I will prove Martingale System's work

I have the spreadsheet to backup my every move, doubt my staking plan but let that bewilder your own mind because let me assure you, I know exactly what's going on and it's working

this has absolutely nothing to do with making the population believe some sort of phony ill-hearted scam, what you see is exactly what is happening

don't believe me? that's fine but don't throw accusations around, I was there when you were posting tips in tipping threads, don't belittle me ****face

It's all very confusing. Is it martingale or not?

yes it's martingale, if bet loses then next bet increases, over and over until a winner is found or the bank goes bust, whatever happens first but it's all calculated through a spread sheet, it's not as simple as "bet 5, then 10, then 20, then 40" and so on, I have calculated this down to the ****g core

haters can hate but I know what I am doing

To be fair, its probably not going to "prove" anything if the percentage of bank bet on each selections isn't know is it?

I don't understand the need for a spreadsheet?
Isn't it just betting to get your money back + 1 unit.
What does the spreadsheet do?
P.S I think you are mistaking curiosity for hating.

the spreadsheet is needed when quadwits such as BJT come out and accuse me of not using martingale despite having made it clear from the very start that I am using martingale, also to say I am trying to take advantage of the gullibility of the community, I can prove every bet I have made to every stake I have made, there are people around here who irrefutably believe that there is no possible way martingale can be a money making scheme, those people need to sit down, shut up and observe.

27/9/12    Lismore    7    430    SOUTHERN SHIMMER

current fixed odds price is 2.40, if it remains between $2-2.9 then bet $5.50

Maybe if you explained it a bit more clearly people wouldn't have so many questions.

If you didn't say things like you don't back odds on and then say 'it can sustain 10 consecutive odds on pops losing before it goes bust' then it might be a bit easier to know what you're on about.

So it's not strictly a martingale,as whoopi explained it,it's more a progression thing.

If you can make 17% profit on level stakes why bother with all this sh1t anyway?

You seem pretty good at picking winners but some of your basic maths could use some work to be fair.

yep, certainly wouldn't be bothering with any fancy staking method if level stakes returns 17%

southern shimmer wins the cup

$$$$$$$

Call me whatever you like mate.  I have proven it isn't martingale so you can't really say **** about me.  No way in hell martingale 3rd bet is ever 10 dollars starting with a 10 dollar stake, let alone when the odds are less than even money.

You are using a progressive staking system.  Martingale does not cover every progressive staking system.  You are using your own, which is obviously much more aggressive.  Working?  Yeah, Martingale worked for a while too.  10 bets in a row?  Awesome.  Even when you double your initial 500 bank, all you are really doing is allowing your 10 in a row system turn into an 11 in a row system.

Just another mug by the looks.

Call it whatever you like, but I 100% guarantee you this is not Martingale.  If it was, there would be ZERO confusion.....

stick to framing those markets of yours, which were never anywhere near remotely close to what they should of been

by the way, just for the record, I can say whatever the **** I want about you or anyone else for that matter

Doesn't make it relevant.  And by the way.....  Should "have" been.......  Way to be a smart arse.....

Care to prove how Martingale has anything to do with what you are doing?

For the record, I never tried to prove anything, and never claimed anything....  So talk as much smack as you like.  End of the day you are just full of ****...

straight from wikipedia:

A martingale is any of a class of betting strategies that originated from and were popular in 18th century France. The simplest of these strategies was designed for a game in which the gambler wins his stake if a coin comes up heads and loses it if the coin comes up tails. The strategy had the gambler double his bet after every loss, so that the first win would recover all previous losses plus win a profit equal to the original stake.

let me explain the $10 stake after 2 losing bets:

the first bet, the odds fell between 3-3.9, this meant the original stake after a preceding winning bet was going to be minimal and it was a 1.50 bet, the next bet was on a horse whose odds ranged between 2 and 2.9, this is the lowest possible odds range to be bet on and will imply a larger bet then normal given the odds, the bet on this horse was $5.00, that horse ran 2nd which was a losing bet, being a losing bet on a short priced the runner if the next runner was short priced as well, this would be a substantially larger bet then the last, double stake in fact. Is martingale NOT a method where users double their previous stake to get back losses plus a bit more? just because my plan isn't set in stone where the betting method isn't always the same in no way doesn't mean this is not martingale, this is martingale, but it's a version of martingale where the amount you bet is dependant on the size of your bank, the odds of the runner and the amount of losses you are currently at in any given streak, perhaps the reason you've all failed at martingale is because you've all been so stupid to use the exact same bet size over and over again

correct, now **** off you little pissant

No.  Martingale is where your bet size is based on always winning your original bet goal.  You may claim I am a pissant, but I don't need to get personal to consider myself right.

