110 replies to this topic

[Poppy_Hillis]

Since I'm going to attempt to bet on some soccer this year, I figured I'd keep track of it here and hopefully get some feedback. Beginner's luck has me roped in, as I'm 5-1 so far. I'm not sure what my betting unit is right now, I've doubled it from last week, but I'll keep track as if all bets are a single unit.

Tomorrow's plays...

Arsenal -115
FC Porto -134
Juve -125
Lyon -107
Bayern Munich -123

5-1 +3.86U

[LJB723]

Since I'm going to attempt to bet on some soccer this year, I figured I'd keep track of it here and hopefully get some feedback. Beginner's luck has me roped in, as I'm 5-1 so far. I'm not sure what my betting unit is right now, I've doubled it from last week, but I'll keep track as if all bets are a single unit.

Tomorrow's plays...

Arsenal -115 - I like it as Arsenal are playing well domestically but they face a very tough trip to the Ukraine and historically Arsenal haven't done well in the Eastern Bloc.

FC Porto -134 - At home to a good Fenerbahce side, and have lost a couple of big names in the summer. Not sure.

Juve -125 - vs. Zenit, I wouldn't have touched this with a 10-foot pole. Zenit look a genuine threat and Juve are still re-building to get anywhere near their pre-calciopoli heights.

Lyon -107 - At home to Fiorentina, should be a win. Lyon rarely lose at home.

Bayern Munich -123 - Lock. Steaua have one of the worst records in the CL in recent memory.

5-1 +3.86U

[SlapStick]

LJ covered it, I'd probably bet on an Arsenal draw, a Zenit win, A porto draw and Lyon and Munich to win.

[HollywoodAFD]

Since I'm going to attempt to bet on some soccer this year, I figured I'd keep track of it here and hopefully get some feedback. Beginner's luck has me roped in, as I'm 5-1 so far. I'm not sure what my betting unit is right now, I've doubled it from last week, but I'll keep track as if all bets are a single unit.

Tomorrow's plays...

Arsenal -115
FC Porto -134
Juve -125
Lyon -107
Bayern Munich -123

5-1 +3.86U

Wait... you're 5-1 !
First I heard of this.... keep us posted please.

People bet on soccer?

[Poppy_Hillis]

Wait... you're 5-1 !
First I heard of this.... keep us posted please.

People bet on soccer?

Touche.

[Poppy_Hillis]

I love soccer. I had the Fox Soccer Channel on all day, and watched the whole Man U-Villarreal match. A lot of posts and near misses in that one. I still think a game ending in a tie is pretty stupid, especially 0-0.

Lyon let me down today, falling behind early.

Today: 3-2
Overall: 8-3 +4.25x

[Tactical Bear]

Since I'm going to attempt to bet on some soccer this year, I figured I'd keep track of it here and hopefully get some feedback. Beginner's luck has me roped in, as I'm 5-1 so far. I'm not sure what my betting unit is right now, I've doubled it from last week, but I'll keep track as if all bets are a single unit.

Tomorrow's plays...

Arsenal -115
FC Porto -134
Juve -125
Lyon -107
Bayern Munich -123

5-1 +3.86U

I don't know, exactly, what you're betting on, but it looks to me like you're laying a lot of chalk, which probably means you're taking all favorites, and backing some pretty public sides. You know my schpiel: be careful. When I was betting EuroCup action, I don't think I had a single favorite, except when I was getting half a goal (ie, winning draws).

Are you making these bets FOR one unit? Or TO WIN one unit?

[Poppy_Hillis]

I don't know, exactly, what you're betting on, but it looks to me like you're laying a lot of chalk, which probably means you're taking all favorites, and backing some pretty public sides. You know my schpiel: be careful. When I was betting EuroCup action, I don't think I had a single favorite, except when I was getting half a goal (ie, winning draws).

Are you making these bets FOR one unit? Or TO WIN one unit?

I laid some chalk today. I plan on playing only very small favorites to cash. The only thing I'm betting on is the teams that are around +110 to -120 to win and the other team is more than 3-1 to win. It just doesn't make sense to me that you can get even money on a team that's 3 or 4 times more likely to win the game. I know the draw is factored in, but it just doesn't compute in my brain, so I'm going to see if it can work, at the very least more action and something to follow until the NBA starts. Also, I've just started trackin all past results going back 6 years to see how I would have done, so we'll see.

