Guest slot: Peter Smith on managing your betting
September 29th, 2006
-
Creating and Managing A Betting Bank
You like a punt and think you have spotted an opportunity - but how much do you stake? Of course, it’s entirely up to you but I reckon a systematic staking plan will help to improve your betting.
Begin by creating a Betting Bank. I mean by this a separate sum of money, ring-fenced from your daily budget and preferably kept in a separate account. Its size will depend not just on your means but also what you feel comfortable with. My own Bank this year is £4,000 because that’s what I could afford to lose without it impacting my lifestyle unduly but the important thing is not so much the size as the identification of a specific amount dedicated exclusively to betting. This will give you a clear benchmark for your staking plan.
How? Well, the crucial consideration is that it is essential you never exhaust your Bank. If you bet regularly, you are certain to have long losing runs from time to time. If your Bank is big enough to sustain you through such spells, you can expect to recover those losses in due course but if you empty the Bank, that’s it; you are out of the game and losses will never be recovered. Bookmakers know this and depend upon it. Most punters, sooner or later, hit a run so bad that their resources are exhausted. They withdraw from the game and temporary losses become permanent.
The solution is to fix your stake as a percentage of your Bank. What percentage depends upon your success rate which in turn is dependent on whether you tend to go for short priced favorites or, like me, look for the longer shots. To illustrate, let’s assume a fairly moderate strike rate of 25% (i.e. you back one winner in every four bets). What is the longest losing run you are likely to endure?
Statisticians can get wonderfully complicated about such questions but for the purposes of this illustration, please accept that there would be a 1% chance of hitting a run of 17 losing bets. Round this up to 20 and it implies that at a standard stake of 5% of the Bank, there would be less than a 1 in a 100 chance of exhausting it. Even this might appear too high a risk, given the catastrophic consequences of hitting rock bottom, so I suggest two ways of reducing the risk further.
First, graduate your bets according to how good you think they are, allocating 1% to the weakest and 5% only to the ones in which you have the greatest confidence. Secondly, don’t scale the bets to the starting Bank but to the actual Bank, so that if it grows, your stakes increase and diminish when it shrinks. That way, in theory, the Bank should never be exhausted.
Applying these principles to my own Bank, I started the year working to a maximum stake of £200 (5% of £4,000) and a minimum of £40. In practice, most of my punts are round about the £100 mark. I’m fairly comfortable with that, which brings me to my last point.
Never mind the stats; don’t bet outside your comfort zone. If you are not comfortable risking 5% of your Bank on a single bet, don’t do it. On the odd occasions when I have significantly exceeded my self-imposed limits, I have felt miserable and however successful the bet has proved, the strain has simply not been worth it.
One benefit of a clear staking plan is the sense of control it gives you in respect of money management. This aids confidence which is likely to spill over into your betting generally. By following the simple principles outlined here, there’s a fair chance your results and profits from betting will improve automatically.
In fact, I’m prepared to bet on it.
Peter Smith (aka Peter the Punter)
*********************************************************************
MessageSpace Advertising
Peter - I think that this is very wise advice and a good approach to betting. I wish I could say that I had the resolve to follow it.
The problem for political punters is that big betting opportunities don’t happen very often so you don’t have a steady flow in and out. When something like the US presidential election happens I can get carried away and perhaps risk more than I should.
A good control mechanism, for me, is to operate just two betting accounts - Betfair and IG Index. I keep a fair sum in Betfair but am careful to switch between bets, reducing positions, if I need money to make a bet.
Thus I threw a fair bit at Reid as soon as the Luntz focus group report came out and now I am looking to lay a bit of that off to get on other things.
Mike Smithson
1. The advice is generalised so you need to adapt it to whatever market(s) you play in. I too moderate the general plan when it comes to Political Betting. You have to. But I still think it helps to have a clear Staking Plan in mind, even if you don’t always stick to it.
Yes, those are good guidelines PtP. Probably the most important thing is not so much exactly what the guidelines are (although obviously they are important), but that they mentally exist and are adhered to. Ringfencing is always sensible though.
One aspect of political betting that can be awkward is that it can include long-term bets e.g. who will win the next election. I tend to stake a good deal more on those bets then short term ones, but have a rule to only have one at a time (currently on Blair to stand down next year). By contrast, I only stake small amounts on shortterm bets - including Betfair - as these can mount up a lot faster.
You can bet more if you’re trading on market movements rather than outcome. Betting on market movements you will have a “stop-loss” (or a “stop-win” ) which is the price at which you exit the market, and determines the effective amount that you are gambling.
