Horse Racing - Win Probability/Place Probability

[ExcelRaceRatings]

Hi All,

I am looking for assistance for a mathematical formula to be able to turn my assessed win betting prices (win %) into place betting probabilities. The below should explain the equation a little further.

	W%	2nd %	3rd %
Horse 1	35
Horse 2	15
Horse 3	13
Horse 4	10
Horse 5	9
Horse 6	7
Horse 7	5
Horse 8	3
Horse 9	2
Horse 10	1

<tbody>
</tbody>

As previously mentioned, the probability of a horse finishing in a place equals the sum of the probabilities of the horse coming first, second and third. To determine these probabilities, let's suppose the horse we wish to determine the place odds for is horse X and the probability of this horse winning is P(X). Furthermore, we will assume the number of horses in the race equals N.
The probability of horse X coming first is simply the win probability, namely P(X). The probability of horse X coming second is more complicated. It equals the sum of the following probabilities:
P(Horse 1 wins AND Horse X comes second)
P(Horse 2 wins AND Horse X comes second)
P(Horse 3 wins AND Horse X comes second)
...
P(Horse N wins AND Horse X comes second)
As Dedman notes, the probability that Horse 1 wins and Horse X comes second is the same as the probability that Horse 1 wins times the probability that Horse X wins if Horse 1 is scratched. This is given by P(1)*P(X)/(1-P(1)) where P(1) is the probability that Horse 1 wins (and '*' is computer notation for multiply). Similarly for Horse 2 winning with Horse X coming second and so on.

A similar process is used to determine the probability of Horse X coming third but this time there are many more probabilities to add together as there are many more ways in which the remaining horses can fill the first two places. This will become apparent when you recognise that the probability of horse X coming third is equal to the sum of the following probabilities:
P(Horse 1 wins AND Horse 2 comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
P(Horse 1 wins AND Horse 3 comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
P(Horse 1 wins AND Horse 4 comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
...
P(Horse 1 wins AND Horse N comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
Plus the sum of:
P(Horse 2 wins AND Horse 1 comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
P(Horse 2 wins AND Horse 3 comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
P(Horse 2 wins AND Horse 4 comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
...
P(Horse 2 wins AND Horse N comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
Plus the sum of:
P(Horse 3 wins AND Horse 1 comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
P(Horse 3 wins AND Horse 2 comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
P(Horse 3 wins AND Horse 4 comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
...
P(Horse 3 wins AND Horse N comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
And so on right through to and including the sum of:
P(Horse N wins AND Horse 1 comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
P(Horse N wins AND Horse 2 comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
P(Horse N wins AND Horse 3 comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
...
P(Horse N wins AND Horse N-1 comes 2nd AND Horse X comes third)
Now the probability that Horse 1 wins and Horse 2 comes second and Horse X comes third first involves working out the probability that Horse X wins if both Horses 1 and 2 are scratched. This is equal to P(X)/{(1-P(1))*(1-P(2))} where P(1) is the probability that Horse 1 wins and where P(2) is the probability that Horse 2 wins. This is then multiplied by the probability that Horse 1 wins and Horse 2 comes second (the latter being determined as outlined on the previous page).

Thank you for those who offer some advice!

 

[TedX]

Hi, I just stumbled across your post and your title (Win Probability/Place Probability) caught my eyes

I must say from the onset I understand what you are trying to do but you seem to be going about it the wrong way. Please let me explain, for the moment, ignore the place side of your question and focus on winning alone. I noticed that you very conveniently have your win % sum to 100. That is of course totally inaccurate, actually, it deals with the 'Race' as a whole and not each horse. Your win probabilities as shown in your table are the race probabilities.

If you did each horses probability of winning (according to whichever metric you use as the base of your computations) then you would soon realise that you can and do go well past 100% nearly all the time (assuming say a field of a dozen or more runners and a moderately open race with respect to odds), that means some favoured horses, some a little further out in the betting and then the roughies in the field.