I'm making the bets for one unit, and I don't know why. I've always bet to win one unit even going back to when I started betting in 8th grade.

[Tactical Bear]

I laid some chalk today. I plan on playing only very small favorites to cash. The only thing I'm betting on is the teams that are around +110 to -120 to win and the other team is more than 3-1 to win. It just doesn't make sense to me that you can get even money on a team that's 3 or 4 times more likely to win the game. I know the draw is factored in, but it just doesn't compute in my brain, so I'm going to see if it can work, at the very least more action and something to follow until the NBA starts. Also, I've just started trackin all past results going back 6 years to see how I would have done, so we'll see.

I'm making the bets for one unit, and I don't know why. I've always bet to win one unit even going back to when I started betting in 8th grade.

That team is 3 or 4 times more likely to win than the OTHER team, but they're still only winning the game around half the time (whereas the other team is winning closer to 12.5% of the time). I don't want to harp on this, because it seems like you really do buy into the whole Contrarianism thing I preach around here, but it's slightly troubling to see you agreeing with the theory in the abstract, but reverting to old (admittedly VERY hard to break) habits in practice.

That being said, maybe (to paraphrase Billy Beane) my shit doesn't work in soccer. I wish you the best.

Better idea, though? Start making some NCAAF plays for a small amount. College football is, by far, the best thing ever. It takes a while to get into -- lots of teams, tough to track -- but if you start this year, you'll be all over shit next year. I already miss the relaxing nature of bases.

[Poppy_Hillis]

That team is 3 or 4 times more likely to win than the OTHER team, but they're still only winning the game around half the time (whereas the other team is winning closer to 12.5% of the time). I don't want to harp on this, because it seems like you really do buy into the whole Contrarianism thing I preach around here, but it's slightly troubling to see you agreeing with the theory in the abstract, but reverting to old (admittedly VERY hard to break) habits in practice.

That being said, maybe (to paraphrase Billy Beane) my shit doesn't work in soccer. I wish you the best.

Better idea, though? Start making some NCAAF plays for a small amount. College football is, by far, the best thing ever. It takes a while to get into -- lots of teams, tough to track -- but if you start this year, you'll be all over shit next year. I already miss the relaxing nature of bases.

I know, I know. I just can't comprehend that a team that heavily favored won't win more than half the time. It's like knowing it's possible when you die that you're just dead...forever. You know what forever means, but it's hard to understand what forever means.

Good one. That's my favorite quote from Moneyball.

I think I'm going to start tailing your NCAAF picks since you started off so bad. You're going to have to progress towards the mean as the season plays out.

[DinkDonk]

I know, I know. I just can't comprehend that a team that heavily favored won't win more than half the time. It's like knowing it's possible when you die that you're just dead...forever. You know what forever means, but it's hard to understand what forever means.

Good one. That's my favorite quote from Moneyball.

I think I'm going to start tailing your NCAAF picks since you started off so bad. You're going to have to progress towards the mean as the season plays out.

Gambler's Fallacy FTL

[Poppy_Hillis]

Gambler's Fallacy FTL

No way. So if he's a lifetime .500 punter, and goes 4 weeks at 30%, he's just going to stick at 30% forever. No. He's going to get back closer to .500. You're thinking roulette.

[DinkDonk]

No way. So if he's a lifetime .500 punter, and goes 4 weeks at 30%, he's just going to stick at 30% forever. No. He's going to get back closer to .500. You're thinking roulette.

No that's not what I was saying. It's just that his expectation is the same 50% no matter what the first couple of weeks brought. The stats don't make up for their earlier lack of cooperation.

[Tactical Bear]

Whatever, boys. We'll end up on Colorado tonight, somehow.

Catching 3 at home vs. Coach Stewart? SIGN ME UP

[Poppy_Hillis]

No that's not what I was saying. It's just that his expectation is the same 50% no matter what the first couple of weeks brought. The stats don't make up for their earlier lack of cooperation.

