Backing match odds or "overs": what holds more value?

[Alexander_99]

Over the last few weeks a part of my strategy has been the following. Watch a match. If it's around half time mark, and a pre-kick favourite team is either a goal behind, or drawing (say 0-0), but has been attacking strongly, I'd enter the " over 2 goals" market, (e.g. if it's 0-0, I would bet on over 1.5 goals, and if it's 0-1, I'd bet on over 2.5 goals, etc), and also I would back the favourite. I'd use 2% of my bank for each stake. So 4% in total for the 2 back bets.

If a favourite scores early-ish, then I simply remove my liability and let the potential profits run. This is the easy case. What is of interest to me is the other possibility: what if no goals have been scored, it's 70 min in the game but the action hasn't slowed down?

What I do is the following: if no further goals have been scored by around 75 min, I'd trade out of the " over 2 goals" - usually at this point I'd lose 90% of my stake. However, if the favourite is still strongly attacking, / there are signs of a coming goal, I'd reinforce my match odds position by either:

1) Laying the leading team

or

2) Laying the draw

Using further 2% liability of my bank, in addition to keeping my back bet on the favourite open. Further, I would back the "over 1 goal" market using 2% stake. (So if it's 0-0, I'd back over 0.5 goals). I would keep these bets open till the end.


The logic being that, these 2 further bets, in case of a late goal, would make me break even on "overs", and potentially break even, or even make a large profit on match odds.

The downside is that I'd be facing a loss of 8% of my bank on a single game in the unlucky scenario of no goals being scored. And I could lose a huge chunk of my bank if I hit a series of such matches in a row.

So I'd like to ask your opinion if this is a sound approach, or would it be more profitable long term to simply back the overs market and not bother with match odds? One could object "why don't you exit your match odds / overs position earlier if no goals are scored", but I see no sense in this: if I am entering a market at half time, then I am doing so from my judgement based on the game state / value - so why would I lose value by trading out early?

I'd like to hear from people who have extensive practical experience with such scenarios, rather than just theory.

[Kai]

I'd like to hear from people who have extensive practical experience with such scenarios, rather than just theory.

Plenty wrong with what you're doing but this sentence makes the least sense. Feeling entitled to valuable specialist knowledge simply by offering a bit of random theory of your own, it hardly seems a fair trade. In case you haven't heard the street value for such specialist knowledge has recently gone up from free to about £2000.

[ShaunWhite]

The downside is that I'd be facing a loss of 8% of my bank on a single game in the unlucky scenario of no goals being scored. And I could lose a huge chunk of my bank if I hit a series of such matches in a row.

If 8% is too much then just use smaller stakes.

btw this whole idea of a percentage of 'bank'... That's applicable if you have the entire amount you wish to invest in trying to learn to trade in your Betfair account. But if you've only got a few hundered quid in there, but expect to spend 2 or 3 grand learning then I don't see how it's relevent. If you stick more money in the bank then that 8% reduces, if you're drip feeding your bank a few quid at a time then you might risk >8%. Is the money in your Befair account all of your working capital, or are you thinking of topping it up...eg when you say 8%, what is it 8% of?

[Derek27]

The downside is that I'd be facing a loss of 8% of my bank on a single game in the unlucky scenario of no goals being scored. And I could lose a huge chunk of my bank if I hit a series of such matches in a row.

You've really answered your own question with that paragraph. All strategies, even the most profitable, have an upside and a downside. It's a question of finding one where the balance is tipped in the upside favour, which involves extensive testing and tweaking.

[Alexander_99]

I'd like to hear from people who have extensive practical experience with such scenarios, rather than just theory.

Plenty wrong with what you're doing but this sentence makes the least sense. Feeling entitled to valuable specialist knowledge simply by offering a bit of random theory of your own, it hardly seems a fair trade. In case you haven't heard the street value for such specialist knowledge has recently gone up from free to about £2000.

Could you elaborate on what is that is "plenty wrong" with what I am doing?

I don't feel entitled to anything. I am not offering a "random theory", as I am putting this into practice on two matches right now, literally just seconds before I typed this sentence. And in addition, last time I checked, backing "over" markets around half time isn't exactly new or "random" theory. I'm just asking for people's opinions on my on variation of this approach - and I'd rather hear opinions from people who are qualified to give it, rather than armchair experts.

