Bitcoin Forum

Edit: The betting slip is HERE (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402568.msg60371535#msg60371535)

The US Open starts in 2 days.
Let's say you use a BetFair account in order to lay Golf players that have virtually almost 0 chance to win. (odds of 300 to 1 or more).

If you can't use BetFair you can use OrbitX for example:
https://www.orbitxch.com/customer/sport/3

(See also a guide here - How to use BetFair from anywhere (https://gamblingfreebies.com/2020/12/23/how-to-use-betfair-from-anywhere/))

Now,

You deposit a quite large amount of €5400 and you start laying the players with the high odds, literally:

Kurt Kityama - 900 to 1 - €6.00
Patrick Rodgers - 870 to 1 - €6.20
Thorbjorn Olesen - 810 to 1 - €6.66
Scott Stallings - 650 to 1 - €8.30
Wyndham Clark - 620 to 1 - €8.70
Harris English - 650 to 1 - €8.30
Joel Dahmen - 700 to 1 - €7.70
Matthew NeSmith - 640 to 1 - €8.50
Beau Hossler - 630 to 1 - €8.60
Taylor Montgomery - 580 to 1 - €9.30
Kevin Kisner - 510 to 1 - €10.60
Erik Van Rooyen - 530 to 1 - €10.20
Branden Grace - 530 to 1 - €10.20
Lanto Griffin - 490 to 1 - €11.00
Cameron Tringale - 490 to 1 - €11.00
Denny Mccarthy - 540 to 1 - €10.00
Adri Arnaus - 500 to 1 - €10.80
Sam Horsfield - 470 to 1 - €11.50
Adam Hadwin - 480 to 1 - €11.25
Mackenzie Hughes - 470 to 1 - €11.50
Victor Perez - 490 to 1 - €11.00
Stewart Cink - 500 to 1 - €11.00
Kevin Na - 420 to 1 - €12.80
Lucas Herbert - 430 to 1 - €12.55
Phil Mickelson - 490 to 1 - €11.00
Francesco Molinari - 430 to 1 - €12.55
Thomas Pieters - 390 to 1 - €13.80
Alex Noren - 360 to 1 - €15.00
Sepp Straka - 380 to 1 - €14.20
Tom Hoge - 340 to 1 - €15.80
Luke List - 310 to 1 - €17.40
K.H. Lee - 370 to 1 - €14.60
Brian Harman - 300 to 1 - €18.00
Sergio Garcia - 300 to 1 - €18.00
Marc Leishman - 320 to 1 - €16.85
Ryan Fox - 300 to 1 - €18.00
Gary Woodland - 270 to 1 - €20

So by doing this you risk €5400 in order to win €439

So you make a profit of 8% approx. on your investment, but it's almost risk free.

What do you think about it?
 ???

That "almost risk free" is what I don't like.If you have chosen all the players and this is an arbitrage bet then it is a sure win and it is a great strategy but if you have not chosen all the players this means no matter you have chosen the majority of the players you still have someone out and if this someone wins the tournament you lose 5400 EUR which is not a small amount and this is not a great strategy.Not worth trying if this second option is the case,if it is the first you have chosen every player taking part on this tournament and it is a sure arbitrage bet then go ahead since you will get a minimum of 439 EUR.

No, these are not all the players who play in the tournament, but these are all the players with odds of 300 to 1 or more.
In Bet365 the one with the lowest odds is GaryWoodland with fixed odds of 141.

You are basically betting none of these super-high-odds players is going to win the tournament.

The winner is quite likely going to come out of the ones with odds of 50 to 1 or less, pre-match.

Of course, there can always be a surprise, but the chances of that happening are quite slim. Those players get super high odds for a reason - their chances of winning are extremely low.

It is a freebet, an additional benefit to the deposit, though  knowing other conditions if they exist is important, anyway, the deposit range is not among my deposit estimates, but if it is were and there were no additional conditions is not bad at all.

That's the best part, believe me I like golf but betting for a golf major is hard, in fact the variance is high in regular PGA tournaments, I don't want to mention you in the big 4 tournaments (Majors).

That same variance benefits you in the randomness of the candidates, that is to say, golf undoubtedly has its favorites, but in golf as in no other sport, the odds can only be a guide rather than a betting reality. You have to follow the game of these guys or their streak situations, even personal.

From that point of view,  any of them are candidates despite their bad odds and looking with tweezers at that list, for example, Phil Mickelson last year had very bad odds and won the PGA Championship against all odds, in fact He is the oldest player to win a tournament in that category.

