IS ARB A MAGIC PICTURE?

cosmicsports

Well-Known Member
30 IOL 2010
3,592
1,357
113
Arb is apparently very popular but at the same time it is considered an illegal play by the bookies.
I've known it for a long time, but I've never applied it. An Italian had taught me this, a long time ago, around 2000 when we were exchanging messages.
My objection to the Italian was that in order to get the arb he had to put his money in strange companies and I told him that I see it as dangerous.
The Italian did not agree, saying that there was no danger.

The bookies have now at one point banned it and anyone caught playing arb eats a penalty.

The bookies are actually losing money from the arb, theoretically at least.
Why ;
It is an apparent paradox but it has its explanation.

Suppose there are three bookies, "A", "B" and "C", as required to get arb every now and then.
The only player in the universe is you.
Case one: You play without arb, with the predictions given by the tweezer, the locker room guy, and the dude went out for a sergiani. Go for the duration and everyone is happy.
Case two: You play arb and make an annual profit of 6%. What does this mean? It means that A, B, C each got in by about 2%.
So?

But it seems strange. Because every single one of the arb's component bets is nothing more than a tweezer-dresser-dude bet out for a spin.
So how did the bookies lose?
The explanation is that each of the three wins is necessarily their fault. They paid a little more than they should have.
This is how the bookie's loss and your own profit comes out.

We don't know in advance what the mistake is.
If we knew, we would treat it as a value bet and there would be no need to arb.
Of course, in such a case, we would have to eat a penalty again, this time because of a win and not because of the arb.

But I assert the following:
If we take the "arb zone" games and play just one point at random, without arb, in the end the 6% profit will come out again.
 
Last edited:

Larry

Well-Known Member
1 Apr 2010
1,449
965
113
But I assert the following:
If we take the "arb zone" games and play just one point at random, without arb, in the end the 6% profit will come out again.

You are right that you will be positive, but I think your profit will be the average of the bookies error ie 2% as you mentioned.
 

cosmicsports

Well-Known Member
30 IOL 2010
3,592
1,357
113
You are right that you will be positive, but I think your profit will be the average of the bookies error ie 2% as you mentioned.

Let's look at it another way:
Let α1,α2,α3 be the returns of A, β1,β2,β3 of B, γ1,γ2,γ3 of C and let the triad of arb be α1,β2,γ3.

Probabilities matter.
The result is equivalent to a random toss of three possibilities.
But what exactly are they?
Are they the ones corresponding to the triad [α1,α2,α3], [β1,β2,β3], [γ1,γ2,γ3] or [α1,β2,γ3]?
We do not know.
I'm going to make the assumption that the correct one is either

l. [a1,a2,a3] + m . [β1μβ2,β3] + (1 - λ - μ) . [c1,c2,c3]

Where 0<=λ,μ<=1 parameters.

If for λ,μ I examine the values ​​0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 .... 1, i.e. change by 0.1, there are 55 cases in total.
With a simple random number simulation, it comes out what is true in each case and where the player's long-term profit will ultimately fluctuate.

If the trio arb [α1,β2,γ3] yields 6%, it does not follow that playing x-arb yields 2% and not 6%.
What exactly comes out needs to be investigated.
 

Larry

Well-Known Member
1 Apr 2010
1,449
965
113
To put it more simply. When you play with arb, you choose the most favorable odds.
If you choose randomly, after 1 thousand times it will have such a percentage that it is the average of the bookies' rake. If the rake averages 2% positive, that's how positive you'll be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loxagos mark

cosmicsports

Well-Known Member
30 IOL 2010
3,592
1,357
113
To put it more simply. When you play with arb, you choose the most favorable odds.
If you choose randomly, after 1 thousand times it will have such a percentage that it is the average of the bookies' rake. If the rake averages 2% positive, that's how positive you'll be.

But ... I said that the mixed rake should have 6%.
If it has 2%, then 2%.
But it needs some investigation.

Because it's also a matter of who has the right chances.
Let me give you an example not related to football, but similar.
In 2016, the election contest Trump-Hillary.
Initially, Hillary was the favorite, as the election approached, Trump dropped.
At some point you also found ... Hillary odds even new with Trump approaching, so
arb came out.
Here now it was obvious that the most correct possibilities were those with Trump going down, which were also the freshest.

In random arb zone games now, does this show up somewhere? Who is more valid?
 
