@Vidablue, thank you for sharing this valuable data.
I understand there is a lot of randomness here, but a bigger risk tolerance with the underdogs would pay significantly higher profits. Impressed.
Far from expected value
- Cufs
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 0
- Location: @Smartchoice23
Post
Re: far from expected value
Hey guys,
Regarding sharps the attached results are from valuebets made by users from Rebel Betting.
Its seems that there is money to be made in Sharps and some correct filtering about overvalue% might help a lot, of course adding some analytical input as soon as betting data is enough to be studied.
What do you think about this?
Regarding sharps the attached results are from valuebets made by users from Rebel Betting.
Its seems that there is money to be made in Sharps and some correct filtering about overvalue% might help a lot, of course adding some analytical input as soon as betting data is enough to be studied.
What do you think about this?
- Attachments
-
- Screenshot 2023-06-22 164415.jpg (63.95 KiB) Viewed 2202 times
- mrJustice
- Has experience
- Karma: 5
- Cufs
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 0
- Location: @Smartchoice23
Post
https://www.rebelbetting.com/support#co ... &gsc.tab=0
and this:
How is the value bet calculated?
In our earlier example with the coin toss, the expected value is 5%. It’s calculated as:
(Odds / true odds) -1
(2.10 / 2.0) – 1 = 0.05
Note that this is a trivial example, and our service also takes into account:
The margin of the bookmaker, also known as the “juice”.
Betting bias. Most bookmakers don’t balance their odds perfectly, they adjust their odds to players betting bias and the market.
Market efficiency. A newly open market can offer a lot of value, but the true odds are also more unreliable.
A proven staking strategy, the Kelly criterion.
Several sources for the probabilities (true odds), that are proven over time to be profitable.
and also this:
How to detect value bets
Finding value when sports betting is not as easy as detecting value in a coin toss. In sports, we cannot know the exact probability for a given match.
However, some bookmakers have proven that they are extremely good at determining odds that reflects the actual probability of an outcome. These are often referred to as “sharp” bookmakers, or “sharps”. Some sharps are better than others on certain sports as well. By evaluating these sharp bookmaker’s odds, taking betting bias and market efficiency into account, our servers can determine the “true odds” for any given match. This means that we also know when other bookmakers odds are off and where a positive expected value occurs.
Of course they are not going to say how they do it but its interesting to see that there is valid bets and enough sample to be profitable on sharps.
Re: far from expected value
Found this about value betting in sharps:
https://www.rebelbetting.com/support#co ... &gsc.tab=0
and this:
How is the value bet calculated?
In our earlier example with the coin toss, the expected value is 5%. It’s calculated as:
(Odds / true odds) -1
(2.10 / 2.0) – 1 = 0.05
Note that this is a trivial example, and our service also takes into account:
The margin of the bookmaker, also known as the “juice”.
Betting bias. Most bookmakers don’t balance their odds perfectly, they adjust their odds to players betting bias and the market.
Market efficiency. A newly open market can offer a lot of value, but the true odds are also more unreliable.
A proven staking strategy, the Kelly criterion.
Several sources for the probabilities (true odds), that are proven over time to be profitable.
and also this:
How to detect value bets
Finding value when sports betting is not as easy as detecting value in a coin toss. In sports, we cannot know the exact probability for a given match.
However, some bookmakers have proven that they are extremely good at determining odds that reflects the actual probability of an outcome. These are often referred to as “sharp” bookmakers, or “sharps”. Some sharps are better than others on certain sports as well. By evaluating these sharp bookmaker’s odds, taking betting bias and market efficiency into account, our servers can determine the “true odds” for any given match. This means that we also know when other bookmakers odds are off and where a positive expected value occurs.
Of course they are not going to say how they do it but its interesting to see that there is valid bets and enough sample to be profitable on sharps.