It's an interesting idea but golf tends to be a highly competitive game and requires a lot of consistency to get into these late game competitions. If your bet is for the player to win and these are the far outliers then they have almost no chance which is why the odds are so high. Running with this idea, you could maybe translate it across into horse racing, particularly in combination with offers that run around big events to get better returns. You'd have to do a lot of hunting around, but you tend to see a few more upsets happening in this type of betting - it's incredibly easy for horses to have a bad day, or for a horse to fall and take down a pack of favorites.

The only issue is that every single bet still needs to be matched and I don't have much experience when it comes to betting exchanges as I tend to use bookies on nearly all of my bets but if that's easy to deal with then I guess it's worth going for. With those long-shot odds, I feel like one of them could end up as a winner. Also, I checked the orbit exchange that you linked and it seems like there's a minimum bet of 7 in all markets so some of the golf players on the list might have to be removed or adjust their stakes.

1) If you really feel one of them can end up as a winner you can do the opposite - deposit €400 - €500 and back the ones you like - you would win 10-20 times your stake, depends how big is your risk.

2) The min. stake is €6 so if you lay €5400 against 900 to 1 then you risk €5400 to win €6 (on a player that is virtually next to none in terms of winning)

There is enough liquidity in the market for all of them, if I were to guess I'd say the ones with odds of 50 to 1 or less - one of them will win this.

Golf is about a lot of things other than randomality, it's how the player hits the ball in crazy weather, how much practice he makes, and so on ... those who can afford more (who have deep pockets) have better chances here, that's how it normally works (to a certain extent of course).

The same strategy could be adopted in any kind of event with many players (likewise an horse race - Cheltenham's Gold Cup)...
But it can't work! Because you can spend MUCH MUCH more to cover all players/runners ... and if you get a win you can just recover your bet/money risked. Or otherwise you're hoping for certain underdog to make a big win! It's an huge risk. I will not take it :(
If you don't play ALL players/runners you have a point of failure. Maybe it can work a couple of times, maybe you can have a lucky bet, but this is an huge risk to get a defeat / big loss and of course this is not a sure bet or an arbitrage that can really work.
If this is was really a working strategy, many gamblers with big pockets were already betting huge amount of money ::) with this strategy....

In every means of getting freedom, there's always a price to pay but this is what I called gambling without knowing the rules because the funds used to bet to prevent the risk will create more chance of winning, and the last time I check the risk aspect of gambling is what creates the fun and the buzz.
It is clear that any gamblers who used the formation you said probably don't know what she's doing because it is better to face the truth than hiding from it.
Gambling and risk are pals.

There is no free money in gambling but judging by history - these kind of bets are value bets, not the opposite.

With that much investment won't you be making more money in day trading in some cryptocurrencies? At the same time you won't have a perfect system since this would essentially be a mathematical evaluation which is very different from the real world examples and risks, therefore at the end of the day you would have to make sure it's not risky and even if one players accidently looses would have the whole percentage go up and down.

I do not think this is valuable at all, this is much like martingale which might sound good in theory but in practical might not be a good option.

Do let me know if you try it, I am really interested to see what happens.

Of course.

https://i.imgur.com/kGSDMBN.png

Now in live betting, if one of those who are 100 to 1 (ish) hit 500 to 1 in live - you can lay them as well for extra €10 each.

Expected profit here is €600 approx.

Risk: €5,350

I don't know much about sports betting but I am interested in the fact that skilled players can win in the long run. I will follow the thread to see how it works out for you.


I think it has nothing to do with martingale.


I haven't stopped to crunch the numbers. Do you mean that based on the bets and odds you will bet €5,350 and the expected profit value is €5,950?

What happens is that with such low odds you will have to place quite a few bets of that kind to win any bet. And then you have to take into account the variance. I hope you have a good bankroll to withstand several rounds of this type without winning.

Yes, exactly.

However, during the tournament, players such as Seamus Power (90 to 1) might hit 500 to 1 in the exchange (due to poor performance and very slim chances of winning) - so if it feels right you can lay them as well €5400 against 500 to 1 is about €11 profit. This is just an estimate.

Jason Kokrak is definitely a threat but his past performance in the US open hasn't been great. Still, laying him might lead to some swings, he could definitely hit the 50 to 1 odds during the tournament, it's even likely.

Anyway,
This kind of betting activity is basically predicting that the winner would come from a group containing more than the top 40 players in the world.

https://i.imgur.com/VeJkkVi.png

If you want to be greedy and bet the winner would come from the top 20 players in the world then your potential profit would be higher, but it's good to remember it's always better to be safe than sorry.

