Dutching & Bookmaking for advanced

Elucidation about the D&B video:

D&B is not better or worst then Back/Lay, as sometimes it’s more rewarding to do Back/Lay, and other times to do D&B.

It will always be possible to obtain the same results by using different techniques; however the associated risk and necessary time will be different until the bets are matched.

***

First, I must say that I understand the critiques about the video mathematical logic. It wasn’t possible to provide more explanations in the video as it was already long and had to be divided.

So I’m providing additional explanations:

Explanation 1 => Example

This is only an example!!!

The idea is that we can take advantage of three markets movement instead of only one FOLLOWING THE SAME BASED IDEA.

Explanation 2 => Misunderstanding on Ticks concept

There is some misunderstanding with the tick concept. To simplify, I considered a 5 ticks variation for each market:

Note:

(Everton Star@ 2.90; varies: 2.88; 2.86; 2.84; 2.82; 2.80)

(Man. City Star@ 2.72; varies: 2.74; 2.76; 2.78; 2.80; 2.82)

(Draw Star@ 3.45; varies: 3.50; 3.55; 3.60; 3.65; 3.70)

If you vary A 2.00 tick to 1.99 this will match to a 0.5% variation.

However, if you vary ONE tick from 100 to 110, this will match to a 10% variation

This means that it’s not fair to talk about % or absolute variation, but only about ticks.

Explanation 3 => Balanced market

There is some confusion about balanced market. Just because those odds were inserted, it doesn’t mean that is the balanced price, just means that I intent to get them in, at that price.

TO BE CLEAR! WE ALL AGREE: Just because the house team is dropping 5 ticks the market balance is reset by rising 5 ticks to draw and 5 ticks to the visitors team.

But that doesn’t invalidate that the odds I inserted have as many probabilities of getting in as the Everton Lay odd of simple trading, because:

1º The variation of ticks’ nº are the same (account 2)

2 º I apply this In-Play technique where lays a violent and wide variation of the odds

3º The market can be structurally maladjusted

4º In readjustment periods, the market overtake constantly the balance point.

developing…

2º In-Play

I don’t consider the example unreal, specially having in consideration that I work in In-Play, where odds deviation is dramatic! LIKE I SAY IN THE VIDEO  it is a “generous” example, but not unrealistic.

The odds easily grow 5 ticks in certain moments of the game (corner kick, free kick, etc). Just because our orders are inserted in advancement, our bets will be within the first ones to get in these violent, market movements.

WE ALL AGREE that these variations are IMPOSSIBLE to happen before the beginning of the game.

3º Market structurally maladjustede

An issue that wasn’t approached in the video is that the market can be structurally unbalanced (the one that wasn’t). This means that can have values around the 100% in Back or in Lay. That gives a break for the odds variation that CAN ONLY BE TAKEN AS ADVANTAGE with such tactics as D&B. If we deal with that type of market, the earnings by doing Dutching or Bookmaking are higher than the simple Lay Back (once more I highlight) taking the same standard idea.

Explanation 4 => Overcome balance point

We can’t forget the following premise: For us, the market is maladjusted (expensive Everton odd) and we are convinced that will be re-adjusted (as certainly re-adjusted throughout the game, as Everton plays better).

When financial markets re-adjust for a new reality, there are phenomena of panic that leads the price to exceed the balance/fair prices. In this case, when people started to watch Everton playing better, they realized that had to fit their positions. Many traders that trusted in the MC victory, tried in desperation to close their position, and gave MC the Lay order which increased the price. With the MC price rising, the Stop losses started to shoot which the made the growing even higher.

All this to point out that the odds positioning above the balanced price makes sense in a scenario like this, and will probably be matched.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION A: Punter=> game result

I mentioned many times that a good trader before anything has to be a good Punter. That implies being available to take risks, even if they’re minor then the one’s taken by the Punter (even though Dutching and Bookmaking at a certain point potentiating risk instead of lowering it, however the D&B sustained idea is the acquirement of greenbook and by then lower the risk). I started the example by saying that the sustained idea was my conviction that Everton would still win, therefore, Everton would have to score at least one goal. If in that exact example, the odds that were yet to get in didn’t get in before the goal…even better! The purchased bets were straight away the Back to Everton, the Lay to draw and Lay to Manchester City!!! All winning bets and that increased value with the goal.

But…what if Manchester City scored first? Then we didn’t prepare the game well, or it’s just part of the job probabilities, and the most important is to strike more the times then it misses.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION B: Manchester City and Draw rise

I confess that didn’t see the game, but I made available the summary of it.

https://toplivesports.com/evevsmanc21.html

If you notice, the commentator says about the 1-0 (36´m) “a goal that Everton deserved)

Meaning:

What do you think the odds were by that time (before the goal)?

The Everton odd would be lower than the one of the Super-stars-team, because they were playing better for a few good minutes.

In the video I mentioned that we use as example the simpler possibility (for demonstration purpose) which was the MC and draw rising, but what can happened is a draw fall and MC rise in a drastic way, which I think it was what happened. But that doesn’t overthrow the D&B key concept which is: If the Everton victory is expensive MATEMATHICALY IMPLIES THAT IN SET (I reinforce SET, not necessarily both individually),the MC victory and Draw are RELATIVALLY (concerning Everton) cheap. 

In the specific case we could have lost money with the draw if we had closed the position, but more then what would be compensated with the money won in MC.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION C: Markets Fragility

The hypothesis raised by the user “badboytripeiro” that suggested the possibility in obtaining the same profitability by just doing Back/Lay is not correct.

Even that theoretically it’s possible; it’s less probable to win the same quantity by doing D&B for the following reason:

The odd tends to vary in trust breaks (that will adjust throughout the game). As further, the value is from the trust break; lower is the probability of being reached. In other words, it’s easier to reach 5 ticks in each event (home, out, draw) then 15 ticks in just one event.

Emerging doubts:

“I don’t know which was the game, but I know that was a game that if it wasn’t the goal really really really in the end of the game, the PR would stay with zero”.  [thisempty]

No Thisempty.

The point of showing that game was the display of how it’s possible to obtain green books in every choice.

Even though the biggest profit share came from a draw, even if there was no goal in the end, I would have won money in the other choices and in the draw itself.

Just to elucidate the following:

Green book in all choices is the result of the employ of both techniques, Dutching and Bookmaking.

The (right) application of just one (Dutching or Bookmaking) will lead to losses in two markets and earnings in just one, even though I win more than what I lose.