- This topic has 19 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I have always been of the opinion that picking winners isn’t the most important part of gambling.
Anyone will pick a winner eventually, even if you use a pin. The frequency of your winners and type of winner is whats important.
I know that the way I pick horses, that I get a winner about one in 3 selections (not counting good or bad runs) that’s because the horses I pick are always fancied, generally in the first 3 favs and are between Evs and 3/1, others might pick one once every 50 picks because they take outsiders, but you need to know your strike rate, the rest is easy.I stake to win £10 in 3 goes e.g. £5 on a 2/1 (lost), £7.50 on a 2/1 (lost) £22.50 on 1/1 Wins and I get my £10
If it loses I take the loss of £35 on the chin and start again.
Its all down to how confident you are about getting a winner in 3 attempts.
If you cant pick your own there are a few free tipping sites out there which are worth looking at.Edited by Admin – people can search for tipping sites from their favourite search-engine.
Get In
Your are right. Picking winners can be done anyway you like. It is the betting strategy that is the key.
A friend of mine’s wife uses a pin and does pretty well!
When I retired in 2005, I had more time to spend on my Horse Racing.
Limiting the losses per day is a good rule.
I started like you but bet to profit £10 per race. If I lost, I’d want to win £20, plus loses on the first race, on the next race. It is called a Martindale. In January £2006, I made over £10,000 profit. (‘Why didn’t I do this earlier?’ I thought). In February 2006, I had a run of losers and lost the lot. I didn’t go negative as I keep my betting money away form everything else. I just stopped and had a think.
Now, I just bet 2% of my pot each day on single bets and small multiples. If I have a run of losers, my bets reduce. If my pot increases above a certain point, I cleave off the top and put it in my bank, and I sleep an night!Staking Plans relying on a sequence with increasing or decreasing stakes (doubling stakes, stop at a winner etc) do not work. They rely on luck and sequences do not happen the same way around forever. Therefore luck runs out and the punter is in deficit.
Staking Plans that do help a punter increase their profits concentrate on two things, chance of winning and value. If one horse has double the chance of another then surely it should get double the stake? One that in the punter’s opinion has a 20% chance of winning should get twice the stake of one he/she believes a 10% chance etc. Also, one who’s believed to be outstanding value should have more staked than (only) good value.
A punter still needs to be good at evaluating form in to chance/value.
Value Is EverythingI find that I have to tread very carefully here lest the mud slinging starts again….
but you appear to be repeating yourself Ginge, I’m sure that we’ve covered this ground before, but maybe not… it may have been another forum… 
but I must point out in a polite sorta way, that I think your wrong.
Once again you are bringing your own narrowminded approach down into the systems section where we attempt to debunk that kind of talk…. after all, we are nutters down here. OK, we’ll keep this serious because it is ultra serious and not to be taken lightly, one wrong step can cause a lot of money to go down the drain, so for the sake of clarity (if it is needed) I am in favour of staking plans, with a few exceptions.
Ginge, you are without doubt, good at what you do and your ability to assess the given situations and the sussing out of a horse’s particular chance is unquestionable….. the problem is that I don’t want to go down that route, it’s far too time consuming and tedious. Now, are we saying that I cannot be successful doing it my way…. I’m still here after 50 years betting…. and except for a couple of years where I made a few mistakes and followed others tips, I have had great success with various strategies…. when I refer to a strategy, I mean a system TOGETHER with a staking method… it is “planned betting” and I wouldn’t even enter into the fray without planning my approaches or exits if required.
In my opinion…. and it is only MY opinion…. I would feel undressed if I started betting without knowing the best or worst implications, I personally require the comfort of a staking plan.
I want to know that I can make a profit of 20pts a month (or whatever), anything less is not worth a toss to me, it doesn’t cover my time. I will start off with level stakes until such time as I feel that I’m dropping below my target, if I am, I will change my stakes accordingly until I’m back on target. The one thing that I will agree with you about (I think) and that is this “value”, but I’m not sure that we see value the same way, but that’s for another discussion. I don’t think that you can have a “systems section” without the use of staking methods, and with respect, your “variable” stakes according to prices is just another staking method…. see, I can be polite….
