Liked By: 28057
Joined: 26 May 08
quote originally posted by Samuel Lee:
|Bro, how come Arsenal set at such a good odds? |
It makes me think of recent Huesca VS Barcelona match.
I will comment on Watford's last match 4-1 against Fulham. Their 3-goal margin victory was mainly due to luck. Coz both their shot-based and non-shot expected goals were less than 2. The result should have been 2-2 draw, but Watford got lucky.
"Margin of Safety" as the Central Concept of Betting
A team's past ability to create quality chances is the expected number of goals (xG) they should have produced. The number of xG in excess of the actual number of GoalsFor (GF) and GoalsAgainst (GA) constitutes the margin of safety (MOS) that is counted on to cushion the bettor against discomfiture in the event of a decline in their performance in the upcoming fixture (UF). The soccer bettor does not expect the UF to work out the same as in the past. If he were sure of that, the MOS demanded might be small. The function of MOS is, in essence, that of rendering unnecessary an accurate estimate of the team's winning probability in the UF. If the MOS is sufficiently large, then it is enough to assume that the team's performance in the UF will not fall far below their xG in order for the bettor to feel sufficiently cushioned against bad luck. The MOS is always dependent on the odds that the bettor accepts from the bookie. It will be large in certain odds, small at some lower odds, and negative when the odds is too low. However, even with a MOS in the bettor's favour, he may lose his bet. For the MOS guarantees only that he has a better chance of winning - not that loss is impossible.
Theory of Diversification
There is a close logical connection between the concept of safety margin and the principle of diversification. One is correlative with the other. Even with a margin in the bettor’s favor, an individual bet may work out badly. But as the number of such commitments is increased the more certain does it become that the aggregate of the profits will exceed the aggregate of the losses. This point may be made more colorful by a reference to the arithmetic of roulette. If a man bets $1 on a single number, he is paid $35 profit when he wins—but the chances are 37 to 1 that he will lose. He has a “negative margin of safety.” In his case diversification is foolish. The more numbers he bets on, the smaller his chance of ending with a profit. If he regularly bets $1 on every number (including 0 and 00), he is certain to lose $2 on each turn of the wheel. But suppose the winner received $39 profit instead of $35. Then he would have a small but important margin of safety. Therefore, the more numbers he wagers on, the better his chance of gain. And he could be certain of winning $2 on every spin by simply betting $1 each on all the numbers. (Incidentally, the two examples given actually describe the respective positions of the player and proprietor of a wheel with a 0 and 00.)
A Criterion of Value Betting
Most punters believe they have the odds in their favor when they take their chances, and therefore they may lay claim to a safety margin in their proceedings. Each one has the feeling that the time is right to place his bets, or that his skill is superior to others, or that his tipster or system is trustworthy. But such claims may be unconvincing. They rest on subjective judgment, unsupported by any body of favorable evidence or any conclusive line of reasoning. The true concept of the margin of safety rests upon simple and definite arithmetical reasoning from statistical data. There is no guarantee that this fundamental quantitative approach will continue to show favorable results under the unknown conditions of the future. But, equally, there is no valid reason for pessimism on this score. Thus, to have a sound bet there must be present a true margin of safety. And a true margin of safety is one that can be demonstrated by figures, by persuasive reasoning, and by reference to a body of actual experience.
The Bettor and Losing Streaks
The stochastic nature of gambling guarantees that losing streaks of various durations will occur. The bettor should be prepared for them both financially and psychologically.