- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,057
- Reaction score
- 292
I'm no more of an authority on this issue than the next punter, but for those of you on here who are new to "betting" or are influenced by chatter surrounding "favoritism", I'm gonna try and explain a basic understanding of "markets".
Say we're playing Canberra ... there's three trains of thought that need to be considered.
(1) Basic stats : With two teams competing, it's the old 'coin-flip' analogy. Ergo, 50% chance of winning.
(2) Metrics analysis : You choose a 'metric' such as Win-Loss ratio, ladder positions, recent matches and/or points differential. Then you can apply statistical probability. For example, if Canterbury has won their last 4 out of 10, and Canberra has won 5 out of 10, at the most basic level of scrutiny it appears as if recent form favours a Canberra win.
(3) Form guides : Using Wests Tigers as a barometer, if Canberra beat Tigers by 8 points, but Bulldogs lose to Tigers by 24 points, it suggests Canberra are a better team than Bulldogs to the tune of 32 points.
So, after an elementary analysis of the points above, it's clear Canberra ought to be favourites when they play Bulldogs next week.
When we review some odds we see the following ...
- Head to Head = Canberra $1.65 / Bulldogs $2.25.
- Line = Canberra (-3.5) $1.90 / Bulldogs (+3.5) $1.90.
- Margins = Canberra 13+ @ $3.00 / Canberra 1-12 @ $3.00 / Bulldogs 1-12 @ $3.50 / Bulldogs 13+ @ $6.00 / Draw after 80mins @ $23.00
From a bookmaker perspective they're trying to tell you the following ...
- Head to Head = Canberra 58% / Bulldogs 42%.
- Line = Canberra (-3.5) 50% / Bulldogs (+3.5) 50%.
- Margins = Canberra 13+ @ 28% / Canberra 1-12 @ 28% / Bulldogs 1-12 @ 24% / Bulldogs 13+ @ 16% / Draw after 80mins @ 4%
At this point in time a good punter (better ones than me) will formulate what they believe to be "True odds", and look to take advantage of betting types that represent good value.
To summarise : Using the Canberra vs Bulldogs game as our example ...
- If you believe Canberra has a better chance than 58% of winning, it stands to reason you'd bet up on the $1.65 because their odds should be shorter.
Same thinking applies the other way. If you believe Bulldogs have a better chance than 42% of winning, the $2.25 offered (or higher) seems like a good value bet.
- Using our 'form guide analysis' above, you'd recall the debate that suggests Canberra are a better team to the tune of 32 points. With that in mind, Canberra -3.5 points @ $1.90 seems like stealing money and you'd probably want to bet up on that instead of the $1.65 on head-to-head. Furthermore, the bookmaker I'm looking at right now is offering Canberra -19.5 points at $5.50.
The major factor in this theory is "how much of an accurate barometer are the Wests Tigers ?". Were similar teams playing? Was it the same ground, weather and turnaround? Do the lineups for Canberra and Bulldogs appear similar compared to the Tigers games? Etc, etc, etc ...
The final factor in all of this are the actual odds offered : Bookmakers have the job of ensuring they get paid no matter the result. They do this in two ways. (A) they take a percentage of the overall betting pool and (B) they will manipulate odds to avoid risk.
If too many people start plonking money on Canberra at $1.65, they'll reduce their odds (say to $1.50) and increase Bulldogs odds (say to $2.75), in an attempt to entice more investment on 'the other option' to balance the ledger. But this in no way accurately represents the true chances of winning.
Moral of this story = You can't rely on 'odds' as a true indicator of actual chances. And it's impossible to factor in the actions and consequences of 'the football gods'. So to avoid losing your shirt and/or singing for your supper, it's always best to gamble to a budget, apply some logic to your strategies and treat punting as a learning process. That way you'll endure tough losses along with enjoying your gains long term.
Say we're playing Canberra ... there's three trains of thought that need to be considered.
(1) Basic stats : With two teams competing, it's the old 'coin-flip' analogy. Ergo, 50% chance of winning.
(2) Metrics analysis : You choose a 'metric' such as Win-Loss ratio, ladder positions, recent matches and/or points differential. Then you can apply statistical probability. For example, if Canterbury has won their last 4 out of 10, and Canberra has won 5 out of 10, at the most basic level of scrutiny it appears as if recent form favours a Canberra win.
(3) Form guides : Using Wests Tigers as a barometer, if Canberra beat Tigers by 8 points, but Bulldogs lose to Tigers by 24 points, it suggests Canberra are a better team than Bulldogs to the tune of 32 points.
So, after an elementary analysis of the points above, it's clear Canberra ought to be favourites when they play Bulldogs next week.
When we review some odds we see the following ...
- Head to Head = Canberra $1.65 / Bulldogs $2.25.
- Line = Canberra (-3.5) $1.90 / Bulldogs (+3.5) $1.90.
- Margins = Canberra 13+ @ $3.00 / Canberra 1-12 @ $3.00 / Bulldogs 1-12 @ $3.50 / Bulldogs 13+ @ $6.00 / Draw after 80mins @ $23.00
From a bookmaker perspective they're trying to tell you the following ...
- Head to Head = Canberra 58% / Bulldogs 42%.
- Line = Canberra (-3.5) 50% / Bulldogs (+3.5) 50%.
- Margins = Canberra 13+ @ 28% / Canberra 1-12 @ 28% / Bulldogs 1-12 @ 24% / Bulldogs 13+ @ 16% / Draw after 80mins @ 4%
At this point in time a good punter (better ones than me) will formulate what they believe to be "True odds", and look to take advantage of betting types that represent good value.
To summarise : Using the Canberra vs Bulldogs game as our example ...
- If you believe Canberra has a better chance than 58% of winning, it stands to reason you'd bet up on the $1.65 because their odds should be shorter.
Same thinking applies the other way. If you believe Bulldogs have a better chance than 42% of winning, the $2.25 offered (or higher) seems like a good value bet.
- Using our 'form guide analysis' above, you'd recall the debate that suggests Canberra are a better team to the tune of 32 points. With that in mind, Canberra -3.5 points @ $1.90 seems like stealing money and you'd probably want to bet up on that instead of the $1.65 on head-to-head. Furthermore, the bookmaker I'm looking at right now is offering Canberra -19.5 points at $5.50.
The major factor in this theory is "how much of an accurate barometer are the Wests Tigers ?". Were similar teams playing? Was it the same ground, weather and turnaround? Do the lineups for Canberra and Bulldogs appear similar compared to the Tigers games? Etc, etc, etc ...
The final factor in all of this are the actual odds offered : Bookmakers have the job of ensuring they get paid no matter the result. They do this in two ways. (A) they take a percentage of the overall betting pool and (B) they will manipulate odds to avoid risk.
If too many people start plonking money on Canberra at $1.65, they'll reduce their odds (say to $1.50) and increase Bulldogs odds (say to $2.75), in an attempt to entice more investment on 'the other option' to balance the ledger. But this in no way accurately represents the true chances of winning.
Moral of this story = You can't rely on 'odds' as a true indicator of actual chances. And it's impossible to factor in the actions and consequences of 'the football gods'. So to avoid losing your shirt and/or singing for your supper, it's always best to gamble to a budget, apply some logic to your strategies and treat punting as a learning process. That way you'll endure tough losses along with enjoying your gains long term.
Last edited by a moderator:
