Arbitrage/Surebet is waste of money if you're betting the other side at Pinnacle..

[ElCartofor]

frongi,

given the hypothesis that you have no limits and that you do not know which of the bookies is overevaluating odds, you are correct and arbing gives more money back, without any chance related risk.

Given the hypothesis that you do have limits and that bookie "A" usuly dosen't overevaluates odds(cause you notice that after a number of 10k bets with that bookie you are losing money to them and winning at other bookies), you will win more money overtime if you do not place the part of the arb with the "A" bookie, but you do so with chance related risk.

[OMGRandyJackson]

Example

Let's say X bet is listed -200 at Pinnacle. If you're picking this at -125, you will make money over long haul.

There is absolutely no guarantee that lines at -125 vs -200 at other books will ALWAYS hit. Why take the risk of possible better profits when you can just take guaranteed profits?

[Sawyer]

There is absolutely no guarantee that lines at -125 vs -200 at other books will ALWAYS hit. Why take the risk of possible better profits when you can just take guaranteed profits?

Why take the risk you ask? Easy answer: Limits. Books don't have unlimited wager limits.

Don't look in short term. Look over long haul. Sure, a value bet won't always hit. But that's not important. I'm interested in more realistic things. In real world, a bet cannot win always, everytime. I'm happy with a profit over long haul, %56-58 for -110 and %61 for -125 is enough to make decent profit.

The only sport where I cover my action is: Soccer! Soccer sux..not for me, but for betting public. Soccer is where the books make the most killing. Masses are headed for slaughterhouse and books take away your money so easy like taking a candy from a baby.

Today, Real Sociedad was -135. Thru the start of the game, Sociedad was -180! ( It was -200 in some books!) Result? 10-Men Levante survives versus Sociedad, FT 1:1.

[Topo]

Good discussion in this thread, but there have been a few statements that arbitrage's advantage is that it is risk free and thus allows you to bet more of your bank roll than if you just played one side of a value bet. This assertion ignores the fact that arbing is inherently risky due to rapid line adjustments (before you can place the second bet) and bookmaker cancellations. I had to stop arbing because I was constantly worried one bookmaker would cancel one of my bets (happened once, but I won my other side). I think playing the value side with a controlled portion of your bank roll is actually a safer play.

[filipinho]

Sawyer,do I assume correctly, that because of this tactic you lost some money leaving Real Sociedad unhedged?


Dont know how is it so hard to explain to some posters this tactic, how they cant think logically...You dont need high bankroll nor stop placing max bets on soft books, just decide how much you can afford to lose per each arb(or now bet?) if it wins at sharp book.Let say you bankroll is 1kE, each arb you can hedge so that if it wins at a sharp book you lose 10E.In that way, you are basically betting that sharp books have more correct odds than soft books, which is true, or you doubt that?And there isnt remote possibility to lose your bankroll doing this, it is still risk free.

[OMGRandyJackson]

Why take the risk you ask? Easy answer: Limits. Books don't have unlimited wager limits.

Don't look in short term. Look over long haul. Sure, a value bet won't always hit. But that's not important. I'm interested in more realistic things. In real world, a bet cannot win always, everytime. I'm happy with a profit over long haul, %56-58 for -110 and %61 for -125 is enough to make decent profit.

The only sport where I cover my action is: Soccer! Soccer sux..not for me, but for betting public. Soccer is where the books make the most killing. Masses are headed for slaughterhouse and books take away your money so easy like taking a candy from a baby.

Today, Real Sociedad was -135. Thru the start of the game, Sociedad was -180! ( It was -200 in some books!) Result? 10-Men Levante survives versus Sociedad, FT 1:1.

Yes but your still assuming you will hit enough value bets to be profitable long term. How can you guarantee that? BTW Im not trying to pick a side, Im quite uneducated on all of this, Im just trying to ask questions to better understand your view and an arbs view.

I had to stop arbing because I was constantly worried one bookmaker would cancel one of my bets (happened once, but I won my other side). I think playing the value side with a controlled portion of your bank roll is actually a safer play.

Do you remember the odds (both sides) of the cancelled bet? And was it cancelled for a "bad line" reason?

