Tom Waterhouse What a Joke

Lol spy

so u are saying becuase B wants to back it - the horse will probably lose?

my way would be if the dumb punter wants to back the same as the smart and there is no connection or heads up - i would let him on

Apr 29, 2013 -- 6:47AM, spyvspy27 wrote:

Because in that scenario Mr Hope, I lose nothing to A whenever he backs a winner, and keep winning from punter B

No, because who says B is solely using you?  If A is such a good punter with a 100% POI then your 5.00 suddenly doesn't look so good, which means you have given B huge value.

What I think he is saying hoper, is that because A backed it, makes it more likely to win since he is a winning punter and knows his ****, but because B backed it and he is a moron, it will probably lose.

BJT................its not about the odds or perseved value, its about betting heads

Mr Hope, let me tell you 2 things, Winning punters back losers, and losing punters back winners. So taking on punter A you will lose long term, taking on punter B on the other hand, you will win long term

BJT it was a hypothetical

Apr 29, 2013 -- 6:53AM, logroller wrote:

BJT................its not about the odds or perseved value, its about betting heads

Of course it is about the odds.  That is what bookmaking is. 

The smart punter cant get on anywhere else BJT because he is already banned, so he has no choice but to take unders with you.

Taking a bet on a horse isnt as simple as winding its price out

BJT • April 29, 2013 6:51 AM BST
Apr 29, 2013 -- 6:47AM, spyvspy27 wrote:

Because in that scenario Mr Hope, I lose nothing to A whenever he backs a winner, and keep winning from punter B

No, because who says B is solely using you?  If A is such a good punter with a 100% POI then your 5.00 suddenly doesn't look so good, which means you have given B huge value.

What I think he is saying hoper, is that because A backed it, makes it more likely to win since he is a winning punter and knows his ****, but because B backed it and he is a moron, it will probably lose.

You couldn't be more wrong BJT, you obviously don't get my point

so spy if you was a bookie
and really didnt think a horse could win
would you change your opinion by who was backing it with you?

My opinion may not change Mr Nick, but would still handle his money the same

BJT....Of course it is about the odds.  That is what bookmaking is. 

BELEIVE ME I COULD OFFER SOME PUNTERS 10/9 YOUR PICK IN A 2 HORSE RACE AND I WOULD STILL BEAT THEM

BJT....Of course it is about the odds.  That is what bookmaking is. 

BELEIVE ME I COULD OFFER SOME PUNTERS 10/9 YOUR PICK IN A 2 HORSE RACE AND I WOULD STILL BEAT THEM

sorry about double post and shouting

logroller • April 29, 2013 6:58 AM BST
BJT....Of course it is about the odds.  That is what bookmaking is. 

BELEIVE ME I COULD OFFER SOME PUNTERS 10/9 YOUR PICK IN A 2 HORSE RACE AND I WOULD STILL BEAT THEM


That is also correct, Da Judge once said to me, you could offer some punters a 90% market and they would still lose long term

Of course I get your point spy, but the reality is when you have them both backing the same thing the only thing that matters is your position.

And if you are betting 100k on 1 horse and holding that position on a gamble, then I hope you have fcuking plenty left to back you up.

That all would work fine if you are getting all the "losing" punters bets

Just doesnt happen anymore

Apr 29, 2013 -- 6:58AM, logroller wrote:

BJT....Of course it is about the odds.  That is what bookmaking is.  BELEIVE ME I COULD OFFER SOME PUNTERS 10/9 YOUR PICK IN A 2 HORSE RACE AND I WOULD STILL BEAT THEM

Yes, but you are limiting to morons again.  You couldn't open that up to everybody and win.  Ridiculous statement imo

I'm not sure you do get it

a run of well backed favorites would do more damage than a couple of 'smarties' imo

Mr Nick, I was just giving a hypothetical

Mr Hope, only in the short term, but another of judgeys pearls, there is no last race

SOME PUNTERS

there is a last race for a cleaned out bookie

As somebody that has lived off backing favourites in the past, I can assure you that "short term" can easily equate to months at a time.  As a sole punter, we are talking reasonable money, if you are laying with 5,000 clients, you would want to make sure you have a big family.

Holding 100k on 1 runner and sweet feck all on the rest is how most books look on any decent race, like i said, its not as easy as winding a runner out to get a bite and balance the book

Yes, and if you have layed at value, and have sound money management, then you are a long term winner.

