Australian
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 192 comments are related to the topic:
8% Commission!
8% Commission!
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 192
|
By:
Just out of curiosity Henry, did you study economics at uni?
|
|
By:
I wasn't quoting you henry. I was giving a simple example of how your post sounds and why people might find it amusing. Maybe you had too much chardonnay so I'll try again.
"I've been laying horses based on their appearance. The ones I don't like have zip zero chance of winning. So far I've successfully laid a 15/1 shot a 25/1 shot and a 95/1 shot." (btw BJT this is three separate races) Now many of us may assume that their price alone may indicate that these horses have slim hopes of winning,even without checking their appearance. "For some reason I don't know why the ones under $6.00 seem to win from time to time so I'm steering clear of them." I know it's stating the obvious but horses under $6.00 do tend to win more often than 15/1 25/1 and 95/1 shots. What it boils down to is I could pluck any horse out of the market at a big price and lay it and hopefully have a good day. I could lose a months profit in one day too. Ruling out horses under 6.00 because they sometimes win is meaningless. |
|
By:
Kami--all good..you are one of the good guys of course...
pluck any horse out of the market at a big price and lay it and hopefully have a good day. Most definitely... Part of the discussion from my part at least was how %'s can add up ..add up and add up Lay 8 x 100-1 and at end of day their is 8% profit....if one gets up then start start adding conditions and other rules ...and do so over period of time that you (anyone) is satisfied that those rules will avoid the bullet.... I have been transparent with that approach...Rules with exceptions..when developing my sports equation.... More importantly-----Yippeeee...Saturday race day!  |
|
By:
and do so over period of time that you (anyone) is satisfied that those rules will avoid the bullet....
... henry the 1970's saw the introduction of many such concepts these days it is known as backtesting ... you can make up any rules AFTER the event to affect a race THAT HAS GONE finding such rules (or alchemy) has been the subject of much discussion amongst gamblers since time geban in the end .. we all seem to come to the conclusion .. that price obtained/laid vs the potential of the outcome happening (and a Black Swan event must be factored in) .. is the only relevance the price .. and as zooot has correctly pointed out ... the commission structure .. are the turning points everything else is a wish & a dream ... and in the case of Russian roulette a loaded gun tread carefully is all anyone is saying I imagine .. good fortunes today  |
|
By:
^ backfitting
|
|
By:
Zoot;
Yes the great thing about this boutique Aussie forum and its forumites....there is no telling where any particular thread discussion will go and end up. Many points of discussion have been discussed on this thread you created so WD . Also WD to your view that profitable options /diminish after 3%...Mathematics of course says that increasing any over head (rent/petrol etc etc will eat into profit...... otherwise 8% is like a bucket with a decent leak, that will drain most bettors over time. This result---"drain most bettors over time" may be correct but the variable of "time" just means 3% will drain the same bettors just 2.66 times over a period of time 2.66 times longer. In relation to your other comments relating to ROI and %'s I will wait for BJT's response ....  Curious question is does Zoot still bet (win or lay) with betfair despite he doom and gloom comments of 6- 8% .... |
|
By:
Zoot
By way of balanced commentary to those broad brush stroke comments unsupported by anything except "I've analysed a lot of historical data " previously made by you---- It is Henry's opinion that: Anyone finding 6% -8% as a difficult commission to offset or are imo: 1. very new to betting or no good at betting 2. very new to betting or no good at betting 3. very new to betting or no good at betting I trust Zoot is none of the above which makes Henry question the comments made by Zoot Again just balanced commentary and opinion |
|
By:
I know exactly how you feel.
|
|
By:
Fav at Newc 2.14 and 2.20 elsewhere.
|
|
By:
Thebas. I believe you will only have 1 rope though.
