Not me P57,

For me form, class, depth or strength, call it what you like wins every time. Sure there are circumstances where i will not back the favourite but that is because by my assessment the favourites are undeserving for some reason.

Would you have backed the Brisbane Lions opponents consistently over the last three years (excluding 2005) just because the price for Brisbane was too short in your estimation? If you had you would undoubtedly be out of pocket.

For me, and this is just my opinion, factors such as form or suspension/key player injuries etc are much preferable indictors of an undeserving favourite than price alone. Otherwise it's the favourite everytime.

As a much wiser person than I once said:
"Sometimes the road less travelled is less travelled for a reason."

Hi Iamcool. This thread has gone in two directions, with the original idea being that a "statistical" certainty will come through BECAUSE it always does, and regardless of current form, to boot!!! For example, that Australia always wins at Lords and always will (can this be true????). I never bet team sports, precisely because you are relying on too many players to "be right on the night".
The real danger in the idea of "Hoodoos" however is clear enough when you read Goldmembers post (#13). In that, he specifically cited the Dragons as a perennial "risk" (no matter the form) against the Roosters because their last 10 games have been losses or wafer-thin wins.Yesterday was the greatest slaughter the Roosters have endured in years AND at the hands of the Dragons!!!! So much for the predictive power of stats.
In tennis, I am always betting the non-favs (and will start a new thread on this topic shortly) as I believe upsets are ALWAYS on the cards. This means, however, waiting for "good" players to be the underestimated "outsider" (ie Hewitt versus Federer) and at long adds. It's remarkable really that Hewitt (the second best performed player of recent years) should be so definitively dismissed against ANYONE.
One of the most famous examples of this type of thing was 1956 (before my time, but proof that it has always been thus!!!) where Lew Hoad faced Ken Rosewall in the U.S. Final to complete the Grand Slam, after having beaten him in two previous GS finals and one semi that year. If anyone had "the wood" on someone it was Hoad over Rosewall (that year) AND he had motivation (completing the Slam plus a huge bonus offer to join Jack Kramers Pro circuit). Hoad was UNBACKABLE. But.....well, you can guess what happened!! Just another case of "he who dares, wins" for the courageous punter. Going against the crowd and bookies (and the stats) is the WAY!!! Cheers

Hey P57,

I see what you're saying but to be sure - lol.

You back the "underdog" Hewitt as you believe that there is no such thing as a certainty - statistical or otherwise. That is to say that as Hewitt is an excellent player, it is not an absolute certainty that Federer will win as the very short odds would suggest. You do this regardless of form or past records against each other, surface etc. Hewitt at $3.50 offers value, to you the punter, whereby Federer at $1.10 would suggest Hewitt will play with no shoes or a racquet.

Am i getting closer, if so i agree in principle and would like to know, in general terms, how successful this strategy has been for you? I have never considered much less attempted to use such a strategy.

Thanks

I think the obvious point that some are trying to make here is:
If you assess an event and come up with a favourite at $1.60. The best price you can get however is $1.40.
For that reason you do not back it, because it is "not value".

Presuming that you rated it as a 62.5 % chance of winning, ($1.60), you also rated it as a 37.5% chance of losing. In a two team situation you have obviously rated both teams.
Favourite at $1.60
Underdog at $2.67

If you can get more than $2.7 on the underdog, then surely you must back it at that price. Why sit an event out because you cannot get the odds you want on the favourite. If it does not provide value then surely the other side of the coin does.....

Nope.

That method might be okay for punters who have a LOT of bets and are prepared to lose many of them to achieve an overall profit. Personally, I'm selective with my betting and that idea just doesn't sit with me. I back the team that I think will win. If they aren't at a reasonable price, then I simply leave them alone. I don't go and back the other team that I don't think will win.

I rated South Africa at $1.40 last night, so was pleased with $1.72. But if I hadn't been happy with the price, I wouldn't have then gone and backed Australia when I didn't think they would win the game!!!

Sorry BJ, not sure what your punting psychology is actually like, but that sounds a bit like what a compulsive gambler might say. There are heaps of sporting events to bet on. It isn't going to hurt you to leave some alone.

I am not saying bet on every event. My point is why just back favourites when they are value. I get the impression that people that rate the favourites in an event are doing just that, but not rating the opposition to a price.

Punting is all about value. You bet on events that you feel are value. If bookmakers have an event at $1.1 but you rated it to $1.5 then obviously your value lies on the other side.... If it is only a marginal call then you probably won't have value on either side.

If you don't get the value don't bet. But don't limit yourself to favourites. That is all I am trying to say..

I personally don't bet on sports. Just the gallops...

I bet on a quite a few outsiders, but they have to be outsiders that are in my system or that I genuinely think can win. Western Bulldogs and Newcastle last night for example.

But you obviously gave Australia a 1/3 chance of winning the game, so you obviously gave them some chance?

BJ, i do my own prices, when i rate teams and i have them shorter than the bookies, thats value to me and i'll back them if i think can win, but if i have a team at say $1.40 and good things [other team at $2.85], and the books have them at $1.30 and $3.00 i wouldnt back the other team just because their overs.Last night i had the knights specials and rated at $1.60 and i gt $2.40 !, also backed them 13+ @ $7.00