[pellumb341]

I am writing this on my own experience. I have used only two bookies for arbing , book A and B.

Book A is sharper and my balance there was always negative ( lets say -2k)
Book B is softer and my balance there was positive ( lets say 10k )

If i had bet only the side at B book which is the soft one , my profit would be +10k . Actually it's 8k ,because i have lost 2k at Book A which is the sharpest one.

This is the point that Sawyer is claiming.
Now back to his example.If you arb between Pinnacle and a local book ,you have two choices :

A) to bet both sides . Long term balances will be ---> Pinnacle negative ( -2k) , Local pozitive (+10k) , so the profit is +8k
B) to bet only at local ,cuz you know that you will lose at Pinnacle in long term. Profit 10K

[hutennis]

I am writing this on my own experience. I have used only two bookies for arbing , book A and B.

Book A is sharper and my balance there was always negative ( lets say -2k)
Book B is softer and my balance there was positive ( lets say 10k )

If i had bet only the side at B book which is the soft one , my profit would be +10k . Actually it's 8k ,because i have lost 2k at Book A which is the sharpest one.

This is the point that Sawyer is claiming.
Now back to his example.If you arb between Pinnacle and a local book ,you have two choices :

A) to bet both sides . Long term balances will be ---> Pinnacle negative ( -2k) , Local pozitive (+10k) , so the profit is +8k
B) to bet only at local ,cuz you know that you will lose at Pinnacle in long term. Profit 10K

Now much, as a %% of your BR, would you put at local on every single bet with 5% edge?

[Miz]

I am writing this on my own experience. I have used only two bookies for arbing , book A and B.

Book A is sharper and my balance there was always negative ( lets say -2k)
Book B is softer and my balance there was positive ( lets say 10k )

If i had bet only the side at B book which is the soft one , my profit would be +10k . Actually it's 8k ,because i have lost 2k at Book A which is the sharpest one.

This is the point that Sawyer is claiming.
Now back to his example.If you arb between Pinnacle and a local book ,you have two choices :

A) to bet both sides . Long term balances will be ---> Pinnacle negative ( -2k) , Local pozitive (+10k) , so the profit is +8k
B) to bet only at local ,cuz you know that you will lose at Pinnacle in long term. Profit 10K

This

[hutennis]

This

Now much, as a %% of your BR, would you put at local on every single bet with 5% edge?

[u21c3f6]

Pellumb341, Were all of your wagers at book B the maximum you could wager?

Joe.

[pellumb341]

Pellumb341, Were all of your wagers at book B the maximum you could wager?

Joe.

I have not arbed with Pinnacle and my Local.I have arbed with one well known European books and one well known asian book.
I used to wager always 100 EUR at european ; at asian i had to calculate it , it varied from 50 to 160 EUR.

No ,i did not use to wager the maximum cuz they limit you if you bet large amounts on arbs.Anyways , actually i am limited ,that's why i am using "used to arb".

[hutennis]

How do they know your wager is arb?
At what place you had +EV wager?
Would that place take 500 from you?
What %% of your BR would that be?

[u21c3f6]

Getting limited might be a reason for not using the optimum wagering strategy but in Sawyer's example we are not assuming limit problems. Without a limit problem, if you do not wager the max allowed on the soft side, then you would actually make more money by wagering the balance to the max on the soft side and arbing that balance on the other side.

Joe.

[hutennis]

Yeah, this was my point from the start.
It was backed up with real calculations.
And still people are either not bright enough to understand
or just too stubborn to admit.

Either way, books have it too easy.

[pellumb341]

How do they know your wager is arb?
At what place you had +EV wager?
Would that place take 500 from you?
What %% of your BR would that be?

Bookies are not stupid.They have software which shows them the arbs ; they recognize arbers because arbers are always getting soft lines.They allow you 1 month,2 months...then sooner or later they kick your ass.If i worked for a bookie , i would figure it out immediately if you are a arber or not.

+ev wager , both scenarios are possible. +ev at A book and -ev at B book ; +ev at B book and -ev at A book

Yes ,it would be possible to wager 500 ,but it attracts too much attention and you would get limited sooner than normally.

