Safe Bet ???

[UKJamie]

Hi all
Still paper trading and kicking around ideas for my strategy that I will use when I return to the UK in a few weeks, and I think I have found a reasonably safe trade/bet which I would like the more experienced here to look at and pick the bones from please.....

I have been looking at this one for a week now and would have over £1,000 profit had I been using it, so here goes (stay with me)...

Its in the Under/Over 1.5 market.
I LAY the Under 1.5 pre match at odds of between 3.5 and 5 for £100. I also BACk the Under 1.5 pre match at odds just below the lay side (3.2 to 4.8) for £100

Now its great for the BACK bet if no goals go in as you can lay it off for a decent return at around 25 mins, but also not so good to trade the LAY as the odds come in with no goals, and obviously if a goal goes in thats reversed. So I have two examples from today (Sunday) where both scenarios happened and I still came out in profit...

Malaga V Xerez
Pre match LAY odds were 4.1 and BAck odds were 3.8
First goal in 5 mins so looks bad for the BACK bet as odds tumbled to below 2, but with only 1 more goal to win from the LAY bet I let it run as that would scratch the bet (win £100 from the lay, Lose £100 from the back). The game continued and around 38 mins I could lay the back bet as the odds had risen enough to leave me in profit of around £40 (£100-£60) if the LAY won or £23 if I also Traded the LAY bet. So I traded the Back bet and thought wait till half time and if still 1-0 then trade the LAY to probably break even. Then on 41mins the second goal came so that one was in profit for £40.

Chelsea V Stoke
Pre Match Lay odds 5.7 - BACK Odds 5.1
got to 25 mins goaless so traded the BACK bet at 2.94 for a £73 profit. The first goal came on 35 mins leaving just 1 more goal and a whole half to get it for the LAY to win. Was watching the odds fall steadily eating into the 73 profit and had decided will trade on break even (whenever that is) then 2nd goal came on 67 mins making this game £173 profit.

The way I see this is the back bet is a kind of insurance bet (I know Nigel :) ) and even after 1 goal its not dead in the water as you can trade for a loss rather than lose the full £100. So an early goal worked ok and a late goal worked too. With the early goal there was a point where I would have been -£7 if I had traded out but like I said there was a whole 85 mins to find 1 more goal and I felt safe to wait for that.

Sorry if my explanation of the bet is rambling but I think you lot will get the gist

Looking forward to your comment on it

Jamie

[RobinHood]

Do you bet on any market that has 3.5 to 5.0 on Lay side or only specific games?

[The Joker]

interesting Jamie

Might be nice to see it against other matches i.e. statistical scores etc.

when you back pal?
missing the rain and cold weather :rolleyes:

[UKJamie]

Do you bet on any market that has 3.5 to 5.0 on Lay side or only specific games?

Hi RH
I have been looking at games with a strong favourite where the match odds are something like 1.9 and 8+
I figured that those games are more likely to have at least 2 goals then the closely matched (odds wise) games. The only downside with big favourites is the lay odds are higher 5+ making your liability higher, so I have been looking for strong favourites where the lay odds for Under 1.5 is around 5.
Example the Aston Villa game today (ended 2-4) but the pre match lay odds for U1.5 was 7.8 (680 for my 100), making it harder to claw back if it was like the Chelsea game.

Also use this website to help make a decision
http://www.dectech.org/football_sites/football_dectech/gamesim.php?hid=88&aid=14&neu=0&hty=10&aty=10
İts been showing pretty reliable especially if its NOT showing a possible 0-0 result (ie at least 1 goal)

[neeeel]

ummmm I might be being really stupid here, but if you are laying at say 4, and backing in the same market at lower than 4 then you are guaranteeing yourself a loss

[UKJamie]

interesting Jamie

Might be nice to see it against other matches i.e. statistical scores etc.

when you back pal?
missing the rain and cold weather :rolleyes:

couple of weeks mate, cant wait but will be offline for a couple of weeks after until I have sorted out a place and the internet.

Just had a thought about the same thing Neel has just touched on...

@Neel
Treat them as 2 seperate bets/trades mate doesn't matter on the lower odds as you will trade them as the odds move in play (Lay the Back, and if necessary Back the Lay)

@Shergar
Do you know if that bet is possible with the toy, coz I know they are 2 seperate bets, but the Toy and Betfair dont. So would they be redded up as soon as I submitted them thus not allowing me to trade them later??