Good article. One thing worth adding for any newcomers is to be aware that often bookmakers take bets on political markets only during the day, and even these are often limited to quite small stakes.
For instance, the William Hill web site (at 7.30am) is not showing the Labour leadership and deputy leadership markets. These should be added back once the William Hill odds compilers arrive at work and read the papers (and doubtless politicalbetting.com) and adjust the odds accordingly.
4. Yes, David, that is in fact the main point I wanted to make. Just having a guideline helps toeep your bets in proportion.
As regards long-term bets, I tend to do much the same as you. It’s normally easy to lay off a long-term bet so you can be more flexible with your limits, or if you need to free up funds.
6. Thanks John L.
Btw, I emailed Betfair asking for a Next Deputy Leader of Labour Party market. They said they’d think about it. Maybe it would help if others did the same.
Would Mike have any special influence with them?
Interesting article Peter-thanks. As a not-yet better who would be worried about getting carried away financially this would make a lot of sense, although my bank would be pretty small!
My question is similar to Mike’s though; the people who sound like they know what they’re doing tend to back long odds/lay short ones, then ‘cover’ them when the odds change as they have predicted. How would you suggest setting limits on this depending on your level of confidence that the odds will move in the direction you expect?
8 Thanks tpfkar
The article is really aimed at people like yourself who are new to betting and I hope it helps. It doesn’t matter how small (or large) your bank, the principles still hold good.
Answering your question would really require a separate article (which I might do if there’s demand) but I still think it comes back to the betting bank idea. I’ll give an example.
Before the World Cup, I had £600 on Germany at 8-1. I never thought they would win it outright but they were overgenerous odds so I staked heavily (three times my normal maximum) with the explicit intention of laying off about £400 as their odds shortened. That would have brought me back to my standard £200 max punt, so in a sense I was sticking to my usual Staking Plan - I was just stepping temporarily outside it in order to establish a strong position before returning to my comfort zone.
Of course, it can all go horribly wrong so you still need think seriously about what happens to your Bank if it does. Could it take a £600 hit? At the time, mine could - although in practice I would probably have just cut out that weekend in Paris I had planned. If it couldn’t, I wouldn’t have made the bet. So, like David H suggests, the mere presence of a bank and a clear staking plan does give you a guideline to assess these abnormal situations.
Betting is fun. Like most other activities, the more you put in, the more you get out.
I disagree with MS suggesting only a small number of accounts. I have accounts with over 30 firms, though the professional gamblers I know have over 100.
A tip I like is ‘plan your trade, and trade your plan’. And whatever else, specialise. There are so many markets you can know more than the bookie. But you will only have a significant edge for a very short while–they are risk averse, and will soon reduce your opportunities in any one market.
Great article Peter.
A mistake I made when I started betting was that I didnt have enough money in my Betfair account. It wasnt a case of me losing lots of bets, I just didnt put enough in there to start with. So I ended up in a position where I wanted to lay off bets, but couldnt as I had tied up so much money in long term bets. A good idea to give your self a decent budget (what you can afford), and then use your 5% rule.
Moving off topic already, I was on Betfair last night at noticed that a drawn Ashes series is available to back at 8.4. Worth a punt I reckon.
11. David
I have a dozen and find it difficult enough keeping track as it is but of course I am not a professional and I can see why it would be almost essential for a more serious backer to have that many.
Conversations I have had with odds compillers suggest that Political Betting is such a minor specialism for them that it tends to be giving to their equivalent of the office junior. This sometimes shows in the odds. (Cruddas in the Deputy Leader market?) The Big Firms are probably happy enough to have PB as a loss-leader for the time being. I expect they will tighten up in due course. We should take advantage, while we can.
11. Thanks Ian.
Draws are often a good bet in such events and I reckon you are right with that one.
My Ashes portfolio is full however. I lumped on Oz at 4/6 six months ago. Sorry to be disloyal but I reckon that’s money in the bank.
13 Betting against England is a pretty good strategy in any case.
Good advice Peter; much better than your last tip (George Washington)…
15. LOL Julian!
Yes, I caught a cold over George. I suppose if I now tell you Hurricane Run won’t win the Arc, you’ll go straight out and back it!
I’m a professional gambler principally on financial and sport markets. I apply the same approach to political betting. I look for serious bookie errors and if I find one, go in heavily. If I only made one bet in 4, as mooted in the article, I would find another way of earning money. I bet very occasionally but heavily at what I believe are grossly favourable odds
Odds on the Lib Dems often provide the best opportunities, as the bookies know even less about the LDs than about the other parties. Recent examples: 12-1 on the Lib Dems taking Richmond in May. Staggering! The Lib Dems were odds on to take the council in my opinion. Likewise there were numerous opportunities at the General Election: 5-2 against the LDs taking 3 or more seats in Wales for example. Corrrect odds: 3-1 on in my view.