I started with 2,500 EUR and within 8 months my BR went to 13,000 EUR . So , 10.500 EUR profit in 8 months I used to wager 100 EUR at soft book which was 4% of my initial BR.After i made some profits , i increased it to 200 EUR , but i got limited to 20 EUR within 10 days what i said ,big stakes attracts attention

PS : I know that in USA 10k are not too much ,but in my country the average monthly salary is 300 EUR. So ,within 8 months i won the salary of 3.5 years

[pellumb341]

then you would actually make more money by wagering the balance to the max on the soft side and arbing that balance on the other side.

This is what all arbers do . But if you ask them , i guarantee that all of them will respond : Our long term balance at sharp book (pinnacle or asians) is negative .

So it turns out that we would make more money if we only wagered only the side at soft book .

[u21c3f6]

No, you are not understanding. Let's use an example and assume that we do not have any limit issues.

Soft book has +120 and hard book has +100 for the other side. Let's further assume that the actual probability is 50/50 which means you have a 10% edge. Full Kelly would be 8.33% of your bankroll. To wager more than 8.33% of your bankroll on just one side would actually be detrimental and increase your chance of ruin.

Let's further assume a $2,000 bankroll.

In your (or Sawyer's) scenario you would wager $166 on the soft side only with an EV of $16.60 (10% edge). This is not optimal.

Now assume that we have $1,000 in the soft book and $1,000 in the hard book. Now let's look at two different scenarios, one where we don't know which side is +EV and one where we do.

Don't know which side is +EV:

Wager $1000 @ +100 and $910 @ +120 for a guaranteed profit of $90 (over 5 times more than the EV of wagering the soft side only).

We know that the +120 side is a 10% edge:

Wager $1000 on the soft side @ +120 and $917 on the hard side @ +100 for an EV of $100 (win $283 or lose $83). This scenario just adds $834 to the soft side and $917 to the hard side increasing your original $166 wager's EV by a guaranteed $83 allowing you to lose only $83 if you lose but win $283 if you win.

My personal preference is not concern myself with which side is +EV. In the above scenarios that would mean that I give up the 10% edge if I knew the soft side ($90 profit instead of $100 profit).

Of course you can make up other scenarios using less than your total bankroll but still have a greater EV than just wagering the soft side only.

I hope that clarifies.

Joe.

[Miz]

Now much, as a %% of your BR, would you put at local on every single bet with 5% edge?

First off, I'm sorry I was a little rude to you the other day. You seem like a smart guy; but you also seem to insult people the moment they disagree with you. In real life it isn't all just math. There are uncertainties that each person handles differently in real betting. Staking is a good example. You can calculate the perfect kelly stake and optimize everything, but edge calculations are never exact (unless it is a brainless arb where no side is assumed to be the +EV side).

I don't arb. So I would elect to only bet the off market numbers, and will try to answer the question only from a non-arb perspective. I use models and predict which side is +EV. The answer wrt BR % depends on 2 things... how many simultaneous events there are, and what type of fudge factor conservatism you use. Kelly coefficients <1 etc.

So the perfect kelly stake is 5.5% for the 5% edge, and only 1 event. The online calculator can tell you that just as well as a spreadsheet can. I always try to have some conservatism in there as a safety net, so probably something like 3.5% is what I am more comfortable with

I always assume my actual winning percentage is lower than my backtesting and previous seasons actual real-life betting suggest. So if history (testing & real betting) shows 56% success rate against opening lines, I assume 55%. that way I lower the risk of an unexpected bad year hurting me. I do so at the expense of leaving some money on the table.

If you were gong to arb, then you can do all kinds of things like a weighted arb, where if Team A covers you break even, or if team B wins then you win more money that you would if you just split the arb down the middle. My roll isn't big enough yet to arb and make it worth my time. When that day comes, I'll spend more time thinking about the best way to approach it.

Good luck on your plays.

[hutennis]

First off, I'm sorry I was a little rude to you the other day.

