Exchange Games
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
31 Dec 09
15:57
Joined:
Date Joined:
12 Mar 07
with a thread that has a basic theme of intelligence and honesty.
Let us at least try to be aware and fully dismissive of all those who come on here with claims of success that are either, in a best sense, pure pipedreams or, at worst, are a precursor to a scam.
The bottom line of trying to design a successful Xgames betting strategy is as follows.
A very successful system might achieve a return of 360 % pa, that is a net profit of 1 unit per day on a required capital base of 100 units.
A wildly successful system might just improve this target return on investment to ( say) around 700 % pa to 1,000 % pa, that is 2-3 units per day per 100 units of capital.
Anything else greater than that is just not feasible or believable, if claimed.
Any successful system is highly unlikely to be betting on more than 5-10 % of games played, inorder to have any chance of beating the commission trap.
Any system must have been successfully tested out over at least 1 years worth of back results, say 200,000 games.
Do not expect any system to work immediately within hours or even days of going live. If it has a tested capital requirement of x units then fully expect to be tested out on that requirement within a reasonably short period of going live.
Unlike some on here, do not be disappointed if your early live results seem to show an unreasonable and unfair lack of success. Do not quickly claim "**, but have faith and patience in your test results and let in run live witout adjustment for a reasonable period, say at least a couple of days if not weeks.
Any and all successful systems will be entirely flat betting. Any hint of chasing, no matter how small the amount, will inevitably end in disaster.
You will not get wildly rich playing X games, but you might get seriously comfortable.
If you can design a system to earn 1 unit on 100 units of capital, then you could reasonably expect to be able to scale it up to earn 500 pounds per day using 50,000 pounds of capital, that is playing with flat bets of 500 pounds, without affecting the lquidity or testing BF's commitment to keeping the games running. After all they will earn a lot more than that per day from all the other losing punters.
Do not reasonably expect ever to be able to push it higher than that earnings-wise, at least on a consistent winning basis. ONe off wins are an entirely different matter and will not last anyway.
So any and all who come on here with systems that claim to win 100+ points per day are either liars, dreamers or scammers,and/ or are using astronomical aounts of capital to do it ( and are most likely chasing.) Ignore or ridicule them when they come on here.
Best of luck and be honest with both yourselves and others on here.
Let us at least try to be aware and fully dismissive of all those who come on here with claims of success that are either, in a best sense, pure pipedreams or, at worst, are a precursor to a scam.
The bottom line of trying to design a successful Xgames betting strategy is as follows.
A very successful system might achieve a return of 360 % pa, that is a net profit of 1 unit per day on a required capital base of 100 units.
A wildly successful system might just improve this target return on investment to ( say) around 700 % pa to 1,000 % pa, that is 2-3 units per day per 100 units of capital.
Anything else greater than that is just not feasible or believable, if claimed.
Any successful system is highly unlikely to be betting on more than 5-10 % of games played, inorder to have any chance of beating the commission trap.
Any system must have been successfully tested out over at least 1 years worth of back results, say 200,000 games.
Do not expect any system to work immediately within hours or even days of going live. If it has a tested capital requirement of x units then fully expect to be tested out on that requirement within a reasonably short period of going live.
Unlike some on here, do not be disappointed if your early live results seem to show an unreasonable and unfair lack of success. Do not quickly claim "**, but have faith and patience in your test results and let in run live witout adjustment for a reasonable period, say at least a couple of days if not weeks.
Any and all successful systems will be entirely flat betting. Any hint of chasing, no matter how small the amount, will inevitably end in disaster.
You will not get wildly rich playing X games, but you might get seriously comfortable.
If you can design a system to earn 1 unit on 100 units of capital, then you could reasonably expect to be able to scale it up to earn 500 pounds per day using 50,000 pounds of capital, that is playing with flat bets of 500 pounds, without affecting the lquidity or testing BF's commitment to keeping the games running. After all they will earn a lot more than that per day from all the other losing punters.
Do not reasonably expect ever to be able to push it higher than that earnings-wise, at least on a consistent winning basis. ONe off wins are an entirely different matter and will not last anyway.
So any and all who come on here with systems that claim to win 100+ points per day are either liars, dreamers or scammers,and/ or are using astronomical aounts of capital to do it ( and are most likely chasing.) Ignore or ridicule them when they come on here.
Best of luck and be honest with both yourselves and others on here.
Show More
Ok. Here's my advice. Don't waste the next year trying to beat the games. You will lose money and a year of your life.
Typical response Jazza.
I suggest you should perhaps not even get out of bed next year.
Not really worth it for you is it ?
I suggest you should perhaps not even get out of bed next year.
Not really worth it for you is it ?
You will not get wildly rich playing X games, but you might get seriously comfortable.
If you can design a system to earn 1 unit on 100 units of capital, then you could reasonably expect to be able to scale it up to earn 500 pounds per day using 50,000 pounds of capital
So if you can get 500 per day why not scale up more and get rich? As if 500 per day isn't getting rich...15K a month?
