Another thing I figured out using Sawyers multiple system is, it's a great idea to add many "draw no bets" to the parlay.
That way, if you take profit in a leg with a draw no bet in it on your ticket (by betting the draw anyway) you can take profits again and again on the same ticket in case the match ends in a draw.
Say you have a 3-leg parlay with small value, odds 2-2-2 for a total of 8.0
You bet 100€
You can lay leg 1 on BF at 1.8, leg 2 at 2.0 and leg 3 at 2.0
You "change" the odd for leg 1 in your ticket to 1.8, effectively breaking even (you lay 100€ on BF to risk 80€). If your first leg wins, you can now "change" the 2nd odd in your multiple to 2.22, allowing you to lay 200€ (to risk 200€) on BF for a total profit of 20€ (your 2nd leg was worth 180€ after the first one won). If that 2nd leg was a draw no bet, you can bet 5-7€ on the draw and take roughly 13€ profit and repeat the process with the third leg again. Effectively doubling your potential profit for the ticket.
Isn't the arb game dead?
- freaked
- Has experience
- Karma: 4
Post
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
I am here to debate the advantages the parlay theory has.
Let's take the example already used of 2 selections at 2.05 where real odds are 2.00.
For simplicity, imagine our total bank is 202.5.
Arbing normally, we would guarantee a return of 205 from the first leg 100% of the time (100x2.05, or 102.5*2). We get this return 100% of the time.
We then invest our bigger bank in the next selection.
Arbing normally, we guarantee a return of 207.53 (101.23*2.05, or 103.76*2). So 100% of the time we make a profit of 5.03, or 2.48%.
Now how do we calculate our stakes when using the parlay?
Keep in mind our total bank is 202.5.
Let's take the example already used of 2 selections at 2.05 where real odds are 2.00.
For simplicity, imagine our total bank is 202.5.
Arbing normally, we would guarantee a return of 205 from the first leg 100% of the time (100x2.05, or 102.5*2). We get this return 100% of the time.
We then invest our bigger bank in the next selection.
Arbing normally, we guarantee a return of 207.53 (101.23*2.05, or 103.76*2). So 100% of the time we make a profit of 5.03, or 2.48%.
Now how do we calculate our stakes when using the parlay?
Keep in mind our total bank is 202.5.
- tomtom70
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 6
Post
As the difference between the true odds and the odds used in the arb is so small we cannot, however, make a profit in all cases. The P&L is -38.92 in all but one case (which is the event that both bets in the parlay are lost and hence the lay bets are won) - in which the profit will be 124.66.
If you calculate the expected value of this strategy, it is, however, positive (-38.92 * 0.75 + 124.66 * 0.25 = 1.97). But there is a huge standard deviation (= risk) associated with it. You are effectively punting on the only outcome with a positive P&L. This gets very clear if you think about what you are actually doing if you lay both events (call them A and B): through the parlay, you have a position in "A and B". The opposite event is not some combination of "not A" and "not B" alone. In order to hedge it correctly you would have two possibilites: First, you could bet on "not A" and on "A and not B" or secondly, you could bet on "not B" and on "B and not A". In any case, the payout has to be same as that of the parlay.
I calculated the correct hedge to be as follows: bet 48.77 on the parlay (odds 4.2025 for "A and B"), 102.48 on the event "not A" (odds 2.00) and 51.24 on the event "A and not B" (odds 4.00), totalling exactly 202.50, with a payout of 204.97 in any possible outcome, i.e. securing a profit of 2.47.
My experience with these kind of things is, however, that in practice, it is not easy if not impossible to find the hedge with the theoretical odds. Even if you use e.g. pinnacle there is only a small chance that they offer the best price simultaneously in both "A" and "not B", therefore probably destroying the arb completely because you don't get the theoretical price for the event "A and not B".
I have even tried this for 3 simultaneous events - it gets more and more tricky and although it works in theory very well you will end up losing because of pinnacles margins and/or commissions on the exchange. Only in very rare circumstances this can make sense, e.g. if you get a bonus for placing parlays or additional payout (multi bonus of e.g. 5 % of the winnings). Most of the time, the theoretical P&L is eaten away during the process of hedging the parlay.
