|
By:
Oh- I should of mentioned that wot it is wot youve cracked is an express weigh to lose your monet!
I hope this clarifies the matter. |
|
By:
600 posts- A Tribute to Cartway!
Well done! |
|
By:
Weighed in then, thats it. Cracked. :)
|
|
By:
;)
|
|
By:
I think/hope people are thinking it through rather than spending money on it, although the odd ninepen'orth of testing aids concentration.
I suspect I have found slicer's method among a few others. |
|
By:
If anyone's found it Whelk- my monet is on you!
|
|
By:
steve that method is fraught with danger...the combinations do not compliment each other....if you lay the 0-0 at 12.0 for ten pounds you potentially lose 110 pounds.
if you back 0-0 half time you would have to use a stake less than the 0-0 lay otherwise wots the point...theres so many things wrong with that idea |
|
By:
COME ON NOW
|
|
By:
??
|
|
By:
Catt knows - spill the beans catt
|
|
By:
ok ok, I'll give you all clue. it involves the key number 1.21. If anyone can tell me how i know this, a medal your way. Even slicer might not know the relevance of this number to his methodology, but I assure you, to be as successfull as Slicer says, this number is crucial
|
|
By:
the shrewdies win their money BEFORE it turns in play ;)
|
|
By:
this strategy is pretty much impossible for me given my work patterns/demands on free time when off.
but i know the score :) another lifetime perhaps |
|
By:
Stockwell-1.21??
I thought the answer to Life, The Universe and Everything was 42!! |
|
By:
Excellent to see a flurry of postings on this testing subject...and from some fresh sharp minds!....and some very illuminating from Whelk. I've been somewhat detained on other matters recently so unable to give this the fullest attention unfortunately.
Will be returning to the frey in the new year though...ding, ding!...round 2 And a happy and successful Xmas and NY Dr Slicer.....little did we know back in the Euros that the graille hunt would still be going strong! |
|
By:
Your felicitations are reciprocated, Cartway. Congratulations on starting a thread on such a thought provoking subject. While I wish you anmd all BetFairians success in the long term, I am sure you will understand if I wish you all a total lack of success in deciphering the Slicer Method!
|
|
By:
reading some more of these post im wondering if my method isnt actually the slicer method but it requires the same betting patterns ie. 2 pre kick off one in play, 3 markets.
worse result for me is break even on a 0-0 draw :) |
|
By:
I meant to read this thread, but it's too long now. :-(
|
|
By:
Its not gone??
|
|
By:
Did anyone ever figure this out or was it just bull
|
|
By:
It was true, slicer is a millionaire now and selling his method for £10,000
|
|
By:
There is something to it. Not everything has been revealed. There are a number of such cadences, but there are also better ones if you are prepared to take a mixture of profits and small losses.
My 88p to one million challenge leaves me only £999984.99 short of the target. |
|
By:
'Cadences' - good word but not sure it's the right one
|
|
By:
It is a very precise word for the kinds of patterns you see in the movement of the markets.
I have the impression that most punters look for outcomes. My interest is patterns or 'cadences'. |
|
By:
When's the book out, whelk?
|
|
By:
Mark did you ever crack this if not do you still discuss it on msn.
|
|
By:
The truth is that NO bet at roulette is at true odds, and no combination of two or more bets at unfavourable odds will produce a winning system.
I was reminded of this when reading a post on the Betfair "General Betting" forum where someone is claiming to have 'discovered' a guaranteed 100% system on football by placing two bets, with the occasional third bet. With 553 posts to date , it seems there are a lot of gullible people around. Quite simply, for this to be true, then one market MUST be out of line with the true odds, and if this were the case, the market would soon pick up on it. Once again, no combination of unfavourable bets can possibly produce a winning system, but nevertheless, the 'hunt' goes on with conferences being held to discuss various ideas. Good luck to them. I can personally think of better things to do with my spare time, (not that I have any), but the 'discoverer' must be having a quiet chuckle at how naive some people are. |
|
By:
Anybody with a brain figured this out when they first started betting...
Attention this hoax gets just shows where the money comes from :) |
|
By:
Just noticed yet another revival of this thread.
Mr Catt is one norty feline. The part of his posting about me selling the System is NOT true. "A goose that lays goalden eggs is never for sale!" I hope this clarifies the matter. |
|
By:
Mostly I write for kids. There are a couple of my books available at present. Two more probably out in April and another in June.
I tend to collect ideas and assemble them into the story when the time is right. The book of the forum (well it's something not quite that but draws on a lot of things I've observed here) is still in the collection stage. I agree what is said about the unlikelihood of the 'system'. If slicer has one such of his own he has omitted to tell the entire story, and wisely so. There are no leaks in the dam so the idea of a lay and a back with another lay if the first loses won't win consistently, just like that. But there are some 'buts'. If you have two markets where one outgreens the redness of a red one then you are happy. If you can win quite a lot more often than you lose a little (or break even) then that's happy too. I'm still working with my 88p. Testing with large numbers of quids isn't wise. Then there's 'cadences' the pattern of movement. Cast between each wave and you'll cast further out, your feet stay drier and you catch more fish. Happy fishing. |
|
By:
slicer why dont u sell it i'd buy it. how much profit have u made using this system, if i may ask thanks
|
|
By:
I have never sold tips or systems and I never will.
Anyone who sells his system does not have a successful system. If a system works one doesnt need monet from other sauces. Whelk- I am a collector of childrens book, I have a complete set of the original Noddy books amongst others. If you give me the info on your books I may add them to my collection. Good luck with your puntering and gambolling. btw- their are several good opportunities on the West Ham/Fulham game and others this pm. |
|
By:
no worries
|
|
By:
It is a mathematical impossibility for a combination of two (or more) negative expectancy bets to result in a 'guaranteed' profit. This thread is just a big wind up, but it is entertaining to see how many people are being suckered. You should start a new religion Slicer.
|
|
By:
Nothink wrong with the religion I have at the moment thank you!
The Very Reverend Dr Aristotle Slicer PhD MB BS B Pharm MRCVS DRCOG Cert BHD Archbishop, Chief Mullah, Chief Rabbit, Jah Minor of North Southeast Mumbai |
|
By:
He IS the messiah!
|
|
By:
No I am not, I am just a very norty boy!
I hope this clarifies the matter. |
|
By:
I agree, cpfc4me, that a scenario such as lay 0-0 HT, bet 0-0 FT and lay 0-0 FT cannot work (very often). There are a host of such systems - lay the draw, bet the loser, lay the winner, ....
So if slicer is claiming to have something like that it's a wind up. But there are a few winning opportunities if you get away from betting outcomes. |
|
By:
But there are a few winning opportunities if you get away from betting outcomes.
Can you explain what you mean there? I'm a simple man. |
|
By:
I suspect that we're all simple souls or we wouldn't be here.
Outcomes - You need Spurs to win - you need less than 2.5 goals - you need someone to get a red card. If it doesn't happen you lose. You have to guarantee a return whatever the outcome and that's what bookies do reliably. It's difficult to make a book with no overround, but in play gives you the opportunity to respond to the dynamics of the markets. Slicer's method as described seems a bit simplistic to me because if the markets didn't adjust they would leak money, which is why I suspect he isn't telling the entire story. Essentially you are trying to make an overround book in play. You know, for example, that you can't have the 5 to 1 you need for a particular outcome, but you also know that the dynamics of the market will deliver it - if you need it. This is not a trivial exercise and I'm far from complete in my fun and games with it. That's why I suggest you investigate using very small stakes initially. |