Forums

General Betting

Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
hummingsox
11 Dec 09 17:00
Joined:
Date Joined: 24 Jul 06
| Topic/replies: 60 | Blogger: hummingsox's blog
total bets= 1356
total losers=169

strike rate 87.54%

average odds= 5.1/1

edge== 23.47%

longest winning sequence = 44

longest losing sequence = 4

standard deviation = 1.72


just wondered what you stats boys thought of these figures, good bad or indifferent.

thank you,

hummingsox
Pause Switch to Standard View how good or bad is this please?
Show More
Loading...
Report Eldrick December 11, 2009 5:18 PM GMT
strike rate 87.54%

average odds= 5.1/1

edge== 23.47%


uh, that sounds like a slightly bigger edge than 23% to me, although some people do use definitions of edge which are total tripe i suppose
Report aye robot December 11, 2009 5:21 PM GMT
I think he's laying.
Report birch2 December 11, 2009 5:27 PM GMT
strange

for someone so effective he doesn't know 1/5.1 from 5.1/1
Report hummingsox December 11, 2009 6:49 PM GMT
Yes I am laying.

And the average odds of the losing bets is 5.1/1, whats wrong with that birch?
Report Owmybrainhurtz December 11, 2009 7:08 PM GMT
I'm left wondering why, if you've made 23% profit from 1300+ bets, you would need anyone to tell you how good or bad it is!
Report againstthecrowd December 11, 2009 7:10 PM GMT
I think you are a tw@t....
Report hummingsox December 11, 2009 7:40 PM GMT
How very kind you all are.

I shant bother with this forum again
Report Eldrick December 11, 2009 7:48 PM GMT
yay :D
Report PJay December 11, 2009 7:56 PM GMT
All depends where you got the figures. If it's backfitting, they are probably useless.
Report aye robot December 11, 2009 7:57 PM GMT
I suppose the propper answer is: It depends.

If you've actually placed 1300 bets at an average odds of 6.1 (for all the bets- not just your losers), you're including ALL your bets in your analysis and you've made the profit you describe then obviously you've done pretty well and I don't see why you'd be asking.

I have an inkling that's not the case though- is this back testing or some kind of "what if" by any chance? If it is then the answer is quite different.

If it's back testing we're discussing here then you need to ask a different question, which is:
What are the chances that if I look hard enough I can find a filter that will find a big set of bets that show a profit?

There are plenty of results to work with and any number of filters you might apply, if you keep going it's pretty much certain that you will find something that will throw up what appears to be a meaningful group but which is (in all likelihood) just a random and basicly meaningless occurence.
Report aye robot December 11, 2009 7:58 PM GMT
Sorry PJ- I was busy typing when you beat me to it with a more succinct response.
Report PJay December 11, 2009 8:15 PM GMT
aye ;)
Report birch2 December 11, 2009 10:34 PM GMT
hummer

wot you searching for?

a pat on the back?

you wont find it here
Report kenilworth December 11, 2009 11:00 PM GMT
A couple of points to ponder. First of all, 1356 bets (a good sample) with a profit of 23% should not be dismissed without knowing the filters used to arrive at such a profit margin, as it would take more than 60 losers to cancel the profit achieved. Even backfitting, can anyone show a profit of 23% from 1356 bets ? I would doubt it. 23% would be very difficult to maintain, but I would be amazed if whatever method for selection is used, a respectable profit of some kind, perhaps say 10%, was not reached.
Report PJay December 12, 2009 1:25 AM GMT
kenilworth 12 Dec 00:00
Even backfitting, can anyone show a profit of 23% from 1356 bets ? I would doubt it.

Last 5 years. National Hunt. Back any runners from:
Paul W. Flynn
A B Haynes
P R Rodford
R H York
Mark Gillard
K M Prendergast
Sheena West
Mrs L J Young


140/1468 +764.45 = 52% profit
Report DaveEdwards December 12, 2009 1:33 AM GMT
Wondered when you'd be back Ken. Please, just try to see that there are different points of view from your own and different approaches to selection that may result in higher returns than you think are realistic. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Report kenilworth December 12, 2009 8:03 AM GMT
Dave Edwards, am I to assume you are stalking me ? I think you also ought to understand something, that if my view is different from yours, it is possible that I am right and you are wrong. By the way, why don't you start a thread, or are you just a sniper who has no original thoughts of your own ?
Report kenilworth December 12, 2009 8:19 AM GMT
Pjay, at the risk of incurring the wrath of my stalker Dave Edwards by answering your post, I reply to you. First of all I was referring to football, also with a system with filters, and not by looking at the profit / loss of trainers over the last 5 years and lifting the top 5 or 6 for no other reason than that. I suppose I could look at every footie team over the last 5 years and perhaps the top 5 drawing at home would show a big profit, I don't know. If it makes you happy I stand corrected and will crawl back into my shell.
Report DaveEdwards December 12, 2009 8:58 AM GMT
Ken, Stalking you? Don't flatter yourself. Why would I bother stalking someone whose opinion I don't respect? What I will do, however, is respond as and when the mood takes me.

Start a thread? I believe I did for If Its Wet. What I try to do is help people if they have said something that indicates they need it.

As you point out, your postings are in relation to football. When working in areas with bigger odds ranges it is possible to reach higher returns IF the methods of analysis are better than those used by other users. With football there is almost perfect information, especially for the EPL. Regardless of what statistical models you may use as the basis of your analysis, you can rest assured that someone else will be using the same thing or similar due to the number of people betting on that market, hence the difficulty in finding a larger edge.

