand it, and in the end I did so by imaging a perfect 3 horse race with odds for every horse of 2/1. As you said, the odds work out at 33% and a perfect 100%. Then I imagined the bookies offered only even money, which works out at 50% x 3 and a 50% mark up for the bookies. Simple numbers make the problem far more easy to understand.

Does everyone who makes a bet with a bookie have your understanding of the process, or are most as bad as me, because this is the first time that it has been explained exactly how it works. I suppose it is all academic anyway if you put your money on the wrong horse.

 

I don't think a huge percentage of people who bet think about it as analytically as they might. Of course to use that sort of understanding demands that you must absolutely keep a record of every selection you back. You are mainly right that you still have to pick the right horse. The only qualification I'd make is that you have to put your money on the right horse for an acceptable percentage of the races you back in! In my case, I want that to be in 33% or more of races and I want my average price taken to be 2/1 or better. Of course I hope to back the right horse all the time, but that's unrealistic. The logging of the bets and the thinking time is of course time-consuming. That's why I've been more successful since I took (not very) voluntary redundancy three years ago. I now have more time to think about these things!

 

They wouldn't let you leave if they were called "Idiot Shop"

 

You wouldn't find anybody who's serious about betting loitering in the shops for any length of time. For one thing, you'd be letting the bookie dictate the races you are betting in rather than being selective about them. For another, the betting terms are frequently worse in the shops than those available to the online punter.