Hi all
Been thinking about this all day so your views would be welcomed. As we know the exchange is efficient and nearly all markets are near 100% perfect and show true odds. Therefore if say Liverpool were odds of 2 just before kick off and 20 mins in assuming the score was still 0-0 their odds had drifted out to 2.15 would now have a positive value bet? Does the 20 min time decay affect whether the inplay price was value or not?
Thanks
Football in play
- firlandsfarm
- Posts: 2895
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am
Yes ... and no!
If you are betting in a Win market it's binary ... the outcome is win or not win. But the odd for your selection in analogue. A draw (0-0) is the best example to consider. Say the draw odd is 3.00 at kick-off and the game ends 0-0 (to avoid complicating this with sudden changes when a goal is scored) then at the final whistle the draw odd will be 1.01. But the draw odd cannot stay at 3.00 all though the game until 1 second before the final whistle is blown and suddenly drop to 1.01, it's analogue so will gradually fall little by little from 3.00 to 1.01 (see the graph on Soccer Mystic). If the draw odd is falling then to keep a balanced 100% book the combined odds for the individual teams to win must increase. Hence after 20 mins the odd for Liverpool to win could be 2.15 so ... if your prediction remains that Liverpool will win then you will have better value (whether it will be value statistically is not the same thing). But you need to offset against that where you will lose opportunity if they score in those 20 mins for then by waiting those 20 mins their odds will be reduced. The equation is ...
Advantage of waiting if score is level or Liverpool are trailing > disadvantage of waiting if Liverpool are leading
The problem is that maths such as those used in Soccer Mystic can help you to evaluate the "what if" of that equation it cannot predict which "what if" will apply ... that's down to you so, is there value by waiting 20 mins? Yes ... and no!
If you are betting in a Win market it's binary ... the outcome is win or not win. But the odd for your selection in analogue. A draw (0-0) is the best example to consider. Say the draw odd is 3.00 at kick-off and the game ends 0-0 (to avoid complicating this with sudden changes when a goal is scored) then at the final whistle the draw odd will be 1.01. But the draw odd cannot stay at 3.00 all though the game until 1 second before the final whistle is blown and suddenly drop to 1.01, it's analogue so will gradually fall little by little from 3.00 to 1.01 (see the graph on Soccer Mystic). If the draw odd is falling then to keep a balanced 100% book the combined odds for the individual teams to win must increase. Hence after 20 mins the odd for Liverpool to win could be 2.15 so ... if your prediction remains that Liverpool will win then you will have better value (whether it will be value statistically is not the same thing). But you need to offset against that where you will lose opportunity if they score in those 20 mins for then by waiting those 20 mins their odds will be reduced. The equation is ...
Advantage of waiting if score is level or Liverpool are trailing > disadvantage of waiting if Liverpool are leading
The problem is that maths such as those used in Soccer Mystic can help you to evaluate the "what if" of that equation it cannot predict which "what if" will apply ... that's down to you so, is there value by waiting 20 mins? Yes ... and no!
firlandsfarm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:06 amYes ... and no!
If you are betting in a Win market it's binary ... the outcome is win or not win. But the odd for your selection in analogue. A draw (0-0) is the best example to consider. Say the draw odd is 3.00 at kick-off and the game ends 0-0 (to avoid complicating this with sudden changes when a goal is scored) then at the final whistle the draw odd will be 1.01. But the draw odd cannot stay at 3.00 all though the game until 1 second before the final whistle is blown and suddenly drop to 1.01, it's analogue so will gradually fall little by little from 3.00 to 1.01 (see the graph on Soccer Mystic). If the draw odd is falling then to keep a balanced 100% book the combined odds for the individual teams to win must increase. Hence after 20 mins the odd for Liverpool to win could be 2.15 so ... if your prediction remains that Liverpool will win then you will have better value (whether it will be value statistically is not the same thing). But you need to offset against that where you will lose opportunity if they score in those 20 mins for then by waiting those 20 mins their odds will be reduced. The equation is ...
Advantage of waiting if score is level or Liverpool are trailing > disadvantage of waiting if Liverpool are leading
The problem is that maths such as those used in Soccer Mystic can help you to evaluate the "what if" of that equation it cannot predict which "what if" will apply ... that's down to you so, is there value by waiting 20 mins? Yes ... and no!
