Bookies odds and support / resistance
- ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
What's the difference?ruthlessimon wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:06 pmDevil's advocate incoming
Wouldn't that make it "current fair value"; not "support/resistance"?
Isn't support/resistance just the limit of what people consider to be fair value?
- ruthlessimon
- Posts: 2094
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm
That's a decent shout - & certainly testable. I'll have a quick look at this on the June shorties & post up the findings
-
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
I'd be surprised if you find any reliable formula between bookies odds and betfair odds there are too many variables to go into and the bookies are more inclined to follow Betfair odds than the other way round so there's little point in worrying about them. A 5/1 shot at the bookies can happily trade at a steady 6 to 12 depending on the course. Bookies will generally bet to between 1-2% a runner but that overround isn't evenly spread when translated to exchange odds as their liabilities aren't spread the same.
- ruthlessimon
- Posts: 2094
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm
This was the 15:50 - & I'd call 2.46 the resistance level, not 2.5. & interestingly the number 2.46 crops up a lotShaunWhite wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:19 pmWhat's the difference?
Isn't support/resistance just the limit of what people consider to be fair value?
Caveat: - You can't just assume price always returns to fair value, markets are simply way more complicated!
- ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
Or maybe he can't really be bothered
I was only going to have a quick look at the forum, I finished my week at about 6am this morning so it's not someting I want to get hugely involved in on a day off.
The OP asked a question, I gave him my opinion. If you agree then fine, if you don't, then fine. I don't really mind either way.
- ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
If you're talking swings then I'd call that the abolute textbook example of 2.5 support. The slight noise is perfectly centered around peak vol at 2.5.ruthlessimon wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:34 pmThis was the 15:50 - & I'd call 2.46 the resistance level, not 2.5. & interestingly the number 2.46 crops up a lotShaunWhite wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:19 pmWhat's the difference?
Isn't support/resistance just the limit of what people consider to be fair value?
2.52-2.46 as a scalping range sup/res maybe, but in terms of swings, that's 2.5 all day long.
2.46? narrr that's just a few overexcited punters prepared to take a bit less than most people.
- ruthlessimon
- Posts: 2094
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm
Day off??ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:35 pmOr maybe he can't really be bothered
I finished my week at about 6am this morning so it's not someting I want to get hugely involved in on a day off.
The market never sleeps!
Last edited by ruthlessimon on Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
I know some layers have a cognitive bias towards laying at 2.0 but not 2.02 but generally I think the traditional prices are transparent and largely ignored. Some young traders or traders without a betting background may only be used to decimal odds. I doubt 13/8, 15/8, 100/30 would have any significance whatsoever.
- ruthlessimon
- Posts: 2094
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm
I just rewatched that market, & it came from 2.70 - went clean through 2.5 (albeit only 2 ticks through it ) - & consolidated on 2.5. Yes, the punters/traders arguably overreacted - but that's the definition of mean-reversion!ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:47 pm2.46? narrr that's just a few overexcited punters prepared to take a bit less than most people.
- ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
Good, and while they're in the minority, we'll continue to profit from them continually overshooting where sense prevails. It why mature trading money gets stacked up speculatively just beyond these points as far as I can see.Derek27 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:51 pmI know some layers have a cognitive bias towards laying at 2.0 but not 2.02 but generally I think the traditional prices are transparent and largely ignored. Some young traders or traders without a betting background may only be used to decimal odds. I doubt 13/8, 15/8, 100/30 would have any significance whatsoever.
Fair value has to be at 'round' numbers in the public psyche. Most can't pick a winner for trying usually, so who of them are clued up enough to say that a horse is a 53.26% chance rather than a 50/50 chance, especially en mass. You've only got to see the markets to know that even 'industry pros' only have a rough idea of a range of prices anyway.
I'd be sad if traditional odds went, but then maybe round numbers would become even more significant.
- ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
We have a totally different sense of scale :ruthlessimon wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:57 pmI just rewatched that market, & it came from 2.70 - went clean through 2.5 (albeit only 2 ticks through it ) - & consolidated on 2.5. Yes, the punters/traders arguably overreacted - but that's the definition of mean-reversion!ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:47 pm2.46? narrr that's just a few overexcited punters prepared to take a bit less than most people.
2.75 -> 2.50 -> 2.60 = Mean reversion
2.75 -> 2.50 ->2.46 ->2.5 = Bottoming out
2.75 -> 2.50 ->2.54 ->2.5 = Dead cat bounce
2 ticks @ 2.5 is low for noise, let alone any conscious value taking.
These small overshoots are absolutely everywhere, especially in newsfeed based markets.