The other advantage of betting on the LDs is that I don’t root for them politically. I believe this helps me have a more realistic attitutde about their chances. I notice that many of the contributors to this site have strong political proclivities and this seems to preclude most of them from having consistently realistic views on their beloved parties chances (and that of their opponents. It follows that from a better’s point of view most of the comment on the bulletin boards re election probabilities is partial and jejune ie it’s useless. Politicalbetting.com is a misnomer if it refers to the content of the discussion boards. The other resources are very useful.
I think you should run more betting theme leaders. I may contribute one myself at soem point.
16. I’m tempted to lay in an attempt to cut my losses, Peter. According to my friend it’s my fault that GW won anyway - to balance out my weekend that was going rather well until that point; ie. pleasure / pain etc.
17. “this seems to preclude most of them from having consistently realistic views on their beloved parties chances” - this is true but only in the sense that much discussion on here is about politics, not political betting. I first came to the site after putting £900 on Nu Lab to win the GE (which was then over 3 weeks wages).
Excellent article, Peter. A wonderfuly clear exposition of the relationship between strike-rate and losing-runs.
And I second Chris Moore: more focus on betting, please.
chrismoore @ 17 on personal involvement — for this reason I selectively disregard some predictions (eg Mike Smithson on Lib Dems because he cares) and avoid betting in matches that involve my football team.
But the political discussion here is invaluable for the information content even if you have to close your eyes to some of the forecasts.
Where I fear some of the more occasional punters might be led astray is in the subtle difference between advice to “back John Reid” or to “back John Reid” which look the same and you have to look at the context to distinguish “back John Reid (because I think he’ll win it based on …)” from “back John Reid (although I don’t think he’ll win but Gordon speaks early so Brown will shorten so Reid will go out and then we back Reid then when Reid speaks later on his price will shorten so we can lay off to lock in a profit)”.
17. Very interesting Chris and thanks for taking the trouble to respond.
Obviously the strike rate will depend a lot on what sort of odds you normally look for. My records this year show I have a 19% strike rate and my average bet is at odds of 7-1. I am currently showing a profit of £1,200 but it has fluctuated enormously. I was £2k down at the end of July following a losing run of 23. That’s when you need a tried and tested strategy to keep you going!
I couldn’t agree more about the LDs. Mike S would probably say the same.
Likewise, your comments about ‘the heart and the head’ must be sound. I don’t however agree that the more partisan psotings are useless to the serious bettor. For example, I am sure GB is a shoo-in but you can see from the regular postings that many think otherwise and are prepared to back their views with cash. The result is that very generous odds of 1-2 are still available on Betfair.
I think this is the first purely betting leader we have had. If favorably received, I’ll pen a few more. Mike S would, I am sure, be happy to add you to his list of propective contributors.
I’ve often wondered what sort of odds would you get on say, getting all of the seats in Scotland right at a GE, the political balance in Scotland being what it is, how many seats would you expect to change hands: similar for Wales. Would it be worth doing?
One reason that there isn’t more discussion on betting here has already been mentioned - there simply aren’t enough things to bet on.
This leads to some strange markets, such as those dealing with when something will take place - the only equivalent in sports betting I can think of are those “who will score first” thingies on soccer matches, and I can’t believe that any serious punter has anything to do with those.
If there were markets on Council by-elections that would at least provide a few weekly “races” but I can’t see the volume being worth anyone’s while.
Even if I don’t bet myself, I do try to tip when I see value - but it ain’t that often. I suspect that making money on political betting is fairly labour intensive, too.
17. I think a significant number of people place political bets on outcomes that they WANT to happen, rather than simply looking objectively at the odds. As you say Chris, this is probably true of a number of people who contribute to this site. Hence my opinion that if you bet objectively on politics, there is money to be made.
18. I’m really sorry, Julian. I’m guilty as charged, and request several thousand further offences to be taken into account.
Innocent Abroad @ 23 — veering off-topic but actually first-scorer markets in football can be profitable and this is where local knowledge can pay, eg change of penalty-taker or late team news. The markets are generally framed early, long before the team is announced or the weather (hence state of the pitch) is known.
I used to make a fair few bob there before I became too lazy. Unlike some here, I am not a professional punter: I have a job so try to avoid turning profitable but recreational betting into a second job.
On betting issues I make sure that I post two things, what I want and what I think. I obviously bet on what I think but that would make for dull conversation!