Last edited:

Larry

Well-Known Member
1 Apr 2010
1,449
965
113
But ... I said that the mixed rake should have 6%.
If it has 2%, then 2%.
But it needs some investigation.

Because it's also a matter of who has the right chances.
Let me give you an example not related to football, but similar.
In 2016, the election contest Trump-Hillary.
Initially, Hillary was the favorite, as the election approached, Trump dropped.
At some point you also found ... Hillary odds even new with Trump approaching, so
arb came out.
Here now it was obvious that the most correct possibilities were those with Trump going down, which were also the freshest.

In random arb zone games now, does this show up somewhere? Who is more valid?
The combination you say is nothing but the selection of the best returns.
Eg if 3 bookies give odds for under-over and give 1,90-2,05 the first, 1,80-2,10 the second and 1,85-2,12 the third, then you get the 1,90 first and 2,12 of the third and you become positive.
If you randomly start pairing under-over, then you will fall into the net of big numbers and become negative over time. Unless the bookies have a huge difference between them that even by chance you can become positive. Which is impossible.
In the Trump example, it's like you've played a 0-0 score and you're at half-time and it's still 0-0. In other words, there is progress, time has passed. I don't think it's arb.
 

cosmicsports

Well-Known Member
30 IOL 2010
3,592
1,357
113
The combination you say is nothing but the selection of the best returns.
Eg if 3 bookies give odds for under-over and give 1,90-2,05 the first, 1,80-2,10 the second and 1,85-2,12 the third, then you get the 1,90 first and 2,12 of the third and you become positive.
If you randomly start pairing under-over, then you will fall into the net of big numbers and become negative over time. Unless the bookies have a huge difference between them that even by chance you can become positive. Which is impossible.
In the Trump example, it's like you've played a 0-0 score and you're at half-time and it's still 0-0. In other words, there is progress, time has passed. I don't think it's arb.

What do you think ;
I played Trump on the one that had the oldest odds - from August, let's say - and Hillary on the one that had the new ones and came out arb (from what I had seen on the oddschecker in those days, I was ahead).

Let me tell you now in more detail:

Suppose the three bookies give odds

A: a1, a2, a3
B b1, b2, b3
C: c1, c2, c3


The arb returns will be the three largest:

u = sup(α1, β1, γ1)
v = sup(a2, b2, c2)
w = sup(a2, b2, c2)


and the yield of arb will be in unit:

F1 = 1 / ( 1/u + 1/v + 1/w )

The odds now.
Based on A:

p1 = (1/α1) / (1/α1 + 1/α2 + 1/α3)
p2 = (1/α2) / (1/α1 + 1/α2 + 1/α3)
p3 = (1/α3) / (1/α1 + 1/α2 + 1/α3)


Based on B q1, q2, q3, where similar formulas apply
Based on G r1 ,r2 ,r2 where again the same formulas apply.

If I play just one point out of u, v, w then depending on who is right probably out of the three it will also be my average profit.
I would like the highest average profit:

sup { p1.u, q1.u, r1.u, p2.v, q2.v, r2.v, p3.w, q3.w, r3.w }

But how can I know in advance?
So I'm probably interested in the smallest, inf, to see what happens.

It is not obvious, because in these 9 numbers the highest odds correspond to the lowest probabilities.
However, it is clear that the search for the inf is between three numbers and not one.
Because whatever s1 the lowest estimate of its probability u, s2 for its probability v and s3 for its probability w.
So I'm looking for:

F2 = inf { s1.u, s2.v, s3.w }

So this number will tell me where my pseudo-arb ends up statistically.
What is the minimum expected profit?

I've accepted that one of the three is (probably) correct, which is true because the odds derived from the bookies' estimates are typically correct over the course of the game.

Now give me some examples to tell me what F2 comes out in relation to the F1.
The pseudo-arb means what average profit it yields at worst compared to the normal arb.
 
Last edited:

cosmicsports

Well-Known Member
30 IOL 2010
3,592
1,357
113
In the example with under-over we have and we say:

A) 1.90 - 2.05
B) 1.80 - 2.10
C) 1.85 - 2.12


There is no w here, only u and v bets.

The arb is F1 = 1.002

Chances:

A) p1 = 0.51899, p2 = 0.48101
B) q1 = 0.53846, q2 = 0.46154
C) r1 = 0.53401 , r2 = 0.45599


That's it u is 1.90
The v is 2.12

The s1 is p1 = 0.51899
The s2 is r2 = 0.45599

s1. u = 0.51899. 1.90 = 0.98608
s2. v = 0.45599. 2.12 = 0.96670


So the minimum F2 = 0.96670 < 1 (the over).
But we can also play the under which comes out slightly better 0.98608 but still <1.