If you can design a system to earn 1 unit on 100 units of capital, then you could reasonably expect to be able to scale it up to earn 500 pounds per day using 50,000 pounds of capital
So if you can get 500 per day why not scale up more and get rich? As if 500 per day isn't getting rich...15K a month?
Btw I think that you most certainly should heed your own sage advice.
But not all of us have been so blindsided by the "** obsession, as to be totally inept at our system desing efforts.
I would never have the temerity to say, as you do, that just because I can't do something that nobody can.
But of course I'm not as intelligent as you.
Just to try to progress matters a little bit more constructively though, perhaps you would care to elucidate further as to what you actually specifically disgree with in my opening post.
Then perhaps we and others might be able to debate it usefully.
Otherwise you know what.
Happy New Year.
But not all of us have been so blindsided by the "** obsession, as to be totally inept at our system desing efforts.
I would never have the temerity to say, as you do, that just because I can't do something that nobody can.
But of course I'm not as intelligent as you.
Just to try to progress matters a little bit more constructively though, perhaps you would care to elucidate further as to what you actually specifically disgree with in my opening post.
Then perhaps we and others might be able to debate it usefully.
Otherwise you know what.
Happy New Year.
15 K is seriously comfortable, not seriously rich.
As I say in my post you could theoretically scale up more but not practically.
You have to consider who is providing the money you might be winning.
It is not a ottomless pit I would presume.
As I say in my post you could theoretically scale up more but not practically.
You have to consider who is providing the money you might be winning.
It is not a ottomless pit I would presume.
[b]Do not quickly claim "**/b]
I didn't. I played for about 5 years before coming to this opinion, to which I am entitled, whether you agree or not.
I didn't. I played for about 5 years before coming to this opinion, to which I am entitled, whether you agree or not.
I would never have the temerity to say, as you do, that just because I can't do something that nobody can.
You said exactly that in your post.
You said exactly that in your post.
Btw in case you haven't noticed in my opening post, all I am trying to do is establish some reasonable design targets.
And in doing so, try to warn others as to when totally unreasonable claims of success are being made on here.
In other words I am trying to help people in achieving success, if such is at all possible on Xgames.
I'm not actually claiming or saying that it is or is not possible.
I cannot say how smart or dumb others are.
And in doing so, try to warn others as to when totally unreasonable claims of success are being made on here.
In other words I am trying to help people in achieving success, if such is at all possible on Xgames.
I'm not actually claiming or saying that it is or is not possible.
I cannot say how smart or dumb others are.
Anything else greater than that is just not feasible or believable, if claimed.
Any successful system is highly unlikely to be betting on more than 5-10 % of games played, inorder to have any chance of beating the commission trap.
What?
What?
I repeat Jazza, please be specific as to where you disagree with me in my opening post.
Forget about the level of money which is rich or not, focus on the real matters at hand.
Potential ROI for example.
Beating commission etc.
Forget about the level of money which is rich or not, focus on the real matters at hand.
Potential ROI for example.
Beating commission etc.
Our replies crossed.
In answer, you have to select more winners than losers to a reasonable degree of variance from the norm to win overall. You agree ?
The more games you play the more commission will eat into your winnings, and the higher this variance will need to be.
Less is best in these games.
In answer, you have to select more winners than losers to a reasonable degree of variance from the norm to win overall. You agree ?
The more games you play the more commission will eat into your winnings, and the higher this variance will need to be.
Less is best in these games.
I would never have the temerity to say, as you do, that just because I can't do something that nobody can.
You said exactly that in your post. AGAIN
You said exactly that in your post. AGAIN
So any and all who come on here with systems that claim to win 100+ points per day are either liars, dreamers or scammers
If you have a winning system earning 15K a month then commission is peanuts
Anyway.....out on the razz......Happy new year to you all and hope you have more luck? than me. Including you FAFH......we have differing opinions but that's ok. Nothing wrong with that.
Also Jazza in reply your your entitled opinion on the ** subject.
I regularly run systems in live mode for weeks and even months where the live results fairly parallel with my paper test results.
The fact that the systems might or might not then fail in the end is the result of them not being good enough, not the result of any targeted "**" by BF.
What then am I doing that you're not doing apparently ?
I regularly run systems in live mode for weeks and even months where the live results fairly parallel with my paper test results.
The fact that the systems might or might not then fail in the end is the result of them not being good enough, not the result of any targeted "**" by BF.
What then am I doing that you're not doing apparently ?
If you have to ask.
As they say " sarcasm is the lowest form ---- "
Interesting though how specifically constructive the replies have been to date.
Sure is hard to debate with you chappies.
I'm open to disagreement, but I have to know what you're actually disagreeing with in the first place.
Is it the ROI target assumptions for example ?
Is it the negative impact that large trading volumes (in one direction at least) has on commission outtake?. Perhaps there could be a greening up approach that negates this ?. If so, let's hear about it and consider its merits ?.
As they say " sarcasm is the lowest form ---- "
Interesting though how specifically constructive the replies have been to date.
Sure is hard to debate with you chappies.