I personally therefore prefer parlays of consecutive (non-overlapping) events. If the odds are sufficiently "wrong" you have a chance of locking in a profit even if the odds move a bit. If they, however move by much, you still could end up with a (considerable) loss. As the expected value of the strategy is positive at inception, this should still be profitable in the long run. And as far as I can say, it is
If anybody knows the concept of delta hedging options, I could also elaborate about this a bit. The concept can be applied in this context in order to reduce the risks of odds changes for the later legs of the parlay. I have done this in the past occasionally.
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
In this case, my calculations are as follows: We bet 38.92 at the parlay, lay 81.79 @ 2 in both games. The risk in laying the games is each obviously also 81.79, so totalling 163.58, plus the stake of the parlay gives you exactly 202.5. I assume zero commission here.freaked wrote: I am here to debate the advantages the parlay theory has.
Let's take the example already used of 2 selections at 2.05 where real odds are 2.00.
For simplicity, imagine our total bank is 202.5.
Arbing normally, we would guarantee a return of 205 from the first leg 100% of the time (100x2.05, or 102.5*2). We get this return 100% of the time.
We then invest our bigger bank in the next selection.
Arbing normally, we guarantee a return of 207.53 (101.23*2.05, or 103.76*2). So 100% of the time we make a profit of 5.03, or 2.48%.
Now how do we calculate our stakes when using the parlay?
Keep in mind our total bank is 202.5.
As the difference between the true odds and the odds used in the arb is so small we cannot, however, make a profit in all cases. The P&L is -38.92 in all but one case (which is the event that both bets in the parlay are lost and hence the lay bets are won) - in which the profit will be 124.66.
If you calculate the expected value of this strategy, it is, however, positive (-38.92 * 0.75 + 124.66 * 0.25 = 1.97). But there is a huge standard deviation (= risk) associated with it. You are effectively punting on the only outcome with a positive P&L. This gets very clear if you think about what you are actually doing if you lay both events (call them A and B): through the parlay, you have a position in "A and B". The opposite event is not some combination of "not A" and "not B" alone. In order to hedge it correctly you would have two possibilites: First, you could bet on "not A" and on "A and not B" or secondly, you could bet on "not B" and on "B and not A". In any case, the payout has to be same as that of the parlay.
I calculated the correct hedge to be as follows: bet 48.77 on the parlay (odds 4.2025 for "A and B"), 102.48 on the event "not A" (odds 2.00) and 51.24 on the event "A and not B" (odds 4.00), totalling exactly 202.50, with a payout of 204.97 in any possible outcome, i.e. securing a profit of 2.47.
My experience with these kind of things is, however, that in practice, it is not easy if not impossible to find the hedge with the theoretical odds. Even if you use e.g. pinnacle there is only a small chance that they offer the best price simultaneously in both "A" and "not B", therefore probably destroying the arb completely because you don't get the theoretical price for the event "A and not B".
I have even tried this for 3 simultaneous events - it gets more and more tricky and although it works in theory very well you will end up losing because of pinnacles margins and/or commissions on the exchange. Only in very rare circumstances this can make sense, e.g. if you get a bonus for placing parlays or additional payout (multi bonus of e.g. 5 % of the winnings). Most of the time, the theoretical P&L is eaten away during the process of hedging the parlay.
I personally therefore prefer parlays of consecutive (non-overlapping) events. If the odds are sufficiently "wrong" you have a chance of locking in a profit even if the odds move a bit. If they, however move by much, you still could end up with a (considerable) loss. As the expected value of the strategy is positive at inception, this should still be profitable in the long run. And as far as I can say, it is
If anybody knows the concept of delta hedging options, I could also elaborate about this a bit. The concept can be applied in this context in order to reduce the risks of odds changes for the later legs of the parlay. I have done this in the past occasionally.
- Cozetti
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 4
Post
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
what do you mean by still strong? Now, there are plenty of websites that use famous bookies where even with 0.85% arbs you can make some money.Wolfie wrote: There are rare bookies in some low rate countries where pre-game is still strong.
