Scalping in-game

[shadowninja]

Hi

I've read the handful of threads covering trading and was wondering if anyone has been consistently successful in-game.

I was toying with the idea of scalping under 2.5g and if I get hit by a goal, then red up and accept the loss - usually a loss would equate to 30% of total wager but I could end up taking 10-20% of total wager as profit and not get hit by a goal. Obviously, if it's 1-0, I don't trade o/u 1.5 goals as that's gonna get me killed immediately a goal is scored but I would trade o/u 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 etc. I was toying with it last night and got hit by 4 goals in 10 minutes (thanks, Hartlepool!) resulting in a 100% loss rather than the expected 30% loss. I would have thought 4 goals in 10 minutes is generally a rare event, though.

Any thoughts beyond "don't do it"? I would be interested in hearing from those who have won or lost a bundle via in-game scalping rather than those who just bet on outcomes ie people with scalping experience.

Thanks in advance.

-Darren

[The Joker]

Back unders or lay overs??

Laying might carry the added benefit of increased tick increments!

Match analysis is gonna be key for you.
There is a site called betterbettor.com or co.uk there is a stats analysis tool I posted some of them up recently and cran sorted the format out for me.

I can't go into too much detail ATM as I'm working away and don't have access to my pc. But I reckon nigel would be one of the best if not the best to ask about this on here. If you haven't had a more detailed response by the time I get back Sunday then I'll pm you, but I doubt that will be the case

http://www.geekstoy.com/forum/showpost.php?p=31876&postcount=9

[mixed trader]

The only experience ive had is just trying scalping at h/t,you can normally get a few ticks.

[Wednesday 13]

:Welcome on board, ShadowNinja!

I'm trading (or, at the moments, gambling... if there is any difference between the two) mostly under/over 4.5 goals market, as I found it most consistent, and safest one.

First of all, I'm afraid that your evaluation of about 30% loss in case you get stucked by goal is not very accurate; you say that you scalp, so that means your danger is early goal; if un 2.5 odds at kick off are, let's say, 1.80, goal in first ten minutes will send them to around 4.50 to 5, which means loss of 64% of your initial stake. They rather fast drop down to around 4, and then dances around that mark for a period of time, which still wipes out more than half of your bank.

With scalping, you achieve relatively small profit, which requires high strike rate, and one big loss will be difficult to recover; after first goal, it's dangerous to wait too long, as second goal means even higher loss; that's exactly why I moved to 4.5 goals market; as you said, matches with 4 fast goals are rather rare thing, so you can wait more relaxing for odds to come in again.

Moreover, odds for un/ov 4.5 market are most of the time between 1.01 and evens (they go higher only in case of goal fiesta), and I just feel more comfortable with 0.01 tick increment, than 0.05 or 0.1, as it often goes in other markets; it basically has nothing to do with trading, but it's only my personal preference.

For example, if there is an early goal, odds for under 4.5 will return to a level they were at kick-off around 25 to 30 minute, while for under 2.5 goals, it's as late as at half time; subsequently, if there are two goals in first half, odds for under 4.5 will return to level from kick-off at half time, or early in second half, and in that time, you have two more goals "allowed" before your trade is on the edge.

Sometimes you will stumble upon three goals in first half, just like Sheffield Wednesday vs. Nots County at the moment, it's 60th minute now, and odds are around 1.50 at the moment (giving loss of only 20 %), while at kick-off they were around 1.20, so in about ten minutes, I expect them to be at the beginning... naturally, if there is no goal; in the meantime, but even if there is, trade is still alive; if the goal comes right now, odds would go to around 3.0 (current odds for under 3.5; under 4.5 would "inherit" that level in case of goal), which makes for a loss of 60%, therefore the same as would under2.5 provide after first goal... with a difference that under 2.5 has been long dead now.

Finally, if you're so unlucky to hit a match with 4 goals in first half, as I sometimes do,



then you can do nothing but say good bye to most of your bank, or sit down and pray scorers to get lazy...

Additionally, when trading ov/un 2.5 goals, you usually need to hedge both outcomes, over and under 2.5, as both are, more or less, equally likely to happen; though, when trading on under 4.5, I usually lay off only my initial stake, so to maximize profit if match finisihes with 4 or less goals, and to break even in (rare) cases when there is 5 or more goals.

I don't like under 3.5 market, as it seems to have collected only bad sides of two surrounding markets - drop of odds is not very fast, and it's sensitive to an early goal almost in the same level as under 2.5.

We have elaborated early goals, but sometimes you need to beware of late goals!