You have so many contradictions in your posts it is laughable.  The reality here is you don't even know what an odds on pop is.  Yet you are trying to talk yourself up?  Really?

Ignorance must really be bliss....

Martin Gale--Benny Gale's long lost brother

SecondComing • September 27, 2012 1:16 PM BST
straight from wikipedia:

A martingale is any of a class of betting strategies that originated from and were popular in 18th century France. The simplest of these strategies was designed for a game in which the gambler wins his stake if a coin comes up heads and loses it if the coin comes up tails. The strategy had the gambler double his bet after every loss, so that the first win would recover all previous losses plus win a profit equal to the original stake.

Do like your quote though.  In what way exactly does a bet of 10 dollars on the 3rd bet represent recovering all losses plus the original stake? 



HMMMMMMMMMM...  Some people are just too stupid to even realise the point they are trying to make and if they are proving others right or themselves.  Confusion must be a bitch?

perhaps the reason you've all failed at martingale is because you've all been so stupid to use the exact same bet size over and over again

Not sure any of us have failed. Don't think any have tried. Next time a bucks/birthday party ends up at Crown I will try the traditional martingale on roulette and report back. For the record I as well don't see this as martingale, the key element here is your selections. The staking plan doesn't hold much relevance as far as I am aware - might be wrong but you need to include stakes/odds of every bet to prove the theory.

I need a fly swatter, whiskers my long lost tipping friend, get me a fly swatter

i'll give you the run down, i'm trying to win 0.5% of my bank with each bet plus any losses incurred in any one run of losses

is that not martingale?

Fly Swatter--I swapped my fly-swatter for some magic beans

Spoke with Benny Gale.. He says --yes--it was exactly how his brother Martin bet... Lasted 2 meetings.Never had a bet since..

I think its actually Chris Gale's brother whiskers?

Chris Gale...

chris gayle highest bat for WI in the upcoming t20 game

get on

Sep 27, 2012 -- 7:40AM, SecondComing wrote:

i'll give you the run down, i'm trying to win 0.5% of my bank with each bet plus any losses incurred in any one run of lossesis that not martingale?

Yes that would be martingale. Include the stakes and odds and we could see that. And chill out ffs.

Dont watch 20/20--worst game invented...Completely devoid of skill...May as well call it tattscricket

SecondComing • September 27, 2012 1:40 PM BST
i'll give you the run down, i'm trying to win 0.5% of my bank with each bet plus any losses incurred in any one run of losses

is that not martingale?

Ok, so your example, assuming the 95 profit so far, being dollars as you have stated, with 500 starting bank, as you have stated.

.5% of 500+ 100 (giving you 3.50 for free).....  is 3 dollars.

So your stakes.
1 @ 4.10

**** it, copy paste job.......   Now if we suggest that at 4.10, his opening goal for this sequence is to win 3 units.  On the second bet, he now has 1 + 3 units as the goal so the bet would be 2.35.  Then he needs to make up 6.35 units on the 3rd bet.
3rd bet would have been 3.74



So how the ****, do you get 10 dollar bet on your 3rd bet, using all of what you have said?  Did you get a squirrel to make your spreadsheet?

if I say yes will you **** off?



I know what i'm doing, I couldn't care less what you're trying to prove

Are you forgetting who it is trying to prove something here?  Certainly isn't me. 

I WILL PROVE MARTINGALE SYSTEM'S WORK

Good luck with that, and when will you start trying to prove it?

$100 to the good says i'm proving it

No.  It says perhaps you are 100 bucks in front on the punt. 

Are you really as slow as you portray yourself?

Show us the maths in your "Martingale" system, or you are proving nothing.  There is no maths that backs up your claims, anywhere, ever....

Ok, so your example, assuming the 95 profit so far, being dollars as you have stated, with 500 starting bank, as you have stated.