No worries.

You seem like a smart guy; but you also seem to insult people the moment they disagree with you.

I hope you can go over my discussions here and you will see, that hardly ever, unless extremely provoked, do I use personal insults.
I will insult my opponent's argument any day and twice on Sundays, there is nothing wrong with that, but I will stay away from insulting a person making an argument for as long as I possibly can. There is a huge difference there.

In real life it isn't all just math.

Here I agree completely.

Math is actually a very small part of it.
For at least 95%, including myself, all the math they would ever be able to use efficiently in SB is in a few Granchrow posts and his tools.
We neither can comprehend nor do we need anything more complicated to be able to survive.

Yes, just to survive. Nothing there actually tells you how to make money, but it sure as shit teaches you how not to lose.
How not to become a shark bate. How not to be eaten by others.
That is more than enough to make his lessons to be very hard to overestimate and very appreciated.
And, as I said, it is also more than enough math for most of us.

The rest is pure psychology.
Road from survivor to a winner is basically one big psychological battle with yourself.

It is not a question whether our brain is trying to fak us up violently every step of the way.
That's given.
The most important question is : "How?", or rather "How now?" b/c now it maybe something completely different
from 5 min ago. And it never stops.
Us vs Us - that's were the real battle is. Very few are able to win (and, as a result, make money) in this battle, b/c when it come to us protecting ourselves from us cannibalizing on ourselves we are natural born losers. Evolutionary.

[u21c3f6]

My roll isn't big enough yet to arb and make it worth my time.

Incorrect. I think people think this because they focus on the amount of a wager instead of the EV of a wager. I have asked players that claim to have a 5% edge and make $100 wagers (assume +100) if they would consider wagering on an arb instead for a guaranteed $6. Most laugh and say that they couldn't be bothered wagering if they were only going to win $6. What they are not recognizing of course is that their wager only has an EV of $5 but they only see the chance to win $100.

In your case, if you had a $2,000 bankroll, per your post above, you would wager $70 on something that you believed gave you a 5% edge. That means that your EV for that wager is $3.50. It does not take a large odds gap to far surpass that amount with an arb.

In addition, based on one of your previous posts, I don't think you appreciate the bankroll growth possibilites of an arb. If you did a full Kelly (5.5% of bankroll) simulation of 1000 wagers @ -110 with a 5% edge, your starting bankroll would increase on average from $2,000 to $7,933.38. Spectacular!

However, let's assume that you can create arbs that would increase your bankroll by .275% (a little more than 1/4 of 1%). This is very small potatoes but I chose that number because .275% of $2,000 is $5.50, the EV of your initial single wager. If you increased your bankroll by that tiny % (think compound interest), after 1000 arbs your bankroll would increase from $2,000 to $31,167.41. I am not sure what adjective to use here.

There is so much more to write on this subject, much of which is totally misunderstood by many but I will stop here for now.

Joe.

[Miz]

Joe, thanks for your reply. I can appreciate your thoughts. It is less about difficulty understanding the math and the growth between the two approaches. My comment was about feasibility of the execution for players in the US.

1. There is a general lack of outs for arbers in the US. Matchbook is gone, no access to pinnacle, and since that happened arb opportunities have decreased. I used to do it a lot with MLB when matchbook was around. Most of my bankroll out on a single arb play with a relatively small EV but decent growth possibility.

2. Rebalancing of funds... total pain in the US, as of late.

3. Number of opportunities. With the right outs, there may be a large number of opportunities for arbs. Maybe even comparable to the number of single side +EV opportunities. But not without access to a decent exchange and pinnacle.

4. My comment about bankroll size implies that one would not put their entire roll on a single arb, in an attempt to avoid the pain of rebalancing.

5. I find arbing less interesting, which would disappoint a purist looking only for max growth. Assuming I could find decent arb opportunities; with my roll size, arbing would tie up my whole roll and prevent me from betting my standard plays.

