Category Archives: General Betting

2017 Predictions


2017 is here, it has a tough act to follow as 2016 was pretty amazing! I thought it would be fun to write some predictions for the coming year for area that I have some interest/knowledge in:


Regular season award winners:

  • MVP- James Harden
  • COY – Mike D’Antoni
  • ROY – Joel Embiid

The first hot-take is that I’m fully expecting the Cavs to meet the Warriors in the finals for the third straight year. Yes, that’s a bold prediction! The Cavs are getting back to the finals easily, beating Toronto in the EC finals. GSW also getting back to the finals easily, beating Houston in the WC finals.

So, GSW will beat the Cavs in the finals with Kevin Durant being named the Finals MVP.

Rugby Union

England will retain the 6 nations championship, but won’t get the Grand Slam.

While New Zealand had an impressive 2016, they took a step back as the New Zealand of 2015 is the greater team I’ve ever seen. As for 2017, they’ll win the Rugby Championship again easily and will beat the Lions 3-0. The Lions have a quick turnaround after the end of the season in the northern hemisphere, the Lions are never equal to the sum of their parts, and New Zealand rarely lose at home. The All Blacks haven’t lost at home since 2009 (v South Africa) and have won 45 consecutive matches at home.

A New Zealand series win is currently at 1.22, and 3-0 is 1.91…I don’t think there’s any value there, not yet anyway.


New England are justifiably the favourites to win Superbowl 51, but if you’re backing them around 2.80 then you’re a mug IMO. I don’t have any strong views on the Superbowl other than Lady Gaga is a dead cert to make an absolute tit of herself doing the halftime show.


Ronda Rousey won’t be back.

Jon Jones will be back and will reclaim his Light-Heavyweight belt.

Conor McGregor has had the best moment of his career. He’ll never top holding two belts at Madison Square Garden. By the end of 2017 he’ll be holding no belts.

Michael Bisping had an amazing 2016. Beat Anderson Silva, beat Rockhold for the title and defended it against Henderson. If he’s stupid enough to face Woodley, he’ll get destroyed. He’ll lose his belt this year and will retire.

World Events

People who don’t like Trump will continue to freak out even over the most insignificant things. People that do like him will be pissed off when nothing really changes.

In the UK there’ll be a stitch-up over Brexit. Article 50 will be triggered in March but the UK will still be in the EU by the end of the year as there’ll be a lengthy negotiating period and ultimately a “soft Brexit” (which isn’t a Brexit) in 2018/19.

In Europe anti-EU sentiment will inevitably rise even more, which will be reflected in the elections.

The Winnies 2016


Here’s the end of year awards for this place, Winners Win: The Winnies! I started this blog back in March 2015, so this is first whole calendar year of the blog. With the final post of the year, here’s a rundown of the best moments from 2016:

Best Bet

I haven’t posted any massive long shot winners this year, not like the Steph Curry MVP win of the previous season. Backing Denver to win Superbowl 50 was one that springs to mind…but the “best bet” is going to go to backing the Portland Trailblazers to win over 26.5 games. They were the first team to hit their over in the 2015/16 season and finished up winning 44 games.

Worst Bet

My NFL bets have had a poor year. But the worst was going “balls deep”, as the kids would say, on Golden State in the NBA finals. I still think they were the better team, but Curry wasn’t 100% in the Finals, Draymond got suspended for game 5 and then they blew a 3-1 lead…which has since been memed to death.


Most Popular Blog Post

Last year the most popular post was Conclusion of a Short Story on Martingale. This year is the first part of that story that’s the most popular. A lot of people seem to find their way to this place by googling for Martingale systems. Hopefully they’ll learn that  Martingale is not a good idea with a real life example of how you’re going to lose a lot of money.

Best Search Term

Some people have used the following search term on Google and found their way here:



Using that search term will bring up a post a wrote about the BBC programme Britain at the Bookies. The main point of that post was that I didn’t think FOBTs should be banned. If someone’s googling that search term then this is serious business and hopefully they’ve been pointed to a website that can actually help them.

Hope you all have a Happy New Year, see you in 2017!

Funny Looking Model

Image result for Funny Looking Model

Two posts back here I referenced the NBA model that  fivethirtyeight has. I view it from time to time just to see what they’re saying, but take it with a pinch of salt, but sometimes this is the amount of salt you need:

Lets have a look at the games from last night and tonight’s NBA slate:


There’s some pretty big edges to be found! A mere edge of 35% on the Magic tonight, whilst an edge of 188% on Memphis! Apply the Kelly criteria to that!

