|
I started betting on SC2 matches just about one month ago. When informing about sports betting you often hear that you should avoid multiple bets, because they tend to be more gamble and less knowledge based as single bets.
However i like to place multiple bets for example on proleague matches and it made me curious if for this case it is really worse in terms of the expected reward. So because i often do not trust other people (especially on the internet  ) made a little example calculation i wanted to share with you.
In Proleague there are often matches where one player is heavily favored. Let's say the favorite player has 1.3 odds to 3.5 odds for the other player. (This would assume your bookmaker gets around 5,5 percent of all stakes, because 1/(1/1.3+1/3.5))=1.055) If the chances are now exactly as indicated by the quotes you obviously cannot win in the long run. (because of the 5,5 percent that go to the bookmaker) The adjusted real chances would lie around 0,73 and 0,27 for the two players.
So the only question is, when are you losing less, by doing multiple bets or by doing single bets.
Assume you want to bet on 3 matches were you have 3 times a rather clear favorite with 1.3 odds and bet on these matches.
First the potential scenario with 3 single bets:
each match you would place 1 euro and would get 30 cent if you win and loose your 1 euro stake otherwise. So if i make for example 3x100 bets of this kind i would win 0,73*300*0,3=65,70 euro
and loose 0,27*300*1=81 euro making a balance of -15,30 euro.
Now the second potential with a multiple bet.
in this case i would do a 100 times a multiple bet on 3 matches each. In case i win i get with a quote of 1.3x1.3x1.3=2,197 an amount of 2,197*3-3=3,59 euro. In the lose case i lose my 3 euro stake. The probability to win the multiple bet is of course much lower in numbers 0.73x0.73x0.73=0.389. So overall when doing 100 multiple bets i would win 100*0,389*3,59=139,66 euro and lose 100*0,611*3=183,29 euro making a balance of -43,63 euro.
So two points confirmed:
- you probably will lose money when betting (ok, nothing new here  )
- and in fact multiple bets are worse than single bets.
One open point is what's the deal with system bets. Perhaps more on that in another blog.
|
I play horses a lot the difference with multiple bets is that as I understand E-sports betting there is a much more limited variation of bets to play.
I don't know if that site is offering things like Pick 4s (pick 4 consecutive winners), Trifectas/Exactas (Box or otherwise), but there just isn't that much variation in the game to make for good odds. Trying to figure out what odds to give is hard as well because there are only two players. SO either odds are set, which means you'll make nothing on the favorite, and betting the underdog would probably pay out more in spurts, but has higher potential every time or you allow for flex in the odds, which gets weird because you probably still won't see much variation (never a player at 20/1 for example.)
If I saw what you're talking about for a dollar bet on a horse, I would stay away from it on principle. What you are describing with what the house (bookie), is called the take.
I wish I could be on it, but for the time being, not going to happen int he states. I'll stick to horses for the time being.
|
United States13143 Posts
I initially read this as "Bat Blog" and was much more excited.
|
Professional gambler here from Aus, betting on horses and dogs. The point of betting is to produce an effective 'book' based on percentages from the bookmaker (my father is a bookmaker so I know how his operation works) and the agency perspectives. The idea behind it is that if each horse has the same amount bet on them judging from the math alone the agency should profit. It's hard to explain but I can if you are interested. And the difference between a bookmaker and an agency is huge too. Generally if you bet eachway (win and place) with a bookmaker you will get set odds for the win (such as 12$) and derived odds for the place (a quarter of the odds(3$)) but an agency can set independent odds based on the trend of bets. It's not uncommon to see $21 shots with $2 as the place because people are betting heavily that that horse will place.
To sum up yes most bookmakers should always get a percentage but if they take $1000 on a $201 chance horse and the horse wins they still have to pay out the two hundred grand - they cant argue and say the percentage should have let me win. So many contributing factors though, I myself watch racing everyday to see the current form of the horses etc. For sports like Starcraft or football or boxing I hate the idea of betting - sure you don't have to choose one or the other because they offer different bet types like guessing the point spread and all that but at the end of the day you have a coinflip between two teams or players that won't net you money.
So yes you should lose money over time with betting but it depends greatly on the scenario because (as a uni student) it feels pretty baller to walk into a car dealership and pay with money I wouldn't have without betting. (In all seriousness though I've seen many friends place bets willy-nilly and lose a lot so unless you're an expert I wouldn't recommend gambling at all)
|
On June 03 2014 03:37 ThomasjServo wrote:
I play horses a lot the difference with multiple bets is that as I understand E-sports betting there is a much more limited variation of bets to play.
I don't know if that site is offering things like Pick 4s (pick 4 consecutive winners), Trifectas/Exactas (Box or otherwise), but there just isn't that much variation in the game to make for good odds. Trying to figure out what odds to give is hard as well because there are only two players. SO either odds are set, which means you'll make nothing on the favorite, and betting the underdog would probably pay out more in spurts, but has higher potential every time or you allow for flex in the odds, which gets weird because you probably still won't see much variation (never a player at 20/1 for example.)
If I saw what you're talking about for a dollar bet on a horse, I would stay away from it on principle. What you are describing with what the house (bookie), is called the take.
I wish I could be on it, but for the time being, not going to happen int he states. I'll stick to horses for the time being.
On June 03 2014 07:38 sUgArMaNiAc wrote:
Professional gambler here from Aus, betting on horses and dogs. The point of betting is to produce an effective 'book' based on percentages from the bookmaker (my father is a bookmaker so I know how his operation works) and the agency perspectives. The idea behind it is that if each horse has the same amount bet on them judging from the math alone the agency should profit. It's hard to explain but I can if you are interested. And the difference between a bookmaker and an agency is huge too. Generally if you bet eachway (win and place) with a bookmaker you will get set odds for the win (such as 12$) and derived odds for the place (a quarter of the odds(3$)) but an agency can set independent odds based on the trend of bets. It's not uncommon to see $21 shots with $2 as the place because people are betting heavily that that horse will place.
To sum up yes most bookmakers should always get a percentage but if they take $1000 on a $201 chance horse and the horse wins they still have to pay out the two hundred grand - they cant argue and say the percentage should have let me win. So many contributing factors though, I myself watch racing everyday to see the current form of the horses etc. For sports like Starcraft or football or boxing I hate the idea of betting - sure you don't have to choose one or the other because they offer different bet types like guessing the point spread and all that but at the end of the day you have a coinflip between two teams or players that won't net you money.
So yes you should lose money over time with betting but it depends greatly on the scenario because (as a uni student) it feels pretty baller to walk into a car dealership and pay with money I wouldn't have without betting. (In all seriousness though I've seen many friends place bets willy-nilly and lose a lot so unless you're an expert I wouldn't recommend gambling at all)
So i see your points, that there's only the win and lose and nothing in between for SC2 which doesn't make it very suitable for professional betting. However i think you can win, if you are really well informed and view streams alot and stuff.
And obviously if the bookmaker is not on top of things with his odds, it can end bad for him. However those internet sc2 betting sites have some "security mechanism" built in, if the initial announced odds are not appropriate and people are recognizing it by betting against it, the odds get adapted. So not much to lose from their side. Obviously if you are fast enough you can profit from it, but in general the bookmaker is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
) so it proves that the odds on multiples are there without betting singly which in a sense is only to be used when betting big. 
