
Hi all,
I've been playing with maximising profits on 1 side of an arb for quite a while but I'm struggling to find the "optimal" position.
Usually, I maximise profits on 1 side of the arb now when the favourite odds are 1.5 or lower. If that side wins 51% of the time or more, my profits over time should be higher this way. I'm not sure if 1.5 is the correct way to go though. Anyone have any data or more information on this or has been doing this for a longer period? Currently my data is inconclusive as I seem to be hitting it roughly 50/50, but I've only been doing it for a few months so it's hard to say which way the % will swing over time.
Thank you for any help or information.



Logged





Yes agreed, however would you not say there is a higher probably of a sharp bet winning if you were betting odds of 8.0 in the soft and 1.17 in the sharp? I am trying to find the optimum bet to maximise profits, regardless of value.



Logged





The soft side is always the side to value bet on, whether its 1.1 or 50.



Logged

Never trust a goose!!!




agree with dealer wins, no matter the odds I always set it so i make 90% on soft side and 10% on sharp side



Logged





Once again, I agree on the "value" part. This has nothing to do however with the "probable outcome" of the bet. The soft IS always the valuebet, however this does not change the fact that sometimes the probability of a sharp bet winning, is higher.
Would you agree if there is an arb between a football match of Gibraltar VS Germany with ods of 1000 in the soft and 1.05 in the sharp, the best way to bet this is to maximise profits in the soft? I wouldn't...odds are too low for Gibraltar in this case.



Logged





Once again, I agree on the "value" part. This has nothing to do however with the "probable outcome" of the bet. The soft IS always the valuebet, however this does not change the fact that sometimes the probability of a sharp bet winning, is higher.
Would you agree if there is an arb between a football match of Gibraltar VS Germany with ods of 1000 in the soft and 1.05 in the sharp, the best way to bet this is to maximise profits in the soft? I wouldn't...odds are too low for Gibraltar in this case.
Yes the bet will win on the sharp 19 out of 20 times, but when the soft wins 1 in 20 times at 1000 you can have a year off work!! You are not thinking it correctly, Its not about number of wins, its about getting money on at higher odds than they should be. Whether thats at 1.1 or 50 is irrelevant, If you want to follow your short odds strategy, then only bet on arbs when the soft book is offering the favourite and the sharp has the dog.



Logged

Never trust a goose!!!




Once again, I agree on the "value" part. This has nothing to do however with the "probable outcome" of the bet. The soft IS always the valuebet, however this does not change the fact that sometimes the probability of a sharp bet winning, is higher.
Would you agree if there is an arb between a football match of Gibraltar VS Germany with ods of 1000 in the soft and 1.05 in the sharp, the best way to bet this is to maximise profits in the soft? I wouldn't...odds are too low for Gibraltar in this case.
Yes the bet will win on the sharp 19 out of 20 times, but when the soft wins 1 in 20 times at 1000 you can have a year off work!! You are not thinking it correctly, Its not about number of wins, its about getting money on at higher odds than they should be. Whether thats at 1.1 or 50 is irrelevant,
If you want to follow your short odds strategy, then only bet on arbs when the soft book is offering the favourite and the sharp has the dog.
That is not correct. Assuming you would normally bet 50% of the profit on each side of the bet, the "value" in this case is betting the max profit in the sharp as you would otherwise win 20 times out of 20, giving you 20x only half the profit. By "maximising" your profit in the sharp you would in this case get 95% of the potential profit (you won 19 bets out of 20), whilst by maximising your profit in the soft you would, in this case, only get 5% of your potential profit (as you only won that bet once out of 20). You would get 50% of your maximum profits by divising half the arb profit between the 2 bets. To optimise the profits, one would have to bet over 51% of the time on the "correct" odds and make the arb so that you would take 100% of the potential profit on the winning side. Hence, there is an "optimum" odd where the favourite wins over 50% of the time. I am looking for data on this. This has nothing to do with making a profit while value betting as winning 51% of your bets does not equal making a profit as it's probable the "threshhold" odd where a favourite wins over 50% of the times has lower odds than 1.5.


« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 01:30:22 PM by Alfa1234 »

Logged





alfa, i think you got this whole 51% chance thing wrong. Your theory would be correct only if the odds on soft and sharp are the same. 2.10 vs 2.10, 2.30 vs 2.30 etc. Actually not even then, unless you always picked the soft side. I dont think i can explain it properly, but, simply, there goes. You win 51% of your bets on odds average odds 1.5 or you win 40% of your bets on average odds 2.5, second case is a lot more profitable.
Do not think about what the odds are, if there are odds offered for an outcome, that outcome might happen. If there is a circa 10% chance, according to the sharp offering odds around 10.00, and the soft bookie is offering odds 30.00+, you take odds 30+ bet. In the long term you will earn more money than putting all the profit on the favourite.
On the 1.05 vs 1000 example. Assume total stake of 1000. If you split the profit like the alerts say you got 997.95 @1.05 1.05 @ 1000
Profit around 50 euros each side. If you balance for the all the winnings on the low odds and break even on the big ones you have 998 @ 1.05 1 @1000
Saved yourself 5 cents!
If you put the profit on the 1000 odds you got 951.43 @ 1.05 47.57 @ 1000 46,571 profit should the 1000 odds thing happen 950 times the normal 49 euro profit you would get from the profit on the low odds. So we would be rich if we had a 1 out of 20 chance for this to happen! Assuming 1.05 are fair odds, what is the chance of them not happening, juice included? Around 1 out of 30 maybe, Im not sure.
No matter what the odds, if you put all your profit on the Sharp side, its like straight betting on the Sharp! You just straight bet your balanced arb profit on the sharp side.



Logged




Racerman
Gaining experience
Karma: 4
Posts: 54

I understand what you are looking for.
In the long run (10 000+ bets) anything below odds 1,851,90 should win at least 50% of the time. It's strange that you got 50% at odds 1,50. It should be close to 65% or the odds is incorrect, right?
So if I would use a strategy like this I would put the winnings on anything below 1,85. If it's at a sharp or not should not matter (but you will win more times at the soft since they have the odd to high)
(Edit: Thordin had a nice, good post while I was writing)


« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 02:17:01 PM by Racerman »

Logged





alfa, i think you got this whole 51% chance thing wrong. Your theory would be correct only if the odds on soft and sharp are the same. 2.10 vs 2.10, 2.30 vs 2.30 etc. Actually not even then, unless you always picked the soft side. I dont think i can explain it properly, but, simply, there goes. You win 51% of your bets on odds average odds 1.5 or you win 40% of your bets on average odds 2.5, second case is a lot more profitable.
Do not think about what the odds are, if there are odds offered for an outcome, that outcome might happen. If there is a circa 10% chance, according to the sharp offering odds around 10.00, and the soft bookie is offering odds 30.00+, you take odds 30+ bet. In the long term you will earn more money than putting all the profit on the favourite.
On the 1.05 vs 1000 example. Assume total stake of 1000. If you split the profit like the alerts say you got 997.95 @1.05 1.05 @ 1000
Profit around 50 euros each side. If you balance for the all the winnings on the low odds and break even on the big ones you have 998 @ 1.05 1 @1000
Saved yourself 5 cents!
If you put the profit on the 1000 odds you got 951.43 @ 1.05 47.57 @ 1000 46,571 profit should the 1000 odds thing happen 950 times the normal 49 euro profit you would get from the profit on the low odds. So we would be rich if we had a 1 out of 20 chance for this to happen! Assuming 1.05 are fair odds, what is the chance of them not happening, juice included? Around 1 out of 30 maybe, Im not sure.
No matter what the odds, if you put all your profit on the Sharp side, its like straight betting on the Sharp! You just straight bet your balanced arb profit on the sharp side.
That makes actually perfect sense to me, after I calculated it. Thanks! Now I'm hitting myself on the head...



Logged





1 more question: you guys use the same tactic for 4 leg parlays or higher? Chances of a hit are pretty low this way so it can take a while for any profit to come in.



Logged




