Talk:Arbitrage betting

message: I think I've corrected the issues below. I've changed the example and changed the math. I hope the idea makes sence now?
I've added another section describing a related system, sports bonus arbitraging as well, but I have some issues with it I need help with:
1) It's probably the same thing mentioned in matched betting which I saw later. So should the articles be merged, reference to each other or should what I've added be moved over there and meregd?
2) I've tried to add a link to a site describing sport bonus arbitraging, but its been removed a couple of times because it was suspected to be spamming. So I'd like your opinion on if the link is relevant or not?
Starkodder 23:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comment 

message: There is something wrong with the table. I fixed it once but it was changed back in a few days...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.78.66 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math 

message: It's just a question, but having read this topic it seems to take a negative stance towards Arbitrage Betting. I have used sports arbitrages for over a year and succesfully found enough sports arbitrages to make a decent continued profit. 
One  the risk front, I know that odds can change but you learn to work around this by lining up your bets all at once. With regards to Bookmakers not paying, I've never had this problem but I'd like to hear from anyone who has as this is serious.
The other point is how much money needed to make a decent return. This comes down to two points, firstly the return of each arbitrage. I usually play arbs that yeild 4% or more. I find at least one daily. I also use a stake of £2000. I don't play over the weekend unless a really good arb comes up. Over the course of one month I double my stake, which I think it pretty healthy and gives a solid annual income.
I do accept that there is risk, mostly from human error, but by the same tolken I think there is merit in arbitrage betting and this should be expressed in  the editorial tone.
While I don't exactly want to encourage people to try arbitrage betting I also don't think that putting people off is a good thind either. Wiki should be a little more balanced.
Its just my opinion but what does everyone think? 
: I think that you're Alan Seymour! Do you really expect us to believe that you can find a 4% arb every day (100% return is 4% every day for 25 days after all, with payment the next day!) with bookies who will let you bet £1,000 each way (or £700 three ways) and not call a palp or cancel because they smell an arb? You must be betting on matches playing over a very short timescale (next day?) which is unbelievable. Do you expect an experienced arber to risk so much money on each leg when the risk of the bookie declaring a palpable error is so high at 4%? I have had bookies cheerfully cancel bets of several hundred pounds during play when it was impossible for me to offload, deliberately to torpedo me. When you lose a whole leg like that it takes you a lot of arbs at 2%-3% to make it up -do the arithmetic. 
: One bookie reneged on my bet and cancelled my account without telling me -I only found out when I tried to log in and called to find out what was up. If you've really been arbing for a year you'll have had bookies cancel your bets, limit your bets to small single figures and even cancel your account altogether. One book took 6 months to pay out £1,000 I had with them at £100 at a time. How many normal punters bet £1,000 on a match? You must be like a flaming beacon to the traders at all the books. The phrase you use: "Solid annual income" sounds straight out of Alan's promotional videos!
: (Alan Seymour by the way is a fictional character portrayed by an actor in "instructional" videos to convince people to start arbing and pay for particular arb services. He used to look like this: http://sportsarbitragereviewtruth.wordpress.com/11-2/ but now looks like this: http://www.sportsarbitragereview.com/images/alaninthe%20garden.jpg)
 SlipperyJim (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop adding links to these calculators.  Lots of them exist, and the article mentions that fact. 2005 11:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q. does this topic seem to be a little negative 

message: It looks like these two articles are discussing the same concept, and neither is very long, so I think they should be merged.  Thoughts?  (For now, I've linked the articles to each other via "see also".) MrVoluntarist 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In economics, Dutch books can include any series of trades, not only trades of lotteries.  The fact that intransitive preferences allow Dutch-booking is central to the conceptual importance of Dutch books.  Since this isn't encompassed by arbitrage betting, I would support the merge if the resulting article title is "Dutch book," but not the other way around. Jeremy Tobacman 01:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure.  "Dutch book" refers to a state that must exist in order for a type of arbitrage to take place.  The article title, however, should be the type of arbitrage discussed therein.  MrVoluntarist 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Casey Mulligan's paper uses an example of a Dutch book without uncertainty; so does this paper by David Laibson and Leeat Yariv.  Jeremy Tobacman 08:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is better the way it is now. Arbitrage betting seems quite nice and well-written article to me (of course, some things could be added). I do not think the merge would improve the quality of either of these two articles. --Kompik 20:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if one is well-written.  If they're discussing the same thing, they should merge so as to avoid duplication. MrVoluntarist 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems like the consensus is that the articles should not be merged. Would anyone mind if I removed the suggested merge tag? Rray 04:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging "Arbitrage betting" and "Dutch book" 

