Thank you very much, I started with Matched Betting about 7 years ago and have learned a lot since then about trading and different strategies, etc. Just with that small Google search and trawling these forums I've learned more this weekend than in those 7 years combined. I also found lots of tools and spreadsheets here which makes life so much easier, right now I feel like a pig in sh!t.

I went over so many stats that my head is swimming, something that stood out though was mentioned on a site about the

**L**ongest

** E**xpected

** L**osing

** S**treak (

**LELS**). If I were to start using a tipster with a 30% hit-rate and I would be only going for 500 bets over a period, the tipster having already done 500 games previously means I should work out the LELS of 1000 bets. So according to the chart the LELS would be 20 instead of 18 (I know now it doesn't mean Maximum Lose streak). Now if I were to apply this to the draw market, laying only Man U in the EPL, would I be working it out to the LELS of 38 games for that season, or would it be that because I’m going to do this method for the next 40 years I would multiply 38 games by 40 years to get 1,520 bets and work out the LELS to 1,520? 38 games = 2(?) LELS, 1,520 games = 7 LELS, at a 70% strike rate.

Now I’m perhaps overthinking this, but when working out LELS should the previous games not also be taken into account? For example, Man U since their very first game back in the day up until today they have played a total number of 20,000 games, so then doesn't that mean over all this time the LELS should compensate for that?

As a thought experiment I looked over Man U's past results from the start of the 2009 season (I would of been old enough to gamble) till date. So its 2009 and I’m about to my start my get rich quick scheme, firstly though I need to assume some things.

1. Man U is the greatest team to ever grace the earth so getting a draw 5 times in a row is the worst case scenario with 6 being inconceivable.

2. The highest lay odds for a draw will be no greater than 5.00.

So based on youth's infinite wisdom I would need a bankroll of $15,625.00 to guarantee $1. After making a withdrawal from the bank of Mum & Dad I start placing bets on every game, and after 12 years here's my results. During that time frame the longest losing streak of draws was 4 (this was across a week of UEFA, Cup & EPL games. Only a streak of 3 if its just the EPL), during the '09/'10 season they played 99 games, multiplied by 12 years minus 150 games (to adjust for covid and fewer friendlies over the years) equals 1,038 games over 12 years as an estimate. Lets also say that the draw remained at 30% I would of won 726 games for a profit of, well $726. As Dave mentioned about the ROI this would be dismal compared to what I stood to lose. Although 12 years later I can say that the initial bankroll was never at risk because my youthful wisdom happened to be correct. The ‘21/’22 season has every possibility to be the year of 6 draws in a row and break me, though if I actually did this over 12 years then logic would tell me to keep going for another 12 years.

I fully realize that doing this pretty absurd, a 15k bankroll is enough to start a small business, even just leaving it in the bank for 12 years would be a better ROI. So the problems I see with old Marty is that sure everyone will take a 1 point a day of income but no sane person will risk 15,000 points to get it, and any season could produce the 6 LELS and break us. So the goal would be to minimize the initial bankroll and maximize the LELS.

Would placing the bets in a different way skew these results in any way? For example, we encounter our first loss, instead of placing the full amount on the next bet like we should, we split the amount over the next 6 games, if the next bet loses than that gets split over the next 6 so then even in a 6 LELS rut we should still be way under the 5 digit stakes we need to recuperate any losses. Splitting like this would more often than not have winners as the draw is only 30% and the winning streaks tend to be longer so most splits would be something like L-W-W-W-L-W (Not all, I finally understand the LELS). Certainly the probability of going broke is there, however slight it is we could always lose it all. But as sports betters we see the odds in everything, we always risk, we just want to risk less than we get. So I would say that there is more chance of the Marty working over the next 12 years based on the previous 12 years of data compared to Man U winning there next game, even though this is'nt the case.

I am curious to see if anyone has thought of splitting the stakes or maybe tried their own variation of the Marty system. Is there any we could even simulate this type of split Marty system to see if it holds water?