Value

[dj_mercury]

Originally Posted by crowie

Interesting debate as it always is when the "v" word is mentioned.

Personally I, like many people on here, look at a football game for two things.

1) Will the team win/not lose/lose?

and

2) Is the price acceptable to back (or lay)?

This is the same strategy I am currently using. Especially with my icehockey picks, but I am trying to use it also for football match. First evaluate the match that I can currently be interested to bet on, calculate my own odds and then compare mine with the one offered by the bookies.
I am currently working now to develop a sensitive staking system, who is able to take advantage of my price advantage over the bookie, but as I am not great in maths,I am a bit far to reach an acceptable stake calculator in this moment.

[GaNgStA kEeKs]

Good stuff guys - ive said all along i can see where your coming from Chris but i don't get why i would back a side i didnt think was going to win if their odds were far better than i expected. Thats not how i work and if that was the case i would lose so much money as there are a hell of a lot of teams i think are priced far higher than i expected.

One thing i can't agree on though is about "value is what we need to find, not winners". Completely agree with AMP on this and its winners you need first and foremost then look to add your value to it.

Anyways - i have woken up with a stinging head ache and feel like shite and have no energy for saying more for today anyways.

All together "Awwwwwww"

[traeth]

[quote=slick]

From this thread alone i think we can assume there are 2 types of gamblers, 1 being those that are stat orientated and the other myself included that think they know enough about football to judge themselves who have the best chance of winning.

[quote]

this thread is a great read and thought provoking

i think i understand what your saying slick , but my opinion is that if you could draw a line between the stats orientated and football knowledge , all gamblers could place themselves somewhere on that line.

STATS 100% 50% STATS 0%
__________________________________________________ ___

Knowledge 0% 50% Knowledge 100%

I have read Joe's book and have an understanding of value and I agree with kiko .I would rather have 10 winners out of 10 than find 10 value bets that do not win.

[christianu]

I have read Joe's book and have an understanding of value and I agree with kiko .I would rather have 10 winners out of 10 than find 10 value bets that do not win.

You might as well be saying I would rather spin black on the roullette wheel 10 times and win every time than find 10 value bets that dont win.

So would we all if it were that simple- but it isnt.

If you want to make a long term profit in football you HAVE to be betting based on value. Otherwise your playing a game of chance.

It isnt a case of wether you think someone will win, you are never 100% certain- its realising how certain you are they will win (say 50%) and finding odds that allow you to get an edge.

This is a battle between you and the bookmaker. If he has priced something up wrong you take advantage. If he has priced something up correctley and you bet on that team "cos you think they will win" well your playing right into there hands.

[crowie]

Originally Posted by traeth

I have read Joe's book and have an understanding of value and I agree with kiko .I would rather have 10 winners out of 10 than find 10 value bets that do not win.

traeth,

I think we have all agreed we would rather have winners than losers. Its the price, or the value in the price, of the winners thats under debate here.

Your quote comes across to me as saying "I don't care what the price is as long as its a winner". I doubt very much thats how you bet but if it is then I think you will suffer long term.

If you backed a winner at say 4-7 but a fair price was 4-6 or even 4-5 then would you be happy doing that because your bet was a winner?

[traeth]

christanu
This is a battle between you and the bookmaker. If he has priced something up wrong you take advantage. If he has priced something up correctley and you bet on that team "cos you think they will win" well your playing right into there hands.

Crowie
If you backed a winner at say 4-7 but a fair price was 4-6 or even 4-5 then would you be happy doing that because your bet was a winner?

reading my post again I realise that my point was poorly expressed .I was trying to convey that it is a combination of more than one factor that makes a gambler and the emphasis of one factor over another varies between gamblers . My target is to select winners and to be in profit.
My emphasis on the the value factor may be lower than some others [ possibly due to my inferior understanding of "value" ].My assessment of value tends to be more difficult to quantify - more of a tendancy for a "intelligent gut feeling". My betting selections have "progressed" in the last year from the stats end towards the knowledge end. Thinking that I have more knowledge of the match will dictates the price I will accept .

[jasper_77]

Value is a very simple concept. Does a team have a better chance of winning than is implied by the available odds? If the answer is no, then, in the long term, you will make a loss. If yes, then, in the long term, you will make a profit. If you are only going to bet on one match ever, then bet on the team that you think is most likely to win. If you are going to bet week after week, month after month, then bet on the team that offers the best value. How you decide what is value, i.e. gut feel or statistics, is irrelevant. If you are comparing your perceived chance of winning to the price available, then you are deciding whether a bet offers value, even if you don't know it.

Incidentally, as someone who bets mainly on very short priced favourites, I get fed up with the argument that value only exists at bigger prices. A team that is priced at 1.25 that should be 1.20 offers just as much value as a team priced at 3.50 that should be 3.00. The actual price has nothing at all to do with it. There are some very successful systems that make consistent profits and don't bet on anything greater than about 1.25 - 1.30.

[Beanie]

Originally Posted by aa421

Value is a very simple concept. Does a team have a better chance of winning than is implied by the available odds? If the answer is no, then, in the long term, you will make a loss. If yes, then, in the long term, you will make a profit. If you are only going to bet on one match ever, then bet on the team that you think is most likely to win. If you are going to bet week after week, month after month, then bet on the team that offers the best value. How you decide what is value, i.e. gut feel or statistics, is irrelevant. If you are comparing your perceived chance of winning to the price available, then you are deciding whether a bet offers value, even if you don't know it.

Rather than try and word it myself, I was waiting for one post to sum up my thoughts on the matter in a clear and concise way(you were droning on a bit too much chris ) - and the above is it.



But as we can see there are lots of different opinions, many of which overlap a lot more than the posters seem to realise - but in the end, if a particular way of thinking works for someone, then alls well that ends well.

[Swooperman]

Aye....now what prat started all this off

[Seen]

Value is indeed a very simple concept, but somehow confuses a hell of a lot of people.