Originally Posted by
Vaughany
Ok, I thought I probably was making it more elaborate than needed to be!
In terms of me playing the draw-no-bet rather than the team to win straight up, my feeling is that I have more of an edge betting this way. I think that I can find it easier to find value in draw-no-bet lines because I can judge if a team is not going to lose better than being able to predict if they are going to win. So ultimately I am suggesting that the books are undervaluing a team's ability to not lose... I may not think there is enough value to play Man Utd to win @ Evens, but do think that there is value in the draw-no-bet at -210 for example. Now is this fundamentally wrong as ultimately I still need Man Utd to win, but with the latter I am insuring myself in case it is a draw?
And in terms of me estimating the fair price, with a draw-no-bet line, should I still just be basing it on the fair price of a win? The way I've been doing it is looking at the percentage chance that the draw-no-bet indicates, so Man Utd DNB @ -210 = 67.74% then saying to myself "do I think that there is a 32.26% chance (100%-67.74%) that Man Utd lose this game?". Now is it flawed to think like this? For instance, this weekend they are at home to Southampton, a team that has lost 11, drawn 1, won 0 in last 12 fixtures at Man Utd's home ground. My conservative estimation is that Man Utd only lose this game 20% of the time, so my instinct would be to bet the Man Utd DNB accordingly due to my perceived edge. So is it possible that there can be value in a draw-no-bet line @ -210, but not value in the team to win @ Evens?!