- mrJustice
- Has experience
- Karma: 5
Post
Re: far from expected value
My guess is that their "big secret" is using the king of value betting - Pinnacle for reference. It is not included in the list of sharps with profitable results
- Cufs
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 0
- Location: @Smartchoice23
Post
Re: far from expected value
They also have the Pinnacle results and they are negative. They have presented them a few times before but are not doing it now because it makes no sense.mrJustice wrote:My guess is that their "big secret" is using the king of value betting - Pinnacle for reference. It is not included in the list of sharps with profitable results
- ozcelik
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 0
Post
I think the value lies in pinaccle. Like every bookie, they make mistakes, but I don't think they contain as much value as we get in softs. I guess a value of 1.5% can be obtained.
The data you get from rebelbetting actually confirms this.
I guess because rebelbetting took pinaccle as reference point, it couldn't pass clv there.
On the other hand, if they had done the opposite, that is, if they had taken betfair as a reference point and searched for value in pinaccle, I am sure they would have identified opportunities to capture positive % clv. If they did, they could have provided incorrect values for both pinaccle and other softbooks this time around.
The problem there is that betfair is unreliable, especially in markets with low liquidity, and can often be manipulated by users. For example, if a pinaccle has odds of 1.50, if someone came to betfaire and tried to sell at odds of 1.20, then rebelbetting would have thought there was value in the odds of pinaccle. (I think the alert site we use misled me because it used this method; it described large odds variances in low-liquidity markets as valuebet)
therefore, the program should also have market volume control.
One proof of the value in pinaccle is that some arbitrage bets originate from pinaccle. You will sometimes see arbitrage bets between betfair and pinaccle, these are bets of real value. but they quickly disappear thanks to programmers. I've been able to successfully match very few of them manually when arbitraging in the past.
Another proof is the strategy I set up in the bot named tradeball by defining some variables to detect some values in live games in pinaccle and other sharp books. You can see it in the attachment.
Even though the sample size was insufficient, I got around 7.5% for my middle strategy in the ranking. It seems possible to catch 1.5% in pre match.
Greetings to those who sit in their chairs and collect the value in the pinaccle
some days i had 60-70 open bets on pinaccle. I didn't bother to compare them one by one with other bookies or save the closing line values separately as it would take too much time.
I paid a heavy price for this, a huge loss of nearly 2 months of gain.
If I were you, I would save the clvs of the bets I took and compare them with the values assumed by the program. so it would be easier to figure out if it really is a value. If I was below the clv rates before the game started, I might prefer to play it on the opposite side.
Let's say the valuebet I got was 5%, but when I compare it with clv, it shows a value of -9%. The most logical thing to do in this case is to bet against this bet for losses smaller than -9%. If you are making a small number of bets, this is a viable method. otherwise a very time consuming batch of operations.
I would appreciate it if you could let me know about your future progress.
Re: far from expected value
Unlike other users here i think there is value in pinaccle. we just don't have the skills to find it. I guess those who discover this will avoid revealing their talents here. they're probably laughing right now reading this.Cufs wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 12:43 pmI have read somethings about valuebetting in sharp bookmakers and maybe there's not enough value to do it only with the support of a valuebet finder software. These softwares get their valuebets odds from the correlation between true odds from sharps and bad odds from soft bookies. Therefore if we are using sharp books to bet it will be hard to get value. Do you agree on this?
I think the value lies in pinaccle. Like every bookie, they make mistakes, but I don't think they contain as much value as we get in softs. I guess a value of 1.5% can be obtained.
The data you get from rebelbetting actually confirms this.
I guess because rebelbetting took pinaccle as reference point, it couldn't pass clv there.
On the other hand, if they had done the opposite, that is, if they had taken betfair as a reference point and searched for value in pinaccle, I am sure they would have identified opportunities to capture positive % clv. If they did, they could have provided incorrect values for both pinaccle and other softbooks this time around.
The problem there is that betfair is unreliable, especially in markets with low liquidity, and can often be manipulated by users. For example, if a pinaccle has odds of 1.50, if someone came to betfaire and tried to sell at odds of 1.20, then rebelbetting would have thought there was value in the odds of pinaccle. (I think the alert site we use misled me because it used this method; it described large odds variances in low-liquidity markets as valuebet)
therefore, the program should also have market volume control.
