2 minutes ago, old55 said:

Over what duration?

Sorry, left that off. Per year.

23 minutes ago, old55 said:

How does this work @binman? Pros only remain Pros by winning more often than not, that means, of course, that casual punters are the ones funding the betting companies.  Do you know roughly what percentage of money in the pool is from Pros and also what sort of ROI on their stake are they looking for over the duration?

I'm not an expert, but I think there are actually different pools.

The average punter is betting with fixed odds against the house. The house adjusts odds to try to balance their books, and take their margin.

Once you punt enough (often enough, enough money, or even just win enough) they move you off the normal accounts and into other pools where you are effectively betting against other punters (with the house still taking a margin, albeit much slimmer margin as they are now winning off volume).

Basically at this point they ban you from betting at fixed odds: they know you are able to predict the market better than them, so why would they let you bet?

There might be some other situations/arrangements/products as well.

 

We didn’t get to the game yesterday but watched the replay when we got home and I am watching it again at the moment. We are very impressive, to hold the opposition to 2 goals in 3 quarters of football is exceptional, the hawks have a lot of young talent running around and they got away with some roughish crude tactics during the game. We only picked up 10 frees in 120 minutes of footy (wtf). All our guns fired and very impressed with Rivers this is his breakout year none of our players take a backward step and we still have lots of room for improvement. Happy with a 54 point win but could easily have been 70.

14 minutes ago, old55 said:

How does this work @binman? Pros only remain Pros by winning more often than not, that means, of course, that casual punters are the ones funding the betting companies.  Do you know roughly what percentage of money in the pool is from Pros and also what sort of ROI on their stake are they looking for over the duration?

The bookies essentialy take a commission on each bet made - from mug punters and pros alike.

Line bets are always even money. It's a pure 50 50 bet with binary potential outcomes - and bookies expect approximately the same amount placed on each outcome (meaning their 'losses' are covered)

In punting an even money bet is expressed as $2.00. I put a dollar on, win the bet, I double my investment and get two dollars back.

But lets say I back the dees to make their -6.5 line against port (the current line) - which means they have to win by more than 6 points.

But that bet is not paying $2.00. It is paying $1.90.

So I put a dollar on the dees. They win.

I get $1.90 back.

And the bookie essentially gets 10 cents for what is an even money bet.

And of course they collect all the money on the peanuts who backed Port to make their line.

Happy days.

They take even more out on exotics. 

And the reason they push multis, is one boneheads dreaming of a big  play them and two every single bet is similarly shaved.

So I multi up and put a dollar on the dees to make their into say the roos to make their line.

The dees win, so I have $1.90 at even money into the roos. The roos make their line and it is 1.90 x 1.90. 

So I collect $3.61.

Money for jam. The house doesn't lose.

But yes, mug punters represent gravy for the bookies.

 

21 hours ago, defuture15 said:

Is it just me or is the push in the back dead?

They only seem to pay it when a player is pushed on the run?

It's not dead, it's optional.

2 hours ago, bush demon said:

It's not dead, it's optional.

Pretty much sums up the interpretation of most rules now.

The AFL has created its own version of chooklotto.

One thing that no one has mentioned is Judd Mcvee completely blanketing Chad Wingard who kept him to just 8 disposals and had zero impact on the game.

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

One thing that no one has mentioned is Judd Mcvee completely blanketing Chad Wingard who kept him to just 8 disposals and had zero impact on the game.

Chad isn’t exactly a star these days though. The weekend was his standard game for the last 2-3 years. He’s only averaging 10 disposals and has only kicked 2 goals for the whole year, so going at a goal every 4-5 weeks lol Amazing fall from grace for a guy who was All Australian 40+ goals in his second season!

Hope Mcvee can keep improving and be the lockdown back pocket we need long term. It’s the biggest hole on our list at present.

20 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Could you imagine others in here (inc me) commentate a Dees game? I think it just shows how passionate he is about the club and that he probably suffers from MFCSS as do most of us.

If Garry was not commentating our game.... He would be on the matchday thread going mental like many Demonlanders i would imagine!

Weird double up post

Edited May 14, 20232 yr by binman

53 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Chad isn’t exactly a star these days though. The weekend was his standard game for the last 2-3 years. He’s only averaging 10 disposals and has only kicked 2 goals for the whole year, so going at a goal every 4-5 weeks lol Amazing fall from grace for a guy who was All Australian 40+ goals in his second season!

Hope Mcvee can keep improving and be the lockdown back pocket we need long term. It’s the biggest hole on our list at present.

From what Mcvee has shown thus far, I think we cam all be confident he will continue improving.And thank goodness Hibbo is back. He is not showing his age at all.

