Which of the two betting philosophies is the right one? The answer is both of them. Actually, one can say that "brain betting" is by far the most complicated strategy, which sounds strange considering the fact that you have to calculate percentage estimations for each outcome in a game to use value betting. However, betters, who don't use estimations, ALWAYS try to pick the winner, meaning that they never have an excuse should their bets prove to be wrong. When doing value betting, on the other hand, your estimations show that both sides had a reasonable chance of winning, i.e. when a team with an estimated winning percentage of for instance 10% wins, you can say that they won't repeat that performance in the next nine matches. Only in the long run, the accuracy of the estimations can be found.
It is often said that betting on the favourites is a sure way to lose. This is nonsense. Barcelona at 1.20 may not represent value rated 80% favourites, but if they win, they win. They win 100%, not 80. It is true though, that if you place 10 points on the favourites in every match, you will end up with considerable losses.
To illustrate why normal betting is a more advanced method, we have made the following example: Using both strategies, Everton @ odds 2.00 looks like a good bet. The reason for betting on Everton when doing value betting is that Everton should be able to win this match every second time. If Everton fail to win, then next time...A "normal better" would say that Everton is a good bet rather than Everton @ odds 2, simply because Everton is going to win...If Everton loses, he was wrong, not unlucky.
