Places or prices. What’s your betting DNA?

How your approach to betting is subjective. Not objective.

Recently I’ve been swapping emails with a few members of the Golf Insider on the thorny issue of staking.

And I say this because it’s one thing to get hold of good information (and a damn hard thing if you don’t know where to look)…

But it’s then another thing to stake that information correctly, or at least to get the maximum possible value, or profit, out of it.

So on this very subject, one member of the highly successful golf betting service (David) wrote to me just a few days ago to say this…

Hi Matthew

Further to my mail last week… I opt for the lower odds and more places,  I know this will probably benefit me over the course of time, so my question is bigger odds less places or lower odds and more places?

I guess its personal preference, but you have the stats, is it worth covering the extra places? Many thanks.

Regards, David

And what I said to David in reply is well worth sharing with you here.

Because it sheds light on that seemingly never-ending debate that we backers face every time we weigh up an each-way bet.

The question being…

Which is better… places or prices?

My email back to David went like this…

Hi David,

Thanks for your email.

The issue right at the very heart of this debate is the individual’s risk profile. Your risk profile.

For example, would you rather a lower strike rate in return for a greater long-term profit. By that I mean, would you be happy to go longer between drinks, if those barren spells were repaid with bigger winners and a greater overall profit?

Or would you prefer the “stress-free” ride of a higher hit-rate, but a lesser overall profit down the line? Meaning you visit the payout counter more often, but when you do there’s a smaller amount waiting there for you.

So it’s a choice between infrequent but big, or little and often.

Now we all like to think that we’re in the first category. Fearless backers who can financially (but more important MENTALLY) withstand a series of losers – whether they’re near misses or nowhere-nears.

(They’re all still value bets, so that’s why we back them – right?)

But in reality, it doesn’t always work out this way.

Backers have a habit of forgetting the bigger picture, and end up focusing solely on their most recent bets – especially if they lose – and therefore a mild sense of panic sets in. Or a wild sense in some cases!

And this is regardless of the price of the bets, big or small. Banker bets or outsiders.

I see this all the time with members of my services.

Doesn’t matter if they’re backing 16/1 shots or those at 66’s. Something in the back of their mind tells them these bets should all be performing like even money pokes, and winning every other time.

But that simply doesn’t happen. More to the point, it CAN’T happen, because of the efficiency of markets, and the accuracy of the layers… in other words, basic mathematical fact.

So a 66/1 chance is going to win roughly once in every 67 starts (in fact it’ll be a slightly higher number than this when you factor in the over-round etc).

And if you can get this bet winning once in every 65 or 66 starts, well you’re making money. Albeit a very small amount!!

Now this debate is relevant to win-only betting where punters often have to decide between a “banker” service (which typically gives short-priced bets that generate a higher strike rate) versus another more “speculative” operation (which advises bets at much higher odds, but generates a lower number of winners as a result).

Which would you plump for? Much depends on your risk profile, of course.

I can tell you now, even if both services delivered an identical return (which they won’t), more punters would quit the service with the lower strike rate.

But the same also applies to each-way betting… like we get with the Golf Insider.

Would you rather take, say, 5 places at 66/1 or 8 places at 50/1.

Again it comes back to a personal choice between a lower number of winners (and more of a rollercoaster ride)… or more frequent returns (so less strain on your betting bank… and your blood pressure).

Are backers happy to trade a lower strike rate for higher profits? In theory, yes. In practice, I’m not so sure.

[NB: I accept with these two examples, much can depend on the make-up of the results – i.e. you could have an endless number of EW bets being placed, and very few winners… or any number of winners, and everything else unplaced. But I’m working off a notional set of results that have a fairly even spread of both, relative to the odds of the total number of bets placed]

So which would you prefer… three extra each-way places or 16 points in the win market?

This brings it back to your individual risk profile.

And whilst I can (and probably will) always steer members down the path which leads them to more gains, and a higher Return On Investment – because that’s my job! – I’m also mindful that in order to do this they may have to check their own personal preferences at the door.

This is not always possible – as they can be a stubborn lot!!

Ultimately, you could say there is no “right” or “wrong” answer to this debate.

Ok, technically there is… if your only criteria is which method makes the most profit – in which case, the fewer places, higher odds strategy will win out. How so? Well, when you think about it, the only advantage of the taking more EW places is if your golfer happens to come 6th, 7th or 8th. Which is going to be rare.

This will tend to be out-performed (in purely financial terms and depending on strike rate – granted) over time by the 16 extra points you’ll get should the player actually win the tournament outright. And that’s the key statistic which swings the balance towards the more aggressive approach.

But, and it’s a big “BUT“…

This approach simply does not suit the betting style, bank size, mental resilience or bottle (if you want to put it bluntly) of most punters. Punters who will generally prefer to take more frequent payouts, even if it means make slightly less profit during the whole of their membership.

So what appears to make more profit/money on paper, might not actually work for the majority when taken off the spreadsheet and transfered to week-in, week-out betting on the fairways of the world.

I hope this makes sense, and if nothing else makes you think about your own style of betting.

As I say, I can’t really tell you which approach is better, or better suited to you, and so which one you should choose to follow… I just hope I have explained some of the background which should underpin your decision-making process.

Kind Regards, Matthew

So what’s your betting DNA?

As I tried to stress to David, there is no right answer with regards to this question. There is simply an answer which is “more right” for you.

Of course, we can always be clever after the event… and go back over a set of historical figures and determine that it was clearly better to follow this strategy, or that one.

But hindsight is a wonderful thing. And it’s a luxury that we simply don’t have when we’re betting “in the moment”.

In this respect, you have to make your bed and lie in it.

But I still maintain that you know yourself better than anyone… and only you can answer the question as to whether you can bear any short-term financial and/or mental hardship for the sake of a bigger long-term cash prize…

Or would you prefer to have an easier, more relaxed ride. One with more winners, less losers, and a steadier rate of return… albeit to a smaller overall level.

Of course, we’d all like a stress-free method that also guarantees the highest possible rate of return…

But after 26 years in this business…

And having been texted, sent, read or scrolled through every possible “get-rich-quick-scheme” you care to name…

I’m still looking myself.

But in the meantime the likes of the Golf Insider will do me fine.

 

OPINION: Many punters wrestle with the dilemma of whether to stick or twist with their betting approach, and often change tactics seemingly at whim (whenever one result goes either for or against them). But I really don’t think this debate is one that can be settled objectively. As I say, we all want to make more money – obviously! – but whether we’re prepared to jump through the hoops that are often required to achieve this goal, that’s another matter. It’s more a case of understanding the kind of person, the kind of punter, you are, and to not waste any time in a pointless exercise of wondering if the grass is greener on the other side.