- This topic has 54 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Good luck Mike and welcome to the joys and perils of betting for a living. Your approach seems the antithesis of my own.
Which is one reason why Mike’s reports should prove to be interesting – 100 ways to skin the punting cat; the fallacy
that you can’t profit betting at SP; the fallacy that empiric value (ginger percentages) is a must and cerebral value (that horse is too long/short) a no-nonote well the
Can I ask you Mike, are you at all religious?
Only I have a theory that all (or the vast majority) of successful gamblers are athiests/almost athiest. With an ability to come to a
rational
explanation/opinion of races/horses. NOT allowing sentimentality to sway their opinion (including subconsciously) and NOT forming an opinion because they want it to be true (again including subconsciously)
This is a common misconception in my opinion. You are not a rationalist Ginger, you are an empiricist
If your theory is true then I must be an Islamic Fundamentalist on the Flat and an Agnostic over the jumps
Mike – holistic rationalism
Ginger – reductionist empiricismMake of that what you will
As a living wage nowadays it’s probable you’ll need £20-30K a year to live, so let’s say £25K a year is needed. With an ROI of 10% you’re needing to turnover £250,000 a year, that’s 24 bets a week at £200. An awful lot of ‘value’ bets to find every week to live and no doubt ‘loose’ bets are going to be creeping in. There’s 10% on 5 bets a month needed to cover the cost of subscribed must haves like Timeform and RP. Perhaps worth rethinking your planned stakes and upping them on more selective wagers.
Wishing you every success Mike. Best, TimAs a living wage nowadays it’s probable you’ll need £20-30K a year to live, so let’s say £25K a year is needed. With an ROI of 10% you’re needing to turnover £250,000 a year, that’s 24 bets a week at £200. An awful lot of ‘value’ bets to find every week to live and no doubt ‘loose’ bets are going to be creeping in. There’s 10% on 5 bets a month needed to cover the cost of subscribed must haves like Timeform and RP. Perhaps worth rethinking your planned stakes and upping them on more selective wagers.
One of the attractions of betting is being able to turnover (recycle) a significant annual sum from a relatively insignificant lump of initial capital – the betting bank; so six-figure turnover may look impressive but it’s not particularly difficult to achieve if one’s usual bet is the relatively low three-figures, as your example illustrates
That said betting to literally earn a ‘living’ i.e to put bread on the table and keep the bailiffs at bay is a huge psychological step-up from betting for profit with bread already on the table and the mortgage paid; and isn’t something I’d contemplate and fortunately have not had to contemplate
Rather like those lucky souls who in later life decide to run the ‘business of their dreams’ – antiquarian bookshop, nice little cafe in a nice little place, selling off the family silver on Ebay – the dream is much more pleasant if the income generated is supplementary, not essential
Bet for profit, yes indeedy of course; but treat that profit as pocket/beer/holiday/rainy-day/one-life’s-little-luxuries money, not I-need-it-for-Tesco’s
Words are easy, aren’t they?
Can I ask you Mike, are you at all religious?
Only I have a theory that all (or the vast majority) of successful gamblers are athiests/almost athiest. With an ability to come to a rational explanation/opinion of races/horses. NOT allowing sentimentality to sway their opinion (including subconsciously) and NOT forming an opinion because they want it to be true (again including subconsciously).
No I’m not religious. All religions are basically man-made conceits that have nothing to do with the existence of a god (or otherwise). Anyway, the three major religions in this country – Christianity, Islam and Atheism – are all so smugly convinced they’re right you’ll never get a fun night out from any of them.
As a gambler, however, one simply has to be guided by
Pascal’s Wager
which states (and I’m paraphrasing here) that the sensible course of action on the God debate is to become a believer simply because the downside of non-belief (eternal damnation etc) massively outweighs that of believing (foregoing the odd Earthly pleasure here and there). You of all people should recognise this as the ultimate
value
play Ginge.
Me personally, I’d be prepared to back the existence of God at any price bigger than 1-3. But you certainly see plenty of them get beat.
Mike
As a living wage nowadays it’s probable you’ll need £20-30K a year to live, so let’s say £25K a year is needed. With an ROI of 10% you’re needing to turnover £250,000 a year, that’s 24 bets a week at £200. An awful lot of ‘value’ bets to find every week to live and no doubt ‘loose’ bets are going to be creeping in. There’s 10% on 5 bets a month needed to cover the cost of subscribed must haves like Timeform and RP. Perhaps worth rethinking your planned stakes and upping them on more selective wagers.
Wishing you every success Mike. Best, TimThanks Tim, but I’m not betting for a
living
as such, I’m betting to make money.