MrE
Come off it ginge, do you not use a staking plan yourself?
Blackbeard to conquer the World
Come off it ginge, do you not use a staking plan yourself?
Look again Nathan, never said I am against staking plans done right.
But am against those relying on a sequence to make a profit, they don’t work in the long run. Staking plans taking in to account an individul’s chance of winning and how much value is in the bet – are good. Although “chance of winning” and “amount of value” in the bet are always subjective anyway, hence my final line.Value Is EverythingNow, are we saying that I cannot be successful doing it my way….
There are other ways of making a profit than mine MrE, never said any different. You could be successful, depends if finding that elusive system/s that finds “value” without looking for it. I found one myself, but it was so boring – gave it up. You’re welcome to it if you want?
Value Is Everythinghahaha…. thanks for the offer, I’ll take you up on it as long as it’s easy, I haven’t got hours to spend on here anymore. My difficulty with this “value” that we keep on about is that it means nothing to a lot of punters, it doesn’t always follow that an individual KNOWS exactly what value is.
If I have an expected 50% S/R, then it should follow, that if I manage a 60% S/R over time, then I have value…. it shouldn’t matter if the individual team/selection is in itself value…. jeez!!! this is a mouthful….
Assume my footy results are showing 30 wins from 35 selections at an average return of 1.75, that in itself is value without having to look at each match, the overall results signify value.
You sound as though you think that systems are an inferior idea, but there a a few that have stood the test of time…. although it usually revolves around the use of a staking method…. nonetheless, they are profitable, yet I have never looked for value, perhaps it’s tapping me on the shoulder and I haven’t seen it. This is meant to be a discussion and not an attempt at any rude remarks or discredit, but I honestly cannot see exactly what your getting at. I am of the opinion that a person can “force” value by use of a staking plan, but I think that you look at each individual selection and it has to pass your strict criteria for a bet…. this is not so for me Ginge, and I think the majority of system users would feel the same way. Footy has just started, we must get back to this later….
MrE
This is what I mean by relying on “sequence”. Here are two possible sequences showing the same number and odds of winners.
L L L L 3/1 L L L 5/1 L L 2/1 L L L 4/1 L L L Evens
L L L L L L L L Evens 5/1 4/1 L 3/1 2/1 L L L L L L
With level stakes both sequences break even.
With “Increasing Stakes” staking plans the first sequence shows an excellent profit (when winners come well spaced out), the second sequence an awful deficit (with winners bunched up).
With “Decreasing Stakes” staking plans the same sequences shows the opposite results.
Some Systems sold to the unsuspecting punter claim great profits to their “own staking plan” over a certain given period. However, already knowing results makes it easy to put in either an “Increasing” or “decreasing” Staking Plan depending on when the winners came in that given period; so making it appear a successful System. However, we all know the sequence winners come in future races is not known.
If a punter chooses Increasing or Decreasing Stakes he may be lucky or unlucky in the way his winners fall. I’d rather not rely on luck.
Value Is EverythingGood, good…. now were getting somewhere…. first off, with a strike rate like that (25%), I wouldn’t be betting anything at less than 4/1 and I’d make a profit out of those runs that you’ve shown. With systems and staking plans, the system requires a reasonable strike rate and the staking plan has to fit it like a glove, a bog standard staking plan like the Martingale is the road to ruin, but doctoring a staking plan to fit your system is the key…. if there is no perceived value in your selections, then you should force “value”.
Take a group of 6 selections all at 2/1 and we’ll say that we had 3 winners…. it would have to be 3 winners because if I was betting at 2/1, it goes without saying that I am betting off a 50% S/R (humour me for a minute)…. put ’em down in any order you want, as your betting levels stakes (because they’re all the same odds) you need to be seen to be betting with the same outlay over those 6 bets, so for level stakes you would use 2.5pts on each of the 6 bets (15pts in total).
L L W L W W….