I'm actually looking at the next race (totally at random) and it has 8 runners but my system only rates the top 6 runners in any race. Here are the odds of each runner winning the race with the probability expressed as a percentage in parenthesis.

Horse 6 $4.80 (20.83%)
Horse 4 $1.80 (55.56%)
Horse 7 $5.00 (20.00%)
Horse 2 $7.00 (14.29%)
Horse 8 $34.00 (2.94%)
Horse 3 $8.00 (12.50%)

As you can see, a lot more than 100% in total. What determines the total percentage is the interplay between the number of runners and how aggressive or passive the bookmaker is, added to whatever method you use to infer your odds, if you don't accept the bookie's odds (and you shouldn't).

So my method of deriving those stated horse probabilities as percentages is rather complex, but one of the key elements is price (odds), as I believe nearly all good systems need to take that into account because that is a more worthwhile scorecard than just fining a winning percentage.

So assuming I am correct so far, the next step is trying to find the 2nd and 3rd place. I am actually at a loss to understand why you would want to know this, however, I'll play along. Once again, step back away from the math and look at the race and see the only two real states that exist, that is the known and the unknown. In our race, these two mutually exclusive states mean that winning and losing are the opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak.

A horse that places second cannot win, under most scenarios except of course in the case of dead heats, triple dead heats and so on, where the horse is given the award of winning but mathematically that's not true, because each of the dead heaters equally finished second as well as first. A dead heat horse is in two states simultaneously. Think about it before rebutting this statement, because the accountant knows to sum the total prize money and divide by two for a dead heat, meaning each horse finished both first and second at the same time.

So, what of this mutual exclusivity? It means that if you don't win you ran a place other than 1st and vice versa. The unknown becomes greater than the known in a horses race greater than 2 participants. This then gives a clue because assuming your race of ten runners, instantly the winner is quantified as one (1) and the placed horses (excluding the winner, is set at nine (9) horses. It's true that every one of the 9 non-winners will position into some place, but for some weird reason, people (today) want to know which 2 of the remaining 9 horses, will fill the 2nd and 3rd place.

By the way, when each way was enforced at 1/4 the win odds, it was a viable thing but in today's weird (we are in 2021 as I write) environment, a place pool is a smaller, worse opportunity than a win only pool. Nevertheless, if you want to know the probability of one of the remaining non-winning horses to place in a specific position you must ignore the winner completely, that horse is out of contention. Therefore start with 9 runners and use the exact same logic and method you used to find the original winners percentage when you had 10 starters. Find that second winner. Remove that horse, then repeat in the 8 horse field and so on down to two horses, there is no need to do the last horse because the only state that can exist for that 10th horse is 10th.

So you end up with a table of placed horses behind the winner, each horse has its position and probability percentage of filling that predicted position. Btw, I'm writing this in English and avoiding math because most people either don't get the math or if they do, they bore of it quickly. This is meant to be read by anyone who loves a bet but isn't that great at math.

Once you have built your table which should take you no longer than a few minutes in Excel, you have all your probabilities and percentages lined up and looking great, then what do you do???

This is the real question, looking at tables of numbers does not make you a wealthy man at Royal Randwick on Doncaster Day. What will make you slightly more wealthier, are more important questions than the probability of winning or running a place. Questions like what is the size of my stake and is there any value in betting on this horse in this race, even if it's as close to a certainty as you can get?

The answer to that last part of the question is no, sometimes you have to just pass and let a real sure thing go around without you. My previous paragraph had the two most important words any punter will ever need to understand fully and practice at, they are stake and value. The people I have met in my lifetime that do not understand the impact of these two profound factors is staggering.

Putting it all together. The probability of a horse winning a race is based on whatever system or metric you choose to use. You could for instance just bet of horses ridden by Jockeys those names start with a letter in the first 13 letters of the alphabet, you might be pleasantly surprised by the hit rate. No, I haven't done that, but I accept that until someone does do an exhaustive study (analysis) that it could be the holy grail. Who's to say that odds are the King of metrics, why???

