General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Just interested to see really. Been considering it for a few months now, although I'm still running my business at the moment. Curious to know if there is anyone out there, and by that I mean it is you only form of income.....
Show More
Yeah I wander about listening to Pink Floyd quite often. Oh wait, that means I'm a Prog ambler.
Back in October 2009, in an interview in the Evening Standard, Mark Davies, MD at Betfair said, (of pro gamblers)-
"There are very few people who are consistently profitable, and none of these people are in the UK"
Says it all, really.
"There are very few people who are consistently profitable, and none of these people are in the UK"
Says it all, really.
my mate is a pro bettor on hear, he also does window cleaning on the side
all depends on the criteria.
Betfair may class you as a pro only after you have won consistently for 5 or so years .
someone could live solely off gambling for as year or two before running out of luck ,or finding their edge has been taken away etc ..or worst still losing their bank 2 or 3 times in quick succession ...a wipeout.
Betfair may class you as a pro only after you have won consistently for 5 or so years .
someone could live solely off gambling for as year or two before running out of luck ,or finding their edge has been taken away etc ..or worst still losing their bank 2 or 3 times in quick succession ...a wipeout.
of course there are. The ones who say it cant be done are the ones who can't do it
Gamblers dont last long .... why cause thy gamble ....... now traders or lays on here there are plenty ... without them thats traders and layers you would not have a market ....... gamblers dont make the market .
Now before any smart arse comes on .... zip has been in this game since 1935 .. seen em all ... been there dont that ..... got the Tee Shirt .. But i am always willing to listen to any sensible arguement ..................zipper
Is anyone on here a pro gambler?
Yes I am pro gambler what do want to know? I joined about 5 years ago, since then lost about £2000 easy nothing to it.
Yes I am pro gambler what do want to know? I joined about 5 years ago, since then lost about £2000 easy nothing to it.
sparky2006 Joined: 07 Oct 06
Replies: 220 21 Jul 10 18:01
of course there are. The ones who say it cant be done are the ones who can't do it
Oddly enough, I suspect that statement is very very wrong on the whole.
Replies: 220 21 Jul 10 18:01
of course there are. The ones who say it cant be done are the ones who can't do it
Oddly enough, I suspect that statement is very very wrong on the whole.
Hi, I'm a pro gambler. I can't tell you how to win though, sorry.
I'm no pro gambler....i just financially support the ones that are [smiley:crazy]
i used to have a mate who was a pro gambler
in 2008 he had 4 bets
in 2008 he had 4 bets
^^^If I was to apply the same logic and discipline, to my general bets that I do to my poker play. I might have far fewer bets but a much better PL.
80+vat that some good going, congrats Do you still play for the fun of it or do it for the dough?
I know of one definite on here. Lays selected rags, with a massive bank and makes it pay full time!
macarony, i never made profit on betfair until i understood the concept of value which i happened across learning to play poker. Now i place a bet only when i really believe it to be "value". For me personally these bets are almost always as a lay bet, where say a partisan public (for example England football matches) results in a compressed price. I also find a reasonable level of (perceived) value inplay, especially tennis and golf.
I should add that, much to my annoyance i am a shocking poker player and have given up on it
I should add that, much to my annoyance i am a shocking poker player and have given up on it
The words 'professional' and 'gambler' are in some ways mutually exclusive.
If you have a method that wins consistently, it is no gamble to employ this method, at least not in the most commonly held senses of the word 'gamble.'
There has to be a better short phrase to describe somebody who makes their living by betting profitably.
If you have a method that wins consistently, it is no gamble to employ this method, at least not in the most commonly held senses of the word 'gamble.'
There has to be a better short phrase to describe somebody who makes their living by betting profitably.
I'd need about 250k to quit my job. I'd bet 50k a time and then eventually 100k a time if bank increased.
Deadly Earnest Joined: 16 Mar 04
Replies: 1537 21 Jul 10 23:40
The words 'professional' and 'gambler' are in some ways mutually exclusive.
If you have a method that wins consistently, it is no gamble to employ this method, at least not in the most commonly held senses of the word 'gamble.'
There has to be a better short phrase to describe somebody who makes their living by betting profitably.
The things is that some of these 'methods that win consistently' will be due to luck. In the same way that lottery winners are lucky, there will be people on here who win consistently just by luck. If you do a statistical test to show that the likelihood that someone has an edge rather than winning due to luck alone is 99.999% that doesn't prove anything taken in isolation.