I still think that Johnson’s price is quite likely to shorten at some point, more than others he has played a quiet game and his age, and politics, suggests he will run. Whether he will get the 44 MPs is the key point and I may lay before that eventuality (or non eventuality). I got Reid at a high price and I will do the same with him.
Speaking partially, both Reid and Brown would be easy to attack so I would prefer them to be leader in a way, relating them to my own position, however, they are far distant from my own personal stance so I wouldn’t!
I’ve been around a bit in terms of political belief which helps in being able to see when supporters of each party are being realistic or if they are talking cr*p. Any lifelong member of any party is someone that I would be less likely to trust to give me a tip.
20. Or ‘back John Reid (because although on balance I don’t think he will win, I think the chances of him doing so are better than the odds imply)’. Although I should mention that I don’t think that in this case.
25. It’s ok Peter, all is forgiven when Hurricane Run comes in 8th…
Embarrassingly I sent an e-mail to all my friends last year telling them about the odds available on Davis on bethilo.
Very interesting article Peter. I for one would like to see worked examples of hedging, lay etc.
But good read so far.
Any one know the by election results for last night?
31. Benedict, look at the previous thread.
I think the recap is Lab holds in Manfield (for the Nottinghanshire CC) and Gateshead and a gain from the LDs in Rossendale. They lost in a big swing to SNP the Fife byelection though.
The tories held in North Tyneside, gained a seat from an Ind in Wrexham and lost the ward in Blackburn/Darwen to the daughter of the former councillor.
Libdem held comfortably the East Hants ward
Peter the punter, many thanks for the piece
re 23. Currently I am working with a number of other parties ways increasing the number of betting options available. One idea is to create a monthly “index” based on council by-elections on which there could be betting. Other options are being explored.
Mike Smithson
MORE BOTHER FOR LABOUR IN BROWN’S BACKYARD
By Chris Mead, PA Elections Editor
Labour was rocked by a landslide by-election defeat uncomfortably close to Chancellor Gordon Brown’s political homebase.
The Scottish National Party’s John Beare won Fife Council’s Markinch and Woodside East seat on a 30% swing since May 2003.
The ward comes under Glenrothes’ Westminster constituency, next door to Mr Brown’s Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
However, there was some good news for Labour in its conference week when its candidate, Christine Gill, gained from the Liberal Democrats at Cribden, Rossendale Borough, Lancashire.
Commenting on the Scottish result, Scotland Mid and Fife SNP MSP Tricia Marwick said: “This is a significant swing to the SNP from Labour in what is Brown’s backyard. It highlights the gains the SNP are making across Scotland while the Labour Party are haemorrhaging in votes and seats.”
She added that next May’s Holyrood polls were set to be “a two-horse race between the SNP and Labour with the SNP preparing for government with Alex Salmond as First Minister”.
Earlier this year, the Liberal Democrats gained in a Commons by-election at Dunfermline and Fife West, which is also next door to Mr Brown’s constituency.
ories were also defeated in one of their safest seats in the country when Julie Slater, daughter of the previous councillor, stood as an independent and won at East Rural, Blackburn with Darwen Borough.
There was a swing to Labour at Nottinghamshire County Council’s Mansfield East division, where the previous poll had been on the same date as the General Election. Labour held on to the seat.
Tories retained the Rossett seat at Wrexham County Borough, north Wales. The previous councillor had been elected with no party description on the ballot paper, but later joined the Conservative group.
At Rossendale, Liberal Democrats were defending a seat they won in 2003. In the latest poll in the ward, in 2004, there was a straight fight between Tory and Labour.
RESULTS:
Blackburn with Darwen - East Rural: Ind 209, C 201, England First Party 99, Lib Dem 91, Lab 75, BNP 70. (May 2006 - C 699, Lab 47). Ind gain from C. Swing 35.3% C to Lab.
East Hampshire District - Whitehill Deadwater: Lib Dem 214, C 93, Lab 24. (May 2003 - Lib Dem 247, C 158). Lib Dem hold. Swing 7.3% C to Lib Dem.
Fife Council - Markinch and Woodside East: SNP 892, Lab 388, Lib Dem 257, C 39, Ind 25. (May 2003 - Lab 1074, SNP 545, C 121, Lib Dem 104). SNP gain from Lab. Swing 30% Lab to SNP.
Gateshead Borough - Dunstan and Teams: Lab 694, Lib Dem 269, BNP 226, C 76. (May 2006 - Lab 984, Lib Dem 321, BNP 242, C 162, Ind 104). Lab hold. Swing 1.5% Lab to Lib Dem.