I personally use odds as one of my top 5 from 65 metrics, however, even with odds, I use an average of my own predicted prices plus those offered by my main bookmaker, to work out my percentages of probability. I then employ guidelines or limits, especially on the downside, of what I will simply not go below. For example, if I'm Dutching two horses, they must fall between 52% to 75% for me to bet them both, the reasoning is, lower than 52% is a probability I simply draw the line at after many years of observation. The upper limit, is already too high to make reasonably valued profits from, If the percentages goes even higher then I am going to get almost nothing in return. You have to have a sweet spot. Mine is personally between 52% and 60%, I like that range of profit from a value point of view.

With win only betting, what probability percentage makes you feel warm and fuzzy? If it's too high you get very little reward, and too low, the risk becomes too great. So assuming that you do work out really accurate relative probabilities, does that actually help you to make profits? It might help you find the winner but if you can't get on or the prices is far too short, then it's a wasted endeavour.

I use probabilities extensively, spent years doing them and figuring it all out only to realise, it's a base step and not a primary one. It does at best give you a handle on the main chances in a race but is still a long way, away from turning into regular and consistent profits of a noteworthy magnitude.

I hope in some small way I have added something to the larger question of why it is that you actually are seeking the way to rate placegetters, to my mind, that's no different than trying to rate winners, it's the exact same process (as described above), once again I ask, however, why would you want to? Good luck with your punting and cheers for now.

 

[suis]

In response to TedX - Probabilities for 2nd and 3rd place can be useful regarding varied staking in such exotics as Quinella and Trifecta betting

 

[Truxton111]

Hi Suis and Tedx - Im looking for some insight into two punting puzzles.

1. Suis - Im dutching on the exchange to about 65% of book which includes a bias against one runner taking its profit to zero...so it becomes my "value maker" allowing me a return upwards of $1.90......Is this technically a value bet? Im currently percentage staking but Im tempted to try the Kelly however i concerned it may be too aggressive?

2. Tedx - Could i use a "standard race" with 10 horses of equal class to do a risk assessment of different betting types....my nephew is playing exotics like they are lotto tickets and ive been unable to explain the maths of each bet.

Single Lay bet = 9/10 = 90% winning
Single Back Bet = 1/10 = 10% winning
Dutching x 5 = 5/10 = 50%
Place bet = 3/10 = 0.3
Exacta =
Quinella =
Trifecta =
First 4 =
Double =
Treble =
Super Six =
Quadrella = 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 = 1/10000 possible ?

Is this correct, any thoughts?

cheers for now and happy punting.

 

[TedX]

Okay, time for an update, seeing it's been 17 months since my last post (sounds like a confession), not that I've done that in eons. Anyway, what have I been doing, during that time. Well to be honest my turnover has even scared me, but the word turnover is just a reflection of my involvement, I'm older than most who will read this and I bet on races all day, every day and only stop to sleep (sort of). I have more or less stayed the same over the last couple of years, which means I haven't lost, but on the flip side, I haven't really won either. There are reasons for that.

Firstly, my personality and my aversion to risk are high and I jeopardise my winning chance with a set of ironclad rules that would kill the average punter. The number of times I yell to the wife, "This is a sure thing" and I don't bet, opting to watch it because one of my rules prevents me. It can come down to missing my price by just 10 cents. More on my rules later, if you don't fall asleep reading this diatribe. That's a little harsh, ramble is probably more accurate.

Secondly, I had intended on escalating my wagering but bookie limits, lousy value most of the time, small fields, incessant rain and my number one reason for not going for the knockout, actually two good reasons, 1, the money is only a scorecard for me, to show how I'm going, I don't need it and I use money for fun, it's not essential to me, I know it is to a lot of younger people and I'm not trying to be flippant. The 2nd reason is that for the last couple of years I dug a lot deeper into VBA which for those who use it, know that Excel is only a stepping stone to mastering VBA and it's not that hard if you are a code programming type, but a nightmare if you're not.