Thanks for your reply really appreciate it
- wearthefoxhat
- Posts: 3299
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am
Not sure either.
The market is "true" to the extent that after all back/lay orders have been accounted for, the price is reflective of this. However, there are many opportunites that offer value in certain spots. One of them is team selection/subs and the interpretation of how impactful players are/are not and how effective the manager/coach is in utilising them.
Here more information given about the football game thankful to your discussion that is more interesting and now also I'm searching more game tips and tricks for football. https://oddsseeker.com/
Toss a coin and offer 4/5 heads, 5/4 tails and that's a 100% overround, but they're not true odds.
If Liverpool are 2.0 to win in 90 minutes they must surely have a lesser chance to win in 70 minutes so you expect the price to be bigger. They may or may not be value, depending on your opinion of the match.
- firlandsfarm
- Posts: 2895
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am
gstar, please tell me you are not mixing a 100% book with a 100% market efficiency! Derek is quite right in pointing out that a 100% book does not mean that the market is 100% efficient in it's implied probabilities. If that were the case there would never be value to be had in a market with a 100% book.
I do not have Bf odds for football at kick-off but if I take the maximum Home, Away and Draw odds from the football-data.co.uk spreadsheets for the last 5 Premier League seasons (including this season so far) as being a reasonable approximation to the Bf odds I get an average book of 99.73%, very close to a pure 100% book. The return (ROI) I get if I place a bet on all 3 outcomes in all matches is +6.38%, -6.02% and -0.09% respectively. If the odds were 100% efficient in their probabilities it would be 0% for all 3 (will a very small adjustment for the average underround book). Interestingly the advantage of backing Home would have been much higher in the first 4 seasons but this season the bias is going to the away team. I suspect that is because the market has overcorrected for the previous Home bias.
That’s a good point and something I hadn’t considered so thank youDerek27 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:30 amToss a coin and offer 4/5 heads, 5/4 tails and that's a 100% overround, but they're not true odds.
If Liverpool are 2.0 to win in 90 minutes they must surely have a lesser chance to win in 70 minutes so you expect the price to be bigger. They may or may not be value, depending on your opinion of the match.
My thinking is that sports trading is the only way to make a consistent long term profit rather than out and out gambling. But then I thought that if I could mirror the bookmakers model and either back or lay at better odds than the true probability of that event occurring this would yield long term profits. I must admit I did confuse a 100% book to true probability which is why I asked about gaining an edge in play when the odds would have moved. Luckily I am only paper trading this but thanks for all the sound advicefirlandsfarm wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:55 amgstar, please tell me you are not mixing a 100% book with a 100% market efficiency! Derek is quite right in pointing out that a 100% book does not mean that the market is 100% efficient in it's implied probabilities. If that were the case there would never be value to be had in a market with a 100% book.
I do not have Bf odds for football at kick-off but if I take the maximum Home, Away and Draw odds from the football-data.co.uk spreadsheets for the last 5 Premier League seasons (including this season so far) as being a reasonable approximation to the Bf odds I get an average book of 99.73%, very close to a pure 100% book. The return (ROI) I get if I place a bet on all 3 outcomes in all matches is +6.38%, -6.02% and -0.09% respectively. If the odds were 100% efficient in their probabilities it would be 0% for all 3 (will a very small adjustment for the average underround book). Interestingly the advantage of backing Home would have been much higher in the first 4 seasons but this season the bias is going to the away team. I suspect that is because the market has overcorrected for the previous Home bias.
I can assure you that it is possible to win through out and out gambling (more commonly known as betting ) and even more so on the exchange with a 100% book and no bookies overround. You can't mirror the bookie's model on the exchange because with a near 100% overround your lays will always be undercut and therefore inaccessible.gstar77 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 12:03 pmMy thinking is that sports trading is the only way to make a consistent long term profit rather than out and out gambling. But then I thought that if I could mirror the bookmakers model and either back or lay at better odds than the true probability of that event occurring this would yield long term profits. I must admit I did confuse a 100% book to true probability which is why I asked about gaining an edge in play when the odds would have moved. Luckily I am only paper trading this but thanks for all the sound advicefirlandsfarm wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:55 amgstar, please tell me you are not mixing a 100% book with a 100% market efficiency! Derek is quite right in pointing out that a 100% book does not mean that the market is 100% efficient in it's implied probabilities. If that were the case there would never be value to be had in a market with a 100% book.