North Tyneside Borough - Benton: C 1,359, Lab 1,191, Lib Dem 210. (May 2006 - C 1,601, Lab 1,285, Lib Dem 542). C hold. Swing 1.6% C to Lab.
Nottinghamshire County - Mansfield East: Lab 1,228, C 628, Ind 620, Lib Dem 544, Green 217. (May 2005 - Two seats Lab 3,997, 2,854, Ind 2,461, C 2,132, Lib Dem 1,976, C 1,828, Green 1,019). Lab hold. Swing 2.6% C to Lab.
Rossendale Borough - Cribden: Lab 391, Lib Dem 312, C 186, BNP 89. (June 2004 - C 681, Lab 585). Lab gain from Lib Dem. Swing 14.3% C to Lab.
Wrexham County Borough - Rossett: C 413, Lib Dem 378, Lab 251. (June 2004 - No description 384, Lab 334, Lib Dem 328). C hold. Swing 6.3% Lab to Lib Dem.
(sorry, no service next Friday)
As an addition, I would also advise altering stakes depending on odds. If you don’t do this you end up with short term profit margin highly dependent on a few long odds bets, and obviously there are a fair number of those in political betting. This methods smooths out your profit/loss curve, and avoids morale-sapping long losing streaks. Thus, divide a base stake level by odds, so whenever you win, you win the same amount.
In terms of value betting, there is another method that’s easy to adopt, and helps with disciplined betting. Assign odds of each event happening, and multiply by the decimal odds. Thus, on short odds like Brown @1.5ish, a value bet should be made if you believe the chances of the event occuring are >66.66%. The further the value is over 1.0, the more you should bet - but a linear increase imo.
Thus, combining the two methods: assume a base stake of 10% of your current bank (or whatever you prefer based on losing streak risk as above), and multiply it by chance/odds, then divide by odds again. Thus, if you believe Gordon Brown to have a 70% chance of acceeding to the throne, bet current bank * 0.1 * 0.7 / 1.5 / 1.5 = 3.11% stake.
Neither element is massive in terms of individual bets, they just prevents wild swings in your stake sizes, and force you to assess chance distribution more rationally. In the long term, they’ll also raise your profitability quite significantly, if you’re successfully identifying good value.
If you can consistently average 1% profit on each bet, your bank will grow and grow and grow. Not at all glamorous, nor does it provide the psychological thrill of betting - a major positive imo, as that causes irrationality and is one of the ways the bookies win. However, 1% compounded means your bank will double every 70 bets - the only difficulty here is the lack of choice in political betting means finding value in sufficient quantity is extremely hard.
Andrew (who no longer does this seriously, but paid his way through 5 years of university by sports betting)
32. Andrea. South of Preston and a male candidate…
19. Thank you, Sero.
Those interested in learning more about the statistical probabilities of losing runs will find a brief discussion in Chapter 12 of Nick Mordin’s excellent book ‘Betting For A Living’ [Aesculus Press Ltd: 2003]. Mordin himself quotes a useful table of probabilities published by Dick Mitchell in Winning Thoroughbred Strategies (William Morrow 1989) but I think it would be contavening copyright laws to reprint it here, so you’ll have to go buy the book!
35. Thanks Andrew. I’m not sure I’m wholly in agreement with your first point but I certainly agree with your para 2. Curiously, when I applied your formula to my own GB bet, it predicted a bet almost exactly the amount I had already placed! Maybe I am just applying the same principles intuitively.
The concept of Value must be one of the most intensely debated topics in betting. I might do a short piece on it (or you could!) if it wouldn’t be too tedious for the many regulars whose interest in the site is more for the political discussion.
To update on what’s happening in Ireland and betting on the next Taoiseach. The situation doesnt look good for Bertie Ahern (Irish Independent headline is “Coalition in crisis: Bertie on the brink”). It’s difficult to see the coalition staying together. Though if the government does fall Bertie may well hang on by forming a minority government propped up by independents. Unfortunately you cannot bet on Cowen being next Taoiseach with Ladbrooks any more (I wonder how many people got on at 14/1? While it may well not happen it would have been a very good value punt).
The market on Betfair is interesting though. Enda Kenny is drifting out to 2/1. However this market is not who will be next Taoiseach but who will be Taoiseach as a result of the next general election (ie who will win the next general election rather than who will succeed Bertie Ahern). That will be a two horse race and Kenny is guaranteed to be one of the horses (and in my eyes the slight favourite of the two - particularly with the current controversy). 2/1 is therefore very good value - it is guaranteed to come in as we get closer to an election and people realise it is between Kenny and the leader of FF (whoever that might be). Unfortunately you cant get too much on at 2/1. (I backed Kenny quite happily a couple of days ago at about 3/2 but that was probably the last I’ll bet on this.)