[pellumb341]

Originally Posted by Topo
I had to stop arbing because I was constantly worried one bookmaker would cancel one of my bets (happened once, but I won my other side). I think playing the value side with a controlled portion of your bank roll is actually a safer play.

hahha , weird to hear about a book that has voided a lost bet.
Has happened to me 4 times that bwin has cancelled my bets (after the match) and of course they were winners.They never cancel lost bets

[OMGRandyJackson]

hahha , weird to hear about a book that has voided a lost bet.
Has happened to me 4 times that bwin has cancelled my bets (after the match) and of course they were winners.They never cancel lost bets

The bet was probably cancelled before the game was over.

[Sawyer]

Some books are really dikkheads. Some void your bet when game is over, lol. Seriously.

Some steal your money and close your account. It happens. It happened to me too.

[Sawyer]

Sawyer,do I assume correctly, that because of this tactic you lost some money leaving Real Sociedad unhedged?

Dont know how is it so hard to explain to some posters this tactic, how they cant think logically...You dont need high bankroll nor stop placing max bets on soft books, just decide how much you can afford to lose per each arb(or now bet?) if it wins at sharp book.Let say you bankroll is 1kE, each arb you can hedge so that if it wins at a sharp book you lose 10E.In that way, you are basically betting that sharp books have more correct odds than soft books, which is true, or you doubt that?And there isnt remote possibility to lose your bankroll doing this, it is still risk free.

Well, I said I usually cover my action in soccer since it's very unpredictable sometimes. Always hedge in soccer and tennis as long as you don't have any opinion about event. Sometimes, I like chances for X side to win and I find good odds, I don't hedge. Let it ride baby!

I'm not expecting everybody to understand. It's not complicated but it's not possible to understand it without living it. When you experience it, you realize. As long as you bet value lines/odds, you will be plus! Period. Except tennis, lol. I love tennis! Line movement, Moneyway, beating closing line don't mean a thing in tennis. It's an unique sport for betting but people really hate tennis when Nadal, Raonic, Gasquest lose, lol.

[OMGRandyJackson]

Some books are really dikkheads. Some void your bet when game is over, lol. Seriously.

No I get that but in Topo's post he said he had a losing bet voided, which is very very strange..Thats why I guessed it was voided before game ended or started.

[faststeady]

mixing tennis rules is fun

[Topo]

No I get that but in Topo's post he said he had a losing bet voided, which is very very strange..Thats why I guessed it was voided before game ended or started.

I had placed the eventual winning bet first. When I tried to make the eventual losing bet, the book accepted it initially, but then took the market right off the board. They never put it back up. So they didn't just void my bet, they removed the line altogether. I'm guessing I wasn't the only one hitting that side.

[OMGRandyJackson]

I had placed the eventual winning bet first. When I tried to make the eventual losing bet, the book accepted it initially, but then took the market right off the board. They never put it back up. So they didn't just void my bet, they removed the line altogether. I'm guessing I wasn't the only one hitting that side.

So then you never actually got the wrong bet side? They took it off the board before you even bet it?

[Topo]

So then you never actually got the wrong bet side? They took it off the board before you even bet it?

That's right. Even though I came out well ahead, it scared me. I'm not one to bet a huge chunk of my bankroll, so I didn't like the potential for having half of an arbitrage play dropped.

[kenwilber]

Arbitrage/Surebet is waste of money if you're betting the other side at pinnacle..

I agree with you 100%
But you forget to mention one important thing: the importance of bankroll managment and variance that comes in here.
If I have an amazing oportunity to take the 2.0 line at soft book (ev) which is 1.6 at pinnacle (~7% arb) and my bankroll is 20k I will surely not bet the whole bankroll on it because if I lose, my game is over.
But if you bet cleverly max 1% of your bankroll using this strategy your balance will go up faster than comparing to classic "old fashioned" surebetting (covering at pinnacle).

[u21c3f6]

I don't know what else to say. The above without a whole lot of caveats is just so unbelievably wrong it is mind numbing.

I am not trying to be insulting but there are many that have responded in this thread that really need to reconsider their beliefs.

Joe.

[gaebiskon]

I don't know what else to say. The above without a whole lot of caveats is just so unbelievably wrong it is mind numbing.

I am not trying to be insulting but there are many that have responded in this thread that really need to reconsider their beliefs.

Joe.

please elaborate

[bihon]

Well, this thread is more than eight months old but there are still people not grasping the original meaning and as usual they are the ones using the terms such as "stupid", "plainly wrong" or "I'm trying really hard to come up with a single reason why..." and similar. Their insulting attitude probably cannot be cured, but needs to be addressed.

