Did you get onto my 32.00 winner earlier TQ? That should have bumped your profits up for the day... Wasn't picking on anybodys tips. Was merely pointing out that the guy that turned up on the forum bignoting himself about how much better he was than anybody else, and this system that makes him a fortune is a goose because he doesn't even know 1 minute after race time that his selection was scratched 5 hours earlier.
Did you get onto my 32.00 winner earlier TQ? That should have bumped your profits up for the day... Wasn't picking on anybodys tips. Was merely pointing out that the guy that turned up on the forum bignoting himself about how much better he was th
how many horses have raced in Australia over the last 50 years accross all tracks??? hundreds of thousands??
how many have won a race?? fk all, how many have won 2 races? even less than fk all, how many of them managed to win their first 2 races they ever took part in???
fk all of fk all.
I've seen stats where over 98% of horses never win a single race and get retired to the knackery.
I might do some googling later tonight and see what the % are of horses winning a single race, see if I can find the % of a horse winning its first 2 races??
how many horses have raced in Australia over the last 50 years accross all tracks??? hundreds of thousands??how many have won a race?? fk all, how many have won 2 races? even less than fk all, how many of them managed to win their first 2 races they
GCI.. 98% of horses don't win a race. See how your % works out in the next maiden... All of them have a 2% chance of winning, so lay everything up to 50.00 at whatever odds are on offer... Surefire winner.
GCI.. 98% of horses don't win a race. See how your % works out in the next maiden... All of them have a 2% chance of winning, so lay everything up to 50.00 at whatever odds are on offer... Surefire winner.
yes LIH, it was actually 21 straight lays all were under 5-1 too, many were odds on one was $1.30 another $1.40
Like to see peple do that based on odds
But hang on if you were backing them on odds you would have backed them for everything?????
yes LIH, it was actually 21 straight lays all were under 5-1 too, many were odds on one was $1.30 another $1.40Like to see peple do that based on oddsBut hang on if you were backing them on odds you would have backed them for everything?????
Suppose they are all under 5/1 as well? rotflmfao.. We have all seen the rubbish odds you post your lays up at.... I remember you laying at 3.50 something that never went below 4.40... You are certainly good at what you do.
Suppose they are all under 5/1 as well? rotflmfao.. We have all seen the rubbish odds you post your lays up at.... I remember you laying at 3.50 something that never went below 4.40... You are certainly good at what you do.
Crow about %s all you like. Odds = Percentages ffs.... lol Your biggest lay of the day got up and won did it not? The one you put "Everything you own" on? Isn't a % in the world that will make you money from 0. You are quite amusing though. :)
Crow about %s all you like. Odds = Percentages ffs.... lol Your biggest lay of the day got up and won did it not? The one you put "Everything you own" on? Isn't a % in the world that will make you money from 0.You are quite amusing though. :)
You should be here everyday then GCI.....BJT is right!....Just agree GCI your a systems player and that's fine .....But don't argue with someone who knows what he is talking about ..PLEASSEEE!!...You are making a fool of urself mans ffs
You should be here everyday then GCI.....BJT is right!....Just agree GCI your a systems player and that's fine .....But don't argue with someone who knows what he is talking about ..PLEASSEEE!!...You are making a fool of urself mans ffs
LIH. He is trying to argue with me that odds mean nothing and as long as you have a high strike rate you will win regardless of the odds you take.
I am merely trying to help the poor guy out. The "most succesful layer to have been on this forum" that at last view was laying for 20 bucks..... rotflmfao
LIH. He is trying to argue with me that odds mean nothing and as long as you have a high strike rate you will win regardless of the odds you take.I am merely trying to help the poor guy out. The "most succesful layer to have been on this forum" tha
But yeah fair go me LIH. I say his views on odds and percentages aren't accurate. He tells me to go and keep beating up my girlfriend. But yeah, fair go me.... Good call LIH... Like your work.
