A good return on the sideline experiment... despite one of the games finishing with an emphatic win, they both made good profits for my £2 stake on each;Just as a sideline, I will try this on the following 4 matches with the simple criteria in the previous post;
QPR v Sheffield Wed (today)
Juventus v Atalanta (today)
Stoke v Birmingham (tomorrow)
Sarpsborg v Start (tomorrow)
I don't want to create another thread on this (unless it looks really good), and this'll also be a test to see how the automation works with this scenario.
LOL - they get the odd one right !2-2.....lol
Was that a SoccerVista score prediction? Well I never![]()
1 addition to today's sideline test, and another for tomorrow;A good return on the sideline experiment... despite one of the games finishing with an emphatic win, they both made good profits for my £2 stake on each;
QPR v Sheffield Wed - result 0-3 (profit 46p)
Juventus v Atalanta - result 2-2 (profit 55p)
Stoke v Birmingham (today)
Sarpsborg v Start (today)
I'm really beginning to like this as a alternative (or to complement) my single goal market bets - the exposure is a lot less that what I am currently doing, and it starts straight from the kick-off. I think I will continue with my single goal dripfeed bet, and also do this for those extra games which conform to the 2-2 scoreline prediction with SV.
It certainly helps where the perceived weaker of the 2 teams scores first - Atalanta scored their match's first goal, so there was a market expectation that Juventus would get one back which dropped the lay odds greening lower than the QPR v Sheff Wed game.
I am wondering if it may be better to use the market odds (Betfair) on the Over 2.5 goals for goal expectancy instead of SV.- both home and away teams must have starting match odds of 2.0+
- Soccervista has the game expectation to be over 2.5 goals
ThanksI am wondering if it may be better to use the market odds (Betfair) on the Over 2.5 goals for goal expectancy instead of SV.
todays results on the sideline test;1 addition to today's sideline test, and another for tomorrow;
Stoke v Birmingham (today)
Sarpsborg v Start (today)
Mjondalen v Vaalarenga (today)
Kayserispor v Gaziantep (tomorrow)
Perhaps I will start a new thread to show the results of this line ? Not sure you could use this without automation though, unless you monitor it in-play.
Sometimes it seems to pay come up with an idea - and then put the opposite into practice....lol.What started off in my mind as a decent idea just isn't looking such a good thing any more.

There's a creditable and widely thought theory that since most betters put their money on the basis that something will happen (usually because of statistical analysis and the expectation on certain games achieving that), then it's worth betting against it as the 'yes' bets skew the odds down to a level where there's value in the opposite happening over a period of time. I have the distinct feeling that it might actually be worth betting on the 'no' scenario in BTTS, with the hedge being only betting on matches where the goal average is low-to-average.Sometimes it seems to pay come up with an idea - and then put the opposite into practice....lol.
Some of my monitored horse racing 'lay' systems find more winning horses than the backing systems.
Yes, but wouldn't it be advisable not to change tack. Look for the games that everyone is expecting a fair few goals - hence odds for Yes BTTS around 1.8 and back No.With most people betting on the 'yes' scenario, would it be more profitable to bet on 'no' ? Maybe that's the angle I should have explored.
The more I think about and explore it, the more I think that BTTS is a very good market to bet against - of the 4 possible end scenarios (no-one scores, home team scores, away team scores, both teams score), for a yes bet to come in you are hoping that only 1 of those scenarios happen, leaving the other 3 scenarios as winners for the 'no' bettor. Also needed to be taken into consideration is that around 94% of games have at least 1 goal, so it isn't as good as it sounds ! Perhaps a better plan would be to bet against games which SV thinks will be a 1-1 result ? It predicts a lot of those...There's a creditable and widely thought theory that since most betters put their money on the basis that something will happen (usually because of statistical analysis and the expectation on certain games achieving that), then it's worth betting against it as the 'yes' bets skew the odds down to a level where there's value in the opposite happening over a period of time. I have the distinct feeling that it might actually be worth betting on the 'no' scenario in BTTS, with the hedge being only betting on matches where the goal average is low-to-average.
I'm coming to the realisation that the problem with BTTS, especially when betting on 'yes' is that you need not only 1 team to score which in a lot of cases is difficult enough, but for the other team to also score... again not an easy task. With most people betting on the 'yes' scenario, would it be more profitable to bet on 'no' ? Maybe that's the angle I should have explored.
Since yesterday after your suggestion, I have done a lot of that today... trading the movement a la the sideline strategy. I can tell you it is quite effective ! It has opened my eyes to the fact that there seems a lot of expectation of goals from both sides, but it actually happening is far less than expected, hence the thinking that I should bet on the 'no'sYes, but wouldn't it be advisable not to change tack. Look for the games that everyone is expecting a fair few goals - hence odds for Yes BTTS around 1.8 and back No.
In all honesty, these kind of 50-50 bets are just a toss of the coin (obviously), so wouldn't it pay to be on the 2.2 odds? Throw the stats out of the window and just 'trade' the movements.
Market odds now suggest a convincing home win rather than a tight contest, so is it worth betting on it in the BTTS ? Let's see...