Exploring Value Betting in Football Match Odds – Exit Strategies

[Fugazi]

This is a good point. For a horrifying moment there I thought the probability didn't add up to 100%. It's 99.55% which I'll take.

I see what you're saying about the extended % and no my model doesn't currently allow for that type of speed change, ChatGPT is going to be worked hard today

You might be better of modelling something more obscure if youre doing it with gpt. Football, especially at the top level has so many people doing this youll struggle to beat them. Too many factors needing a lot of time and computing power. For example the weather, distance travelled to the game, how long since last game etc etc. The factors going into the best models is never ending and needs a team constantly working on it.

Where this can work is when you really study a lower league team, follow team news etc etc. You then combine this knowledge with a model.... I would save yourself the time and use a model that already exists. You'll need to be tracking how different combinations of line ups impact expected results.

If you live near a conference team l, for example, go watch it live and you can coin decent ROI in if you dont mind standing in the cold. You'll want to optimise your set up to be able to quickly place bets. Even better if you follow the team for a long time you find ways to get inside knowledge on injuries etc pre match.

You make some valid points—top-tier football markets are highly efficient, and lower leagues can offer more opportunities due to less sophisticated modeling. Live betting and insider knowledge can definitely provide an edge.

However, dismissing statistical modeling entirely isn’t accurate. While GPT alone isn’t ideal for this, well-designed models (like Poisson-based or zero-inflated approaches) can still find value, especially in niche markets like halftime betting or goal totals. The key is focusing on inefficiencies rather than competing directly with sportsbooks’ full-market models.

I think we are on the same idea - niche / obscure markets. Not premier league match odds basically

[TupleVision]

You might be better of modelling something more obscure if youre doing it with gpt. Football, especially at the top level has so many people doing this youll struggle to beat them. Too many factors needing a lot of time and computing power. For example the weather, distance travelled to the game, how long since last game etc etc. The factors going into the best models is never ending and needs a team constantly working on it.

Where this can work is when you really study a lower league team, follow team news etc etc. You then combine this knowledge with a model.... I would save yourself the time and use a model that already exists. You'll need to be tracking how different combinations of line ups impact expected results.

If you live near a conference team l, for example, go watch it live and you can coin decent ROI in if you dont mind standing in the cold. You'll want to optimise your set up to be able to quickly place bets. Even better if you follow the team for a long time you find ways to get inside knowledge on injuries etc pre match.

You make some valid points—top-tier football markets are highly efficient, and lower leagues can offer more opportunities due to less sophisticated modeling. Live betting and insider knowledge can definitely provide an edge.

However, dismissing statistical modeling entirely isn’t accurate. While GPT alone isn’t ideal for this, well-designed models (like Poisson-based or zero-inflated approaches) can still find value, especially in niche markets like halftime betting or goal totals. The key is focusing on inefficiencies rather than competing directly with sportsbooks’ full-market models.

I think we are on the same idea - niche / obscure markets. Not premier league match odds basically

My pre-match model across English football up to and including League 2 on a Saturday would usually find at best 2 match odds with a tiny edge that I'd be happy to take on as an outright value bet with no further analysis. I was finding decent value in some of the more obscure leagues, the Saudi Pro League if you can get your hands on decent team news, occasionally had some ludicrous differences in odds.

I do believe at this point, although testing is now an arduous process, that WtFH's approach has merit, in that those same matches that threw up value pre-match but with possibly not the greatest edge may have that same edge that is larger at halftime that can then be exploited. This does include Premier League.

[wearthefoxhat]

One observation, IMO, yes, there are big syndicates that pay for large data-sets and have access to skilled coders to produce some excellent data algo's, and, arguably, have an overall edge, but that shouldn't deter anyone having a go at producing something of their own.

Focus on the positive aspects of the task, set small achievable goals, celebrate the small wins, seek support from others, remind yourself of your "why", break down large tasks into manageable steps, practice gratitude, and maintain a positive mindset;

One other point, try not to compare yourself with others. (That's a mind-fuck right there) Focus on your own strengths and enjoy the process.