However, I guess it was the title that created the most confusion here:
"Arbitrage/Surebet is waste of money if you're betting the other side at Pinnacle".
Why Pinnacle? Doesn't one lose even more if betting another side on some other soft book?

Anyway, I want to thanks the OP Sawyer, for sharing his basicaly true statement.
In order to try to shed some more light here, let's use some simple math/example.

First of all, the OP reffered to long term strategy and not to a single bet only.
So if the odds (two way and without juice, just to simplify) are e.g. 1.5/3.0, the probabilities are 2/3 & 1/3.
Of course this means an even game after e.g. 120 games betting 100 units each game; 80x50 - 40x100 = 0 units.

If a value bet is 1.6 instead of 1.5 this would produce around 4.3% for a sure bet or ca 520 units gain in 120 games.

However by betting value bets only, the same stake would return 80x60 - 40x100 = 800 units profit or 6.7% average per game.

Yes, clearly you make more money betting value bets only vs related sure bets, but under a condition that a value bet is on one side only. If both (or more sides) are value bets then a sure bet is the way to go.

[u21c3f6]

please elaborate

The major mistake I see in most of the answers agreeing with the OP is that when they try to compare the results between the arb and the +ev wager only, they use the same amount for each wager. In other words, assuming you have a $2,000 bankroll and there is a 50/50 event that you can get +110 on one side (5% edge) and -105 on the other side, they compare the two results using $100 wagers for both the arb and the +ev wager. This is incorrect. Yes, the $100 wager is Kelly correct if you are only wagering on the +ev wager but it is not correct if you are arbing. Since the arb is a guaranteed profit, you can use your entire bankroll. In our example, a win and a loss on the +ev wager only would result in a $10 profit after two wagers. However, the arb allows you to wager $963 on the +110 and $1,037 on the -105 for an approx. gain of $47 after two wagers. Now this is where others try to put caveats in such as I don't trust I will get paid, wager cancellation, limits etc., all valid points and must be taken into consideration. However, just stating that playing the +ev side is more profitable or the best way to do things without caveats is just mathematically wrong. Joe.

[bihon]

However, just stating that playing the +ev side is more profitable or the best way to do things without caveats is just mathematically wrong. Joe.

Now, I don't see this as a money management (Kelly, etc) or caveats/circumstances problem.
Playing value bets only using the same stake in each game produces more profit than playing sure bets.
And that is plain mathematically true.

[hutennis]

The major mistake I see in most of the answers agreeing with the OP is that when they try to compare the results between the arb and the +ev wager only, they use the same amount for each wager. In other words, assuming you have a $2,000 bankroll and there is a 50/50 event that you can get +110 on one side (5% edge) and -105 on the other side, they compare the two results using $100 wagers for both the arb and the +ev wager. This is incorrect. Yes, the $100 wager is Kelly correct if you are only wagering on the +ev wager but it is not correct if you are arbing. Since the arb is a guaranteed profit, you can use your entire bankroll. In our example, a win and a loss on the +ev wager only would result in a $10 profit after two wagers. However, the arb allows you to wager $963 on the +110 and $1,037 on the -105 for an approx. gain of $47 after two wagers. Now this is where others try to put caveats in such as I don't trust I will get paid, wager cancellation, limits etc., all valid points and must be taken into consideration. However, just stating that playing the +ev side is more profitable or the best way to do things without caveats is just mathematically wrong. Joe.

100% correct. And this is post #160.

I said the same thing already in a post #9.
In a post #20 I made an iron clad mathematical example of why it is correct.

And yet, in a post #161 we see this unbelievable brain deadness again.

Playing value bets only using the same stake in each game produces more profit than playing sure bets.

Ok. you did not read the whole thread. You did not see post #9 or post #20.

But, common! Right in front of your eyes, in a post #160, you must see

"USING THE SAME STAKE IN EACH GAME TO COMPARE RESULTS OF ARB VS +EV IS WRONG!!!!!!! AND HERE IS WHY !!!!!!!!

It sure looks like arguing with flat earthers.
No matter what, regardless of indisputable evidence to the contrary they just keep on pushing their nonsense
"Earth is flat. Because if it would not be, water would flow right off it."

And there is nothing that can change their mind.
Seams like the smartest thing to do is to not even try.

[bihon]

The problem with the narrow minded ones is that they jump in, ridicule the OP with the "iron clad proofs" & "indisputable evidence" and when they realise their mistake they try backpadling with some minor arguments the others bring in.

