1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Other Matched Betting

Discussion in 'General' started by Hg, 4 Dec 2015.

  1. thom804

    thom804 Member

    Joined:
    22 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    714
    Likes Received:
    6
    The irony is almost palpable.

    Doesn't just apply to insurance, therefore everything can be equated to gambling if you want to go down that path, which you seem to be doing with insurance...
     
  2. jinq-sea

    jinq-sea 'write that down in your copy book' Super Moderator

    Joined:
    15 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    524
    Wow. Just wow. You've TOTALLY missed the point. As I said, I give up. Go and argue your warped view with someone else.

    Oh - and you were the one that started the discussion with buildings insurance being a legal requirement and got irritated when called out...

    EDIT: I also never said that it was like gambling for the customer - the insurer is gambling on the customer, and the insurer always wins.
     
    Last edited: 8 Dec 2015
    David likes this.
  3. thom804

    thom804 Member

    Joined:
    22 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    714
    Likes Received:
    6
    Firstly, I didn't get irritated. I admitted that I was wrong, though our mortgage advisor insisted that we have home insurance when we bought ours. Led my Wife and I to believe that it is a legal obligation, which I stated that I'm surprised that it actually isn't.

    Second, you're acting precisely the same way most people do when they just don't have a leg to stand on anymore, especially on the internet. Bluff, and bluster.

    You didn't initiate the point about home insurance being a form of gambling, but you were more than happy to pick up the torch once you'd given your 'cool story bro' thumbs up.
     
  4. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,207
    Likes Received:
    155
    And thank you for your sarcasm. I admit I quoted the wrong section of your post. The reason I brought up the lack of long term sustainability whilst quoting you, was because you said the following...

     
  5. Bungletron

    Bungletron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 May 2010
    Posts:
    1,169
    Likes Received:
    62
    This thread has alerted me to matched betting but other than that if you want to learn about matched betting do not read this thread.

    I had heard the phrase and I thought it was like financial arbitrage and hence pointless on a small scale, had a quick look it is distinctly different. It appears the risks are user errors leading to costly mistakes or a Nick Leeson/Barings bank style loss of control where the user becomes a straight up gambler.

    Here is the best example I found to illustrate a perfect example of a no risk matched bet which I challenge anyone to debunk:

    Imagine I make you the following offer: I will allow you to place a bet worth £10 for FREE. Then I give you the opportunity to bet on a single coin toss at 1/1 odds (if you win you get your original stake back plus same amount on top, if you lose you lose the original stake only).

    First, place the FREE £10 bet on HEADS, then take £10 of your own money and bet on TAILS.

    At this stage bear in mind you have only spent £10. :eyebrow:

    Now think of the only 2 possible outcomes.

    1st outcome - COIN COMES UP HEADS

    (INCOME FROM WON HEADS BET = £20) + (INCOME FROM LOST TAILS BET = £0) = £20

    Result, less initial £10 outlay = £10 up :clap:

    2nd outcome - COIN COMES UP TAILS

    (INCOME FROM LOST HEADS BET = 0) + (INCOME FROM WON TAILS BET = £20) = £20

    Result, less initial £10 outlay = £10 up :clap:

    THEREFORE, COIN COMES UP HEADS OR TAILS THE FINAL RESULT IS THE SAME = You are £10 up :clap:

    Since these are the only 2 outcomes this is no risk. The trick was taking a £10 free bet whose outcome was uncertain and turning it into £10 free CASH instead by covering all the possible outcomes by staking some of your own money.


    The practice is more complicated matching real sporting events but the principle is sound since it appears the bookies offer these types of free bets all the time and you can cover all outcomes by laying bets on a site like betfair, the only discrepancy is due to slightly differing odds and commissions you may not always walk away with 100% of the free offered bet values but just a percentage however executed perfectly yes this is guaranteed.

    The conclusion I came to is it must be time consuming finding the offers and making/laying the bets and you must have a good understanding of what you must do so always be worrying about perfect execution. If you cannot get your head around the principle and you are liable to make mistakes it goes from being no risk to high risk. But it is not the same as taking a punt on a simple outcome which is why a lot of the comment here is not helpful however those that do not see this are probably demonstrating they are not good candidates to use this technique. That moneysavingexpert.com guide is a good, more in depth primer.
     
    Last edited: 8 Dec 2015
  6. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,207
    Likes Received:
    155
    You would be right if insurance brokers only insured a handful of houses, but they operate at such a large scale that events become predictable enough that they can run a sustainable business on it. They know that they will have a certain number of payouts each year. They insure such a large number of people that those predictions become accurate, its not a gamble. Also their premiums are calculated to mitigate the risk. You live in a high crime area, your premiums will be higher, you live in a flood zone, you might not even get insurance.