[TupleVision]

This is the kind of thing that I mean, there's barely an edge here from my model compared to the exchange however, as per WtFH let's see if the same edge exists at H/T or even later into the second half. This is on the Wrexham game

[ShaunWhite]

there's barely an edge here from my model

3.65 vs 3.43 is a decent 1.7% edge, roughly 27% chance vs 29%. That's as good as you'll probably get without more sophistication.
If the 3.43 is spot on right of course.

[wearthefoxhat]

there's barely an edge here from my model

3.65 vs 3.43 is a decent 1.7% edge, roughly 27% chance vs 29%. That's as good as you'll probably get without more sophistication.
If the 3.43 is spot on right of course.

+1

Looks good with some interesting metrics in the mix.

[TupleVision]

there's barely an edge here from my model

3.65 vs 3.43 is a decent 1.7% edge, roughly 27% chance vs 29%. That's as good as you'll probably get without more sophistication.
If the 3.43 is spot on right of course.

So, agreed however I am factoring exactly this 'without more sophistication if the 3.43 is spot on right...'. I'm now allowing for a margin of error with this model so to speak, the idea now is to confirm this model with my in-play model, in that if I get the same 'lay the draw' outcome it is a stronger signal with the edge confirmed. I'm only looking at laying as an edge I'm willing to take, never backing so in the Wrexham match it's a lay of the draw only.

Please feel free to point out where I might be going wrong with this approach but my thinking here is this, [run through GPT to make it a bit more coherent!]

• Market Overround Works in Your Favour – The exchange market is designed with a built-in overround favouring lay bettors. If the true probability of an outcome is 30% but the market prices it at 35%, laying is more profitable than backing the other side.
  
  Cash-Out & Hedging Flexibility – Laying allows for easier hedging as odds fluctuate, making it possible to secure a profit or reduce risk mid-game, especially if odds drift towards fair value.
  
  Long-Term Sustainability – Consistently finding mispriced lay bets can offer a better long-term return, as markets tend to overestimate favourites and underestimate less likely outcomes, creating more exploitable edges on the lay side.
  
  Better Psychological Edge – Lay betting avoids the gambler’s bias of looking for winners; instead, you're profiting when an outcome doesn’t happen, which is often easier to exploit in unpredictable football matches.

In short, laying with an edge allows you to take advantage of inefficient market pricing, better liquidity, and more flexibility compared to backing.

[wearthefoxhat]

Just for the craic.

Projecting my xG, Lay the draw looks about right at HT. (My pre-off ZIP had Leyton Orient as good value to win outright @ 3.65)

HT Review.png

Betfair has been a bit sketchy this evening, along with a few other major soccer websites with their maintenance.

[TupleVision]

This is the kind of thing that I mean, there's barely an edge here from my model compared to the exchange however, as per WtFH let's see if the same edge exists at H/T or even later into the second half. This is on the Wrexham game

Ok so this does seem to have confirmed Jesus no pressure now right.

[TupleVision]

Just for the craic.

Projecting my xG, Lay the draw looks about right at HT. (My pre-off ZIP had Leyton Orient as good value to win outright @ 3.65)


HT Review.png


Betfair has been a bit sketchy this evening, along with a few other major soccer websites with their maintenance.

Nice! Ok it seems like I/we may be either... along the right lines or both idiots

[ShaunWhite]

Please feel free to point out where I might be going wrong with this approach but my thinking here is this, [run through GPT to make it a bit more coherent!]

• Market Overround Works in Your Favour – The exchange market is designed with a built-in overround favouring lay bettors. If the true probability of an outcome is 30% but the market prices it at 35%, laying is more profitable than backing the other side.
  
  Cash-Out & Hedging Flexibility – Laying allows for easier hedging as odds fluctuate, making it possible to secure a profit or reduce risk mid-game, especially if odds drift towards fair value.
  
  Long-Term Sustainability – Consistently finding mispriced lay bets can offer a better long-term return, as markets tend to overestimate favourites and underestimate less likely outcomes, creating more exploitable edges on the lay side.
  
  Better Psychological Edge – Lay betting avoids the gambler’s bias of looking for winners; instead, you're profiting when an outcome doesn’t happen, which is often easier to exploit in unpredictable football matches.

In short, laying with an edge allows you to take advantage of inefficient market pricing, better liquidity, and more flexibility compared to backing.

