Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Nick said, "Although firmly in the ‘value’ camp I absolutely agree with CPGagie that I’d never take 100/1 about a 20/1 shot as mentally I need a decent strike rate to stay sane".
I think that *must* be what the pro meant when he said a while back that he wondered whether – or perhaps thought that – too much emphasis was being placed on value. Not so much as staying sane, though, as making dough even in the long term, since there must be many overpriced horses each day, which nevertheless ought to be overlooked in favour of other shorter shots presenting value.
There are horse priced up at 100 or 150/1 in some big handicaps, at least ante post; but I wouldn’t touch them if they were offered at 500/1 or 5000/1! Even if I were a youngster, I’d probably die before picking up winnings.
As someone said a little earlier, identifying your fancies first, then considering the matter of value, is surely what even the most rigorously value-minded pro does.
(Edited by Grimes at 9:05 pm on June 9, 2004)<br>
(Edited by Grimes at 9:06 pm on June 9, 2004)
Yes, it makes sense, Jill. Thanks. And I hope you are very successful. Remember, though, even consummate professionals, like Alan Potts, have had losing years.
One thing I find, is that my natural optimism and high spirits tends to make me careless in terms of discipline, so I need to try and be miserable(!), when I’m doing my betting. There are so many tensions in the game, caution, but conviction, when the time is right, being just one.
I forgot to say, the main concern about the ante post laying/betting I was talking about, is of course, the possibility of the horse being withdrawn – never mind how much its price contracted.
(Edited by Grimes at 11:32 pm on June 8, 2004)<br>
(Edited by Grimes at 11:35 pm on June 8, 2004)
You favour laying bets on the exchanges, you said, Jill, but to make it pay, I think you must have a bit of capital.
The only laying on the exchanges that would interest me if I weren’t living hand to mouth, and had sufficient capital to make it a paying proposition (without which the temptation to punt would be too much), would be betting ante post on outsiders when they’re first priced up, so that I’d win zummat if they won or lost.
Mouth and trousers, Jilly.
One swallow comes along now and again and the sun blazes like beggary for a while – it has been as much as a few months – and I think an endless summer has arrived at last. Oh foolishness, thy name is Grimes.
I got some of my recent losses back today with Ouija Board. I did weight it as a special banker, but instead of ceaselessly piling it on day after day, and forgetting everything else, day after day, I frittered a lot of those recent winnings, seeking to win more on tuppeny-ha’penny races to put on her.
Just as during the brief spells of sunshine, I even know I’m going to win just about every photo finish, once it stops, until the next break in the clouds, every (good) thing I touch turns to dross. I may bet on a horse at 5/4 and it ends up at 8/11, it’ll still go down.
When the sun shines I can supplement my winnings on horses at good odds, with winning bets on shorter shots. Not so when the "mockers" arrives. Exactly the opposite.
I still hope to make a consistent if modest net profit, but I mustn’t shoot my mouth off prematurely. Never in fact. I’m astonished at the cockiness of Mourinho, the new Chelsea manager. I’d have thought he was old enough to know that pride comes before a fall, with pretty consistent regularity.
(Edited by Grimes at 11:15 pm on June 4, 2004)<br>
(Edited by Grimes at 11:17 pm on June 4, 2004)
Jill, buddy, I fear it is an extreme and untreatable pathology, referred to in obscure medical books as "Becke’s Jinx". If God’s in that kind of mood, he’s a very, very hard man to bring round, until the mood takes him.
The successful pro may or may not not win the most important prizes in life, as well, but  I honestly believe he/she has God, has Divine Providence on their side in the matter of betting professionally. We know it, I suppose, as luck. Maybe, in racing,  it’s the product of total commitment plus undivided attention. But I think there’s that other mysterious vocational aspect to it.
I bet mostly to win, and get, I believe, a truly  phenomenal number of seconds. But I can guarantee to you that if I were to place most of my bets, each way, they would evaporate and be unplaced.
But, perhaps, someone else will be able to bring a more prosaic explanation to bear on the issue, but, personally, I do think that pro betting is a calling! <br>
I think to knock this question on the head is going to mean getting very pedantic.
A money bet is very very firmly in Caesar’s domain, so, strictly in those terms, a losing bet can only be bad news for the person who placed it.
But there are other terms in which every bet should be viewed and appraised, if making money in the long term is the aim. And no, a doctor doesn’t have to have cancer himself in order to know how to treat it. To be a successful punter – by definition, surely, making a consistent and significant net profit – must require moe than theoretical knowledge. It is a truism, reiterated by ALL such professional punters, as far as I know, that discipline is also absolutely essential.