I'm open to disagreement, but I have to know what you're actually disagreeing with in the first place.
Is it the ROI target assumptions for example ?
Is it the negative impact that large trading volumes (in one direction at least) has on commission outtake?. Perhaps there could be a greening up approach that negates this ?. If so, let's hear about it and consider its merits ?.
Well it's sure hard to debate that generalised answer.
I agree however that you are not likely to learn on here exactly how to win at the games, if it is possible.
All you can hope to learn is perhaps how not to win.
Currently I see this forum as being basically divided into 5 groupings
Sad and disappointed - those who are blaming their failure on everybody but themselves.
Sad and deluded - those who are believing they can achieve unreasonably profitable betting success.
Sad and twisted - those who are here to scam people out of their hard earned
Sad and hopeful - those who have not yet achieved success but are ploughing ahead in a constructive, realistic manner.
Happy and successful - a mysterious group of people who apparently have cracked it for no obvious explainable reason.
I'll let you all decide for yourselves where you think you fit in.
All I'm trying to do in my opening post is to elicit some specific responses which I can then debate intelligently. Nothing has yet seemed to surface unfortunately.
For example, to set the ball rolling, does anybody seriously believe that there are sustainable, consistent winning strategies out there that can generate returns on capital in excess of 1000 % pa and are scaleable into levels to produce serious levels of income, without affecting the viabllity of the games themselves ( note I am not talking about market making systems here ) ?
If there are, then I'm sure your local wildly successful hedge manager would love to hear about them.
.
I agree however that you are not likely to learn on here exactly how to win at the games, if it is possible.
All you can hope to learn is perhaps how not to win.
Currently I see this forum as being basically divided into 5 groupings
Sad and disappointed - those who are blaming their failure on everybody but themselves.
Sad and deluded - those who are believing they can achieve unreasonably profitable betting success.
Sad and twisted - those who are here to scam people out of their hard earned
Sad and hopeful - those who have not yet achieved success but are ploughing ahead in a constructive, realistic manner.
Happy and successful - a mysterious group of people who apparently have cracked it for no obvious explainable reason.
I'll let you all decide for yourselves where you think you fit in.
All I'm trying to do in my opening post is to elicit some specific responses which I can then debate intelligently. Nothing has yet seemed to surface unfortunately.
For example, to set the ball rolling, does anybody seriously believe that there are sustainable, consistent winning strategies out there that can generate returns on capital in excess of 1000 % pa and are scaleable into levels to produce serious levels of income, without affecting the viabllity of the games themselves ( note I am not talking about market making systems here ) ?
If there are, then I'm sure your local wildly successful hedge manager would love to hear about them.
.
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: Let us at least try to be aware and fully dismissive of all those who come on here with claims of success that are either, in a best sense, pure pipedreams or, at worst, are a precursor to a scam.
I don't agree with you. OK, some might be dreamers or scammers. But some others might be truly successful.
A suggestion: Everyone claiming to be successful here should post a list with results of his/her betting strategy (not the details of your strategy, only the results). This list should contain at least a few hundred bets including Ref.No., game ID, time, odds and stake (games betting history, download to spreadsheet, then copy to clipboard).
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: Let us at least try to be aware and fully dismissive of all those who come on here with claims of success ...
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: A very successful system might achieve a return of 360 % pa, that is a net profit of 1 unit per day on a required capital base of 100 units.
According to what you have written above, you don't even believe, that it's possible to win here long term... and probably you have never created a winning system!? And if you have never created a winning system, how can you know this?
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: Anything else greater than that is just not feasible or believable, if claimed.
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: Any successful system is highly unlikely to be betting on more than 5-10 % of games played, inorder to have any chance of beating the commission trap.
see above!
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: Any system must have been successfully tested out over at least 1 years worth of back results, say 200,000 games.
Agree! Best thing you can do here is to test your strategy against all available game statistics data. You will have to create some kind of backtesting tool (I created my using MS Access and VBA, Excel could be of help too).
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: Do not expect any system to work immediately within hours or even days of going live. If it has a tested capital requirement of x units then fully expect to be tested out on that requirement within a reasonably short period of going live.
Agree!
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: Unlike some on here, do not be disappointed if your early live results seem to show an unreasonable and unfair lack of success. Do not quickly claim "**, but have faith and patience in your test results and let in run live witout adjustment for a reasonable period, say at least a couple of days if not weeks.
Good point, agree!
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: You will not get wildly rich playing X games, but you might get seriously comfortable.
It depends on what you define as rich. Making 5 - 10,000 GBP every month is considered rich by some people, some others might consider this as comfortable at best.
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: So any and all who come on here with systems that claim to win 100+ points per day are either liars, dreamers or scammers,and/ or are using astronomical aounts of capital to do it ( and are most likely chasing.) Ignore or ridicule them when they come on here.
Strongly disagree! How could you know this?
I don't agree with you. OK, some might be dreamers or scammers. But some others might be truly successful.
