jamesg46 wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 12:40 pm
Morbius wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 12:04 pm
jamesg46 wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 11:16 am
I remember reading it at the time, not the detail behind why you said they were a lay but I remember the post.
I looked at the price before the game, not to take a position but just to be nosey (was it around even?) and it really didn't stand out to me. Thinking back about it now, it seems it was way off given the fine margins it would take to come away with the victory & both managers talked about that in the days leading up.
Tbh anyway, I wouldn't of known value if it slapped me in the face (obviously because I missed it). As we all know though the market is very efficient over the long term which leads me to beg the question... where did the value come from, was it better perception or maybe from people like me who would fear taking on City at any price?.
Hey fella... Well that rabbit hole goes a bit deep. The price last night for City to win the CL was circa 1/2 but chelsea were 9/5 after the semi. Value is tough to explain because for me it's an experience thing and I just learned to back my judgement in football a long time ago.
The efficiency that you refer to is an overall one and not an individual one. For example if you took 100,000 even money shots the end result would be a win ratio of c50% in an efficient market. But that is what I call a composite efficiency because over priced teams offset under priced ones. In many instances the market lags.
This is why many traders trade in running because the game dynamics are not in sync with pre game prices when the market however sophisticated only has pre event data to go on. So why were city too short last night??? There are many reasons for that of which some are my own opinions and are not quantifiable. I believe league titles and points totals affect odds but these lag.
For example it pretty clear to me that Chelsea were operating at City's level for the past few weeks. This game was a coin flip at best but Chelsea have beaten them twice recently. Tuchel like Emery is very tactically adept and another factor was in how I think city handed Chelsea the psychological edge in their two previous meetings.
Werner may not be scoring goals but what he brings to the team is immense and is why Tuchel picks him. His pace is awesome for a forward and akin to Mbappe and changes the game dynamic. He gets offside too much but that part will improve... Digressing too much here.
The market always overreacts to league titles but that is a year long average. Just like it overreacted to Uniteds 2nd place finish in the Prem when really it's a false position. At the end of the day don't try to find value the way I do. It's hard to quantify... Just trade to your strengths
"The efficiency you refer to is an overall one, not an individual one".
I love that comment because on the surface it comes across as very plain but, if we were to pause on this comment & delve into it I think it could lead to some very insteresting conversations.
I've always had a similar mindset in regards to there being value in judgement, the problem I've always had with that personally is not being able to quantify it as a margin & also getting lost in the subjectivity, especially over longer periods of time.
The subjectivity that you mention is a big problem for many traders. It's like the age old question of comparing quantitative analysis with qualitative analysis. Quants vs Actuaries for example. Yes the subject matter is very deep but for me it's about highlighting what you believe to be RELEVANT facts....sorry for the caps but that point needed to be highlighted.
Market efficiency is ever present and for example the football markets on Pinnacle were proven to show the actual probability of the result to 99.7%. This if misinterpreted appears to indicate very little wiggle room to make money. This couldn't be further from the truth.
A brief analogy if I may.... Its a simple one but it gets the job done. If I ask you a sum of 4x4 then the most efficient and accurate answer is 16. But the markets while arriving at 16 don't arrive at 16 all the time. So take the following sequence.... 13...22....10...19...8 and 24. So in answer to the sum of what is 4x4, the market didn't answer it with 16,16,16,16,16,16 over 6 events but 13,22,10,19,8,24. Add them together you get 96 and divide that by the number of events you get 16 but none of them were actually 16. This is the real true "efficiency" of financial markets and what I meant by composite efficiency. So respect the long term efficiency which means don't expect to make money trading/betting blindly but show the composite efficiency far less respect