One proof of the value in pinaccle is that some arbitrage bets originate from pinaccle. You will sometimes see arbitrage bets between betfair and pinaccle, these are bets of real value. but they quickly disappear thanks to programmers. I've been able to successfully match very few of them manually when arbitraging in the past.
Another proof is the strategy I set up in the bot named tradeball by defining some variables to detect some values in live games in pinaccle and other sharp books. You can see it in the attachment.
Even though the sample size was insufficient, I got around 7.5% for my middle strategy in the ranking. It seems possible to catch 1.5% in pre match.
Greetings to those who sit in their chairs and collect the value in the pinaccle
frankly I trusted them blindly due to their success in arb bets and did not research the values offered.Cufs wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 12:43 pmA few days ago I had an occurance, but used no tool to compare it:
[*]Got a Overvalue Bet of 38% on Venus Williams vs Camila Gorgi (1set winning by Camila)
[*]I thought that something was wrong about it and my POV is that Pinnacle (PS3838) was the first to notice something 1hour prior to in-play. They corrected the Odds (going up from 1.55 to 1.95, something close to this if i'm not wrong). So in comparison with the other bookies, if Pinnacle was the first to do it then the valuebetting software thought this would be a valuebet. But of course it was not! There was no value, just a late update from soft bookies vs Pinnacle.
Can you tell me what do you do to counteract these possibilities?
some days i had 60-70 open bets on pinaccle. I didn't bother to compare them one by one with other bookies or save the closing line values separately as it would take too much time.
I paid a heavy price for this, a huge loss of nearly 2 months of gain.
If I were you, I would save the clvs of the bets I took and compare them with the values assumed by the program. so it would be easier to figure out if it really is a value. If I was below the clv rates before the game started, I might prefer to play it on the opposite side.
Let's say the valuebet I got was 5%, but when I compare it with clv, it shows a value of -9%. The most logical thing to do in this case is to bet against this bet for losses smaller than -9%. If you are making a small number of bets, this is a viable method. otherwise a very time consuming batch of operations.
I would appreciate it if you could let me know about your future progress.
- ozcelik
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 0
Post
If we do not set a limit on the odds range, we may encounter very volatile variance.
For example, bets with odds of 10 may not occur 100 times in a row. this does not mean that there is no value there, the results will perhaps be more consistent after around 10000 bets, even with 10000 bets there is a chance of bad variance. Even if we really find a value, we can watch it in the negative for months or maybe a year as the effect of bad variance. stock market may promise more profit during this period
30% kelly criteria seems to be the only solution that can help us get out of these volatility. but here another problem arises. Since the stake is very low, the yield will also be very low.
As a result, flat betting is very risky with high odds bets. It can fluctuate up to 10 times the odds. 20 consecutive losses for 2.00 odds (our probability of encountering this is about 1 in 1000000. or 1 in 950000 assuming we have a 5% value), 30 consecutive losses for 3.00 odds, 50 consecutive losses for 5.00 odds and so on.
Re: far from expected value
Thank you very much for your data sharing.VidaBlue wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 11:28 amThank you so much for the sharing of data Ozcelik.
I am hijacking this thread (sorry) to comment on those two points:
1. fixed stake vs variable stake
2. preferable odd ranges.
I have of thought about those for a while, but only today I have looked into this more in detail.
So I have been value betting for a while. In recent years mostly just shop betting. During every bet I have tried to find reasons to downsize my standard stake if there are some uncertainties in order to minimize risk. In some occasions I would also amplify the stake, but that does not happen so often and often it is not possible as shops have limits as well.
