The BTC Football Trading Thread
-
@stuart-capstick said in The BTC Football Trading Thread:
@richard-latimer said in The BTC Football Trading Thread:
@stuart-capstick said in The BTC Football Trading Thread:
@john-hurst
I think you have partially answered your own question, John.
There really is no telling with FH, unlike SH. Whether it's to do with greater urgency in the SH, who knows?
That's why, for me at least, and others have said this, FHG is a value bet. Wait until the price represents value, e.g. 80% strike rate and the price is 1.51= value.Why not use the martingale? For me, simply because you can, with an 80% strike rate over 1,000 games, have a losing run of around 4. With a martingale system, that can be a hefty blow to your bank.
@John-Hurst
I see where the talk of likely losing streaks have come from now. Martingale is just an absolute no no. Someone once phrased it me that when you have to keep placing recovery bets to essentially get to the same position you are trading for example 50% of your bank to reach the exact same point you were on the first bet. So maybe half your bank to make 1pt after a bit. You wouldn't do it on the first bet so it would be crazy to do it on the 4th, 5th or 6th. Also if you think of like that, it's some seriously skinny odds you are taking!
I posted loads of tables on longest likely losing streak and the fact of the matter is the more bets you have placed the longer your longest expected losing streak could be statistically speaking.
In the end, even if you had the balls to keep placing those massive recovery bets, you would run out of stake in order to do it.
So over 100 bets at 80% you're longest likely losing streak is 3. That in itself is enough to make you sweat using martingale. Over 4000 bets that number rises to 6. Ouch!! And there's no telling at which point you reach this milestone. You MAY hit 6 after only 100 or even 50 bets. Plus, just because you have an average of 80% doesn't mean each selection will be 80%. That would be impossible to determine. If you hit a run of fixtures with only 70% chance of the FHG then your losing streak could go up to as many as 8 over the long-term. A sure bank buster.
Lastly, your next bet is just as likely to lose or win as the last one you placed. One outcome has no input on the other regardless of how.manu losses or wins came before it. They are individual events and must be treated as such.
The other important point is the fact that these estimations of losing runs are just that: likely longest losing streaks.
They could well be longer. If you are using the martingale and have an expected losing run of 4, what happens if the run extends to 6?
There's a reason nobody uses the Martingale recovery system.
I remember when I first started getting into betting and knew absolutely nothing. That's when thw martingale seems plausible and foolproof. Then you realise it's just plain foolish.
-
@richard-latimer said in The BTC Football Trading Thread:
@stuart-capstick said in The BTC Football Trading Thread:
@john-hurst
I think you have partially answered your own question, John.
There really is no telling with FH, unlike SH. Whether it's to do with greater urgency in the SH, who knows?
That's why, for me at least, and others have said this, FHG is a value bet. Wait until the price represents value, e.g. 80% strike rate and the price is 1.51= value.Why not use the martingale? For me, simply because you can, with an 80% strike rate over 1,000 games, have a losing run of around 4. With a martingale system, that can be a hefty blow to your bank.
@John-Hurst
I see where the talk of likely losing streaks have come from now. Martingale is just an absolute no no. Someone once phrased it me that when you have to keep placing recovery bets to essentially get to the same position you are trading for example 50% of your bank to reach the exact same point you were on the first bet. So maybe half your bank to make 1pt after a bit. You wouldn't do it on the first bet so it would be crazy to do it on the 4th, 5th or 6th. Also if you think of like that, it's some seriously skinny odds you are taking!
I posted loads of tables on longest likely losing streak and the fact of the matter is the more bets you have placed the longer your longest expected losing streak could be statistically speaking.
In the end, even if you had the balls to keep placing those massive recovery bets, you would run out of stake in order to do it.