[Kai]

I'd like to hear from people who have extensive practical experience with such scenarios, rather than just theory.

Plenty wrong with what you're doing but this sentence makes the least sense. Feeling entitled to valuable specialist knowledge simply by offering a bit of random theory of your own, it hardly seems a fair trade. In case you haven't heard the street value for such specialist knowledge has recently gone up from free to about £2000.

Could you elaborate on what is that is "plenty wrong" with what I am doing?

I don't feel entitled to anything. I am not offering a "random theory", as I am putting this into practice on two matches right now, literally just seconds before I typed this sentence. And in addition, last time I checked, backing "over" markets around half time isn't exactly new or "random" theory. I'm just asking for people's opinions on my on variation of this approach - and I'd rather hear opinions from people who are qualified to give it, rather than armchair experts.

I get that, no need to explain, I know exactly where you're coming from and have met many Alexander_99's before We have very different definitions of what practice and theory is but that's beside the point, the manner in which you are asking for specialist advice can be seen as insulting to all the non-specialists and the various people that tried giving you all sorts of advice in pretty much every thread you've made.

There's people that don't even care about football at all like Derek and yet they are still willing to give you a bit of advice, despite your bold text warning that they all should stay away because their advice is apparently worthless. Bashing a predominantly racing oriented forum for not providing sufficient football trading advice makes little sense. Sorry, but this annoys me slightly

Advice is only as good as the recipient's willingness to heed it, like Peter sometimes pointed out when some people got zero value from his advice in general, and on top of that instead of thanks he gets their own frustrations aimed at him. The very fact that some knowledge transcends sport is what makes Derek qualified to give advice in the first place, you can try and filter it out but it's just plain rude.

[jimibt]

fwiw - i also politely read your entire OP (which wasn't a trivial one liner). I was then met with an exclusivity clause at the bottom (did I mention that I'd read the entire post to see if i could in any way help??).

Anyway, after seeing that, even tho' i could have offered advice that would possibly sharpen your apporach, I didn't as i was mightily put off. it may well be that any advice i could have offered would have meant that it took you time to filter it out as not useful, but at least you'd have had some community input.

bad show - could do better

[Kai]

fwiw - i also politely read your entire OP (which wasn't a trivial one liner). I was then met with an exclusivity clause at the bottom (did I mention that I'd read the entire post to see if i could in any way help??).

Anyway, after seeing that, even tho' i could have offered advice that would possibly sharpen your apporach, I didn't as i was mightily put off. it may well be that any advice i could have offered would have meant that it took you time to filter it out as not useful, but at least you'd have had some community input.

bad show - could do better

You've explained it much more eloquently in far fewer words Jim. A lot of people probably got baited into reading the whole thing carefully to try and understand where the issue is, only to be told to piss off at the end so their time was nothing but wasted.

[Derek27]

I'd rather hear opinions from people who are qualified to give it, rather than armchair experts.

What qualification did you have in mind, PhD in Betfair trading?

[Kai]

I'd rather hear opinions from people who are qualified to give it, rather than armchair experts.

What qualification did you have in mind, PhD in Betfair trading?

I'm sure I've said it once before Derek, we all need to have our lifetime Betfair profit numbers displayed just below our username. So that the advice seekers know which advice givers to trust with their money!

[Alexander_99]

Wow, I had no idea that my comment would generate such a negative response here! It was totally innocent and in no way intended to be rude or discourage anyone from posting. Rather, since my question was quite specific, with my comment I was hoping specifically to attract the attention of those who would have already experimented with similar ideas hundreds of times (and either have failed or succeeded).

Could we get back to the original question at hand please?

[Ver3bal k1nt]

Hi Alexander,
First time posting but have been on here for a while quietly picking these fine gentlemens brains behind the scenes! Anyway, if I can waver the exclusivity clause and add my two pence worth.
I think your overcomplicating a quite simple trade. If the underdog has taken the lead and your watching the favourite dominate the game, why don't you just back the existing score, aswell as O2.5? If underdog scores again you can cash out on the O2.5, favourite equalizes you can lay the draw, and also keep the O2.5 trade going if it looks like they may get a winner. Maybe close trades after say 85mins if underdog is still winning, that way the correct score bet will hopefully offset the O2.5 red.
Just a few random thoughts I felt like contributing to the forum. Alexander, or anyone else on here please feel free to blow me out the water if I'm talking garbage