The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Losing Bets

Home Forums Archive Topics Losing Bets

Viewing 17 posts - 35 through 51 (of 92 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #93406
    phunter
    Member
    • Total Posts 125

    I feel like i am in a weird dream reading this thread,thank christ i woke up. :biggrin:

    #93407
    Jim JTS
    Member
    • Total Posts 841

    9 votes FOR and 8 against? WOW! I find this amazin’

    looks like I had three good losing bets today with MacLean, Whippasnapper & Samuel Charles :scratchchin: :laugh:

    #93408
    turtle
    Member
    • Total Posts 31

    There is of course a corollary to this question, which is: ‘Can a winning bet ever be a bad bet?’  :yes:<br>Take the case of the first ever racecourse bet placed by  a son/daughter whose feet have been hitherto firmly  plodding along the respectable path to academic achievement and a sensible career.  When their horse passes the   lollipop stick in front,  it’s uh-oh time :no:

    #93409
    Grimes
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1890

    Association with Dracula I can wear, gamble. But not Howard. It’s below the belt. That does deserve infernal  punishment…!

    But you have hit upon a very interesting and actually very sad phenomenon, old chap, i.e. the voiding of all meaning from valid political terminology. I mean the relegation of terms, such as "fascism", to the category of juvenile cliche. Dave Spart and the beatniks have done immeasurable harm. Like drug addicts, they wanted to get heaven into their head, instead of their head into heaven. It’s not enough to say, "Love", "Peace", and other such words that have become cliches.  <br>There is an apocryphal story that a pilgrim went to visit St John the Evangelist, who was at that time, a very old man. He found him seated on the ground, playing with pigeons, and was shocked that the great divine should be occupied in such a trivial pursuit.

    Sensing this, John looked up, and asked his visitor, "Does the archer always keep his bow taut"? And he was in the habit at that time of repeating the phrase, "Little children, love one another". But when he spoke of Love, he said it was not to be a matter of mere words, but of actions. Nothing is achieved without sacrifice and indeed suffering, and his love of Christ could scarcely have been more generously expressed than by his display of extraordinarily loyal courage and commitment to Christ at the foot of the cross. The irony is that he seems to have been in good odour with the high priest, being known to him, so, at least, an acquaintance. To have any kind of dealings with Christ had, by then, for some time been to risk becoming an outcast from the synagogue, and thus, in such a theocratic society, from society itself. Indeed, I think it was St Paul who said that they wre looked up to, but the apostles, themselves, were looked upon as the off-scourings of mankind.

    As for the parable of Lazarus, (tradition accords the rich man with the name Dives, though he is not given one in the parable), Christ’s recriminations aginst the rich in the form of this man, could scarcely have been more vehemently or more bitterly expressed.  

    Jesus said, not that Dives, the beggar, didn’t give him anything as he sat  begging at his gate, but that no-one did. In other words, his political influence was extensive.

    However, he went on to say that even the street-dogs licked Lazarus’ sores". For historical reasons it’s not going to be dwelt on or explained by the institutional church, (which, after all, until quite recently, was given to inviting the very "beasts of the earth", the fascist caudillos of S. America and elsewhere to the seats of honour at papal coronations),  but the clear implication seems to be that even the dumb beasts , themselves – mammals at least – in their hapless stumbling way put the rich man (generically speaking, as always, of course) and his minions to fathomless shame. While here in this country, most unnnaturally, the Norman tradition of the toffs sets dog against dog. In the wild wolves are extremely socially responsible. When literally the top dog in a fight stands with his jaws above the other’s throat, he stops to accept its submission.

    More pointedly, for today, 2000+ years AD,  Father Abraham told the deceased rich man, in answer to his request to be allowed to warn his brothers, that "even if a man should rise from the dead, they would no listen to him". It does seem that the refusal of charity, ie self-sacrifing love towards our fellows, is connected with the invincible ignorance (refusal to accept the truth), which Christian tradition identifies as the unforgivable sin, because it is an eternal sin – to which Christ referred, when they called him possessed.  

    There is only one criterion Christ mentions upon which we will be judged, and that is the more or less practical help we give to those in need. He also accused the Scribes and Pharisees, who were punctilious in their tithe-giving, but were covetous and unjust in their dealings with the less worldly, of "straining at a gnat, only to swallow a camel"; putting money in the poor box, but baulking at actually changing the unjust structures of society.    

    To make sense of the world, we have to resort to generalisations. This is no less true of Jewish and Christian scripture. There is a constant, even routine association of the rich man with evil-doing, and the poor man with innocence. Frequently, it is by apposition. After the crucifixion, we read, in Isiah 53, 9 (Knox version): "Takes he leave of the rich, the godless, to win but a grave, to win but the gift of death". Or, in the Authorised Version, "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death: because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth".