So over 100 bets at 80% you're longest likely losing streak is 3. That in itself is enough to make you sweat using martingale. Over 4000 bets that number rises to 6. Ouch!! And there's no telling at which point you reach this milestone. You MAY hit 6 after only 100 or even 50 bets. Plus, just because you have an average of 80% doesn't mean each selection will be 80%. That would be impossible to determine. If you hit a run of fixtures with only 70% chance of the FHG then your losing streak could go up to as many as 8 over the long-term. A sure bank buster.
Lastly, your next bet is just as likely to lose or win as the last one you placed. One outcome has no input on the other regardless of how.manu losses or wins came before it. They are individual events and must be treated as such.
The other important point is the fact that these estimations of losing runs are just that: likely longest losing streaks.
They could well be longer. If you are using the martingale and have an expected losing run of 4, what happens if the run extends to 6?
There's a reason nobody uses the Martingale recovery system.
-
@stuart-capstick said in The BTC Football Trading Thread:
@john-hurst
I think you have partially answered your own question, John.
There really is no telling with FH, unlike SH. Whether it's to do with greater urgency in the SH, who knows?
That's why, for me at least, and others have said this, FHG is a value bet. Wait until the price represents value, e.g. 80% strike rate and the price is 1.51= value.Why not use the martingale? For me, simply because you can, with an 80% strike rate over 1,000 games, have a losing run of around 4. With a martingale system, that can be a hefty blow to your bank.
@John-Hurst
I see where the talk of likely losing streaks have come from now. Martingale is just an absolute no no. Someone once phrased it me that when you have to keep placing recovery bets to essentially get to the same position you are trading for example 50% of your bank to reach the exact same point you were on the first bet. So maybe half your bank to make 1pt after a bit. You wouldn't do it on the first bet so it would be crazy to do it on the 4th, 5th or 6th. Also if you think of like that, it's some seriously skinny odds you are taking!
I posted loads of tables on longest likely losing streak and the fact of the matter is the more bets you have placed the longer your longest expected losing streak could be statistically speaking.
In the end, even if you had the balls to keep placing those massive recovery bets, you would run out of stake in order to do it.
So over 100 bets at 80% you're longest likely losing streak is 3. That in itself is enough to make you sweat using martingale. Over 4000 bets that number rises to 6. Ouch!! And there's no telling at which point you reach this milestone. You MAY hit 6 after only 100 or even 50 bets. Plus, just because you have an average of 80% doesn't mean each selection will be 80%. That would be impossible to determine. If you hit a run of fixtures with only 70% chance of the FHG then your losing streak could go up to as many as 8 over the long-term. A sure bank buster.
Lastly, your next bet is just as likely to lose or win as the last one you placed. One outcome has no input on the other regardless of how.manu losses or wins came before it. They are individual events and must be treated as such.
-
How to get an idea of your longest likely losing run:
Longest likely losing run = log(n)/-log(1-SR)
n is the total number of bets SR is the Strike Rate
log (1,000)/-(log(1-0.8)= 4.34
So, strike rate 80%, 1,000 bets, longest likely* run= 4
*likely means just that, could be longer.
-
@ryan-carruthers I agree with that part about the FH goal bringing a greater chance of a SH goal, its one of the reasons i trade the O2.5 as i do and that strategy could work well for a FH filter aswell
-
@ryan-carruthers said in The BTC Football Trading Thread:
I have had a systematic FHG filter and it worked very well, corona virus stopped that.
It is like anything in trading though it will go through variance and it might not work long term, when I say long term I mean over 10 years. I've been on the exchanges for that amount of time and I have used many different ways of trading. I am always evolving them and assessing them - what works for this season might not work the season after, what worked last season might need tweaking this one.
I will say the FHG is hard and one of the hardest I've found. Data tells me though over my time trading a goal in the FH does bring a higher % of a goal in the SH.
Yep- goals lead to more goals.
Best predictor of SHG is a FHG: even the dreaded 2-0 at HT has a higher rate of SHG than 0-0 for most leagues.
