In play Betting Diary Challenge 2022

[Derek27]

And why does the edge have to be big? An edge is an edge... the only difference is that obviously the bigger the edge the bigger the long term profit

The size of the edge is very important; it can fluctuate, or it can disappear altogether. The bigger the edge the more confident you are and the more you can stake. Edges don't always last so you have to take advantage of them while they exist as long as you don't influence the market.

My point really is that you don't know if you have an edge or not. You'd have to place bets in 100's of markets at different price points before you'll know. And when laying at odds against you're using up more of your bank while figuring that out.

Sure. But in the end, even when someone doesn't have an edge, I assume they are just going to end break even over a long run. So there's no real risk here.

And since the day of creation of this thread, I placed bets in about 120 markets already.

If that's the case, where do the losers come from?

If a team's worth 2.5, punters with an edge will back them above 2.5 and profit; punters without an edge will back them below 2.4 (or lay above 2.5) and lose. Even people with a betting edge will lose if they don't have the money management/staking skills required.

[On_The_Edge]

The size of the edge is very important; it can fluctuate, or it can disappear altogether. The bigger the edge the more confident you are and the more you can stake. Edges don't always last so you have to take advantage of them while they exist as long as you don't influence the market.

My point really is that you don't know if you have an edge or not. You'd have to place bets in 100's of markets at different price points before you'll know. And when laying at odds against you're using up more of your bank while figuring that out.

Sure. But in the end, even when someone doesn't have an edge, I assume they are just going to end break even over a long run. So there's no real risk here.

And since the day of creation of this thread, I placed bets in about 120 markets already.

If that's the case, where do the losers come from?

If a team's worth 2.5, punters with an edge will back them above 2.5 and profit; punters without an edge will back them below 2.4 (or lay above 2.5) and lose. Even people with a betting edge will lose if they don't have the money management/staking skills required.

Money management and sane staking plan is assumed

And overall over a long time scale losses and profits should average out if one doesnt have an edge

[Derek27]

Sure. But in the end, even when someone doesn't have an edge, I assume they are just going to end break even over a long run. So there's no real risk here.

And since the day of creation of this thread, I placed bets in about 120 markets already.

If that's the case, where do the losers come from?

If a team's worth 2.5, punters with an edge will back them above 2.5 and profit; punters without an edge will back them below 2.4 (or lay above 2.5) and lose. Even people with a betting edge will lose if they don't have the money management/staking skills required.

Money management and sane staking plan is assumed

And overall over a long time scale losses and profits should average out if one doesnt have an edge

That's total rhubarb OTE. If people without an edge don't lose, who does lose?

[On_The_Edge]

If that's the case, where do the losers come from?

If a team's worth 2.5, punters with an edge will back them above 2.5 and profit; punters without an edge will back them below 2.4 (or lay above 2.5) and lose. Even people with a betting edge will lose if they don't have the money management/staking skills required.

Money management and sane staking plan is assumed

And overall over a long time scale losses and profits should average out if one doesnt have an edge

That's total rhubarb OTE. If people without an edge don't lose, who does lose?

I think it depends on what kind of people you refer to. Most people would lose because of poor bank management, chasing losses, rubbish approaches like martingale, panic and bad emotional decisions...

All this combined with simply not enough bets for the averaging out effect to take place

Because averaging requires hundreds, or better thousands of bets

most people lose because of the combination of the above factors

Even losing strategies like martingale would be winning ones in theory if one had infinite bank roll and market would allow stake sizes to infinity and you had infinite amount of bets allowed

[Derek27]

Money management and sane staking plan is assumed

And overall over a long time scale losses and profits should average out if one doesnt have an edge

That's total rhubarb OTE. If people without an edge don't lose, who does lose?

I think it depends on what kind of people you refer to. Most people would lose because of poor bank management, chasing losses, rubbish approaches like martingale, panic and bad emotional decisions...

All this combined with simply not enough bets for the averaging out effect to take place

Because averaging requires hundreds, or better thousands of bets

most people lose because of the combination of the above factors

Even losing strategies like martingale would be winning ones in theory if one had infinite bank roll and market would allow stake sizes to infinity and you had infinite amount of bets allowed

So people who have no understanding of value and will back short-priced favourites in handicaps that are only half the price they should be will break even.

As for the Martingale, anything could happen in another universe but I'm only concerned about betting in this one.

[On_The_Edge]

That's total rhubarb OTE. If people without an edge don't lose, who does lose?

I think it depends on what kind of people you refer to. Most people would lose because of poor bank management, chasing losses, rubbish approaches like martingale, panic and bad emotional decisions...

All this combined with simply not enough bets for the averaging out effect to take place

Because averaging requires hundreds, or better thousands of bets

most people lose because of the combination of the above factors

Even losing strategies like martingale would be winning ones in theory if one had infinite bank roll and market would allow stake sizes to infinity and you had infinite amount of bets allowed

So people who have no understanding of value and will back short-priced favourites in handicaps that are only half the price they should be will break even.

I don’t know what handicaps are and if you are even referring to football or some other sport

If you are talking about horse racing then I have no idea about it

And I mean under some kind of hypothesis that the market is efficient in general more or less... not a situation when the market continuously gives an unfair price

When people place bets at random long term they will sometimes hit value bets sometimes not... this will all even out but it might take tens of thousands of trials

Come on do I really need to spell everything out here

Ps under perfectly efficient market people exactly should break even long term

[Derek27]

I think it depends on what kind of people you refer to. Most people would lose because of poor bank management, chasing losses, rubbish approaches like martingale, panic and bad emotional decisions...