- Cozetti
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 4
Post
Hi, dont you think having 16 bets of 2.04 is kinda unrealistic?, they may exist, but bookies change odds often. It seems unrealistic to me to have such 16 bets at the same time.
Besides that, I agree with your calculation.
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
I have 16 single bets of 2.04 where the probability of winning is 50% This gives 2% value.
I place 16 singles of 100€ x2.04, so I expect to win 32€ (I lose 8 and I win 8 bets giving me a profit of 32€ total).
I place 16 four-folds of 100€ of those bets (off course this is long term assuming you have a bunch of 2% value bets). The odd is now 17.32 for each bet (2.04x2.04x2.04x2.04). You are expected to win 1 of those and lose the other 15. You win 100x2.04x2.04x2.04x2.04 = 1732 and lose the other 1500. Your stake was 1600. Your profit is 132€.
Hi, dont you think having 16 bets of 2.04 is kinda unrealistic?, they may exist, but bookies change odds often. It seems unrealistic to me to have such 16 bets at the same time.
Besides that, I agree with your calculation.
- Alfa1234
- Totally Pro
- Karma: 63
Post
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
It was merely an example to demonstrate the profit increases with multiples. 16 is fairly unrealistic, but 3 or 4 at the same time is possible.Cozetti wrote:I have 16 single bets of 2.04 where the probability of winning is 50% This gives 2% value.
I place 16 singles of 100€ x2.04, so I expect to win 32€ (I lose 8 and I win 8 bets giving me a profit of 32€ total).
I place 16 four-folds of 100€ of those bets (off course this is long term assuming you have a bunch of 2% value bets). The odd is now 17.32 for each bet (2.04x2.04x2.04x2.04). You are expected to win 1 of those and lose the other 15. You win 100x2.04x2.04x2.04x2.04 = 1732 and lose the other 1500. Your stake was 1600. Your profit is 132€.
Hi, dont you think having 16 bets of 2.04 is kinda unrealistic?, they may exist, but bookies change odds often. It seems unrealistic to me to have such 16 bets at the same time.
Besides that, I agree with your calculation.
- freaked
- Has experience
- Karma: 4
Post
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
So you never have an expected profit of greater than 5.03 - this is the guaranteed profit 100% of the time arbing normally.
Can anybody provide an example where the expected profit will be greater than 5.03, remembering we are constrained to a total bank of 202.5?
Can anybody provide an example where the expected profit will be greater than 5.03, remembering we are constrained to a total bank of 202.5?
tomtom70 wrote:In this case, my calculations are as follows: We bet 38.92 at the parlay, lay 81.79 @ 2 in both games. The risk in laying the games is each obviously also 81.79, so totalling 163.58, plus the stake of the parlay gives you exactly 202.5. I assume zero commission here.freaked wrote: I am here to debate the advantages the parlay theory has.
Let's take the example already used of 2 selections at 2.05 where real odds are 2.00.
For simplicity, imagine our total bank is 202.5.
Arbing normally, we would guarantee a return of 205 from the first leg 100% of the time (100x2.05, or 102.5*2). We get this return 100% of the time.
We then invest our bigger bank in the next selection.
Arbing normally, we guarantee a return of 207.53 (101.23*2.05, or 103.76*2). So 100% of the time we make a profit of 5.03, or 2.48%.
Now how do we calculate our stakes when using the parlay?
Keep in mind our total bank is 202.5.
As the difference between the true odds and the odds used in the arb is so small we cannot, however, make a profit in all cases. The P&L is -38.92 in all but one case (which is the event that both bets in the parlay are lost and hence the lay bets are won) - in which the profit will be 124.66.
If you calculate the expected value of this strategy, it is, however, positive (-38.92 * 0.75 + 124.66 * 0.25 = 1.97). But there is a huge standard deviation (= risk) associated with it. You are effectively punting on the only outcome with a positive P&L. This gets very clear if you think about what you are actually doing if you lay both events (call them A and B): through the parlay, you have a position in "A and B". The opposite event is not some combination of "not A" and "not B" alone. In order to hedge it correctly you would have two possibilites: First, you could bet on "not A" and on "A and not B" or secondly, you could bet on "not B" and on "B and not A". In any case, the payout has to be same as that of the parlay.
