Betting strategy: Which is better?

[insomniac]

Are you more likely to profit from:-
a) Trying to get regular, modest priced winners. (Say backing singles on horses/matches you have a degree of confidence about) or
b) Going for an occasional big return accumulator type bet, that, when(if) it comes off will more than make good the losses incurred from all those previous losing accumulators?
I’ve football betting in mind most of all here, although the question could apply to any sport.
Although my brain (what’s left of it) has always leant itself to the regular comparitively short price winners strategy, I can’t help thinking that:-
a) What’s the point in winning sums that will do little or nothing to alter your lifestyle?
b) In order to find sufficient smallish priced winners on a regular basis, you have to burn a fair amount of midnight-oil. All those hours spent watching football / horse racing / reading the form book / catching up on injuries, team changes, new signings, suspensions etc. If after all that, you make a profit, then divide that profit by the hours you’ve spent studying and your hourly rate is surely risible; less than the most exploited third-world child factory-worker.

BY long price bet, I’m not talking about football-pools or lottery type odds. Maybe 7 or 8 match accumulators. Or no intellegence required same-format bets. Say, doing a double on the two live Premier games on a Saturday or Sunday choosing the home/away HT/FT outcomes. You could expect odds of 600/1+ for the double HT/FT most days and you don’t need to do any homework. Week after week you will of course have nothing to show for it, but then, just occasionally – BINGO! (Take a look at the "randomizer" selection in the correct-score comp. No winners for ages and then a couple of whoppers)
Okay, so you get a sense of smug satisfaction when all your study pays off with a winner, but, in the long run, is it really worth it?

[Andrew Hughes]

At the risk of invoking the wrath of the forum gods, for me it comes down to value, or rather, my perception of value. For cricket, I follow the sport fairly closely anyway and it just becomes a matter of looking more closely at one particular event, perhaps crunching a few numbers, then looking at the available prices for one that stands out as wrong. Those odds obviously tend to be short in the winners market, longer in the top scorer/top wicket taker markets. Opportunities for multiples are rare, but if I were to combine more than one bet, the odds would still have to strike me as wrong.

And the amount of study involved doesn’t have to be onerous. I think I read in Nevison’s second book that he takes no longer than half an hour a race.

As for the short prices, there was something in Coton’s ‘100 Hints for Better Betting’ that has stuck with me. He advised that if you were going to have a bet, it should mean something, it should matter, so you should put as much on as would be worthwhile (whilst of course staying within the limits of a betting bank that you could afford to lose). Whether I bet at short odds or long odds, I put as much as possible on to mean that the bet is a worthwhile one.

[Himself]

I bet fixed odds every week ( and midweek when avilable). I win regularly and consistently – probably due to the fact that I limit my bets to doubles, trebles, and quadruples – sticking mainly with proven winners against mediocre opposition – i.e. the Man Utd, Chelsea, Celtic et al.

I would rather bet on two good teams @ 1/2 and 1/3 than one average team @ evens.

Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning

[SwallowCottage]

My view is that it’s best for each individual to concentrate on their strengths. About 10 years ago I tried to make money from soccer by betting on trebles and also on accum’trs with about 5-7 selections and choosing teams at short odds that I considered to have excellent chances of winning. I managed to get a few decent returns but over the long term I was really quite useless at it ( often it was just one result that let me down ).

I also tried placing reasonably large stakes on single bets when I considered a team to have an outstanding chance of winning. Again a few decent returns but over the long term I made a loss.

Then along came BF and the opportunity to lay soccer teams not to win and at long last I have found something I am good at Laying soccer teams not to win is certainly nowhere near as exciting as winning decent sums on accumulator bets but over the long term I personally find it more profitable. I still have losing runs when laying teams but I think that losing runs have to be accepted in all types of sports betting. It’s still important to look for value in my opinion and I don’t lay teams at long odds not to win as one shock result can be a real setback.

So my advice regarding strategy with any type of sports betting is for each individual to find out what they are best at and then concentrate their efforts on it ( my favourite type of horse races are hcap steeplechases and my least favourtite are all weather hcaps but I am abysmal at picking winners in the former but a lot better with the latter so I concentrate on them )

So I personally find that (a) is better regarding Insomniac’s question.

Good luck

Pete

[Author]

Posts