AFL 2019 - AFL Round 3

[maskmcgee]

... You think those two are the same thing?

One is recommending a bet on Sydney, the other is scepticism of a bet on Carlton.

So basically one is bet on Sydney, Carlton can't win, the other is don't bet on Carlton, Sydney will win?

Seem pretty similar to me.

 

[Vhaluus]

So basically one is bet on Sydney, Carlton can't win, the other is don't bet on Carlton, Sydney will win?

Seem pretty similar to me.

You're not a deep thinker are you?

Betting isn't about x can't win or x will win.

It's about probabilities and circumstances and calculated risks.

 

[Ohh Ok]

Gonna lock in;
2.5u brisbane -7.5 $1.90
2u Gold Coast +32.5 $1.91

Definitely a let down spot for Port here. Think suns line is too high, with things starting to maybe turn for them a little bit as a club, its worth noting that they did beat them by 5 in JLT1

Early plays from last thread;
4u GWS SU $1.73
3u St. Kilda +26.5 $1.90

 

[Zook]

Gonna lock in;
2.5u brisbane -7.5 $1.90
2u Gold Coast +32.5 $1.91

Definitely a let down spot for Port here. Think suns line is too high, with things starting to maybe turn for them a little bit as a club, its worth noting that they did beat them by 5 in JLT1

Early plays from last thread;
4u GWS SU $1.73
3u St. Kilda +26.5 $1.90

Could someone explain what 2u, 3u etc means?

 

[Ohh Ok]

Could someone explain what 2u, 3u etc means?

2 units, 3 units.

A unit is usually a percentage of your bankroll, somewhere between 1-3% depending on how aggressive you are; for me I go with 1%

 

[juss]

Eagles are the best value for the week. Betfair has them at $3.05 implying they're only a 32.7% chance. Theres no way Pies are 67.3% favourites.

You can get them around $2.83 on Sportsbet with the 12 up special.

Think I might take the Betfair line for insurance hopefully at around $2 with about 13 point head start.

GWS also value, dont see Tigers winning at all but never want to bet against my own team.

I think Lions, Hawks and then Cats + line are also solid plays.

Will probably put 2u on each of those.

 

[juss]

You're not a deep thinker are you?

Betting isn't about x can't win or x will win.

It's about probabilities and circumstances and calculated risks.

Betting is about any strategy he wants if it shows a long term profit and ROI lol.

No point taking value if it's never gonna realistically happen.

 

[Checkered]

The most likey way that gets up
R3
Adelaide def Geelong
Brisbane def Port
Fremantle def St. Kilda
R4
Collingwood def. Western Bulldogs

Multi'd pays $4.93. $5.82 if you add Dogs def Suns.
And Brisbane def Essendon in R4 makes it $12.34 if it needs to be only undefeated team at the end of the round.

Yeah I don't know which game Geelong loses though so slightly lesser odds but gives me two chances on that one

 

[iluvparis]

... You think those two are the same thing?

One is recommending a bet on Sydney, the other is scepticism of a bet on Carlton.

.

Double speak Orwell would be proud of

 

[Jugada]

Betting is about any strategy he wants if it shows a long term profit and ROI lol.

No point taking value if it's never gonna realistically happen.

Taking value is the only profitable long term strategy. Whether the individual result is likely or not

 

[juss]

Taking value is the only profitable long term strategy. Whether the individual result is likely or not

To a degree.
I could probably list 50 individual events that wont happen this year and could give you increased value and if you put $10 on each of them I'd probably walk away with $500. The Brownlow is a perfect example. I see so many people say they chucked $100 on random player with no realistic chance of winning (only really a mathematical chance) because he was "value" at 95-1. That's easy money for the bookie, even if he was over the odds and should have been a 80-1 chance.

H2H markets is a different story because in a two team result like the AFL any one team is always a chance.
You need a reasonable edge though especially if you're going to take outsiders.