Tbh I think most of that gpt viewpoint is bollocks and my gpt agrees with me.

Yeah, I see why you think it’s nonsense. There are some classic misconceptions in there:

1. Overround Works in Your Favour – This is a misunderstanding. On the exchange, the overround doesn’t inherently favour either backers or layers; it’s just a reflection of supply and demand. If you’re laying at 35% when the true price is 30%, yes, that’s profitable – but the same applies if you’re backing at 30% when the true price is 35%. Edges work both ways. The overround itself is neutral; it’s your ability to identify mispricing that matters.


2. Cash-Out & Hedging Flexibility – True to an extent, but this applies equally to backing and laying. Both positions can be traded out if odds move in your favour. Laying isn’t magically better for this.


3. Long-Term Sustainability – This is just an assertion without evidence. The claim that markets overestimate favourites and underestimate outsiders is a common belief, but data often suggests the opposite (favourite-longshot bias), and even if true, it doesn’t automatically mean laying is better. You could equally exploit it by backing underdogs.


4. Psychological Edge – Maybe some truth here for certain people, but this is personal preference, not an objective advantage. Some people might find laying more comfortable, but the market doesn’t care about your psychology – it still comes down to getting better odds than the true probability.



Bottom line: Laying isn’t inherently better; you still need an edge. Whether you back or lay, you’re just expressing an opinion on value. The rest is mostly mental gymnastics.

[TupleVision]

Please feel free to point out where I might be going wrong with this approach but my thinking here is this, [run through GPT to make it a bit more coherent!]

• Market Overround Works in Your Favour – The exchange market is designed with a built-in overround favouring lay bettors. If the true probability of an outcome is 30% but the market prices it at 35%, laying is more profitable than backing the other side.
  
  Cash-Out & Hedging Flexibility – Laying allows for easier hedging as odds fluctuate, making it possible to secure a profit or reduce risk mid-game, especially if odds drift towards fair value.
  
  Long-Term Sustainability – Consistently finding mispriced lay bets can offer a better long-term return, as markets tend to overestimate favourites and underestimate less likely outcomes, creating more exploitable edges on the lay side.
  
  Better Psychological Edge – Lay betting avoids the gambler’s bias of looking for winners; instead, you're profiting when an outcome doesn’t happen, which is often easier to exploit in unpredictable football matches.

In short, laying with an edge allows you to take advantage of inefficient market pricing, better liquidity, and more flexibility compared to backing.

Tbh I think most of that gpt viewpoint is bollocks and my gpt agrees with me.

Yeah, I see why you think it’s nonsense. There are some classic misconceptions in there:

1. Overround Works in Your Favour – This is a misunderstanding. On the exchange, the overround doesn’t inherently favour either backers or layers; it’s just a reflection of supply and demand. If you’re laying at 35% when the true price is 30%, yes, that’s profitable – but the same applies if you’re backing at 30% when the true price is 35%. Edges work both ways. The overround itself is neutral; it’s your ability to identify mispricing that matters.


2. Cash-Out & Hedging Flexibility – True to an extent, but this applies equally to backing and laying. Both positions can be traded out if odds move in your favour. Laying isn’t magically better for this.


3. Long-Term Sustainability – This is just an assertion without evidence. The claim that markets overestimate favourites and underestimate outsiders is a common belief, but data often suggests the opposite (favourite-longshot bias), and even if true, it doesn’t automatically mean laying is better. You could equally exploit it by backing underdogs.


4. Psychological Edge – Maybe some truth here for certain people, but this is personal preference, not an objective advantage. Some people might find laying more comfortable, but the market doesn’t care about your psychology – it still comes down to getting better odds than the true probability.



Bottom line: Laying isn’t inherently better; you still need an edge. Whether you back or lay, you’re just expressing an opinion on value. The rest is mostly mental gymnastics.

I wish it'd make it's mind up.

Tbh I think I'm trying to convince myself that I only want to lay for the psychological aspect, "bookies are essentially layers and they always win right" type of mindset. I do agree, if there's an edge there's an edge and that will be played out by the law of large numbers. I just need to sort it out in my head.