It seems when the initial arb is very small (like 2 per thousand) the method throws us into the negative.
Another example, with a better rate?
 

cosmicsports

Well-Known Member
30 IOL 2010
3,592
1,357
113
I'm getting off the arb a bit.
To come out positive in any bet, the average profit must be positive.
If the probability is p and the payoff is c, then pc > 1.
This is as certain as it is that if you go to the casino you will lose or your hair will fall out after 90.

Since p is certain, the criterion is also absolutely certain.

At the bookies if we use the same odds they give to make them odds then it doesn't work.
It always comes out pc < 1, in green it comes out 0.95, in OPAP it comes out 0.90.
It also verifies because the bookie odds are pretty well calculated.

Of course, all of us, since ancient times, try to get probabilities such that pc > 1, but this is not easy at all. This is why the most conservative resort to arb.

Now with two books, what happens?
It is possible to find cases where p(B) holds. c(A) > 1.
In my example with Trump p(B) is from the bet that gives Trump the lowest return (when he started to approach). But c(A) is the old best performance (when he wasn't expected yet).
Since the "B" odds are out and we see them but the "A"s are still available at some bookies, we can take advantage.
He wants us to follow and to be fast of course.

But it is enough that p(B) holds - it is a necessary and sufficient condition.
But is this differentiation between the bookies valid or was it something random?

In general, it tends to be true that the freshest is the most correct.
But there is a case that it also emerges from the facts that p(B) is a more correct probability. In Trump's case, this was true. I think we all heard back then that "Trump is getting better" before we saw this in the bookies.
 

