If you think about it, if the score is currently 1-0, then trading CS 1-0 and U1.5 is exactly the same thing. Backing either results in a loss if a goal goes in, or a win if there are no goals, and vice versa for laying. The prices should be identical. Often the prices might be slightly difference, but rarely (if ever) would there be a opportunity for arbitrage. You would pick one market over the other if either it gave you better odds or there was more liquidity, but aside from that, they are identical if there has been 1 goal already.max_usted wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:47 pmAmazing results from Psychoff's scalpy bot - his Twitter feed is always very interesting to read and in a recent Tweet he wrote of it:
:Scalpy trades in the under and CS markets. If the score is 1-0, then it trades in under 1,5 and CS 1-0"
What do people think this involves - is this something like arbing between these two markets as time decays? Or using one of the markets as a hedge against a goal being scored while a back bet is open in the other market? First of these two options seems more likely?
I expect Psychoff is just trading these markets using a signal for whether there is going to be another goal soon or not. If there is a signal for a goal soon, then lay. You pay a premium as the time decays with no goal, but win if a goal goes in. If there's a signal for no goal, then you back, gain profit slowly due to time decay, and then trade out if the signal switches to a potential goal coming.
As for how he gets his signals, I think he probably has live match data for things like shots on goal, corners, possession, etc... then feeds that into an algorithm to determine if a goal is more or less likely than the market is implying.