• Hi Guest, The forum will be moving hosts on 26 July and as such will be closed from Midday until the move has completed.
    As we will be with new hosts it may take a while before DNS get updated so it could take while before you can get back on the forum.
    I think it will take at least 4 hours but could easily be 48!
    Ark Royal
  • There seems to be a problem with some alerts not being emailed to members. I have told the hosts and they are investigating.
  • Sorry for the ongoing issues that you may have been experiencing whilst using the forum lately

    It really is frustrating when the forum slows down or Server Error 500 pops up.

    Apparently the hosts acknowledge there is a problem.
    Thank you for using our services and sorry for the experienced delay!
    Unfortunately, these errors are due to a higher server load. Our senior department knows about the issue and they are working towards a permanent resolution of the issue, however, I'd advise you to consider using our new cPanel cloud solutions: https://www.tsohost.com/web-hosting


    I will have to investigate what the differences are with what We have know compared to the alternative service they want us to migrate to.
    Keep safe.
    AR

BTTS - test system

paulb164

Colt
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.
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.
 

paulb164

Colt
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.
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.
 

paulb164

Colt
And so to the results of the main reason for this thread... unlike the sideline bets, this has so far been quite the opposite with 2 losses from 2 matches;

1594547745171.png

Still, early days yet, and it could just be because the the league goal average is just about over the filter (making me think it might be too low ?). The odds are providing me with some idea that the general market believes these games ought to have been winners, so I will see if it is a good plan after a while. I can at least paper-test this one as I don't technically need automation to manage this (though I would in a normal scenario).
 

retriever

Gelding
- both home and away teams must have starting match odds of 2.0+
- Soccervista has the game expectation to be over 2.5 goals
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.
 

paulb164

Colt
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.
Thanks retriever retriever - I did think of that... I used 1.85 as an effective benchmark for filtering on another of my threads (the U/O 2.5 goals test), and it might be worth adding it to this as well as an additional check. I wanted to keep this system as simple as possible, but it may be that I need to add other checking criteria to it like your suggestion.
I might increase the average goals per game to 1.7, which will then only really give me the Norwegian and Icelandic games to work with... a bit of a knee-jerk reaction at such an early point of the test, and since I'm just papertesting anyway I can let it play for a little longer before making any changes.
 

paulb164

Colt
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.
todays results on the sideline test;
Stoke v Birmingham - result 2-0 (profit 50p)
Sarpsborg v Start - result 1-0 (profit 20p)
Mjondalen v Vaalarenga - result 0-1 (profit - 49p)
Kayserispor v Gaziantep (tomorrow)

Gotta say I'm really warming to this idea - it's looking like a pretty good automated trade option. 5 games so far with a profit on all, despite not actually getting both teams scoring in almost all of them. The key is to bet on games which fully expect both teams to score and with a high expectation for goals, and the trade is very likely to kick in with a profit.

And isn't this what forums like this is all about ? For me, it's coming up with a possible profitable idea to share, with positive contributions from fellow forumites along the way so we may end up with a potential betting angle that we can all share that make it all worthwhile.
 

paulb164

Colt
LOL - good job I'm just paper-testing this idea - not looking very good at the moment. What started off in my mind as a decent idea just isn't looking such a good thing any more.

1594582489762.png
 

retriever

Gelding
What started off in my mind as a decent idea just isn't looking such a good thing any more.
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. :confused:
 
Last edited:

paulb164

Colt
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.
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.
 

retriever

Gelding
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.
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.
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.
 

paulb164

Colt
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.
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...
 

paulb164

Colt
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.
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.
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's
 

paulb164

Colt
So, slight amend to the XLS... it now shows both backing for and against BTTS - after about 20 games done I will give it some analysis and thought as to where I ought to be putting my money !

1594591598829.png
 

paulb164

Colt
incidentally, the Kayserispor v Gaziantep game looks a bit dodgy with the home team's odds dropping quite a lot. 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...
 
Last edited:

retriever

Gelding
Interesting site I stumbled across with predictions in your current area - may be worth keeping an eye on.

Oh......and do the opposite.......lol
 
Last edited:

retriever

Gelding
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...

Looks like a Yes on that one. You would've had to hold your nerve though for BTTS with a 90+2 minute equaliser.
Did it work on the Sideline method, with the 1st goal at 62 minutes?

I just played the Man Utd v Saints game for a ROI of 52%. It helps if the 'underdog' scores 1st and early.
 
Top