All this combined with simply not enough bets for the averaging out effect to take place

Because averaging requires hundreds, or better thousands of bets

most people lose because of the combination of the above factors

Even losing strategies like martingale would be winning ones in theory if one had infinite bank roll and market would allow stake sizes to infinity and you had infinite amount of bets allowed

So people who have no understanding of value and will back short-priced favourites in handicaps that are only half the price they should be will break even.

I don’t know what handicaps are and if you are even referring to football or some other sport

If you are talking about horse racing then I have no idea about it

And I mean under some kind of hypothesis that the market is efficient in general more or less... not a situation when the market continuously gives an unfair price

When people place bets at random long term they will sometimes hit value bets sometimes not... this will all even out but it might take tens of thousands of trials

Come on do I really need to spell everything out here

Ps under perfectly efficient market people exactly should break even long term

It doesn't make any difference what sport it is, if you back at 2.5 when it's really got a 2.7 chance, you will lose, not break even. If the markets were perfectly efficient you could neither win nor lose and nobody would have an edge, but that's obviously not the case.

[On_The_Edge]

So people who have no understanding of value and will back short-priced favourites in handicaps that are only half the price they should be will break even.

I don’t know what handicaps are and if you are even referring to football or some other sport

If you are talking about horse racing then I have no idea about it

And I mean under some kind of hypothesis that the market is efficient in general more or less... not a situation when the market continuously gives an unfair price

When people place bets at random long term they will sometimes hit value bets sometimes not... this will all even out but it might take tens of thousands of trials

Come on do I really need to spell everything out here

Ps under perfectly efficient market people exactly should break even long term

It doesn't make any difference what sport it is, if you back at 2.5 when it's really got a 2.7 chance, you will lose, not break even. If the markets were perfectly efficient you could neither win nor lose and nobody would have an edge, but that's obviously not the case.

And if you back at 2.5 when it’s got a 2.3 chance you’d win.

So if you do that randomly thousands of times then you’d break even. Which is my point. You’d randomly across value, other times you’d randomly take unfair price.

[Derek27]

I don’t know what handicaps are and if you are even referring to football or some other sport

If you are talking about horse racing then I have no idea about it

And I mean under some kind of hypothesis that the market is efficient in general more or less... not a situation when the market continuously gives an unfair price

When people place bets at random long term they will sometimes hit value bets sometimes not... this will all even out but it might take tens of thousands of trials

Come on do I really need to spell everything out here

Ps under perfectly efficient market people exactly should break even long term

It doesn't make any difference what sport it is, if you back at 2.5 when it's really got a 2.7 chance, you will lose, not break even. If the markets were perfectly efficient you could neither win nor lose and nobody would have an edge, but that's obviously not the case.

And if you back at 2.5 when it’s got a 2.3 chance you’d win.

So if you do that randomly thousands of times then you’d break even. Which is my point. You’d randomly across value, other times you’d randomly take unfair price.

You're talking complete bollocks OTE. If you randomly back at 2.5 when it's got a 2.3 chance, in a fairly efficient market, your bet is most unlikely to be matched because the price won't be 2.5. But back at 2.3 when it's got a 2.5 chance your bet will nearly always be matched. So you will lose substantially.

[MobiusGrey]

I don’t know what handicaps are and if you are even referring to football or some other sport

If you are talking about horse racing then I have no idea about it

And I mean under some kind of hypothesis that the market is efficient in general more or less... not a situation when the market continuously gives an unfair price

When people place bets at random long term they will sometimes hit value bets sometimes not... this will all even out but it might take tens of thousands of trials

Come on do I really need to spell everything out here

Ps under perfectly efficient market people exactly should break even long term

How do you know you're even taking value? What's your criteria for for determining if a bet is value, the other week you backed Man Utd because you deemed their price to be 'value' because and I quote "who do Aston Villa have", match ended in a draw. You may believe you're taking value but as Derek says if you're taking bets at the best available market price it's highly unlikely that you are.

[On_The_Edge]

I'm on Girona at 4.0 at the moment.

[On_The_Edge]

How do you know you're even taking value? What's your criteria for for determining if a bet is value

I am not interested in divulging my criteria here.

[On_The_Edge]

Something for anyone who claims I am making bets up:

Screenshot (160).png

Only 39 markets in the last 7 days. Not enough football action at the moment. Most bets / trades were placed as I was out and about on my phone betfair app, with virtually no time spent on watching the match apart from two-three instances. Still reasonable profit.

Largest stake used about £35, smallest £5. Average risk per trade around £15 or so.

[jamesedwards]

Something for anyone who claims I am making bets up:Screenshot (160).png

Only 39 markets in the last 7 days. Not enough football action at the moment. Most bets / trades were placed as I was out and about on my phone betfair app, with virtually no time spent on watching the match apart from two-three instances. Still reasonable profit.

Largest stake used about £35, smallest £5. Average risk per trade around £15 or so.

Post your last three months.

[On_The_Edge]

Something for anyone who claims I am making bets up:Screenshot (160).png

Only 39 markets in the last 7 days. Not enough football action at the moment. Most bets / trades were placed as I was out and about on my phone betfair app, with virtually no time spent on watching the match apart from two-three instances. Still reasonable profit.

Largest stake used about £35, smallest £5. Average risk per trade around £15 or so.

Post your last three months.

I probably will, when the challenge is 3 months old. I wasn't going to post anything at all initially.