But yeah fair go me LIH. I say his views on odds and percentages aren't accurate. He tells me to go and keep beating up my girlfriend. But yeah, fair go me.... Good call LIH... Like your work.
just as I posted examples which I have researched.
back to back winners on the USPGA are few and far between, yet the previous tournament winner is well under what history has shown is possible and the true odds for a back to back winner should be 100-1 but is often 15s massive unders.
If odds were representitive of true value I'd agree with BJT but they are not that is proven.
BJT I apooligise that was out of order.
Lazza I just don't agree that odds represent %just as I posted examples which I have researched.back to back winners on the USPGA are few and far between, yet the previous tournament winner is well under what history has shown is possible and the tru
how the **** can you not believe that odds represent %?
if a horse is 2.0 on bf, does that not tell you that a large percentage of the betting opinion is that the horse will win? are you off your nut or what
ok now you got me startedhow the **** can you not believe that odds represent %?if a horse is 2.0 on bf, does that not tell you that a large percentage of the betting opinion is that the horse will win? are you off your nut or what
unbeaten at the track, never run out of a place at the distance, won his maiden first up then went into a restricted 72 and won there as well
hahaha stop this comedy, the night is young
let me get this straightyou're going to lay Maschino at Belmontunbeaten at the track, never run out of a place at the distance, won his maiden first up then went into a restricted 72 and won there as wellhahaha stop this comedy, the night is young
How can something be unders if odds don't mean anything?
If something is 2.00 it represents you needing it to win more than 50% of the time to profit. If you don't, you can't. If something is 100.00, it means you need it to win more than 1% of the time to profit.
Odds = percentage. It is a non argument, it is simply a fact. To profit in this game means your odds need to be better than your strike rate. Strike rate does not equal profit. You can't work that out without knowing the odds.
No I don't agree with how you come about your lays, but the whole point was always odds = percentages, which he is arguing for anyway and just doesn't realise it.
As I said, your % shows that 98% of horses won't win a race, which in a maiden race suggests you don't give any horse better than a 2% chance of winning. Yet if you laid every horse in the race at 25/1, which for you represents 200% positive expectation, you lose your nuts. But each to their own. No doubt that would be answered with a question anyway.
How can something be unders if odds don't mean anything?If something is 2.00 it represents you needing it to win more than 50% of the time to profit. If you don't, you can't. If something is 100.00, it means you need it to win more than 1% of the t
GCI ...Thx for apologising to BJT....I see your point GCI ...but how do you frame an opinion on a particular race if you don't have the proper info.....I understand that you seem to use history and that's fine I have no probs ..if it works for you great....But don't argue with these guys ...most are hardened punter's . [;)]
GCI ...Thx for apologising to BJT....I see your point GCI ...but how do you frame an opinion on a particular race if you don't have the proper info.....I understand that you seem to use history and that's fine I have no probs ..if it works for you gr
educeee 27 Aug 11 08:12 Joined: 08 Feb 11 | Topic/replies: 1,211 | Blogger: educeee's blog let me get this straight
you're going to lay Maschino at Belmont
unbeaten at the track, never run out of a place at the distance, won his maiden first up then went into a restricted 72 and won there as well
hahaha stop this comedy, the night is young
If it did that as a maiden, that makes the horse a 1 in 10,000 horse. Yet it qualifies for a lay. Maybe something in this. Would certainly keep the mind busy trying to work out all the contradictions.. :)
educeee27 Aug 11 08:12 Joined: 08 Feb 11 | Topic/replies: 1,211 | Blogger: educeee's bloglet me get this straightyou're going to lay Maschino at Belmontunbeaten at the track, never run out of a place at the distance, won his maiden first up then went
I wrote up the form analysis and it won, I wouldn't be laying not even if you gave me the money to lay it with
off your head mate, just go out and have a good night because this isn't a good place for you to be
I wrote up the form analysis and it won, I wouldn't be laying not even if you gave me the money to lay it withoff your head mate, just go out and have a good night because this isn't a good place for you to be
few outs for us in the forwards, replaced by some blokes with only limited ability, lack a few ball playing backrowers tonight
in saying that the knights are likely to turn it up, team of pea hearts imo
thinking we can win, but definetely a no bet game for me
few outs for us in the forwards, replaced by some blokes with only limited ability, lack a few ball playing backrowers tonightin saying that the knights are likely to turn it up, team of pea hearts imothinking we can win, but definetely a no bet game
if we are any hope of making the finals we need to win by 30 plus to improve points differential, so expect the ball to be thrown about
could result in a heap of errors, or they will stick and we will pile on the points
if we are any hope of making the finals we need to win by 30 plus to improve points differential, so expect the ball to be thrown aboutcould result in a heap of errors, or they will stick and we will pile on the points
Knights are more depleted through injury though is that right? And Newcastle need to win for the finals as well? So Knights need to win, Bulldogs need to win by plenty, so should be a cracker of a game, although lots of errors due to a side of seconds, playing aggressive offensive rugby? Sounds like a no bet to me too. Anything could happen.