The oddsmakers have been quite spot-on in the past years with their odds on favorites, it's amazing how Jordan Spieth is 26 to 1, seems like quite a lot of value, he plays in his home turf, literally.

The tournament has started.
Those of you who like to do some arbitrage - some players who were 1000 to 1 are now trading as 600 to 1.
There is no doubt why this kind of tournament brings a lot, a lot of trading opportunities - the angle presented here is only one single way of looking at trading this event.

Potential profit is now €650 and should be a bit up by tomorrow.

https://i.imgur.com/gsdTfK7.png

Now here's a tip for you:

Brian Harman was at fixed odds of 175 to 1 and 250 to 1 in the exchange.
Now trading at 80 to 1 in the exchange.

If you can lay - now it's the time. Get €70 profit for laying this one.

MarathonBet btw is offering 151 on Harman if you believe he could scoop it, more than twice the price of the exchange:
https://www.marathonbet.com/en/betting/Golf+-+10

Yes, there's no free money in gambling, and thats the reason the risk involved is the price to pay. Judging by history, the strategy betting you illustrate may prove product but not in the way where gamblers have to risk €5400 in order to win €439 which not to be a profitable concept and I believe it better take my chances with the game risk because it may be my lucky day.

This is a statistics debate revolving around the frequency of how often big underdogs won the US open in golf.

Betting underdogs might be a viable strategy in MMA where some events result in greater than 50% of underdog bets cashing.

What you're looking for with this approach is a sport and niche area where underdogs historically have very high statistics for pulling upsets. Identifying specific conditions and scenarios for underdogs winning also helps.

Matchmakers in MMA and the UFC often try to setup matches where the public doesn't see underdog upsets coming. The judging criteria is also in question recently. That could be a good place to look.

At the moment the potential profit is going to be €712, and this was just 1 way of looking at it.

Adam Hadwin who was trading around 500 to 1 is now trading at 30 to 1, so if you waited with your bankroll before starting it you can lay him now for close to €200.

Joel Dahmen who was trading 900 to 1 before the event is now 90 to 1 = €60.

You can also go against Jordan Spieth now (2+ after the 1st round) who is 120 to 1 so it would bring in another close to €50 of profits - but for me a rule of thumb is to not go against those who opened with low odds before the event.

See this:
https://sports.yahoo.com/us-open-betting-adam-hadwin-was-100-1-to-be-the-first-round-leader-014506212.html

Yahoo had an article about how Hadwin was 100 to 1 to be the 1st round leader - so big odds can win - but this is about the winner by Sunday which requires from the underdogs to remain consistants for 4 days - that's the hard part in Golf.

It could be interesting what you said, as if there is more to it than just the game alone.

The current leader, Adam Hadwin, has a tee time around 8am in the morning (more cloudy & windy), whilst the favorite Rory McIlroy is going to do so around 1pm, so 1pm (sunny) is definitely more comfortable than 8am and Hadwin also was among the ones golfing in the evening yesterday i.e. they make it tight for him and more under pressure.

The 2nd favorite, Jon Rahm, is also scheduled for 1pm, whilst Justin Thomas gets 7am.

You can try to make some assumptions from these - in the end of the day these players are the ones who need to bring in their A game in order to win.

Also check this out:

https://i.imgur.com/NqXEomm.png

The bookmakers believe Gary Woodland (81 to 1 now) has a good chance to perform better than Hadwin in the 2nd round - yet they leave Hadwin as 6 to 1 (!!!) chances to keep on being the leader after the 2nd round.

btw MarathonBet for instance doesn't even have Hadwin listed as a potential winner - you can have "Others on request".

Does it tell you who makes money from all this in the end of the day?  ;D

One more thing really amazes me is Callum Tarren is 3 under par (-3) and had a longer shot pre-event (900 to 1), yet he is 111 to 1 in the bookies (200 to 1 in the exchanges) yet Adam Hadwin who is one more than him (-4) but the leader, hits 30 to 1 in the exchange (26 to 1 in the bookies) and pre-event was over 150 to 1 in the bookies.

Psychologically because he's the leader then bookies make it look as if he has more chances (and honestly he had a few misses, could have easily made it -5 or more yesterday and so is Rory) - but still - it's either a trap or the market knows something different. The exchanges definitely don't justify 30 to 1 unless there's more to uncover here.

Kevin Na had similar odds yesterday, reaching 40 to 1 in the exchange, and then started missing shots - he's now 1000 to 1 in the exchange with no lay options).

The markets in golf can be extremely lethal, one hit or miss and the numbers can crunch really nicely.