Having said that, work is work and it still has to pay for itself. I have an idea of what I need to earn in hard cash terms for the likely hours worked but I don’t think it’s appropriate to talk about such things.
Mike
Good luck Mike and welcome to the joys and perils of betting for a living. Your approach seems the antithesis of my own.
Which is one reason why Mike’s reports should prove to be interesting – 100 ways to skin the punting cat; the fallacy
that you can’t profit betting at SP; the fallacy that empiric value (ginger percentages) is a must and cerebral value (that horse is too long/short) a no-nonote well the
Can I ask you Mike, are you at all religious?
Only I have a theory that all (or the vast majority) of successful gamblers are athiests/almost athiest. With an ability to come to a
rational
explanation/opinion of races/horses. NOT allowing sentimentality to sway their opinion (including subconsciously) and NOT forming an opinion because they want it to be true (again including subconsciously)
This is a common misconception in my opinion. You are not a rationalist Ginger, you are an empiricist
If your theory is true then I must be an Islamic Fundamentalist on the Flat and an Agnostic over the jumps
Mike – holistic rationalism
Ginger – reductionist empiricismMake of that what you will
Ouch!
Thanks mate.
Am confused how you can describe me as such Drone?
Please explain.I presume most of Mike’s betting is going to be just before the off, when he knows (pretty much) what the price will be. Therefore Mike can get the "value" (as he sees it). Mike is obviously very good at finding LATE value, so SHOULD concentrate on that area. I, on the other hand – have never been as good at finding LATE value (though getting better) so concentrate on trying to find EARLY Value. Which is why I said Mikes way is the "antithesis of my own".
There are many different ways for a punter to make a profit Drone, NOT JUST THE WAY I DO IT. Form study, trends, systems, whatever… But at the end of the decade ANY profit making punter needs VALUE – whether they’ve actively gone out and looked for it or not.
When we’ve had "Value" debates in the past Mike has been one who’s lept to my defence Drone, for which I’ve been grateful. It is not "Ginger percentages" it IS "percentages". Mike knows odds as percentages and vice versa just as well as I do. I’ve just been the one who’s tried to publicise its importance to (hopefully) enable other TRFers to profit.
I doubt very much whether Mike will back something that will probably have a BFSP of 4/1 unless he believes it to have a better than 20% chance. NOT that he needs to make a concious decision of a 20% chance or make a 100% book or anything! Once a punter KNOWS odds as percentages it comes naturally. But it is NOT a "no-no" at all Drone.
My words were in no way disparaging of Mike’s chances of making a go of betting for a living Drone and I agree; difference in our approaches is "one reason why Mike’s reports should prove to be interesting".
Value Is EverythingThanks Tim, but I’m not betting for a
living
as such, I’m betting to make money.
Are you becoming a "professional gambler" or not Mike?Or are you just talking about taking your betting more seriously?
Wish you luck anyway Mike.
Value Is EverythingAre you becoming a "professional gambler" or not Mike?
Or are you just talking about taking your betting more seriously?
Wish you luck anyway Mike.
Thanks Ginge.
Well, since I finished a long-lived business at the end of last year I don’t have any other employment. However, I have no dependents, no debts & have now paid off my mortgage. I was really meaning that my definition of ‘a living’ is therefore likely to be considerably different to others.
I’ve given myself a year to prove whether this is viable for me. If it isn’t I’ll stop and find something else. I’m ‘professional’ from the point of view that this is the only work I do but I won’t be out on the street should I fail!
Mike
Best of luck Mike! Have you thought about posting your bets on Daily Lays and Plays? Would be fascinating to see how you go about it!
Thanks Joni, but I get enough abuse, mockery and general ridicule every time I go out to bat on a Sunday, I don’t think I could stand it during the rest of the week as well!!
I also bet quite late, often chopping and changing so it would be a bit of a faff for me really.
Mike
Are you becoming a "professional gambler" or not Mike?
Or are you just talking about taking your betting more seriously?
Wish you luck anyway Mike.
Thanks Ginge.
Well, since I finished a long-lived business at the end of last year I don’t have any other employment. However, I have no dependents, no debts & have now paid off my mortgage. I was really meaning that my definition of ‘a living’ is therefore likely to be considerably different to others.
I’ve given myself a year to prove whether this is viable for me. If it isn’t I’ll stop and find something else. I’m ‘professional’ from the point of view that this is the only work I do but I won’t be out on the street should I fail!
Mike
Very wise Mike.
That describes me!
Well almost. Worked for my father as first full time, then part time, then very part time carpet fitter but now he’s (finally) fully retired (at the end of the financial year) – I’m off on an adventure. Betting has been my main sourse of income for some time, but my father’s retirement does mean the tax man needs to be informed! Any advice on that department Mike?I too have no other employment, no dependants, no debts, low overheads, material things don’t matter to me and bought my house outright (always knowing what I wanted to do). They can’t take that away from me.