Now, betting with your entire bankroll vs a portion of it is a valid argument brought by some more reasonable people here, but in no way having this logic in mind would provoke an answer such as: "I'm really leaning toward considering it some kind of joke or maybe a level, couse anyone with anything remotely close to a reasonable intelligence simply can not come up with such an idiotic idea."
It clearly shows that the narrow minded ones had absolutely no idea what was this all about.

Back to the counter-argument, with an accent to the real life situation:
- There are max limits out there, so betting with an entire huge bankroll is not possible anyway.
- The value bets come mostly from B class bookies, where big stakes would constitute a substantial risk.
- The drawdowns for positive/advantage outcome expectance are pretty good to manage.

So yes, I would agree that for a small bankroll the sure bet would be a better and more secure choice, but for anyone serious out there the value bets would provide more profit in the long run.

[hutennis]

You are wrong on all counts.

First.

Now, betting with your entire bankroll vs a portion of it is a valid argument brought by some more reasonable people here,

Wrong!
First complete calculations on this were done by me in a post #20. Read it.

Second.

There are max limits out there, so betting with an entire huge bankroll is not possible anyway.

Wrong!
Unless the size of your BR is so large that your every bet is a site's maximum, which is totally not applicable for an absolute majority of readers in this thread, larger and more profitable arbitrage is always there.

Third.

The value bets come mostly from B class bookies, where big stakes would constitute a substantial risk.

Risk of cancellation / non payment, as was said ad nauseum, from the beginning, is a separate issue.
u21c3f6 just mentioned it again in a post #160.

Now this is where others try to put caveats in such as I don't trust I will get paid, wager cancellation, limits etc., all valid points and must be taken into consideration. However, just stating that playing the +ev side is more profitable or the best way to do things without caveats is just mathematically wrong.

Also you conveniently forgetting that risk of cancellation / non payment is an issue weather you arbing or not.
Your single +ev bet maybe canceled/not paid if won and they can happily let your losing bet ride very easy.

Forth.

The drawdowns for positive/advantage outcome expectance are pretty good to manage.

Really? How?
Drawdowns are random. You can have all kinds of +EV and still be beaten down mercilessly by randomness for very extended periods of time.
It's like saying that you can manage results of your +EV all-ins in poker. Ridiculous notion.

[u21c3f6]

Bihon, Please read this thread: http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicappe...ml#post6622283 and in particular post #25 and give me your thoughts. Joe.

[bihon]

Joe, what you wrote was true for a small portfolio or a large one if arbing among reliable books.
But again, we are not talking arbing between Pinnacle and 5dimes or Heritage. The other side is almost exclusively a bookie where you can't risk more than a few hundreds, at least not me.

However for those chosing EV+ side only, I wouldn't recommend odds above 1.5 as those would require longer time for a full effect. Arbing is preferable way anyway if EV+ side is an underdog.

[mr.ed]

Plain and simple.....arb is good only when you are unable to determine which side has the value. If you know which side has the value and you are in it for the long haul, play only one side. Always trust the Pinnacle number as the right number.

[u21c3f6]

I give up. Joe.

[hutennis]

Yep. Looks pretty hopeless.
But, considering the fact that in 2012 25%of Americans believe that Earth is between 5700 and 10000 years old, it's kinda expected.

[mr.ed]

The problem with the narrow minded ones is that they jump in, ridicule the OP with the "iron clad proofs" & "indisputable evidence" and when they realise their mistake they try backpadling with some minor arguments the others bring in.

Now, betting with your entire bankroll vs a portion of it is a valid argument brought by some more reasonable people here, but in no way having this logic in mind would provoke an answer such as: "I'm really leaning toward considering it some kind of joke or maybe a level, couse anyone with anything remotely close to a reasonable intelligence simply can not come up with such an idiotic idea."
It clearly shows that the narrow minded ones had absolutely no idea what was this all about.

Back to the counter-argument, with an accent to the real life situation:
- There are max limits out there, so betting with an entire huge bankroll is not possible anyway.
- The value bets come mostly from B class bookies, where big stakes would constitute a substantial risk.
- The drawdowns for positive/advantage outcome expectance are pretty good to manage.

So yes, I would agree that for a small bankroll the sure bet would be a better and more secure choice, but for anyone serious out there the value bets would provide more profit in the long run.