Zoot, and most others: zooot • July 25, 2015 12:52 AM BST This thread went very weird! The only really valid ROI measure is Total Profit (or loss)/ Amount Risked. So if you make 100 back bets of $10 and at the end of that are $30 up 30/1000 = 3% ROI It all really depends on what you wish to achieve with the figure. And no, I am not talking about attempting to make something look better than it is, I am referring to knowing the outcomes you seek. I believe for the most part, of course an assumption which I am trying to point out to most that should not be made, that people are referring to ROI to prove profitability. I absolutely disagree with that statement, because it fails to recognise a huge part of any system, and that is staking. With any system, or systematic way of betting, you have 2 very important aspects. The selection process, and the staking system. Forgetting that you need a certain number to provide confidence, take these 2 bets. $100 @ 2.00 Wins $100 @ 50.00 Loses. As a back better, you have bet 200 dollars, and returned 200 dollars (of course pre commission). Those of you sticking with ROI will look at that as a system showing an ROI of 0%. I of course agree, in a purely monetary standpoint. But the important thing is not the ROI for somebody that knows anything about betting. The way I look at that is: 50% expected win plus 2% expected win, with 100% return. I see a system (again, only 2 bets, but focus on the figures rather than number of bets), that is showing 1/.52, or 192.31% return. I see a staking system that is absolutely ridiculous, because there is no valid reason to be betting 5000% as much on a longshot. Yes, ROI is important. But nowhere near as important as the amount you stake on a bet. Simply looking at ROI is a ridiculous way to validate a system, unless of course you are 100% happy that the staking method is sound and representative of that ROI and not skewing the results in any way. The only relevant figure for me, is numberOfWins/expectedNumberOfWins So while you may have bet 200 dollars to return 200 dollars, I would have bet 102 dollars, to return 200 dollars. We have bet the exact same selections, yet I am showing an ROI of 92%, and you are showing an ROI of 0%. For the record, in regards to the 8%. If the commission was that rate when I started, I don't believe I would have seen it through. My staking system was a fraction of a percent profitable. Extremely high turnover betting on every race, every day of the year, with extremely small profitability. Been 10 years, but I believe I was on about 50% discount or so, so paying around 2.5% commission. Placing the same bets with 8% would have put me on a losing path. The big trick with commission though is to decrease it. Trading was always the most effective way of reducing commission paid, because you were effectively laying every runner in the race. Doing it with 2 bets, but the same result. Point being, if you have 10 results at say 5.00 each, you will pay commission on every winner, and you won't be able to offset any losses against them. Unless of course, you are betting on more than 1 runner in a race. By doing that, you drastically reduce the commission you pay as you are offsetting losses against your wins, meaning of course paying less commission. It certainly is not ideal, but if you are serious about betting, there are certainly ways to adapt to the situation to lessen the impact. Personally, I would be more inclined to simply target the races with the lower commission as it takes away a huge amount of work. It is a very drastic commission rate IMO, and certainly will deplete the pools. |
|
By:
The only relevant figure for me, is numberOfWins/expectedNumberOfWins
yes that is the only reason .. to determine if the method is sound .. nothing to do with making a profit race by race maybe a year of data ... maybe three months ... depending on your volume of individual bets ... if you only have one rope BJT you are a magician imo  |
|
By:
I guess that depends if you consider a rope to be 1 piece of fibre, or lots of different fibers joined together to make 1 piece of rope.
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
see how long you can keep your eye only on the rope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g1NC5XFWgE |
|
By:
your roi after one race (or even one meeting) has nothing to do with making a (long term) profit
.. unless you really are a magician |
|
By:
Yes, but that is not the point. Also, ROI after 1,000 races, has nothing to do with making a profit if your staking system is random.
|
|
By:
yes any punter would be wise to have a sound staking system to compliment a sound selection method
|
|
By:
ROI after 1,000 races,
I prefer to see 1000 races as being separate investments and therefore 1000 individual ROI"S At the end of any given number of those races I would then simply add up and get the aggregate of the ROI for each race I rationalize simply because I have not chosen to "invest" for 999 races (therefore 999 000 units) yet to be run I have chosen to invest/risk an amount for each race as it occurs.... The only liability /risk I have been certain of is the one I have actually entered into.... Therefore : race 1 ..ROI=x race 2 ROI = y etc |
|
By:
Mr Luca,
I will most likely never bet on a track with 8% commission. Currently I bet on UK markets at 5% of commission and think I may have an edge at that level (on paper I do have a significant edge but find in practice everything works worse live for a range of reasons). I use the word "may" because I have had things work for 3 months really well and then just head south rapidly - again for a range of reasons - some I understand and others are more mysterious. Some things I have tracked go for months and months in steady winning patterns then lose all those winnings and more in a matter of week or two. Then some crawl back up to profit many months later, while others would clean you out if you stuck to them. In anything dealing in the "just profitable" category, the ups and downs through just randomness can be ridiculous and dramatic. Try making up a hypothetical 1000 bet series that is "just profitable" after commission in xcel and then use a random number generator formulae in Xcel to sort the data over and over with a graph of the earnings patterns. The result will shock you. Over the 1000 series streaks of superb growth will spike up before you and plummeting losses will follow showing what are apparently winning back systems and fantastic lay systems if you judged on the short term patterns. This is what fools many people - me included - the randomness creates patterns that are just mirages of profitability. In the downturns of any such system high levels of commission act to slaughter you. In the stock market they compete on lower brokerage fees. A $10,000 trade will cost you $20. That is 0.2% commission. 