- This topic has 86 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
I was curious as to how long a time period a streak of 30 losers would represent in your betting strategy Mike? I know you said you don’t know the exact amount of bets you will have but I just wondered how often, roughly, you "went to the well"
I know that for some punters it might cover a month, for others a week, and for some of my ex-punters an afternoon!
I just thought it would be a good way to put in perspective how such a sequence would affect different types of punters in a different way. (No "The wife’s having a bad week" jokes in response please!)
I’m fairly active betting-wise so it wouldn’t be long – my last seven day’s betting I’ve had 6, 5, 8, 5, 7, 6 and 7 bets (including split-staked bets, although I’m doing less and less of those). The last time I was betting seriously, I had in excess of 1500 bets in five months which is more like 10 bets a day.
My philosophy is that I’m here to bet not mess about, so if I’m unsure whether to back a horse or not, I’ll normally err on the side of a lack of caution. I like having a lot of ‘action’ otherwise it all gets a bit dull for me (especially on the flat!). I do remember seeing a story many years ago (before betting tax was scrapped) about some guy who was retired and drove around courses in summer lumping on ‘good things’. He’d bet several grand at a time but would have one or two bets a week. I think I’d really struggle to maintain interest.
Mike
Thanks for that Mike, it helps put a sense of perspective between your style and the guy with a couple of bets a week, who would be having a relatively bad time if going a matter of months on a losing run.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I’ve almost never backed odds on, an average price for me would be c. 7/2.
If your average price is 7/2 with no losing run of more than 13 – then either:
a) You’ve had very VERY few bets in your life.
Or
b) You’re the best gambler that’s ever lived.
Or
c) You’re telling porkies Woolfie.Value Is EverythingYou could hit 13 losers in 2 races Ginge with your wacky system.
When assessing strike rates Woolfie – you need to count all bets in a race as ONE bet.
eg
If I back 2 horses @ 7/1 in the same race I’d be taking a combined price of 3/1.
If I backed 4 horses @ 7/1 in the same race I’d be taking Evens.
If I backed 6 horses @ 7/1 in the same race I’d be taking 1/3.Value Is EverythingI’ve almost never backed odds on, an average price for me would be c. 7/2.
If your average price is 7/2 with no losing run of more than 13 – then either:
a) You’ve had very VERY few bets in your life.
Or
b) You’re the best gambler that’s ever lived.
Or
c) You’re telling porkies Woolfie.Oh come on Ginger, backing 13 losers at the top end of the market is pitiful even in these days when connections are able to lay their horses on the exchages. It would of course be excusable if backing 7/2 and greater but among those losers were some even money and 6/4 shots.
To succeed at gambling you need to be nailing a minimum of 1 in 7 of shorter priced runners and 1 in 13 at medium odds up to 10/1. I would like to ask you how many losers would you back before concluding that your method is not worth the candle? I am not referring to your hedging system but win singles only.
You cannot profit from a method where there is no encouragement to re-invest after 30 bets. There has to be a profit to allow you to believe that higher stakes will promote higher returns.
To succeed at gambling you need to be nailing a minimum of 1 in 7 of shorter priced runners and 1 in 13 at medium odds up to 10/1.
I don’t know where to start…so I won’t.
Mike
To succeed at gambling you need to be nailing a minimum of 1 in 7 of shorter priced runners and 1 in 13 at medium odds up to 10/1.
I don’t know where to start…so I won’t.
Mike
You need to find winners unless you enjoy handing money to bookmakers who are only too willing to relieve you of it. It’s nonsense to suggest that losing runs are of no consequence. Only the most hopelessly addicted mug punter continues to give to the bookie over a season, the object of the exercise is to come out on top at some point.
It’s not good policy to wait until the last day of the season to see if you’re up or down. I used to take stock at regular intervals to decide whether to increase or decrease my stake or perhaps dump my methods, depending on the situation.
To succeed at gambling you need to be nailing a minimum of 1 in 7 of shorter priced runners and 1 in 13 at medium odds up to 10/1.
I don’t know where to start…so I won’t.
Mike
You mean. you can’t, don’t you.
You’re right. I most certainly can’t.
But just
read
that sentence you’ve written above. Honestly…
Mike
Mike
You mean. you can’t, don’t you.
You’re right. I most certainly can’t.But just
read
that sentence you’ve written above. Honestly…
Mike
Crossed lines there. I clearly mean over a larger run of bets than 7. In 30 bets it will be obvious if you are nailing enough winners to continue or to end that method before looking for another angle.
I would be exceedingly wary of using a sample of 30 bets to measure the success or otherwise of a method. That’s a very small sample even at low odds.
I would be exceedingly wary of using a sample of 30 bets to measure the success or otherwise of a method. That’s a very small sample even at low odds.
30 bets is a perfectly adequate number to give you a good indication of how you’re doing.