So how have I been performing? Well, it seems that my efforts have been in vain. After almost 15000 value bets I am sitting at exactly the same yield with a variable stake, than if I had used an imaginary fixed stake. Of course, this approach has helped me reduce variance during tough times as I would always stake less on odds 4.0 (for instance 50%) than on odds 2.0 (100%). But suppose that the bank roll gets sufficiently large so that all that matters are limits. Losing streaks may be tougher but that is more than compensated by better winning streaks.
With regards to preferable odd ranges, I used to go mainly with 1.5 to 3.0 in order to minimize variance, maybe 10% were above that. There seems to be so much value left on the table avoiding the higher ranges, so in order to maximize my time in the shops I now take many single bets on higher odds as well. My highest yields are on the higher odds, they are terrific. One reason could be that the soft books I use have odds models that seem to work very poorly in the extremes, such as when one team is a huge underdog. So the new saying is: bet to the max! it gives you more reason to spend your time doing it.
Value bets in the lower ranges below 1.5 are also included and parlayed with other lower odd value bets to amplify value. I am a bit more careful about those though. The reason for this is that I suppose a small handful of the events that I bet on are fixed or strange matches where regular assumptions on value don't apply. Odds do not reflect probability at all. That does not matter much for the very high odds where few tickets are won, but for those very low odds that are expected to win, that can be a problem I think.
I have attached some tables that I use to make assumptions upon. Yields are quite high in general and they have been rising through the years. I think one of the reasons is effective filtering, assuming which markets to avoid (or play them differently than the rest). Also, the books I use are quite weak in getting the odds right, yet great in expanding and creating addictive machines. So getting high yields on those books is easy compared to some of the better softs, which again would be easy compared to the sharps. There is a sort skill hierarchy among all books.
If anyone have experiences regarding "fixed stake vs variable stake" and "preferred odds range", please share.
If we do not set a limit on the odds range, we may encounter very volatile variance.
For example, bets with odds of 10 may not occur 100 times in a row. this does not mean that there is no value there, the results will perhaps be more consistent after around 10000 bets, even with 10000 bets there is a chance of bad variance. Even if we really find a value, we can watch it in the negative for months or maybe a year as the effect of bad variance. stock market may promise more profit during this period
30% kelly criteria seems to be the only solution that can help us get out of these volatility. but here another problem arises. Since the stake is very low, the yield will also be very low.
As a result, flat betting is very risky with high odds bets. It can fluctuate up to 10 times the odds. 20 consecutive losses for 2.00 odds (our probability of encountering this is about 1 in 1000000. or 1 in 950000 assuming we have a 5% value), 30 consecutive losses for 3.00 odds, 50 consecutive losses for 5.00 odds and so on.
- ozcelik
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 0
Post
If we do not set a limit on the odds range, we may encounter very volatile variance.
For example, bets with odds of 10 may not occur 100 times in a row. this does not mean that there is no value there, the results will perhaps be more consistent after around 10000 bets, even with 10000 bets there is a chance of bad variance. Even if we really find a value, we can watch it in the negative for months or maybe a year as the effect of bad variance. stock market may promise more profit during this period
30% kelly criteria seems to be the only solution that can help us get out of these volatility. but here another problem arises. Since the stake is very low, the yield will also be very low.
As a result, flat betting is very risky with high odds bets. It can fluctuate up to 10 times the odds. 20 consecutive losses for 2.00 odds (our probability of encountering this is about 1 in 1000000. or 1 in 950000 assuming we have a 5% value), 30 consecutive losses for 3.00 odds, 50 consecutive losses for 5.00 odds and so on.
I wouldn't go over the odds of 3.00 if I were you. if i passed i would avoid high variance with 30% kelly with low stake.
I found it wise to parlay to increase the value at odds under 1.50. really eye-opening, especially for events played at the same time.
Re: far from expected value
Thank you very much for your data sharing.VidaBlue wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 11:28 amThank you so much for the sharing of data Ozcelik.
I am hijacking this thread (sorry) to comment on those two points:
1. fixed stake vs variable stake
2. preferable odd ranges.
I have of thought about those for a while, but only today I have looked into this more in detail.