Knights are more depleted through injury though is that right? And Newcastle need to win for the finals as well? So Knights need to win, Bulldogs need to win by plenty, so should be a cracker of a game, although lots of errors due to a side of seco
In a given race class with a given number of starters, % show that only 1 in 10 favs will win that race. This history goes back many years covering thousands of races.
Now in this race type the favs are almost always under 4s
Is
OK heres is a system I useIn a given race class with a given number of starters, % show that only 1 in 10 favs will win that race. This history goes back many years covering thousands of races.Now in this race type the favs are almost always under 4s
Ok so machino won, BFD, like I said some of em win, however If I applied form study and opinion to a system you may aswell not have a system.
What was that 1 lay that won the race out of the last 10 or 15 I posted???
You tell me how many horses who had the form of machino at different tracks have been beaten???
shitloads more would have lost than have won I would think??
And BJT Machino is not a horse that won its first 2 starts,5 starts 2 wins, which were it 2 most recent starts not its first 2,
FFS no wonder its so hard to get through to you block heads you can't even grasp what I write.
Ok so machino won, BFD, like I said some of em win, however If I applied form study and opinion to a system you may aswell not have a system.What was that 1 lay that won the race out of the last 10 or 15 I posted???You tell me how many horses who had
Where is your history on who was punting on each of those races? If it is the same people betting on every race, then there maybe something in it. If it is different people punting, then it stands to reason that the value is completely different, as such depleting any relevance of past events. In doing that, you are blindly disregarding any current factors, which is a big costly mistake.
I am not saying that it is completely irrelevant, but it certainly isn't the only variable that needs to be looked at.
Being the most succesful layer in the history of Betfair in Australia, what are your figures? Just out of interest. To make a statement like that you shouldn't have issue with putting some stats out there, although given your history of falsifying numbers, I won't take too much weight to it. I suspect you are looking at making a few thousand a day? 200%+ ROI?
Where is your history on who was punting on each of those races? If it is the same people betting on every race, then there maybe something in it. If it is different people punting, then it stands to reason that the value is completely different, a
In a given race class with a given number of starters, % show that only 1 in 10 favs will win that race. This history goes back many years covering thousands of races.
Now in this race type the favs are almost always under 4s
Is 4s a correct price??
OK heres is a system I useIn a given race class with a given number of starters, % show that only 1 in 10 favs will win that race. This history goes back many years covering thousands of races.Now in this race type the favs are almost always under 4s
If it was 10, I saw 2 losses in there, that puts you to 5/6 laying between about 4 and 10.. Doesn't really matter how many in a row you get, what matters are your average odds, and your total strike rate. So if you averaged 6.50 as your lay odds, then you still come out behind on the day, even by tipping 10 losers in a row. But well done, because you tipped 10 losers in a row. Hmmmm.. A story to tell your grandkids how you tipped 10 in a row and still lost for the day. Not to mention that one of those losses for you was a big one which you declared "everything you own". Now given the way you have shown you bet at different stakes, your claimed strike rate doesn't suggest any proof at all. But that is a non issue, "systems" can run for years at a profit through variance alone even when it is a negative expectation system.