A couple weeks ago, prior to the Cavs winning in Toronto, they had the Raptors as more likely to win the NBA title than the Cavs, the defending champs. Crazy. They only have the Cavs as 12% likely to win it again now, which has an implied odds of 8.33 (+933 US). But most books have the Cavs around 4.20 (+320 US).

Their other models have similar large disparities to the betting market. There’s a few examples in this week’s NFL lines, the best one is that they think Kansas CIty should be favoured over Tennessee by 12 points, whilst the line is only -5 on Pinny. I don’t track how well 538 models do, obviously I doubt they’re profitable. I know that there’s a blog that tracks how well Football Outsiders’ model does. They’re currently up this season, but considerablely down the previous 2 seasons.

I see it on Twitter and hear it on podcasts where people use fivethirtyeight as a proxy for what’s likely to happen or has happened.

Oh there was a big upset last night. What chance did 538 give them?!

I would suggest that people use Pinnacle instead. If your model can’t predict events better than the betting market, then why bother using it? You might as well just check out the odds at Pinny.

The odds at Pinnacle are formed by many participants who wager a lot of money. They’re many times more efficient than the publicly available models 538 put out.

Look, creating a model is hard, so I don’t want to be too hard on 538. Although their job isn’t beating the closing line at Pinny. Their job is to get eyeballs on their website. They had plenty of eyeballs during the Presidential election. People were logging on everyday to see what Trump’s & Clinton’s chances were. They’ve had some retrospective criticism for the chances they’ve showed but, correct me if I’m wrong, they were more bullish on Trump’s chances than the other publicly available models…so there’s that!

Money for Nothing: Dormant Account Fees

Now and then I log on to the Guardian website, purely for comedy value. I get my actual news from other sources but it’s interesting and always highly assuming to see what’s currently triggering the loony left.


I’m glad someone’s finally brave enough to stand up and confront the pertinent issues of our day: those fucking emojis!

Yes, you could go onto any website, go back far enough and find a headline that you consider ridiculous. You get this daily with the Guardian though. Pretty much every day there’s articles about how everything’s racist, everything’s the fault of men, especially white men and Tories are evil etc. Their publishing standard’s are so bad that a notorious Twitter troll/parody account has claimed to have had an article published there:


That article is still available now! I don’t know for certain that he did write it. Regardless, to me it is satire, yet it’s consistent with the rest of the Guardian output. Tells you everything you need to know really.

Anyway, enough about fake news…the purpose of this post is that there was an article I read on the Guardian that is real and isn’t satire:


To sum up: this chap won £8800 with Ladbrokes, they then restricted his account, and he stopped betting with them. Once he got restricted he really should have just withdrawn the money, but he left it in there. As per Ladbrokes terms and conditions:


So his account was “inactive” for 12 months. Ladbrokes deem inactivity as there being no bets placed. According to the article this chap logged in to his account but didn’t bother placing a bet as he was restricted, again, why didn’t he withdraw. Other bookies deem your account to be active if you just log in, you don’t have to place a bet. After a little bit of research; there’s no consistency in the industry as to how an account is classified as being inactive/dormant, when an account is inactive/dormant, or what fees are charged.

At Coral you don’t need to place a bet, you just have to log in. Dormant account fees are charged if your account hasn’t been accessed and/or not used for a continuous period of 400 days or more. Dormancy Fees are calculated as 5% of the total account balance or £5 (whichever is the greater) and is charged monthly.

At Bet365 you need to place a bet. If your account hasn’t placed a bet for 365 days then they’ll take 5% of your balance or £2, which ever is greater, monthly.

Paddy Power and Betway only take £5 a month, whilst Will Hill only take £3 a month.

The only consistency is that they’ll take these fees until your balance reaches zero or until you activate your account again.

Reading those Ladbrokes terms and conditions it seems he was able to get his money back as they didn’t send him an email informing him that his account had become dormant. They have probably been motivated by the negative publicity as well.

So, the majority of punters will lose money. The few that win get restricted or banned…and if anyone leaves money lying in their account they’ll take that too eventually. If you die and you’ve got funds in your account, well, unless your missus knows about it, it’ll stay with that bookie.