Well I know of an SP bookie, probably long dead by now, that had only 1 punter, had him for over 20 years, said punter would have anything from 10-20k per bet, said SP was made a multi by said punter

Spot on DT
and if you do wind a few out before you know it , you have laid the other 3 chances at the top odds

The point is, if you open your books, to everybody, for a limited liability, once the markets are established, you cannot lose long term unless you have no idea of money management or don't have the system in place to move the odds around when required.

i once new i bloke who would only get busy laying once something shorten
he probably held more on the horse than the others combined but layed it at much skinnier odds

BJT - refer to my last post, you cant just lay every runner for whatever you like. Anyone who thinks its just a matter of "moving the odds around" is a mile from the mark.

I have looked at it.  Don't really need to again.  I have said nowhere that you will balance your book.  What I have said is if the market is established and you are 10% under it, you cannot lose.  You don't need to lay everything, you can lay one horse for 1 dollar, and you are still in front.  You can lay 1 runner for 100k, and you are still in front, if you are always ahead of the market.

It is all good discussing something, but seems you have made an opinion on what I am trying to say without taking the time to read, yet wish me to read yours over and over.

Correct Nick, thats why you will hear a bookie say I bet 97% etc, what he means is thats what his board top flucced at had you secured the best odds about each runner, and doing that isn't hard to do, its how SB Dr Nick etc etc are/were doing, grinding out a small %

And considering we are on the BF forum, I would suggest that most of you know what BF is.  It is where you can lay every runner in the race bar 1, with the click of a button.

I do understand what you are saying, you cant lose in established market to 110%, this is simply not true.

BJT • April 29, 2013 7:12 AM BST
The point is, if you open your books, to everybody, for a limited liability, once the markets are established, you cannot lose long term unless you have no idea of money management or don't have the system in place to move the odds around when required.


2 flaws with that, you must get money for every runner,also by closing off your book, how will that make some regular losing punters feel when they can't get on for 200

been a good discussion

Bookmaking has change alot since i got a license

Apr 29, 2013 -- 7:19AM, spyvspy27 wrote:

BJT • April 29, 2013 7:12 AM BSTThe point is, if you open your books, to everybody, for a limited liability, once the markets are established, you cannot lose long term unless you have no idea of money management or don't have the system in place to move the odds around when required.2 flaws with that, you must get money for every runner,also by closing off your book, how will that make some regular losing punters feel when they can't get on for 200

Why must you get money from every runner?

As a punter, do you need to back every runner to make a profit?

I thought you said by closing off the book, you had made a book, ie layed every runner.

If not, don't think because you have a 110% market you're guaranteed to win, racing isn't a roulette wheel where odds are 100% mathematical, they're opinion odds

So you are a losing punter?

Whatever logic you used to come up with that BJT, its astounding

It was a question, not a statement.  So not sure why it is astounding.

When you place a bet, do you care what odds you get?

Whatever led you to asking is astounding then

It's all about what odds you get BJT

But the odds you get doesn't guarantee you anything.  ??  As it is opinion based?

The opinion, on average, of the punter, in a 100% market, is 100% return.  FACT....

If you bet to an advantage of that, long term, you win.  FACT.

If you picked a number out of a hat, every race, and backed it at 10% above market opinion, you would win long term.  FACT...

opinion + value = profit

Exactly the opposite is true too.  If you layed at advantage to market opinion, you win.

BJT • April 29, 2013 7:49 AM BST
But the odds you get doesn't guarantee you anything.  ??  As it is opinion based? CORRECT

The opinion, on average, of the punter, in a 100% market, is 100% return.  FACT.... INCORRECT, ONLY CORRECT IF YOU MAKE A PERFECT BOOK

If you bet to an advantage of that, long term, you win.  FACT. OBVIOUSLY

If you picked a number out of a hat, every race, and backed it at 10% above market opinion, you would win long term.  FACT... AGAIN OBVIOUS

The opinion, on average, of the punter, in a 100% market, is 100% return.  FACT.... INCORRECT, ONLY CORRECT IF YOU MAKE A PERFECT BOOK

I am talking about backing something at market opinion every race, long term, will return you 100%, not including commission, takeouts, etc etc....

Or, the opinion of the punter, in a 100% market, gives "TRUE ODDS" on average, of each runner.

might give that hat thing a go

If you picked a number out of a hat, every race, and backed it at 10% above market opinion, you would win long term.  FACT... AGAIN OBVIOUS

For you to suggest this is obvious, and tell me that by laying things with a 10% advantage over market opinion won't make you money,

IS astounding..........

BJT • April 29, 2013 7:54 AM BST
The opinion, on average, of the punter, in a 100% market, is 100% return.  FACT.... INCORRECT, ONLY CORRECT IF YOU MAKE A PERFECT BOOK

I am talking about backing something at market opinion every race, long term, will return you 100%, not including commission, takeouts, etc etc.... TOTAL BULLS1T, SOME PUNTERS WOULD LOSE THEIR MONEY IN A 90% MARKET, THATS A FACT

What about a combination of every punter?

You didn't say that, and thats obvious, if its 100% with no comm, the overall pool of money hasn't changed, just been redistributed

And the reality of what you said, is false.

If you picked a number out of a hat, every race, and backed it at 10% above market opinion, you would win long term.  FACT... AGAIN OBVIOUS

I am talking about backing something at market opinion every race, long term, will return you 100%, not including commission, takeouts, etc etc.... TOTAL BULLS1T, SOME PUNTERS WOULD LOSE THEIR MONEY IN A 90% MARKET, THATS A FACT

Not sure how you claim one to be a fact, and one to be total bullshit. 

Maybe that is why we disagree, because you change your mind between posts.....

You think, it is obvious that backing at 10% above market opinion will make you money long term, but think that punters betting with a 10% advantage over market opinion will still lose...

No wonder I am confused...

I will try and explain as simply as possible, over a long term getting over the odds about a hat draw, law of averages says you will win x amount or at least very close to even, there won't be a 10% swing against you long term, so getting 10% above the odds guarantees a win, 100% market where you pick your own does not, as then it comes to your own judgment and not all punters judgments are equal, hence why some would win and some would lose. Hopefully that clarifies and also shows I haven't changed my mind

"I am talking about backing something at market opinion every race, long term, will return you 100%, not including commission, takeouts, etc etc...."

Absolutely incorrect. You normalize the TAB (any one of them) market to 100% and back every outsider of the race, you will not return 100% of your investment.

Just confirms my comment re 100% markets Mr Target, some punters will win, some will break even and the rest will lose

Apr 29, 2013 -- 8:22AM, Dark....Target wrote:

"I am talking about backing something at market opinion every race, long term, will return you 100%, not including commission, takeouts, etc etc...."Absolutely incorrect. You normalize the TAB (any one of them) market to 100% and back every outsider of the race, you will not return 100% of your investment.

And a sole TAB is the market?

Being a little silly now. 

The day I use the TAB finalised prices, is the day I am a rich man.

Sorry, maybe i misunderstood. What do you mean by "market opinion"?

Even if you did use the TAB to make your argument, and dismiss the fact that you don't know the prices til after the race is finished, you would need to combine all the totes, and add BF into the mix, as that is where you can confidently pin every cent that has been bet on the races. (all that you can see and have access to)
If you combined all TABS, and BF, I think you will find you are a lot closer to 100% than just sticking with 1 TAB, which from memory returns you around 60% long term on longshots, and around 91% on the favourite.
This is because of the 2 dollar punters randomly backing longshots while they are at the races, or with their partners.  I fail to believe that these people will be opening up an account with a corp bookie, but that is neither here nor there.
Point being, take every cent you can see, and you can match it to the price it has been placed at.

But the reality is, tote punters don't know what price they are getting, so you really aren't going to get them either, and how much that equates to reality of prices is anybodies guess.
If you go BF SP, long term, then you find supply/demand, fixed odds prices, shows around 100% return, at every price range in the book.  Probably the only range, would be 1000, as that is as high as it goes.

Betting into a 100% market in no way guarantees a 100% return, in exactly the same way a bookmaker having his book at 110% will NOT guarantee a profit. Which is exactly what i was saying before, to say you cant lose in established market to 110% is simply not true."

Agree DT
Betting  110% would be quick way to the poor house

It would DT if you could evenly lay each horse to lose the same amount. Unfortunately even if you had 1000s of customers there will always be horse you can't lay at all or ones that are backed heavily.