-
Each filter will have slightly different statistics aswell, so one FH goal filter may be better with an earlier entry and a second FH filter may be better after say 15 or 20'. Or there may be another way such as O1.5 or O2.5 which benefits greatly from a FH goal
-
@stuart-capstick I think this is where new members struggle, if you have a data set you have recorded or followed like some of the strategy on my spreadsheet then you can have a lot more confidence as you know how they perform.
@John-Hurst spot on
-
maybe its just a case of running a filter for a long time then? say 1000 or something? and seeing what strike rate is like and take an average of first goal time. I know leagues vary but by 20-25 minutes i think most will hit 1.51. May just track for a while and not touch them.
-
I have had a systematic FHG filter and it worked very well, corona virus stopped that.
It is like anything in trading though it will go through variance and it might not work long term, when I say long term I mean over 10 years. I've been on the exchanges for that amount of time and I have used many different ways of trading. I am always evolving them and assessing them - what works for this season might not work the season after, what worked last season might need tweaking this one.
I will say the FHG is hard and one of the hardest I've found. Data tells me though over my time trading a goal in the FH does bring a higher % of a goal in the SH.
-
@martin-futter
Totally agree; that's why for me, at least, it is largely a case of look at the strike rate, the historic data and enter at a "value" point.
-
@stuart-capstick also, it's all about numbers, statistically you have a lot less to go off in the first half. so you could get zero shots on goal first 15 mins but that's not unusual games often start slow and then bang a goal from nowhere.
the confidence comes from knowing that your filter does well over the longer term, if you worry too much about each individual outcome you can forget what really matters.
-
@john-hurst Do people make so much off it? Or is it that a lot of people are trying to get into it and finding the same as you, even if they dont realise it? Im not saying they do or dont profit from it but do you know for sure that they do?
For FH goals its harder to base it on what is going on as there hasnt been much of the game to analyse and the first 10' could be slow and then suddenly come alive. I believe it has to be based on data and finding a value point of entry in comparison to SR
-
@john-hurst
I think Darri made a good point about FHG. Yes, you go through the historic stats and look at the inplay action, but as you know, posts can be rattling, one team getting panzered and no goal; other times, a snoozefest and a goal at, say 30 mins. He made the point that it is much more subjective than say, LTD or overs in the SH.
I don't know; maybe some people can just read matches better and can pull together all the above to spot the opportunity. For me, it is more of a systematic set and forget.
-
@john-hurst depends on how the filter is doing I suppose. I advise people to watch mainly because they may find something out that makes it a no -trade but on the other hand if you are winning a high percentage without watching then it's not a necessity.
Frode has done well by waiting until 15 mins into the half to enter, yes a few score before that but odds are often well above 1.5 and he strikes at 69%.
It's all about strike rate to odds at the end of the day.
-
Think the main question is how some people make so much off it when it seems so random at times. Are they looking at things other than just getting in at 1.51. Is it wise to watch all the games to get an idea of how they are?
-
@john-hurst I think there are other markets which are easier to crack than the FH market to be honest. Id be interested to know if anyone out there has done it for a sustained timeframe or if any pro's have done it longer term, it just seems to be a market which is appealing yet elusive.
-
@john-hurst My advice is then why bother with the FHG? It seems as though the way you talk about it that it isn't fun for you either so why try and do something with the FH?
-
Morning all good to see the stats software is all back and working. off for a nice country walk for a couple of hours ready for a clear head for trading this afternoon if there is much to trade. Post up here later today have a green day all
-
@john-hurst
I think you have partially answered your own question, John.
There really is no telling with FH, unlike SH. Whether it's to do with greater urgency in the SH, who knows?
That's why, for me at least, and others have said this, FHG is a value bet. Wait until the price represents value, e.g. 80% strike rate and the price is 1.51= value.Why not use the martingale? For me, simply because you can, with an 80% strike rate over 1,000 games, have a losing run of around 4. With a martingale system, that can be a hefty blow to your bank.