As I got deeper in VBA, I started to see ways to speed up my form, it was taking me 3 hours a night on average, just to spin it up, that was for 6 meetings, if there were that many on, shorter time for days that were less active. That 3 hours I got down to 18 minutes. I did a new version built on top of my original system, which gives a very high number of winners. However with my rules, I don't back them all and of course, I generally don't lose. It comes down to what you want, my rules suit me and my experience level of the racing game and the humans that run it. Maths is cool but if you have an administration that isn't as professional as another, who takes that into account? Well, I do, but the math is 100% subjective and you could argue and not be wrong, saying it's just a guess.

Where VBA has improved my methods is that I built a software system, like most people around a database of facts and preferences and that was essentially worked on at night, leaving the days free to bet and watch the races. Now I combine the two at the one time, even though it's a race a minute, these days. Except for Saturdays, race fields have generally shrunk, well let me put that another way, scratchings have increased

Through the last two years of learning VBA and trying to stay on top of all changes in Excel, I've gotten to the point that I watch the race and the instant they go across the line, I tick each of my rated horses and automatically their ratings are adjusted for the next time they race. Winners get more, lose naturally enough lose ground and if they fall below my threshold they are eliminated. To put that into terms you can grasp what I do, Nature Strip is 94.33 and in the database because he is currently racing. I don't slow down my computer with historical records, I used to but it seems that the past is better left in the past.

Nature Strip is currently my highest rating horse, so think in terms of 100% and you will see he is pretty close to the top, unlike the Olympic games, you cannot get a perfect 100 in my universe. My system rates every horse in every race, Metrop, Provincial and Country, because the data is free and computer power is awesome these days. My lower limit is 70, which means that if a horse rates 69.99 it does not get a visual rating. It does get a rating but I don't see it, I'm simply not interested in horses that poor.

So this 30% of the best-performing horses according to my many algorithms, is my personal playground. I have 256 factual metrics which are at the heart of the ratings, this is the basic rating, and then we (my wife and I in a blind study, selected our ten most important factors), which further contribute to the weighting of the ratings. After that, I bet or not, dependent on my rules not being broken. My wife bets all day as well with her own money and accounts, and she has access to my rating system. Unlike me however, she does not have a set of rules, she does have gut feelings and instincts and can grab a $40.00 winner out of thin air, which always amazes me, yet over time I have learned to just smile and say "good on you", as inwardly I laugh to myself.

I won't bore you with my long list of rules but just give you a couple. Bear in mind, these work for me, they probably will drive a 'normal' person to poverty or heartbreak, or both.

Okay, the greatest rule I have ever known since Clarance the Clocker, was don't run upstairs. That means don't bet odds on. Well times have changed a lot since then and I do actually bet odds on but the lowest I will take is $1.80, it does hurt sometimes when a good horse is $1.70, I just let it go around and I would venture a guess that in my lifetime of not backing the really short horses, I have saved quite a lot.

Now my next rule might surprise you, actually, it should because I doubt there is another human on the planet, that does this rule, but once again, it has saved me so many times, it's not funny. I will not back any horse that is $7.00 or more, that means for me the odds must be 6 something, right up to $6.99, not that they offer you that, it's usually $6.50 as my high price. I have a guideline, which is different from a rule. A rule cannot be broken, ever, whilst a guideline should be followed mostly but can be ignored if there is compelling evidence to suggest it. For example a horse blows (drifts) out alarmingly, it would be wise for you to wonder why the bookies are giving the horse, no chance. I try to only bet in the last minute (a guideline) and yes I do get caught many times not getting on and about 50% of the time the horse wins, it suits me to bet late and I accept that I will miss out sometimes.

The third rule has undergone monumental changes over the last few years, I have done lots of testing and it just works out that I currently do this, but I didn't always. It's to bet the highest rating horse, yes that makes sense, providing all the other rules are in place. However, I will go down the list of rated horses until I find one that sits safely within my rules. Assume you have a regular race at Rosehill on a Saturday, 14 runners, I would have probably 10 horses rated because most of the horses (depending on the time of year), are generally good horses. If the highest rated horse breaks a rule, move to the 2nd highest rated horse, if it breaks a rule go to the third rated horse and so on. Quite often on weekdays, I have no bet in a race because no horse qualifies, it's that simple, sit out and wait a few minutes for the next race.

