I enjoy watching Ton Brownlee’s videos regularly posted on the Bookie Bashing website.
In this latest one posted on Monday entitled, “It doesn’t matter if you lose”, Tom talks very sensibly and logically about how losing bets really shouldn’t matter to value bettors. Providing we’re consistently taking value prices, then over the long term we will make a profit.
Tom recommends adopting a mentality focused more on knowing that by taking prices that mean that to our knowledge, each bet we strike is +EV, then what we are doing is ensuring we lose a bit less during a drawdown than we would otherwise, and win a bit more through the upswings. I paraphrase, but that I believe, was his point.
I’ve got to admit, I’d never quite looked upon my betting in this way, but it sure does make sense. I’d like to think – in fact I know – that my mentality and resilience against losing runs has grown exponentially over the years. Sure, I don’t enjoy losing runs and drawdowns. Who in their right mind does?! But “a comfortable acceptance” that they must and will happen is how I’d describe where I’m at nowadays.
But, having said all that, I’ve got to admit that just rarely, on occasion, I can still allow myself to be riled by a set of circumstances surrounding a losing bet or two. And such an occurrence happened just last night, less than 24 hours after watching Tom’s video.
If you watched or have seen highlights of the Young Boys/Aston Villa Champions’ League match, I’m sure I’ll have your sympathy (or maybe not, maybe you’ll just find it funny) when I tell you I had two bets on Ollie Watkins – one for him to have at least one shot on target during the match, and another as an Anytime Goal Scorer.
I’d secured what I believed to be value prices being offered by BetDaq’s Enhanced Specials, utilising the Bookie Bashing Player xG model and Player xSOT model.
Nothing in the first 40 minutes or so from Watkins other than a fluffed shot that ended not far from the corner flag, when looking as though he had been put through on goal. But then, what I thought was a ‘Happy Days’ scene. A Villa attack, ball ricochets out to Watkins off a YB defender, bounces up onto Watkins’s CHEST (!!!!!), before he blasts it into the back of the net.
One shot on target. One goal. Two bets landed.
But, ooooooh no. Not according to the indescribably sh*te, have-no-idea-what-they’re-doing, pityingly dreadful, beyond redemption, can’t-wait-to-get-involved VAR!!
Handball.
No. It wasn’t handball, because unless there was a recent rule change as to what constitutes a handball, and that rule states clearly that for a handball offence to occur, the ball doesn’t actually have to hit the hand, or arm, that was not a handball! I mean, seriously. What the actual?!?
I don’t know. Perhaps that interminable “discussion point” loved by incompetent and inadequate pundits on TV as to whether the ball hit below or above a player’s T-shirt line…has that handball rule been replaced by whether or not the ball hit below or above the nipple line?
My point is – and I admit I am labouring it a bit now – is that the ball did not hit Watkins’ arm, hand, or anything other than his chest. But with the goal ruled out, the two winners became two losers.
I consoled myself a little with the knowledge that it wasn’t even half time and so there was plenty of time left for Watkins to perform as needed. There was time, and then there wasn’t. He was substituted in the 60th minute.
Ultimately, last night was a successful evening for the various Value Bets I struck. A total profit of 64 points was made at an ROI of 29.4%. All ended well.
But I can’t get over the point that it could have been soooooo much better. Tom is right – if we’re doing things correctly, it doesn’t matter when we lose. Or at least to me, it doesn’t matter, unless you’ve been robbed by a VAR.