I calculated the correct hedge to be as follows: bet 48.77 on the parlay (odds 4.2025 for "A and B"), 102.48 on the event "not A" (odds 2.00) and 51.24 on the event "A and not B" (odds 4.00), totalling exactly 202.50, with a payout of 204.97 in any possible outcome, i.e. securing a profit of 2.47.
My experience with these kind of things is, however, that in practice, it is not easy if not impossible to find the hedge with the theoretical odds. Even if you use e.g. pinnacle there is only a small chance that they offer the best price simultaneously in both "A" and "not B", therefore probably destroying the arb completely because you don't get the theoretical price for the event "A and not B".
I have even tried this for 3 simultaneous events - it gets more and more tricky and although it works in theory very well you will end up losing because of pinnacles margins and/or commissions on the exchange. Only in very rare circumstances this can make sense, e.g. if you get a bonus for placing parlays or additional payout (multi bonus of e.g. 5 % of the winnings). Most of the time, the theoretical P&L is eaten away during the process of hedging the parlay.
I personally therefore prefer parlays of consecutive (non-overlapping) events. If the odds are sufficiently "wrong" you have a chance of locking in a profit even if the odds move a bit. If they, however move by much, you still could end up with a (considerable) loss. As the expected value of the strategy is positive at inception, this should still be profitable in the long run. And as far as I can say, it is
If anybody knows the concept of delta hedging options, I could also elaborate about this a bit. The concept can be applied in this context in order to reduce the risks of odds changes for the later legs of the parlay. I have done this in the past occasionally.
- cem
- Gaining experience
- Karma: -1
Post
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
Let's assume that you had an Orbitx account with 0% commission on major European leagues.
How you would take advantage of that ? Thank you for your ideas.
How you would take advantage of that ? Thank you for your ideas.
- cem
- Gaining experience
- Karma: -1
Post
Kindly "adjust" the odds , and show us how the job could be done to have a profit, no matter what.. - Thank you.
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
Lets suppose we have 2 games. Both have back / lay odds 2.00 / 2.00.- Capital = 100 euros.Alfa1234 wrote:
Guys, it's the math.. The first 2 bets don't even have to be a positive arb as long as the third is a big arb to make this work. You can "adjust" the first 2 odds to create a bigger arb by reducing the 3rd match to barely break even as well! It's gold!
Kindly "adjust" the odds , and show us how the job could be done to have a profit, no matter what.. - Thank you.
- Alfa1234
- Totally Pro
- Karma: 63
Post
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
You conveniently left out this part: "as long as the third is a big arb".cem wrote:Lets suppose we have 2 games. Both have back / lay odds 2.00 / 2.00.- Capital = 100 euros.Alfa1234 wrote:
Guys, it's the math.. The first 2 bets don't even have to be a positive arb as long as the third is a big arb to make this work. You can "adjust" the first 2 odds to create a bigger arb by reducing the 3rd match to barely break even as well! It's gold!
Kindly "adjust" the odds , and show us how the job could be done to have a profit, no matter what.. - Thank you.
- cem
- Gaining experience
- Karma: -1
Post
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
quote
You conveniently left out this part: "as long as the third is a big arb".
[/quote]
And you conveniently left out the option to lose the first leg of the parlay, which is underlaid.
So, where is the gold ?
You conveniently left out this part: "as long as the third is a big arb".
[/quote]
And you conveniently left out the option to lose the first leg of the parlay, which is underlaid.
So, where is the gold ?
Last edited by cem on Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Alfa1234
- Totally Pro
- Karma: 63
Post
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
Parlay:
Odds 2 x 2 x 3 = 12.0
To lay on BF at 2.0, 2.0 and 2.5
Only third leg is an arb. You make no money from leg 1 or 2.
