My Football Gambling System: A Betting Experiment

[Lorence.xD]

Kudos Pmalek! It was so amusing to read your OP and the main specs of your experiment, which it looks to have been quite profitable too. I think I had similar ideas in the past but as for many things in my life I lack consistency 
Now in my spare time I'll check to see if some teams like the one youìve picked can be found and start something similar. After all, we are talking $3 to start with.

It might be profitable for OP, I read the stats and I agree it is quiet good of a system, the only problem that I see is the increase in betting increment each time the team loses a match which could be dangerous for any inexperienced bettors. I have to say that it is a good experiment but nothing beats the analysis of a team before betting on or against them.

[maydna]

Kudos Pmalek! It was so amusing to read your OP and the main specs of your experiment, which it looks to have been quite profitable too. I think I had similar ideas in the past but as for many things in my life I lack consistency 
Now in my spare time I'll check to see if some teams like the one youìve picked can be found and start something similar. After all, we are talking $3 to start with.

It might be profitable for OP, I read the stats and I agree it is quiet good of a system, the only problem that I see is the increase in betting increment each time the team loses a match which could be dangerous for any inexperienced bettors. I have to say that it is a good experiment but nothing beats the analysis of a team before betting on or against them.

I think an inexperienced gambler doesn't have to follow what the @OP did, especially if they don't know much about the team. It is good to experiment like @OP did, and I think we can make our experiment that will be different from the @OP.

Perhaps, @OP has the confidence to win in the next match, so he increases the bet amount. I think he already calculates everything so that he can decide like that. I am sure @OP has experience in that, and he can think much before decide, and he knows how to manage the risk.

[Lorence.xD]

~

I think an inexperienced gambler doesn't have to follow what the @OP did, especially if they don't know much about the team. It is good to experiment like @OP did, and I think we can make our experiment that will be different from the @OP.

Perhaps, @OP has the confidence to win in the next match, so he increases the bet amount. I think he already calculates everything so that he can decide like that. I am sure @OP has experience in that, and he can think much before decide, and he knows how to manage the risk.

I agree that it is a good system but I have a hard time going on OP's side about the experiment, I find it lucky which doesn't sit well with me because I have gambled back then not relying on luck but skills so I hope you can understand why I don't like the experiment even though it resulted to something good especially the Sochaux one, that one is a risky bet. I hope that it was the case with OP knowing that he is going to win because the stats seem random at glance. Maybe if other users were to do this experiment on different football league or different sport then I might be able to believe that the system will work.

[casperBGD]

you have choose good teams, but you cannot guess future based on the past
for me, I think that based on picks that you have to go with lower multiplier, x2 is too much, and it is easy to put it in a spreadsheet, but when you actually bet, it is not easy to put $48 on some team, if your starting bet is $3, it is too much risk for me, also next bet is $96 and than $192, I would not put that one - and all that follows are just wild betting, it is not a system

there is no such thing as connected probability, even after 10 reds - chances for next one to be black are 50%, same as next red (it is pure roulette, but this system is also a roulette gambling)

[Pmalek]

Raising money by half instead of doubling gets you smaller profits but the up side is that after you have lost 10 bets in a row with doubling you have to make 25600$ bet and with raising them by 1.5 you have to make just 1950$ bet, starting bet 50$ in both cases.

A starting bet of $50 is too high and I would never play around with a Martingale system with such stakes. I have placed bets in the past of up to €100 on singles, but that was on matches I was very comfortable betting on for various reasons.

One of the challenge/flaws I may find with your experiment is that, most time the selected team plays perfectly at home, most teams have many wins and less draws at home ground unlike the opposite, looking at the match history of a club, you'll find out they probably have good outcomes at home ground,

That is usually the case with the top teams in each division. As you move further down the table, the home venue isn't such a deciding factor. That is why you shouldn't pick teams that are too high up on the table.

Roda's last 5 home games:
2 wins, 2 losses, and 1 draw.

Paris' last 5 home games:
3 wins and 2 draws.
 

I know your aim is about high odds right? So which is necessary, high odds or good outcomes? I prefer good results.

You can't make a profit if your winning odds aren't above 2.00. So the odds are of the outmost importance. The aim is to make a profit every time your selected outcome wins.

Consider this:

You bet $3 and your lose.
Next round, you bet $6 and you lose again.
In the third round you have to bet 12$. But if that bet is on a 1.50 odds, you wouldn't have made any profits. You would have a loss of $-3.

If the odds on your 3rd match were 3.00 for example, you would have made a +$15 profit.

After all, we are talking $3 to start with.

It doesn't look like much, but notice in the results how that stake of $3 can quickly become a stake of over $700 if you your have multiple losing rounds in a row.