I still think its important to separate mathematical chances from somewhat realistic chances.

 

[Sausage Legs]

This heater must roll on.

50 bucks. Rolling multi using promo. All on GWS with lead by 12 at break u win. Wait for collect, roll that into Pies 1-39. Then Dogs strait up using promo again. 4 bucks.

 

[fredd]

To a degree.
I could probably list 50 individual events that wont happen this year and could give you increased value and if you put $10 on each of them I'd probably walk away with $500. The Brownlow is a perfect example. I see so many people say they chucked $100 on random player with no realistic chance of winning (only really a mathematical chance) because he was "value" at 95-1. That's easy money for the bookie, even if he was over the odds and should have been a 80-1 chance.

H2H markets is a different story because in a two team result like the AFL any one team is always a chance.
You need a reasonable edge though especially if you're going to take outsiders.

I still think its important to separate mathematical chances from somewhat realistic chances.

I think you are confusing value with long odds. A market set at a price of $1.10 can be value if one considers the chances of the outcome to be in excess of 91%. Conversely a very high percentage of market options at long odds are not value because the chances of the outcome are lower than the price reflects.

 

[juss]

I think you are confusing value with long odds. A market set at a price of $1.10 can be value if one considers the chances of the outcome to be in excess of 90%. Conversely a very high percentage of market options at long odds are not value because the chances of the outcome are lower than the price reflects.

Yes I understand the odds reflect a relative percentage chance and taking odds of $2.10 for a 50% chance is profitable, but I'm saying a step further that there are certain events that are probably only mathematical chances but not realistic chances. Therefore betting on anything even if it is value isnt a surefire way to success.

Take Jack Higgins for the Brownlow as a random example. He might be a hypothetical 300-1 real world chance (hes not), but even if you were offered 2000-1 which would be good value compared to his actual odds, with one Brownlow winner a year, you're not winning that bet. Hes a mathematical chance, everything that's physically possible is a mathematical chance, but its not a realistic chance. Extreme hypothetical to illustrate the point.

Secondly, if you're taking value outsiders you have to be prepared to lose a high number of bets.
Just because a team at $6 is actually a $5 chance doesnt mean backing it will work. If you roll a dice of 6, 12 times you might not get one of your numbers to come up, even though its expected to come up twice. So unless you are able to take every single $5 chance that's paying $6, you're not likely to show a profit. A real world $5 chance is only expected to win 20% of the time. Even then, there's no guarantee one in every 5 of them win. That means that it you take a few of those bets in isolation for value, you realistically still expect to lose 4/5 of those bets. Probably wont go so well unless you can accurately identify every one of these situations.

Sometimes it's better to take equal value or slightly over, if you are selective. Especially if you are betting larger amounts that dont need to be betting as often.

Alternatively, sometimes you can look at a longer term return and ignore the immediate value of one outcome. One strategy I employed recently was backing Richmond at the MCG every game, regardless of the odds. I was confident they would win enough over the season at that value to give me a positive return. They did.

I plan to do the same with West Coast at Optus and Geelong at GMHBA, unless for some reason their form collapses. I might lose one or two, but I expect winning the others will show me a profit over the season.

 

[Jugada]

To a degree.
I could probably list 50 individual events that wont happen this year and could give you increased value and if you put $10 on each of them I'd probably walk away with $500. The Brownlow is a perfect example. I see so many people say they chucked $100 on random player with no realistic chance of winning (only really a mathematical chance) because he was "value" at 95-1. That's easy money for the bookie, even if he was over the odds and should have been a 80-1 chance.

H2H markets is a different story because in a two team result like the AFL any one team is always a chance.
You need a reasonable edge though especially if you're going to take outsiders.

I still think its important to separate mathematical chances from somewhat realistic chances.