[neeeel]

no, basically what u are doing is-
making a losing trade, then when a goal is scored and the odds move, you are opening a new position
you would be better off just opening the new position when the goal is scored

[neeeel]

@Shergar
Do you know if that bet is possible with the toy, coz I know they are 2 seperate bets, but the Toy and Betfair dont. So would they be redded up as soon as I submitted them thus not allowing me to trade them later??

it doesnt matter wether u red up, or wether the toy and betfair treat them as separate bets or not. In effect you are losing money by doing it, any time you lay, and then back lower

[UKJamie]

it doesnt matter wether u red up, or wether the toy and betfair treat them as separate bets or not. In effect you are losing money by doing it, any time you lay, and then back lower

Then 2 accounts are necessary ?

for example if I Layed at 5
and you backed at 4.8

Then when I want to trade I lay your bet
And you back my Lay

Obviously both accounts need to be mine to profit

Or is there a way to put them in seperately

I cant wait for the goal then open a position as the odds will be less favourable.
example
Malaga game the back odds were 3.8 Lay 4.1..after the goal they were 8.8 and 14, I need to lay the U1.5 before the kick off) to get 4.1 for liability reasons, just in case I need to trade it out later

Or maybe I am missing something here too...
Do not look at them as ONE trade, look at each one seperately
The LAY needs a trade later on ( I lay at 5.1 to trade after a goal for odds of 8 or 9)
The Back needs a trade later on ( I back at 4.8 to trade out around the 25 min mark when the odds have dropped enough ig goaless)

[kawasaki]

too much beer maybe, but i cant get my head around it now, pls maybe someone can make it graphical explanation maybe would be a bit clearer idea whats going on here :D:o

[Scumbag trader]

too much beer maybe, but i cant get my head around it now, pls maybe someone can make it graphical explanation maybe would be a bit clearer idea whats going on here :D:o

I'm in the same boat as you mate :cool:

[UKJamie]

too much beer maybe, but i cant get my head around it now, pls maybe someone can make it graphical explanation maybe would be a bit clearer idea whats going on here :D:o

Hope this helps

http://www.localpagesturkey.com/images/U1.5-trade.jpg

[1/4 of a millionaire fund]

Its in the Under/Over 1.5 market.
I LAY the Under 1.5 pre match at odds of between 3.5 and 5 for £100. I also BACk the Under 1.5 pre match at odds just below the lay side (3.2 to 4.8) for £100


I kind of gave up reading after this bit so you'll have to forgive me if I missed something obvious, but if you ever need anyone to match your first two bets I'm more than willing to oblige.


Malaga game the back odds were 3.8 Lay 4.1..after the goal they were 8.8 and 14,


I think you're getting confused with the way the exchange works as you're obviously paper trading. The prices of 8.8 and 14 are just offers to be taken you cannot guarantee people will match those offers,if we could be matched either side of the spread at those prices we'd all be millionaires within weeks.

[UKJamie]

I kind of gave up reading after this bit so you'll have to forgive me if I missed something obvious, but if you ever need anyone to match your first two bets I'm more than willing to oblige.

Ok looks weird I know....
Lets do the same bet with a different story....

I Lay the U1.5 @ 5.7 for 100
and then wait for a goal to green up for profit when the Back odds shoot up or if early on leave it for the 2nd goal and win the LAY.

My friend, neighbour, wife, whoever decides to
Back the U1.5 @ 5.1 then after 25 mins trades out at lower odds for a profit.....

But wait they didnt trade quickly enough and a goal went in, now they can only red out, so he/she/whoever knocks my door and says if we share the profit would you trade out your lay bet to help me out...

So whats stopping me from doing both those bets myself??

[UKJamie]

I kind of gave up reading after this bit so you'll have to forgive me if I missed something obvious, but if you ever need anyone to match your first two bets I'm more than willing to oblige.




I think you're getting confused with the way the exchange works as you're obviously paper trading. The prices of 8.8 and 14 are just offers to be taken you cannot guarantee people will match those offers,if we could be matched either side of the spread at those prices we'd all be millionaires within weeks.

So if the back odds on offer are 8.8 are you saying I could not get a bet on?
I thought that for there to be a back offer of 8.8 someone must have placed a lay order at that price looking to be matched?
Alternately if the Lay odds are showing as 14 then someone must have placed a back order looking to be matched?

[1/4 of a millionaire fund]

I Lay the U1.5 @ 5.7 for 100
and then wait for a goal to green up for profit when the Back odds shoot up or if early on leave it for the 2nd goal and win the LAY.

My friend, neighbour, wife, whoever decides to
Back the U1.5 @ 5.1 then after 25 mins trades out at lower odds for a profit.....

Doesn't matter however you try and spin it the bet's already down £60 by laying @ 5.7 and backing at 5.1.