A suggestion: Everyone claiming to be successful here should post a list with results of his/her betting strategy (not the details of your strategy, only the results). This list should contain at least a few hundred bets including Ref.No., game ID, time, odds and stake (games betting history, download to spreadsheet, then copy to clipboard).
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: Let us at least try to be aware and fully dismissive of all those who come on here with claims of success ...
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: A very successful system might achieve a return of 360 % pa, that is a net profit of 1 unit per day on a required capital base of 100 units.
According to what you have written above, you don't even believe, that it's possible to win here long term... and probably you have never created a winning system!? And if you have never created a winning system, how can you know this?
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: Anything else greater than that is just not feasible or believable, if claimed.
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: Any successful system is highly unlikely to be betting on more than 5-10 % of games played, inorder to have any chance of beating the commission trap.
see above!
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: Any system must have been successfully tested out over at least 1 years worth of back results, say 200,000 games.
Agree! Best thing you can do here is to test your strategy against all available game statistics data. You will have to create some kind of backtesting tool (I created my using MS Access and VBA, Excel could be of help too).
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: Do not expect any system to work immediately within hours or even days of going live. If it has a tested capital requirement of x units then fully expect to be tested out on that requirement within a reasonably short period of going live.
Agree!
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: Unlike some on here, do not be disappointed if your early live results seem to show an unreasonable and unfair lack of success. Do not quickly claim "**, but have faith and patience in your test results and let in run live witout adjustment for a reasonable period, say at least a couple of days if not weeks.
Good point, agree!
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: You will not get wildly rich playing X games, but you might get seriously comfortable.
It depends on what you define as rich. Making 5 - 10,000 GBP every month is considered rich by some people, some others might consider this as comfortable at best.
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: So any and all who come on here with systems that claim to win 100+ points per day are either liars, dreamers or scammers,and/ or are using astronomical aounts of capital to do it ( and are most likely chasing.) Ignore or ridicule them when they come on here.
Strongly disagree! How could you know this?
NZ Bot
First of all happy New Year.
Tks. for your considered reply.
I am dismissive of all systems that chase and thus I am only really questioning the claims of people making over 100 points a day on flat betting systems.
The variance from the norm to achieve that in the space of 650 games or so would need to be so huge that it is just not credible.
Note I am not saying people can't make 100 pounds or Euros a day, as you could at least conceivably if your unit bet size and back up capital are large enough.
I'm just saying you cannot make 100 points per day flat betting.
First of all happy New Year.
Tks. for your considered reply.
I am dismissive of all systems that chase and thus I am only really questioning the claims of people making over 100 points a day on flat betting systems.
The variance from the norm to achieve that in the space of 650 games or so would need to be so huge that it is just not credible.
Note I am not saying people can't make 100 pounds or Euros a day, as you could at least conceivably if your unit bet size and back up capital are large enough.
I'm just saying you cannot make 100 points per day flat betting.
Interesting points, Frog. What I, and I think most others on this forum dont appreciate is that you dont at any point express any of it as an opinion of yours but rather as some almighty, undisputable fact. Your OPINION on the games is logical and indicitive of your experiences thus far with the games but I dont agree that any system with any merit has to pass your criteria to cut the mustard. If you are that sure that a winning system has to play a certain (limited) amount of games or only aim realistically for a certain ROI then fine, make that your system criteria. It is a different approach to mine and something I cant and certainly wont dismiss. Thanks for sharing your thoughts but my opinion is that there are far too many variables and approaches to take with xgames to be able to draw up a little checklist to work to. Notice I dont disagree with what you say only the implication that anything different to your advice will fail. Happy new year, FAFH.
That last statement, Frog, for what its worth, was a very good point, only in my opinion, of course, lol.
FINE AS FROG HAIR wrote: I am dismissive of all systems that chase and thus I am only really questioning the claims of people making over 100 points a day on flat betting systems.
Agree on this! Chasing (Martingale) works only in theory, in practice it's the safest path to bankruptcy.
Since you are betting here against randomness AND sub-value odds, you will need to implement some sort of less or more intelligent staking system WITHOUT progression. It has to be kind of Kelly staking system, this is at least what I'm doing.
P.S.: Happy new year to all X-Gamers!
Agree on this! Chasing (Martingale) works only in theory, in practice it's the safest path to bankruptcy.
Since you are betting here against randomness AND sub-value odds, you will need to implement some sort of less or more intelligent staking system WITHOUT progression. It has to be kind of Kelly staking system, this is at least what I'm doing.
P.S.: Happy new year to all X-Gamers!
Slax
I agree it is not indisputable fact that I am writing
However I do try to support my views with reasonably logical mathematical reasons.
I am willing to accept that there are other approaches to playing the games.
All I ask is that people who propose these other approaches back them up with some sort of mathematical logic.
Sorry to have sounded so arrogant and inflexible to other opinions.
I'm not all like that in reality and I am perfectly willing to listen and learn from others.
But these other opinions must have some sort of logical mathematical base.
Not too much to ask is it ?
I agree it is not indisputable fact that I am writing
However I do try to support my views with reasonably logical mathematical reasons.
