a 20% b 25% c 30% e 35% d 40% or better e below 20% f other
Ideally id like s system with around a 35% strike rate but i reckon findong value would be hard. Trouble is I hate really long losing runs of 10 or more.
if you arb then 1% is ok but no good long term as you need too much £
trading is the same you need the % in your favour
i.e. 10 losers versus 2 winners or 10 wins versus 2 losers its all down to price
then there is gambling thats you versus the world your opinion versus everyone else
you do the maths
if you arb then 1% is ok but no good long term as you need too much £trading is the same you need the % in your favouri.e. 10 losers versus 2 winners or 10 wins versus 2 losers its all down to pricethen there is gambling thats you versus the world y
Speaking of 1000.0 shots, it's very very rare to see a pre off 1000 horse win a race, I've only seen it once and that was Bermondsey Bob iirc, so the daily 1/2 a million layer on each 1000 race must be doing pretty well I reckon, even though he took a hit in 2008 (in-runing 1000 shots are a different story).
Speaking of 1000.0 shots, it's very very rare to see a pre off 1000 horse win a race, I've only seen it once and that was Bermondsey Bob iirc, so the daily 1/2 a million layer on each 1000 race must be doing pretty well I reckon, even though he took
harder to get better odds on here though at shorter odds than bigger odds, ive read that since betfair sp started returns better than bookies sp by 39% before commission. But im guessing most of this 39% from winners at 10to1 plus?
harder to get better odds on here though at shorter odds than bigger odds, ive read that since betfair sp started returns better than bookies sp by 39% before commission. But im guessing most of this 39% from winners at 10to1 plus?
d the key word is 'gambler' -if you are doing it for fun then the higher the strike rate (with sensible stakes) is best as it gives you more bizz and hence fun.
d the key word is 'gambler' -if you are doing it for fun then the higher the strike rate (with sensible stakes) is best as it gives you more bizz and hence fun.
basically you just need to divide1 by your average odds. the difference between 1 and the number you get is the strike rate you need to break even excluding commission.
eg.
average odds 2.5
1 / 2.5 = 0.4
Therefore you need a 60% strike rate to break even excluding commission at average odds of 2.5
basically you just need to divide1 by your average odds. the difference between 1 and the number you get is the strike rate you need to break even excluding commission.eg. average odds 2.51 / 2.5 = 0.4Therefore you need a 60% strike rate to break eve
basically you just need to divide1 by your average odds. the difference between 1 and the number you get is the strike rate you need to break even excluding commission.
eg.
average odds 2.5
1 / 2.5 = 0.4
Therefore you need a 60% strike rate to break even excluding commission at average odds of 2.5
Without taking commission into account, you just need a 40% strike rate to break even. 40 times out of 100 you win 1.5 ie 60. 60 times out of a hundred you lose 1 ie 60.
basically you just need to divide1 by your average odds. the difference between 1 and the number you get is the strike rate you need to break even excluding commission.eg.average odds 2.51 / 2.5 = 0.4Therefore you need a 60% strike rate to break even
Depends on your psychology.Iin an ideal world you want a higher strike rate as possible if you don't want losing runs, but the higher your strike the more likely your Roi will suffer.
Depends on your psychology.Iin an ideal world you want a higher strike rate as possible if you don't want losing runs, but the higher your strike the more likely your Roi will suffer.
Irchester, you have a losing mentality and you know it.
Rather than implicitly asking, 'how long should I have to go before winning?' (even if your winnings are not going to recoup yr losses), you shd be asking y/s 'how can I get an edge? How can I maintain my edge?'
I am pretty sure you know this is right.
In yr place, I wd set m/s this exercise. Find a sport (horse racing wd be best) where you have a sense of y/s as being able to come up w/ yr own odds and bet on a series of something like 100 horses which you think are going to lose.
By this I mean that you wd not make them the favourite in the race. But make sure that you are betting so that you think you have an edge on the price you take i.e. subjective probabilities are in yr favour.
For the sake of the experiment, I wd bet on a series of horses price over 20-1 which you give a more than 5% chance of winning.
Just bet the £2 minimum on each race and don't be too concerned about yr results.
The experiment will be a success if you can burn through the £200 (or whatever) w/out caring about anything but the odds you are getting and yr perceived edge.
It will be doubly a success if you end up turning a profit.
Irchester, you have a losing mentality and you know it. Rather than implicitly asking, 'how long should I have to go before winning?' (even if your winnings are not going to recoup yr losses), you shd be asking y/s 'how can I get an edge? How can I m