- This topic has 94 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Touche!, Salut A Toi. That’s the essence of my post. However, Gingertipster doesn’t understand this adage because he can’t see the forrest for the trees!
Gingertipster, take your maths, the numbers, and your attitude to Vegas. They will love you! They will absolutely adore you! Oh, and don’t forget to bring your cash!
LOL. Oh Turkoman. That sentence has everything to do with my post and it is you who doesn’t understand.
Look again at the sentence you yourself quote:
“Most of us can probably identify plenty of winners but making a profit from doing that is another matter entirely“.It is entirely the same matter once realising what the word “plenty” should mean in this context. The word “plenty” should be a different number for each punter depending on their average priced winner. ie When it comes to making a profit the number of winners/strike rate alone is not the important thing.
Truth is it is the percentage of winners COMPARED TO a punter’s average priced winner that really matters when it comes to making a profit. (“Average” meaning converting each winning price in to a percentage, adding up those percentages and dividing by the number of winners).
The punter may think he/she is backing “plenty of winners” with a 50% strike rate, but if that punter’s average priced winner is odds-on then he/she can not expect a profit. Therefore 50% is not “plenty” for this particular punter.
Where as a punter with just a 10% strike rate with an average priced winner of better than 9/1 can expect a profit and is backing “plenty” of winners for this particular punter.
Truth is many punters might think they “identify plenty of winners“, but they’d be wrong.
Value Is EverythingI don’t disagree with your comments above, Gingertipster. However, my original post is arguably a derivative of the statistical concept called “gambler’s ruin” and, to some extent, the “gambler’s fallacy”. Taken together, they would explain why statistically it’s highly improbable for someone to “beat the races” over the long-term (unless one has the bankroll of someone like Bill Gates!).
I don’t agree with that
I have all my accounts online and am ahead after 15 years. It’s easy to monitor. That simply isn’t boasting and it’s not exactly a huge amount being incremental with tenders and twenties but I know what I’ve paid in and when. Haven’t paid into any of my half dozen accounts for 5 years plus
The way to specialize is easy to understand but less easy to do. You have to really follow the sport and most closely a subsection of it. And you don’t bet all the time. You have to love what you are watching
I go racing around 40 times a year 90% jumps. At a meeting I may only have two bets have actually been to meetings a couple of times and not bet at all
Isn’t there a tendency on this thread towards paralysis by analysis? Half a point here. 5% chance of winning there
And if someone is going into this wanting to churn daily or even weekly , they will lose
Look at today’s cards. Ok I’m less keen on flat but with odds ons and the dreaded sprint handicaps, it’s a dead duck of a day. No problem. Just leave it and I often do
“You can beat a race, but you can’t beat the races.” If anyone ever tells you otherwise, they’re lying to your face”…
………
“statistically it’s highly improbable for someone to “beat the races” over the long-term”.
Am glad you’ve changed your mind, Turkoman.
Value Is Everything(unless one has the bankroll of someone like Bill Gates!).
Why do you think a bankroll of Bill Gates is necessary in order to make long term profits?
How much do you think Timeform Race Passes costs?
A good form “book” is no guarantee of profit, but – used the right way – makes a massive difference to the punter’s possibility / probability of making long term profits…
Profit making punters only need make enough to afford their form “book” in order to continue making long term profit.
After buying the form book – punters winning their first bet can from that point always bet with winnings. So the only outlay is for that first bet. No need to be Bill Gates.
Or
After buying the form book – even if losing the first bet it shouldn’t be too long before a knowledgeable punter is making a profit and therefore making future bets from that profit… Only outlay from other sources being for the period before overall profit… But again no need to be Bill Gates.
Or
Even if wanting to become a “professional gambler” – bearing in mind the above – all he/she needs to do is cover all outgoings… And it is possible to reduce outgoings before attempting to go pro’. eg Paying off the mortgage / buying a house without one, shopping at Lidl not Waitrose etc… So even then no need to be Bill Gates.As one old pro’ said in a book “Some professional gamblers are on a millionaire’s wage and others are on a lavatory cleaner’s wage”, or something like that. Again no need to be Bill Gates.
Value Is EverythingTrying to be a professional gambler would be hell because you have to make a income to live off so you will naturally be pressurised into making adequate returns. And taking unwarranted risks That applies even if it’s part of income. And The only one I’ve met properly lived with him mum
Turning a small profit is perhaps more likely to happen if it’s an objective but hardly a necessity
Cash pressure leads to bad decision making
Going back to original post..
Why branch out into an area that you haven’t (I assume) already had a strong interest in? And why if successful elsewhere?
Someone who’s spent years following certain areas of racing and has that accumulated knowledge, will always have an advantage over you and that’s who you are up against
GingerT, I do appreciate you point of view and I have no desire to offend, or be disrespectful to, anyone. However, are you at all familiar with a statistical concept named the “gambler’s ruin”? If you are not, then perhaps look it up and you will learn why the reference is made to Bill Gates. I also appreciate that you’re a numbers guy/(gal)? but sometimes you need to read between the lines.