.5% of 500+ 100 (giving you 3.50 for free).....  is 3 dollars.

So your stakes.
1 @ 4.10

**** it, copy paste job.......   Now if we suggest that at 4.10, his opening goal for this sequence is to win 3 units.  On the second bet, he now has 1 + 3 units as the goal so the bet would be 2.35.  Then he needs to make up 6.35 units on the 3rd bet.
3rd bet would have been 3.74


Start, and end if you like, showing how this isn't exactly what you have claimed is your goal, and show how you end with a 10 dollar bet on your 3rd bet.

There is no martingale, you are betting at random.  Old mate Secret Squirrel did your programming, and you are just claiming rubbish and putting numbers on the screen.  You are no better than any other scammer out there.

Save us all the headache and show us the link to your ebook.  We all know it is coming.

hahaha ebook, I wouldn't know how to write one

i've stopped taking you seriously, I know what I am doing is martingale, what you think has became irrelevant to me, you were out to get me the second I made this thread, nothing has changed

i like his passion if anything else, can't deny his passion for racing , and excitment of a punting strategy,
obviously i'm only a new member can't and no punt against memmbers that long here,

but arn't we over reacting a bit wit arguing about all this dude simply posted he wants to prove a system ? if he proves it kewl along the way

no need for arguments?

its the passion for racing that must respect, as the greatest sport in the world ever and always will be horse racing

his passion is obviously horse racing , put point forward obviously no merit on my part as new member but

i see no need for an argument of course always constructive of a guy that is simply passionate about horse racing and beleives and wants to prove a system

lets not bring him down give him a go ,

Stopped taking me seriously is simply a statement to show that you have no answers to the obvious questions. 

Very simple question really in anybodies book, ebook or not.  How, if what you are doing is betting to return .5% of your bank, and then all losses, can you possibly bet 10 dollars on your 3rd bet when the odds of your selections are 4.1, 2.7, 2.7?

Just look up Secret Squirrels Spreadsheet, and the answer should be there.  Either way, the answer you give will be wrong, simple as that.

You can know whatever you like, but that doesn't make it correct in any way, shape, or form....

You cannot prove a system that nobody knows what it is.  Simple really?  All he is doing is posting random numbers on a forum and making false claims.  Where is the proof of anything? 

I have more proof that Secret Squirrel will be moving into writing eBooks for his spreadsheets, than he has proving that Martingale is a legitimate system, let alone that he is even using that system....

my god your head would look good coming out the right end of a meat mincer

Way to prove your point?  Or mine.....  Hmmmm

eBook coming soon to an email address near you.......

why would I give you the time of day, your agenda is obvious, even if I proved anything to you you'd still question my integrity

Simple question that you cannot answer......

End of the day, you made a thread claiming you were going to prove something.  I am simply asking you to do it.  Surely not much to ask since that was your whole goal? 

Don't worry about it though, it is expected on forums that morons come on and try to claim their manhood basing everything on bigger morons simply accepting it. 
Problem comes when somebody has the ability to not simply buy into bullshit.

it's a complicated piece of math but I will do my best here

with each losing bet the 0.5% adds into itself, so after 1 losing bets it's 1%, after 2 it's 1.5%

then there is the carry over total which is the total of the combined stakes involved during a losing bet sequence, for example let's say there was 3 losing bets all of which 3.00 was staked in each one (would never happen just for an example though), then the carry over would be $9.00

you then add the 2 totals togethor and divide it by your next bet approx div (which has it's own chart to simplify things) -1, you round that total up and you get the stake for each bet

so it's 0.5% bank + carry over stakes / approx div - 1 = stake

for this $10 stake you can't find yourself to believe it's simple

approx divs were 3.5, 2.5, 2.5

0.5 x 3 = 1.5% of bank which at that stage was 539.45 = 8.09

carry over stakes = 1.5 + 5 = 6.5

sum of 0.5% which adds into itself with each loss + carry over stakes = 8.09 + 6.5 = 14.59

so then it's 14.59 / approx div of 3rd bet which was 2.5 - 1

14.59 / 2.5 - 1 (1.50) = 9.72, then simply round it up and there's your magical figure

I do this not because I feel the need to explain myself to you but because I wish for others to see that my integrity is that of someone with good intentions, nothing scammy going on here, I post my tips, it's hard to post my stake because the odds fluctuate too much

Exactly.  Not Martingale at all.

what happend right , is i posted on my thread my tips starting martingale thend second suggested a better way started a thread and your hammering him for it

to be honest he really didn't just decid going to get hammered for it

i started it on my thread martingale

so give him a bit of a break in his defence he didnt just well he did but , well , i did say in my thread oh wat about martingale i think he got excited about it

and dont deserve to be hammered about it its racing lets all love it :)

Sep 27, 2012 -- 11:16AM, BJT wrote:

Exactly.

