When I see a great thread that I don’t fully understand I can’t stop myself from asking questions so please forgive me in advance.
Unknown said:
I prefer around 1 hour before the game because this is when the price is purer on the exchange. People who are heavily restricted by Sportsbooks are most likely playing at this time and are will to accept slightly worse terms then the Sportsbooks.
Gotcha. Thank you.
Unknown said:
Yes it is possible a bet will be become -EV but this is all about volume. You're trying to get your money in +EV in the long run. The best bets are the ones that you could arb back on the exchange straight away for a decent volume of cash and they are the bets I put up as double plays. The Rangers last night -115 is basically just backing an 'arb' but keeping the value (i.e not laying back). By backing these you're expected to win in the long run. Laying off cuts your variance but you won't win much money being boring and doing that.
Educational post.
As a side note, any idea why most books tend to display little patience for arbers?
Unknown said:
Think about it, 100.6% is the 100% line. 0.6% is nothing. The layers on Betfair would lose money if they bet books to 100%. High profile football games will be bet to 100.3% with five figures available at both sides of the price. Hight volume of money at 100.3 is as efficient a market as you will ever find. Beating these markets long term is almost impossible. You'll just win or lose 5%.
All I'm trying to do on this thread is highlight that not all US Sportsbook have embraced Betfair fully and are still offering some very poor lines for reasons I don't know. Betfair and the exchange product is the future in terms of efficient lines.
I don’t understand the statement, “The layers on Betfair would lose money if they bet the books to 100%.” Could you possibly please expound on this.
I certainly follow and agree with your second paragraph.
Unknown said:
What I'm trying to highlight here is that if Betfair is 2.3 betting to 100.6% then the book offering 2.32 is betting it too aggressively. Obviously they are too short on San Diego and taking too much margin on their price. This to my mind is at worst a break even bet over time but most likely a +EV bet.
The book @ 2.32 is betting it too aggressively because even though they have a higher overround than the exchange, they are still offering better backing odds?
I understand that being “too short” on San Diego means that the price is over-valuing them but what exactly do you mean when you say they are taking too much margin on their price? The terminology is tripping me up a bit.
Unknown said:
Kansas @ Houston
Kansas +127
To a 110% line they should be +121
Betfair is 1.82 to lay on Houston
100/1.82 = 54.94
100 - 54.94 = 45.06
100/45.06 = 2.219
+127 is wrong!
Great example but why to a 110% line should it be +121? I understand that 1.82 translates to -121 so is it because you can lay or bet the “No” on Houston to win at -121 that the dog should be +121? Even if so, not sure where the 110% comes into play.
Thank you.