It has been the case for over a decade that the markets have overstated the Tories’ chances at Westminster - I believe simply because the money weighted average punter is a Tory and finds it hard to believe how badly they are going to do.
This time I’m not sure sure that is the case - many of them have been taught a lesson.
A hung Parliament is still more than 50% likely though in my dispassionate view.
39 - sorry - I meant to post that to yesterday’s thread where the situation in Ireland had been discussed rather than interrupt today’s very informative thread on betting (many thanks to Peter and others for today’s piece and informative posts)
I agree with John L at 20 that there IS some useful comment for betters on the BBs but very rarely. Let me focus on the most well-informed contributors. rather than attacking the easy target, the many biased party enthusiasts. Impressive indeed is the cognoscentis knowledge of detail and I do respect learning, especially useless learning. In other words, the degree of the congnoscenti’s knowledge is thoroughly superfluous for betting purposes. Indeed, I suspect such knowledge is counter-productive for forming clear views about future probabilities. Let me draw an analogy, on share bulletin boards, you regularly see long, hyper-detailed posts about companies, the product of much arduous research, doubtless. And surely the more knowledge the better? Right? Not so! Such detail reflects enthusiasm and diligence, but is infrequently, in my experience, associated with clear judgement. You lose the wood for the trees.
I think to gamble succesfully, certainly professionally, you need to strip situations down to the very few relevant factors, and not become distracted by irrelevancies, enthusiasms, personal biases or learning. The fact is the vast majority of part time punters are very bad at this in any field you can mention.
I am not particularly knowledgeable about politics (or indeed about sports or finance.) I live outside the Uk and don’t follow any domestic issues day-to-day. Again, I suspect this is not a a disadvantage. Many of the most knwledgeable individuals on here seem to get caught up in the white noise of day to day events, which are usually utterly irrelevant to electoral outcomes I think day-to-day involvement makes it difficult for anyone to pick out the truly very few glaring opportunities.
Peter the Punter: good luck on the Brown bet!
40. Jon, that is exactly how I got into Political Betting.
I was working for a firm of Stockbrokers in 1997. My colleagues were Tories to a man and mostly keen punters. One day, one of them came in and announced in excitement that the local Corals was offering 7/2 against the Tories winning the election. They all legged it immediately down to the betting shop to put down some very large sums. I had never bet on politics before but I could see their natural political preferences were driving them on with all the fervour of lemmings approaching a cliff edge but with rather less chance of a happy outcome. I offered to take their bets for them (well, why should Corals benefit rather than me?) but they were true gentlemen and didn’t wish to embarrass me financially.
It’s probably true that Tory odds tend to be too short because Tory punters who bet with their hearts rather than their heads tend to have deeper pockets than their Labour equivalents. In fact at a guess I would say that if you had backed Labour blind at every election since 1960 you would probably be showing a tidy profit to a level stake. (Now there’s one for you, Andrea!)
re Tory punters betting more with their hearts than their heads. Well this might have been the case in the past but at the May 5th General Election the final spreads - before the polls opened - suggested the opposite. This is what the Commons Seats spreads were at 0600 on May 5 2005.
Labour spreads: IG Index 368-374: Sporting Index 366-370: Spreadfair 367.5-368.2
Tory spreads: IG Index 184-188: Sporting Index 182-186: Spreadfair 186-187.8
Lib Dem spreads: IG Index 64-67: Sporting Index 65-67: Spreadfair 65.8-66
So those who bought the Tories won while those who bought Labour or the Lib Dems lost. That last group included me and I went down £1,000 - thankfully more than compensated by other bets.
Mike Pringle, the Lib Dem MSP for Edinburgh South has been banned from Holyrood for 5 days after leaking information to the press in the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal.
Ironic that one of McKie’s supporters should land in the poo whilst the “guilty men” in the Executive have dived for cover as the proverbial hit the fan. Twas ever thus !!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/i/hi/scotland/5391496.stm
45 Sorry link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5391496.stm
Outstanding article Peter. This should be copied and saved by anyone who’s seriously thinking of getting into gambling.
I’ve been an enthusiastic amateur since I was 16 and always wanted to become a pro, but as my Betfair account has swollen over the past eighteen months I’m thinking of quitting work and giving myself twelve months of doing it seriously (proper research, keeping records, creating statistical models) to see if I’m good enough. I’m guessing a couple of people on here have had a similar dilemma at one stage - any useful tips on this, Peter?
re Tory punters betting more with their hearts than their heads.