    Yet in the normal run of things, as Karl Marx so clearly  perceived, it is the monied, more powerful people who get to say "what’s what" in this world. Even though it is a matter of common experience that there are rich people who are good and compassionate, and there are poor people who are wicked.

    Unfortunately the latter is more obvious, because it is easy to be a "gentle man" in a position of power, than it is, I dare, say even to retain your humanity, when you are really up against it; really starving or dying from exposure and the stress of homelessness (said to be akin to that on a field of battle).

    Even so, because of their innately more spiritual nature, they do tend to be more human (hence Lazarus’ being named) and gentle. Irene Handel was usually cast in a role that was a bit of a caricature, but not always that much. And it is surely a truism that there is a tendency for the children of the "top" families in our country, with every material advantage given to them (however poisoned a chalice that may be, since it often seems to have been one of the few expressions of love they received from their parents, who would have suffered similarly in their turn), to go off the rails in a big way.

    Anyway, I could go on for ever and a day, gamble, but that will do for now. Yes, even for me. I’d prefer to write about what a wonderful picture the Gospels give us of human beings trying to make sense of someone they are following who is true God and true Man, but often can’t understand their limitations. At the Ascension, for example, they were still overwhelmed by the power of his divinity that they had witnessed, whereas Christ said to them, "if you really loved me you would be pleased for me that I am going to the Father." His suffering were those of someone who was not less, but more human than us.

    PS: You gat it Turtle! That first fatal win.

    (Edited by Grimes at 9:56 pm on May 24, 2004)

    <br>(Edited by Grimes at 9:58 pm on May 24, 2004)<br>

    (Edited by Grimes at 10:34 pm on May 26, 2004)

    #93410
    gamble
    Participant
    • Total Posts 3859

    Current state of poll  

                                 yes 10

                                   no  9

                            Grimes 17

           Grimes I always thought Howhard was the famous Count and it was Paxman’s hidden cross that really made him stutter forth the fourteen denials. The Tories hired the best possible orator to defeat the beast and travelled to the forests of Trannsylvania to lure him. I have seen Howhard at irregular times and have heard reports his four story in SWI more than welcomes in the pale moonshine as he plans the destruction of the beast and labours on from an upstairs open window. 

        My dear Grimes your post above must be a record for length in horseracing or anywhere for that matter and admin must be grinning from ear to ear at the sheer enormity of it.  I have read it four times through, and would ask that people perservere as a cloud will suddenly open and let a shaft through. It is well worth the journey and the message was not lost on me – a yes man  😎  

    <br>     An interesting debate all round, and I missed Betfair’s version – As stated above I am a yes man but have been swayed a little by the little mo camp  

    (Edited by gamble at 6:31 pm on May 25, 2004)

    #93411
    Grimes
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1890

    Thanks, gamble. I’m tempted to indulge in some levity in reply, but I don’t want to make light of the subject of my post, since I love the Gospels and for most of Christ’s ministry, they never cease to tickle me… in a warm way, strangely! (Why only today, I must confess to you gamble, I was laughing at a sire called "Bates Motel"!). and in the context of the tenour of my other "humorous" posts….  So, I’m going to make a point of watching more and more of Bernie Winters and Snorbitz. Listen, I’m only pulling your leg, gamble. So much for my resolve… I suspect the apostles would have larked around sometimes, when the boss was otherwise engaged, but I never got any inkling of it from the scriptures.

    Anyway, let me digress a little on the subject of betting…. I’ve been thinking lately, there is one thing above all else I need to master, betting-wise. And (very much on toipic) that is: I need to be able to put my best bets on, without any concern that they may lose (as any horse surely can).

    Instead of that the 2/ and 3/1 shots I have I mind, I tend to underweight, relatively speaking, precisely although almost unconsciously) because they too may lose.

    I can live with losing on my longer shots, but a short-shot loser pains me. The result is that I seek to spread my liabilities by diversifying in terms of longer shots.  

    I mean there are, of course, good bets at decent prices, but not as many as I tend to bet on, somewhat speculatively, in view of the particular context of the races.   <br> <br>So, it is as important for me to learn to be as sanguine about losing more heavily per race (much more infrequently, anyway), on good short shots. To have confidence in my ability to pick "value" short shots which will yield not only more consistent returns but, when pursued methodically in terms of weighting and bearing in mind the time perspective, more profitable ones. It’s a rare old game to master. One day! I tell myself.