While your example is good at illustrating the growth of each approach for 1000 opportunites, my argument is that I believe you are more likely to find 1000 single side opportunities in far less time than you'll be able to find 1000 sequential arb opportunities at comparable growths... talking from the perspective of a US player.

As always, please enlighten me if you disagree or have evidence to the contrary. Have a nice weekend.

[Krashman]

...

[Sawyer]

Sawyer, Were all of your non-Pinnacle wagers at the max allowed? If not, then your strategy is not optimal. You would actually have more profit by hedging at least some if not all of your bankroll if limits allowed (assuming you would get paid and not cancelled).

Your example is saying that you would wager the same amount on a wager that could lose as you would on a sure thing. I would like to think that everyone would agree that this does not make any sense.

I don't have any problem if you only want to wager on one side, but your presentation is misleading and your premise is incorrect.

Joe.

Yeah, Max Limit allowed of course.

My presentation is not misleading, it's fukkin serious and correct. If you knew the amount I deposited to pinnacle, your azz will skyrocket to moon, lol.

[Sawyer]

Sawyer , GL in your arber life and enjoy it as long as it is possible I am an (ex?!) arber , i understand everything you say and you are 100% correct.I don't know why people posting in this thread find it difficult to understand / believe it.Maybe the reason is that they have never arbed and have zero experience.

I have arbed with online world wide bookies and the conclusion is the same : Long term balance in ASIANS bookies is negative , and Long term balance in EUROPEANS bookies is pozitive.

Why some people in this thread find it difficult to understand it? Easy. They don't live it, lol. Maybe they have some arbitrage experience but not deep. Anyone who is using Pinnacle for arbitrage will live this and will undertsand if a decent IQ level is available of course, lol.

Conclusion is the same man, Well said. One of most wisest posts in this thread probably. Well Said! Well Said! I have arber friends, everybody complaining about losing funds at pinnacle side, lol. Is it a coinsidence? I don't think so..

Bookies are not stupid.They have software which shows them the arbs ; they recognize arbers because arbers are always getting soft lines.They allow you 1 month,2 months...then sooner or later they kick your ass.If i worked for a bookie , i would figure it out immediately if you are a arber or not.

Of course, NOT all books are stupid but believe me, there's many stupid books. Yeah, they're stupid. The true/real/universal price is 1,50 (-200) and they're offering 1,92 (-108) for it. They offer same odds for odd/even in hockey&baseball, lol. They set same line for 1st half total and 2nd half total. They're too slow to change lines so you hunt them like a sitting duck. There's too much more to mention but I won't! Hehe..

They recognize arbers IF YOU ACT LIKE AN ARBER. They're fukked up if you camouflage yourself. When I was a beginner, I had no idea about softwares books are using, but by time you start to analyze/recognize which software book is using, how they limit players, how you can avoid etc.

My favourite method is, act like a square in first month. Make stupid bets, of course cover them at another book for a small loss. If you lose and deposit to book over and over again, your limits will be skyrocketed. You can even bet 4k on a volleyball game while you can bet only 200 on a fresh, new accounts. Some books require a special time amount to increase your limits. So you can imagine the solution, lol.

The biggest problem in arbitrage is..It's a big PAIN to deal with sh*tty books. Bad customer service, slow to pay etc. Some of them can even close/suspend your account and steal your money. It's part of the business I'm afraid, sometimes there's nothing you can do about it.

Some people think arbitrage/surebet is freemoney and very easy..but it isn't. There's no free money. It's hard. Really hard. There's a risk involved. There isn't anything such as surebet/freebet. The risk always exists.

[Sawyer]

J
5. I find arbing less interesting, which would disappoint a purist looking only for max growth. Assuming I could find decent arb opportunities; with my roll size, arbing would tie up my whole roll and prevent me from betting my standard plays.

You got a point: A decent bankroll size. If your bankroll is lower then 20k, arbitrage will not be very useful for you. Even with a 40k bankroll, I had days where I have to pass since my Pinnacle was zero.