Hope this helps.
Report DaveEdwards December 12, 2009 9:18 AM GMT
Oh, and on the point of stalking, wasn't it you who began responding to my posting?
Report PJay December 12, 2009 9:51 AM GMT
kenilworth 12 Dec 09:19
h a system with filters, and not by looking at the profit / loss of trainers over the last 5 years and lifting the top 5 or 6 for no other reason than that.

You can't pick and choose what backfitting is kenilworth. I have nothing against you, just showing you that your point was wrong. Certainly no ill harm meant.

I suppose I could look at every footie team over the last 5 years and perhaps the top 5 drawing at home would show a big profit, I don't know. If it makes you happy I stand corrected and will crawl back into my shell.
Easy kenilworth. Whatever Dave has against you I do not. Stay out of your shell and take it all in.
You would be able to backfit in football too. My point was that backfitting is pointless. If you wanted I cold get you a 50%+ system that only works on a Wednesday.
Report kenilworth December 12, 2009 11:43 AM GMT
Ken, Stalking you? Don't flatter yourself

I haven't posted for 2 weeks and around 2 hours plus later you pop up and at 2.30 am ! How sad is that, at best trawling the forum at that time in the morning ?

Regards threads initiated by you, from what I can see, you started about seven of which 4 didn't get a single reply, one bigging up Redknap, another having a pop at Liverpool, really original stuff. Do you just trawl the forum in the early hours of the morning ?
Report kenilworth December 12, 2009 11:47 AM GMT
Pjay, the original poster hasn't admitted to back fitting, others are presuming that. I just think that 23% profit from so many picks, average price around 1/5 shouldn't be dismissed so flippantly. Others may do that, but that is up to them.
Report DaveEdwards December 12, 2009 11:58 AM GMT
Why would the time that I'm trawling the forum be of interest to you? I certainly wasn't looking to find you. I merely commented on your reappearance following your statement that you were through with the forums.

And you felt the need to search for my postings in gubbed? And I'm the stalker?

As it happens I'd just got home after a night out. Had a great time. How did you spend your Friday night?
Report kenilworth December 12, 2009 12:11 PM GMT
As it happens I'd just got home after a night out. Had a great time.

...and had such a good time you felt the need to trawl the forum at 2:30 am ! How sad is that ??
Me? I didn't go out.I watched a match on tv, followed by a film, checked some of todays footie betting, looked at this particular thread and decided to post an opinion before retiring. Quite civilised IMO.
Report DaveEdwards December 12, 2009 12:19 PM GMT
Good for you Ken, good for you.

So everything I do is sad and you are very civilised?

The whole purpose of my postings against you have been your inability to see things from others point of view and the condescending manner in which you post to people you don't agree with. Your narrow mindedness is ultimately something that WILL restrict your potential profits. The longer it takes you to realise this point the longer it will benefit other betfair users.

That's it from me as far as you are concerned. Hope you have a civilsed weekend.
Report kenilworth December 12, 2009 12:45 PM GMT
Trawling the forum at 2:30 in the morning after a night out takes some explaining, and next to that, how can anyone take you seriously when you claim 45% ROI then change it to 23% after challenged, both figures figments of your imagination.
Report DaveEdwards December 12, 2009 1:00 PM GMT
kenilworth 12 Dec 13:45

Trawling the forum at 2:30 in the morning after a night out takes some explaining, and next to that, how can anyone take you seriously when you claim 45% ROI then change it to 23% after challenged, both figures figments of your imagination.

.........................................................................................................

What is there to explain about being on bf at that time. I got in and wasn't ready to go to bed. Your trying to make a point of this is as ridiculous as your narrow minded attitude.

As for the difference in the ROI I have already confirmed elsewhere the difference in those figures.

Your inability to look at anything outside your restricted frame of reference is what contributes to lower profits than you could make.
Report kenilworth December 12, 2009 1:39 PM GMT
What is there to explain about being on bf at that time. I got in and wasn't ready to go to bed. Your trying to make a point of this is as ridiculous as your narrow minded attitude.

As for the difference in the ROI I have already confirmed elsewhere the difference in those figures.

Your inability to look at anything outside your restricted frame of reference is what contributes to lower profits than you could make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I to believe trawling the forum at 2:30 am is a normal activity ?
Am I to believe 45% ROI, sorry 23% ROI, are normal profit margins ? Perhaps only those who not only keep records of bets but also how they feel at the time as well. Very spooky indeed.
These are activities I am unfamiliar with, so perhaps I need to get away from this forum as quickly as possible. I'm beginning to shudder.
Report DaveEdwards December 12, 2009 1:45 PM GMT
There are very specific for doing what I have said, and many posters agreed it was a good posting as you are well aware. Like I said, your narrowmindedness will be your downfall.

As you ignored my question previously I'll ask it again:
Why do you alter the staking on your selections? I'm not going to explain why you shouldn't as you wouldn't listen, but this demonstrates beyond any doubt that you have NOT done the required research to make your betting pay.

I don't care whether you stay or go Ken.

Your use of language is a constant source of amusement to me. Shudder, Astounded, Amazed. I think it is you who is the sad one if postings on this forum can generate those emotions within you.
Report kenilworth December 12, 2009 4:09 PM GMT
I don't care whether you stay or go Ken.

Just go away then, and perhaps work out how to calculate ROI.
Report DaveEdwards December 12, 2009 5:43 PM GMT
kenilworth 12 Dec 17:09

I don't care whether you stay or go Ken.

Just go away then, and perhaps work out how to calculate ROI.

.............................................................................

I said I didn't care whether you stay or go. I'm not going anywhere.

I'm fully aware of how to calculate ROI as previously stated.

OK, I'll ask you again. Why do you change stakes? Your continued refusal to answer this question only exposes you for the low level operator that you are.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com