I am willing to accept that there are other approaches to playing the games.
All I ask is that people who propose these other approaches back them up with some sort of mathematical logic.
Sorry to have sounded so arrogant and inflexible to other opinions.
I'm not all like that in reality and I am perfectly willing to listen and learn from others.
But these other opinions must have some sort of logical mathematical base.
Not too much to ask is it ?
Also another point which I originally failed to make about testing out a system on a large data bank, at least 200,000 games I mentioned.
If a system cuts the mustard ( as Slax says above), you should be able to cut and paste this data into a myriad of random combinations and the system should always pretty much perform the same.
That is you are then effectively testing the system out over millions of games.
If it works after all that then you are probably pretty much home and hosed.
If a system cuts the mustard ( as Slax says above), you should be able to cut and paste this data into a myriad of random combinations and the system should always pretty much perform the same.
That is you are then effectively testing the system out over millions of games.
If it works after all that then you are probably pretty much home and hosed.
Never a truer word spoken, Frog. That has to be the holy grail for all of us, to have any sort of system that can, in whatever way it operates, be subjected to a huge amount of games and not just be lucky and survive but deal with whatever it has thrown at it. It's an old saying but very true, 'If there is a chance of something happening, no matter how uncommon, it will happen at some point'. If that point equals a wiped out bankroll.....
I never have a problem finding a system to make money, it's trying to ensure that said system doesnt fall to pieces if it loses x number of games in a row or has x losses during a certain period.
I never have a problem finding a system to make money, it's trying to ensure that said system doesnt fall to pieces if it loses x number of games in a row or has x losses during a certain period.
NZ Bot
Note that stakng systems such as Kelly do not in themselves represent a betting strategy.
They can in some cases improve the results of an underlying successful system that'all.
Slaxon
Yes that's right.
A long term winning system has to be totally independent of what types of sequences are thrown at it.
That is basically why any system that revolves around analysing what has already happened will never truly work forever.
If not analysing the past, how about thinking outside the bax and try the converse of analysing various forward permutations before they actually happen or don't happen ? Would that be a viable technique ?
Note that stakng systems such as Kelly do not in themselves represent a betting strategy.
They can in some cases improve the results of an underlying successful system that'all.
Slaxon
Yes that's right.
A long term winning system has to be totally independent of what types of sequences are thrown at it.
That is basically why any system that revolves around analysing what has already happened will never truly work forever.
If not analysing the past, how about thinking outside the bax and try the converse of analysing various forward permutations before they actually happen or don't happen ? Would that be a viable technique ?
FAFH.
Just when I was going to go to bed you've got me thinking about forward trends.....What do you think about capped staking plans? Any advantage or just as ineffective longterm as an ordainary, to the death staking plan? For example, upon a loss, bet 2,4,8,16 and then accept 30 loss and reset to 2 instead of doubling ad infinitum. Interested in your opinion? I am going to bed now, though. Going to have a dream (hopefully) about a hairy frog that tells me how to predict forward trends....or the one with Kelly Brook and the case of redbull and viagra. Either would be better than the falling one I usually have......
Just when I was going to go to bed you've got me thinking about forward trends.....What do you think about capped staking plans? Any advantage or just as ineffective longterm as an ordainary, to the death staking plan? For example, upon a loss, bet 2,4,8,16 and then accept 30 loss and reset to 2 instead of doubling ad infinitum. Interested in your opinion? I am going to bed now, though. Going to have a dream (hopefully) about a hairy frog that tells me how to predict forward trends....or the one with Kelly Brook and the case of redbull and viagra. Either would be better than the falling one I usually have......
Capped staking plans are a mathematical no-no I'm afraid to say.
The capped losing sequences will eventually overtake the winning ones always
Pleasant dreams. Not involving toads I hope..
The capped losing sequences will eventually overtake the winning ones always
Pleasant dreams. Not involving toads I hope..
alas, no toads last night. Unfortunaley, kelly must have been busy also so another night of desperate falling. Damn insecurities. What sort of odds would be best to study when looking for mean diversion etc, Frog? Is it simply a matter of looking at a selections implied chance vs number of wins vs number of games wins/losses has/hasnt occured? I mean, is it easier to spot a higher odds selection that is noticeably up or down or is it just the same with an evens chance?
Mean reversion doesn't work basically because reversion if and when it occurs doesn't necessarily happen quickly. This fact means that the commission and bad value odds destroy any profit potential long term.
The best and simplest way to understand this is to use the basic analogy that if you ( say) deliberately design a system that always loses eventually , then doing the opposite all the time will not result in you making a orofit. This the reverion philosophy in its simplest and most basic form.
The best and simplest way to understand this is to use the basic analogy that if you ( say) deliberately design a system that always loses eventually , then doing the opposite all the time will not result in you making a orofit. This the reverion philosophy in its simplest and most basic form.
The only staking progression that might prove effective is a positive one: up after a winner using a modified Fibonacci type sequence, so that when a loser comes, you don't lose all the profit. I still haven't managed to keep this going long-term though.