I don’t think that was true in 1992. My interest in political betting was fueled by getting 7/1 on a Conservative win. I think I placed the bet around 5 or 6 days before the election.
47. Well, Andy, I would start by getting Mordin’s book and reading it cover to cover. He reckons it takes about two years to get to the point where you can earn the kind of money that, say, an average shop assistant gets.
I moved up a couple of notches from keen amateur back in April and now devote two or three days a week just to betting. I reckon Mordin’s not far out. There’s a lot to learn.
Anybody, including you Andy, is welcome to contact me personally about this or any matter arising from the article at arklebar@talktalk.net
Thank you all for your kind remarks and interesting responses. I was very nervous but glad I did it now.
Bye for now - Newmarket on TV.
49 - Many thanks Peter, I expect I will take you up on that very kind offer shortly. Good luck at Newmarket…
Thank you, Peter.
May I add a few words for those starting off who aim to bet as much for fun as the money and, hence, are risk averse: you could aim to build up your bank steadily and, thereafter, bet modestly so never risking a net overall loss.
I got into this ’cause I happened to spot and couldn’t believe the available odds (during the actual campaign) on Ken L being re-elected. Up to 1.25 on Betfair implying 80-odd per cent chance of a win when I thought it was > 95% (ie a near certainty, though one has to allow for a ’shock’ during the campaign). I only won a few quid but it seemed relatively easy and fun. I then realised that bookies will pay you to open an account. Take these offers, often free bets, always studying the small print carefully. Either work on the basis that some will win, some won’t. Or, like I did, lay ‘em all off elsewhere so guaranteeing some return. It’s time-consuming but does help with learning the trade. Before long, you’ll have a three figure sum - your Bank!
Finally, keep reading the small print. The only sizeable loss I’ve had was betting on Top 5 in the US Masters when I didn’t understand the dead heat rules (counter-intuitively and unlike the vast majority of Betfair markets, you can lose despite backing a ‘winner’). Indeed, I got some sympathy from Betfair when I complained that these were not explained well in the detailed rules, nor was the likely importance of this detail pointed out in the Basic Rules.
Great article. How do you apply this to spread betting (if you do any)? Especially if you are selling and could face a infinite loss e.g., in the Liverpoool game on Wednesday n99 came on for Galatasarray. As luck would have it I bought shirt numbers and he scored twice but anyone who sold would be staring at an approx 180x loss when they might have been expecting a maximum of c.40.
Mike - the markets have tended to drift towards the actual outcome as the witching hour approaches… but years out the seat markets have always been way to high for the Tories.
Like Peter I started gambling before the ‘97 election from a City dealing floor taking bets from my Tory colleagues. (I did options on the seats as the fool and their money more easily separated there…)
One of the most beautiful illustrations of the optimism of the individual punter was the last election. Generally the supporters of each party buy that party’s seats… they can’t decide how the others are going to break and they don’t care… they just believe everyone has the same experience as them.
Last time the total market seats for each party added up to about 8 more than the total number of seats contested… so if you were prepared to invest you could just go short the whole lot and pocket some riskless cash.
Gorgeous George even got the total down a bit, that and getting rid of turbocharged toady Oona King are likely the only things I will ever have to be grateful to him for.
PS I always bet on LDs too as that is what I know most about… so I guess my experience if the opposite of Chris’.
On the Lab leadership, the Betfair odds to back Brown are very tempting. Can they drift further in the short term? I think my view that Johnson hasn’t quite got it for PM or momentum of Leader is being borne out. And, unless very exceptional circumstances emerge, I think Reid has no chance of winning the leadership.
Another tip for beginners who (unlike me) are prepared to start with a fair-sized Bank of their own cash:
Follow Mike’s tips unless they provoke quite a strong reaction on the site. A lot of his tips which I have thought questionable have proved great value (even if not always right - be ready to lay off). On the odd occasion I have thought firmly and said “I think you’re gonna lose on that”. The LD spread bet on 2005 seats (44 above) was one of those. If you looked at the actual seats, the improbability was fairly clear.
BY ELECTION RESULTS: THURSDAY 28TH SEPTEMBER 2006.
Nottinghamshire CC, Mansfield East
Lab 1228 (38.0 +3.5)
Con 628 (19.4 +1.0)
Ind 620 (19.2 –2.0)
LD P Smith 544 (16.8 –0.3)
Green 214 (6.6 –2.2)
Majority 600. Turnout 17.5. Lab hold. Last fought 2005.
Wrexham CBC, Rossett
Con 413 (39.6 +39.6)
LD D Williams 378 (36.3 +4.9)
Lab 251 (24.1 –7.8)
Ind [0.0 –36.7]
Majority 35. Turnout 42.6. Con gain Ind. Last fought 2004.