Moreover, you will get a clear and statistically proven answer to your earlier question:
(When it is possible for the bookmaker to work races out like this, why is it impossible for the punter?)
Lastly, my final point on this issue, I did not change my mind whatsoever; the two statements are congruent. Let’s move on …
Gambler’s Ruin:
The term gambler’s ruin is a statistical concept, most commonly expressed as the fact that a gambler playing a game with negative expected value will eventually go broke, regardless of their betting system.The term’s original meaning is that a persistent gambler who raises his bet to a fixed fraction of bankroll when he wins, but does not reduce it when he loses, will eventually and inevitably go broke, even if he has a positive expected value on each bet.
Another common meaning is that a persistent gambler with finite wealth, playing a fair game (that is, each bet has expected value zero to both sides) will eventually and inevitably go broke against an opponent with infinite wealth.
Turkoman,
Horse / Sports betting is not a “game with negative expected value” in the same way as dice, poker or roulette – so has very limited clout. As I said earlier, nobody actually knows the fair odds, it’s just opinion.Any knowledgeable gambler who raises his bet with bankroll also reduces size of bet with bankroll. ie Of course not reducing size of bets when the bankroll is going down will eventually result in going broke.
Of course a poker player (playing a “fair game with expected value zero to both sides”) will eventually go broke if playing against someone with infinite wealth. But with horse / sports betting the knowledgeable successful punter is not playing a game with expected value zero to both sides. Neither are sports / racing punters stakes at all influenced by the other player raising stakes. So again very limited meaning to horse racing compared to fixed odds betting mediums.
Value Is EverythingMost of us can probably identify plenty of winners but making a profit from doing that is another matter entirely“.
It is entirely the same matter once realising what the word “plenty” should mean in this context. The word “plenty” should be a different number for each punter depending on their average priced winner. ie When it comes to making a profit the number of winners/strike rate alone is not the important thing.
Your explanation is expanding on the point I was attempting to make in the quoted sentence. That is, that most of the factors that are important in winning horse races are well established and fairly easily learnt. But that alone does not make you a successful punter unless you can also strike your bets at bigger odds (on average) than your strike rate (on average), which to my mind has become more difficult over the years to the extent that I don’t really bother anymore but respect to anyone that does.
The way to specialize is easy to understand but less easy to do. You have to really follow the sport and most closely a subsection of it. And you don’t bet all the time. You have to love what you are watching
Turning a small profit is perhaps more likely to happen if it’s an objective but hardly a necessity
Cash pressure leads to bad decision makingWhy branch out into an area that you haven’t (I assume) already had a strong interest in? And why if successful elsewhere?
Wise words indeed clivexx couldn’t agree more.
Really? After nearly 28,000 posts you come up with this cracker? Do you think bookies, casinos, and race tracks are charities where they design games, including horse/sports betting, offering odds with outcomes having POSITIVE EXPECTED VALUES? How long would they last in business?
Let’s test your model and take a look at a real, live example of sports odds (and EV) offered by a certain bookie on the outcome of one of the featured football matches today: West Ham vs ManU
Outcome Odds Implied Probability
WH 4.50 22.22%
Draw 4.00 25.00%
ManU 1.72 58.14%Without needing to calculate the EV one can glance at the total implied probability (105.36%) and quickly realize that this proposition is “unfair”, hence it has negative Expected Value. But, let’s go through the exercise, assuming a wager of 10:
EV = (7.20 x 0.5814) – (10 x 0.4722) = -0.53
That is, over time a punter would lose on average 53p for every stake of 10.
This is TRUE WITH EVERY BOOKIE, EVERY CASINO, AND EVERY RACE TRACK PROPOSING ODDS ON EVERY GAME, SPORTS OR OTHERWISE, OR HORSE RACES!!!
Unless, of course, you know a “Santa Claus” that poses as a bookie? Let us know, please.
Turkoman,
All you have outlined above is the bookmakers’ theoretical 5.36% profit margin if all three outcomes were level-staked at those odds: the good old Overround, which is what you’ve christened ‘negative expected value’
It tells you nothing about the ‘true chance’ of each outcome, which is upto the punter to assess. One might think that WH should be 3.50, so will back that at 4.50 and that ManU should be 1.9 so would be happy to lay that at 1.72
The ‘true chance’ of all possible outcomes in random events such as dice-rolling, coin-tossing and roulette are known in advance so there is no edge to exploit for either bettor or layer: zero sum events
The ‘true chance’ of sports-betting outcomes are not known in advance; hence can only be opinion, and it matters not one jot if a bookmaker lays a book at 150% overround if amongst all the outcomes summing to that 150% there’s one which in the bettor’s opinion is overlaid, or as Ginger would have it: is ‘value’
Excellent posts Clivexxxx
Thanks drone and salut
I think people might be better off looking at the form and vast array of relevant factors rather than just drilling down the maths time and again
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.