[1/4 of a millionaire fund]

So if the back odds on offer are 8.8 are you saying I could not get a bet on?
I thought that for there to be a back offer of 8.8 someone must have placed a lay order at that price looking to be matched?
Alternately if the Lay odds are showing as 14 then someone must have placed a back order looking to be matched?

There's no problem if you want to back at 8.8 and lay at 14, just don't assume someone will take your lay at 8.8 and your back at 14

[pedro]

I'm in the 'really confused' camp here. With your neighbour analogy, surely because of the spread, your neighbours loss will be greater than your profit........ or am I missing something too.

[UKJamie]

I'm in the 'really confused' camp here. With your neighbour analogy, surely because of the spread, your neighbours loss will be greater than your profit........ or am I missing something too.

I think you are all assuming the bets/trades are placed at the same time...
There seems to be a big swing in the odds U1.5 market after the first goal goes in. And a fairly rapid decline if a goal does not go in.

Our 2 bets are both placed before the KO but the trades are made at different times depending on the goals/odds/time

Its no different in my opinion to placing a lay bet for 5.7 on MAN UTD v Whoever
and a back bet for 5.1 on Liverpool V whoever
you would trade each one according to the game/time etc

can of worms LOL

[neeeel]

IVe spent ages trying to explain to myself why it wont work, but basically it comes down to the fact that you have bought high and then sold low, so you have to be down money.
If theres 2 accounts, 1 account backs at 3.8 and lays at 2, the other account lays at 4.1 and backs at 14, then obviously both accounts are going to show a profit. But for this to happen, a certain sequence of events has to happen, eg no goals, price comes in to 2, theres a goal, price goes out to 14.
BUT, in this same sequence of events, we can win more money by simply laying at 2 and backing at 14, than the 2 accounts make using your system. The loss is an invisible one( it seems like both accounts made money) but they actually made less than they should have

maybe thats too complicated to explain. How about that the sequence of trades doesnt matter.
(back at 3.8 lay at 2) (lay at 4.1 back at 14) is exactly the same as (back at 3.8 lay at 4.1)(lay at 2 back at 14)
in the first one there are 2 winning trades, in the second one a winning and a losing trade. The end result however is the same.

[neeeel]

as millionaire says, any time u want to back at 5 and lay at 5.7, please let me know, I will be happy to accomodate u

[1/4 of a millionaire fund]

I think you are all assuming the bets/trades are placed at the same time...
There seems to be a big swing in the odds U1.5 market after the first goal goes in. And a fairly rapid decline if a goal does not go in.

Our 2 bets are both placed before the KO but the trades are made at different times depending on the goals/odds/time

Its no different in my opinion to placing a lay bet for 5.7 on MAN UTD v Whoever
and a back bet for 5.1 on Liverpool V whoever
you would trade each one according to the game/time etc

can of worms LOL

You're either on a wind up or really need to spend a bit of time understanding the basics of an exchange Jamie.

It's completly different to lay man vs whoever and liverpool vs whoever because your placing a losing bet to start with on the same market. Good luck with it and my offer to match your pre off bets still stands :)

[UKJamie]

.
BUT, in this same sequence of events, we can win more money by simply laying at 2 and backing at 14, than the 2 accounts make using your system. The loss is an invisible one( it seems like both accounts made money) but they actually made less than they should have


The reason I wanted the initial back bet was to benefit from the odds falling from 3.8 to 2, a kind of insurance if I need to trade the lay if in the red... still 0-0 1-0 deep in the 2nd half..
I can see what you are saying about 1 bet Lay 2 then back 14 (or whatever the odds after a goal), and may use that to tweak my idea :)

But on paper this week it HAS worked and worked very well, thats why I posted here to brainstorm...and as usual some bloody good answers!!

[RobinHood]

I looked at your graphical explanation and to me it looks more like gambling and not trading. It sure looks like if you wait too long to get the right price for back/lay you could get burned.

I once had a simple strategy trading Over 1.5 goals. At first i "traded" on paper and it looked very well, then i tried to trade for real and first 3 days i was in a good profit, but then were only losing days. I looked back at my trading strategy and it now looked like pure gambling.

[UKJamie]

I looked at your graphical explanation and to me it looks more like gambling and not trading......

I disagree there RH, where do you differentiate gambling and trading...they are the same thing my friend

Gambling you take a price and hope for the price to go high/low to return a profit
Trading you take a price and hope for the price to go high/low to return a profit
I am waiting for the trade price to rise or fall to trade out....

Every trade has a risk attached ( a gamble) and I think this particular market has low risk and yeah one of them becomes difficult to get out if the other goes right but at certain points in the matches that I have watched there were times to do so

[RobinHood]

It looks more like gambling to me cause you don't have an exit strategy. It's possible that i'm talking nonsense cause there's a chance that i haven't fully understood your strategy.