I'm  not sure if it's our biggest hole though. I worry about missing another tall up fwd but with Petty's form on the weekend, feel a little less concerned. I hope he's OK.

15 hours ago, old55 said:

Over what duration?

Annually. 

And 3-5% is probably about right - and that's if they are good. Probably closer to 3% though. 

To make a full time living at 3% roi they would need to be turning over north of $10- $15 million a year.

I texted my mate who I punt with and knows more about this stuff, and he said about this about the ROI:

'Generally I think the ROI for a pro is quite low. I remember reading somewhere that anybody who thinks they can pick 60% or more of even money bets is fooling themselves. At $1.9, you break even picking 52.5%. At 55% correct you make 4.5% ROI. At 57.5% correct you win 8.3%. Sounds easy? It's not.'

In terms of your question about the proportion of the pool being pro's money, I just read deanox post. I've not heard the separate pool thing, so can't comment on that

(But I 100% know they simply stop taking bets from anyone winning too much - its happened mutiple times to my mate I quote above.)

But leaving that aside, how much pros have in any one pool depends on the market

They would have nothing in all the silly markets like first goal and the draw (bets that the bookies clean up on and just love because their price is never a reflection of the 'true odds' of the event happening - eg the draw is commonly something like $51 ie 50 to 1. But you only have to do the math - the 'true odds' are something like 80-1 based on the number of all time games divided by the number of draws)

And perhaps not that much in the win bets pools except for games that are relatively even (even money bets mean a consistent return)

But at a guess maybe 40-50% of the line betting markets and over total match points ?

My mate had this to say about pros and footy betting:

'Absolutely Pros would be betting on line, either the results, or totals. Maybe also straight out in an even betting game, as you point out. In fact, I think AFL is unusual where bets are predominately on the win (at least if Betfair is any indication). In the big betting overseas sports the handicap or over and under tmp are much more popular. This all has to do with bank management, as well as the psychology of punting. For example, if you back value $10 shots, say they win 13-14 times in 100 bets. You probably would expect a run of 15 losers in a row in that 100 bets, and 20 wouldn't be that unlikely. That's mentally taxing, even if you're still backing value.

And you're right about a large volume, and that's why I doubt there are any purely AFL pros. It'd be part of a multi-sport portfolio and maybe racing. Someone betting on Baseball/Basketball/Soccer could easily turn over way more than $10 million/year I think. Sound a ridiculous amount, but the point is with even money bets you're turning over money back and forth all the time - you rarely have long winning or losing streaks.

I'm not sure about the % of the pool. I certainly think it'd be a lot less than 60-70%. Part of the problem is you need enough people losing to cover those who are winning; otherwise the bookie would be losing. One thing to understand fully is that Pros are generally not taking on bookmakers, they are taking on other punters on that market.

And that goes back to pros backing multiple sports. I don't think the liquidity in AFL markets is high enough to be putting large amounts on each game.'

Edited May 14, 20232 yr by binman

You can get a 4-6% return on blue chip shares plus the possibility of capital appreciation. They rarely go broke or fall over. Gambling doesn't make sense by comparison. 

13 hours ago, binman said:

The bookies essentialy take a commission on each bet made - from mug punters and pros alike.

Line bets are always even money. It's a pure 50 50 bet with binary potential outcomes - and bookies expect approximately the same amount placed on each outcome (meaning their 'losses' are covered)

In punting an even money bet is expressed as $2.00. I put a dollar on, win the bet, I double my investment and get two dollars back.

But lets say I back the dees to make their -6.5 line against port (the current line) - which means they have to win by more than 6 points.

But that bet is not paying $2.00. It is paying $1.90.

So I put a dollar on the dees. They win.

I get $1.90 back.

And the bookie essentially gets 10 cents for what is an even money bet.

And of course they collect all the money on the peanuts who backed Port to make their line.

Happy days.

They take even more out on exotics. 

And the reason they push multis, is one boneheads dreaming of a big  play them and two every single bet is similarly shaved.

So I multi up and put a dollar on the dees to make their into say the roos to make their line.

The dees win, so I have $1.90 at even money into the roos. The roos make their line and it is 1.90 x 1.90. 

So I collect $3.61.

Money for jam. The house doesn't lose.

But yes, mug punters represent gravy for the bookies.

 

Geez I'm now kind of relieved my betting account has only 15 cents left 😀

43 minutes ago, binman said:

Annually. 

And 3-5% is probably about right - and that's if they are good. Probably closer to 3% though. 

To make a full time living at 3% roi they would need to be turning over north of $10- $15 million a year.