I would bet using the same 15pts but I would have 15 x 1pt doubles…
My bet would return 27pts minus the 15pt outlay = a profit of 12pts….
You, on level stakes, would return yourself 22.50pts minus the 15pt outlay = a profit of 7.50pts…
and I have made more than 50% of what you’ve made.I think that where we disagree, is that you think that I’m trying to say that staking plans are the answer to all ills…. but I’m not saying that at all. I’ve said it many times before, that a staking plan WILL NOT turn a crap system into a good one, that’s not possible, but it can ENHANCE an already profitable system, staking plans can increase profits on good systems and financially cripple those using bad systems.
I don’t know of any systemites that don’t use a staking plan of one sort or another, that’s the name of the game, it’s like playing the lottery, there are those that will just potter along with level stakes and there are others that take the bull by the horns and go for the big wins… I have no intention whatsoever in wasting my time trying to win a tenner a day, I have a bank intact and I will use it to earn £1000 a month….. correct staking and compounding is good for the soul…
Good discussion Ginge…..
MrE
Good, good…. now were getting somewhere…. first off, with a strike rate like that (25%), I wouldn’t be betting anything at less than 4/1 and I’d make a profit out of those runs that you’ve shown. With systems and staking plans, the system requires a reasonable strike rate and the staking plan has to fit it like a glove, a bog standard staking plan like the Martingale is the road to ruin, but doctoring a staking plan to fit your system is the key…. if there is no perceived value in your selections, then you should force “value”.
You’ve got my above post all wrong Mr E. It is not “a system”, or about “value” or “strike rates”.
It merely shows two possible sequences of how winners might fall. Two sequences with the same number of losers, winners and the same prices. Each sequence would end up breaking even – if betting to level stakes.The point of the two sequences is to illustrate staking plans that rely on either Increasing Stakes or Decreasing Stakes simply do not work. “Increasing” only profits when the winners ae well spaced out (ie when appearing as in the first sequence) and shows a big loss if the winners come bunched up (as in the second sequence). Where as a “Decreasing Stakes Plan fails on the first sequence (spaced out winners) but profits where winners are bunched together (second sequence)…
We can look back at a short spell of PAST races and devise a staking plan which would have resulted in profit or much greater profits (because we KNOW exactly how the sequence goes). However (and here is the important point) in reality NOBODY knows what sequence winners will come in FUTURE races. Therefore “Increasing” and/or “Decreasing” Staking Plans simply DO NOT WORK in the long term.
Value Is EverythingGood, good…. now were getting somewhere…. first off, with a strike rate like that (25%), I wouldn’t be betting anything at less than 4/1
That’s not how value betting works Mr E. Just because someone has a 25% strike rate does not mean they should not back anything less than 4/1, 2/1 or even odds-on. Indeed, if they did not go shorter than 4/1 their strike rate is almost certain to deteriorate from 25%. It is the average price taken compared to strike rate that matters, not any one particular price. Every possible selection should be assessed on its own merits to evaluate if it is value at the price available. eg If believing something available at 3/1 has got a fair 2/1 chance of winning it should be backed whatever one’s strike rate.
Value Is EverythingAm sure there are a few systems that do work Mr E, but none of them rely on what are generally termed “Increasing” or “Decreasing” staking plans.
Must add, “Staking Plans” should not be confused with “Betting Banks”, increasing stakes as your bank gets bigger is a very reasonable way of betting.
Value Is Everythinghahaha…. thanks for the offer, I’ll take you up on it as long as it’s easy, I haven’t got hours to spend on here anymore.
My system is really simple, all you need to do is compare prices.
Look at the Pricewise column in the Racing Post. (It has nothing to do with the “Pricewise” tip it’s just that the odds given for each race are unsullied by market support). It also works best for races without an ante-post book.
Compare the BEST price and the WORST price for every runner.
