- This topic has 56 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
My idea of a good punter is one who can back horses and end up with a profit. If that’s 1 in a race or 5 in a race it doesn’t really matter.
Rob
Stilvi
It was meant as an example not a contradiction sometimes being in the right place can be a bonus.
I do put the effort in to my betting but to me it is a hobby and I treat it as such.My idea of a good punter is one who can back horses and end up with a profit. If that’s 1 in a race or 5 in a race it doesn’t really matter.
Rob
Absolutely correct but I can easily understand why people can get irritated with someone continually banging on about one specific method almost as if it is the only one. It may actually be straightforward but it also appears to be extremely time consuming and most people just don’t have that amount of time available or they can solve the puzzle in a much shorter time.
The Prof is correct, he should have given up betting as I did midway through this last flat season. I check back every now and then to see if anyone other than the Prof has wised up to this pi$$take masquerading as a legitimate sport.
There are a great many horses that are not giving their running rendering any effort to ”study form ” a complete waste of time, an exercise in futility.
Of course there is some pixxtaking going on Woolf, but it is far less than you make out.
If you are right Woolf, how do you explain my two Daily Lays And Plays threads making a good profit?
I have NO inside information, it’s done SOLELY by "studying form". Both threads have been going for more than a year with hundreds of bets and NO individual win/s responsible for a big chunk of that profit. So luck/coincidence does not come in to it.
It’s not a "complete waste of time" for me Woolf.
I’ve tried your method using £s not ”points”, you frequently put up three runners in a race and still fail to find a winner, it’s nerdy nonsense. I followed your picks for a while but I didn’t open a numbered bank account in Switzerland. I would go mental if I had to bet against myself day after day which is what your method amounts to. Only a deranged anorak would entertain such a convoluted method.
Woolf,
Mine is not the only profitable method, but every profitable method MUST find VALUE. To explain my method:If you were betting on the throw of a fair dice. The fair odds are 5/1. If you were offered these prices who would you back?
One 9/2
Two 4/1
Three 7/1
Four 3/1
Five 8/1
Six 6/1There are several ways of betting on the outcome.
A) Back only the best value number 5. (Taking 8/1 about a true 5/1 chance).
B) Back the two with the best chance, 5 and 3. (Taking just under a combined price of 100/30 about a true 2/1 chance).
C) Back the three value bets, 5, 3 and 6. (Taking just over 13/8 about a true Even money chance)
D) Back the 5 and 3 as the main bets and save on the 6.
E) Back the 5 and save on 3.
F) Back the 5 and save on both 3 and 6.There is nothing wrong with backing just the one horse in a race, but I prefer to back ANY horse I BELIEVE is value, if only one is value I’ll back one horse, if I believe three are value I’ll back all three. With main bets and savers depending on how much value I believe is in each bet.
Having more winners keeps my confidence high, so in turn my thought process (in to what IS and is NOT value) is not effected so much by lack of confidence. ie Long losing runs can cause the sub-conscious to look for a winner for the sake of a winner; or not wanting to lose much more, looking for outsiders (less money staked).
Working out a race takes TIME, may sound "nerdy" to you Woolf, but I expect comments like that from people who blame others for their own inadequacies. If you’re not willing to put the hours in how can you expect to make a profit? And if you don’t spend enough time studying, may be you should take some time to consider whether your opinion of racing being bent is the correct one? You don’t really know the SUBJECT do you Woolf?
To work out a race I need to look at EVERY horse, because the character and ability of each runner affects the chance of ALL the others. Therefore, backing THREE horses is no more "convoluted" than backing ONE. Though of course backing multiple horses in a race won’t suit everybody.
Anyone following my bets could easily do so by ignoring the savers and/or only bet on the best value horse.
Value Is EverythingLets tackle the delusions of the orphaned son of Father Christmas.
Yes, the majority are supposed to lose. That’s what makes my assertion of the shabbiness of the sport unarguable. Let’s put it in another context. The loans business is shabby; the estate agent business is shabby. Yes, it must be that way BUT it is still shabby. You must understand that when someone makes an assertion about a business it is
no answer at all
to come bustling and read the riot act by saying well it has to be like that cos otherwise it would not exist. OBVIOUSLY that is the case.Either you’re wanting to extrapolate this debate into why the capitalism system is flawed and unfair, or you are framing this within your irrelevant disgruntled delusions as to why you can’t successful gamble.
At best you’re incoherent, at worst, you’d be Gingertipsters underwear.
