BetBurger | Live and Pre-game surebets
RebelBetting - Turn betting into investing

2019 annual review

Is this the new hack of smart gambling?
VidaBlue
To become a Pro
To become a ProTo become a ProTo become a Pro
Contact:
Karma: 68
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:36 pm

Re: 2019 annual review

Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:42 am

cigo wrote: VidaBlue
Good work!
One think i dont agree with you.  It is not important if the work is more administrative or it based more on inovations. Final goal is one: make as much money as posible, how you do it is not important
I think that we both have this in mind: making as much money as possible. But somehow I think it is risky to become too focused on this. It is important to have a vision, the money is the inevitable result of a good vision. Imagine any succesful company such as Google, Apple, Kentucky Fried Chicken, etc. I'm sure it was not within their vision to make as much money as possible, but since their visions and ideas were great, they ended up making much more money that they could imagine.

I fear that chasing money with less attention on being innovative, will eventually endanger one's business.
User avatar
arbusers
Administrator
AdministratorAdministratorAdministratorAdministratorAdministrator
Contact:
Karma: 622
Posts: 6216
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:34 pm

Re: 2019 annual review

Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:36 pm

Niklaus wrote: I am interested in the part where you say copying betting syndicate activity. Is that something opened for the public to do?
Not at this stage Niklaus.
User avatar
arbusers
Administrator
AdministratorAdministratorAdministratorAdministratorAdministrator
Contact:
Karma: 622
Posts: 6216
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:34 pm

Re: 2019 annual review

Sat May 02, 2020 7:42 am

I am very much pleased to read the value traps development, but indeed you need a bigger sample in order to have more solid data and decisions. When you have that sample, in reality, you will know which bookmaker has inside info and who has not. What an invaluable piece of information.

I would also like you to expand in the ‘’market reading process’’ if possible.
VidaBlue
To become a Pro
To become a ProTo become a ProTo become a Pro
Contact:
Karma: 68
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:36 pm

Re: 2019 annual review

Sun May 03, 2020 2:10 pm

Value traps
I am certain that the list will be longer as soon as the soccer leagues begin again. On average I had just one trap per every 2 weeks, because I was only watching 2 (offline) bookmakers and only during the hours when I was monitoring markets manually. Maybe the ability to detect these traps will improve, eventually. Unlike data samples from value betting, I think a much smaller sample will be enough in order to get a strong confirmation of whether the bets are indeed value traps. The reason for this is that the "statistical evidence" (which is a driver for confirming value in odds) requires large samples, whereas a value trap sample may instead reveal evidence due to the same leagues and/or teams showing up on the lists. It seems logical, that a bookmaker who acquires certain exclusive knowledge of a match is likely to have that knowledge again for the same team in another match.

For instance, on my sample of 6 bets, two of the bets were from the same female soccer team. Two were from the same Polish league, one from an Italian league and one from a Portuguese league. The bet that lost, which then didn't confirm the hypothesis, was the Portuguese match.

Let's imagine that this sample increases to 30 bets, with 20 wins and 10 losses. This is indeed very small for statistical evidence in value betting, but what if the same team is present 5 times on this list and the associated trap has been confirmed in all cases? Then I would consider this a very strong confirmation and it would seem rational to lookout for the next trap involving this team, because the bookmaker seems to have had very strong opinions involving this team and being right about it.

I think it is important to keep in mind, that when looking for "value traps" it may be difficult to distinguish between these 3 categories:
  • Value traps: bookmakers intentionally adjusting the odds in order to value bet against the customers. The odds are not anyway near of that being a reflection of the bookmaker's view on probability. The bookmaker just wants to adjust the odds enough in order attract customers.
  • Balancing the line: bookmakers intentionally adjusting the odds just to balance their books.
  • Market experts: Bookmakers simply being experts at adjusting the odds in certain leagues (market odds are different, market has little knowledge) based one their general knowledge. The odds are indeed a reflection of that bookmaker's view on probability.
So a value trap sample may contain all these categories I think. Regardless, if only half of them are indeed value traps, it is still a very valuable reference, which should yield large profits over time when used constructively.

Market reading
In the review, I wrote "predicted derivatives" wrt. market reading. I mainly refer to the observation in one line leading to changes in other lines, with a delay. What I mean by this is maybe illustrated in these two examples:

Example 1. - hockey match with large favorite. The offline soft bookie launches odds on a hockey match moneyline 1X2 (1.38 / 5.5 / 5.25) including all side markets. Their software automatically calculates all side markets which are also launched. The handicap -2,5 line is (2.27 / 1.56). Suddenly a sharp reference enters the market with moneyline 1X2 (1.25 / 6.5 / 8.75) with NO side markets. It is not a positive arb. If the reference is a traditional sharp, such as pinnacle, some value bet services may draw attention to this market and odds will be more likely to start moving, otherwise this situation will stand still for longer. Regardless, we know that once the sharp handicap markets are launched, it WILL be very different than the soft's market and it makes sense to put a stake on the -2.5 hcp @ 2.27. In the next hour, the handicap markets are launched. The sharp odds are launched at -2.5 (1.65 / 2.15), so obviously the bet -2.5 @ 2.27 was a very good one.

Example 2. - unconnected side lines. Let's say that we know that a bookmaker consistently has generous odds at underdog Team Under Goals in soccer. In a particular match we observe arbs on the moneyline and handicap markets due to large odds movements at the sharps. We are too late at the handicap market at the soft bookie. Odds have already been adjusted, but we know that this bookmaker does not adjust every odds influenced by moneyline odds instantly. So we take a look at the usual underdog team under goals market and we find value there, take the bet and subsequently we see that these odds finally decrease as well, as they should.

I warmly welcome any constructive criticism and suggestions to the two subjects above.

Return to “Value betting talk”