message: I tagged this article for citations. Right now there are a couple of external links, but the article really needs to include multiple citations from reliable sources. Rray (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem is that there simply are no real resources on this topic. It is something of an underground movement made by people who have no interest in letting other know about what they are doing. SAG is actually the only really reliable source online, and there is one book that I know of on the topic. 60.242.81.14 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. See WP:V and WP:OR. Rray (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I disagree with 60.242.81.14's "only one book" comment. Obviosly, there is a lot of material on this topic, see  . However, it will need a lot of work to add the inline citations. (I would start with it, but I am rather busy right now. But since the tag has been here since 2007, it's probably not that urgent.) --Kompik (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Refimprove tag

message: What's that about? This isn't a place to get tips. --78.143.224.116 (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These aren't tips; they are balancing remarks to the oft-stated claim that sports arbitrage is "risk free". Wikipedia is well-placed to correct misconceptions held by users intrigued by what they've read or heard and check out the Wikipedia entry on the subject. Robma (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrage in practice 

message: This whole article is full of statements which really, really need backing up. I'm a sports arber myself, and some of the content seems to reflect personal experience/opinion rather than verifiable fact. At the very least it needs citations to support many of its claims.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.180.242 (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of citations throughout 

message: I have removed the following text from the article because it is utter codswallop, obviously the opinion of a half-wit who has no clue. ==>
 
A typical arbitrage profit is around 2 percent, often less; however 4-5 percent profit is occasionally obtained, and sometimes even 20 percent. Arbitrage betting involves relatively large sums of money (stakes are bigger than in normal betting), due to large sums of money being required to generate a decent profit. It is usually detected quickly by bookmakers. Arbitrage betting is almost always insufficiently profitable due to detection, hackers, unreliable betting websites, limiting of stakes, and the use of high percentage arbitrages to trick bettors into giving security details.
Bookmakers generally disapprove of betting arbitrage, and restrict or close the accounts of those who they suspect of engaging in arbitrage betting. Although arbitrage betting has existed since the beginnings of bookmaking, the rise of the Internet, odds-comparison websites and betting exchanges have made the practice easier to perform. On the other hand, these changes also made it easier for bookmakers to keep their odds in line with the market, because arbitrage bettors are basically acting as market makers.''
The best way of generating profit via sports arbitrage, which has been established in Britain, consists of highly experienced "key men" employing others to place bets on their behalf, so as to avoid detection and increase accessibility to retail bookmakers. This allows the financiers or key arbitragers to stay at a computer to keep track of market movement.
Arbitrage is an extremely fast-paced process and its successful performance requires lots of time, experience, dedication and discipline, and especially liquidity.
<==
To consider why it's stoo-pid, just look at the last paragraph.  It would obviously be equally, or in my opinion more, plausible to say "Successful arbitrage is generally done by specialists in other fields who have long considered a situation and see an unusual opportunity.  Unlike specialists who work frantically by the day for peanuts, they are often able to make profits of thousands of percent of their investment by taking advantage of detailed study and relaxed reflection."
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm! -David Lloyd-Jones edits and disappears -this user no longer exists. Personally I find little to fault in the passage he has chopped out of the main section and don't know what he's going on about in his comment. Is he also Alan Seymour? SlipperyJim (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The account still exists and was active recently. Despite saying "I have removed the following text from the article", I can't see that any such edit was ever made; the text is still there today. The "best way" advice does seem quite weak without a source to back it up. --McGeddon (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utter Codswallop Removed