By laying 10% under the market, doesn't equate to there being a market you can back 10% above the bets you layed?

It seems people here have a limited view on what it takes to read?

The point, is you are betting 10% under market value of every runner.  Not simply having a 110% market.  No point having a market 110% if one of your prices is 100% out of whack.  There is however, if you have your market like that because each runner represents the same value to your bottom line.

And DT, quite the opposite.  If you bet to something 100% that is proven to be true odds, then by definition, you must therefore return 100%.

And yes, I also realise that because the average is accurate, doesn't mean every runner is therefore 100%.  It is all about averages, or else none of us would make any money.

I feel all this is lost on you all though, because none of you seem to have the foresight to change books around due to money management, and expect that the books wouldn't change when you have taken money on something.


Now a question for spy, if still around:
Assuming you are a profitable punter, and bet prices on BF, and based on the fact that there are also profitable lay bettors on BF:
Knowing that a percentage of your bets have been placed against somebody that wins long term, do you then choose to lay off a percentage of your bet based on the percentage of your money that has been placed against a profitable lay bettor? 
Or do you go by your opinion that you have value and will win long term because all that really matters is the odds you got were what you wanted?

I think we are talking about different things.

What you are saying is all well and good in theory, not In the practice of ACTUALLY bookmaking. If your market represented the true odds you wouldn't need to "change the books around". The minute you start pushing runners out because something is backed your market percentage rapidly heads south to the point you have more chance of actually losing than winning.

But the only time you are winding things out, is when the market has gone out on them.  You don't need to wind out to try and get your book filled.  The easiest and quickest way to lay the field, is, and will always be, with 2 bets.

The reality of bookmaking is they are just trying to get value, punting, and trying to lay as many as possible at value.  The more they lay, the less variance they will experience.

If you lay something at 10% under true odds, you will make 10% long term.  FACT.  If you lay something at 10% under true odds, and then lay the field by backing it at true odds, then you lock the 10% straight in.  The only difference in what is happening is that 1 way may take longer to realise your 10% edge.

And yes, true odds isn't realised every race, but on average it is.  And yes, the ones that get backed in are more likely to have interest from shrewd punters so more likely to take bets on those, but when you are winding it in as they are backing it, and offloading as quick as they are betting at 10% higher, then you cut the chances of getting caught taking a hit on something.

And in my head, when I say 10% under market conditions, I am assuming taking into account the likelihood of where the market is heading. 
You can't stick to 10% on a weak market, and you can't set a market until you know where it should be based on supply/demand.


Will put it another way....

If the circumstances were :

You were sitting lay bets at 10% under the best offer on BF, and 5% of the punters had the ability to instead of backing the best odds, be taking your odds and were doing so, do you still think you couldn't print money?

so just bet 10% under Bf?
isnt that what everybody is doing now
Groundbreaking stuff

lol.  Who is doing that?  If they were doing that, nobody would be arbing and they wouldn't be banning everybody that bets with them.

Nobody was trying to reinvent the wheel, it is obvious.  But they aren't doing it, obviously, or else everybody would have the same odds.

BJT • April 29, 2013 9:38 AM BST
By laying 10% under the market, doesn't equate to there being a market you can back 10% above the bets you layed?

It seems people here have a limited view on what it takes to read?

The point, is you are betting 10% under market value of every runner.  Not simply having a 110% market.  No point having a market 110% if one of your prices is 100% out of whack.  There is however, if you have your market like that because each runner represents the same value to your bottom line.

And DT, quite the opposite. If you bet to something 100% that is proven to be true odds, then by definition, you must therefore return 100%.

That you will never, I repeat never find or get in a horse race, it does not or cannot exist

Come on now, we are not talking about being a bookmaker for 1 race.  Long term, it does, and is proven to exist.

100% spot on accurate market on a race is any sporting event is IMPOSSIBLE

or any sporting event

Now you are just being silly.

To quote, ummmm, myself....  And yes, true odds isn't realised every race, but on average it is.

But I guess it is too much to ask for reasonable responses when people clearly only read 10% of peoples posts.


No doubt you missed this one too?