Nah it's all about market value. Just because something is a 30-1 chance and unlikely to win that individual event it is still going to be profitable long term if you are getting 100-1 about it because it should still be winning 1 in every 30 iterations. You are just focusing too much on the individual result and the probability of winning that single bet

 

[fredd]

Yes I understand the odds reflect a relative percentage chance and taking odds of $2.10 for a 50% chance is profitable, but I'm saying a step further that there are certain events that are probably only mathematical chances but not realistic chances. Therefore betting on anything even if it is value isnt a surefire way to success.

Take Jack Higgins for the Brownlow as a random example. He might be a hypothetical 300-1 real world chance (hes not), but even if you were offered 2000-1 which would be good value compared to his actual odds, with one Brownlow winner a year, you're not winning that bet. Hes a mathematical chance, everything that's physically possible is a mathematical chance, but its not a realistic chance. Extreme hypothetical to illustrate the point.

Secondly, if you're taking value outsiders you have to be prepared to lose a high number of bets.
Just because a team at $6 is actually a $5 chance doesnt mean backing it will work. If you roll a dice of 6, 12 times you might not get one of your numbers to come up, even though its expected to come up twice. So unless you are able to take every single $5 chance that's paying $6, you're not likely to show a profit. A real world $5 chance is only expected to win 20% of the time. Even then, there's no guarantee one in every 5 of them win. That means that it you take a few of those bets in isolation for value, you realistically still expect to lose 4/5 of those bets. Probably wont go so well unless you can accurately identify every one of these situations.

Sometimes it's better to take equal value or slightly over, if you are selective. Especially if you are betting larger amounts that dont need to be betting as often.

Alternatively, sometimes you can look at a longer term return and ignore the immediate value of one outcome. One strategy I employed recently was backing Richmond at the MCG every game, regardless of the odds. I was confident they would win enough over the season at that value to give me a positive return. They did.

I plan to do the same with West Coast at Optus and Geelong at GMHBA, unless for some reason their form collapses. I might lose one or two, but I expect winning the others will show me a profit over the season.

If you can consistently find market options that should be priced at 300-1 and are actually priced at 2000-1, over enough time you will profit.

If you can consistently find market options with a 20% chance of winning priced at or over $6, over enough time you will profit.

Being correct in your assessment of the chances of an outcome is incredibly hard, finding value in options at those sort of prices is incredibly rare but the concept of taking value only being profitable in markets < a certain price is wrong.

 

[juss]

Nah it's all about market value. Just because something is a 30-1 chance and unlikely to win that individual event it is still going to be profitable long term if you are getting 100-1 about it because it should still be winning 1 in every 30 iterations. You are just focusing too much on the individual result and the probability of winning that single bet

Providing you can accurately identify the 30-1 and bet on it 30 times it might. Those two things dont always hold.

Do you have 300 years to bet on a 300-1 Brownlow chance? Or 90 years to bet on a 90-1 premiership chance?

I've had good success with my strategy which uses market value but also it's not purely mathematical it incorporates common sense too.

 

[Jugada]

Providing you can accurately identify the 30-1 and bet on it 30 times it might. Those two things dont always hold.

Do you have 300 years to bet on a 300-1 Brownlow chance?

I've had good success with my strategy which uses market value but also it's not purely mathematical it incorporates common sense too.

Well every part of being a profitable punter is being able to identify value repeatedly no matter what the odds. I also don't need 300 years to bet on 300-1 brownlow chances, you just take all value but alter your bet amount depending on the odds.

Finding value is 100% mathematical. If you don't want to take $1.10 or $101 chances because you don't get enough to make it worthwhile then fair o but they are still just as long term profitable as any other odds group where there is value

 

[Jugada]

I do concede there is a higher variance level the longer the odds but if you are a serious punter and betting the correct the amounts it's still as sound a strategy

 

[tangolikelama]

Love Brisbane at the line this week, might multi into Rockliff 35+ against his old mob.

$3.50 - reckon i'll chuck $100 on.

