how good or bad is this please?

I think he's laying.

Yes I am laying.

And the average odds of the losing bets is 5.1/1, whats wrong with that birch?

I think you are a tw@t....

yay :D

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.

aye ;)

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.

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.

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.

Oh, and on the point of stalking, wasn't it you who began responding to my posting?

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 ?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.