I don't believe that. Rafael Furcal is about a .285 hitter every year, but he always has a horrendous first month or two, but you know he'll always finish the season anywhere between .275 and .300, so he's going to have a stretch where he's hitting around .350- .375. I've always traded for him after the first month or two for this reason, and I ride him while he's putting up Ted Williams type numbers. Works every year.

[Tactical Bear]

I don't believe that. Rafael Furcal is about a .285 hitter every year, but he always has a horrendous first month or two, but you know he'll always finish the season anywhere between .275 and .300, so he's going to have a stretch where he's hitting around .350- .375. I've always traded for him after the first month or two for this reason, and I ride him while he's putting up Ted Williams type numbers. Works every year.

Do you have any reason to expect that I'm going to struggle the first weeks of an NCAAF season? If, for example, I'm a statistically significant losing player for the first 2 weeks of the season over a large sample, but turn a 25x profit during an average NCAAF season, then your idea would have merit: it's very likely that I'm closer to a +35x player the rest of the way.

But I feel it is unlikely that is the case. More than anything, I think it was a few bad breaks here and there. My punting skills stay relatively static week-to-week, in which case my expected return from here on out is probably the same as it was at the beginning of the season, pro-rated to account for the shorter season. Of course, the money I lose during weeks 1 and 2 is not going to mean I'm more likely to win in week 4.

Either way, following me probably isn't going to be a terrible idea. There is a statistically significant chance I'll lose over a 10-week sample, but I believe I'm more likely to win. I'd counsel playing within your means, however. I've already suffered one 40x downswing, and there might be another on the way. My bankroll is liquid enough to absorb those kinds of losses, but not everyone's is.

[Poppy_Hillis]

Do you have any reason to expect that I'm going to struggle the first weeks of an NCAAF season? If, for example, I'm a statistically significant losing player for the first 2 weeks of the season over a large sample, but turn a 25x profit during an average NCAAF season, then your idea would have merit: it's very likely that I'm closer to a +35x player the rest of the way.

But I feel it is unlikely that is the case. More than anything, I think it was a few bad breaks here and there. My punting skills stay relatively static week-to-week, in which case my expected return from here on out is probably the same as it was at the beginning of the season, pro-rated to account for the shorter season. Of course, the money I lose during weeks 1 and 2 is not going to mean I'm more likely to win in week 4.

Either way, following me probably isn't going to be a terrible idea. There is a statistically significant chance I'll lose over a 10-week sample, but I believe I'm more likely to win. I'd counsel playing within your means, however. I've already suffered one 40x downswing, and there might be another on the way. My bankroll is liquid enough to absorb those kinds of losses, but not everyone's is.

No, but you did, right? So even if you're just a break even player, you're going to even out over the course of a season, which means you're going to be an upswing for at least a short span at some point in the year.

I understand that.

I always (mostly) play within my means. The money I'm playing with is of little significance to my overall net worth.

[Tactical Bear]

No, but you did, right? So even if you're just a break even player, you're going to even out over the course of a season, which means you're going to be an upswing for at least a short span at some point in the year.

Untrue. If I am a break-even player, then -- on average -- I will end up down for the year EXACTLY what I'm down right now. That is the math.

Poker example:

You play 100K hands, run worse than anyone in history, and book a -5/BB 100 winrate playing LHE. It turns out your TRUE skill level is that of an exactly break-even player. You play 100K more hands under the EXACT same circumstances. All that changes are the cards you receive. After 200K total hands, what will your expected cumulative win-rate be?

Answer: -2.5BB/100 ([100k x -5BB/100 + 100k x 0BB/100]/200k)

This is called "regression to the mean." I ran poorly for 2 weeks. My results are likely to regress to whatever my mean winrate is (likely some positive number), but they won't "make up" for that winrate, or surpass it in the longrun. I will simply regress to the mean.

[pezeveng]

just bet total corner kicks overs 9 and total yellow cards under. Betting on Soccer matches gave me grey hairs by the age of 25 Iam done with those overseas bastards.l

[Poppy Hillis]

Tomorrow, Bayer Leverkusen -133.