[wearthefoxhat]

Please feel free to point out where I might be going wrong with this approach but my thinking here is this, [run through GPT to make it a bit more coherent!]

• Market Overround Works in Your Favour – The exchange market is designed with a built-in overround favouring lay bettors. If the true probability of an outcome is 30% but the market prices it at 35%, laying is more profitable than backing the other side.
  
  Cash-Out & Hedging Flexibility – Laying allows for easier hedging as odds fluctuate, making it possible to secure a profit or reduce risk mid-game, especially if odds drift towards fair value.
  
  Long-Term Sustainability – Consistently finding mispriced lay bets can offer a better long-term return, as markets tend to overestimate favourites and underestimate less likely outcomes, creating more exploitable edges on the lay side.
  
  Better Psychological Edge – Lay betting avoids the gambler’s bias of looking for winners; instead, you're profiting when an outcome doesn’t happen, which is often easier to exploit in unpredictable football matches.

In short, laying with an edge allows you to take advantage of inefficient market pricing, better liquidity, and more flexibility compared to backing.

Tbh I think most of that gpt viewpoint is bollocks and my gpt agrees with me.

Yeah, I see why you think it’s nonsense. There are some classic misconceptions in there:

1. Overround Works in Your Favour – This is a misunderstanding. On the exchange, the overround doesn’t inherently favour either backers or layers; it’s just a reflection of supply and demand. If you’re laying at 35% when the true price is 30%, yes, that’s profitable – but the same applies if you’re backing at 30% when the true price is 35%. Edges work both ways. The overround itself is neutral; it’s your ability to identify mispricing that matters.


2. Cash-Out & Hedging Flexibility – True to an extent, but this applies equally to backing and laying. Both positions can be traded out if odds move in your favour. Laying isn’t magically better for this.


3. Long-Term Sustainability – This is just an assertion without evidence. The claim that markets overestimate favourites and underestimate outsiders is a common belief, but data often suggests the opposite (favourite-longshot bias), and even if true, it doesn’t automatically mean laying is better. You could equally exploit it by backing underdogs.


4. Psychological Edge – Maybe some truth here for certain people, but this is personal preference, not an objective advantage. Some people might find laying more comfortable, but the market doesn’t care about your psychology – it still comes down to getting better odds than the true probability.



Bottom line: Laying isn’t inherently better; you still need an edge. Whether you back or lay, you’re just expressing an opinion on value. The rest is mostly mental gymnastics.

I wish it'd make it's mind up.

Tbh I think I'm trying to convince myself that I only want to lay for the psychological aspect, "bookies are essentially layers and they always win right" type of mindset. I do agree, if there's an edge there's an edge and that will be played out by the law of large numbers. I just need to sort it out in my head.

I can see why you say your preference is laying like the bookie would do.

I've always believed that the maria lay staking plan is a fair one and could be incorporated into the process, on home/draw/away match odds in someway. If the price is value to lay, and within the set price range, then you lay to a fixed stake, proportionate to your bank, not fixed liability.

Dutch back staking is a form of laying too. ie:Backing Home/Draw at value back odds = Laying the away team.

[ShaunWhite]

Tbh I think I'm trying to convince myself that I only want to lay for the psychological aspect, "bookies are essentially layers and they always win right"

My gpt is well trained in the game, but it took a lot of correcting bs to get there.

Bookies win by laying punters bets as its all they can do , on an exchange you and the bookies can offer both sides. It's the right mindset though, if you're taking prices like a punter you're just filling the pockets of the people making shrude offers (eg the bookies and us). Bookies win because the offer sht prices, that's the lesson.

[TupleVision]

Tbh I think I'm trying to convince myself that I only want to lay for the psychological aspect, "bookies are essentially layers and they always win right"

My gpt is well trained in the game, but it took a lot of correcting bs to get there.

Bookies win by laying punters bets as its all they can do , on an exchange you and the bookies can offer both sides. It's the right mindset though, if you're taking prices like a punter you're just filling the pockets of the people making shrude offers (eg the bookies and us). Bookies win because the offer sht prices, that's the lesson.

I think another reason I prefer laying in football match odds is I then have 2 runners running for me rather than backing 1. Again I know this is psychological and an edge is an edge but it helps to process the losses in my head in my head I think.