Predictions

  • 14:30
    COSMOTE SPORT 3 HD
    • Cardiff City - Birmingham City
  • 14:30
    Novasports Premier League
    • Aston Villa - Everton
  • 15:00
    ERT2
    • European Championship
  • 16:30
    Novasports 3HD
    • Leverkusen - Augsburg
  • 16:30
    Novasports 4HD
    • Leipzig - Cologne
  • 16:30
    Novasports Extra 1
    • Werder Bremen - Stuttgart
  • 16:30
    Novasports Extra 2
    • Hertha Berlin - Eintracht Frankfurt
  • 16:30
    Novasports Prime
    • Matchday Live Minute by Minute
  • 16:30
    Novasports Extra 3
    • Hoffenheim - Bochum
  • 17:00
    Novasports 2HD
    • Arsenal - Leicester
  • 17:00
    Novasports 5HD
    • Brighton - Newcastle
  • 17:00
    Novasports 6HD
    • Southampton - Leeds
  • 17:00
    COSMOTE SPORT 3 HD
    • Sunderland - Queens Park Rangers
  • 17:00
    Novasports Start
    • Wolves - Fulham
  • 17:00
    Novasports Premier League
    • Manchester City - Bournemouth
  • 18:00
    Novasports 1HD
    • Thelta - Espanyol
  • 18:00
    Novasports News
    • Monaco - Rennes
  • 19:30
    COSMOTE SPORT 2 HD
    • Milan - Udinese
  • 19:30
    COSMOTE SPORT 3 HD
    • Sampdoria - Atalanta
  • 19:30
    Novasports Prime
    • Schalke - Gladbach
  • 19:30
    Novasports Prime
    • Brentford - Manchester United
  • 19:45
    Novasports 2HD
    • Go Ahed Eagles - Eindhoven
  • 20:00
    Novasports 1HD
    • Valladolid - Villarreal
  • 20:00
    COSMOTE SPORT 7 HD
    • Casa Pia - Benfica
  • 21:30
    Novasports 1HD
    • Barcelona - Rayo Vallecano
  • 21:30
    Novasports 3HD
    • Darmstadt - Hansa Rostock
  • 21:45
    COSMOTE SPORT 2 HD
    • Lecce - Inter
  • 21:45
    COSMOTE SPORT 3 HD
    • Monza - Turin
  • 22:00
    Novasports 2HD
    • Paris Saint-Germain - Montpellier
  • 22:00
    Novasports 5HD
    • Feyenoord - Heerenfein
  • 22:30
    COSMOTE SPORT 8 HD
    • Sporting Lisbon - Rio Ave
  • Tomorrow 14-08-2022
  • 01:05
    Novasports Prime
    • New York Red Bulls - Orlando
  • Tomorrow 14-08-2022
  • 01:00
    COSMOTE SPORT 7 HD
    • NBA TV 2021-22
  • 20:00
    COSMOTE SPORT 9 HD
    • Cyprus - Greece
  • 22:00
    COSMOTE SPORT 6 HD
    • ATP Masters 1000 2022
  • Tomorrow 14-08-2022
  • 03:00
    COSMOTE SPORT 6 HD
    • ATP Masters 1000 2022
General Chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting right now.
  • Balaton Forum Bot:
    User Balaton started a new topic called "Let's take a look at the familiar..." in the Football Predictions.
  • PANATHA PANATHA:
    Let's go, Panatha.....
  • PANATHA PANATHA:
    0-0 half time instead of 2-0...mercy...
  • Ertzan Ertzan:
    I believe you will make it 2-0
  • Ertzan Ertzan:
    the arbitration slaughters you anyway they don't want your return to Europe they are afraid of you
  • Balaton Balaton:
    Do we have a visual on the forum as a member?
  • PANATHA PANATHA:
    ok....pass Slovan the behemoth and leave Panatha
  • Ertzan Ertzan:
    PANATHA said:
    ok....pass Slovan the behemoth and leave Panatha
    It's my fault that I'm thinking about you guys, we have the fixed qualification in our pocket
  • Ertzan Ertzan:
    The assistant coach at Olympiakos is the Portuguese Monroy, who last year was the coach at our AOXARA, but the mutton-dog Stoltidis ate him after the match with Pieriko
  • Ertzan Ertzan:
    defense for tutorial the legend in all goals tonight
  • PANATHA PANATHA:
    Come on Midland...have another....can you...
  • PANATHA PANATHA:
    Well done Midland....second match in a row that they are ahead 3-0 and they tie it....Enjoy a strong championship again
  • McLaren17 McLaren17:
    @PANATHA yesterday your team destroyed me i had NG and it ruined my nice parallax in performance 8,00
  • McLaren17 McLaren17:
    not even in the local area do they make such transfers, when I was young and I went to a local team, the first thing they told us was when we don't drive the ball into the center of the goal ... better to throw it to the side than what your poor defender did
  • PANATHA PANATHA:
    it is true...but if you want to believe it, Kambetsis went in, I was sure that we would play with 10 because he was out of place and time...I started cursing because he did little before the stupid goal, bad control and he took out the sideways ball
  • PANATHA PANATHA:
    Well, with what the well-known Gademi wrote here that my brother supports us and we will win 2-0, the sweet is over... I say go, we didn't pass
  • Ertzan Ertzan:
    Yes, it's my fault that you're stupid
  • Ertzan Ertzan:
    We are again in "Hellas Europe Olympiacos"
  • McLaren17 McLaren17:
    I started with Olympiacos first team to score (2,00), Aris (2,22) something like that then I wanted to play you U2.5 but it was somewhere around 1,25-1,30 something like that and I preferred NG at 1,53, 1 and I also included Basaksehir .... at some point I see Ari 0-10 with 3' players Maccabi I say we are good ... the Turkish 0-1 ... and Panathinaikos 0-87 in 1' I say it's up to us Olympiacos scores a goal and El Arabi loses the projection and I say look and see .... I leave it for a while and see 1-XNUMX ..... I just saw today how it went in, I say it's better not to see it
  • McLaren17 McLaren17:
    time for a walk, just finished work ... PASOK past greatness
  • McLaren17 McLaren17:
    prepare and work until now sad
  • PANATHA PANATHA:
    Ertzan, if you saw yesterday - why don't you watch the match - how we were sloppy, then let me give you instructions on how to boil a soccer ball
  • Ertzan Ertzan:
    Did you believe you didn't after 60 I had to see you, and I saw the whole game after the goal everyone back as if you were going through, you were crazy
  • PANATHA PANATHA:
    until the 70th minute we played very well...we deserved 2-3 goals and he was almost never in danger...in the last twenty minutes he got tired because he was pressing madly from the first minute....
  • PANATHA PANATHA:
    Then, apart from fatigue, the changes didn't help him either...so apart from Kambetsi's mistake, I don't think he would have reached the goal...after all, he still had a few minutes left.
    PANATHA PANATHA: Then, apart from the fatigue, the changes didn't help him either... so apart from the mistake of Kampetsis...