Good post, Bihon. I take the Arb maybe 5% of the time, the other 95% of the time I am on the value side only. The 5% is when I am unable to determine the value side.

Jumping at both sides of ARB opportunities would have resulted in deep, deep cuts into my profits over the last 14 years. This is not speculation on my part, it is fact. This is what the original poster was discovering, and he will continue to earn less month after month after month if he continues to play both sides.

[Sawyer]

Wanna hear recent resulst?

1-29 May

Pinnacle -80.869€ (If you cover other side at Pinnacle)
Bookies +104.838€

1-30 April

Pinnacle -87.749€
Bookies 125.954€

Coinsidence? Not really..

As long as you pick a value bet, you don't really need to arb it. Specially if % is high, you may be leaving a fortune on table my hedging both sides.

If you want a less stressful solution, then create free bets when arbing. For example, you risk 1000€ on Sharapova 3,00 and 2000€. on Serena 1,60. If Serena wins, you win 200€. If Sharapova wins, you're breakeven.

Sure, there will be losing streaks where you lose at sharp books but over long haul, You will make more profits.

[Sawyer]

Good post, Bihon. I take the Arb maybe 5% of the time, the other 95% of the time I am on the value side only. The 5% is when I am unable to determine the value side.

Jumping at both sides of ARB opportunities would have resulted in deep, deep cuts into my profits over the last 14 years. This is not speculation on my part, it is fact. This is what the original poster was discovering, and he will continue to earn less month after month after month if he continues to play both sides.

Nice to see people who understands me

[Sawyer]

Btw, Let me add something.

Let's say you win 50k at bookie and lose 30k in Betfair/Asian books, it doesn't mean you would make a profit of 50k if you had only bet at bookie. Why?

Because, you were risking big amounts since all your bets were "winner" bets. Since you bet both outcomes, you win regardless of result. So you can risk big amounts. Maybe %10 of your bankroll. However, if you were making straight bets, (without covering other side) you would risk LESS because of money management. You may experience losing streaks even if it's mathematically guaranteed to win at soft books. Losing streaks happen. If you bet a big portion of your bankroll such as %5 or %8, it may be very dangerous.

So conclusion,

You have 2 options.

You can create freebets without lowering your stakes. You can bet high as much you want, it's a freebet after all.

You can bet on "value bets" by obeying money management rules. Let's say your bank is 80,000. You can bet 10,000 on (possible on Major Leagues, assuming you have multiple accounts) an event if you're making an arbitrage, as freebet type. However, if you're making a straight wager, (without covering other side) you can't bet 10,000. You have to risk less, maybe 2000-2500. This is also something to consider..

Conclusion

Even if you're fanatic about arbitrage and you're a bloody arber, it doesn't make sense make a equal hedge. You must always risk more on soft book side and less on sharp book side. Just make create bets and make more profits, without risk.

Or place a "safe" amount on value bets, GL!

[liuyelian]

Are you aware of any "robot software" that allows one to search for middles and automatically bet them?






________________________________________ ___________________________
"Do you know those times when you've been put through so much pain you couldn't bear it? Well, that's reality for you."
I have been a FunForFreedom survivor since 7/2/12!Cheap Diablo 3 Gold
Buy Runescape Gold Buy RS Gold
Supporting Leon X Zara! <3
I have a blog!

[mr.ed]

For those who still disagree with Sawyer...try this scenario. Sawyer has +300 ML on Ravens at New England. The night before the game Brady eats bad sushi and is hospitalized and is scratched from the game.

The ML moves to New England -200. Sawyer knows he has tremendous value on Ravens +300. Yet is seems many on this forum would recommend locking up profits and taking New England at -200. That's a safe play if you have a limited bankroll. But if your sole motivation is to MAXIMIZE profits, you would not make the play on New England. You have a very strong play on the Ravens, and making a 2nd play at the TRUE line on New England has a negative expectation.

I've tried to explain this to very bright people and they still struggle to understand this. You have value on the Ravens, so making another play on New England at the true line of -200 will result in diminshed proifts long term. Sawyer discovered that value is found overwhelmingly with the smaller books. This is not surprising and could have been predicted beforehand. He will be subject to more fluctuations, but as long as Pinnacle's structure remains what it is today, there is simply no way he can do as well playing both sides when arb opportunities are identified. He will continue funding Pinnacle with smaller book money month after month after month for all eternity.