But they must also expect that not every bet they place will win or return their stake. So – and I realise this is a metaphor rather than a close analogy (still less a literal statement) – losses require to be viewed as a kind of ground bait or in supermarket terms, a loss leader – and be factored into the perspective of the punter on his betting, so that he can adjust his stakes and the odds he seeks to bet at, accordingly.
There will always be that element of risk, and how we assess it and factor it into our approach to our betting is bound to reflect our discipline or lack of it.
Does that clarify the issue at all? Losing bets are bad, but in the most obvious, immediate and limited sense; they can nevertheless be turned to the punter’s advantage, if he is able to learn from them, and see them as an integral part of the business, which simply has to be factored in to the overall betting approach/methodology.
Bookies surely talk about bad losses, etc., but, unless they combine itheir bookmaking with punting, they understand that they are an essential, factored-in part of the system whereby they systematically make money over probably a relatively short  period of time. And that really is the end of my two penn’orth.
<br>
(Edited by Grimes at 11:18 pm on May 28, 2004)
Absolutely, Canada. And, yes, Tooting’s post was an absolute gem, wasn’t it, gamble.
Must be that an orange glare’s affecting Jim’s perception. Or maybe he missed a falling baton and it knocked a little more sense out of him!
No, gamble, I’ve long wanted to "go for the snake’s head" (a "temperament" thing), but God seems to think otherwise. Either I do it incrementally and, even at the upper limit, with modest stakes, or he’ll pull the plug all the time.
The fact that the high life has no appeal for me at my age – my wife wouldn’t mind it, mind you – doesn’t really come into it. I would bet as big as was practicable for me, just for the extra buzz.
Last Saturday reminded me, all too late, that when I look at meetings in the paper, and I feel I could – I might – have a lot of good to really big-priced winners, there is an absolutely overwhelming likelihood that the reverse will happen. Particularly as there was not one bet, at least at more than 11/10, I would encourage my wife to bet her dosh on. That might well prove to be my best long-term criterion.
So, extrapolating from that Saturday, when faced with such a scenario, the next time, I hope I will concentrate on finding one or two second favourites in the betting, falsely rejected by the pundits (albeit pursuant to a time-honoured convention of reading a horse’s last race as the most significant, even when it seems to be random blip), but which I fancy; and selected group races.
As it’s 100/100 hindsight now, I won’t cite the nags in question. And it’s anything but guaranteed that I’d be disciplined enough to keep to them.
I would have sworn that Jagger’s dam was the same as Nebraska Tornado’s, yet when I checked on the RP site the other day, it seemd to be different. Have I simply been having senior moments about the matter? Or was I right originally? Does anyone know whether the breeding data has been changed on the RP site?
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)
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. ÂÂÂ
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)
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. ÂÂÂ
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. ÂÂÂ
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.  ÂÂÂ
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)
gamble, I was aware of the grim "humour", too dark even for my taste actually, and initially thought of attenuating it with disclaimers, but would not have thought that you, personally, would have gone the extra distance of extrapolating "something of the night" in me, rather than just a black sense of humour. I hope it is because the innocent suffering all around me is never far from my awareness, and black humour with regard to cardboard cut-out, cartoon joke figures helps me to cope with it.  Hamlet’s grave diggers. ÂÂÂ
Strangely, I think you might agree that the deepest subjects often provide the greatest humour. Religion, sex and, here, violence. I don’t have a problem with the notion of hell. And there is no way I can argue that away. There are certain cruel behaviours that merit no less than eternal torment. I think that of Brady and Hindley, for instance. And I trust God’s judgement in the matter more than my own, much as I would like to believe I am more compassionate in the matter than he is. But, in the final analysis, if we do go to hell, it is because we chose to. Read Christ’s parable of Dives and Lazarus in the Gospels.
Psychological profilers are in no doubt that psycopaths abound just as much if not more in the "higher" echelons of society: CEO’s who throw thousands, already underpaid, out of work. How many famillies are routinely devastated, at the altar of the greed of the sharks of industry. People, young and old, made homeless and sleeping rough throughout the winter, because of the failure of successive governments to provide adequate council housing, and properties made available at reasonable, and where necessary, with subsidised rents. In short, a reversion to the welfare state.
My point about the miners was that they were given "supermarket" justice, because it suited the authorities of the Thatcherite day/night.
