Upon seeing the odds 1.15, most tipsters will say "no value here" and go on with the search, browsing the bookies to find odds near 1.9 or 2.0, and see if there's some visiting underdog to back. Not such a bad strategy, but it's based on wrong terms. Low odds don't necessarily mean low value. Actually, these two things (low odds & low value) aren't interconnected, and believing that they are is foolish. Same as CO2 level and global warming - not interconnected, at least there's no proof, but that's another story. It's very important to avoid any conclusions which aren't based on facts, especially in betting, because we use our money to play this game. And let me tell you, avoiding the odds 1.05 and the odds 14.00 is equally foolish. If there's value, if the bet is good, if you're on a winning ship, do it.

Now let's see what kind of ship I'm talking about. Some bets are always better than the others, in mathematical terms. For example, it doesn't really matter does a team play more high-scoring or low-scoring games, it matters whether you'd make a profit by always making a bet on the same outcome. We all know bookies are not stupid. So, they tend to make winning bets a losing ship in the long run, by offering lower odds on the outcome which is generally probable throughout the season. They're not making odds for one match only, that's only when they make minor adjustments. They already know the odds they'll post a month from now. Therefore, a tipster who is focusing on one match only, and not on the overall duration of the league, is giving a nice edge to the bookie. Most semi-pro and pro tipsters are good enough to make profit regardlessly, but being on a winning ship would even increase the yield and confidence in bets, and this kind of betting is common in the USA, for example.

Imagine the bookies are women. Attractive, cold-hearted women who want to marry you for your money. All you focus on is one night of sex, night after night, but the woman has a plan...and before you know it (if you even manage to realize it), you're trapped. She had a plan, and you didn't even know there was some plan including you in the first place. Bookies are the same. Contrary to popular belief, they don't care about the outcome of a single match, they care about the long run only. If the woman is benevolent, you're lucky, but the bookies, by definition, want to use you. And this is the way they do it - looking at the big picture while you look at the small one.

Blind betting on Dinamo Zagreb at home this season would bring profit, even though Dinamo was often valued with 1.12-1.19 kind of odds, especially in the first part of the season when they were trashing any opponent who dared to visit the ugliest stadium in the world. Only by placing a blind bet of 10 units every time Dinamo played at home, your yield would be +13,92%, a number with which most tipsters would be satisfied. Tipsters, who spend hours researching a single match. And this kind of betting doesn't take time. You'd probably get even more money with 1-10 stake system, and probably even more than that with Kelly criterion staking.

On the other hand, betting on Dinamo when playing on the road would bring only +3,31% yield, a pretty bad number if we know that Dinamo's one and only high odds were 2.27 against Hajduk in Split. Dinamo won that match and brought +12.27 units to the equasion, but if they had not, then blind betting on Dinamo away from home would bring a loss. To make the matters more interesting, 1-10 stake system would probably make you lose even more - as Dinamo lost easy games and won hard games. Most people use 1-10 stake system in a wrong way, reflecting the probability of the outcome, instead of reflecting value. A "sure bet" can have a stake of 4/10 if the odds are undervalued. Anyway, betting on Dinamo as a visitor makes no sense, no matter how good a single bet may look.

It's imperative to know these facts when choosing a bet. That way, you know are you on a winning ship or on a losing ship. Of course, I'm not that naive to think that if the past 13 matches brought +13,92%, then the next 13 matches will too. Maybe these above statistics are just a coincidence. They most certainly are, as betting statistics are just a reflection of the past, but if we know that Dinamo was so powerful at home, and that they didn't play that good when visiting - it turns out that the odds 1.12 on Dinamo at home represent value, while odds 1.70 on Dinamo as a visitor do not.

If I was a conspiracy theorist (I swear, police officer, I am not), I'd say that the bookmakers decided to reduce the odds on Dinamo when visiting. They've decided to let Dinamo's powerful home performances pour onto their expected visiting performances. The general public believes it, the bookmakers know it's wishful thinking, the wheel of fortune spins another circle and your pockets are empty.

Dan Horvat, BrainBetting.com

Comments (7)

3. Written by bcn1899 , on 04-04-2008 19:01 well written... Report

Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments