Hi,
I'm wondering how useful statistics can be to trade football in-play.
Everytime I check some statistics and then check the odds, the odds always reflect the statistics, so I wonder whether the markets are perfect or not. If they are, then how people can possibly make money trading football in-play ?
Would someone shed some light on this ? Thanks.
Cheers
Statistics, how useful ?
The markets are not always "perfect", and stats (accurate stats) can help you identify when they are out of line.
Also, there are some stats that are not reflected in the prices that can help trading football in-play. For example, if the average time for a goal to be scored in the EPL is 33 minutes AND the averages of both teams (for scoring and conceding) support this figure, then a back of >1.5 or 2.5 around the 25 minute mark should allow you a quick trade-out when/if a goal is scored in the first half.
This is a basic example of course, but it does highlight that if you have stats on your side, you can make more confident trading predictions.
Also, there are some stats that are not reflected in the prices that can help trading football in-play. For example, if the average time for a goal to be scored in the EPL is 33 minutes AND the averages of both teams (for scoring and conceding) support this figure, then a back of >1.5 or 2.5 around the 25 minute mark should allow you a quick trade-out when/if a goal is scored in the first half.
This is a basic example of course, but it does highlight that if you have stats on your side, you can make more confident trading predictions.
As the Betfair odds are an extremely accurate reflection of a team's chances, then surely over 1,000 trades you would come out behind (due to Betfair transaction charges).
It's only possibly to profit long-term in trading if you're exploiting market inefficiencies. Given that a football team's chances can be worked out mathematically to a high degree of accuracy, I would say that the Random Walk Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk_hypothesis) applies.
Jeff
It's only possibly to profit long-term in trading if you're exploiting market inefficiencies. Given that a football team's chances can be worked out mathematically to a high degree of accuracy, I would say that the Random Walk Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk_hypothesis) applies.
Jeff
ebasson61 wrote:
Also, there are some stats that are not reflected in the prices that can help trading football in-play. For example, if the average time for a goal to be scored in the EPL is 33 minutes AND the averages of both teams (for scoring and conceding) support this figure, then a back of >1.5 or 2.5 around the 25 minute mark should allow you a quick trade-out when/if a goal is scored in the first half.
Please check this video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9fo0VuJeZ8
If the initial correct score odds are set to the true probability and the odds after a goal is scored are also set to their true probabilities, then where's Peter's edge to do what he did in that video ?
Anyone can do a trading like that and make a decent profit but not all can do it for the long term unless there's a clear edge in his favor.
To take this video as an example, where's the edge Peter exploited ?
Cheers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9fo0VuJeZ8
If the initial correct score odds are set to the true probability and the odds after a goal is scored are also set to their true probabilities, then where's Peter's edge to do what he did in that video ?
Anyone can do a trading like that and make a decent profit but not all can do it for the long term unless there's a clear edge in his favor.
To take this video as an example, where's the edge Peter exploited ?
Cheers
My guess is that Peter knew that the market odds were incorrect.
Peter - Can you clarify this please?
Thanks
Jeff
Peter - Can you clarify this please?
Thanks
Jeff
rpadrela wrote:Please check this video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9fo0VuJeZ8
If the initial correct score odds are set to the true probability and the odds after a goal is scored are also set to their true probabilities, then where's Peter's edge to do what he did in that video ?
I thought the market is perfect... 
Ferru123 wrote:My guess is that Peter knew that the market odds were incorrect.
Peter - Can you clarify this please?
Thanks
Jeff
rpadrela wrote:Please check this video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9fo0VuJeZ8
If the initial correct score odds are set to the true probability and the odds after a goal is scored are also set to their true probabilities, then where's Peter's edge to do what he did in that video ?
-
CaerMyrddin
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:47 am
Well, I have a slightly different view about 'perfect' markets.
Markets tend to be perfect, as they are always evolving to adapt to the new information that is arriving, but as this information input is very dinamic, markets can't possibly be 'perfect'.
You can prove this is true ealy - if a market is perfect, there is no possible way you can take a profit from it, as there is no value. As there are so many people that can and take profits from markets, they can't be perfect.
Markets tend to be perfect, as they are always evolving to adapt to the new information that is arriving, but as this information input is very dinamic, markets can't possibly be 'perfect'.
You can prove this is true ealy - if a market is perfect, there is no possible way you can take a profit from it, as there is no value. As there are so many people that can and take profits from markets, they can't be perfect.
The market is a fascinating judge of value, but also opinion. It generally gets both right but not all the time. Even if it does get both right there is always margin in the market. As long as there are two prices to quote at this will always be the case.
The market often gets volatility wrong and that is an interesting angle to pursue.
The market often gets volatility wrong and that is an interesting angle to pursue.
Surely once you go in-play you have all sorts of value popping up?
for example, this season chelsea away to blackburn were 1.50 pre-kick off to win.
They took the lead and their odds dropped to 1.10 by start of second half.
however, once the second half started blackburn came out a different team and looked very likely to equalise. Chelseas odds remained at 1.10 but they were definitely no longer a 90% certainty to win this game the way blackburn were playing.
blackburn duly equalised and the game finished 1-1.
So surely that lay @ 1.10 was value if you could watch the game and see that blackburn looked more likely then chelsea?
So what im saying is that if you just look at pure odds and stats it can be hard to find an edge but assessing performance you can find opportunities when in-play as i expect most odds are built in to pre-match opinion mainly.
would be good to hear someone elses opinion on this?
for example, this season chelsea away to blackburn were 1.50 pre-kick off to win.
They took the lead and their odds dropped to 1.10 by start of second half.
however, once the second half started blackburn came out a different team and looked very likely to equalise. Chelseas odds remained at 1.10 but they were definitely no longer a 90% certainty to win this game the way blackburn were playing.
blackburn duly equalised and the game finished 1-1.
So surely that lay @ 1.10 was value if you could watch the game and see that blackburn looked more likely then chelsea?
So what im saying is that if you just look at pure odds and stats it can be hard to find an edge but assessing performance you can find opportunities when in-play as i expect most odds are built in to pre-match opinion mainly.
would be good to hear someone elses opinion on this?