    <br>

    (Edited by Grimes at 11:43 pm on May 25, 2004)

    #93412
    gamble
    Participant
    • Total Posts 3859

     Grimes I am so glad you see the funny side of the bible as it gives me some hope if I ever reached there. I always thought resting on the seventh day was a bit Bob Pope 😉

      I have read your betting approach with interest and maybe I can tender some advice. I have made the same mistakes as others but have gleaned a lot from them. Come right out of the markets of late mainly due to Zorro strangely. The pursuit of art pays much less but I sleep better :biggrin:

         My style of betting used to consist of snapping at heals (£40 – 100) and the planned plunge bet (monkey -1K) in the bet to win market ie not lays. My largest single bet was 2K two years ago – an odds on but I did all the work and it did ‘hose in’.  I work out my own tissue, but it is a laborious affair and seems very much like real work. The big group races take the longest time and although possibly the least financially rewarding, are the most satisfying and in a way I compare them to a Grimes post. Teamgamble used to phone on a Sunday eager for the weeks plan, as I am happy to pass information on to the madgamble group, but the phone rings less these days as I drift in a different sea full of special arty fish.

           In the first week of March I met a very attractive lady who gave me some, well I think good advice ‘life advice’ and I applied it to my market strategies. At that time I had lost my appetite for betting slightly and had become badly risk averse. She put me right leaving me with these words.

       " Life is short – go for the head of the snake "

       I knew exactly what she meant, and the words spurred me on to rekindle my plunge mentality and re-acceptance of risk. The next 10 days I went for the snake’s head laying 17 consecutive 1st or second favourites and picking up three figures (low) a go. I had three seconds but all lost and so successful was I, that when Cheltenham came I got a nasty cold and coffin’ for the punters graveyard. The festival was good to me though, and possibly laying off large liabilities was the right thing to do. I rested then on my laurels

        Olivers army or something army not sure about the name..was the horse that ended my winning adventure, but I had drifted into a completely different betting approach – possibly bored with my success – coupled in the same race by a terrible trading experience on Sad Mad Bad which was beaten by the Irish horse (something army ).

        I believe the right mental approach is so important. Of course you can bet small and in the doldrums, but when you put in so much work, why go for snail with a spotted handkerchief when a viper with a large attache is waiting around the corner. :biggrin:

       Hope that has been helpful G

    <br>flatcapgamble…he sits in a chair until he feels the tingle and immediately calls the butler..

     " Lambert I just felt the tingle, you can arrange a large plunge bath for me, turn the light out and leave the soap on the floor just like normal "

    #93413
    dave jay
    Member
    • Total Posts 3386

    Last year I was betting away, two to three bets a day. Having a mixture of winners and losers, but breaking even most weeks and then having the odd up, which was working out quite well.

    I had been backing a few outsiders with some success and decided to hammer into one last year because I thought it would win at big odds. ALDORA. It won at 33/1 and I had been betting it all day and walked away with nearly £6K. That turned out to be one of the worst bets I have made. Without realising it, the success must have made me over confident in my ability to pick winners and for the following two months had the worst betting run I have ever experienced. By the middle of June my betting bank was done and I threw it in. I’m still annoyed at myself for letting my mynd trick me, hopefully it will be a lesson well learned.

    I haven’t started betting again, still risk averse, as you say Gamble … for me it was, a winning bet that lead me to a disastrous run of losers …  before last year I would have been rooting for the ‘winning bet’ good team. Now I think that there’s no difference between winning and losing, it’s only the mind that makes it so. <br>

    #93414
    Nick Hatton
    Member
    • Total Posts 399

    Often know as ‘the messiah complex’ Dave.

    Very dangerous indeed !  😮

    #93415
    tooting
    Member
    • Total Posts 379

    I also suffered from such hubris.

    December I won the Bob Rolf 4PP monthly prize. Which I was dead chuffed with, being a moderate handicapper against the likes of Ted and co.

    Bob gave me the offer of £25 or a trophy. Obvious choice really. Except my vanity made me choose the trophy. When it came, it was an enormous horse.  I was pleased as punch and put it on the mantlepiece as a visible statement of my brilliance.

    January and February passed without me backing a winner.  My bank was 25% down. I was a fraud.

    Cheltenham was further killing me.

    On the Wednesday night my wife hid the trophy – hoping to stop what she saw as a hex.

    Thursday, I didn’t notice the trophy had gone, but I did have my best day’s betting for many a year.

    The tropy remains where it belongs, in a humble darkened corner under the stairs (sorry Bob!).

    Let this be a warning…

    <br>

    #93416
    phunter
    Member
    • Total Posts 125

    A losing bet is never a good bet, Grimes you aren’t related to Graham Speirs by any chance. 😉

    #93417
    Grimes
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1890

    You gat it, guys! I shouldn’t have risen to the bait! pd, you should reading the posts of Dave J and Gamble, again and again and again.

    As a matter of interest re the Messiah syndrome, Nick, I have never seen such an arrogant attitude as that expressed in a betting shop, when a normally very personable sort of bloke suddenly becomes a monster, because he’s had a winner or two. Scary stuff, even though the vampire(!) lurks in all of us!

    And when I have a bad run, it really blows my mind. I mean you really need a certain measured confidence – that patient perspective/confidence –  to assess bets in a balanced way.