Ok. Not any form of mean reversion then. In your original post you suggested making one unit a day but only playing a small percentage of games. If you dont base your strat on past results, how do you know what small percentage of games to play?
Grun, I've tried positvie prog's as well. Have a look at the guetting progression on google. It was a ** to program on xfeeder but I remember from a previous post that you said your selection method was pretty consistent in hitting sequences of wins. The guetting is pretty good at protecting your money whilst losing and increasing it whilst winning. I never really had the patience to test it properly because it was too slow to interest me back in the day when all I could see was making thousands a day, lol.
The games are fixed end of.You could start this year and any other year of ye life playin them and every time the endin will be the same.They should be bannished and also be investigated.Having them set up in Malta.What a load of Bollo x.Betfair you are robbin people blind.You are the biggest betting site in the World and you earn plenty from commission only.Why og why you blantantly rip people off on these games is beyond me.Its your money in the pot and mugs like myself get involved in "a" game and you**the result to add plenty to your already bulging coffers you greedy BA ST ARDS.Shame on you
It was in truth probably ruined in my opening post by my saying that the thread was going to be intelligent and honest.
If I had said unintelligent and dishonest instead,many more people might have felt more at home to contrbute on that basis.
This forum can really be very depressing at times.
If I had said unintelligent and dishonest instead,many more people might have felt more at home to contrbute on that basis.
This forum can really be very depressing at times.
Moving on from the exchange games are fixed theme...Frog what would you look for when selecting which small percentage of games to play? My spidey senses are tingling.
Moving on from the exchange games are fixed theme...Frog what would you look for when selecting which small percentage of games to play? My spidey senses are tingling.
No Jazza, not at all.
Just not enough of them have meat and potatoes in them..
Slax
Well that is basically the Holy Grail question isn't it ?
If I knew, I'd be crazy to tell you wouldn't I ?
Just not enough of them have meat and potatoes in them..
Slax
Well that is basically the Holy Grail question isn't it ?
If I knew, I'd be crazy to tell you wouldn't I ?
Btw Slax I came up with the 5-10 % range simply from my personal experiences.
All the systems I have tried and tested have all, good or bad, produced optimum performance if and when the number of trades has been reduced somehow to this range.
YThat is not to say it is written in stone but, enerally speaking, less is best to reduce the impact of commission.
A very simple example.
If you were trading even chances and had 2 systems that were both up a net 2 points ( say ) at the end of 10 games played.
System 1 got there in 10 games with 10 trades ( say ) W L L W W L W L W W
System 2 got there in 10 games with 2 trades ( say ) 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 W
Obviously system 2 would be winning more money at the end.
Another perhaps more straightforward way of putting all this is that the higher your strike rate, the more you will be able to lessen the impact of commission.
Obvious but very important in the long run.
All the systems I have tried and tested have all, good or bad, produced optimum performance if and when the number of trades has been reduced somehow to this range.
YThat is not to say it is written in stone but, enerally speaking, less is best to reduce the impact of commission.
A very simple example.
If you were trading even chances and had 2 systems that were both up a net 2 points ( say ) at the end of 10 games played.
System 1 got there in 10 games with 10 trades ( say ) W L L W W L W L W W
System 2 got there in 10 games with 2 trades ( say ) 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 W
Obviously system 2 would be winning more money at the end.
Another perhaps more straightforward way of putting all this is that the higher your strike rate, the more you will be able to lessen the impact of commission.
Obvious but very important in the long run.
Also despite Jazza's somewhat pithy dismissive statement above that if you're making lots of money the commission doesn't matter, the below examples show how much it matters.
Let's use the case of laying the exotic DWTA in Blackjack.
The theoretical true odds are ( 1/2.76) +1
The real playing odds without commission are ( 1/2.78) +1
The real playing lodds with commission are ( .975/2.78) +1
The without comm. odds are 99.28 % of the theoretical odds, whilst the with comm. odds are only 96.79 % of the theoretical odds.
That is the edge you have to beat is increased from less than 1% to over 3% by the commission factor.
A more than 200 % increase . Pretty significant I would say.
Let's use the case of laying the exotic DWTA in Blackjack.
The theoretical true odds are ( 1/2.76) +1
The real playing odds without commission are ( 1/2.78) +1
The real playing lodds with commission are ( .975/2.78) +1
The without comm. odds are 99.28 % of the theoretical odds, whilst the with comm. odds are only 96.79 % of the theoretical odds.
That is the edge you have to beat is increased from less than 1% to over 3% by the commission factor.
A more than 200 % increase . Pretty significant I would say.
been on holdem on and off for the last two days. been doing ok and everything that happenned seemed reasonable probability wise. However just been on and got the following results in consecutive games. 1. laid 11.8 Lost 2. Laid 5.2 Lost. 3. Laid 9.3 Lost 4. Laid 4.25 WON!!! 5. Laid 8.9 Lost 6. Laid 8.99 Lost. If I am allowed to ignore the 4.25 win....... then the sequence I experienced had the odds of happening of 45708 / 1. !!!! Is this the experience of others?!!!