Arbing requires a serious cash amount. I used to keep some of my money at bank when I was a straight bettor, -you don't need to keep all your cash in books if you're betting since you don't use remaining cash- now I keep a very low amount at bank since I need all the money.Money is never enough. More money, more profits. Always REINVEST YOUR PROFITS, period. But don't forget to buy yourself some gits too, hehe.

I wish everyone a profitable weekend. Guys, please don't make this thread gay. Don't speak if you don't have any arbitrage experience.

Btw, ACCORDING TO PINNACLE LEAN, Green bay will cover this weekend. Well, let's see..

[gaebiskon]

sawyer, was the line -3 on 49ers vs packers?

[Fall778899]

Great stuff Sawyer !!!

[Sawyer]

sawyer, was the line -3 on 49ers vs packers?

It was +2,5 then moved to +3 thru the game time. Packers lost, Chargers won.

Great stuff Sawyer !!!

Thanks.

NHL starts tomorrow. Pinnacle offers Over 6 for Pit-Phi at -125 (and Under 6 at +115) while I have Over at my local, priced +100. So play is Pit-Phi Over 6. It doesn't win all the time but most of time, it wins. Pinnacle knows the outcome of games, seriously, lol. (Serious)

This situation works best in basketball. Not so good in soccer. Very bad in handball/volleyball either. Not so reliable in tennis also. The best field it works is Chinese Basketball League. In Chinese League, line movement -almost- always wins, very very interesting.

[pellumb341]

why don't you post some chinese basketball picks ? do bookies have chinese basketball league ?

[cosminza1]

''Do you have the proof? I have. I don't think you're making arbitrage bets between a square book and pinnacle, otherwise you would understand me. %99 of arbitrage/surebet players are complaining about same thing. Their balance in other books increase while they're losing money at Pinnacle. I had to deposit my Pinnacle account twice this month.''




Hi. I really think you're the one making a mistake here...There is no way you can lose your money as long as you make a profit on every arb. Yes, maybe you will run out of funds at Pinnacle, but you will have a lot bigger ones at the other bookies, so who's stopping you to withdraw some of that and refill your pinaccle account? You would still be making profit.

[tto827]

''Do you have the proof? I have. I don't think you're making arbitrage bets between a square book and pinnacle, otherwise you would understand me. %99 of arbitrage/surebet players are complaining about same thing. Their balance in other books increase while they're losing money at Pinnacle. I had to deposit my Pinnacle account twice this month.''




Hi. I really think you're the one making a mistake here...There is no way you can lose your money as long as you make a profit on every arb. Yes, maybe you will run out of funds at Pinnacle, but you will have a lot bigger ones at the other bookies, so who's stopping you to withdraw some of that and refill your pinaccle account? You would still be making profit.

Yes, but if his balance continues to grow at the other book. He clearly has an edge there, and would make more of a profit if he didn't bet at pinnacle. Now this approach does have more risk involved, but it definitely is more +EV to use pinnacle to find value elsewhere, than to use Pinny to hedge once you have found value elsewhere.

[jumpsquat]

Hello to everyone, nice thread is going on here and i think i can contribute. at least a bit. First of all, the idea for me is stupid. What if the odds that drop fail 20 times in a row? you lose most of, or even your entire balance. The point of arbing is risk free money, without having to worry about anything. why not use it?

i have my own unique style of arbing, basically it says maximize the profits on favorites. It looks like this; if i find odds at book A at 1.50, and at book B at 4.00, and bet 100$ at book A, and on book B I should bet 37.5$ to be 12.5$ in profit. However, the odds suggest that the first team is much more likely to win the match, so in this specific case I place 33$ bet on the second team. If first team wins, my total stake was 133$ and the winnings are 150$, giving me a profit of 17$. If second team wins, which is less likely, i am down 1$. I don't know if there is a name for this sort of arbing, but it is giving me solid results.