Practically this is what I got from all this - €1.39 and lots of tension for 4 days  :-\
 
https://i.imgur.com/ZpY2XOu.png

Reason: Hedging for/against weaker players, and it doesn't seem to worth it.

If anything - the best thing to do is to bet €6 (min. stake) on each player with 200 - 1000 odds.

You get guys like Adam Hadwin reaching 30 to 1 so from 700 to 1 you go down to 30 to 1.

That means you risk €6 to win €4200 and then you have €4200 to "sell" the position at 30 to 1 (make €140 profit).

Golf is so unpredictable that guys with 200 to 1 can easily swing the odds. Even today Rory the favorite was 500 to 1 and then went down to 60 to 1.

Fitzpatrick was 29 to 1 in Bet365 before the event, so that just tells you how things are so unpredictable.

One more thing to add - the link in the first post takes you to a new tournament now, this is because Orbit is using the very same link for other tournaments.

I hate betting on Golf, because there are so many variables to take into consideration to determine the end result. On any given day, one of the low ranking players can have a excellent day or even two days and they shoot to the top. Players can have injuries (like Tiger Woods...and they can drop out from the tournament... giving low ranked players the opportunity to push up in the tournament)

The weather and the green and fairway conditions is crucial for the playing style of some of the players in the tournaments, so it is just too unpredictable. (Your strategy might have worked this time.... but it is very risky)  ::)

I play Golf, so I know when I have a "On" or "Off" day...... and professional players also experience the same thing.

I totally agree with swogerino,,, almost risk free is as good as high risk when the results do not go your way.

I can compare this to rolling dice at 1% house edge for 1.01 profit (you still have 2/100 losing outcomes). Sounds perfect because it is in our minds virtually impossible to hit on one big roll but so many people lost before including me.

I think a riskier yet better bankroll approach is to go for the ones you think have outside chance to win like above 5x-20x.

Then as tournament progress, those below 5x who do not perform if they dip, you also bet on them.

Yes, you're right - you back the outsiders with $6 each, then if their chances improve you "sell" (lay) it in the exchange and make profit from it - but it requires you to be hands on on the odds, and watch them go up and down, and likewise you never know when you're reaching the bottom - but it's definitely a nice strategy to try.

That is right! Back outsiders work the same in football, and even during live matches you can for example hedge the bets IF they score first by taking bets on the favorite then (which the odds will rise if they go behind),,, but I guess in gold it can be even easier to bet on odds as you can check back daily on tournaments right?

I believe there are now some back/lay markets that also allow limit orders but maybe not for crypto. That would be so cool.

Yes, each player has a certain time when he plays the 18 holes, there's a proper schedule so it's all very organized.
A player can go "red hot" (i.e. score so many holes under par) and then the price changes accordingly.

You can also lay the favorite, in this case Rory McIlroy was the one to lay or Jon Rahm, it's a bit risky but they both didn't perform well.

I just realized I wrote gold instead of golf but anyway,,, understood :)

I do not really follow golf so it is hard for me to say anything other than Tiger Woods who of course,,, is not the same man who ripped up everything in his path but from what I know of the news a new name or someone unexpected usually has good chances at top finish, plus there is always a weird hole-in-one to mess up bookies.

Probably best to just avoid favorites in this sport I would say. Anyway, hope to see OP updated with results if this 'strategy' holds  ;)

The OP has already updated the thread with the results:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402568.msg60399991#msg60399991

 ;D

I meant the original post sorry,,, not original poster (like directly edit the first post or add a link to the result in the first post so people see immediately result of it all.

I guess you need to try this strategy more times to get a bigger dataset to know if you can validate your theory or not, seriously even if you got a profit for this, it would not have been enough to say it worked.

Consolation merit for you :P

Yes, indeed, if anyone wants to try it, bet around €6 on 50 longshot players and see how far it would go - he's more than welcome, it's a risk of €300 but then if you get 1 or 2 players reaching 20 or less then you already cover the €300 risk (if you get 5-6 players then you can hit €1800) - but it's risky, and you might want to close the position at 50 to 1 or so.

It's interesting for sure, but requires discipline, luck and and to be hands on on it.

I suppose the same can be said for some American sports (basketball/football/baseball) as I seldom see the preseason favorites ending up winning and then you see odds change so drastically from 300x to 20x just over the course of quarter season. I think baseball especially.

I definitely thought about this style (to keep betting on longshots and adjust betting as others become longshorts) but the discipline, time,,, and willingness to keep doing it even after losses on first attempts. I would merit that type of thread a lot!

The data is needed for sure before we can conclude efficacy.