You see two above screenshots? I made them as a reminder, with a couple of days in between them, along with this one:



You see, in only several days, despite all my analyses and info, I succeeded to hit three games with more than 4 goals, which pretty serious burned my bank... I'm pretty sure that sooner or later that may happen to you, on this or some other market, but don't get discouraged, and more importantly, don't chase your losses; it's trading, so take a deep breath, come in terms with new lower bank, and start all over again!

Scroll through this forum, you'll find a lot of useful info, and I strongly reccommend to read www.geekstoy.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2433 and www.geekstoy.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1589 !

By the way, Sheffield Wednesday and Notts County in the meantime arrived to the injury time, and it's still 2-1!

Good luck with your trading, mate!

[shadowninja]

Thank you for the replies. I discovered the football section so got reading in there. I will digest the above replies and respond shortly.

[shadowninja]

Wow, Wednesday, that's some reply. I will have to keep an eye on the u/o 4.5 goals in future. Interesting that you lay to cover over 4.5. Will have to think about that. Edit: just sitting here thinking about various outcomes and my head's about to overheat.

My current "oh bugger there's a goal" action is to wait for the market to settle then red up and avoid the rest of the game. Maybe it is closer to 50% but I can make 10-20% per game so it isn't really an issue because I tend to avoid games where the odds majorly favour one team thus goals are less likely PLUS I have to be waiting to have my lay bet matched. Chances are low.

[shadowninja]

Wow. I just noticed something... I'm a virgin, again. :Thumbs

[The Joker]

Wow. I just noticed something... I'm a virgin, again. :Thumbs

Daz I know sometimes Muslim women have their heimens reconstructed but that's just a bit strange !!

[shadowninja]

Daz I know sometimes Muslim women have their heimens reconstructed but that's just a bit strange !!

That's a separate issue altogether. I think it's to do with family honour. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8641099.stm

They can get the operation free on the NHS, too... Something about their Hymen Rights.

[shadowninja]

I usually lay off only my initial stake, so to maximize profit if match finisihes with 4 or less goals, and to break even in (rare) cases when there is 5 or more goals.

Wouldn't 0-0 result in a loss for you?

[The Joker]

Something about their Hymen Rights.

pmsl excellent !!!!

[Wednesday 13]

Wouldn't 0-0 result in a loss for you?

Nooooooo! How 0-0 can produce a loss on any under markets?! Any result with less than 4 goals is winner, with 0-0 the most comfortable one.

[shadowninja]

Nooooooo! How 0-0 can produce a loss on any under markets?! Any result with less than 4 goals is winner, with 0-0 the most comfortable one.

But you said you lay at the start under 4.5 goals in case you get caught out by a goal? Or have I misread?

[Fulwell]

Wednesday13, interesting analysis on the U/O 4.5 market. I spent most of last season scalping U/0 2.5, for which the Geek's Toy is the ideal tool. I made steady profit over a succession of games, but as many people have pointed out, the one or two games that produce early goals can really hit you.

My strategy was to back Under 2.5 on a fairly carefully selected game where the Under odds were reasonable (not some of those stupid World Cup games where Unders was as low as 1.5), then scalp through to half time, weighting almost all the green on the Unders side (I think the stats show that only about 15% of games that are 0-0 at HT go over at 90 mins). If I got hit by an early goal I'd quickly double the back stake to get much higher under odds, then double the speed and stake of the lays to get out of the market quickly. It worked a lot of the time, but I got burned on several occasions, the last of which was Leeds v Derby at the start of this season, which has prompted a rethink on scalping as a whole.

I have thought about backing Under 2.5 at better odds (evens or above) and trying to get in a lay of Under 4.5 at around 1.2 or lower for insurance. But that eats into your profit, and juggling the two markets is difficult.

With your strategy, if you back Under 4.5 you can't be getting better odds than 1.15 a lot of the time. So say you place £100 on Under 4.5. Do you scalp out at £10 a time at every 0.01 increment? (1.14, 1.13, etc)? What kind of profit do you get doing that in a typical game?

I love scalping as it's one of the most exciting ways of trading (because you're always acting on a goal not happening), but I'm still looking for the best method to balance risk and return. Probably a fruitless search..

Is scalping fundamentally flawed, along with all forms of time erosion-based trading?

Betfair guru Pete Nordsted seems to think it is, and I'm starting to agree with him.

[shadowninja]

Is scalping fundamentally flawed, along with all forms of time erosion-based trading?

Betfair guru Pete Nordsted seems to think it is, and I'm starting to agree with him.

ISTR reading about one person who only scalps backing the favourite when they are approaching the goal as the odds can move in your favour plus a goal is a bonus; obviously, this means you have to watch the game.

As for any gurus claiming scalping is impossible, I can't swim the English Channel what with its distance, cold water and currents ergo it is impossible for anyone to do it, right? Sure, I may never manage to profit over time from scalping sports but that still doesn't mean it is impossible.