**** you, I explained myself, you can't even acknowledge the effort I made to make it perfectly understandable for you and many others

it is martingale by the way, the staking plan is far more complicated but the end is the still the same, betting to a percentage of your bank to gain profit with your stakes increasing after every loss

How can it be martingale but more complicated at the same time?  It either is or isn't.

It is a progressive staking system.  No more, no less.

well, your gonna love my thread bj lol

what if i told you i have the ultimate system

i have been waiting and waiting

maybe you can let him be ,

I have the ultimate system

i have been waiting and wating

i actuall y have the ulitmate system

28/9/12    Moonee Valley    8    1015    FRUEHLING

29/9/12    Eagle Farm    1    1230    TRANSPORTER
    Eagle Farm    2    110    PURRINGA
    Mornington    3    140    DESTINY'S KISS
    Rosehill    3    200    MORE JOYOUS
    Mornington    4    220    IL MIGLIORE
    Eagle Farm    4    230    SOLEBID
    Rosehill    4    240    ALBRECHT
    Morphettville    4    250    OUR MIMI
    Rosehill    5    320    FAT AL
    Belmont    2    325    MAKE YOUR MOVE
    Mornington    6    340    THE CLEANER
    Eagle Farm    6    350    CUDDLESOME
    Rosehill    6    400    STRAWBERRY BOY
    Belmont    4    445    MCBLITZAM
    Eagle Farm    8    510    RUN ROYAL RUN
    Belmont    5    525    BUSTER'S EMPIRE
    Belmont    6    600    MERIMBULA
    Toowoomba    2    620    FLAGFLAMENCO

Apologies.  I have seen the light and am off to the casino to cash in using Martingale.  Won't tell them it was your idea to keep you under the radar a little longer to help you cash in a little more.  Just hope I don't get taken out the back and beaten when I send them broke.

you're an idiot

Where is the proof? I see no mention of target,bet size,odds,progress. Total waste of time. Either make some effort to do what you said you would do or just forget it.

WTF?  I don't get it.  Just got home and this may or may not be my last post.  Just lost my house deposit, life savings, and most likely my wife if she finds out.  No doubt the power and internet will be cut off soon, was a nice life, just wish I was a little luckier.  Probably the only person to have ever not made money using Martingale, and now my life is over.  I may sell my car and go again tomorrow, as I don't know any other sure fire way to make a quick buck.  Not sure I can hold out for your ebook, but if you could see it in your heart to send me a copy for free now, I will make sure to pay you double when I get my money back from the wisdom no doubt it is full of from front to back.

here fishy fishy

been around this place too long to know a D-Grade fisherman when I see one

+133.05 since the beginning of the thread, using the staking plan I mentioned previously which is a form of martingale

I used to think you were one of the 'normal' posters. I see now you are actually a bit MENTAL. Btw 6/4 or 2.50 is not odds on. Maybe a few more years of study you might learn these things.

Angry angry man.  Maybe time for you to take a holiday.  Really is no need for any of that rubbish, especially from somebody that even over the internet knows he would need to fight dirty.  Must be a real tough guy.

And in the scheme of things, that 133 dollar profit, probably means that you can now sustain a run of 11 outs instead of 10.  Way to go.

I think the most important thing when testing out anything based around progressive stakes is to compare what would have happened with level stakes.

few big priced winners today, bank has doubled as a result of this, initial bank withdrawn, I am now currently betting with winnings

I can provide the spreadsheet to back it all up, I stopped posting tips because it seemed noone was providing any sort of positive feedback, just pure hate and absolute denial that it could possibly work

just pure hate and absolute denial that it could possibly work

TBf you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself. I don't have great knowledge of systems but i always thought a system was a system was a system, any variation therein is a different system with a different name. Call it 'The 2nd coming of Martin Gale's system' and you're on to something......