 

[juss]

Well every part of being a profitable punter is being able to identify value repeatedly no matter what the odds. I also don't need 300 years to bet on 300-1 brownlow chances, you just take all value but alter your bet amount depending on the odds.

Finding value is 100% mathematical. If you don't want to take $1.10 or $101 chances because you don't get enough to make it worthwhile then fair o but they are still just as long term profitable as any other odds group where there is value

Finding value requires the correct identification of the true chances. It's largely subjective.
If I think Brisbane are a 58% chance and you think they are a 42% chance, and they are paying $2, one of our models says bet the other says don't bet. Whether your model is data based, or prediction based on nothing but the Friday arvo chat at work, it's still subjective because I don't think anyone anywhere has come up with a model that's perfect.

So yes finding value is mathematical, but the different predictive models that actually find that value are entirely subjective. Even data based models are subjective, because they don't take in every variable, and some use different variables than others.

 

[Jugada]

Finding value requires the correct identification of the true chances. It's largely subjective.
If I think Brisbane are a 58% chance and you think they are a 42% chance, and they are paying $2, one of our models says bet the other says don't bet. Whether your model is data based, or prediction based on nothing but the Friday arvo chat at work, it's still subjective because I don't think anyone anywhere has come up with a model that's perfect.

So yes finding value is mathematical, but the different predictive models that actually find that value are entirely subjective. Even data based models are subjective, because they don't take in every variable, and some use different variables than others.

Yeah I know. Doesn't have anything to do with taking longer odds selections though

 

[mookieb]

Yes I understand the odds reflect a relative percentage chance and taking odds of $2.10 for a 50% chance is profitable, but I'm saying a step further that there are certain events that are probably only mathematical chances but not realistic chances. Therefore betting on anything even if it is value isnt a surefire way to success.

Take Jack Higgins for the Brownlow as a random example. He might be a hypothetical 300-1 real world chance (hes not), but even if you were offered 2000-1 which would be good value compared to his actual odds, with one Brownlow winner a year, you're not winning that bet. Hes a mathematical chance, everything that's physically possible is a mathematical chance, but its not a realistic chance. Extreme hypothetical to illustrate the point.

Secondly, if you're taking value outsiders you have to be prepared to lose a high number of bets.
Just because a team at $6 is actually a $5 chance doesnt mean backing it will work. If you roll a dice of 6, 12 times you might not get one of your numbers to come up, even though its expected to come up twice. So unless you are able to take every single $5 chance that's paying $6, you're not likely to show a profit. A real world $5 chance is only expected to win 20% of the time. Even then, there's no guarantee one in every 5 of them win. That means that it you take a few of those bets in isolation for value, you realistically still expect to lose 4/5 of those bets. Probably wont go so well unless you can accurately identify every one of these situations.

Sometimes it's better to take equal value or slightly over, if you are selective. Especially if you are betting larger amounts that dont need to be betting as often.

Alternatively, sometimes you can look at a longer term return and ignore the immediate value of one outcome. One strategy I employed recently was backing Richmond at the MCG every game, regardless of the odds. I was confident they would win enough over the season at that value to give me a positive return. They did.

I plan to do the same with West Coast at Optus and Geelong at GMHBA, unless for some reason their form collapses. I might lose one or two, but I expect winning the others will show me a profit over the season.

I get what you're saying, but essentially you're stating that extreme long odd shots are realistically no chance of winning so why take such long odds?

The punters that backed Leicester at 5000 to 1 in the Premier League will probably disagree with you.

 

[Oraaaaazio]

Betting is about any strategy he wants if it shows a long term profit and ROI lol.

No point taking value if it's never gonna realistically happen.

Well if something is never going to happen then it's never going to be value, is it?

 

[freo_leo29]

Love Brisbane at the line this week, might multi into Rockliff 35+ against his old mob.

$3.50 - reckon i'll chuck $100 on.

Any thought on Wines to take some mid time off Rocky?