You can adjust this whichever way you want, e.g. by making the legs 2.1 x 2.2 x 2.6 = 12.0 on your ticket.
You now make money by laying the first leg, the 2nd leg and the third leg in case it wins on BF...or you can make it 2.4x2x2.5 and hope your first leg loses in your parlay...or whatever way you want to adjust it.
The total value remains the same, but if you can't see the possibilities by being able to turn every arb you have into a parlay, you should get a bigger imagination.
Odds 2 x 2 x 3 = 12.0
To lay on BF at 2.0, 2.0 and 2.5
Only third leg is an arb. You make no money from leg 1 or 2.
You can adjust this whichever way you want, e.g. by making the legs 2.1 x 2.2 x 2.6 = 12.0 on your ticket.
You now make money by laying the first leg, the 2nd leg and the third leg in case it wins on BF...or you can make it 2.4x2x2.5 and hope your first leg loses in your parlay...or whatever way you want to adjust it.
The total value remains the same, but if you can't see the possibilities by being able to turn every arb you have into a parlay, you should get a bigger imagination.
- cem
- Gaining experience
- Karma: -1
Post
Pointless to mention, that i highly appreciate your reply, for which i thank you very much.
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
This is not gold.. This is camouflaged arbitrage, trying to remain undetected from bookies machines.Alfa1234 wrote: Parlay:
Odds 2 x 2 x 3 = 12.0
To lay on BF at 2.0, 2.0 and 2.5
Pointless to mention, that i highly appreciate your reply, for which i thank you very much.
- Samub
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 2
Post
As a example 3-fold 2.2/2.2/2.2 with exchange odds 2.2/2.2/2.1 with stake £250 has got expected value £11.9.
you can underlay all 3 legs and hit "gold" £121 if all win (0 if any leg will lose) but hitting 3 winners will happen only 9.84% of time. So expected value remains the same
Not to mention odds can drift between matches.
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
Couldn't agree more. Doing accumulators with arbs will probably increase lifetime of the account, but no point underlaying first legs to hit the "gold".cem wrote:
This is not gold.. This is camouflaged arbitrage, trying to remain undetected from bookies machines.
Pointless to mention, that i highly appreciate your reply, for which i thank you very much.
As a example 3-fold 2.2/2.2/2.2 with exchange odds 2.2/2.2/2.1 with stake £250 has got expected value £11.9.
you can underlay all 3 legs and hit "gold" £121 if all win (0 if any leg will lose) but hitting 3 winners will happen only 9.84% of time. So expected value remains the same
Not to mention odds can drift between matches.
- Lollus
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 3
Post
Just a question: how do u manage the stake on every leg? Can you give us an example?
Re: Isn't the arb game dead?
Very interesting.Yngwie wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 8:21 amPregame arbing is dead mostly..Unless you're living in a location where you have access to sleepy bookies. Bookmakers limit very quickly when you bet value odds pregame. It takes longer for them to realize what you're doing when you're arbing live. Live arbing is my favourite arbing strategy recently..
My favourite arbing strategy was parlay arbing in the past but had been a long time since I made my last parlay arb. Man, I miss those bets! Parlay arb was an amazing tool to camouflage your action and boost your profits. Maybe you know, maybe you don't know; do you know you can change the odds in your bet ticket?
For example,
Dundee United Reserves 2,50
Chelsea 1,30
Liverpool 1,50
You can change odds in bet ticket how you want,
You can change odds like this for example;
Dundee United Reserves 2,00
Chelsea 1,30
Liverpool 1,875
Last leg of parlay (Liverpool) becomes 1,875 from 1,50! If opposite side is 3,20 which creates a %2.13 arb; Well, it becomes a Massive %18.23 ARB!
It's specially useful when arbing lower leagues where there's parlay requirement by some bookmakers. Anyway, I think live arbing is better. No void risk (almost), you get your money back quickly, your account lasts longer and you can catch goals which results in massive profits. Nothing feels like you pick Liverpool -1 and Salah scores a goal few seconds after and you see your cover bet in Pinnacle is rejected
Just a question: how do u manage the stake on every leg? Can you give us an example?
-