You ARE "betting for a living" Mike. Dave Nevision said in his book "there are professional gamblers who make millions and there are proffessional gamblers who make as much as a lavatory cleaner’s wage" (or similar). We may be nearer the latter than former type Mike.
Value Is EverythingMe personally, I’d be prepared to back the existence of God at any price bigger than 1-3. But you certainly see plenty of them get beat.
Mike
You can have any amount you like on @ 2/5 with me Mike!
Value Is Everything[
Ouch!
Thanks mate.
Am confused how you can describe me as such Drone?
Please explain.Our love-hate relationship is well established but what irks this time G?
Empricism a virtue, rationalism a religion
Agnosticism rules, I think
[
Ouch!
Thanks mate.
Am confused how you can describe me as such Drone?
Please explain.Our love-hate relationship is well established but what irks this time G?
Empricism a virtue, rationalism a religion
Agnosticism rules, I think
I knew what the word “rational” meant:
Rational: “Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behaviour”.
But had to quickly look up “empiricism” and found:
Empiricism: “The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge”.So I was trying to put those in to horse racing study Drone: You appeared to be saying that I believed my way was the “only source of knowledge” (which is not true) and that I did not base my form study on reason: logical and rational behaviour (again not true).
However:
I have now looked Empiricist up to find a fuller meaning and… if you are comparing me to Aristotle – I forgive you. If you will use these words I’ve never heard of Drone – misunderstandings are going to happen.
Please remember in future Drone… I am thick! Apologies.
Value Is EverythingYou’re not thick Gingertotle, I’m just a pretentious twat
with dangerously little knowledge of the philosophical schools of thought that were mentioned in response to your interesting theory that succesful punters are irreligious; though as Mike candidly points out strict atheism is as religious as strict theism. Your war of words with Grimes et al over in the Lounge epitomises the entrenched beliefs held by these polar opposite philosophies in that neither of you will give an inch to the other. I don’t know who I dislike more, The Pope or Richard Dawkins
The world, I’d suggest, would be a nicer place if there was less dogma and more scepticism: more agnosticism in all things
Anyway, to be clear (and I thought my liberal sprinkling of large question marks made it clear) I was certainly not criticising your methods which, do remember, are largely mine too but expressing an interest in seeing how Mike’s alternative approach works; and I’m probably being presumptuous in assuming the Large method is different as how should I know how he operates
With the best will in the world and at the risk of upsetting you yet again, you do tend to evangelise our shared method of value via tissues and percentages don’t you, so it will be healthy all round to see an alternative method in action
Had not better move the evidence v faith debate in to the Horse Racing section Drone.
May be you could join in the debate there?I hope you don’t regard me as the Dawkins of the forum Drone or (God forbid) the Pope!
Yes, Mike’s way is an "alternative approach" which is great to see. But as I understand – I don’t see it as going against my "evangelising" (as you put it) at all Drone. We are both after value (in "fair odds" terms). Difference is only in how we find said value and the time we take value.
Despite our little disagreements Drone, I enjoy your posts more than most, looking up new words as I go.
Value Is EverythingHad not better move the evidence v faith debate in to the Horse Racing section Drone.
May be you could join in the debate there?
Grimes is a spectacular polymathic wordsmith and I’ve enjoyed jousts with him on several summat-and-nowts but am reluctant to debate when he’s in full-on Christian mode and you and others are in full-on Atheist mode as poor little me in full-on Agnostic-Pantheist mode would essentially be trying to referee a 13-round heavyweight bout between the irresistible force and the immovable object
Anyway, I do vaguely recall tea and muffins in the Lounge with the God and No-God Squads sometime ago. Might try and find it
Incidentally, Phil Bull was a devout atheist in the Dawkins mould and I do think there’s something in your theory that the philosophical mindset and world view of the succesful punter would exclude theism; so the evidence v faith debate might have its place here in Horse Racing
Betting has been my main sourse of income for some time, but my father’s retirement does mean the tax man needs to be informed! Any advice on that
I suggest you get an accountant to sort out your tax affairs on the winding-up of your business as there’s likely to be asset disposal, liability offset and intangible ‘goodwill’ matters to consider
I’d also suggest you maintain your self-employed status by continuing to pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions as you need 35 years’ (I think) payment to qualify for the full state pension
As for gambling profit, I assume this still doesn’t need to be declared to the Revenue, though do keep all betting records in case they want proof your income is solely from gambling
I’m not sure whether the recent legal enforceability of gambling debt has altered the tax status of gambling profit; Wit will know I’m sure
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.