The next thing is a wagering guideline, I have a standard stake, it's a fixed dollar amount for me, and I bet that but if I win a race, I'll bet the stake plus 50% of the winnings on the next race, then the same again on the third race. THEN, I will absolutely revert back to the standard stake and start again. Why 3 wins? That's a simple answer for me, in my entire lifetime, I have found that you can get three winners on the trot but the fourth consecutive winner is just the Boogey number for me most times. Yes, I've had 22 winners on the trot and 32 losers in a row on a very early version of the core system I built. Generally, when things a running hot for you, getting three winners on the trot and upping your wager twice, then putting all that profit into the bank, makes good sense to me, I don't like to give back what I win. Starting again every fourth bet in good runs, also keeps you grounded. I recall in the days when I was betting just $100.00, I went on tilt, lost 7k and was betting like an idiot. I once lost more than 10K, many years ago at Harold Park trots on a Tuesday afternoon when there were only 3 bookies there. I was a rat in my younger days and I guess that's why I have so many rules today, they are designed to act like a handbrake and keep me out of trouble.

My next rule is controversial and I could be hounded and stoned for what I am about to say, but in terms of my observations, I believe it's smart for me. Now for a joker that watch Bill Cook and George Moore etc, back in the day and every rider, ever since, I can tell you that my rule is, "I will never bet on Apprentice Female Jockeys", yes, of course, there are some good ones and a few great ones but when you bet on every race on the Australian calendar, you will come to the same conclusion, that I have, perhaps, that it's better to just bet around female apprentices. Fully fledged female jockeys like Jamie Kah are almost like money in the bank for nothing, I am not a sexist, I am just aware that most of the younger girls learning the trade, because mostly they lack the musculature to steer a might steed like the noble racehorse. To me, it's a strength thing. Plus I've noticed they refuse to push through a gap when the others might. Please don't flame me, I love women, but I love to back winners more.

I'll start to finish up now because this is probably boring any reader that got this far, with a couple of guidelines, that might seem a little weird, seeing I'm a strict scientific type of chap that programs his own systems. A guideline is that if two horses are very close, I use numbers till about the 10th decimal place but only display 2 decimals on the screen. So you can get 2 horses just fractionally apart, my guideline says to back the one you feel right about, not necessarily the higher rating of the two. For example, 88.61 and 88.72 are too close to blindly have to back the higher, if all the rules are in place, back the one that speaks to you, yes, yes, very unscientific I know, but that's the point of all my words, it's not a science, it's not exact, sometimes you just have to feel this is a better horse, today.

My last guideline for this reply is, my "Spare Change" which has come about because I'm odd in that I like an exact balance in my betting accounts, for example, assume I have a standard bet of say $50.00 and I land a winner and have a balance of $15,768.50 - that just kills me and I wait till there is a race that I don't have a qualifying horse to back, then I will put $18.50 on any horse I like, usually based on the jockey, barrier or latest form and current price, I'm talking a very quick visual assessment. I'm not trying to win with this bet, it's my form of paying tax, to the punting gods, I will throw the $18.50 on and if it wins I'll be delighted but the real reason is to get the balance down to $15,750.00 which sits right with my psyche. I just don't like odd amounts

Okay, that will do, lengthy to be sure, but that's part of what I do and how I do it. The bottom line is, that a system is only a tool, it's as good or as bad as you care to make it, but it will never be perfect. You are the real missing component, you have to have a set of rules, that you build from your own personal experiences. Percentages and probabilities are important in the basic design of your system, but it's not the most important thing by a county mile. Far more important is how you take a beating for a stack of cash beaten a pixel in a photo finish. How many times you swear and raise your voice should be quantified and input into your wagering algo. It's glib to ask yourself what your risk tolerance is, how the heck do you really know? Well, if you are always losing and blowing off steam and hurting yourself or loved ones, then it's not the right game for you. It is after all a game, go play something else if you can't take it when you backed a horse each way or bet to win on a bonus back for 2nd or 3rd and your horse runs 4th because the jockey stood up in the irons, 50 out from the post and didn't ride the horse out and the Stewards do nothing about it. There are so many factors that can get your bet beaten, you just need to train yourself to expect defeat and if you are really good, program that into your system.