Woolf
That comment shows not the lsightest grasp of the different temperament of backers, the different methods of backers and the way the market. 30 bets might well tell you something if you are backing odds-on shots, though even then a couple of runs of 5 or 6 losers in quick succession would immediately skew results. However, if you are backing at much longer odds , say 8/1 plus then a run of 30 will tell you diddly-squat or next to it.
I know you waste no time in telling us you are right and everyone else is wrong, but I despair at your patent lack of appreciation of odds, statistics and how the market works. If you haven’t been a successful backer in recent times I suspect it’s much to do with a lack of patience.
As I said in an earlier post on the thread, if backers didn’t have long losing runs then the market would fall to pieces because no one would be backing the outsiders.
Rob
Woolf
That comment shows not the lsightest grasp of the different temperament of backers, the different methods of backers and the way the market. 30 bets might well tell you something if you are backing odds-on shots, though even then a couple of runs of 5 or 6 losers in quick succession would immediately skew results. However, if you are backing at much longer odds , say 8/1 plus then a run of 30 will tell you diddly-squat or next to it.
I know you waste no time in telling us you are right and everyone else is wrong, but I despair at your patent lack of appreciation of odds, statistics and how the market works. If you haven’t been a successful backer in recent times I suspect it’s much to do with a lack of patience.
As I said in an earlier post on the thread, if backers didn’t have long losing runs then the market would fall to pieces because no one would be backing the outsiders.
Rob
I have backed for years without long losing runs especially in pre exchange days, admittedly it became gradually harder to avoid them with the advent of the exchanges. My 13 loser run was two or three years ago and led to my taking stock of the whole game.
I don’t tell anyone that I am right and all others are wrong. I merely speak from 40 years experience. I know that doesn’t cut much ice with the cognoscenti on TRF, but I will continue to offer my opinion nonetheless.
I’ve almost never backed odds on, an average price for me would be c. 7/2.
If your average price is 7/2 with almost no losing run of more than 13 – then either:
a) You’ve had very VERY few bets in your life.
Or
b) You’re the best gambler that’s ever lived.
Or
c) You’re telling porkies Woolfie.Oh come on Ginger, backing 13 losers at the top end of the market is pitiful even in these days when connections are able to lay their horses on the exchages. It would of course be excusable if backing 7/2 and greater but among those losers were some even money and 6/4 shots.
You said
average
price 7/2 Woolfie. Of course some bets will be much
less
than 7/2, but that would also mean some were much
more
than 7/2. This is what a 13 race run of average odds 7/2 might actually look like:
4/1 + 9/1 + 5/1 + 7/2 + 6/4 + 11/1 + 5/4 + 3/1 + 6/1 + 9/4 + 13/1 + 100/30 + 11/4 = 288.3 = average 22.2 = average price taken 7/2
ie 20 + 10 + 16.7 + 22.2 + 40 + 8.3 + 44.4 + 25 + 14.3 + 30.8 + 7.1 + 23.1 + 26.7 = 288.3 = average price taken 7/2
You seem to think that 5/4 or 6/4 is a probable winner, but as Cav’s chart suggests…
"1.25 >>>>> 11 >>>>> 589 >>>>> 247 >>>>> 41.94"
…the average 5/4 shot only won 41.94% of the time, the average 6/4 shot just 35.3%.
"1.5 >>>>> 11 >>>>> 728 >>>>> 257 >>>>> 35.3"
…So if a punter has thousands of bets over a lifetime Woolfie – he/she is going to have many losing runs worse than the above 13 when averaging a price of 7/2.
Value Is EverythingYou said
average
price 7/2 Woolfie. Of course some bets will be much
less
than 7/2, but that would also mean some were much
more
than 7/2. This is what a 13 race run of average odds 7/2 might actually look like:
4/1 + 9/1 + 5/1 + 7/2 + 6/4 + 11/1 + 5/4 + 3/1 + 6/1 + 9/4 + 13/1 + 100/30 + 11/4 = 288.3 = average 22.2 = average price taken 7/2
ie 20 + 10 + 16.7 + 22.2 + 40 + 8.3 + 44.4 + 25 + 14.3 + 30.8 + 7.1 + 23.1 + 26.7 = 288.3 = average price taken 7/2
You seem to think that 5/4 or 6/4 is a probable winner, but as Cav’s chart suggests…
"1.25 >>>>> 11 >>>>> 589 >>>>> 247 >>>>> 41.94"
…the average 5/4 shot only won 41.94% of the time, the average 6/4 shot just 35.3%.
"1.5 >>>>> 11 >>>>> 728 >>>>> 257 >>>>> 35.3"
…So if a punter has thousands of bets over a lifetime Woolfie – he/she is going to have many losing runs worse than the above 13 when averaging a price of 7/2.
From 1/1 to 13/1 and the average is 7/2????,
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.