    I was tickled to read of the advice proferred to you by that beautiful lady, gamble, as they are so much more wily than us. They really are big cats to our puppy dogs in many ways, I think. However foxy they may look… And, incidentally, without going into specifics, I put much less on my "maximum confidence" bets than you blokes would have paid tax on yours, when it was levied. So, it’s not so much a matter of feeling freer to putting significantly more on them, than perhaps putting jsut a little more, but certainly being prepared not to bet on fancied "possibles". Two or three bets a day, rather than eight or ten to smaller stakes. Even tiddly ones.

    (Edited by Grimes at 10:15 pm on May 26, 2004)

    <br>(Edited by Grimes at 10:18 pm on May 26, 2004)

    <br>(Edited by Grimes at 10:45 pm on May 26, 2004)<br>

    (Edited by Grimes at 11:03 pm on May 26, 2004)

    #93418
    gamble
    Participant
    • Total Posts 3859

    Dave mentioned the messiah complex – I think it infers that a winning streak leads on to believe one can walk on water.

      What really happens is that the brain gets confused by the stream of success and concentrates more on the success than the logic and reason necessary to arrive at it. This all puts Arsenal’s fantastic run into perspective. Possibly a group of brains as in a team support each other. But betting is intellectual work and football IS 90% physical so maybe the analogy fails.  

      Tooting that was a fascinating post and one I shall never forget.

     I think the size of the bet is relative to the satisfaction it produces. For myself to put a £10 or £20 bet after a forty minute plus analysis would seem small beer and I would fail on energy or stimulus. What this lady was saying – and yes Grimes she was a big cat that purred through big sensual lips – was that if you are making an effort, make sure it makes a difference, and aim high with your expectations. The belief of success as long as it is realistic is a terrific stimulus to creative and logical thought.

    Grimes I recommend you read the loaves and fishes, and the feeding of the five thousand.

    (Edited by gamble at 12:23 am on May 27, 2004)

    #93419
    larry layer
    Member
    • Total Posts 84

    One more vote in the yes camp :biggrin:

    A losing bet can be a very good bet.  Imagine backing favourite Horse A at double the odds of SP for "Big Race"..  and it goes on to lose.  Would you continue to make that bet every time or not ?  

    Everytime.  Ah, but value is all about opinion i hear some saying..  yes indeed it is, on things that cannot be measured precisely.  However how about we average roughly the opinions of thousands of people – a market place.  The prices available here are much more likely to be closer to the mark.. (its why a lot of people prey on illiquid markets where there are fewer opinions and more chance of nicking value).  

    As long as bets have a positive expectancy (the odds obtained are greater than the probability of outcome occuring) then the bets are good, regardless of result.  The more bets you make with a positive expectancy, the lower the effect of randomness and bad luck on your betting history.

    In my personal experience ive made some brilliant bets, a lot of which have gone on to lose.  I’ve been lucky enough to find myself matched at crazy odds on an evens chance many times only for it to go on and lose..  

    On the other hand, at some of my worst moments i have experienced the worst mental mistake a gambler can make – chasing his losses.. and got away with it.  backing a short odds outcome at a terrible price and seeing it win.  The win certainly did not make me happy.  I stopped for a few days after that to regain discipline.

    I have yet to come across any arguement that can be made against value.  <br>

    #93420
    ACR1
    Member
    • Total Posts 64

    You fancy a horse at 50/1. He jumps the last 20L’s clear, going well, but falls.

    Good bet or bad bet?

    #93421
    Jim JTS
    Member
    • Total Posts 841

    Let’s put this thread to bed lads.

    I reckon it’s simple and some of you are actually taking the p**s
    !

    Any losing bet is not a good bet otherwise we wouldn’t have the cry wolfers on here complaining about non triers.

    you place £100 on black on a roulette table, up comes red, good bet or bad bet? (BAD) money lost!

    and as ACR1 says you back a horse at 50/1 and is 20l’s clear going to the last only needs to jump to collect, it falls! good bet or bad bet? Good before it falls given the circumstances BUT ends up (BAD) money lost!

    If anyone thinks that losing money by betting is a good bet then they are in the wrong game :scratchchin: after all all of you that bet want to win NOT lose!

    I can take it when I lose but it’s certainly not good!

    #93422
    canada
    Member
    • Total Posts 7

    There is no such thing as "very unique"….Americans dont relize this but you Brits are usually far more accurate with language……As for the question,it is simply a poor question that needs to be re-phrased and filled out….If price is better than probability then you can have unforseen bad luck,and miss out on a good bet(Dancing Brave,Epsom)but should still overcome this to win in the longrun.(dancing brave ,Ascot)…So the answer is…..Yes,I was unlucky but will prevail in the longrun.

Viewing 17 posts - 35 through 51 (of 92 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.