Four days of Cheltenham is too much.
Personally, i agree … however this has no relevance to anything else posted.
See name of thread.
There is too much training in public. Maybe they should make card declarations: this horse is being trained today.
This doesn’t even mean anything.
Yes it does. It means what it says. Today there will be a lot of horses that are being trained in public but presented to the markets as a genuine betting option. This is a con which is allowed to go on as a customary part of the ‘game’. Nonetheless it is a deception of the public. You know it is a con. It is no different to some wide boy playing find the lady with no queen on the table.
You haven’t explained what training horses in public is. I assume it is a figure of speech that is simply you being disgruntled by some comments and thoughts stemming from some important actors within the industry. Or rather, you’re inability to be perceptive ; to understand what has value and what doesn’t.
If you’re stupid enough to be fooled by hyperbole and such, then you’re stupid. Nothing is a con. It is within a supposed free will framework ; no one is forcing anybody to gamble or make decisions. If people are gullible enough to fool for manipulations, then that isn’t our problem. Manipulation and edges aren’t cons.
I liked ‘nothing is a con’ and ‘that isn’t our problem’. Are you by any chance professionally involved in the game?
Whether you like it or not or indeed whether I like it or not, the game is filled with hidden information and as such IS con because the market is presented as a product but the product is not what it seems. I don’t understand why you and others on here have such a problem conceding this. It all depends on your moral vision of the world. At many levels the sport is quite shameless; it has its, shall we say, customary connivances. I am not calling for it to be stopped or changed I am simply pointing out the facts in the case. You’ve already made my point for me by the old hucksters’ standby: ‘if you’re gullible enough . . . ‘ but there is a contradiction here: the sport’s very health is predicated on that statement that YOU made. ‘If you’re gullible enough . . .’ Let me finish the sentence for you: ‘ . . . you will finance bookmakers and the the Turf.’
That’s it and all about it.
The voice of experience. I can promise you that when a jockey says that his horse is most unlikely to win. It is a connivance of the industry. You are saying something different from the point I am making. You are saying, well, it IS information if you choose to read it that way. Well, may be. My point is that if you’ve had a bet in the morning and your jockey says that on Channel 4 just before the off, you better see if you can lay off your investment. Which is not fun, which is a ball-ache. Another irritating element.
You can’t promise anything. No data, just an inkling you have developed from your own experiences ; experiences which are biased in many ways. Of course most will lose ; because most horses lose. Shocking, i know.
Not shocking but worth pointing out to newcomers.
The problem with the absurd irrational above is that you’ve worked out that this has happened to a few times and extrapolated that to every decision. Somewhat natural, but nonetheless absolutely stupid. If you’ve had a bet and the jockey then says something positive, it in no way suddenly reduces the chances of that horse. Jockeys words have no impact on the variables that play out the race.
Indeed, the horse didn’t have a chance in the first place. ‘He’d have a chance’ usually means the very opposite. I am tempted to conduct a six month study of racing coverage to prove this point scientifically. It is a dissembling code statement of the sport.
It isn’t difficult to see why you are unsuccessful at gambling. You create little theories based on biased agendas and small sample sizes and extrapolate that to outcomes that have no relation to "data" of this theories.
You seem to not have understood the title of this thread. It wasn’t ‘can you help me’, it was ‘other thoughts on packing the game in.’
More like, "bitter bull**** rhetoric from an individual who knows far less about "the game" than he thinks he knows". You’re a walking, talking, (who knows, stalking too???) contradiction filled with some many irrational thoughtd and conspiracies.
No need to get angry – i must have hit a nerve.
The bottom line retort to you and other ‘gambling marines’ and poker nuts on here is simply this: if winning at playing the horses can be reduced to science and ninja-like self-control and study – as you say it can be – then you would all be millionaires and and stunningly successful tipsters. However, what we see is old ginge chiselling money out of it by inasane hedging.
There speaks the authentic voice of the turf. They probably said the same thing when children worked in wool mills.
Yes. Excellent analogy. Exactly the same.
Analogies are not meant to be exactly the same.
Lets tackle the delusions of the orphaned son of Father Christmas.