Apparently these inactive/dormant account fees are “designed to be a tool against money laundering”… Yeah, sure. I believe bookmakers care about money laundering as much as they do about “Responsible Gambling”.

Obviously when we set up an account with a bookmaker we all read through their terms and conditions so we know what we’re agreeing to… er…but once we click agree those are their rules which are apparently lawful and will be enforced. Bookies are well within their rights to restrict us or ban us if we win and it seems that they can take any dormant money too.

I’ve got a spreadsheet with every bookmaker account I’ve got, which shows how much money I’ve got in each, and when it was last active. Also on this list is the ones who have banned or restricted me, and once this happens I withdraw it all. The main reason I have for leaving money in accounts is to help preserve them a little longer. If you win, then withdraw your money, then you’ll get restricted quicker. Bookies don’t like to see money leaving. Plenty of punters will win sometimes, but keep their money in their account and eventually lose it all, and end up depositing some more.

I’ve spent a short period of time researching this topic (about 30 minutes) to see what the law actual is and what the Government thinks about this.

It seems a precedent has been set with the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008, which allows the Government to direct money left untouched in bank and building society accounts for more than 15 years to “good causes”. Back in 2010 the Government commissioned an independent report to investigate whether unclaimed winnings or money in dormant accounts could be put to “good use”. This report recommended the consultation with bookmakers with the goal of them volunteering into a scheme where they would “accurately record all unclaimed amounts”. As the Government doesn’t know how much money we’re talking about here, and they would dearly like to know, for a “good cause” of course.  The report recommends that 75% of this money should go to the Government. It doesn’t specify where they got 75% from.

50%? Doesn’t sound enough. How about 90%? No too much… Ok, I’ve put my finger in the air and 75% seems about right.

Towards the end of that report it suggests some potential recipients of this cash grab: such as Problem-gambling care causes and Community sport facilities. But it does precede that with:

My strong view is that this report should not make a recommendation on the specific good causes or the best route for the dissemination of funds.

In summary this report doesn’t know how much money we’re talking about, but it’s decided that the great glorious state wants 75% of it. They haven’t decided what exactly they would do with it either and who would get it. I suppose they would like to just get their hands on it then decide the just and worthy cause later on because:

My view is that there is a strong case to be made that as long as every reasonable effort has been taken by the betting operator to contact the person and get them to activate their account or to collect their winnings, that good causes have a better call on those sums of money than the betting operator’s profit line.

There you have it: the essence of Government. They don’t have their own money but can extract money at will for what they deem a “good cause”. And there’s never enough “good causes”. Now I’m certainly not against a good cause, I just have zero confidence in the Government’s involvement. In the real world if a company fails to deliver, it goes out of business. You don’t have this creative destruction with the state. They provide a terrible service, at great expense, and their solution is to just throw more money at it. *cough NHS cough*

I’ve written about these topics before regarding the point of consumption tax in South Australia. There’s minimal assurance that money will be be spent effectively and there will be unintended consequences from Government interference.

Anyway that report was from 2010. There was a parliamentary debate about this in July this year. It seems that betting companies had zero interest in voluntarily signing up to a dormant betting account scheme. I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise. I certainly wouldn’t cooperate if I was them. But it seems the Government wants their slice of the pie:

In March this year, a new independent commission on dormant assets was established to support Government, to identify additional pools of unclaimed assets and to work with industry to encourage the voluntary contribution of those assets to good causes. The commission will report and make recommendations to Government on the feasibility of expanding the dormant assets scheme before the end of the year, and it is considering unclaimed gambling winnings as part of its asset scoping work.

I found this debate quite interesting TBH. It has all the usual tropes. First up whenever politicians talk about gambling the focus is problem gambling:

I am aware of one problem gambler who stole almost £850,000 to fund his addiction

Always use one extreme case to make a point, and also use some figures plucked out of thin air as well:

it has been suggested that there are still around 450,000 problem gamblers in the UK

Well the 450k figure at the start of the debate got upgraded to 600k by the end!:

The NHS website estimates that there are nearly 600,000 problem gamblers in Great Britain. I was struck by GamCare’s estimate that for each problem gambler, there may be 10 to 15 other people whose lives are adversely affected by their activities.

