Futures vs matchups, which do you play most?

[buckeye]

With the depth and talent on the PGA tour, I have always advocated matchups ( picking one player to beat another seems challenging enough without trying to pick them to beat 155 ). Evidently there are quite a few golf bettors/punters out there that ONLY bet futures. Where do you guys stand on this?

I probably play 98% matchups and 2% futures. Even that is misleading since many of my futures ( win, e/w, place ) are really WSEX interactives ( won a bit on Hoch and DiMarco the last two weeks buying @$3 and $4 before the start ) and not straight futures. I just don't like going 0-fer for the majority of weeks on futures. I can maybe see futures on LPGA and Sr tour and even Euros where the "viable" field is considerably smaller. I also will play them more when it is a "weak field" on the PGA tour and the range of possibilities is narrowed. Even the majors may be a little easier ( and not just betting Tiger ) because there are so few first time winners for the most part ( Goosen fell into the exceptions ).

Are there that many bettors out there really "winning" long-term on golf futures? I know Stanley is ahead for the year, but even he barely seems to be able to stay in the black on PGA tour futures, other tours are a different story!

GL

 

[Ian]

Agreed that matchups are the "easiest" way of winning on any tour and each week there is value to be had but beware of early season form - it is far easier once the form has settled down - but I very rarely bet 18 hole matchups
As for futures it is important to bet e/w and from personal experience the tours that use the same courses year in year out offer the better opportunities - I find I can win on the PGA tour but lose on the European tour except in events that use the same course - at the end of the day one or two winners in futures over a season seems to make the difference
This is just my take on my own results
I must admit to be keen on looking more closely at WSEX interactives as a source of winning - be interested how DTB has fared on these

 

[Clive]

I tend to bet two or three match-ups a week, as opposed to between two to five outrights per event.
Most of my profits come from outrights, but the reason for that is that I spend much more time on them, probably about 10 hours a week, as opposed to 3-4 on match-ups.
There are an awful lot of match-ups featured here, but most of the even odds ones are toss ups for me....in many cases that's why they're chosen by layers.

 

[buckeye]

10 hours a tourney on futures Clive, here I thought I spent a lot of time capping golf, wow!

I typically handicap the 50-75 players most likely to be involved in matchups and then compare them when matchups come out. I then use that same "golfing form" for dailies, combined with the players actual round by round scores. I have traditionally done much better on 4th round matchups, having 3 rounds to get a better idea how guys are playing, but recently I've had more success on 3rd rounders for some unknown reason ( got killed on 4th rounders the last two weeks ). I will play 1st and 2nd round matchups too, but I tend to be very up and down on them and never really win anything overall on them. My 72 hole matches and late round matches are far stronger plays usually.

I just find it tough to predict who will make T10 for a given tourney, let alone T4, or winner - too tall a task to accomplish with any regularity for me. Other than Tiger that is!

The great thing about interactives is you can sell early or buy late. Not that I have been that successful, but I bailed myself out BIGTIME on one tourney where I opposed Weir in 4 matchups and then bought 15 contracts of him for $20 halfway through the final round when I was convinced he wouldn't fold and would cost me all 4 matchups. Turned a wretched week into a profitable one. I usually don't "hedge" like that, but sometimes it pays to have the option! Also had a decent week when Vijay won the PGA a few years back, bought 20 of him @$2 early in the week and let it ride! CHA-CHING! Tiger makes them much tougher to try for these days!

