Arbusers

I know that this is a much discussed issue, but I did my own data analysis in order to find out if I would win more with valuebetting instead of arbing and maybe change my policy towards the new season. I won't refer any real figures of profits, only percentages as the purpose of my post is not to show-off...

Data facts:
- Data available for the last 3 years
- I don't have turnover volumes in my disposal, only deposit, withdrawal and bonus figures per bookmaker and per player
- I did remove any figures that were associated to betting strategies for exploiting affiliation schemes. So the data concerns only "pure" arbing, either pre game or in-play. 
- I considered ibcbet, 188bet, betfair, pinnacle, 5dimes, betdaq, matchbook, sbobet, smarkets, thegreek and bet365 as sharpbooks
- I used 53 soft bookmakers
- I included to the profit calculation figures that eventually weren't paid by the bookmaker either because verification procedures weren't completed, or the bookmaker bankrupted or just decided not to pay. Voided/cancelled bets of course aren't included.

Sharp bookmakers:
To my surprise I had a neutral overall balance at the above mentioned sharp bookmakers. Which means that if I didn't hedge any bet at all, I would have almost the exact same profits as I had by doing arbitrage. If you consider though the cashbacks and affiliations from the deposits made to the sharp bookmakers, I would have lost a serious sideprofit if I didn't use them at all. If it matters to anyone, my balance is negative at ibcbet, 188bet, betfair, pinnacle, 5dimes, thegreek, smarkets and positive at betdaq, sbobet, matchbook and bet365.

Soft bookmakers:
From the 53 soft bookmakers used, 97.6% of my total profits comes from 8 certain bookmakers that I'm not going to individually mention. Obviously I feel that if I didn't hedge the bets of those 8 bookmakers, I would have secured that 97,6% of my total profits and would have more than my current profits by arbing with the rest 45 bookmakers (which would contribute only by 2,4% to the total profits with valuebetting). Though without turnover volumes its hard to define how much better valuebetting would be.

The 8 "cash cows" soft bookmakers deserve a bit more analysis, so I prepared a small table. The % of total profits row indicates how much the bookmaker contributes to my total profits. The ROI Percentage is calculated by dividing the profits from each bookmaker with the total deposits to each bookmaker:



Book % of total profits ROI Percentage
Book 1 11,00% 91,80%
Book 2 5,70% 65,36%
Book 3 9,90% 65,17%
Book 4 35,05% 51,80%
Book 5 4,10% 47,32%
Book 6 3,00% 37,50%
Book 7 12,20% 36,40%
Book 8 16,65% 16,00%



Any feedback regarding my data analysis will be much appreciated. In particular I'm thinking to alter a bit my policy towards the new season, by doing a fusion of valuebetting and arbitrage at some bookmakers. I don't know if the ROI Percentage is a safe criterion, but I'm thinking to hedge only part of the bets (maybe only the half) for those bookmakers were I have ROI over 50% (four of them from the above table fulfill this). This way I will have less risk than keeping the whole bet without covering it and increased chances of bigger profit as the history with those particular bookmakers show. I will also don't have to worry so much about cases of closed accounts, non-payments etc as my losses at the sharp bookmakers would be much less (after hedging only half of the stakes). What do you think guys?

If anyone has any questions or need any explanations regarding my -not really professional- analysis, I'll be happy to help.

you had accounts closed at sharps? that is not usual

whitesnake wrote: you had accounts closed at sharps? that is not usual

No, I had accounts closed only at soft books. How did you come to that conclusion from my text?

I apologize if I misunderstood it, maybe I was misleaded by the sentence:
"I will also don't have to worry so much about cases of closed accounts, non-payments etc as my losses at the sharp bookmakers would be much less"

Anyway, thanks for sharing the analysis with us.

whitesnake wrote: I apologize if I misunderstood it, maybe I was misleaded by the sentence:
"I will also don't have to worry so much about cases of closed accounts, non-payments etc as my losses at the sharp bookmakers would be much less"

Anyway, thanks for sharing the analysis with us.

