I thought this would be an inclusive experiment since it would be about fixed odds and cherry-picked matches, pretty much gambling on what matches to gamble, which leads to a lot of bias in the results, then, how about betting on all football matches from 5 leagues, only on the favorite under 1.5 to win, would those "sure" lol, prove to be easy money or an easy money pit that grows with each week played? My experience with betting on the favorite in horse racing tells me the latter, but who knows?
The experiment is pretty simple,
- Each Thursday-Friday I pick all matches from 5 leagues in which a team is under 1.5 to win (odds from Stake )
- A bet is considered at 1 unit, so a loss is -1 , a win at 1.25 is +0.25
- The game will stop at -100, if we reach that point I think it's obvious the strategy is flawed to the max
Update:
Since there is so much talk about multipliers I will track this too, for the 6 games above: Total Odds 5.59.
This will be done independently from the single bets.
Round 1 results
- Individual bets balance +0.27
- Multiplier balance -1
The trouble is you're only making small amounts, say 10% of the total you are risking, each time you bet. However you stand to lose 100% of your bet if you lose. Unless you think you can beat the analytics of the bookmaker, those companies that make hundreds of millions a year profit from accurately predicting outcomes over the long term, then there it sounds appealing but it really is not. Even if you were to win 10 attempts in a row to double up your money, you only need a chain link of two mistakes or cases where the odds go against you, to lose the initial 100% of your capital that is being risked. These freak odds happen more often than not, but can also stack against all your profits accumulated so far.