- This topic has 2,646 replies, 45 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Yup and I am Spartacus
Let yourself down again Hurdy…..if Spartacus was about he`d have some maturity about him. Oh bl**dy hell, dots again!!
So, am i softie or ginge or ginge/softie, who knows, better get Nathan`s opinion again, certainly not the witless after timer,he needs all the time he can get in the quest for the pot.
You know what amazes me Softie? The fact that you have the same typing habit as Ginger does…little dots like those and you have only made 14 posts all in one thread. Not one post anywhere else
Can’t wait for Pepe to turn up who does the same…little dots.
He joined out of the blue and came straight to Gingers thread……didn’t go to horse racing like normal people do when starting and finding there way around………..straight to the famous Gingerbread man’s thread.
Wish I was famous
So I reckon we got Ginge mkI, Ginge MkII and Ginge MKIII in our midst aren’t we the lucky ones
You are such a B*stard Fist!!
I’ve been playing old Ginge/Softie like a fiddle and you of all people are the first to expose him!
Nath will know if we’re right! Nath,what do you think?He even after times THAT – for flips sake start thinking for yourself man
Ginger have you not just thought about using kelly criterion for you staking?
The problem I have with Kelly is it relies on a "bank". Am against betting with a bank because everyone goes through a losing run now and again. eg Say you made a handsome profit for a short time with a stake of 1 point. Then increased it to 2, 3, 4 and so on, winning more as you went. However, when the inevitable losing run strikes – your stakes are high and lose most of your hard earned earlier winnings.
I also have a problem with two bets just say a month apart having the same amount of chance and value and yet (because of a good win in between) being of vastly different stakes. In my opinion they should have the same.
Everyone is different, but what I like to do is keep my staking plan the same for a period (say a season or year). Build up a profit and then make a decision to up stakes a bit more if finances allow. ie but only once a significant losing run won’t badly effect the earlier profit gained.
Other than time of year (late season) and ground (very soft, freak results) and the odd time the race isn’t the easiest to figure out – Where I reduce the value part of the bet to 4 x the difference (from 5 x)… Staking stays the same for a long time.
However, one change I’ll be making for this jumps season TB, is upping what I consider very confident selections ie where I am "very confident" I’ve got their
price right
value-wise (not neccessarily about being "very confident" of them winning) up to 6 x this jumps season.
Personally, I’ll also be upping what
each point
will be worth for my own staking, but you won’t see that in my advice, because what each point is worth to the reader should be up to them/their own finances.
Value Is EverythingI suppose that’s where we differ, I think it is much better to use a progressive staking plan and place a stop loss figure you’re comfortable with. Grows capital a lot faster to reach a comfortable pot.
If you had a 10k pot and you had an average strike rate at 11% your longest likely losing run would be 43 bets.
You could place a 30% stop loss on your original capital so lose 3k to reduce a bank to 7K before you adjust stakes.
Taking 10000/150 gives you £67 per point, a losing run of 43 bets if you backed level stakes at that strike rate would lose you £2881 and wouldn’t even hit your stop loss.
Would take some pretty bad trading to get by the stop loss really IMO.
The plus side is every time you pass your bank high point you recalculate the point by the original calculation and the stop loss and your gains will increase faster and maximise your capital.
I think kelly has it’s merits, I used it for a while but now I just use a point range between 1-4 but using kelly helped me define my point range. I think you’re right in saying about confidence and upping the stakes slightly, this is what frustrated me about kelly and why ultimately I changed to a point basis.
So you back a save to take the value out of value that’s double dutch to me…….my way is better stick 25687 points on
Victor Echo shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
Fist,
All three horses were (imo) value. All that I am doing is backing two as main bets with the third value horse as just a saver – instead of three main bets (like you’re doing in your thread).Value Is EverythingDon’t you understand "simple" maths Fist? It’s done in exactly the same way as Stock Hill Fair.
Read how I staked Stock Hill Fair Fist, and it will tell you how I staked Estiqaama. In my opinion the horse had a29
% chance of winning and was available at 3/1 (
25
%).