Yeah, maybe it isn't crystal clear. I mean that if I don't get paid by a soft bookmaker that closes my account, I will have less total losses with a fusion of valuebetting and arbing cause I would have spent less money at the sharp bookmakers in order to hedge half and not full amount of the stakes at that soft bookie.

there is not much you can learn Sportoboy from the forum with this post, you are a very smart guy and one of the top
arbers on here, maybe you are showing off or maybe you are bored, with any soft book to not arb but to just let the bet
run is gambling and probability states in the long run you will come out ahead as opposed to arbing it but for this to be
accurate the sample size has to be extremely big, you kindly told the rest of the forum there are 8 "cash cows" what
happened last season with these "cash cows" has no bearing whatsoever on this and future seasons, your sample
size is too small to have any significant relevance, I would say the biggest determining factor for an arber to begin value betting
is "bank size" not statistical analysis of previous results, if "the arber" is brave and rich enough to decide it's time to gamble and not to give pinnacle, asians and exchanges a share of his profits then it will be a case of "let the gamble commence" the swings in profit and loss by doing this even with a portion of your stake will be dramatic, this method which would stand
a decent chance of success is for gamblers not arbers, that's not to say you or other arbers are not gamblers as well, I'm sure
they are but also believe that most arbers do not really have the balls or finances to gamble in this way.

I would not change my strategy. From 58 bookmakers it's expected that you run very good on some of them, and i don't think your sample is large enough to examine them individually, you probably need a couple thousand bets with similar stake to make something out of it.
My data shows similar stats, i'm slightly positive in sharps over the past 10 months, so i can't see any reason to go for valuebetting.

Guys, the sample is not small. It's 3 years of betting, something like 3,5 seasons and I estimate that more than 30-40 thousand bets were made with those 8 bookmakers (also tens of thousands with the other 45 were I have more balanced results).

sportoboy it's all about opinion and what you want to believe, if as you say you are considering value betting and have taken the time to do this analysis then sure you have to believe that your sample size is big enough, in my opinion your sample size is tiny and far too small to have any statistical relevance but that is my opinion, you are doing this as you say you are considering value betting, this forum is not going to decide that for you, you, yourself alone will decide that, the very fact that you have posted your results and asked for people's opinions tells me that, even though you say your sample size is large enough therefore you have all the information you need, the transition from arber to value better is massive, a path many arbers consider but very very few are brave enough to attempt, to me it sounds like that is where you are at just now, contemplating if you can be brave enough to gamble as opposed to arbing and hope that probability is your friend, this forum
or anyone on it cannot help you make this decision, if you believe your figures and are confident of their accuracy then if you
are serious you will start value betting in the new season, it comes down to one thing, "have you got the balls?"

Bet365 should be classified as softbook is Sportoboy's theory. I understand that the 50% credit on Betfair given by the guy that we both know might be your motivation. The only bad thing I see here is a winning streak that could destroy both of you. This could be vizualised in your theory by a spike in a potential graph of yours. I understand that the odds that this spike occurs are low, but again, you never know.
If I was in your shoes I would put a small portion of my activities in the 50% credit  mode and the rest should be in the winning formula that you already use. The Americans say, ''You never change a winning team''.

I am of the opinion than no arber should value bet it's way too dangerous but for a gambler who arbs then it's
a good strategy and one with a better chance of paying off than not paying off, arbers like to tease themselves
about value betting the same way a punter will say he should have backed that horse just after it has won the race,
arbers are not gamblers by nature, they have discovered a way of making money through placing bets and lots
of times are gambling without realising it, but placing straight bets where you lose 100% of your stake, most arbers
have not got the balls or the mindset.

Bet365 should be classified as softbook is Sportoboy's theory.

I used them mainly for in-play and their odds are pretty sharp there. But even if I switch sides for them, my data won't be affected dramatically (overall balance is only slightly positive there).

I understand that the 50% credit on Betfair given by the guy that we both know might be your motivation.

Your guess could be on the spot, but out of coincidence I started this analysis a couple of weeks ago after another common friend told me as a joke "I wonder how much you've won from the x bookmaker and their stock is going so bad". That irritated me to start digging my archives. The "50% credit" is something that I could do myself anyway...

sportoboy wrote: . The "50% credit" is something that I could do myself anyway...

You are taking all the risks then.

I was wondering where is Marathonbet in the list that you provided. Could you give me a clue?

I was wondering where is Marathonbet in the list that you provided. Could you give me a clue?

Mara's result was also a surprise to me as i have a negative overall balance at them. But I could say that my total number of bets there is relatively small and maybe not reliable.

Thanks for sharing your experience sportoboy!
Would the swings & larger consecutive month-to-month % capital drawdowns be bearable, had u not covered?