I texted my mate who I punt and knows more about this stuff and he said about this about the ROI:

'Generally I think the ROI for a pro is quite low. I remember reading somewhere that anybody who thinks they can pick 60% or more of even money bets is fooling themselves. At $1.9, you break even picking 52.5%. At 55% correct you make 4.5% ROI. At 57.5% correct you win 8.3%. Sounds easy? It's not.'

In terms of your question about the proportion of the pool being pro's money, I just read deanox post. I've not heard the separate pool thing, so can't comment on that

(But I 100% know they simply stop taking bets from anyone winning too much - its happened mutiple times to my mate I quote above.)

But leaving that aside, how much pros have in any one pool depends on the market

They would have nothing in all the silly markets like first goal and the draw (bets that the bookies clean up on and just love because their price is never a reflection of the 'true odds' of the event happening - eg the draw is commonly something like $51 ie 50 to 1. But you only have to do the math - the 'true odds' are something like 80-1 based on the number of all time games divided by the number of draws)

And perhaps not that much in the win bets pools except for games that are relatively even (even money bets mean a consistent return)

But at a guess maybe 40-50% of the line betting markets and over total match points ?

My mate had this to say about pros and footy betting:

'Absolutely Pros would be betting on line, either the results, or totals. Maybe also straight out in an even betting game, as you point out. In fact, I think AFL is unusual where bets are predominately on the win (at least if Betfair is any indication). In the big betting overseas sports the handicap or over and under tmp are much more popular. This all has to do with bank management, as well as the psychology of punting. For example, if you back value $10 shots, say they win 13-14 times in 100 bets. You probably would expect a run of 15 losers in a row in that 100 bets, and 20 wouldn't be that unlikely. That's mentally taxing, even if you're still backing value.

And you're right about a large volume, and that's why I doubt there are any purely AFL pros. It'd be part of a multi-sport portfolio and maybe racing. Someone betting on Baseball/Basketball/Soccer could easily turn over way more than $10 million/year I think. Sound a ridiculous amount, but the point is with even money bets you're turning over money back and forth all the time - you rarely have long winning or losing streaks.

I'm not sure about the % of the pool. I certainly think it'd be a lot less than 60-70%. Part of the problem is you need enough people losing to cover those who are winning; otherwise the bookie would be losing. One thing to understand fully is that Pros are generally not taking on bookmakers, they are taking on other punters on that market.

And that goes back to pros backing multiple sports. I don't think the liquidity in AFL markets is high enough to be putting large amounts on each game.'

I guess for a $10M turnover, that's weekly blocks of $200K total bets so that's the order of magnitude of the total bank you'd need. If you can make 3% that's $300K. The advantage of gambling over other investments is the fast turnaround of results. It may only be 3% but in reality it's 3% per betting cycle which could be 3% per week which is actually 150% per year.

Edited May 14, 20232 yr by old55

52 minutes ago, binman said:

... One thing to understand fully is that Pros are generally not taking on bookmakers, they are taking on other punters on that market.

...

I think this is what I was trying to describe about "different pools". I might not be technically correct in my description but they are effectively playing other punters not the house. 

You and I can always lay bets at the TAB, but they block the pros, and only accept their bets if another pro is willing to take that bet.

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by deanox

36 minutes ago, ManDee said:

You can get a 4-6% return on blue chip shares plus the possibility of capital appreciation. They rarely go broke or fall over. Gambling doesn't make sense by comparison. 

Sure.

But ROI is a little misleading in this context.

Annual turnover is not really an investment as such for full time professional punters as punting is their full-time job. 

So better to think of their returns as income. Income they can then choose to invest in blue chip shares should they wish to. Just as anyone else in the work force can choose to do with any money left over from their annual income after their bills, mortgages and outgoings are covered. 

Or if you are David Walsh, you could also purchase eye watering expensive art and open your own internationally recognized modern art gallery (by the by his punting model was based purely on mathematics, incredibly thin margins and insane annual turnover - ie in the hundreds of millions - spread across thousands of betting markets around the world and pretty much 24 hours a day 7 days a week).

 

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by binman

8 minutes ago, old55 said:

I guess for a $10M turnover, that's weekly blocks of $200K total bets so that's the order of magnitude of the total bank you'd need. If you can make 3% per year that's $300K. The advantage of gambling over other investments is the fast turnaround of results. It may only be 3% but in reality it's 3% per betting cycle which could be 3% per week which is actually 150% per year.

Whoa, binman says 3-5% annually, you suggest weekly. What if you lose the bank 1st week?

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

Whoa, binman says 3-5% annually, you suggest weekly. What if you lose the bank 1st week?