Re your last point, old chap, you will see that I don’t take you for a "softee" in that regard. That, after all, is the real world, not the world of humour, or what in the opinion of some, purports so to be. As you said, you like to judge people by their actions. "By their fruit, you shall know them".  Still, and all, we don’t live in a society that encourages us to understand that God made this world and what it contains for all of us. But rather encourages the idea that the poor are responsible for their own poverty, as you mentioned. Surely, why concern for prisoners is expressed in Isiah and the Gospels. In fact, St James, in one of his Epistles, points out that Christ chose the poor to be rich in faith, and indeed the reality is that they – at least those who are children of light – are more moe innocent than the worldlywise by an order of magnitude, since their poverty is a direct result of their prioritising the spiritual over the material, albeit mostly on a supra-rational level. "Where your treasure is, there your heart is"; and it is our hearts that we will be judged on, not our worldly wisdom, or what we call intelligence.
No offence taken by me, by the way, gamble. Just my explanation, such as it is.
I should point out that with regard to the larceny, while there have always been professional villains, there would be far too many people who have been given an atrocious example of "self-help" by the "great and the good", and then driven to desperate measures by poverty.
The politicians, however, will also have some answering to do, for the creating the sex-mad culture, whereby young children will pick up a tabloid daily and read about "shagging", not to speak of the actual reality and even outlandish versions of it, on the box.
Not that young men will not have been encouraged by this culture to treat sex as just a one-dimensional bit of fun; when the reality is that it is a profoundly mysterious feature of our nature, both symbolising the consummation of God’s love for us, and constituting a range of options that can lead to open-ended horror, ie something that needs to be treated with great caution. Not, mind you, that I am unaware of the harm that teaching an unhealthy disdain for sex represents.
Still, for all the foregoing, gamble, you were right to bring it up, as I’m sure it would be how most people would have seen it. I should have trusted my instinct as I began to add my latest grim joke, and desisted.
(Edited by Grimes at 2:41 pm on May 22, 2004)
<br>(Edited by Grimes at 3:21 pm on May 22, 2004)
<br>(Edited by Grimes at 3:23 pm on May 22, 2004)
<br>(Edited by Grimes at 3:54 pm on May 22, 2004)<br>
(Edited by Grimes at 4:20 pm on May 22, 2004)
The thing is, if you have a more or less systematic approach, (which, if kept to, yields a profit over at least the medium term), each time you accept the discipline it imposes, you reinforce the habit that will continue to earn money for you. ÂÂÂ
If, on the other hand, your attitude is, "Well one swallow may not make a summer, but at least I’ve got dosh in my hands at this moment, and I’m chuffed to naafis", well, you will be reinforcing that "Live for the day" attitude, and it can only be a transient pleasure, purchased at a price, like a trip to the cinema.
You may well – and quite justifiably say – "Well, I’ll tell you what, you miserable venal git, you get your gelt, and I’ll have my fun". That was my attitude for many years, and I don’t believe it was better or worse than prioritising a more or less steady accumulation of a little money. It’s a very personal choice that no-one can or should try to make for you. But in this thread, we are all giving our opinions about Nick’s question in the thread header.
Paul, you seem to have a very pedantic mindset. The work of an actuary is very one dimensional; so much so, that it seems to be primarily a matter of mathematics, not judgement – in spite of inevitable variables.  Indeed, incorporating them.
Stockbrokers have to consider many factors and dimensions, and could surely not rely primarily on mathematics. But bookies and pro punters (among which latter I am too small-time and have too brief a record of even modest success to count myself) are, in my book, super-sophisticated stockbrokers.
My tale was merely intended as a simple, primitive indication – a caricature, in fact –  to point out that any consideration of form, by definition, implies a record of incidences over a period of time.
What is "form" for a rozzer, but a record of an individual’s past actions, a chronicle of his known life and activities, enabling common-sense inferences to be drawn, about the probability, possibility or otherwise of his being of a larcenous, violent or depraved disposition. ÂÂÂ
Isn’t that what drives us mad? When we already have such a rough and ready judicial and penal system, great play is made of the paramount importance of the accused having a "level playing field", that he must be treated as innocent, unless and until he is proved guilty. <br>Never mind that he’s a multiple convicted rapist and murderer! And tell that to the *** miners!
(Edited by Grimes at 11:31 pm on May 21, 2004)<br>
(Edited by Grimes at 11:39 pm on May 21, 2004)
Put it this way. Supposing an actuary said the probability of that man getting run over as he crosses a certain road at a certain spot was 27000 to1.
And I said, "Well, I’ve studied these things a bit myself, and I reckong it’s only 2000 to 1".
We decide to watch him each day as he makes his trip across that road at that spot. And blow me, if he doesn’t get knocked down 10 days later. Would it be reasonable of me to say, "Ha! I told you so. I was a lot <br>nearer to being right than you! I wish I’d said 2 to 1, or even 10 to 1"
Would my prospects of earning a living on the basis of the way I calculate risks be better than that actuary’s? Or a bookie’s? Surely, I would have drawn the wrong inference altogether.
