Regardsless of whether value betting is the holy grail of betting, I believe indeed that filtering is the holy grail of value betting. This post is not about whether value betting is better than arbing or whether filtering works, so please leave those comments for another thread. This post is about techniques for employing our filters.
Pinnacle lean is one reference, which works well overall, but not always, sometimes some asians or betfair is better. Referencing softs vs other softs is another, but which softs are sharper? By analysis of past events, it will get clearer which reference is better for the true odds.
In my shop betting endeavour, I track my own record with regards to mainly:
- sport
- bettype
- bets placed at bookmaker (only 3)
So, I start employing filtering even on a very low number of bets within the same combination. For instance:
I have a track record of 10 bets in "esports LOL", "kills O" with "bookmaker X".
Let's say I have won 8 out of 10, I would then add a factor of 25% to the stake size.
Let's say I have lost 8 out of 10, I would then still bet, but reduze my stake size to half.
My approach is not very organized or scientific, and statisticians might moan over the lack of a significant sample size and claim this is purely variance and nothing else.
So I do not entirely trust what might be a lucky streak or a bad run, I just make small corrections to the stake and the bigger the sample size, the more certain I feel about these adjustments. Ultimately I would increase stakes 100% or I would start betting the sharp side, when samples are big enough.
I am not looking for a hard proof in the track record, just an indication and in case making adjustments is justified, I am looking for a more scientific and structured approach.
So what are your thoughts on this? Do you find this sound or nonsense? What are your own experiences? Please share.