The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

scipio

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: PRICES #51930
    scipio
    Member
    • Total Posts 9

    Very good. First and second in opener.

    in reply to: Professional Punters #101948
    scipio
    Member
    • Total Posts 9

    I wonder how many there are like me? I am retired but use the exchanges to provide a second income. I spend many, many days on  research, and have done since starting on the Flutter site. I approach my ‘business’ purely on a retailing basis, that is, I buy and sell ‘stock’ to make a profit.  On the other hand I am a life-long punter who loves racing; but my gambling I keep to pinmoney. Knowing your limititations is everything IMO.

                                    Scipio

    in reply to: ARE WE FOOLING OURSELVES #101571
    scipio
    Member
    • Total Posts 9

    Just as a bit of fun i’ve checked out ‘crazy’ system from the laying point of view.  Twenty eight days of racing taken at random – nineteen days produced three qualifiers of which seventeen lost the four bets involved. The two losing days meant a payout on two doubles – £25 to £ stakes.  Therefore £68 won less £25 =£43 profit.  Crazy eh?<br>                                        Scipio

    in reply to: ARE WE FOOLING OURSELVES #101569
    scipio
    Member
    • Total Posts 9

    Ian,<br>        Why not? It’s only a matter of calculation from one race to the next. A layer doesn’t need a multiple bet facility on the Exchange to take on such bets. I suspect, however, that we are digressing from the theme of this thread; and that the ever optimistic punter will always search for the perfect system. Good luck to them.

    in reply to: ARE WE FOOLING OURSELVES #101568
    scipio
    Member
    • Total Posts 9

    Ian<br>           I think you are correct when you say there is more to laying than the bare stats. However, how would you feel as an ex-bookie, for instance, laying this crazy system: <br>take  the first three runners in separate races  who’s name begins with  an s, as long as they are under 4.1 in the betting, back them in three doubles and a treble.  

    in reply to: ARE WE FOOLING OURSELVES #101566
    scipio
    Member
    • Total Posts 9

    Ian, <br>           It’s not a matter of mugs on the exchanges. The premise is that if systems lose money backing, they must win money laying. I’m aware that this is a simplification and that prices, commission etc. come into any factoring; but surely those same factors apply when backing?

    in reply to: ARE WE FOOLING OURSELVES #101565
    scipio
    Member
    • Total Posts 9

    It seems that the majority of punters agree, often through painful experience, that systems will lose in the long run. Therefore, the opposite should apply, that is, if you take a variety of ‘mug systems’ operate them to lay on the exchanges you should make money. What do you think?

    in reply to: Racing Forum’s verdict? #100553
    scipio
    Member
    • Total Posts 9

    I agree with Ray. Racing is not 100% bent, probably less than 5%, therefore I vote no.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)