The maxim is that if it can happen it will eventually.
Btw Jazza will undoubtedly say that you were ambushed by a bunch of thieves.
I say conversely wrong place wrong time.
I say conversely wrong place wrong time.
[b]Btw Jazza will undoubtedly say that you were ambushed by a bunch of thieves
Not at all. This is normal for the so incorrectly named "games".
They will shaft you sooner if not later.
Why? Because they can. SIMPLZ.
Not at all. This is normal for the so incorrectly named "games".
They will shaft you sooner if not later.
Why? Because they can. SIMPLZ.
They know how much you have in your account.
They know what you have bet on and how much.
In most cases, they will know what you are going to bet on next before you have placed your bet.
They games are sooooooo slow between rounds. Why?
Work it out. It isn't rocket surgery or brain science.
They know what you have bet on and how much.
In most cases, they will know what you are going to bet on next before you have placed your bet.
They games are sooooooo slow between rounds. Why?
Work it out. It isn't rocket surgery or brain science.
Attention, attention!
Jazza reaces new heights of paranoia.
" In most cases, they will know what you are going to bet on next before you have placed your bet ".
I seriously hope you're just taking the michael Jazza.
Otherwise I think you had better check yourself in for some urgently needed brain surgery.
Or take a rocket to out of space and convene with those aliens who are obviously occupying your head space more and more these days.
Jazza reaces new heights of paranoia.
" In most cases, they will know what you are going to bet on next before you have placed your bet ".
I seriously hope you're just taking the michael Jazza.
Otherwise I think you had better check yourself in for some urgently needed brain surgery.
Or take a rocket to out of space and convene with those aliens who are obviously occupying your head space more and more these days.
So you think there isn't a software program capable of working out basic systems....or do you think your system is so complicated that it's impossible to crack? Is it the Enigma system? I love your naivety.
Yes, my paranoia has now reached the level that I actually believe that a gambling site only exists to make money. Madness I know, as most of them are run as a charity to enable us to win easy money.
With all due respects, I cant see why anyone would think that the games are fixed.
Is it just because you lose more than you win? Do you think that you in particular are targeted to lose?
Surely if you have been targeted to lose then the person who matched your bet would have won?
If the games were fixed in some way then the results would not be within the expected parameters of what would be random or do you think the results are intentionally brought back in to line at odd times of the day when no one is playing?
Is it just because you lose more than you win? Do you think that you in particular are targeted to lose?
Surely if you have been targeted to lose then the person who matched your bet would have won?
If the games were fixed in some way then the results would not be within the expected parameters of what would be random or do you think the results are intentionally brought back in to line at odd times of the day when no one is playing?
Surely if you have been targeted to lose then the person who matched your bet would have won?
Correct. So who matched my bet. Betfair.
Correct. So who matched my bet. Betfair.
Betfair participate in liquidating the markets and I assume their money goes to the front of the queue, so 99% of the time you are betting against BF.
But then no one would ever win, or win only 1% of the time, the results would show odd overall figures and the games would die?
OR there is a grey area where you don't lose short term ALWAYS but long term ALWAYS.
Can't be @rsed anymore. Carry on winning.....as you must be doing.
I am just trying to understand why so many people think that the games are fixed. My own opinion (for what its worth) is that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to**these games and target a player to lose.
I agree that you do see strange results now and again but you can see strange results in all games, horses, football, basketball, tennis especially tennis
I agree that you do see strange results now and again but you can see strange results in all games, horses, football, basketball, tennis especially tennis
You're right Less---.
But Jazza has made up his mind and will not be convinced otherwise.
I just hope he doesn't take this approach into other more serious areas of his life.
Jazza
I repeat that my systems perform live exactly the same as non-live.
I agree that the games are not a charity and that BF does not expect to lose long term.
However they are simply relying on the long term effects of the negative expectation to get them over the line, nothing else is required.
If somebody comes along who has a perfect winning system, that defies all the odds of mathematical logic then, depending on that person not taking ridiculous amounts out of BF's pocket in winnings, BF will probably carry on as usual.
However, if BF ever resultantly gets into a long term losing scenario on the games, then I presume they would consider closing them down, or negotiating with the big winner to leave a bit more behind than he is doing.
All very hypothetical though imo.
But Jazza has made up his mind and will not be convinced otherwise.
I just hope he doesn't take this approach into other more serious areas of his life.
Jazza
I repeat that my systems perform live exactly the same as non-live.
I agree that the games are not a charity and that BF does not expect to lose long term.
However they are simply relying on the long term effects of the negative expectation to get them over the line, nothing else is required.
If somebody comes along who has a perfect winning system, that defies all the odds of mathematical logic then, depending on that person not taking ridiculous amounts out of BF's pocket in winnings, BF will probably carry on as usual.
However, if BF ever resultantly gets into a long term losing scenario on the games, then I presume they would consider closing them down, or negotiating with the big winner to leave a bit more behind than he is doing.