8% is absolutely outrageous in my opinion as a commission level. Obviously BF have overheads way higher than an online brokerage, but even so 8% pushes the exchange into the realm where only the super elite of bettors or those with huge volumes to get a big discount have any hope of profit long term. Average punters not only have no hope, they will be cleaned out so fast by 8 % commission that they will really notice how fast they are losing and either by analysis or gut instinct decide BF does not seem to work for them. 8% is jumping the shark. It may not be obvious as to the impact of this on the exchange as commission is often poorly understood. But all but the addicts can tell when something is not right and for whatever reason BF is not working for them. All this is happening at the same time that BF markets have become ever more accurate. Now is when commission should be lowered as the offering is no longer so beneficial to punters as in the early days. To me the ideal exchange is one where most people with some knowledge are either making money or very close to it. People on BF are usually a little more analytical than your average punter and actually expect to make money. The are not like a drunk person wandering into the Crown Casino for a flutter. The exchange should give them hope and good runs, not try to clean them out fast. The house edge in Blackjack is 0.6% !!!! BF is now 6 to 8%. That is 10 times what the Casinos offer to "entertain" their clients assuming accurate markets. The new high levels are ridiculous and disrespectful to us. They will kill the exchange slowly. |
|
By:
Zoot
Your reply is appreciated. Yes Many approaches/strategies "work till they dont".. a phrase used by my wife over the decades. I can assure you some days of mine are not without errors.....but these errors are often invaluable learning experiences. In some ways this occurrence can keep some of us obsessed with getting it right. Bit like the "mad" scientist or inventor. In feeding this obsession of mine it should be knowledge on this forum that I have turned to creating equations factoring in the usual variables upon which I have predominately relied. Equations and numbers are the purist form of truth and with that thought and my observance of recurring patterns I plod many days a week picking up small percentages ( anywhere between 12% to 5 %). Collectively these percentages satisfy me. Recently I have returned my attention to the horse itself and am finding this equal to or even more comfort for me. As you have "invested" many hours into research it is with respect, shame you have not found the "grail" upon which long term you feel comfortable to rely upon despite the objectionable commission. Zoot..stay positive. The coke bottle is often half full rather than half empty. Casino games are random events while certain occurrences in a horse race eg. an unfit horse....is not so random. GL |
|
By:
Proof is in the pudding. If HenryLuca is betting regularly over an extended period of time and winning using his mysterious ability to analyse fitness or whatever, he is onto something good. Betting is too tough a taskmaster for luck to last long. Different approaches have more chance than standard form analysis that everyone is doing. So tallyho and toodlepip to the HL chardonnay system may it continue to beat commission and the sceptics.
|
|
By:
Your earlier post ZOOOT was excellent. Please contribute more!
|
|
By:
fawning alert.
 |
|
By:
You never say to me Kami ffs
 |
|
By:
you're mutton. He's cruisin for fresh meat.
 |
|
By:
Also got nuttin much to say ffs
|
|
By:
Fresh meat!! How long before you cxnts scare him away??? Henry's already got him worried!!
|
|
By:
Time for me to say something interesting...................................................................... something interesting
|
|
By:
Is that a Spike Milligan gag spy? You're showing your age!
|
|
By:
spy did you ever hear anything about your old nemesis? I wonder what happened to him?
|
|
By:
Which one
|
|
By:
The_KAMIKAZEE_DRINKING_MACHINE 25 Jul 15 11:23 Joined: 09 Apr 12 | Topic/replies: 4,449 | Blogger: The_KAMIKAZEE_DRINKING_MACHINE's blog
Is that a Spike Milligan gag spy? You're showing your age! I'm burnt out, down n out & washed up ffs |
|
By:
I don't analyse ROI that much, sometimes as a check.
Mostly I look at graphs of progress in my historical data or in whatever data I am analysing. These paint a picture of what is really happening. Is it a steady growth or decline? Is it jumping all over the place with no patterns? Is there a trend? Is the trend real or something short term that is really a mirage (of don't you really know either way)? How does it handle commission shifts? Could you imagine scaling it up with larger bets and psychologically handle the ups and downs with big stakes (some profitable strategies have quite horrific bad runs lasting months that would destroy your confidence in the system or ability to sleep at night!). Often true profits come from a tiny proportion of your bets. The rest is churn where commission chews you up. So here again, BF high commission discourages volume. If you know a bit, you realise you have to avoid anything doubtful as b/e = death through commission leakage especially at high levels. I assume lots more activity would be in BF's interest. The higher commission is the more you have to really avoid bets that are marginal. If Casino operators know that 0.5 to 3% keeps educated punters interested. Keno at 20% is for the mugs. Why then do they have BF at 8% which is in the zone of treating us like mugs to be fleeced as quick as possible? It does not make business sense to attract or keep the BF clientele. |
|
By:
Hope DA has a tissue handy
 |
|
By:
I never knew there was any doubt as to what ROI or POT was until this thread. I learnt it as a 1st year apprentice 30 years ago.
SPOON why would ZOOOOOOOOT's post make me cry? |
|
By:
Cmon. You have one sock on and seem to be puffing,ffs. |
|
By:
You gotta admit the man has some nice gear!
|
|
By:
Unfortunately, I am unable to asess his undercarriage
 your head is in the way |
|
By:
GOLD!!! |
|
By:
see the first photo ....
 https://twitter.com/GuessersShow/with_replies |