GL

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Your going to get the only anti outright view here and you only have to look at outright results to see why

I am down round 3 units each in 3 tours and everyone else does fine.Its my aversions to ties.Have hit 5 place wagers at Surrey ranging from 33/1 to 66/1 and got peanuts.Down on initial stake at start of year and will not re-up if it goes to 0.I have been tracking Clive for past 2 years and believe me he does well with them.Stan been banging them here for two years and Ian joined in this year.So it is quite obvious those that do them correctly can beat them despite stacked odds.To beat them you HAVE to hit a few longshot wins because the place odds are totally fictitious.If you bet 3 players at 40/1 the best real place odds on at least 2 are 5/1 not 10/1 because your betting E/W and can't hit but 1 win bet so its costing double for place bet.And 5/1 can go much lower in event of a tie.I most definately am in awe of this group with odds stacked the way they are.
Interactives:Just playing with them at low dollar amounts and trying to catch the feel for them.Have been tracking angles more so than money but will track ytd totals next year if at end of this year I think there are lucrative angles.However don't think it would be in anyone interest that really fires at them because of their freeze out tactics.(locking out players while adjusting odds)Picture this weeks tourny,Mick up to $90 a share with 3 stroke lead but you can't wager(event paused) cause it starts early and no "live" television.Ok Instead of actual outcome he hits one out on 17 and hooks retee in the rough.How,pray tell are hundreds of people going to call and bail out if they do answer the few phones they have.They will dump the line,pocket the money and isn't a damn thing the player can do.They have the nuts on this and I can't see why more books haven't jumped.Bottom line,while I am tinkering with them I think the only viable use would be as an outright and not buying and selling like I have been doing.Just remember if you purchase $100 contract for $20 your odds are 4/1 not 5/1 cause they don't add your $20 back in.Found that out the hard way.

 

[nomad]

Guys,
Having read your posts it got me wondering, so I did a little analysis of my golf year to date.

Bets Win Tie Stake Win
Win Tnmt 87 4 0 $11,418 -$1,123
Place 65 11 5 $ 6,736 $9,687
72 Hole 23 15 2 $11,040 $3,602
18 Hole 6 4 0 $ 2,175 $ 215
Group 20 4 1 $ 3,685 $2,323
Specials 5 5 0 $ 2,200 $2,885
Index 8 4 0 n/a $2,169
TOTALS 217 47 8 $37,253 $19,756

I have only recently been punting on golf (2 years) but have worked inside the industry for about 6 years, most of it with spread firms and only recently switching across to fixed odds.
I wouldn't normally post these figures because in isolation they may mean nothing at all. Hopefully they may back up someones point of view.
All figures are in Australian dollars, although bets were taken in USD, GBP and AUD.
Let me know if you have any queries regarding spread betting?

[This message has been edited by nomad (edited 07-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by nomad (edited 07-03-2001).]

 

[Stanley]

Nice post Buckeye and a good place for such a discussion given the variety of golf betting styles over here. My take is that outright/futures betting on the PGA Tour is pretty hard for the reasons you cite and hats off to Ian for making a decent profit with outrights on this Tour.

The keys to winning with each-way betting is to land a few winners, but also to make sure that you land mmore than a few place wins to keep the bank-roll healthy and avoid those disheartening 0-for weeks. Like Ian says, having the option of place betting, either directly or indirectly through e.w. betting, is essential.

Yes, I break-even on PGA Tour outrights, but the depth and quality on this Tour affects me in the second of the above "keys". I have had 5 ante-post winners this season (8/5, 16/1, 20/1, 28/1, 40/1) which is decent enough, but I have had only 7 place wins! The depth and quality on this Tour doesn't mean there are 156 people who could win each week, but they could all finish in the top-5 on any given week and deprive my picks of those place wins. That is where it is easier accumulate money on outrights on the other Tours, there are less losing weeks. I'm 12-for-64 on outrights on the PGA Tour, but the ratio is almost twice as high on the European, Australasian and Senior Tours: 8-for-27, 5-for-16 and 13-for-40 respectively.

I agree with Ian that lots of course form is very useful, but it's just as useful for the layers as well. For want of a better comaprison, I would liken betting on the PGA and the other Tours to betting on professional and college football/basketball. There is just so much more information available about the PGA Tour and all sides are more clued up about this Tour. In such a scenario, it makes profitable betting on the PGA Tour quite difficult despite the huge variety of betting options. With specialist knowledge on the other Tours, you can have a decisive advantage over the books. IMO, this and the depth issue make the other Tours much easier propositions for outright betting.