Jesus Christ. 600,00 people who adversely affect up to 15 people each. If we assume there’s no overlap and each problem gambler affects 15 unique individuals then there’s 9 million people adversely affected by problem gambling! Obviously no Government would stand by such a ludicrous number😉 but even if each problem gambler affected only 3 unique individuals then there’s 1.8 million people adversely affected.

This is an epidemic.

Tracey Crouch (never heard of her either) knows one thing about gambling:

The one thing that I know about gambling is that it is pretty indiscriminate in terms of who becomes addicted, much like addictions to alcohol or drugs

This is game changer. If you’re reading this now, you may think it’s just a harmless pastime placing a £10 accumulator every Saturday. One day it may be you raiding the petty cash at work to get your next FOBT  fix. I’m serious.

One chap, Craig Mackinlay, actually had a half decent suggestion that bookies hold credit/debit card details. Why don’t they just return any funds to a card that is still live. Well he soon got shot down as cards get changed and expire and “debit and credit cards also fall into disuse” (I guess that’s something else we need to saved from). This is the first and last instance of getting that dormant money back to the person that it actually came from, besides the emails informing you that your account is dormant. Good stuff. Further more from the reply:

The way forward is to use the funds from accounts that have fallen dormant to do some good for those who have difficulties with gambling. To be quite honest, I cannot see what is controversial about that. Hon. Members might throw up all sorts of issues such as privacy and the intrusion of the state but, in the long term, we are talking about doing something for the greater good.

It’s for the “greater good” Craig, that trumps everything, so STFU about that money going back to the punter or to the punter’s family. You’ve got a lot to learn about being an MP.

If you read through that debate, these MPs present spoke a lot about how there’s a big problem with gambling and that the Government should be able to take money from dormant accounts for the greater good of helping this problem. But did anyone actually have any solutions to these problems? Of course not.

SA Point of Consumption Tax – My 2p

I only have a few sites on my Blogroll, one of them is Daily25. I always look forward to what Steve has to say and recently he wrote about the prospective point of consumption tax in South Australia. At the end of his post he asked for the thoughts of people who were “much smarter, more informed and generally better looking than him”. Ignoring those criteria Well I definitely fill that bill so I thought I’d offer my two pennies’ worth.

In every country there are individuals/companies that take money out of the country, but there are also individuals/companies that bring money into the country. You could say that Sportsbet is taking hundreds of millions out of your economy each year, but I’m guessing that they’re also employing plenty of people in Australia, paying them a wage which they will certainly spend most of within Australia.

You could say “look at Apple & Microsoft taking money out of our country”! But I don’t think that protectionist policies ever favour the consumer, as the fact is that these companies are providing a product/service that people want. So too are Sportsbet. Competition is good, and I’m assuming there’s nothing stopping Australian bookmakers from succeeding to the same extent. I agree that all bookies just care about profit. But that is the case with every private company. And to make a profit you have to provide a product/service that people want to part with their money for.

Retail bookmakers exist because their business model relies on losing punters. If you’re a winner, then you’ll end up getting restricted or banned. I know that it’s frustrating when this happens. I was whinging on Twitter about this the other day when William Hill were restricting me to a tiny inplay bet on Rugby. But if we’re all honest then we would all do the same thing in their position. If we had our own bookies, which relied on losing punters, then we wouldn’t want sharp bettors taking our money. If someone was making money from us, then we would ban them too. One of the ways around this would be government intervention, which is rarely ever a recipe for success, and I don’t think that a company should be forced to do business with a customer.

Ok and on to the South Australian Place of Consumption Tax. I’ll write this as someone who has never visited Australia but knows firsthand about their insatiable appetite for a bet. We had an Aussie at work whose eyes lit up whenever there was a possibility for a wager and was always talking about putting the departmental budget on a horse.

Anyway, yes this is clearly a cash grab by the government; it’s one of the very few things governments are good at. It’s very long odds that much money will be directed into problem gamblers and longer odds still that that money would be spent effectively. So what may happen:

  • Odds will stay the same. Although a lot of square bettors just bet with one company and aren’t sensitive to the odds.
  • Same promotions. If promotions are so effective, then bookies would already be maxed out on the promotions-front, so to speak. Right?
  • Unintended consequences. This is key when considering government intervention. I don’t think that a company is just going to accept reduced profits. So I’m just going to speculate that they may:
    • Cut some staff
    • Restrict or ban even more unprofitable punters
    • Engage in some ways in which to reduce the appearance of their profit or to otherwise reduce this tax liability.