All very hypothetical though imo.
Btw Jazza, it must be fun to post as the village idiot as you do, but are clearly obviously not.
Can I suggest a couple of minor modifications to your name
Replace FINE with THICK
Replace FROG with PIG
Replace HAIR with SH!T
Replace FINE with THICK
Replace FROG with PIG
Replace HAIR with SH!T
Geez have I hit a nerve at last Jazza ?.
I hope so for your sake.
You need either to stop involving yourself with Xgames or reassessing your whole "** obsession.
It ain't healthy buddy.
You cannot substantiate your ridiculous claims of the games being unfairly and illegally manipulated by BF, because there is nothing to substantiate.
You're blaming your own failure with them on everything but your own intellectual shortcomings.
Get a life.
I hope so for your sake.
You need either to stop involving yourself with Xgames or reassessing your whole "** obsession.
It ain't healthy buddy.
You cannot substantiate your ridiculous claims of the games being unfairly and illegally manipulated by BF, because there is nothing to substantiate.
You're blaming your own failure with them on everything but your own intellectual shortcomings.
Get a life.
Thanks mate. I think you may have saved my soul. It's that eureka moment. I have been wrong all along. Now a can get a life and rid myself of this unhealthy obsession...if my low intellect allows.
Wow, I feel good.
Wow, I feel good.
Hello to everyone,
I read another thread some time back with a reply from Betfair regarding their 'Random number generator'. They said it was a hardware device that used "background noise" (I've no idea but I think that was the phrase) to generate the numbers. The implication being that this was unable to be interfered with on a continuing basis even by themselves.
I have a healthy dose of cynicism but I think on balance to**the games would be to big a lie to keep. Malta notwithstanding.
I read another thread some time back with a reply from Betfair regarding their 'Random number generator'. They said it was a hardware device that used "background noise" (I've no idea but I think that was the phrase) to generate the numbers. The implication being that this was unable to be interfered with on a continuing basis even by themselves.
I have a healthy dose of cynicism but I think on balance to**the games would be to big a lie to keep. Malta notwithstanding.
Worse than ever these BAS TARD games.FIXED FIXED FIXED FIXED
For what it's worth, I dont think the exchange games are fixed. They dont need to be. Because of odds and commision they dont have to be. How many people on here believe roulette is fixed? I also believe that betfair do provide the vast majority of liquidity across the board in exchange games and that they themselves are subject to the randomness of the RNG. I'm sure that if they only provided the money for one single selection and one sort of bet that they would lose money at times on that bet but because they provide the money on all selections all the time they can easily withstand some successful players or some lucky bets etc. For every guy that has an awesome system that makes a grand, there are at least ten others that are blowing there bankroll and cursing unbelievable bad runs. Yes, betfair takes commission but I think that the key to success for them is to be able to play 24/7, match any and all bets all the time and be able to play the long game and be there at 2am in the morning to be on the other end of some poor sod laying high odds selections and doubling up etc. I've noticed that no one ever comes on here and shouts about making a £1000 in a week etc, something I've done 4 times before now but instead, when a seemingly impossible run happens it's a** When I have lost money on here, it has been because my system/style has a weakness that is susceptible to a certain set of results. No mystery. No** It's the nature of the game and I know what the upsides and the downsides are before I start. Betfair dont put a gun to my head and make me bet.
Jazza you talk sense and are entitled to your opinion.The problem is your opinion goes against the Frog an his hangers on so your talkin boll ox (according to them).Theses games are fixed.Something should be done about it as they are advertised as an "EXCHANGE" when it is clear to you an i that its Betfair we are betting against.The arguement that Betfair have no need to**things as they get commision is very very weak.Whats a small commision gain against a large fixed win game.Fu ck all.Frog an all his hermits are aqll Betfair employee`s anyway.BETFAIR YOU ROBBIN BAST ARDS
Bro, I'm not arguing with you or anyone. Grab a dictionary and read what 'discuss' means? Sorry you've had no luck with x games, I've been wiped out as many times as I've been up as well so if some of you think they are fixed then fair enough. Maybe the best thing would be to stop playing them and try something else?? Maybe??
There is a very simple observation that proves the games are not fixed.
If you sceptics believe that BF provides nearly all the liquidity in the games, so that they are matching on the back and lay sides in roughly equal proportions, then if they were being fixed you would expect the selection in 4-handed games with the lowest matched volume to be the winner. As this would guarantee max. profit for the liquidity provider.
But this does not happen, so the games are clearly random.
If you sceptics believe that BF provides nearly all the liquidity in the games, so that they are matching on the back and lay sides in roughly equal proportions, then if they were being fixed you would expect the selection in 4-handed games with the lowest matched volume to be the winner. As this would guarantee max. profit for the liquidity provider.
But this does not happen, so the games are clearly random.
Sorry but I don't quite understand that Grunweld.
I'm obviously missing something critical.
Could you expand the maths a bit more for me ?
Thanks.
I'm obviously missing something critical.
Could you expand the maths a bit more for me ?
Thanks.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539