Sadly, this has been my only source of profits this season. I hit 59% of 72-hole plays last season, while the 18-hole plays hit 55%, but because of their volume/odds, they were the larger source of profits. This season I am actually down 10 units on the 72-hole plays. Very strange and very poor! The biggest source of profits on the PGA Tour has been the matchups at the weekend. I'm hoping it has just been the weather disruptions that have killed my 1st/2nd round plays. Losing one-third of the season's profits at one event - the US Open - didn't help either

 

[Stanley]

That's a pretty impressive win/stake ratio Nomad

I think your figures demonstrate the importance of place/e.w. betting as opposed to futures.

Maybe the success of us "internationals" with outright betting has to be the books that we deal with. Most golf punters will bet on e.w. outright prices and this is the primary market offered by the books. In the North American market, it is the other way around with matchups being the primary product offered. The internet is starting to change both sides - more matchup betting on golf outside North America and more place odds being made available to the American market some firms such as Olympic and VIP Sports as well as the Euro/Aussie books. Mind you, we know what Mark thinks about this issue

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

This has been interesting post.Following up on Stan's issue of difference offers at different books I think it would be interesting to get the gangs perspective in the form of a review of their golf outs. ie what they like,don't like and would like to see.

 

[Clive]

If I bet win only I would soon give up! Each way payouts keep things ticking over until the big win comes along. It can be frustrating, I've lost count of the number of seconds I've had this year, but they do add up to a profit.
There are many elements to deciding on a bet, course and current form being the most obvious, but everyone knows that, esp on the main tours, that's why it's so hard, and why I concentrate on LPGA and rounbellies. Also, try to get as much info as possible, lurking about in places like this and searching through web sites for info on players and the types of course they like etc.
The growth in net betting has meant more and more opportunities to bet on 'minority' tours. For years over here, Multisports were the only company that bet on them. I have an agreement with them now that I only bet a maximum of ?20EW and they will take my bets. Having used them week in week out in the 'old' days I've got quite a good relationship with them.

 

[AussieVamp2]

and just like anything else, or maybe even a bit more so , futures betting about picking value, not winners per se

 

[buckeye]

AV2, I agree that in most sports betting contexts value is the primary key. The problem with futures is that 20 value plays don't mean squat if none are winners. I think the opposite tact is needed for outrights as a guy that should be 50-1 that is at 125-1 still has little chance at victory when Tiger and the big boys are entered. But then I don't play or win them much so maybe I'm wrong.

I don't plan on changing my 98/2 split anytime soon, but if I did get into the futures markets I'd concentrate on Srs, LPGA, and smaller "viable field" tourneys for the reasons Stanley has stated. I'd also have to add a bunch of "Euro/UK" style books to my arsenal as they seem to cater to futures more ( could be because their hold is so much higher on them

).

Nomad, I concur with Stanley those are MOST IMPRESSIVE ROI figures you have going there. You must be hitting a lot of longshots to be up over 9 dimes on a 11-49-5 place bet record! Keep it up. Any tips on your capping techniques? I am always interested in learning from others having success.

GL2All

 

[sandwedge]

nomad. congrats on the nice roi. with regard to spread betting, do you still participate. i've been thinking about getting involved some but there a very few us-oriented books that offer this. it seems like that in golf if you picked your spots carefully you could have some positions with nice upside potential without to bad of a downside risk.

 

[doonhamer]

I would say i am about 90% match ups and groups and 10% outrights if you are watching as much golf as i do in a week you need the thrill of an outright bet I also do a transatlantic EW double every week only ?2 EW I swear I will get it up some day just missed about 6 weeks ago with Scott Verplank and Paul McGinley both placed returned ?567 for ?4 speciality markets and groups are where i find many of my selections as the books have no one else to compare them with

Doonhamer

 

[AussieVamp2]

non-Carribean books I think definitely better for golf futures betting, in general, as you can get the longer priced players and at better prices, very rare to get the best price on someone at a US place, unless a favorite type.

whereas it seems the 'LVSC' futures have noone close to 100/1 ever from my experience, and might have a smaller market percentage by lumping all the 'crud' in the a field bet, which is not as useful for the punter, I think.