Yes, the majority are supposed to lose. That’s what makes my assertion of the shabbiness of the sport unarguable. Let’s put it in another context. The loans business is shabby; the estate agent business is shabby. Yes, it must be that way BUT it is still shabby. You must understand that when someone makes an assertion about a business it is
no answer at all
to come bustling and read the riot act by saying well it has to be like that cos otherwise it would not exist. OBVIOUSLY that is the case.Either you’re wanting to extrapolate this debate into why the capitalism system is flawed and unfair, or you are framing this within your irrelevant disgruntled delusions as to why you can’t successful gamble.
At best you’re incoherent, at worst, you’d be Gingertipsters underwear.
Four days of Cheltenham is too much.
Personally, i agree … however this has no relevance to anything else posted.
See name of thread.
There is too much training in public. Maybe they should make card declarations: this horse is being trained today.
This doesn’t even mean anything.
Yes it does. It means what it says. Today there will be a lot of horses that are being trained in public but presented to the markets as a genuine betting option. This is a con which is allowed to go on as a customary part of the ‘game’. Nonetheless it is a deception of the public. You know it is a con. It is no different to some wide boy playing find the lady with no queen on the table.
You haven’t explained what training horses in public is. I assume it is a figure of speech that is simply you being disgruntled by some comments and thoughts stemming from some important actors within the industry. Or rather, you’re inability to be perceptive ; to understand what has value and what doesn’t.
If you’re stupid enough to be fooled by hyperbole and such, then you’re stupid. Nothing is a con. It is within a supposed free will framework ; no one is forcing anybody to gamble or make decisions. If people are gullible enough to fool for manipulations, then that isn’t our problem. Manipulation and edges aren’t cons.
I liked ‘nothing is a con’ and ‘that isn’t our problem’. Are you by any chance professionally involved in the game?
Whether you like it or not or indeed whether I like it or not, the game is filled with hidden information and as such IS con because the market is presented as a product but the product is not what it seems. I don’t understand why you and others on here have such a problem conceding this. It all depends on your moral vision of the world. At many levels the sport is quite shameless; it has its, shall we say, customary connivances. I am not calling for it to be stopped or changed I am simply pointing out the facts in the case. You’ve already made my point for me by the old hucksters’ standby: ‘if you’re gullible enough . . . ‘ but there is a contradiction here: the sport’s very health is predicated on that statement that YOU made. ‘If you’re gullible enough . . .’ Let me finish the sentence for you: ‘ . . . you will finance bookmakers and the the Turf.’
That’s it and all about it.
The voice of experience. I can promise you that when a jockey says that his horse is most unlikely to win. It is a connivance of the industry. You are saying something different from the point I am making. You are saying, well, it IS information if you choose to read it that way. Well, may be. My point is that if you’ve had a bet in the morning and your jockey says that on Channel 4 just before the off, you better see if you can lay off your investment. Which is not fun, which is a ball-ache. Another irritating element.
You can’t promise anything. No data, just an inkling you have developed from your own experiences ; experiences which are biased in many ways. Of course most will lose ; because most horses lose. Shocking, i know.
Not shocking but worth pointing out to newcomers.
The problem with the absurd irrational above is that you’ve worked out that this has happened to a few times and extrapolated that to every decision. Somewhat natural, but nonetheless absolutely stupid. If you’ve had a bet and the jockey then says something positive, it in no way suddenly reduces the chances of that horse. Jockeys words have no impact on the variables that play out the race.
Indeed, the horse didn’t have a chance in the first place. ‘He’d have a chance’ usually means the very opposite. I am tempted to conduct a six month study of racing coverage to prove this point scientifically. It is a dissembling code statement of the sport.
It isn’t difficult to see why you are unsuccessful at gambling. You create little theories based on biased agendas and small sample sizes and extrapolate that to outcomes that have no relation to "data" of this theories.
You seem to not have understood the title of this thread. It wasn’t ‘can you help me’, it was ‘other thoughts on packing the game in.’
More like, "bitter bull**** rhetoric from an individual who knows far less about "the game" than he thinks he knows". You’re a walking, talking, (who knows, stalking too???) contradiction filled with some many irrational thoughtd and conspiracies.
No need to get angry – i must have hit a nerve.
The bottom line retort to you and other ‘gambling marines’ and poker nuts on here is simply this: if winning at playing the horses can be reduced to science and ninja-like self-control and study – as you say it can be – then you would all be millionaires and and stunningly successful tipsters. However, what we see is old ginge chiselling money out of it by inasane hedging.
There speaks the authentic voice of the turf. They probably said the same thing when children worked in wool mills.
Yes. Excellent analogy. Exactly the same.
Analogies are not meant to be exactly the same.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.