Blockheads? How many horses win 2 in a row? What % of horses that won their last start win their next start? Does that not matter?
So you don't wish to apply form study because then you won't have a "system"? So you don't care what happens to your bankroll, as long as you can say you are using a system?
As for the "4s". It would be a correct price to lay at if that horse has less chance of that than winning. You can't work that out on history alone. Simple as that.
10-15? So you don't know?If it was 10, I saw 2 losses in there, that puts you to 5/6 laying between about 4 and 10.. Doesn't really matter how many in a row you get, what matters are your average odds, and your total strike rate. So if you average
When something is statistically proven over thousands of races and it shows that that the fav in that given race is statistically only winning 1 in 10 races, what has more credence. Proven statistics or taking into account form, other horses in the race, barrier, jockey, track conditions etc.
Don't you think in the thousands of races which show a 1 in 10 strike rate that the above criteria of form study etc is in all of the the races and its delievered a false favourite at well under true odds?
So when a fav in these races is even money it is massive unders when compared to the statistics for those races?
That is when I say the odds are wrong, I should say they are under true odds when looking statistcaly at the likely result based on 1000s of previous races. True odds would give the price of 10-1 the field????? based on statistics alone.
You can do all the form study you can find, you can plot speed maps, however there are so many unkowns in a race that there is more chance your horse will lose than win, hence why only 1 in 3 favs at best win and that covers all sized fields 3 4 5 runners etc I'd think that 1 in 6 favs would be lucky to win in 13+ fields. If odds were correct the fav should win all the time and you'd never see a 100-1 winner.
Your horse might miss the start get boxed in get carted 5 wide. That is why statistics are a more accurate guide to the likely result.
Tomorrow if I am at home I'll post a P/L and running total and strike rate of my lays based purely on statistics/percentages.
When something is statistically proven over thousands of races and it shows that that the fav in that given race is statistically only winning 1 in 10 races, what has more credence. Proven statistics or taking into account form, other horses in the r
I get more of a thrill out of finding a winner which I picked based on my opinion with what I know rather then systematically doing the same crap day in and day out, based on your performance today it's hardly as profitable as you'd think it would be if a fav was winning 1/10
You lay betted on the good thing of the day in brisbane and another good thing in the west, don't you think with a little more common sense you could of got around those 2, instead of religiously relying on %'s.
I get more of a thrill out of finding a winner which I picked based on my opinion with what I know rather then systematically doing the same crap day in and day out, based on your performance today it's hardly as profitable as you'd think it would be
I have often heard people talk about statistics,Fillies don't win derby's,only gelding's have won this race or that race in the past 10 years. In alot of cases GCI barriers are of little importance,depending on the speed or lack of speed in a race,which again,requires some research. Of course a lot of the time the market gets it's wrong imo,but in most cases the bigger the field and shorter the fav usually makes the fav a better thing,where you are saying the opposite. A 6/4 fav in a 8 horse field is no where near as strong as a 6/4 fav in a 15 horse field.
Any way each to their own,and you are entitled to your opinion just as much as the next bloke,Just put up your tips and let it go,no need to cause friction on here.Instead of saying you have done the form in 8 seconds (which I found pretty funny )just say good morning lol
I have often heard people talk about statistics,Fillies don't win derby's,only gelding's have won this race or that race in the past 10 years.In alot of cases GCI barriers are of little importance,depending on the speed or lack of speed in a race,whi
And if you really want to get things into the proper perspective,when someone tips a winner on here,he is essentially Laying the field.When you Lay one horse on here you are Backing the field,So really your figures would want to be very high to make it workable and by just using stats it has to fail.This is just my opinion of course.All the best GCI and good luck.
