Topic: What do you think about this Golf Strategy? [Betting €5400 on the US Open] - page 2. (Read 276 times)

I don't know much about sports betting but I am interested in the fact that skilled players can win in the long run. I will follow the thread to see how it works out for you.


I think it has nothing to do with martingale.


I haven't stopped to crunch the numbers. Do you mean that based on the bets and odds you will bet €5,350 and the expected profit value is €5,950?

What happens is that with such low odds you will have to place quite a few bets of that kind to win any bet. And then you have to take into account the variance. I hope you have a good bankroll to withstand several rounds of this type without winning.

Of course.



Now in live betting, if one of those who are 100 to 1 (ish) hit 500 to 1 in live - you can lay them as well for extra €10 each.

Expected profit here is €600 approx.

Risk: €5,350

With that much investment won't you be making more money in day trading in some cryptocurrencies? At the same time you won't have a perfect system since this would essentially be a mathematical evaluation which is very different from the real world examples and risks, therefore at the end of the day you would have to make sure it's not risky and even if one players accidently looses would have the whole percentage go up and down.

I do not think this is valuable at all, this is much like martingale which might sound good in theory but in practical might not be a good option.

Do let me know if you try it, I am really interested to see what happens.

There is no free money in gambling but judging by history - these kind of bets are value bets, not the opposite.

In every means of getting freedom, there's always a price to pay but this is what I called gambling without knowing the rules because the funds used to bet to prevent the risk will create more chance of winning, and the last time I check the risk aspect of gambling is what creates the fun and the buzz.
It is clear that any gamblers who used the formation you said probably don't know what she's doing because it is better to face the truth than hiding from it.
Gambling and risk are pals.

The same strategy could be adopted in any kind of event with many players (likewise an horse race - Cheltenham's Gold Cup)...
But it can't work! Because you can spend MUCH MUCH more to cover all players/runners ... and if you get a win you can just recover your bet/money risked. Or otherwise you're hoping for certain underdog to make a big win! It's an huge risk. I will not take it
If you don't play ALL players/runners you have a point of failure. Maybe it can work a couple of times, maybe you can have a lucky bet, but this is an huge risk to get a defeat / big loss and of course this is not a sure bet or an arbitrage that can really work.
If this is was really a working strategy, many gamblers with big pockets were already betting huge amount of money with this strategy....

1) If you really feel one of them can end up as a winner you can do the opposite - deposit €400 - €500 and back the ones you like - you would win 10-20 times your stake, depends how big is your risk.

2) The min. stake is €6 so if you lay €5400 against 900 to 1 then you risk €5400 to win €6 (on a player that is virtually next to none in terms of winning)

There is enough liquidity in the market for all of them, if I were to guess I'd say the ones with odds of 50 to 1 or less - one of them will win this.

Golf is about a lot of things other than randomality, it's how the player hits the ball in crazy weather, how much practice he makes, and so on ... those who can afford more (who have deep pockets) have better chances here, that's how it normally works (to a certain extent of course).

The only issue is that every single bet still needs to be matched and I don't have much experience when it comes to betting exchanges as I tend to use bookies on nearly all of my bets but if that's easy to deal with then I guess it's worth going for. With those long-shot odds, I feel like one of them could end up as a winner. Also, I checked the orbit exchange that you linked and it seems like there's a minimum bet of 7 in all markets so some of the golf players on the list might have to be removed or adjust their stakes.

It's an interesting idea but golf tends to be a highly competitive game and requires a lot of consistency to get into these late game competitions. If your bet is for the player to win and these are the far outliers then they have almost no chance which is why the odds are so high. Running with this idea, you could maybe translate it across into horse racing, particularly in combination with offers that run around big events to get better returns. You'd have to do a lot of hunting around, but you tend to see a few more upsets happening in this type of betting - it's incredibly easy for horses to have a bad day, or for a horse to fall and take down a pack of favorites.

It is a freebet, an additional benefit to the deposit, though  knowing other conditions if they exist is important, anyway, the deposit range is not among my deposit estimates, but if it is were and there were no additional conditions is not bad at all.