Okay, time to wrap it up, I wish you all the best in your punting, don't get too caught up in trying to find the holy grail of systems or methods, a lot of it is flying along by the seat of your pants. My style suits an older bloke with time on his hands and that all-important disrespect for cash, to me, it's stock, no different than loaves of bread if I were a baker. Cheers

 

[Truxton111]

Hi Tedx -

"Far more important is how you take a beating for a stack of cash beaten a pixel in a photo finish" ---> In your opinion would it be feasible to lay everything you back on the exchange at $1.05 or thereabouts to perhaps avoid these undesirable moments of excitement?

 

[TedX]

Hi Tedx -

"Far more important is how you take a beating for a stack of cash beaten a pixel in a photo finish" ---> In your opinion would it be feasible to lay everything you back on the exchange at $1.05 or thereabouts to perhaps avoid these undesirable moments of excitement?

LOL, wow a $1.05, that is not in my universe of punting but to be fair, sometimes on a bad day when I'm snagging a heap of seconds, to break the rhythm I'll back an odds on, of a crazy $1.50 (which breaks one of my rules) but I do that to get back on the right foot, so to speak. Not very logical or scientific, it's sort of like saying nana na nana (like in a school playground) at a kid that was chasing you and fell over.

 

[TedX]

Just a quick note to say how much more I know today than a short time ago about VBA. It really rocks, I guess the most significant thing I've learned is to make macros for absolutely everything and string them together. This just saves time in a massive fashion. I'm at the point where I can watch every race in 6 meetings, of big fields on a Saturday and manually adjust the rating of every horse, all with one hand using the mouse and especially the right mouse click button.

You just couldn't do this without macros, I literally have about a hundred, some are as small as just one line of code. I'm no expert and I am 100% a learner from YouTube and other free resources and of course right here. Anyway, if you really want to make a quid in the racing game and your memory isn't that great, then you need to let your computer remember everything for you. That's really the end game, as far as I can see. You still have to know about horses and betting but that's not all that hard to learn, once you know a lot, your experience starts to gather more and more things to remember, until you hit overload and even the best of us will just start forgetting stuff.

Mostly everything I do drills down to numbers, that's why Excel is so perfect, but I've started to get the idea that I might have to go to a real database at some stage to really do justice to the years I have put into trying to figure the game out. Large sample bases are all the rage ask any statistician. What's bigger than every racehorse currently racing, all ages, at any point in time. From two to ten years or so, heck, I don't even want to think about the number, then throw in so many bits of data there is related to every single horse and then, would I want to delete a horse's data after it retired? I'm starting, for the first time, to think 'No', don't throw anything away.

It's really insidious, the more you learn, the more you get into it, the more you realise the mistakes you made and that you don't really know as much as you thought you knew. I swear, there's not a single day I don't learn some little trick that is just a ripper. Okay, cheers and thanks for reading.

 

[TedX]

It's really insidious, the more you learn, the more you get into it, the more you realise the mistakes you made and that you don't really know as much as you thought you knew. I swear, there's not a single day I don't learn some little trick that is just a ripper. Okay, cheers and thanks for reading.

Okay, it's about 11 months since my last comments on this great thread. In that time I have switched over to sports betting and that is exclusively on 'Team Sports', because to a higher degree, it leans towards honesty more so than the temptation of a single entity. In other words, in a horse race, a dishonest jock can pull one up, however for say a soccer team to pull up, that takes a concerted multiple personnel effort which is dangerous. Having said that, it comes back to probabilities and the formulas for that are amazingly simple, embarrassingly so.