Gateshead MBC, Dunston & Teams
Lab 694 (54.9 +0.7)
LD M Ruddy 269 (21.3 +3.6)
BNP 226 (17.9 +4.6)
Con 76 (6.0 –3.0)
Majority 425. Turnout 21.1. Lab hold. Last fought 2006.
North Tyneside MBC, Benton
Con 1359 (49.2 +2.5)
Lab 1191 (43.2 +5.7)
LD S Richards 210 (7.6 –8.2)
Majority 168. Turnout 35.7. Con hold. Last fought 2006.
Blackburn with Darwen DC, East Rural
Ind 209 (28.1 +28.1)
Con 201 (27.0 -66.7)
Ind 2 99 (13.3 +13.3)
LD B Dunning 91 (12.2 +12.2)
Lab 75 (10.1 +3.8)
BNP 70 (9.4 +9.4)
Majority 8. Turnout 46.22 Ind gain Con. Last fought 2006.
East Hants DC, Whitehill Deadwater
LD T Muldoon 214 (64.7 +3.7)
Con 93 (28.1 –10.9)
Lab 24 (7.3 +7.3)
Majority 121. Turnout 16.4. LD hold. Last fought 2003.
Fife SDC, Markinch & Woodside East
SNP 892 (55.7 +26.1)
Lab 388 (24.2 –34.0)
LD B Forrest 257 (16.1 +10.5)
Con 39 (2.4 –4.2)
Ind 25 (1.6 +1.6)
Majority 504. Turnout 43.4. SNP gain Lab. Last fought 2003.
Rossendale BC, Cribden
Lab 391 (40.0 –6.2)
LD B Sheffield (31.9 +31.9)
Con 186 (19.0 +34.8)
BNP 89 (9.1 +9.1)
Majority 79. Turnout 34.2. Lab gain LD. Last fought 2004.
Please note:
The figures for percentage change are based on the details of the results from the last time that there was an election in the ward by statute in the May (or sometimes June) elections, rather than by any by-election. We use the figures in The Local Elections Handbook by Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher.
The Party-defending seat is the party that the former Councillor (who has died, resigned or been disqualified) belonged to when she or he was elected not the one that she or he may have subsequently belonged to as a result of any defection.
56 Is there a mistake in the last result?
57. No. Despite winning the seat in 2003, for some reason - presumably failure to submit nomination papers correctly - the LibDems did not defend it in 2004.
O/T Deputy Leader update
Hills cut Cruddas to 16/1 (on 13th Sept I advised him here at 50s and the other day at 25s), Hain out a little at 3s, Harman drifting out to 14s. Hilary Benn is now the 5/2 favourite, which since I’ve not seen any evidence (yet) he’ll stand seems very prohibitive.
58 Friday afternoon beffudlement, probably, but I don´t see how the increase in the tory share of the vote can be higher than the tory share of the vote.
Should it say Tory -34% (assuming they won it in 2004)? I guess it was a straight fight last time, the Tories winning with 53.8%.
60. Peter, I think it’s -34.8 for the tories, not +. They won the seat in a 2 horse race against Labour in 2004
61 Thanks, Andrea. That is the way I see it too. Rather a poor set of results for the Conservatives. Quite good for independents and the SNP.
59. Henry G, thanks for the tip. I got plenty on at 50s, thank you. Now all I need is Betfair to open a market. I sent an email and they are thinking about it. More enquiries from other PBers wouldn’t hurt.
Great idea Peter. Thanks for that.
My only downside to that is there’s so little to bet on in politics. I’ve got £120 in my bank and there are only about 5 interesting markets at any one time. Even if I bet on all of them I’ve got to have £100 sitting around doing nothing. Plus, 1% of the £120 I’ve got in my bank is less than the minimum you’re allowed to bet.
Still the principles seem pretty sound, and would work well for horse-racing or something else that’s more regular.
“My only downside to that is there’s so little to bet on in politics. I’ve got £120 in my bank and there are only about 5 interesting markets at any one time.”
That’s about the crux of it. If you bet big enough to potentially make any money, you have huge exposure to bad luck because the number of plausible value bets in the political markets is so small. If you bet sensibly, you’ll hardly be making any bets at all.
This is why I chose football betting, and specialised in multiple obscure markets (eg Norwegian 2nd division).
dvhxeseyw zhwdtezdzs shwqxqqls iywemtmm zqyzcbahy eezlwgik vshlbxrc xbzwadta…
jaebuczrys eqnfbejdhg oqkxxnprik vwiozxm ockszzrgw adlnwrhdvry…