Matched betting - who's done it and who's good at it? (No Referrals)

yep I have

on I side note going to step down as a Mod on PA, don't have time to do it, tbh I hardly have any time for the matched betting
 
Goose said:
Because laying it means guaranteed profit regardless, which is the whole point of matched betting.
Click to expand...

I had guaranteed profit. £7 or £275

My history of these offers more is profitable than locking in the maximum guarantee. You only need a small amount to come in. Last one was Man U Wolfsburg which came in at over 2.5 fh for 10.5 Inplay. That's 15 of your locked in £30 to match it. I'm
Happy with only getting 1/10 correct
 
Last edited:
Simon said:
I had guaranteed profit. £7 or £275

My history of these offers more is profitable than locking in the maximum guarantee. You only need a small amount to come in. Last one was Man U Wolfsburg which came in at over 2.5 fh for 10.5 Inplay. That's 15 of your locked in £30 to match it. I'm
Happy with only getting 1/10 correct
Click to expand...

Simple maths states it cannot be more profitable long term than laying.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Simple maths states it cannot be more profitable long term than laying.
Click to expand...

What are these simple maths? You have free/risk free which over comes the bookies edge. Just like tossing a coin for -£1 loss and £1.20 win. Over the long term of variance you will be up.

Why else do you think many matched betters end up with bookies having too much money and empty exchanges.

I have done 9 bet 365 offers like this on my excel sheet - 5 came in.
(football knowledge - team line up etc may also have an effect on the choices)
 
amigafan2003 said:
Simple maths states it cannot be more profitable long term than laying.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the efficiency of the market. If there's a big overround on both sides of the market then that limits the profits from laying.

Imagine a scenario where an event has two outcomes with 50% probability. The bookies price it up at say 1.9 for both outcomes.
You put a £100 free bet down on outcome A at 1.9 odds. If it comes in, you get 90-0 = £90 profit, if it doesn't you get 0-0 = £0 profit. So the average profit from not laying is (90+0)/2 = £45.
Now consider you lay it. You put £47.37 down on outcome B at 1.9 odds. If it comes in you get 90-47.37 = £42.63 profit. If it is outcome A, you get 90-47.37 = £42.63 profit. So the average profit from laying is (42.63+42.63)/2 = £42.63

Now of course in the modern internet market with better information around prices you would probably get better than 1.9 on each side of the market, but I chose a slightly exaggerated example for ease of explanation. Realistically I would look for much higher odds on the free bet also due to the impact of losing your stake. In some circumstances you might actually identify genuine arbitrage scenarios where the odds are balanced in your favour rendering the above comparison irrelevant but the point I'm making is that laying to guarantee profit shouldn't be more profitable in an inefficient market (assuming you have sufficient bankroll to sustain losses).
 
Simon said:
I had guaranteed profit. £7 or £275

My history of these offers more is profitable than locking in the maximum guarantee. You only need a small amount to come in. Last one was Man U Wolfsburg which came in at over 2.5 fh for 10.5 Inplay. That's 15 of your locked in £30 to match it. I'm
Happy with only getting 1/10 correct
Click to expand...

To be honest this is what I do, having £20-£30 extra in my account is neither here nor there, I'll always go for the BTTS FH, if it comes in £200+ profit that gets cashed.
 
HangTime said:
I think it depends on the efficiency of the market. If there's a big overround on both sides of the market then that limits the profits from laying.

Imagine a scenario where an event has two outcomes with 50% probability. The bookies price it up at say 1.9 for both outcomes.
You put a £100 free bet down on outcome A at 1.9 odds. If it comes in, you get 90-0 = £90 profit, if it doesn't you get 0-0 = £0 profit. So the average profit from not laying is (90+0)/2 = £45.
Now consider you lay it. You put £47.37 down on outcome B at 1.9 odds. If it comes in you get 90-47.37 = £42.63 profit. If it is outcome A, you get 90-47.37 = £42.63 profit. So the average profit from laying is (42.63+42.63)/2 = £42.63

Now of course in the modern internet market with better information around prices you would probably get better than 1.9 on each side of the market, but I chose a slightly exaggerated example for ease of explanation. Realistically I would look for much higher odds on the free bet also due to the impact of losing your stake. In some circumstances you might actually identify genuine arbitrage scenarios where the odds are balanced in your favour rendering the above comparison irrelevant but the point I'm making is that laying to guarantee profit shouldn't be more profitable in an inefficient market (assuming you have sufficient bankroll to sustain losses).
Click to expand...

The problem with your scenario is that the chances of the even happening are reflected in your odds. Where as in real life they aren't (which is probably what you meant by efficent market).

Yes, if you always used true value odds then the lack of commission would mean that long term it would be more profitable to simply back, as long as you can deal with the variance swings.
 
xibinim said:
More PP gubbing emails been sent out (on PA forum).
Click to expand...

I operate accounts for myself and my partner. Interestingly the account in my name has been blocked, but the one in my partners hasn't. It just so happens that my active betfair account used for my MB work is also in my name, some coincidence that!

Having said that both accounts have been banned from the 20/10 promo previous to the recent round of gubbings.
 
Made about £30 on free slots spins today from William Hill. Had to play through 20x mind your but auto spin took care of that.

Also £20 in play bet on Everton game, gets me £10 free tomorrow on Chelsea game. All adds up I guess.
 
PA is good for the first month to hold your hand and get into the swing of things. Then you realise PA is killing matched betting and all the information is available for free.

I don't believe mug betting saves your account, paddy my first ever account I had for 4 years, i lost last month. 3 and a half of those years I was mug betting only and I even mugged bet Tyson Fury to win against Klitschko for a massive win :D
 
Last edited:
In essence just a faster more upto date system. Personally I think its a waste of money and probable gub magnet but that's just me.

If the 1000's on PA get gubbed we might see the return of some better offers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom