A personal conception of soccer-betting
Before I begin, it should be noted that I'm no expert on gambling, nor do I take it seriously: hence the insignificant betting amounts mentioned. Why I make the effort to bet on soccer will be made clearer later.
I remember some years ago, the payout for Arsenal winning an away match against Man U was 4. I bought $10 of it and Arsenal subsequently won. After that particular bet, I stopped betting on sports altogether. Prior to that I was mainly going for low-risk bets for some small-time income and a profound sense of self-satisfaction. The payout for those low-risk bets would be around 1.2 (for a simple full-time home/away win), and I would buy either $5 or $10. When I scored that relatively major coup, I stopped because I knew it would be too tempting to spend the winnings away on random wild bets; and since in the long run the house always wins, I guessed it was prudent to withdraw when you've won something.
To say that I went for low-risk bets, though, would not be entirely accurate. What I focused on was on sweet spots. Hold on a second. What is a sweet spot? To be sure, it's not an erotic body part. A sweet spot is where the payout exceeds the odds of an event happening. So, for example, betting for heads on a coin flip where the payout for heads is >1 is sweet. Simple enough. But what about sports? There doesn't seem to be any reliable, comprehensive way to determine the probability of team X winning against team Y. So what payout would be sweet, if I am to bet on team X winning team Y?
That's where intuition, feelings, and rough estimates come in, and I belong to the side that believes sports betting to be more of an art than a science. Now, there are some pundits who will admit this, but at the same time analyze various factors concerning the match in order to come up with a better idea of which team will win. Hence they may look at past records, the fitnesses of the players involved, crowd support, the formations and styles of the different teams, and so on. They will concede that there is always some unpredictability involved in soccer matches (and at the same time proclaiming that that's what makes soccer interesting),but they will attempt to quantify, in some way or the other, the numerous mentioned factors. This is a model of soccer betting, and it's not a model that is agreeable with me, in large part because I think they take themselves too seriously and are grasping at straws, whether they admit it or not.
Here's a simpler model: the sweet-spot model. The sweet-spot model bases itself almost solely on the payout given by the gambling vendor. Looking at the Singapore Pools on the World Cup now, Brazil has a 1.14 payout of winning N.Korea, Spain has a 1.21 payout of winning Switzerland. These are not sweet bets because the payouts are too low for the odds.Too low for the odds? This seems to imply that I've got a rough conception of the probability of Brazil and Spain winning. Admittedly, I do. But it's a value derived more from intuition or rough feel than anything more concrete. That's the main difference between the imprecise science model and the sweet-spot model. That is, according to this model, I'm not even going to read up on reports and statistics. In fact, I can't even name you more than 5 Brazilian or Spanish heavyweights offhandedly. They don't matter. All I've got is the Singapore Pools payouts in front of me, and a rough impression of a team's capability.
Now, if a team is almost certain to win another, and the payout is 1.1, or 1.0000000001, it makes sense to make the bet: it's basically free money. This would be the case if we pitch a varsity soccer team against an international team. This isn't the case for the World Cup. There are no such extreme differences between the teams in my opinion, at least not extreme enough to justify the belief that one can make a bet that is almost certain to win. How do I derive that a payout of 1.21 for Spain over Switzerland is not enough then? By intuition, for one. For another, the real possibility of a draw, which is not that uncommon between teams of significantly differing strengths.
What would be a sweet spot then? In the Man U-Arsenal match a few years ago, the payout for Arsenal winning was 4: that's very sweet, considering Arsenal are not incapable of winning Man-U. Remember, past statistics and other factors are completely disregarded. (I've never appreciated the importance of them) Presently, England has 1.16 for winning Algeria, Algeria has 12 for winning England. The former is too low, the latter looks slightly attractive, but would probably need to be slightly higher to justify the risk. A draw at 5.50, though, looks solidly attractive. Slovenia has a 3.5 payout for winning the US, and the US has 1.9 payout for winning Slovenia. Either seems nice.
3 assumptions give the sweet-spot model her vitality.
1) Soccer is at its core unpredictable. That is to say, there can be no pre-determined probability of team X winning team Y, how many goals will be scored, etc.
2) Vendors calculate payouts based on the value of public bets for or against. Sweet spots can therefore be created and maintained by public perception.
3) Public perception can be wrong.
All one needs to do in this model, then, is to find deals where the public is being excessively resolute, and bet against that. Case in point: Brazil and England seem to be be receiving vast amounts of support, thus depressing their payouts. It wouldn't be wise to bet along with them. Seeing that Germany has a 1.47 payout of winning Serbia, it would seem that not an overwhelming majority of people are thinking Germany are going to win. I'd go for it. In any case, I'd like to go for a draw between Brazil and N.Korea at 6.60. It doesn't seem likely to happen, yet the payout feels like it exceeds the odds for it happening, and I'd probably buy it if it weren't already too late.
The other basis I have for betting is the feeling model. This doesn't mean I bet based on feel. This means I bet to create a feeling. Many a time I watch a soccer match and don't feel particularly engaged. By placing bets on the scoreline, or on one team or the other, I become more invested in the match. There's still no much feeling when a clear favourite scores the first goal though, so to further spice things up one can bet on total amount of goals scored, who leads at half-time, and all those other betting options. This is especially important this World Cup because I don't feel affiliated with any team, though I must say that it is my wish that England will not progress, and North Korea will eventually play against South Korea.
I remember some years ago, the payout for Arsenal winning an away match against Man U was 4. I bought $10 of it and Arsenal subsequently won. After that particular bet, I stopped betting on sports altogether. Prior to that I was mainly going for low-risk bets for some small-time income and a profound sense of self-satisfaction. The payout for those low-risk bets would be around 1.2 (for a simple full-time home/away win), and I would buy either $5 or $10. When I scored that relatively major coup, I stopped because I knew it would be too tempting to spend the winnings away on random wild bets; and since in the long run the house always wins, I guessed it was prudent to withdraw when you've won something.
To say that I went for low-risk bets, though, would not be entirely accurate. What I focused on was on sweet spots. Hold on a second. What is a sweet spot? To be sure, it's not an erotic body part. A sweet spot is where the payout exceeds the odds of an event happening. So, for example, betting for heads on a coin flip where the payout for heads is >1 is sweet. Simple enough. But what about sports? There doesn't seem to be any reliable, comprehensive way to determine the probability of team X winning against team Y. So what payout would be sweet, if I am to bet on team X winning team Y?
That's where intuition, feelings, and rough estimates come in, and I belong to the side that believes sports betting to be more of an art than a science. Now, there are some pundits who will admit this, but at the same time analyze various factors concerning the match in order to come up with a better idea of which team will win. Hence they may look at past records, the fitnesses of the players involved, crowd support, the formations and styles of the different teams, and so on. They will concede that there is always some unpredictability involved in soccer matches (and at the same time proclaiming that that's what makes soccer interesting),but they will attempt to quantify, in some way or the other, the numerous mentioned factors. This is a model of soccer betting, and it's not a model that is agreeable with me, in large part because I think they take themselves too seriously and are grasping at straws, whether they admit it or not.
Here's a simpler model: the sweet-spot model. The sweet-spot model bases itself almost solely on the payout given by the gambling vendor. Looking at the Singapore Pools on the World Cup now, Brazil has a 1.14 payout of winning N.Korea, Spain has a 1.21 payout of winning Switzerland. These are not sweet bets because the payouts are too low for the odds.Too low for the odds? This seems to imply that I've got a rough conception of the probability of Brazil and Spain winning. Admittedly, I do. But it's a value derived more from intuition or rough feel than anything more concrete. That's the main difference between the imprecise science model and the sweet-spot model. That is, according to this model, I'm not even going to read up on reports and statistics. In fact, I can't even name you more than 5 Brazilian or Spanish heavyweights offhandedly. They don't matter. All I've got is the Singapore Pools payouts in front of me, and a rough impression of a team's capability.
Now, if a team is almost certain to win another, and the payout is 1.1, or 1.0000000001, it makes sense to make the bet: it's basically free money. This would be the case if we pitch a varsity soccer team against an international team. This isn't the case for the World Cup. There are no such extreme differences between the teams in my opinion, at least not extreme enough to justify the belief that one can make a bet that is almost certain to win. How do I derive that a payout of 1.21 for Spain over Switzerland is not enough then? By intuition, for one. For another, the real possibility of a draw, which is not that uncommon between teams of significantly differing strengths.
What would be a sweet spot then? In the Man U-Arsenal match a few years ago, the payout for Arsenal winning was 4: that's very sweet, considering Arsenal are not incapable of winning Man-U. Remember, past statistics and other factors are completely disregarded. (I've never appreciated the importance of them) Presently, England has 1.16 for winning Algeria, Algeria has 12 for winning England. The former is too low, the latter looks slightly attractive, but would probably need to be slightly higher to justify the risk. A draw at 5.50, though, looks solidly attractive. Slovenia has a 3.5 payout for winning the US, and the US has 1.9 payout for winning Slovenia. Either seems nice.
3 assumptions give the sweet-spot model her vitality.
1) Soccer is at its core unpredictable. That is to say, there can be no pre-determined probability of team X winning team Y, how many goals will be scored, etc.
2) Vendors calculate payouts based on the value of public bets for or against. Sweet spots can therefore be created and maintained by public perception.
3) Public perception can be wrong.
All one needs to do in this model, then, is to find deals where the public is being excessively resolute, and bet against that. Case in point: Brazil and England seem to be be receiving vast amounts of support, thus depressing their payouts. It wouldn't be wise to bet along with them. Seeing that Germany has a 1.47 payout of winning Serbia, it would seem that not an overwhelming majority of people are thinking Germany are going to win. I'd go for it. In any case, I'd like to go for a draw between Brazil and N.Korea at 6.60. It doesn't seem likely to happen, yet the payout feels like it exceeds the odds for it happening, and I'd probably buy it if it weren't already too late.
The other basis I have for betting is the feeling model. This doesn't mean I bet based on feel. This means I bet to create a feeling. Many a time I watch a soccer match and don't feel particularly engaged. By placing bets on the scoreline, or on one team or the other, I become more invested in the match. There's still no much feeling when a clear favourite scores the first goal though, so to further spice things up one can bet on total amount of goals scored, who leads at half-time, and all those other betting options. This is especially important this World Cup because I don't feel affiliated with any team, though I must say that it is my wish that England will not progress, and North Korea will eventually play against South Korea.
3 Comments:
wah so cheem. but i also hope n. korea will eventually play s. korea.
- owl
Wonder if people made a bet on whether the two would have went to war.
Aquila
It is my wish that South Korea will not progress. Utterly overrated (I consider it even more overrated than the English team) and undeserving of their achievement in 2002. It was a fluke that S. Korea even got that far. I hate it with a passion.
I don't mind North Korea though. It did very well against Brazil and I was really impressed.
Post a Comment
<< Home