|
By:
Hows it gone today lads ???
|
|
By:
?
|
|
By:
.
|
|
By:
Spill the beans ttt .
Any better ? |
|
By:
Johnny Mullen 9 8 7 6 WON
Highland 9/2 4 7/2 3 5/2 9/4 WON Its A Classic 6 11/2 5 9/2 WON Fulford 10/3 3 5/2 2 7/4 WON. No better,no. |
|
By:
This has benn a great thread but seems to be dying on its feet now.
|
|
By:
The trick is to do the opposite.
|
|
By:
2.55 BACK SIR JOSH
|
|
By:
-1
|
|
By:
Bang 3:00
Drumshambo (USA) 5, 11-2, 5, 9-2, 4 wins |
|
By:
missed that one by 0.1 ffs
|
|
By:
Are you backing them now ttt ?
|
|
By:
Just backing the shorteners over 3/1SP.Most races have one.If there are more than one I'll pick one,probably the shortest sp one.
|
|
By:
320 Hold Fast
|
|
By:
-2
|
|
By:
330 anjomarba
|
|
By:
-3
|
|
By:
335 manjam
|
|
By:
Manjam for you here in the 3.35
|
|
By:
i'm sure you'll be working out you need to be on these steamers before they occur though, as in getting the drift before it occurs. That is the difficult part, good luck
|
|
By:
Hi buzzer,I remember you from the infamous footsoldier thread lol
Backing these before they shorten is a winning game.Seen plenty of these win,so just finding out if its still a winning game at the odds I'm getting. |
|
By:
-4
|
|
By:
ifandbutwhy 12 out to 22, on here, wins
|
|
By:
yes TTT i bought one of £200 a day threads up today, wonder where he's gone ;)
|
|
By:
Probably losing £200 a day.
|
|
By:
I think, just my opinion, that footsoldiers invented that poster himself when the sh it was about to hit the fan. A last resort to get some more money in, he said he was bankrolling him and the said he'd changed his mind and would anyone else stump up the money for him. I could be wrong of course but the posting styles bore a resemblance.
|
|
By:
405 may chorus
|
|
By:
-5
|
|
By:
At least I'm giving the layers some belief.
|
|
By:
Tiger- it would be easy enough to see whether the horses you layed earlier on in this process were value to back- just do the same sum I suggested before (add up all the reciprocals and divide by the number of losing lays). If the result is less than 1 then they were back value, more than 1 lay value. The trick is finding strategies that deliver a result far enough away from 1 to cover the comission. 0.95 is good enough if you're backing.
|
|
By:
Cheers Mr Robot,will do when I get a big enough sample.
|
|
By:
hi aye robot,
I did your calculation on my last 3 months results (nearly 25,000 bets) and got a number of 1.067. Luckily I'm laying so it confirms that my strategy seems to be profitable so far. What exactly are we calculating? Is it some sort of statistical indication? |
|
By:
Looks like a good enough edge to profit from,especially multiplied by +250 bets per day.Well done !
|
|
By:
440 Sagunt
|
|
By:
440 Sunset Boulevard aswell (note to self,wait til nearer the off)
|
|
By:
-7
|
|
By:
Wayne- it's a very simple way of calculating the difference between the outcome you would expect from your results if all the odds you layed were "true" (eg half of your lays at 2 won) and your actual outcome.
This example illustrates: if you layed 40 horses at 4 you would expect 10 to win if they were all "true" odds, if that happened the sum would come out at 1. If 20 of them won the result would be 0.5- obviously that's back value, whilst if only 5 won then the reult would be 2, which is lay value. Essentially it's the same method that you would use to calculate the over-round on a book, in your case it shows you that your lays are delivering the same as you would be getting if you were a bookie laying a 106.7% book. It's a nice easy way to see how you're doing fundamentally without your staking confusing the issue, but it has it's limitations- for starters you need a lot of results (imagine the sum if you layed 10 horses and none of them won). The other problem is that it doesn't give you any indication of confidence, for example imagine that you layed 2000 horses at 1000 and only 1 won, the resullt of that sum would be 2- which looks fantastic but the reality is that you're only 1 win away from being wiped out entirely. So basicly- the higher the odds you lay at the more results you need to make a meaningfull calculation. Your 25,000 results is good if you're laying at 3, not so good if you're laying at 300. Without getting into propper statisics (which I don't know much about) you can get an idea of the confidence you can have in your results by asking "how many adverse results would I need to turn this around". Obviously you want that number to be as big as possible. |
|
By:
I would think that a 6.7% edge,over 25,000 bets,would have him so far ahead even Red Rum wouldn't catch him.
|
|
By:
I agree- frankly his P&L should tell the story with that reasult unless the bets are at long odds. I use this kind of analysis if I'm testing something new and cranking up the stakes but after I while I just let things run and stop worrying.
|
|
By:
aye robot - Thanks for your explanation. My P&L is looking OK (as you suspected), but I started my strategy a while ago with a small bank, so it's good to get a second opinion. I'll keep doing what I'm doing!
|