So I have been value betting for a while. In recent years mostly just shop betting. During every bet I have tried to find reasons to downsize my standard stake if there are some uncertainties in order to minimize risk. In some occasions I would also amplify the stake, but that does not happen so often and often it is not possible as shops have limits as well.
So how have I been performing? Well, it seems that my efforts have been in vain. After almost 15000 value bets I am sitting at exactly the same yield with a variable stake, than if I had used an imaginary fixed stake. Of course, this approach has helped me reduce variance during tough times as I would always stake less on odds 4.0 (for instance 50%) than on odds 2.0 (100%). But suppose that the bank roll gets sufficiently large so that all that matters are limits. Losing streaks may be tougher but that is more than compensated by better winning streaks.
With regards to preferable odd ranges, I used to go mainly with 1.5 to 3.0 in order to minimize variance, maybe 10% were above that. There seems to be so much value left on the table avoiding the higher ranges, so in order to maximize my time in the shops I now take many single bets on higher odds as well. My highest yields are on the higher odds, they are terrific. One reason could be that the soft books I use have odds models that seem to work very poorly in the extremes, such as when one team is a huge underdog. So the new saying is: bet to the max! it gives you more reason to spend your time doing it.
Value bets in the lower ranges below 1.5 are also included and parlayed with other lower odd value bets to amplify value. I am a bit more careful about those though. The reason for this is that I suppose a small handful of the events that I bet on are fixed or strange matches where regular assumptions on value don't apply. Odds do not reflect probability at all. That does not matter much for the very high odds where few tickets are won, but for those very low odds that are expected to win, that can be a problem I think.
I have attached some tables that I use to make assumptions upon. Yields are quite high in general and they have been rising through the years. I think one of the reasons is effective filtering, assuming which markets to avoid (or play them differently than the rest). Also, the books I use are quite weak in getting the odds right, yet great in expanding and creating addictive machines. So getting high yields on those books is easy compared to some of the better softs, which again would be easy compared to the sharps. There is a sort skill hierarchy among all books.
If anyone have experiences regarding "fixed stake vs variable stake" and "preferred odds range", please share.
If we do not set a limit on the odds range, we may encounter very volatile variance.
For example, bets with odds of 10 may not occur 100 times in a row. this does not mean that there is no value there, the results will perhaps be more consistent after around 10000 bets, even with 10000 bets there is a chance of bad variance. Even if we really find a value, we can watch it in the negative for months or maybe a year as the effect of bad variance. stock market may promise more profit during this period
30% kelly criteria seems to be the only solution that can help us get out of these volatility. but here another problem arises. Since the stake is very low, the yield will also be very low.
As a result, flat betting is very risky with high odds bets. It can fluctuate up to 10 times the odds. 20 consecutive losses for 2.00 odds (our probability of encountering this is about 1 in 1000000. or 1 in 950000 assuming we have a 5% value), 30 consecutive losses for 3.00 odds, 50 consecutive losses for 5.00 odds and so on.
I wouldn't go over the odds of 3.00 if I were you. if i passed i would avoid high variance with 30% kelly with low stake.
I found it wise to parlay to increase the value at odds under 1.50. really eye-opening, especially for events played at the same time.
- VidaBlue
- To become a Pro
- Contact:
- Karma: 70
Post
I agree with you in theory.
I would say that these considerations are valid when you have:
A bankroll of a size such that 30% Kelly is achievable taking limits into account. (typically during build-up of the bankroll)
Low EV.
I have neither. Almost my entire bankroll is invested in other assets and so much larger than the amount of cash I use for betting at the shops. Although it hurts, occasionally during bad runs I will need to take some money out of the investments in order to finance the shop betting, but basically the bankroll is so high and limits so low, that I will never even come close to doing 30% Kelly.
Also, with the crappy books I use, I seem to have very high EV, so the probability for a winning streak for those plays above 3.0 is so much higher than for a losing streak for everything above 3.0.