And if you really want to get things into the proper perspective,when someone tips a winner on here,he is essentially Laying the field.When you Lay one horse on here you are Backing the field,So really your figures would want to be very high to make
But it isn't statistically proven though. It can't be statistically proven that the favourite in todays race shouldn't be 3.00 favourite because last time a similar class race over the same distance the favourite did no good. It has no bearing on todays race whatsoever.
If I showed you a series of 1000 coin flips where 450 Tails came up, would your suggestion be that backing Heads on the next flip must therefore be a positive expectation bet because based on your history/research/statistics heads will come up 55% of the time and pay 2.00? Obviously the answer is no, because regardless of history, the Heads will still have a 50% chance of appearing on any given flip. What happened last flip has absolutely nothing to do with the next time. It is the same with everything gambling.
Now the numbers you were throwing around, 1/10, 1/10,000, etc etc etc, certainly do not reflect what is happening with you. Variance sure, but the bets you posted yesterday (assuming you are betting to a liability which I believe you have shown to do?), you couldn't have ended in front, even with a 200%+ positive expectation (in your eyes)...
Your bet of the day which you claimed to go huge on got up, and I saw another also, and around 10? that you were successful with. That is 10 winning lays, and the equivalent of 3 losing (assuming a double bet on your "Everything I own" bet, but perhaps you went even harder?) 3/13. Certainly not 1/10. 1 in 4.33 races yesterday you had a losing bet, but were laying at 5.00+. Yet somehow, your results were good enough for you to be "proving" how good your system is and how you are "the best ever layer to grace the Australian Betfair community"....
Now what if I told you in October, 2005 that no horse in the history of the Melbourne Cup had ever won it 3 times in 143 years. Makybe Diva is the lay of the century right at those odds? Especially given the weights, barriers history thrown in also. What you will realise one day, probably soon enough, is that what horse Joe Blow couldn't do against other Joe Blow horses, bearn no relevance whatsoever on the horses in the current race.
Collingwood are odds on favourites to win the flag this year even though they have only won 15/114 flags in their history. They should be closer to 7.50 right?
History will only get you so far, and is already weighted into the odds through opinion.
But it isn't statistically proven though. It can't be statistically proven that the favourite in todays race shouldn't be 3.00 favourite because last time a similar class race over the same distance the favourite did no good. It has no bearing on t
I'll address a couple of your selective arguements, Your cherry picking annomolies through out history to back your arguement. Just like when you talk about putting black cavier in a barrier that no one has ever won from in 100 years against 50 horses to backup your arguement.
If you had laid every horse out of that barrier and then laid Black caviar you would be so far infront. Imagine laying a certain barrier every start for 100 years and never having to pay out bar once on Black Caviar. Your anaology and words with black caviar.
If you had laid every horse going for back to back melbourne cup wins over the history of the race would you be infront?? ther have only been 4 back to back winners in 150 races.
What if you had laid every horse going for 3 Melb cup wins in a row would you be infront?? probably even, 4 bets for 1 payout
Disclaimer, I don't know how many horses attempted back to back or 3 wins straight.
Now you say regardless of history, if you disregard whats happened before as not being refelective of what could happen today shouldn't you also disregard form study, after all just because a horse won last start with 57Kgs over 1200m on a good track and it meets the same opposition again today on all the same terms doesn't mean it will win again, after all what happened previously has no bearing on what will happen today?? your words not mine.
Now your point on Collingwood is interesting too, because guess what their opening price was last year to win the flag in 2010, it was $7
You say that history is already weighted into the odds through opinion....what if those opinions are wrong because as we all now most punters do no form study or study the only form that is provided to them most punters just play follow the leader, none go off on a tangent and research abstract possibillities??
Now I am obviously not going to change your veiw on percentages beating odds, thats cool I can live with that.
Ok I'll address a couple of your selective arguements, Your cherry picking annomolies through out history to back your arguement. Just like when you talk about putting black cavier in a barrier that no one has ever won from in 100 years against 50 ho