[Karartma1]

After all, we are talking $3 to start with.

It doesn't look like much, but notice in the results how that stake of $3 can quickly become a stake of over $700 if you your have multiple losing rounds in a row.

That applies to every gambling strategy and it's clear that if a system like yours need to be played it would be very important to arrange some risk management plan to define what is the maximum amount we can basically afford to lose. It makes a hug difference to be able to cope with, let's say, a $700 or $7000 loss.
Still, I see your strategy as something I could re-work on my own if I some free time.

[maydna]

~snip~

I agree that it is a good system but I have a hard time going on OP's side about the experiment, I find it lucky which doesn't sit well with me because I have gambled back then not relying on luck but skills so I hope you can understand why I don't like the experiment even though it resulted to something good especially the Sochaux one, that one is a risky bet. I hope that it was the case with OP knowing that he is going to win because the stats seem random at glance. Maybe if other users were to do this experiment on different football league or different sport then I might be able to believe that the system will work.

That is normal because luck will only come to the right person, making many people can't win on many rounds. The result will vary for every people who use the same strategy. Perhaps, some people can win while others will lose as we don't know where the luck will come. If luck comes, people can win by using many strategies and not just the strategy from @OP. But the system is hard to work for many people as they still need luck to win the match. Perhaps, people need to experiment to see what strategy they can win, so they will know that every gambler's strategy will not be the same.

[Saint-loup]

I wish you luck, I don't remember ever seeing a system that was that straightforward, however I'm worried about the fact that you are using martingale and that is because as we know martingale is a system that sooner or later will make you lose money,

It requires a huge bankroll especially when you are betting on multiple teams. In theory, you can lose like 10 matches in a row per team. To continue the system, you are going to need thousands and tens of thousands of $.  

Applying martingale in real events is different from an apply in the casino, betting and losing 10 games in teams that are in the middle of the table would be very very unlucky.
I liked your system... usually, peoples bet on whoever is at the top and the profits of these teams are usually lower since the victory results are more predictable.
Your simulation resulted in a good profit, it really is a good strategy that is worth using if applied carefully.

Good luck!

How do you know that alegotardo? Bookmakers odds are based on probabilities, having more chances to win than a casino game for the same odds would mean that bookmakers are constantly overvaluing their odds. It doesn't really make sense since it implies bookmakers would lose money at the end.

[ralle14]

How do you know that alegotardo? Bookmakers odds are based on probabilities, having more chances to win than a casino game for the same odds would mean that bookmakers are constantly overvaluing their odds. It doesn't really make sense since it implies bookmakers would lose money at the end.

That's because if you follow these leagues long enough you'll view the probabilities differently on some matches and the bookmakers have these tendencies to be less accurate on leagues that are on the lower end compared to the main leagues. Even if they overvalue the odds I don't think they would lose that much money since their profit margin is high enough to cover those mistakes and it doesn't happen very often.

[shoreno]

so your capital was only 3usd and you bet it straight and win continously because i thought you said we need a big capital to initiate this kind of strategy but maybe that if we are trying this strategy for real because if we are in bad luck that single 3 dollars wont be fun if we loose it at first or second try because we are no more after that .

the total profit you gathered is huge but that wast surprising at all based on how risky your strategy was but this system if perfectly fit for those who want to try their luck or want to try to grew thier small balance as fast as possible

[Pmalek]

so your capital was only 3usd and you bet it straight and win continously because i thought you said we need a big capital to initiate this kind of strategy...

The capital (bank) was not $3. That was just the starting betting amount. You can select any stake you are comfortable with, it doesn't have to be $3. Start with $1, or $0.1 if your bookie accepts low wagers. Or begin with $10. The lower your starting bet, the smaller your wins will be. But consider the opposite as well. If you begin with $10, the amount of money you have to stake to make a profit can quickly become crazy high. $10, $20, $40, $80, $160, $320... At this point you have already invested over $600.

[Saint-loup]

How do you know that alegotardo? Bookmakers odds are based on probabilities, having more chances to win than a casino game for the same odds would mean that bookmakers are constantly overvaluing their odds. It doesn't really make sense since it implies bookmakers would lose money at the end.

That's because if you follow these leagues long enough you'll view the probabilities differently on some matches and the bookmakers have these tendencies to be less accurate on leagues that are on the lower end compared to the main leagues. Even if they overvalue the odds I don't think they would lose that much money since their profit margin is high enough to cover those mistakes and it doesn't happen very often.

Yes you are certainly right, odds must be less accurate in minor leagues than in major ones but if we want to take advantage of this flaw it's maybe less risky and more simple to bet with a "normal" strategy no?