[Knight Rider]

Hope this helps

http://www.localpagesturkey.com/images/U1.5-trade.jpg

The Chelsea game worked out because of one thing.... your exit from the back bet came at the right moment, ie still goaless. Your luck then carried on when the goal came in another 10min (although your insurance bet counter balanced any fortune you had from that so is irrevelant anyway). Now if you could replicate your exits as well in every game then you have a winning system but it doesn't work out like that unfortunately

Likewise for the 2nd one you lost money because and only because a goal came at the wrong time. Your insurance bet to back would have counterbalanced your existing lay bet so is irrevelant . Yeah you would have won £40 if you didn't bother with the insurance bet but that would have been gambling....if it had remained 1-0 you would have lost £310 (3.1*100) + £59.14 = £369.14 which kind of puts that £40 into perspective

Trading both the back and lay side of the market at the same time is doomed to fail, you will never profit long term and the bigger the spread the more you will stand to lose. Looking at the Chelsea game your screen would have been red for £470 and green for £410 so your in effect swimming against the tide before the game has kicked off. As for insurance bets.....oh dear.....all you are doing is taking your stake/potential profit from one pot and putting into another.......ie robbing Peter to pay Paul. Its a nugget/Tadger type word aimed at making it look like there is a viable safety net to ease the blow when it all goes tits up. When your dealing with a 100% market playing musical chairs with your stakes with these insurance bets may help you flog a few crappy ebooks and look like you know what you are talking about but it is complete and utter bollox:D

[UKJamie]

The comments about selling crappy ebooks tickled me :)
Thanks for your answers guys it helps when trying to work things through....

As said before playing the game on paper then no harm done even if its a tits up situation...
Not looking for the holy grail, just a reasonably safe trade/bet strategy with minimal risk <---- Aren't we all hey:rolleyes:

[taxbreaks]

This is a market where I spend a fair bit of time - as I understand it who theoretically in the Chelsea game backed under +1.5 at 5.1 and layed at 5.7.

So your liabilities are:

Back £100 and lay £470 - as time goes on during the game the lay and back price will degrade (provided that there is no goal) until they are 1.00. At some point you are going to make the judgement when to jump ship on the Back side if no goal has been score lets say at 2.73 a profit of £73 (using your figures) after 38 minutes.

So my understanding is that you now have a Back bet out of the market showing £73 profit and a lay bet still in the market with a liability of £470 .

Now this seems fine provide that there is a goal - but what if there is not - surely if the lay bet remains the liability just increases with time and will always be greater than your gain. If the bet in this scenario (with no goals) ran its course you would be £397 in the red.

Am I reading this correctly? If so it is not a bet than many would find attractive as the liability is 4x any potential gain.

The selection of the game is obviously important I use a similar selection technique but with the addition that I will only enter a game where the total percentage of games (combined for both teams) is in excess of one hundred percent other the previous 20 games. My biggest bets are preserved for winning teams - normal top of table - with a percentage greater than seventy - and a bottom of the table with a similar percentage.

[neeeel]

knight rider explained it better than I could. Plus I forgot to mention that when u lose , u lose big. Believe us when we say, it wont work, since you have already lost money from your opening trade.

[Knight Rider]

Just as a caveat regarding insurance bets . I have used the odds from tonights Liverpool game where the current draw to lay stands at 4.1. Say i use a stake of £100, i will lose £310 if there is a draw at FT. If i want to provide "insurance" to my bet by backing the 0-0 for example which currently is 11.5 i will need £29.50 (29.5 *10.5= £310). I have ignored the commission btw as that will just complicate. So with the draw priced at 11.5 there is a 8.7% chance of it happening

Now imagine this exact bet is done 100 times.On the positive side by backing the 0-0 you avoid losses of £310, 8.7% of the time so over 100 bets that is £2967(£310*0.087%*100bets). Yet by putting £29.50 on all the remaining scores which don't end up 0-0 ,ie 91.3% (100-8.7) you will incur costs on these insurance bets of £29.50*0.913*100 bets which is = £2693 (there is a slight difference with £2967 as i have rounded up figures along the way) So the insurance bet is a waste of time which is all down to the fact you are dealing with a 100% market . And when the market goes inplay you remain constricted still cos the market is still give or take around that 100% mark.

If you can consistently spot value in the football markets then its a different matter but that will only come with watching many matches and markets.Even then though you need a big bankroll to make a significant income as you don't large enough disparities in price like you do in horse racing (unless England are playing in a major tournament;))