Here’s an explanation of why it works:
Odds compilers first work a race out to 100%, what they BELIEVE the true chance is of each horse. So if it were possible to back them at those prices, a punter could bet on every horse in the race and show a profit. egA 40% 6/4
B 25% 3/1
C 25% 3/1
D 10% 9/1
Percentages add up to 100% and by betting £40 @ 6/4, £25 @ 3/1, £25 @ 3/1 and £10 @ 9/1 a punter would be staking £100 in total and whoever won would be returning £100. However, the bookmaker adds a small mark up for every horse for his profit margin so the above 100% prices are never available to the punter:In practice, for the above race: Instead of getting 6/4, the punter usually gets offered 11/8. Occasionally when thought difficult to assess a bookmaker might want a greater mark up and only offer 5/4.
Instead of 3/1 is only offered 11/4. If difficult to assess the bookmaker might offer 5/2.
Instead of 9/1 is only offered 8/1. If difficult to assess the bookie might offer 15/2.
But because these markets on the Pricewise Early Odds Boards are competitive, there will never be a greater difference between what they believe is the “fair” price and the offered price than the above…Therefore – remembering these markets are unsullied by punters opinion, previous bets and/or fluctuating odds…
We know that if one bookmaker is going 6/4 and another bookmaker is 6/5 (or an even greater difference), we know that the bookmaker’s odds compiler who worked out the horse @ 6/5 BELIEVES it is a GOOD BET @ 6/4.Similarly, if the best odds were 3/1 and worst odds 9/4 the bookmaker’s odds compiler producing the latter BELIEVES 3/1 is a value bet…
And 9/1 best price is worth taking if the worst price is 7/1 or less. ie The mark up an odds compiler puts on would never be that big, so we know the one working it out to 7/1 believes 9/1 is value/a good bet.
Every price can be worked out to give a difference where the odds-compiler would never breach. ie You can use knowledgeable odds compilers as your own personal tipsters.
Value Is EverythingGinge…. that last post was quite interesting and I need a bit of time to look into that, but I found it to be something else to while away the days…. thanks for that.
Yes, I can see what your saying concerning increasing and decreasing stakes, but you still need to do that if your level stake returns are mediocre…. I have a need to use my bank to extract the best possible returns and levels don’t do it for me. But I agree that you cannot increase stakes willy nilly in the hope that you end a sequence of negative results, what I’m trying to say is that there are better ways of using that bank than levels…. you do the same thing yourself when varying stakes according to the prices you obtain, I just choose a different path to try and boost funds quicker.
The mist is clearing a bit and I don’t think that we are miles apart, it’s our approaches that differ….
I have a feeling that this discussion is only between the two of us, it appears that nobody else is listening and that’s a pity, it could have been the start of Ward 7’s resurrection, a tad too much to hope for I think….. this is my last day of posting for awhile (holiday) but will hopefully pick up on this when I get back…. nice chat Ginge….MrE
Ginge…. that last post was quite interesting and I need a bit of time to look into that, but I found it to be something else to while away the days…. thanks for that.
Thought you might like it.
Value Is EverythingYes, I can see what your saying concerning increasing and decreasing stakes, but you still need to do that if your level stake returns are mediocre…. I have a need to use my bank to extract the best possible returns and levels don’t do it for me. But I agree that you cannot increase stakes willy nilly in the hope that you end a sequence of negative results, what I’m trying to say is that there are better ways of using that bank than levels…. you do the same thing yourself when varying stakes according to the prices you obtain, I just choose a different path to try and boost funds quicker.
Am not particularly for “level stakes” myself Mr E, varying stakes when correct to do so – is the right thing to do imo. As I said earlier, amount of chance and amount of value are important when assessing my stake. If horse (A) has double the chance of horse (B) (with both being imo value) I will put double the amount on A than B. And… If I think a selection is “exceptional” value it will get more money than one I consider (only) “good” value. What I’d advise you/”Systems” punters do is (instead of blindly so called “Increasing” or “Decreasing” staking plans) a similar thing to what I do… Upping stakes on any individual bet when your system suggests the horse has a particularly good chance of winning and/or when the system suggests it has a lot better chance than the available price indicates. Like you say, “boosting funds quicker”.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.