Exchange Games
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
do you think that betfair system is programmed to check the amount matched before each card is turned and make sure that the one with highest matched amount lose?
I have also been testing couple of strategies and as long as its paper trading, they all work fine. But when real money is in play then it don't.
One occasion, how often do you think card 2 or further would lose in a row in hi lo game?
it lost over 10 in a row couple of days ago, normally it happens only 3-4 times in a row max.
I have also been testing couple of strategies and as long as its paper trading, they all work fine. But when real money is in play then it don't.
One occasion, how often do you think card 2 or further would lose in a row in hi lo game?
it lost over 10 in a row couple of days ago, normally it happens only 3-4 times in a row max.
Show More
what gets me is when i back a bet @ 1.10 etc really low for say £50 and they always lose. now i dont do one off bets because of this however i aint convinced the games are pre determined. im still sitting on the fence really. i think i dont want to admit that the amount of time i have spent trying to work out a winning strategy on here has been a waste of time.
I have made a new strategy and tested it on a 24/7 basis for the last 4 days and it has proven to make an average of $30+ per hour. What do you think would happen if I use this strategy on a live account.
Betfair will probably manage to suck me dry anyhow according to my theory.
Betfair will probably manage to suck me dry anyhow according to my theory.
The highest volume matched is meaningless - there could be equal amounts on both sides, so who benefits then if it loses?
I don't think anyone will discover a profitable strategy, but that is due to the adverse mathematics, not any intervention by the product owner.
I'ts starting to look as though everybody but GRUNWELD thinks these games are fixed. Perhaps he should get a loyalty bonus.
I am very critical of casino/arcade products though, so that's another argument of yours that doesn't hold water.
lol just checked my email and I've got a free £25 multiples bet this weekend. lol
lol just checked my email and I've got a free £25 multiples bet this weekend. lol
I echo the sentiment - these games don't need to be fixed - the below value odds are stinkers!
Clay wrote: do you think that betfair system is programmed to check the amount matched before each card is turned and make sure that the one with highest matched amount lose?
Ha ha... had the same idea. However, it turned out completely wrong. In the browser based games interface you only see the sum of amount matched for all selections. Using API based tools like X-Feeder (lite version available for free) you can see the amount matched for every single selection (X-Feeder shows the percentage).
Grunweld wrote: The highest volume matched is meaningless - there could be equal amounts on both sides, so who benefits then if it loses?
That's it!
Jazza wrote: I'ts starting to look as though everybody but GRUNWELD thinks these games are fixed. Perhaps he should get a loyalty bonus.
Jazza, the results from my own backtesting and live playing activities lead me to the conclusion, that the games are 100% random indeed. Whatever can happen, it will happen, sooner or later. So the "secret" behind a successful betting strategy here always involves some kind of staking plan.
Flutter_kid wrote: [i]I echo the sentiment - these games don't need to be fixed - the below value odds are stinkers![i/]
Simple like that!
Ha ha... had the same idea. However, it turned out completely wrong. In the browser based games interface you only see the sum of amount matched for all selections. Using API based tools like X-Feeder (lite version available for free) you can see the amount matched for every single selection (X-Feeder shows the percentage).
Grunweld wrote: The highest volume matched is meaningless - there could be equal amounts on both sides, so who benefits then if it loses?
That's it!
Jazza wrote: I'ts starting to look as though everybody but GRUNWELD thinks these games are fixed. Perhaps he should get a loyalty bonus.
Jazza, the results from my own backtesting and live playing activities lead me to the conclusion, that the games are 100% random indeed. Whatever can happen, it will happen, sooner or later. So the "secret" behind a successful betting strategy here always involves some kind of staking plan.
Flutter_kid wrote: [i]I echo the sentiment - these games don't need to be fixed - the below value odds are stinkers![i/]
Simple like that!
heed the baw wrote: what gets me is when i back a bet @ 1.10 etc really low for say £50 and they always lose.
Ha ha... that's why in most cases I lay such odds and never back them!
Ha ha... that's why in most cases I lay such odds and never back them!
My experience with X-games is very worst..
When ever i played heavy it loose i never won. Their is something wrong with these games..
Most of the time i decided not to play these games but i failed.
Most of the i won money in cricket & tennis all goes in ruin in this games...
There is NO logic in these games. Just fooling the punters...
I think saturaday and sunday 100% fixed games.... other days only their liquidity goes then fixing starts ....
Last night i had v.bad exp.
I should forget these games and concentrate on only Cricket.
:)
When ever i played heavy it loose i never won. Their is something wrong with these games..
Most of the time i decided not to play these games but i failed.
Most of the i won money in cricket & tennis all goes in ruin in this games...
There is NO logic in these games. Just fooling the punters...
I think saturaday and sunday 100% fixed games.... other days only their liquidity goes then fixing starts ....