Regards

[pellumb341]

i have my own unique style of arbing, basically it says maximize the profits on favorites. It looks like this; if i find odds at book A at 1.50, and at book B at 4.00, and bet 100$ at book A, and on book B I should bet 37.5$ to be 12.5$ in profit. However, the odds suggest that the first team is much more likely to win the match, so in this specific case I place 33$ bet on the second team. If first team wins, my total stake was 133$ and the winnings are 150$, giving me a profit of 17$. If second team wins, which is less likely, i am down 1$. I don't know if there is a name for this sort of arbing, but it is giving me solid results.

i have also suggested your idea some posts before

Like you have said ,long term balance at Pinnacle is and will be forever negative.

So, if you don't mind , i would give you an advice : Wager at Pinnacle the amount that break you even (hope i have said it correctly)

EXAMPLE

Over 2.5 @ 2.10 ( local )
Under 2.5 @ 2.00 (pinnacle)

Put 1 unit at your local ---> 1 * 2.10 = 2.1 units
Put 1 unit at pinnacle ----> 1 * 2.00 = 2 units

Outcome: over 2.5 ---> +0.1 profit
under 2.5 ----> break even

[Sawyer]

Hi. I really think you're the one making a mistake here...There is no way you can lose your money as long as you make a profit on every arb. Yes, maybe you will run out of funds at Pinnacle, but you will have a lot bigger ones at the other bookies, so who's stopping you to withdraw some of that and refill your pinaccle account? You would still be making profit.

No mistake here. In both ways, you're making profit over long haul. In Way #1, you win 20k, in Way #2, you win 40. Why pick less money? Of course, there will be times where you will lose at other books but over long haul, you're "doomed" to win at the other bookie since you're betting a value line. The only case I don't do it is, some markets (some soccer leagues and tennis) where weight of money tells nothing.

Creating a "free bet" is also a nice way. Less risk. It can be prefererred too. Remember, the name of the thread applies only in big arbitrages with +%4. You can hedge equal if arb is low, like say %1.5 or %2. No serious edge if arb is %1-1.5.

Yesterday, I picked Washington Wizards at +140. Amazing price. Chicago was -117. Wizards won easily. Of course, you can hedge for "no stress" or you can create a "freebet". Choice is yours.

I wish everyone a profitable sunday. GL!

[Kolotoure]

There are definitely situations where you should be arbing due to EG>EV but generally it is a bad idea

[ElCartofor]

- arbing generates constant, riskfree profits, but less profit then value betting
- value betting HAS RISKS, needs Bank Roll management, but gives more profit

- you can't lose any money when arbing cause of CHANCE
- you can lose all your money with value betting cause of CHANCE (although the probability gets smaller and smaller the bigger the bankroll gets, the posibility of losing all your money cause of chance, exists)

- with arbing there is no need for risk management
- with value betting risk management is essential

Conclusion?

Arbing = sure less profit = how Betfair exchange makes money
Value Betting = small risk, but bigger profit = how Pinnacle makes money

*sure profit = the absence of chance

Giving all of the variables involved, we can clearly state that the profit from Arbing is a strictly increasing function, while Value Betting profit is not, although it tends to be.

[gaebiskon]

The problem with this approach is most books limit you once you start winning.

[Fall778899]

Bingo

[onemoregoal]

Why are some European books so bad, is what I don't understand?

I mean if they can figure out who to ban/limit why cant they just check the lines and see if they are off or not?
And why do soft books insist on taking bets on leagues/sports that they have proven to be awful at? They must be limiting players who have taken bets on similar sports/markets - so why not invest into improving their system - or just take those particular sports/leagues off their book?
They are a sportsbook, after all -
Not complaining but I just don't understand why somewhere like BWIN insists on taking bets in the Albanian football league or something similar, just let it go BWIN, let it go...

[frongi]

using the infamous coin example of +200 heads and +100 on tails. Kelly says to bet 1/4 of your bankroll. Expected value = .25*(.5*2+.5*-1) = .25*(.5)=.125. Or you can arb and put 1/2 your bankroll on each. Expected value = .5*(.5*2-.5*1) + .5*(.5*1-.5*1) = .5*.5=.25.

Of course you need to consider bet limits, how long until the event (no one wants to tie up 100% of their bankroll in a future), and deposit/withdrawal fees. but mathematically you will profit more from arbing.