Just think it might be beneficial for you to keep a record of how it would have gone with a range of different staking approaches as a means of comparison. Somewhere along the line with a progressive staking pattern you're going to face some 'showdown' races following a streak of losses. Because the progressive staking numbs the psychological effects of losing in the early stages of the streak you end up paying with hyper stressful bets towards the end of the streak. I'm just wondering whether that's worth it, what it may lead to when that streak comes, relative to how you'd be ticking over with your flat bets with your edge. Of course it's the difference in how much more you can make with the progressive/martingale approach that will determine that assessment.

I am sure you are big enough to realise I speak my mind without any hate involved.  My opinion is certainly not dependant on who I am talking to, you should realise this by now.  But if you have been around as long as I have, you would have seen numerous people ruin their lives betting Martingale, and I find it negligent to lead the blind.

I have no issue with progressive staking systems at all.  I started with one I made myself nearly a decade ago and it is because of that that I am here today.

On the whole, people are stupid.  Anybody with an IQ over 110 has a duty to look after the lesser equipt.  If you feel hatred and denial then fair play to you, but I can assure you I have no such emotions.

You may have a betting pattern that allows you to win no matter how you bet.  Fair play.  But it is negligent to suggest that something so dangerous in the wrong hands can be profitable.  Sure it can, but anybody smart enough to be able to profit straight betting already knows the ups and downs.  The only people that will be swayed by this thread are the people not intelligent enough to realise what is even happening around them until the roof that was once keeping them warm is now gone.

congrats second glad its going well

for anyone wondering, since the start of my martingale test:

82 bets, 27 winning bets, s/r of 32.93% (down a bit), flat stakes p/l +21.9

stats since the start of the year (not including this month so far)

1591 bets, 555 winning bets, s/r of 34.88% (again down on last year), flat stakes p/l +155

today's selections:

7/10/12    Hobart    5    115    MANHATTAN ROSE
    Sunshine Coast    5    253    LADY FLEMING
    Hobart    8    301    RICH BONUS
    Sunshine Coast    7    403    SPURTASTIC
    Hawkesbury    8    430    ANIMOSO

looks promising imo messiah, very impressive strike rate and anything that can turn a 10% POT level stakes into a "run of outs" busting system will convince me to have another look at the martingale with chaff bandits. Still a bit sceptical though and everything bjt writes makes sense... i've seen plenty of its' users in the local CAS and just about all get wiped out never seen again... those that are addicts get seen trying to make their comebacks with $5 dollar chips bought with dole money. But gl ... looks promising. and.. tks. for the comp.

why are you using Martingale when you are winning flat stake?

he's attempting to find the way around the impending run of outs. Like everyone else he "knows" its' going to happen and so he (like probably a hundred million other punters worldwide through history) is researching the way around it. gl to him.

martingale would be the worst system to use for that then

The one I made (haven't used it for about 6 years, so reaching), went up by about 1.2 on a losing bet, and down .8 or so on a winning bet.
This worked out the base figure.  There was also something tied in that worked out expected return (based on odds percentage vs winning %), eg 10 bets all at 2.00 with 4 winners, this would show 80%, but I used the last 100 bets (I think I even increased this higher too) to get the average. 
The base figure was then divided by the average to get the bet, which was a bet to return a figure.  eg 100 @ odds 2.00 would be a stake of 50 dollars.

I worked it out so there was always a minimum figure to be bet to, (but the base figure would have no limits), and always a maximum.
So lets say after 100 bets at 80% return starting at 100 dollar base, your bet would be up to say 250.  So your next would be payout 250/.8 or 312.5.

Worked a treat for me.  I had it so it was always coming down more than it would go up.  So the 1.2 and .8 figures weren't an exact match.  I was working on backing every favourite in every race, so strike rate of about 32-33%.

Obviously, the theory, is you are always betting more on a winning bet than a losing bet.  And as with anything, it all works in runs.  I believe this system got me through a 3 month period returning around 76% and then of course when things turned, cashed right in.  So rather than trying to win a certain amount when you finally get a winner, you are trying to get it back over a series of winners.  How many depends on how big your series of losers was.