Last night i had v.bad exp.
I should forget these games and concentrate on only Cricket.
:)
nzbot
ive tried to do the laying of 1.10' s on test on xfeeder and martingaling it, no joy, i wouldnt try that with real money as i i suspect id get blown out of the water
ive tried to do the laying of 1.10' s on test on xfeeder and martingaling it, no joy, i wouldnt try that with real money as i i suspect id get blown out of the water
Didn't play for 1 year. Happiest period of my life! PERIOD!
backing 1.1 ers is for mugs, thats all there is to it.
You have to find strategies that allow for trading. That is mostly trying to lay ´false favourites´ at preflop or post flop. Some sort of staking should be thrown in too.
You have to find strategies that allow for trading. That is mostly trying to lay ´false favourites´ at preflop or post flop. Some sort of staking should be thrown in too.
False favourites? You mean the odds are wrong? I don't think so.
the game is not random, it is affected by how many players and how much is being bet, it does not resemble the real game as too many 'EXCITING' hands come up. Too many flushes and runs break up an odds on jolly. Its a shame they have spolied the game.
Exchange Holdem cycles wrote: backing 1.1 ers is for mugs, thats all there is to it.
True words EHC!
newmugpunter wrote: Too many flushes and runs break up an odds on jolly.
That's why I love to bet on hands when flush or straight possible.
True words EHC!
newmugpunter wrote: Too many flushes and runs break up an odds on jolly.
That's why I love to bet on hands when flush or straight possible.
newmugpunter wrote: the game is not random, it is affected by how many players and how much is being bet, it does not resemble the real game as too many 'EXCITING' hands come up.
Not sure about this. I had some bets in Omaha Poker when there were no other players in the market (amount matched = 0), after backing a selection with 4 the amount matched was 8 (stake x 2). According to your theory I should have lost these bets, but I won. That's one reason more for me to believe that the games are random. I know, we always tend to believe that it's fixed when an "impossible" card occurs, but that's our human psychology.
Not sure about this. I had some bets in Omaha Poker when there were no other players in the market (amount matched = 0), after backing a selection with 4 the amount matched was 8 (stake x 2). According to your theory I should have lost these bets, but I won. That's one reason more for me to believe that the games are random. I know, we always tend to believe that it's fixed when an "impossible" card occurs, but that's our human psychology.
newmugpunter wrote: the game is not random, it is affected by how many players and how much is being bet, it does not resemble the real game as too many 'EXCITING' hands come up.
Ofcourse your theory could be true when there is more money matched in the game. I'm not a mathematician, but if the result is affected by the money, wouldn't it then be difficult to ensure that every Hand wins about 25% of all games (see stats files)? This too speaks against your theory.
Ofcourse your theory could be true when there is more money matched in the game. I'm not a mathematician, but if the result is affected by the money, wouldn't it then be difficult to ensure that every Hand wins about 25% of all games (see stats files)? This too speaks against your theory.
EDIT
newmugpunter wrote: the game is not random, it is affected by how many players and how much is being bet, it does not resemble the real game as too many 'EXCITING' hands come up.
Ofcourse your theory could be true when there is more money matched in the game. I'm not a mathematician, but if the result is affected by the money, wouldn't it then be difficult or even impossible to ensure that every Hand wins about 25% of all games (see stats files)? This too speaks against your theory.
newmugpunter wrote: the game is not random, it is affected by how many players and how much is being bet, it does not resemble the real game as too many 'EXCITING' hands come up.
Ofcourse your theory could be true when there is more money matched in the game. I'm not a mathematician, but if the result is affected by the money, wouldn't it then be difficult or even impossible to ensure that every Hand wins about 25% of all games (see stats files)? This too speaks against your theory.
I'm sick of people coming on here and complaining that exchange holdem is not like the real game of Texas Holdem, due to "exciting hands" appearing. lol
Well, of course it isn't like real Holdem. Have you ever played it?
In real Holdem the majority of hands are folded pre-flop, but in x-holdem every hand will be in the game till a final conclusion is reached. The same happens in real holdem if you note your folded hole cards and see how often they would have actually won the pot if you had stayed in the game!!
Well, of course it isn't like real Holdem. Have you ever played it?
In real Holdem the majority of hands are folded pre-flop, but in x-holdem every hand will be in the game till a final conclusion is reached. The same happens in real holdem if you note your folded hole cards and see how often they would have actually won the pot if you had stayed in the game!!
Thanks fans, but I must have made that point at least a dozen times, along with others.
Hah - yes Grunny I have seen this point made by you and others many many times. I suppose since the meltdown the forum has started again, no?
hehe ...comparing ex.poker to real poker....head testing need your.....bout 5 rounds an hour real poker......internet..bout25 -30 an hour ...= exciting hands....of course cos theres more hands................
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539