going back to your original pincer move -why don't you then give some cogent advice to the OP regards how you profit from such single simplistic scenarios. we really all could benefit from a wide viewpoint on this.Pinnochio wrote:jimibt wrote:pinnochio, no problem, i get what you're saying and can only say that i wasn't trying to be smart. in fact, in the spirit of reconciliation, i've posted three screenshots for the game that cyber mentioned earlier, that illustrates what brendon should do to employ this strategy:
The problem I have with these correct score strategies are that they're all generally based mathematically off the total goals market in the first place. So the only way you can win is if the original pricing was incorrect and the market then corrects itself due to what's happening on the pitch. By spreading that original value over so many markets you start losing value either by commission or crossing so many spreads. Or people try to cover some long shot probabilities with 'insurance' bets rarely covering all outcomes as that would make the strategy a loser from the start. With so many football markets available there's usually already a market in place to cover what they're trying to do in a single market anyway, whether that's time of first goal, total goals etc.
+1LinusP wrote: I think your a flipping twat.
we can agree to disagree on your assertion. the stats that i use to select games are all based on the odds compiler looking at historical data and assigning significance to certain outcomes. i walk a line between the ultra-conservative 0-0 scoreline and the very low scoring games. if that riles you, then i'm sorry, it works for me.
i may be talking complete bollocks of course, but my subset of data is not based on any maths per-se - it's based on anomalies and these anomalies are usually (not always) spot on. what's more, the strike rate is high enough for me to risk a comparatively high liability on. the flip side tho is that i can only operate on 8-10 games a day due to my very conservative criteria. however, i'm happy enough with this. less is more and more is good from where i'm standing.
[edit] - regards insurance bets. i would prefer to call them intelligent coverage. if i'm using a conservative approach that ALMOST guarantees one goal and certainly, less than 3 goals, why the h3ll would i not use that data to capitalise on the under 3.5 goals market too. sure an additional commission is raised but at what cost - an additional gain!!
oh, and just to show the benefit of using multiple markets, consider the two screens below (a market that's running tonite)
so in this scenario, i greened out ahead of half time as there was no score. however, this almost certainly means that my under 3.5 goals trade will close successfully leaving a win on the match overall, despite the conservative greening at half time (it's all about trading, not gambling). anyway, i invite your critique (as ever) in due course...