So in order to get maximum value per hour of my life spent on shop betting, I am taking in every opportunity, including all those high odds.
Since January 1st 2018 I have made 3134 bets above 3.0 with a yield of 13,4% (15,4% if I had used a flat stake). More than 90% in shops. Therefore I am SO convinced that it is best use of my time if I just bet up to the limit everytime I find value. I confess that I am still chickening out and diverting from this recipe when odds get considerably high, such as above 6 (which corresponds to the likelyhood of hitting a certain side on a cube). In those cases I limit the stake.
So shop betting has limits as well to how much you can bet without having to pass approval. I naturally bet up to the approval limit.
Re: far from expected value
Thank you Ozcelikozcelik wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 8:36 amIf we do not set a limit on the odds range, we may encounter very volatile variance.
For example, bets with odds of 10 may not occur 100 times in a row. this does not mean that there is no value there, the results will perhaps be more consistent after around 10000 bets, even with 10000 bets there is a chance of bad variance. Even if we really find a value, we can watch it in the negative for months or maybe a year as the effect of bad variance. stock market may promise more profit during this period
30% kelly criteria seems to be the only solution that can help us get out of these volatility. but here another problem arises. Since the stake is very low, the yield will also be very low.
As a result, flat betting is very risky with high odds bets. It can fluctuate up to 10 times the odds. 20 consecutive losses for 2.00 odds (our probability of encountering this is about 1 in 1000000. or 1 in 950000 assuming we have a 5% value), 30 consecutive losses for 3.00 odds, 50 consecutive losses for 5.00 odds and so on.
I wouldn't go over the odds of 3.00 if I were you. if i passed i would avoid high variance with 30% kelly with low stake.
I found it wise to parlay to increase the value at odds under 1.50. really eye-opening, especially for events played at the same time.
I agree with you in theory.
I would say that these considerations are valid when you have:
A bankroll of a size such that 30% Kelly is achievable taking limits into account. (typically during build-up of the bankroll)
Low EV.
I have neither. Almost my entire bankroll is invested in other assets and so much larger than the amount of cash I use for betting at the shops. Although it hurts, occasionally during bad runs I will need to take some money out of the investments in order to finance the shop betting, but basically the bankroll is so high and limits so low, that I will never even come close to doing 30% Kelly.
Also, with the crappy books I use, I seem to have very high EV, so the probability for a winning streak for those plays above 3.0 is so much higher than for a losing streak for everything above 3.0.
So in order to get maximum value per hour of my life spent on shop betting, I am taking in every opportunity, including all those high odds.
Since January 1st 2018 I have made 3134 bets above 3.0 with a yield of 13,4% (15,4% if I had used a flat stake). More than 90% in shops. Therefore I am SO convinced that it is best use of my time if I just bet up to the limit everytime I find value. I confess that I am still chickening out and diverting from this recipe when odds get considerably high, such as above 6 (which corresponds to the likelyhood of hitting a certain side on a cube). In those cases I limit the stake.
So shop betting has limits as well to how much you can bet without having to pass approval. I naturally bet up to the approval limit.
- Cufs
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 0
- Location: @Smartchoice23
Post
Thanks for your valuable input.
I didn't had the time to continuosly pursue data on the valuebetting method therefore I need to pursue other alternatives.
Re: far from expected value
Hey man,ozcelik wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 7:16 amUnlike other users here i think there is value in pinaccle. we just don't have the skills to find it. I guess those who discover this will avoid revealing their talents here. they're probably laughing right now reading this.Cufs wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 12:43 pmI have read somethings about valuebetting in sharp bookmakers and maybe there's not enough value to do it only with the support of a valuebet finder software. These softwares get their valuebets odds from the correlation between true odds from sharps and bad odds from soft bookies. Therefore if we are using sharp books to bet it will be hard to get value. Do you agree on this?
I think the value lies in pinaccle. Like every bookie, they make mistakes, but I don't think they contain as much value as we get in softs. I guess a value of 1.5% can be obtained.