That's the best part, believe me I like golf but betting for a golf major is hard, in fact the variance is high in regular PGA tournaments, I don't want to mention you in the big 4 tournaments (Majors).

That same variance benefits you in the randomness of the candidates, that is to say, golf undoubtedly has its favorites, but in golf as in no other sport, the odds can only be a guide rather than a betting reality. You have to follow the game of these guys or their streak situations, even personal.

From that point of view,  any of them are candidates despite their bad odds and looking with tweezers at that list, for example, Phil Mickelson last year had very bad odds and won the PGA Championship against all odds, in fact He is the oldest player to win a tournament in that category.

No, these are not all the players who play in the tournament, but these are all the players with odds of 300 to 1 or more.
In Bet365 the one with the lowest odds is GaryWoodland with fixed odds of 141.

You are basically betting none of these super-high-odds players is going to win the tournament.

The winner is quite likely going to come out of the ones with odds of 50 to 1 or less, pre-match.

Of course, there can always be a surprise, but the chances of that happening are quite slim. Those players get super high odds for a reason - their chances of winning are extremely low.

That "almost risk free" is what I don't like.If you have chosen all the players and this is an arbitrage bet then it is a sure win and it is a great strategy but if you have not chosen all the players this means no matter you have chosen the majority of the players you still have someone out and if this someone wins the tournament you lose 5400 EUR which is not a small amount and this is not a great strategy.Not worth trying if this second option is the case,if it is the first you have chosen every player taking part on this tournament and it is a sure arbitrage bet then go ahead since you will get a minimum of 439 EUR.

Edit: The betting slip is HERE

The US Open starts in 2 days.
Let's say you use a BetFair account in order to lay Golf players that have virtually almost 0 chance to win. (odds of 300 to 1 or more).

If you can't use BetFair you can use OrbitX for example:
https://www.orbitxch.com/customer/sport/3

(See also a guide here - How to use BetFair from anywhere)

Now,

You deposit a quite large amount of €5400 and you start laying the players with the high odds, literally:

Kurt Kityama - 900 to 1 - €6.00
Patrick Rodgers - 870 to 1 - €6.20
Thorbjorn Olesen - 810 to 1 - €6.66
Scott Stallings - 650 to 1 - €8.30
Wyndham Clark - 620 to 1 - €8.70
Harris English - 650 to 1 - €8.30
Joel Dahmen - 700 to 1 - €7.70
Matthew NeSmith - 640 to 1 - €8.50
Beau Hossler - 630 to 1 - €8.60
Taylor Montgomery - 580 to 1 - €9.30
Kevin Kisner - 510 to 1 - €10.60
Erik Van Rooyen - 530 to 1 - €10.20
Branden Grace - 530 to 1 - €10.20
Lanto Griffin - 490 to 1 - €11.00
Cameron Tringale - 490 to 1 - €11.00
Denny Mccarthy - 540 to 1 - €10.00
Adri Arnaus - 500 to 1 - €10.80
Sam Horsfield - 470 to 1 - €11.50
Adam Hadwin - 480 to 1 - €11.25
Mackenzie Hughes - 470 to 1 - €11.50
Victor Perez - 490 to 1 - €11.00
Stewart Cink - 500 to 1 - €11.00
Kevin Na - 420 to 1 - €12.80
Lucas Herbert - 430 to 1 - €12.55
Phil Mickelson - 490 to 1 - €11.00
Francesco Molinari - 430 to 1 - €12.55
Thomas Pieters - 390 to 1 - €13.80
Alex Noren - 360 to 1 - €15.00
Sepp Straka - 380 to 1 - €14.20
Tom Hoge - 340 to 1 - €15.80
Luke List - 310 to 1 - €17.40
K.H. Lee - 370 to 1 - €14.60
Brian Harman - 300 to 1 - €18.00
Sergio Garcia - 300 to 1 - €18.00
Marc Leishman - 320 to 1 - €16.85
Ryan Fox - 300 to 1 - €18.00
Gary Woodland - 270 to 1 - €20

So by doing this you risk €5400 in order to win €439

So you make a profit of 8% approx. on your investment, but it's almost risk free.

What do you think about it?