 

[AussieVamp2]

Originally posted by buckeye:
AV2, I agree that in most sports betting contexts value is the primary key. The problem with futures is that 20 value plays don't mean squat if none are winners. I think the opposite tact is needed for outrights as a guy that should be 50-1 that is at 125-1 still has little chance at victory when Tiger and the big boys are entered. But then I don't play or win them much so maybe I'm wrong.

If they are value, though, you will get a return over time. It seems the American betting style is much more loathe to bet underdogs or long prices, so that could be part of it for you. Doesn't make sense at all for golf, as barring the odd Tiger situation no-one will be odds on to win.

 

[buckeye]

AV2,
I don't shop for them but u are definitely correct that carribean outs tend to suck for futures. I have noticed that 5dimes offers the whole field, including many at well over 100-1, so those prices aren't completely unheard of, just very rare indeed.

I didn't know there was such a thing as "American betting style". There are plenty of squares playing favs in matchups, and Tiger in futures, each week but I doubt that has anything to do with their nationality, just possibly their ignorance. Why must every post u make backhandedly disparage "American" betting? I don't get your "point" to it! I criticize 30 cent and above lines and 3-way outs, but it makes no difference to me who owns them or where they are based, u seem intent on bashing American anything! What gives, marry an "ugly" American woman or something?

As for my lack of success in futures, it probably has more to do with only playing WIN futures. I think the e/w, or potentially PLACE-ONLY, has far more potential. It seems that others would agree. WIN-only will cause lots of 0-fers. I have hit some longshots, one 80-1 on Trip and a 125-1 on Franco in years past. It's not a penchant for low odds players, its just a disdain for week after week of close calls with nothing to show for it. Place betting would seem a better chance, but I am in no hurry to deviate from matchups as I have had much more success at them.

To each his own! I'd agree that caribbean books suck for futures, in general, but are mostly much superior for matchups. Each have their strengths depending on your tastes and betting preferences.

GL2U

 

[AussieVamp2]

Originally posted by buckeye:
AV2,
Why must every post u make backhandedly disparage "American" betting? I don't get your "point" to it! I criticize 30 cent and above lines and 3-way outs, but it makes no difference to me who owns them or where they are based, u seem intent on bashing American anything! What gives, marry an "ugly" American woman or something?


-- Oh that is just complete bullshit, how would you know?. Every post? There's the most ridiculously exaggerated comment for the week. It is not disparaging, it is just a fact. Where did I say 'American betting is stupid' in the previous?. I have constantly seen American posters say you have to be 'brave' to back an underdog, or do you have the 'balls' to do this, etc., with underdog prices. I have never seen this from Europeans, , or whoever, or if so, only rarely, not anywhere near the same degree. I have never seen a Swede, for example, say that about backing a 6.50 underdog. Now, you obviously don't talk to/read stuff by people from there, for one example. You cannot disagree that in American betting there is a large emphasis in odds on pointspread or matchup betting. If that is not a 'style' I don't know what is. Talk about bloody over-sensitive, just because as a generalisation that is how they are 'thinking'.

Seems that a lot of Americans think disagreeing with them is anti-American.

As for my lack of success in futures, it probably has more to do with only playing WIN futures.

-- Right, well win only is silly all the time, I would think.

To each his own! I'd agree that caribbean books suck for futures, in general, but are mostly much superior for matchups. Each have their strengths depending on your tastes and betting preferences.

GL2U

Getting the best price is always important.

cf Hoch was available at 30s+ in Australasia to win, not anywhere near that Carribeanwise.