The data you get from rebelbetting actually confirms this.
I guess because rebelbetting took pinaccle as reference point, it couldn't pass clv there.
On the other hand, if they had done the opposite, that is, if they had taken betfair as a reference point and searched for value in pinaccle, I am sure they would have identified opportunities to capture positive % clv. If they did, they could have provided incorrect values for both pinaccle and other softbooks this time around.
The problem there is that betfair is unreliable, especially in markets with low liquidity, and can often be manipulated by users. For example, if a pinaccle has odds of 1.50, if someone came to betfaire and tried to sell at odds of 1.20, then rebelbetting would have thought there was value in the odds of pinaccle. (I think the alert site we use misled me because it used this method; it described large odds variances in low-liquidity markets as valuebet)
therefore, the program should also have market volume control.
One proof of the value in pinaccle is that some arbitrage bets originate from pinaccle. You will sometimes see arbitrage bets between betfair and pinaccle, these are bets of real value. but they quickly disappear thanks to programmers. I've been able to successfully match very few of them manually when arbitraging in the past.
Another proof is the strategy I set up in the bot named tradeball by defining some variables to detect some values in live games in pinaccle and other sharp books. You can see it in the attachment.
Even though the sample size was insufficient, I got around 7.5% for my middle strategy in the ranking. It seems possible to catch 1.5% in pre match.
Greetings to those who sit in their chairs and collect the value in the pinaccle
frankly I trusted them blindly due to their success in arb bets and did not research the values offered.Cufs wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 12:43 pmA few days ago I had an occurance, but used no tool to compare it:
[*]Got a Overvalue Bet of 38% on Venus Williams vs Camila Gorgi (1set winning by Camila)
[*]I thought that something was wrong about it and my POV is that Pinnacle (PS3838) was the first to notice something 1hour prior to in-play. They corrected the Odds (going up from 1.55 to 1.95, something close to this if i'm not wrong). So in comparison with the other bookies, if Pinnacle was the first to do it then the valuebetting software thought this would be a valuebet. But of course it was not! There was no value, just a late update from soft bookies vs Pinnacle.
Can you tell me what do you do to counteract these possibilities?
some days i had 60-70 open bets on pinaccle. I didn't bother to compare them one by one with other bookies or save the closing line values separately as it would take too much time.
I paid a heavy price for this, a huge loss of nearly 2 months of gain.
If I were you, I would save the clvs of the bets I took and compare them with the values assumed by the program. so it would be easier to figure out if it really is a value. If I was below the clv rates before the game started, I might prefer to play it on the opposite side.
Let's say the valuebet I got was 5%, but when I compare it with clv, it shows a value of -9%. The most logical thing to do in this case is to bet against this bet for losses smaller than -9%. If you are making a small number of bets, this is a viable method. otherwise a very time consuming batch of operations.
I would appreciate it if you could let me know about your future progress.
Thanks for your valuable input.
I didn't had the time to continuosly pursue data on the valuebetting method therefore I need to pursue other alternatives.
- ozcelik
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 0
- Atakan
- Newbie
- Karma: 0
Post
Re: Far from expected value
Hi Mate @ozcelik
i am currently live in Uk
I used to bet on arb betting with ine of my friend
i got stuck with the limitation on betting accounts
its not related to valuebet however i would like to get some information about valuebet or arb betting.
So if there is any way to contact to you i would appreciate that
Thanks
i am currently live in Uk
I used to bet on arb betting with ine of my friend
i got stuck with the limitation on betting accounts
its not related to valuebet however i would like to get some information about valuebet or arb betting.
So if there is any way to contact to you i would appreciate that
Thanks
- lm10
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 0
Post
Re: Far from expected value
@ozcelik, what service were you using to feed the valuebets?(i'm referring to the one you selected 2 bookmakers for value calculation) i think i might be using the same service currently, though i'm having some success with it but i'm still skeptical.
- Cufs
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 0
- Location: @Smartchoice23
Post
Re: far from expected value
-