I don't have the spreadsheet any more, but would be interested to see just how that would go with something with such a high flat stakes return, as I was working on under 1% advantage level stakes.  Would need to be tweaked a little to reflect more the strike rate vs win rate, but certainly had a lot going for it.

an old mate tried something similar on the rugby league a few years ago...a few of us told him he was doomed but no no, he knew better, needless to say he did his arse big-time, but we all need to learn the hard lessons in our own way I guess.

Maybe some have made Martingale work long-term & it is possible with discipline so good luck to any who try, but as others have mentioned, I fail to see why anyone that profits consistently at level stakes would bother with aggressive staking plans - we all cop run of outs to one extent or another & the last thing you want to be doing when one strikes is upping your bets, just the way I see it, not trying to undermine or rubbish what others are doing.

In looking, I think when I started bettinG I backed the figures right down under 1.05 and .95, because 1.2/.8 is extreme.  Hence why I don't buy into martingale at all.

Another issue that's forgotten when using progressive staking including Martingale is the additional amount of time you will need to spend on site. If you are flat staking you can get your bets on in the morning and go about the rest of your day, if you have multiple selections on the same day determining the size of future bets you need to be monitoring results and adjusting your stakes. It's additional time, and how much is your time worth to you. It's another assessment that needs to be made whenever you are testing or piloting a new approach to see whether it is 'worth it'.

test

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:09AM, inner city sumo wrote:

Another issue that's forgotten when using progressive staking including Martingale is the additional amount of time you will need to spend on site. If you are flat staking you can get your bets on in the morning and go about the rest of your day, if you have multiple selections on the same day determining the size of future bets you need to be monitoring results and adjusting your stakes. It's additional time, and how much is your time worth to you. It's another assessment that needs to be made whenever you are testing or piloting a new approach to see whether it is 'worth it'.

No more time than you would need to bet a flat stake system to its potential.

A good market judge easily gets 10-15% better odds by monitoring the market and picking and choosing prices. 
If you have a succesful punting strategy that makes you money with flat stakes, you are out of your mind if you are simply putting all your bets on at the start of the day and taking whatever odds you can get.  If you have a 10% edge at SP, you are mad not to sit there and shop around and more than double that edge through savvy price chasing.

In my experience on sports that wasn't the case, the early prices were generally the best prices for what I was doing as there was more dissent and confusion. I guess with horse racing it may be different because of the way the market fluctuates as people take bites out of it before it hardens towards the off (coupled with the fear early layers have of being 'had over' which doesn't exist so much in sport).

We'll have to agree to disagree with respect to whether it's worth sitting around all day. Personally I would pick a system that required 30 mins a day putting bets on to return £100 a week over one that required 4 hrs a day monitoring markets to return £200 a week. When I was a heavy bettor my assessment was purely 'how much am I being paid per hour', I understand the alternative, but it's not for me.

When you get to the stage where we're talking big returns (say £5k v £10k per week), then yes, you would  operate differently because the additional hours involved would be paying at such an hourly rate it would be nonsensical to turn it down. However, even in time when you're fully loaded, a point comes where it wouldn't be worth those additional hours and you'd be wiser to take half the money for an eighth of the work and enjoy your life.

5k?  Depends on your job really.  Not sure what job you are doing that pays that sort of money but good luck to you.

If you can go from 150 a day SP to 300 a day for sitting down for a racecard, then you don't really need to work.  Not too many people are in a 150k+ job which is what that equates to.  And from there, you can only make more.

When it gets to the point where you are looking to make 10k per week, I think you are talking about figures the market can't handle, so sitting down would be a waste of time anyway.  Either way, I think you are talking rubbish since there are very few that make that sort of money be it gambling, or anything.

But then I doubt you really need to have too much of an opinion, since numbers aren't real strong for you.  Anybody with a 10% profitable betting pattern certainly wouldn't be limited to making 100 bucks a week.

The point was that while the gross value of £5k is £5k, the relative value of £5k (or any amount) at an individual level changes with the amount of money you have. I am in a position where I could grind away for hours on end, and make about 5-7% per year of what I have already made. In gross terms, that amount is about 1.5 times what I used to earn in full time employment, so five years ago would be worthwhile, but relative to what I have made is no longer worthwhile relative to the time required. Those assessments can be made at any level of gambling. If the work required in making selections, getting the bets on, outweighs the return at a reasonable pro rata rate then it isn't worth doing (if your interest is non-recreational). There is nothing wrong with discarding something that is non-scaleable but is gross profitable if the return no longer matches your standing. 