    An insurers risk is also inverted to that of a gambler. Most people's houses don't burn down, but only one horse can win a race.

    How on earth does an insurer "win" when they have to pay out a claim? A single claim can wipe out a significant amount of profit they have made from you to that point.
     
  7. bawjaws

    bawjaws Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    4,041
    Likes Received:
    690
    You've misread that quote from Jinq-sea, theshadow - he says that the insurer wins if the house doesn't burn down (i.e. they don't have to pay the claim).
     
  8. David

    David Take my advice — I’m not using it.

    Joined:
    7 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    14,784
    Likes Received:
    3,230
    Surely, in this context, the insurer is the bookie? BTW bookies are still gamblers, you know.

    An insurer not being willing to insure you for living in a flood plain is allegorical to a bookie unwilling to take a bet on a sure thing.

    Yes, but that's not what he said. :lol:
     
  9. bawjaws

    bawjaws Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    4,041
    Likes Received:
    690
    Now, I could be wrong, but isn't it generally the case that if a bookie gives you a free £10 bet then they only pay out the "winnings" and not the stake - so if you put your £10 bet on an evens bet (i.e. a coin toss coming up heads) then you'll only win £10 if it comes up heads (rather than the £20 in your example)?
     
  10. Weekly_Estimate

    Weekly_Estimate Gives credit where its due

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2010
    Posts:
    3,290
    Likes Received:
    350
    That's correct, we always deduct the stake (in shop) anyway.
     
  11. Bungletron

    Bungletron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 May 2010
    Posts:
    1,169
    Likes Received:
    62
    In the example of the condition where you are not returned the free stake in any offer then I think you can use uneven odds in your favour. Imagine you decide to bet the £10 on getting a 6 on a dice roll instead. Odds are 5/1 (5 to 1) against a 6 and 1/5 (1 to 5) against not getting a 6. But I think you can still bet to guarantee a minimum profit, a table of results if you make the free £10 with no stake return on the 6, put your own money £10 on not a 6:

    Code:
    Result			Get a 6, free £10 no return of free stake	Not Get a 6, £10 stake returned		Result less £10 stake
    6			£50.00						£0.00					£40.00 UP
    1,2,3,4 or 5		£0.00						£12.00					£2.00 UP
    
    In the above case you still cover all outcomes and make a minimum of £2 but £40 if you are lucky. However, what happens if you switched the free bet with no stake return conditions and the normal £10 bet around?

    Code:
    Result			Get a 6, £10 stake returned	Not Get a 6, free £10 no return of free stake	Result less £10 stake
    6			£60.00				£0.00						£50.00 UP
    1,2,3,4 or 5		£0.00				£2.00						-£8.00 DOWN
    This way round there is a possibility of loss, I guess that is why this is a bit of a challenge so you must always check the bets very carefully.

    WARNING: I am not an expert and have never tried this but the maths appears to be adding up, you lot tell me different.
     
    Last edited: 8 Dec 2015
  12. Hg

    Hg The game known as life

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    731
    Likes Received:
    47
    Your right it can be time consuming to try and find these offers and matching the odds when doing it on your own.
    This is where sites like PA (the one i linked) and others come to the aid, as they do alot of the donkey work for you finding the offers, and using software to find the bets with the best matching odds etc.
    http://www.matched-betting.com/matcher.aspx is another good (FREE) website which finds the best matches to enable best return.
    IF you have a look at it it shows you how the system works.
     
    Bungletron likes this.
  13. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,207
    Likes Received:
    155
    I certainly did. My bad.
     
  14. edzieba

    edzieba Virtual Realist

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    590
    There's an extra wrinkle to thinking of insurance as a bet: while the insurer is betting on your house not burning down. You are not betting that your house will burn down (or flood, be hit by a meteorite, etc). You are instead betting that the cost and inconvenience of losing your house and all your possessions is less than the cost and inconvenience of paying the insurance fees over time. Given that your insurance premium is invariably less than your mortgage repayment, this is almost always an extremely safe bet.
     
  15. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    12,052
    Likes Received:
    1,962
    House insurance is not gambling. It's a calculated risk.

    Gambling is not a calculated risk because the odds lie with the house. Worse still in certain cases the gamble is positively fixed by the house.

    As I said before, started by criminals ain't changed much.
     
  16. HybridHans

    HybridHans New Member

    Joined:
    29 Jun 2016
    Posts:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah...an insurance company has a calculated risk exactly the same as a bookmaker has a calculated risk.

    If the majority of people back england to win a match (not wise btw) with a particular bookmaker and england do win then the bookmaker will lose money on that particular match.

    Same as...

    If everyone on a street takes out house insurance with a particular insurer and that street floods then the insurer will lose money on that street.

    But bookmakers will calculate % so that they pay out less than they win. Same with insurers they'll pay out less in claims than they take from policies.
     

Share This Page