I went from 52 consecutive winning weeks in 2009 to only 19 out of 26 in the first half of 2010. That's a huge difference in consistency.
Even using arguments starting with 'in the long term' still don't prove anything. You don't have an infinite amount of time, and an edge cannnot possibly be quantified exactly on a single straight bet taken in isolation on sports events (there are exceptions that I won't go into here). Success rests on estimating odds/value as closely as possible, taking calculated risks. The best you can hope to work with will always be an estimate though.
Replies: 1537 21 Jul 10 23:40
The words 'professional' and 'gambler' are in some ways mutually exclusive.
If you have a method that wins consistently, it is no gamble to employ this method, at least not in the most commonly held senses of the word 'gamble.'
There has to be a better short phrase to describe somebody who makes their living by betting profitably.
The things is that some of these 'methods that win consistently' will be due to luck. In the same way that lottery winners are lucky, there will be people on here who win consistently just by luck. If you do a statistical test to show that the likelihood that someone has an edge rather than winning due to luck alone is 99.999% that doesn't prove anything taken in isolation.
I went from 52 consecutive winning weeks in 2009 to only 19 out of 26 in the first half of 2010. That's a huge difference in consistency.
Even using arguments starting with 'in the long term' still don't prove anything. You don't have an infinite amount of time, and an edge cannnot possibly be quantified exactly on a single straight bet taken in isolation on sports events (there are exceptions that I won't go into here). Success rests on estimating odds/value as closely as possible, taking calculated risks. The best you can hope to work with will always be an estimate though.
I had a good season last season but I'm not sure whether it was just luck or whether it's because I'm good at betting.
If you had an axiomatic system for betting and selecting and you made a profit from
10 bets I would say that there was most likely a degree of luck involved.
If you made a profit using the exact same methodology over a 100 bets I would do a Simon Cowell and raise my eyes and take more notice.
If you were still making regular profits after a 1000 bets I would be thinking this person definitely has something going.
If after 10,000 bets and still making a regular profit I would think this person has
an edge and if there is any luck involved, would be miniscule.
10 bets I would say that there was most likely a degree of luck involved.
If you made a profit using the exact same methodology over a 100 bets I would do a Simon Cowell and raise my eyes and take more notice.
If you were still making regular profits after a 1000 bets I would be thinking this person definitely has something going.
If after 10,000 bets and still making a regular profit I would think this person has
an edge and if there is any luck involved, would be miniscule.
I am a male prostitute, a rent boy if you will, and I gamble regularly.
Compound Magic,
Try doing a simulation of 10,000 coin tosses where the payout is even, but the chance of heads is 50.1% and tails is 49.9% (obviously you bet heads every time).
You might see that a chart is generated that looks like it contains a steady upward trend (or even possibly a steady downward trend), or it's moving sideways, or up and down randomly so that it looks that there is no edge.
My point is that if I did a coin toss simulation like this and told you there is more chance of heads than tails, but didn't tell you what the edge was, after 10,000 tosses, it would be impossible to tell whether the chance was 50.05%, 50.1% or 50.15%. The best you could do would be to create a probability distribution. The same applies to any sequence of bets.
Eventually the chance of winning being due to luck alone will indeed be minuscule, but it never goes away entirely (as in the chance being infinitely small). You may be able to say something like 'the chance of these profits being due to luck alone is 1 in 100,000', but if you looked at a 100,000 accounts and this one had these characteristics, there would be nothing remarkable about that.
Also your calculations may be based on wrong assumptions, just like the finance professionals who said that a crash like this would occur once every billions of years.
I have an axiomatic system, and what that does is give you a foundation to support your theory, which then becomes more solid when what you predict (turning a profit) actually happens. I think you still have to live with the fact that you can't prove anything, only show that something is so extremely likely that there is no justification for doubt.
Try doing a simulation of 10,000 coin tosses where the payout is even, but the chance of heads is 50.1% and tails is 49.9% (obviously you bet heads every time).
You might see that a chart is generated that looks like it contains a steady upward trend (or even possibly a steady downward trend), or it's moving sideways, or up and down randomly so that it looks that there is no edge.
