- This topic has 66 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Last week the R/Post carried a series by their guru of sports betting, the award-winning Steve Palmer. They sent him out to tackle racing. By Thursday he was hundreds down and couldn’t find a winner. Extraordinary way to run a newspaper devoted to racing: demonstrate what a downer it is and how hard it is to win.
Here we go again.
It is easier than ever for gamblers to make a profit Prof. IF, and only if they are willing to put the hours in.
Value Is EverythingYou say they "sent him out", when did they send him out? How long did he have to make a profit? Even the best of gamblers go through a losing spell. Needs to be judged on at least a year.
Value Is EverythingFFS Ginge stop talking common sense would you.
Prof, you had a pop at me before for saying ‘you didn’t have a clue’. I think I that with this post of yours I have conclusively proved my point.
I’m not sure what sort of selections Steve Palmer has been using in this exercise, but from personal experience betting consists of periods of losing or pretty standing still mixed with quick hits that boost up the profits.
It would be great if the winners came steadily and gave a gradual increase in the bank. However, betting isn’t like that which is why anybody entering betting seriously will make sure the have a decent bank behind them to see them through the tough times.
Steve would have liked to have hit a nice winning run to coincide with his articles. If anybody on here knows how to arrange that then please let us, I’m sure there are a few on here who would like to take advantage…
Rob
Admittedly I haven’t actually read any of his output in recent years, but I understand from others that Mr Palmer’s schtick is of the louche, gut-instinct, basically loss-prone punter who entertains all-and-sundry with his witty repartee and defiance in the face of adversity and/or reality.
I believe he occupies that niche market served by quasi-‘pro-gaamblahs’ embellished with faux-cockney accents, tiresome backslang, made-up Runyonesque pals and fairytale gambling books. Surely nobody takes any of them seriously?
Mike
Here we go again.
It is easier than ever for gamblers to make a profit Prof. IF, and only if they are willing to put the hours in.
…..and are prepared to stake several (seven or more) runners in a race.
Here we go again.
It is easier than ever for gamblers to make a profit Prof. IF, and only if they are willing to put the hours in.
…..and are prepared to stake several (seven or more) runners in a race.
What on earth is wrong with that??
Mike
Here we go again.
It is easier than ever for gamblers to make a profit Prof. IF, and only if they are willing to put the hours in.
…..and are prepared to stake several (seven or more) runners in a race.
What on earth is wrong with that??
Mike
Well you could still miss the winner if you’re a hedger and not a tipster. If you’ve done your homework, you should be left with no more than two or three and then it’s down to market strength. But then you still don’t know what has not been stretching itself in the rest of the field. How many times have you said at the end of a race ” blimey, where did that come from ” when something completely unfancied hacks up at a big price ?
If you’ve done your homework, you should be left with no more than two or three
Why?
If there are four horses in a race that I think would be good value at, say, 8-1 and they are all available at 16’s why should I not back them all?
All I am doing is backing a group of horses at 13-4 to produce the winner when I think that price should be 5-4. What on earth is wrong with that?!!
Mike
Admittedly I haven’t actually read any of his output in recent years, but I understand from others that Mr Palmer’s schtick is of the louche, gut-instinct, basically loss-prone punter who entertains all-and-sundry with his witty repartee and defiance in the face of adversity and/or reality.
I believe he occupies that niche market served by quasi-‘pro-gaamblahs’ embellished with faux-cockney accents, tiresome backslang, made-up Runyonesque pals and fairytale gambling books. Surely nobody takes any of them seriously?
Has to be some sort of record there foe cliches, surely?
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysIf he’d had a stunning week we’d never have heard the end of it.
That sort of exercise should be viewed with only the mildest of interest and then only for fun.
Woolfe – it doesn’t matter how many you back in any given race(s) so long as you can turn a long term profit. Doesn’t matter a jot. In fact such tactics can minimise the dreaded losing runs that are the downfall of many a betting bank.
Admittedly I haven’t actually read any of his output in recent years, but I understand from others that Mr Palmer’s schtick is of the louche, gut-instinct, basically loss-prone punter who entertains all-and-sundry with his witty repartee and defiance in the face of adversity and/or reality.
I believe he occupies that niche market served by quasi-‘pro-gaamblahs’ embellished with faux-cockney accents, tiresome backslang, made-up Runyonesque pals and fairytale gambling books. Surely nobody takes any of them seriously?
Has to be some sort of record there foe cliches, surely?
No, not cliches. A record for truisms perhaps. Axioms..?
Mike
If you’ve done your homework, you should be left with no more than two or three
Why?
If there are four horses in a race that I think would be good value at, say, 8-1 and they are all available at 16’s why should I not back them all?
All I am doing is backing a group of horses at 13-4 to produce the winner when I think that price should be 5-4. What on earth is wrong with that?!!
Mike
It demonstrates your inability to nail winner and that you are groping in the dark. Essentially you are admitting failure.
It’s taking a scattergun to a flock of birds in the hope that you may wound one of them. It’s not serious appreciation of form. I deride form readers and their naivety but at least theirs is honest endeavour albeit misguided in the modern world of racing where subterfuge and disguise is the holy grail.
You’re an expert in "naivety" Woolf.
It’s obvious you don’t understand odds.Value Is EverythingIf you’ve done your homework, you should be left with no more than two or three
Why?
If there are four horses in a race that I think would be good value at, say, 8-1 and they are all available at 16’s why should I not back them all?
All I am doing is backing a group of horses at 13-4 to produce the winner when I think that price should be 5-4. What on earth is wrong with that?!!
Mike
It demonstrates your inability to nail winner and that you are groping in the dark. Essentially you are admitting failure.
It’s taking a scattergun to a flock of birds in the hope that you may wound one of them. It’s not serious appreciation of form. I deride form readers and their naivety but at least theirs is honest endeavour albeit misguided in the modern world of racing where subterfuge and disguise is the holy grail.
Sorry Woolf but I feel I may struggle to discuss betting mathematics (actually, it’s just mathematics full stop) with yourself.
Mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.