29 – 25 = 4
. Then
4 x 4 = 16
. Then add 16 to my idea of his chance
16 + 29 = 45
. So
staking 45 points
. It’s that "simple".
Geezus Christ do you ever read your own Posts ‘Soft-one’??
Who in the history of horseracing has gone into a bookmakers and said to their mates…….."Lads I reckon this horse here has a 29% chance of winning" "Nah "SoftCock" I reckon its got a 30% chance myself" says "Softer-one" "Well I reckon its only got a 22.5% chance says "SoftasSoftis"………..The horse gets beat and Ginge and his many personalities wander home grumbling "Well at least we got the ‘Value’" Duh! Don’t you understand "simple" maths Fist? It’s done in exactly the same way as Stock Hill Fair.
Read how I staked Stock Hill Fair Fist, and it will tell you how I staked Estiqaama. In my opinion the horse had a29
% chance of winning and was available at 3/1 (
25
%).
29 – 25 = 4
. Then
4 x 4 = 16
. Then add 16 to my idea of his chance
16 + 29 = 45
. So
staking 45 points
. It’s that "simple".
Geezus Christ do you ever read your own Posts ‘Soft-one’??
Who in the history of horseracing has gone into a bookmakers and said to their mates…….."Lads I reckon this horse here has a 29% chance of winning" "Nah "SoftCock" I reckon its got a 30% chance myself" says "Softer-one" "Well I reckon its only got a 22.5% chance says "SoftasSoftis"………..The horse gets beat and Ginge and his many personalities wander home grumbling "Well at least we got the ‘Value’" Duh! Good job I don’t go in to high street bookmakers then.
When a punter works out a 100% book then it can not be more than 100%. If more than 100% then the punter will
not
be finding what even he/she believes are
fair
odds. It would be a waste of time. So if the punter is working out the 100% book and the percentages add up to 103%, he/she may decide the horse with 30% against his name is reduced to 29% and one or two other changes. Of course someone who has never worked out a 100% book won’t realise this.
Value Is EverythingOf course someone who has never worked out a 100% book won’t realise this.
And of course anyone who wastes their time ‘Working out a 100% book’ Will realise it makes 100% no difference whatsoever to a horses chance!
Therefore those wasting ‘Valueable’ time have obviously got nothing better to do!!A horse can’t run faster because he’s got 2.25% in hand on the field, he can’t improve his conditions either.
There’s no legitimate validity with what you’re doing, it’s just like psychologists are scrutinized in claiming to be a natural science when there’s no reliable construct of interval data that can measure behaviour, physiology and cognitive processes for example, like you could do with time, weights, energy and so on.
It’s just like the Likert Scale, there’s no definite measurement that can specifically tell us the difference between strongly agree and strongly disagree is there? Pretty much like your associate of trying to use a formbook to quantify a selection when every horses formbook is different it makes your process absolute worthless.
I’d like to see the internal consistency of your selections because I’d put my bottom dollar on every horses you’ve given a 25% chance of winning will have different factors associate with them and can you reliably tell me that the formbook between a 25% chance and a 28% chance have any valid categories or items?
To be honest you’re living in a dream land sorry.Of course someone who has never worked out a 100% book won’t realise this.
And of course anyone who wastes their time ‘Working out a 100% book’ Will realise it makes 100% no difference whatsoever to a horses chance!
Therefore those wasting ‘Valueable’ time have obviously got nothing better to do!!No wonder you’re struggling to make a profit with an attitude like that TAK.
The idea is to come to an informed opinion about the chance of each horse. Just as the bookmaker’s odds compiler has done, only we don’t add a mark up.
If a bookmaker’s odds compiler works out a four horse race as:
A 40%, B 30%, C 20%, D 10%. What the bookmaker’s odds compiler believes are their fair chances are 6/4, almost 9/4, 4/1 and 9/1. The bookmaker will then add a mark up and offer A 11/8, B 85/40, C 7/2 and D 15/2.
Is the bookmaker’s odds compiler wasting his time working out a 100% book? Perhaps you believe the odds compiler should just think all four have an equal chance and just say 25% for all four horses. Do you believe a bookie shouldn’t bother working out a book? Should he just offer 11/4 for all four horses in this race?
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.