[ralle14]

Yes you are certainly right, odds must be less accurate in minor leagues than in major ones but if we want to take advantage of this flaw it's maybe less risky and more simple to bet with a "normal" strategy no?

That could work too if you prefer a strategy that doesn't force you to increase your stake but less risk means less profits and OP's strategy is the complete opposite. I'm not saying OP's strategy is better but there's pros and cons for each strategy. Sometimes it pays off and there are times where it could quickly burn your bankroll.

[Pmalek]

Sometimes it pays off and there are times where it could quickly burn your bankroll.

You are completely right. If you take a look at the losing streak I had with Sochaux with 8 missed bets in a row, that might be enough for many players to lose their entire bank. The risk to reward ratio was huge though, and the $700 bet turned into a $2.000 payout. But there was no certainty of that happening, and the chances were equally big that the team would lose the next 8 matches.   

[davis196]

A few weeks ago,I saw some guy promoting a sports betting Discord server,which guarantees profits.
I think that this is most likely a tipster scam.No legit tipster can guarantee profits out of sports betting.
I like the part in your system,where you pick teams that are in the middle of the ranking.
Betting on teams like Real Madrid,Barcelona,Liverpool and Bayern is low risk/low profit because they are always favorites,but it kinda gets boring after a while.
Anyways,I wouldn't use martingale on football betting and wouldn't bet without analyzing the team.    

[wxa7115]

A few weeks ago,I saw some guy promoting a sports betting Discord server,which guarantees profits.
I think that this is most likely a tipster scam.No legit tipster can guarantee profits out of sports betting.
I like the part in your system,where you pick teams that are in the middle of the ranking.
Betting on teams like Real Madrid,Barcelona,Liverpool and Bayern is low risk/low profit because they are always favorites,but it kinda gets boring after a while.
Anyways,I wouldn't use martingale on football betting and wouldn't bet without analyzing the team.    

You are misunderstanding, I'm pretty sure that when they say that they can't guarantee profits they are talking about themselves and no one else, after all we know that in the world of sport bets as in the world of trading and investing you cannot guarantee results, even if you think you have a winning system when it comes to sport bets if one of those people that are looking for a tipster happen to bet in the games when you have a negative streak then they are going to lose money.

Just take a look at the OP, the system he is using is without a doubt interesting and it has a lot of potential and yet according to him he missed eight bets in a row with one team and in many cases that could be enough to wipe out a newbie that doesn't know how to administer his bankroll.

[Pmalek]

Just take a look at the OP, the system he is using is without a doubt interesting and it has a lot of potential and yet according to him he missed eight bets in a row with one team and in many cases that could be enough to wipe out a newbie that doesn't know how to administer his bankroll.

And that is just for one team. I made the experiment with 4 teams. Imagine if the other teams had losing streaks lasting a few weeks as well during the same period? That could well be 15-20 lost matches in a row.

I had a slightly different system, every time I lost, I doubled the bet amount. But I bet on a different sport. And this system is good enough.

In terms of winning probability, both systems are similar if there can be 1 out of 3 possible outcomes of the match.

[paxmao]

The basis of the system is a martingale which is not a good start at all. It could potentially work if you can slightly change the odds in your favor by means of a superior knowledge of the sport or teams, in which case you would not need to apply a martingale anyway.

This sound like a loosing system, although you were lucky.

[Saint-loup]

The basis of the system is a martingale which is not a good start at all. It could potentially work if you can slightly change the odds in your favor by means of a superior knowledge of the sport or teams, in which case you would not need to apply a martingale anyway.

This sound like a loosing system, although you were lucky.

I think it's a pretty risky strategy but I wouldn't say it's a losing system. It's not a real martingale since the game isn't totally random like a casino gamble game. In fact it's rather unlikely for a middle ranking team to lose 4 or 5 matches away in a row (a streak with no draw is more likely to happen though)

[imstillthebest]

The basis of the system is a martingale which is not a good start at all. It could potentially work if you can slightly change the odds in your favor by means of a superior knowledge of the sport or teams, in which case you would not need to apply a martingale anyway.

This sound like a loosing system, although you were lucky.

I think it's a pretty risky strategy but I wouldn't say it's a losing system. It's not a real martingale since the game isn't totally random like a casino gamble game. In fact it's rather unlikely for a middle ranking team to lose 4 or 5 matches away in a row (a streak with no draw is more likely to happen though)

agree @paxmao for starters they can bet normally in their own before trying advanced techniques like martingale .

we have different types of martingale and martingale can also be applied in smaller odds but with bigger base bets because they are easily winnable and your win will be small if you dont up your starting bets .
.

if this is a loosing system he wont post it because nobody wants to loose  but in gambling ,  a loosing bet can sometimes become a winner if it got lucky .