Now a question for spy, if still around:
Assuming you are a profitable punter, and bet prices on BF, and based on the fact that there are also profitable lay bettors on BF:
Knowing that a percentage of your bets have been placed against somebody that wins long term, do you then choose to lay off a percentage of your bet based on the percentage of your money that has been placed against a profitable lay bettor? 
Or do you go by your opinion that you have value and will win long term because all that really matters is the odds you got were what you wanted?

You're asking a question no one can know the answer of, who they're betting against on here, but just for the sake of it, if I did know, no I would not change my bet, because as I make mistakes ie back losers, winning layers also lay winners

BJT you were wrong about saying in a 100% market everyone would break even, you were shown why that is incorrect, but I don't see you saying, hey I was wrong anywhere

Also true odds are never realized any time

Apr 29, 2013 -- 11:13AM, spyvspy27 wrote:

BJT you were wrong about saying in a 100% market everyone would break even, you were shown why that is incorrect, but I don't see you saying, hey I was wrong anywhere

No, I think you may have mistaken what I was saying, so there is no need for me to say I was wrong.  If you are betting into something that averages a 100% return, long term, you must return 100% of your money. 

That statement can not be wrong, and never will be wrong.

And of course, that is under the assumption of stake sizes being constant.

That statement is completely wrong, How many times do I have to tell you, some punters would lose betting into a 90% market every single time they had a bet

By every single time, I mean every time they bet its into a 90% market

So what you are telling me, is that in a coin flip situation, offering 2.20 on heads and tails, there are punters out there that will still lose money?

Fcuk the punt.  I know nothing.  Time for me to give it up.

ffs BJT, we're talking about horse racing, if you read all my posts you will notice I said you cannot get a true market in a horse race or any sporting event, and I was talking about punter betting into a 90% horse market, now you turn it to a coin flip ffs. What it is time for is for me to stop wasting my time on this thread

i try to stay out of stupid arguments. But if you picked your tips out of a hat you should still win long term betting into a 90% market

Kye, if you read all my posts, you would see I agreed with that part of his posts

not the old coin flippin flipping argument again!
that's been the cause of a few blow ups on here!

Why is that Mr Hope, heads I win, tails you lose

The gist of what was originally bought up is, any bookmaker betting to lets say 110% simply cant lose money. That is completely incorrect.

It then changed, to if you are a punter betting into a 100% market you simply cannot lose, that also is completely incorrect.

Many thanks Mr Target

Sorry i should have stayed out. though it all sounds like a stupid argument that has gone for far too many posts.

Can someone point me to a 90% market so i can have punt.

No, what we are talking about is odds.  That is constant the world over, be it horse racing, coin flip, pokies, sports, or anything.
Coin flip is completely relevant, as it is a very easy point to prove. 
When you have something such as a horse race, and average out thousands of results, to get a 100% return based on the market average traded price, then that is a figure you can work on and is just as real as the coin flip.

If you have 10,000 horses start at 2.00, and 5,000 of them win, then you have a 100% return.  Exactly the "flipping" same, on average.
Some of those would be true odds 3.00, some 1.50, some 50.00.  But combined, they result in a 100% return at 50% expectancy.

Now if somebody were to back their fair share of them, at 2.20, like you suggested, they would all win.



You all need to stop and think about what is actually being posted here.

And nothing changed DT, only more points to prove an argument.

I made the statement that you can't bet to something giving you a 10% advantage, long term, and possibly lose.  It is mathematically impossible, with constant staking, and sound money management.

Spy seems to think it is possible and has come up with such proving points as, "you are wrong".  Maths isn't wrong.

spyvspy27 • April 29, 2013 11:58 AM BST
Kye, if you read all my posts, you would see I agreed with that part of his posts
And therein lies your problem. 
You cannot agree with that, and disagree with this.  It is one and the same.

Apr 29, 2013 -- 12:09PM, Kye wrote:

Sorry i should have stayed out. though it all sounds like a stupid argument that has gone for far too many posts.Can someone point me to a 90% market so i can have punt.

But you will lose.... 

Well then again, we are discussing different things.

yep i would still manage to find a loser. But only b/c the jockey hooked my tip or the trainer ran it injured

well im off to bed and its a 100% market I get a jump or I don't
good night

I have explained over and over why BJT, you accuse me of only reading 10% of posts, maybe you don't read all of the posts, either way, you're right I am wrong, you win

I know..

What an odd thread.

Title does have joke in it, and there were a few funny posts, so not that odd