I've won at NRL, AFL, NFL and a few other sports, but by far my greatest challenge has been to consistently make money from soccer, and the reason for that should be obvious. In NRL it's a two outcome event but in soccer, it's a 3 outcome event. The good old 'Draw', adds a real element of complexity. I've based my soccer spreadsheet on odds, the same as my horseracing spreadsheet, and in all sporting contests where you bet, the odds are of the greatest importance. Now, I could write a book about odds and probably should but won't because, who would buy it? Most people today, don't care that they are not having what we old-timers call a 'Fair Bet'. That used to be the thing in the playground at school when you bet a penny to win a penny, no commission, no taxes, no unfair advantage or bias, just a winner-take-all, a fair bet where you doubled your stake, what of course we know as even money (1:1).

I won't drift off topic too much (as usual) but will tell you that given soccer only has three outcomes the thing I have noticed and am tracking and have figured out, is what I call sweet spots. There are odds that are offered by the sportsbooks, and they stay within some pretty defined ranges, sure there are always a few outliers but generally the prices offered follow a very easy pattern to see, you only need to watch the prices offered for a few days and you will quickly see that range, which is different for each of the three outcomes. I have set betting minimums and maximums of the three different outcomes and then tracked winning bets versus losing bets to figure out the sweet spot where I get the greatest return.

There is some good statistical evidence (as in my balance) that suggests that Home Teams do *NOT* have a great advantage that most people believe they do and if you can get your head around the fact that I make more money with fewer winners betting my sweet spot odds, when they appear. Bet365 usually has close to 700 games in a 12-hour period, so if you watch and wait for the three independent sweet spots to come up as odds (prices) offered, you can bet two out of the three outcomes and win money consistently. The trick is simple, I give it to you here for nothing. Your winners must be at such a price that you can have 2.5 losers and still win.

That means you lose all your stake on 1 of your 2 bets but the bet that wins, returns you enough profit, to be able to lose the next 2.5 matches and be square. Clearly, you need to win some matches, which the sweet spots do. Generally most of my bets, but certainly not all, are a combination of the Away Team and a Draw, they must be at my fixed prices, so you need to wade through 700 matches to find about a dozen that are within the tolerances price-wise and boom, it's all good. In accordance with full disclosure, the longest run of wins and losses has been 4, which means I have had 4 losses in a row, but not many times, it is usually 1 win to every 2 losses, so those of you who are good at math should be able to see how making profits is possible, it's just a question of taking the correct process to ensure you get past the possibility of losing.

For those who don't get it, the only way you can lose is if the team you didn't bet on wins the match, that is the third outcome. This entire process becomes easier if you have a number of bookmakers because often you might need an extra 10 or 20 cents on an outcome and the one bookmaker is not going to give it because his algo is set for him to win, but contrary to popular misconception, bookmakers do in deed have variance in their soccer prices, even if they don't in their horse prices (much). In soccer you can get $3.50 for the away team with Bookmaker 1 and $4.00 with Bookmaker 2, that's magic. The other great thing and I'll finish up after this, because it's already a long read, is that this scales up beautifully, regardless of $10 bets or $100 or $1,000. You don't need to know the form of the team, that's just unwanted noise. It's 100% odds based and if you like to believe that the major bookmakers have already factored in all known information (and if you believe them, I don't), they should be close to a very efficient set of prices on offer. Personally, I don't believe a word of that but that's a yarn for another day, perhaps a year from now. All the best with your own punting, Probabilities are probable but there is no guarantee, only bet what you can afford to lose and do what I do, bet the second outcome as insurance for the first bet. Sure you win less, but you do win.

 

[TedX]

I want to rant, I've spent two hours on a 5 seconds task. Diacritical marks, why do nations use them, they are the stupidest invention ever. I must have a fully broken version of Excel, which is not right, seeing I pay monthly for it and have done it for so long that it probably costs a King's ransom. If any gurus have any reason why I can't write a simple macro or do some manual hack, that removes the marks. Trust me, I'll even work manually on this, I just need the marks gone - I am almost going to cry publically here, but I won't.