"Anybody with a 10% profitable betting pattern certainly wouldn't be limited to making 100 bucks a week."
Surely that would depend on where the pattern/angle resides and what the criteria are for making a bet. If your pattern is in NFL you may get fewer than 20 bets to make a year. I know an angle in the NFL that is based around 5 games a year, so you'd be looking at getting £10k down on each of those five proposition bets to return equivalent of £100pw or £5.2kpa. Your limits are constrained as much by number of opportunities and liquidity as they are edge.

You seem to be arguing about irrelevant rubbish, but I will entertain you for a little longer.

5,200 dollars P.A is 100 per week based on 5 bets per year.  Now if you were doubling that by chasing best prices, then surely you are only spending the same 5 games per year to do so?  Now if you were spending 2 hours on each game, does that not equate to 5,200 dollars in your pocket, or 520 dollars an hour?  You make that much?  Well done old mate, congratulations.  Even if you happened to spend 4 hours price chasing for each of your bets, that is still 260 an hour.

While it is good that you can pick 2 words and try and argue a point with it, it really doesn't work too well arguing against somebody with irrelevant points.

Basically, it seems you are trying to write a novel with the whole moral being "if it isn't worth your time then don't bother".???

Really?  That is all you have got?  What did you get paid to read this forum?  What did you get paid to reply with nonsense?  Was it worth your time?  You certainly didn't get any financial reward, and you certainly haven't proven any point, so maybe spend that little bit extra time and reread your posts?  Maybe you will get something out of it.

I'm not sure what you are getting so animated about. People will have a different mindset and philosophy to you and people are allowed to bring different perspectives to any debate on here, and yes, mine is that the returns need to justify the effort invested. You clearly disagree with that philosophy and good luck to you.

I, however, am talking from the perspective of my experience on here (aren't we all?), of an approach that while successful ultimately was best off mothballed once a certain stage was reached. And that same philosophy governed my approach at all levels of betting. Like I say, if the additional effort of hanging around for prices or anything else doesn't justify the additional return, it's not worth doing, pro rata and time invested is important to me, and not you. I think the world can survive with that difference of opinion.

The NFL example was one of illustrating the limited opportunities to bet, coupled with the limited opportunities to get the money down (you're not getting £10k down on the proposition bet to earn your £100pw...). Different people are betting on different things with different numbers of opportunities to bet. There is no guarantee that a selectional advantage on paper can be fleshed out into your £100pw.

As for my time on the forum, purely recreational and I have been clear throughout doing something recreationally is a justification. I'm not on the forum to make money from it, I'm on it because I'm still interested in gambling as a whole, what people do, how they approach it. I could ask what you're doing on the forum when you could be incessantly flitting through numerous markets in the hope of nicking a tick or two, but actually I'm more interested in approaches to gambling rather than perpetuating the unnecessary tone.

Yes and somebody not doing it recreationally is more likely than not making more than 100 a week, and more than likely happy to put the time in for 1, to create a winning strategy, and 2, to maximise that strategy.

That's fair enough because 'more than likely' accepts there are individual differences in perspectives and philosophy that means gross maximisation of a strategy isn't the only approach. Some people like me will decide to sacrifice some of that maximal money at the end in favour of more free time, the family, other commitments, hobbies, or even other systems elsewhere.

I accept some people go all out, particularly at the start when something is new and exciting, but it just wasn't for me. To use a physics analogy, to me it's now like sitting in a room with 50 lights on, and trying to notice the difference when I switch the 51st on. Grinding away on here is hard work, and that for another reason was time to call it a day, it had turned into exactly what I had been looking to escape in the first place, the returns Premium Charge version 3 didn't help either.

*the returns being threatened by Premium Charge version 3 didn't help either

Soooooooooooo....have we proved that Martingale Systems work....or not?

Inner City Sumo, I like your style.

Do urban toilet facilities present difficulties to a man of your size?

sounds like a hook up

Do urban toilet facilities present difficulties to a man of your size?

The name is nothing to do with my size, it's from a comedy programme about a tv presenter whose career is hitting the skids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppuxfmu_QKo

Tx for clearing that up