The starting premise is that you're trying to find value pre-match betting in, say, a sport like tennis where the favourites are usually extremely low on the odds.
Please define "extremely low on the odds?" There are numerous 1.40+ favourites priced in any tournament week, aren't there?
The fastest way of securing profit from this type of betting is by picking winners consistently.
I don't use that strategy, but, I imagine that hitting a very high percentage of winners (75-80%+?) is a must...
If you follow a strategy of picking, say, all favourites you might end up getting a 10%-20% increase of your bank throughout the course of a season; which is hardly a profit you can use as a regular income.
I'm not sure the average
punter on this particular strategy could hope for an ROI even that high. I'm sure that there are a few out there who do very well out of this strategy, but, also, it wouldn't surprise me if 99% finish in deficit. Dunno.
Then the issue of discipline could play an enormous part - what happens when you have a period of "drought" where picking favourites is simply not cost-effective - and you end up losing money?
( a period we're witnessing since the French Open and which is continuing until now ).
What happens if that period lasts for months and months? How do you maintain your discipline waiting for the better days that will inevitably come?
Different people react to droughts in different ways. For some, "slashing" stakes is a viable option...gives you a little more time to recover confidence and form, and maybe also experiment with different/modified strategies.
You mention "we" on a number of occasions...why? As mentioned, each individual is different, and, where some are going through a slump, others are riding nicely through this period of time you mention (certainly one particular poster in the tennis betting forum).
Then of course backing underdogs is surely a losing strategy because the underdogs win at the most unexpected of times.
Can't say that I agree.
I think you'd be hard-pushed to find an individual who bets 100% of the time on underdogs, but certainly I've seen a number of guys cash in successful seasons betting 90%+ time on this strategy, and I can also speak from my own (more limited) experience.
Sure, many of the underdogs win at "unexpected times," but there also a number of occasions when you might consider that the odds are quite wrong (and you must therefore act accordingly)...for instance, I'm remembering Simon vs. Young in R1 of the Nottingham Open, June. I couldn't think of a single reason why Simon should be priced at 2.20 (took with Stan James), considering match-up, Young's form, recent track record etc going into that match (even if he did win junior Wimbledon). So, in some ways, I kinda expected Simon to win.
Who would have thought that Fish would beat Federer or that Henin would lose to Bartoli for example? I don't think even 1% of bettors could have predicted these results prior to the event, hence my statement that either strategy is unsuccesful.
Sure, I doubt people really expected these results to happen, but there are individuals who do speculate on the much higher odds (again, see one particular poster in tennis betting forum)...if you were to do this religiously, I'm not sure you'd find success in the long-run, but the trick (as has been demonstrated) is to pick up on when that heavy favourite might be particularly
vulnerable. Certainly, from my own experience, I'm no good at this at all, and very seldom do it.