 

[buckeye]

AV2,
I actually am impressed by lively debate and welcome opposing views to mine. It is the best way to learn! I was not trying to get your dander up, I just noticed a trend that you keep using "American" in a negative way for the last 3-4 posts I've read of yours. Referring to Caribbean outs as American when complaining about their excessive hold on futures ( which I agree with BTW ) and then saying 10% ROI is impressive for American sports. I still don't know why you would have to throw the "American" in there as it is impressive for any sports betting. I take it you were referring to the guy who is doing so well on golf place betting and exotics, but golf isn't exactly a "non-American" sport, especially the PGA tour.

Then you try to explain my admitted failures at futures betting as potentially attributable to "American style" betting. Don't give me this crap that that wasn't a derogatory "your results suck because you probably bet chalk and it is inferior" inference. I may be an ignorant Merican but I can read between the lines.

I apologize if I lumped you in with the "Anti-American" brigade of aholes I see make reference to "yanks" ( not a term of endearment IMO ) and bragging about the stupid Americans driving up the price on Goosen by backing Brooks. Its easy to call such things "after the fact". I didn't bet it, but I don't think it was that stupid to think a former major winner was a good shot to beat a guy who gagged so badly on the 72nd green. Unlike VanDeFolde, he was able to re-group overnight and win decisively: "good for him"!

If you really don't have animosity, a chip on your shoulder, about Americans, then I apologize for mis-interpreting your posts. You just seem to be going out of your way to use the term, and it didn't "read" like you were being complementary, or even ambivilent. I don't consider myself over-sensitive, but I don't understand some posters need to bash in gambling forums - unless you are "bashing" the "Man"!

I am of Swedish descent, BTW. So I don't have any trouble backing a 6.5, aka +550, dog when there is value in it. I see many posters who advocate playing "ALL DOGS" in forums primarily frequented by American sports bettors ( bases and fb ). Does that make them "un-American" style? Let's get back to productive capping contributions, eh?

 

[AussieVamp2]

Originally posted by buckeye:
AV2,
I actually am impressed by lively debate and welcome opposing views to mine. It is the best way to learn! I was not trying to get your dander up, I just noticed a trend that you keep using "American" in a negative way for the last 3-4 posts I've read of yours. Referring to Caribbean outs as American when complaining about their excessive hold on futures ( which I agree with BTW )

-- well most of them are American focused (although not all of course)


and then saying 10% ROI is impressive for American sports. I still don't know why you would have to throw the "American" in there as it is impressive for any sports betting.

-- Because American sports lines are very good, is why. It would be very hard to get more than that in general as supposed to something else.

I take it you were referring to the guy who is doing so well on golf place betting and exotics, but golf isn't exactly a "non-American" sport, especially the PGA tour.

Then you try to explain my admitted failures at futures betting as potentially attributable to "American style" betting. Don't give me this crap that that wasn't a derogatory "your results suck because you probably bet chalk and it is inferior" inference. I may be an ignorant Merican but I can read between the lines.

--- No, it doesn't mean that, but you yourself said you do not want to bet on them 'because they might not win'?


I apologize if I lumped you in with the "Anti-American" brigade of aholes I see make reference to "yanks" ( not a term of endearment IMO ) and bragging about the stupid Americans driving up the price on Goosen by backing Brooks. Its easy to call such things "after the fact".

-- On this, it is a matchup, would not have much idea beyond possibly inflated underdog price due to lots of punters.

I didn't bet it, but I don't think it was that stupid to think a former major winner was a good shot to beat a guy who gagged so badly on the 72nd green. Unlike VanDeFolde, he was able to re-group overnight and win decisively: "good for him"!

If you really don't have animosity, a chip on your shoulder, about Americans, then I apologize for mis-interpreting your posts. You just seem to be going out of your way to use the term, and it didn't "read" like you were being complementary, or even ambivilent. I don't consider myself over-sensitive, but I don't understand some posters need to bash in gambling forums - unless you are "bashing" the "Man"!

I am of Swedish descent, BTW. So I don't have any trouble backing a 6.5, aka +550, dog when there is value in it. I see many posters who advocate playing "ALL DOGS" in forums primarily frequented by American sports bettors ( bases and fb ). Does that make them "un-American" style? Let's get back to productive capping contributions, eh?

more later, got to run