3% of total annual turnover of $10M supported by a weekly turnover and bank of $200K. The sports betting cycle naturally falls weekly.

You're not going to have the whole bank in one bet, it will be spread over multiple bets, but yes if everything goes horribly wrong you could lose the bank so you probably need double just in case, that's why I said "order of magnitude".

The bottom line is, as Binman and his mate say, you need to be good at it. If you are, then it's more likely that everything will win in the weekly cycle than everything will lose.

I'm no good at it so won't be trying.

23 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Whoa, binman says 3-5% annually, you suggest weekly. What if you lose the bank 1st week?

Again, it's not really like an investment. My bad using for that word.

A more accurate word for the total amount wagered is turnover.

Here's an analogy.

I go to the pub tab with $100, with no access to any more cash, on a Thursday night. Punting options are predominately dogs and trots, with the occasional horse race from Japan.

There is a race of some sort i can bet on every one to two minutes. And that's what i do - at say $5 a bet.

I'm there for three hours. Let's say in that time i make 90 $5 bets. And manage to stay afloat.

Let's say I leave, happy, if not a little dopamine sick, because i had almost lost my hundred 30 minutes in but fought back and i walk out with $105 in my wallet. 

At the risk of contradicting myself, let's call the initial $100 an investment. I have made 5% ROI (boring for me as a mug punter because i have dreams of somehow turning my 100 into a 1000 with my stupid rapid-fire, vibey betting strategy - but pros are not in it for the dopamine like me)

So i have invested $100 BUT i have turned over $450 because i keep pouring any winnings straight back in. 

(if my wife is reading this - please note this is not a true story)

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by binman

Came for some footy talk. Got some financial advice.

Hi @binman’s wife! 👋

Haven’t really had a chance to go through my thoughts from this game. Will just get this off as I’m now fully turning attention to Port this Fri.

Intensity was up to 11 in that first quarter and Petty was marking everything. Think he had at least 6 marks before coming off, love the way he was presenting and also just attacking the ball as it came in. For a shining moment it looked like we had what we needed up forward. 

Petracca’s 12 possessions in the first quarter was electric. He’s just too strong in the contest for a lot of these guys and his class was on display. You could blanket over Trac, Oliver and Viney for BOG in this game. I went with Viney in my votes for the sheer consistency, the defensive side and that nice snap but I don’t have an issue at all with people who thought Trac was best afield.

Trent Rivers really impressed me in this game, used it well and picks the best moments to leave his man and make an option. That goal late in the game was the perfect example of this. 

I loved Hunter’s first half and I really marvel at his ability to nail a target in the 50 when dashing down the wing. His output tailed off a bit in the second half, as did a lot of other players. 

Judd McVee played a huge game, easily his best for a few weeks. Seems like he was spinning Wingard’s head around as he sure looked dizzy when he kicked that shot from 20 metres out on the full!

Glad to see Fritta get his radar dialled in later on, doesn’t seem at 100% fitness but those goals help the confidence. 

Kozzie had his moments, thought this was the day when he’d hold a speccy in! Getting closer.

All in all we got it done and pretty well too. To the Hawks credit they didn’t turn their tails up, they brought good intensity and dare in the second half with those first 3 goals. There were times they moved it a bit too easily through the middle and we slipped a few tackles. Having said that with the way we are moving the ball ourselves, I’m not too fussed about a few going the other way. Just have to make sure we win the ball in the crucial areas. Whether we started hard and tapered off to save ourselves, still find this concept hard to get my head around but could be something. Unfortunately it didn’t spare us on the injury front with Petty coming out with the foot issue and then Trac getting his foot bent round so late in the game. Fingers crossed these aren’t too bad because 6 days will go very quickly.

Back to actual business on Friday and a real test against Port who are playing very good footy. They have a midfield group that can really hurt us on turnover if we aren’t careful and we will need to bring our best. We’ve looked ok lately but this is the kind of game I wouldn’t be surprised to drop, 8 point game and either way the media is going to be talking about us a fair bit after it. 
 

1 hour ago, mandeelorian said:

Came for some footy talk. Got some financial advice.

I'll give some free financial advice.

Don't punt.

19 hours ago, Demonised said:

I actually like going to a game against one of the lesser clubs like Hawthorn. Plenty of seats in General Admission and on the train, generally relaxed atmosphere. 

You know, I really posted this so I could get in that 'lesser club' jibe at Hawthorn's expense.

Happy days.

Plenty of seats on the #75 Tram home too. The Hawks supporters must have rushed home early to watch the replay of the first half of the 3rd quarter.