I do not have Bf odds for football at kick-off but if I take the maximum Home, Away and Draw odds from the football-data.co.uk spreadsheets for the last 5 Premier League seasons (including this season so far) as being a reasonable approximation to the Bf odds I get an average book of 99.73%, very close to a pure 100% book. The return (ROI) I get if I place a bet on all 3 outcomes in all matches is +6.38%, -6.02% and -0.09% respectively. If the odds were 100% efficient in their probabilities it would be 0% for all 3 (will a very small adjustment for the average underround book). Interestingly the advantage of backing Home would have been much higher in the first 4 seasons but this season the bias is going to the away team. I suspect that is because the market has overcorrected for the previous Home bias.
Football is a very efficient market but one of the inefficiencies in-play is the over-reactions when a side's attacking, red-cards, free kicks outside the penalty box, etc.
If you are looking for a template to help get your head around your proposal this is what I did.
Off the view have selected the Home Team Odds for the Leics v Liverpool game 3.6. This brings up just 18 matches that started with those odds.
Liverpool odds at 2.25 (highlighted green) Row AJ inline with the odds offered by BF. My data uses Pinnacle odds. Leicester odds a lot less than data suggests. Draw odds from BF better than data.
The odds will change before the off but you can get the gist of what can be done
Off the view have selected the Home Team Odds for the Leics v Liverpool game 3.6. This brings up just 18 matches that started with those odds.
Liverpool odds at 2.25 (highlighted green) Row AJ inline with the odds offered by BF. My data uses Pinnacle odds. Leicester odds a lot less than data suggests. Draw odds from BF better than data.
The odds will change before the off but you can get the gist of what can be done
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Atho55 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:14 pmIf you are looking for a template to help get your head around your proposal this is what I did.
Football Model.jpg
Off the view have selected the Home Team Odds for the Leics v Liverpool game 3.6. This brings up just 18 matches that started with those odds.
Leics v Liverpool 3.6.jpg
Liverpool odds at 2.25 (highlighted green) Row AJ inline with the odds offered by BF. My data uses Pinnacle odds. Leicester odds a lot less than data suggests. Draw odds from BF better than data.
The odds will change before the off but you can get the gist of what can be done
Thanks for this really appreciate your help
As I try to improve this yr I find myself moving away from what I used to think of as trading and heading more towards value betting.gstar77 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 12:03 pmMy thinking is that sports trading is the only way to make a consistent long term profit rather than out and out gambling.
But then I thought that if I could mirror the bookmakers model and either back or lay at better odds than the true probability of that event occurring this would yield long term profits. I must admit I did confuse a 100% book to true probability which is why I asked about gaining an edge in play when the odds would have moved. Luckily I am only paper trading this but thanks for all the sound advice
"Trading out" is only important to me when the worst outcome of a market would result in more than a certain % hit to my bank (e.g. 1-2%).
Whether you're gambling or trading you still have to place bets at points of value on average if you want to profit — it's just the money mgmt is different.
When trading, both the entry and exit contribute to your goal of "yielding long term profits" so you have to keep that in mind and think ahead in order to find a neutral or better average exit in terms of value with the time you have left. Sometimes you'll get it wrong and be placing orders at points where it's not value but your objective is just to get it right most of the time, so when the dust settles you come out ahead.
PS I believe it's the case that those SPs are accurate on average but they can deviate both sides in individual cases.
If the real price of something is 2.00 and it played out 100 times with prices ranging from 1.80 - 2.20 when the event started, it wouldn't mean you are wrong to lay the 2.18 if you also intended to back it at 2.20, as if that was your strategy (to lay and back 1st price of the book wherever it is) and you were able to do that, you would come out ahead. Many of your bets will be worse than the true value unbeknownst to you, but many of them will be better than the true value, too so it all balances out.