My point is that if I did a coin toss simulation like this and told you there is more chance of heads than tails, but didn't tell you what the edge was, after 10,000 tosses, it would be impossible to tell whether the chance was 50.05%, 50.1% or 50.15%. The best you could do would be to create a probability distribution. The same applies to any sequence of bets.
Eventually the chance of winning being due to luck alone will indeed be minuscule, but it never goes away entirely (as in the chance being infinitely small). You may be able to say something like 'the chance of these profits being due to luck alone is 1 in 100,000', but if you looked at a 100,000 accounts and this one had these characteristics, there would be nothing remarkable about that.
Also your calculations may be based on wrong assumptions, just like the finance professionals who said that a crash like this would occur once every billions of years.
I have an axiomatic system, and what that does is give you a foundation to support your theory, which then becomes more solid when what you predict (turning a profit) actually happens. I think you still have to live with the fact that you can't prove anything, only show that something is so extremely likely that there is no justification for doubt.
Yes I'm a professional.
Here is a professional bet for you...
6.40 Epsom Lost In Paris (currently around 3/1 / 4.00)
Here is a professional bet for you...
6.40 Epsom Lost In Paris (currently around 3/1 / 4.00)
I won't be having a penny on it but I'd love to here your explanation why this is a bet.
8.50 Epsom Space Station (currently around 5/2 / 2.50)
The Investor
I concur with what you have detailed. Nothing is guaranteed infallible in systematic
gambling on sports where the chances are incalculable. However using an objective approach
to the selection process is streets better than either, guess work, subjective systems, intuition, following the money or a myriad of other selection ideas. A good test I
utilize is ~ What if every horse that won lost, would the objective method I am using still be profitable.
Of course you still have to price the selections to know which ones are value to lay or back and have a staking method that copes with exceptionally bad losing runs.
I concur with what you have detailed. Nothing is guaranteed infallible in systematic
gambling on sports where the chances are incalculable. However using an objective approach
to the selection process is streets better than either, guess work, subjective systems, intuition, following the money or a myriad of other selection ideas. A good test I
utilize is ~ What if every horse that won lost, would the objective method I am using still be profitable.
Of course you still have to price the selections to know which ones are value to lay or back and have a staking method that copes with exceptionally bad losing runs.
ANOTHERONEBITESTHEDUST, a curious name for somebody who describes himself as a professional gambler.
no moves,
u r looking at it from the wrong point of view - another one bites the dust could be what a winner says each time s/he wins!
u r looking at it from the wrong point of view - another one bites the dust could be what a winner says each time s/he wins!
Betting Profit & Loss
22-Jul-2010
Horse Racing: £488.37 | Tote: | Total P&L: £488.37
Horse Racing Showing 1 - 9 of 9 markets
Market Start time Settled date Profit/loss (£)
Horse Racing / Donc 22nd Jul : 1m4f Hcap 22-Jul-10 21:00 22-Jul-10 21:05 47.55
Horse Racing / Epsm 22nd Jul : 7f Hcap 22-Jul-10 20:50 22-Jul-10 20:57 100.81
Horse Racing / Folk 22nd Jul : 1m1f Hcap 22-Jul-10 20:40 22-Jul-10 20:45 95.78
Horse Racing / Donc 22nd Jul : 1m2f Hcap 22-Jul-10 20:30 22-Jul-10 20:34 47.55
Horse Racing / Epsm 22nd Jul : 1m2f Mdn Stks 22-Jul-10 19:45 22-Jul-10 19:56 50.40
Horse Racing / Folk 22nd Jul : 7f Hcap 22-Jul-10 19:35 22-Jul-10 19:41 47.55
Horse Racing / Epsm 22nd Jul : 6f Mdn Stks 22-Jul-10 19:15 22-Jul-10 19:23 47.55
Horse Racing / Epsm 22nd Jul : 5f Hcap 22-Jul-10 18:40 22-Jul-10 18:48 50.40
Horse Racing / Folk 22nd Jul : To Be Placed 22-Jul-10 18:00 22-Jul-10 18:04 0.78
22-Jul-2010
Horse Racing: £488.37 | Tote: | Total P&L: £488.37
Horse Racing Showing 1 - 9 of 9 markets
Market Start time Settled date Profit/loss (£)
Horse Racing / Donc 22nd Jul : 1m4f Hcap 22-Jul-10 21:00 22-Jul-10 21:05 47.55
Horse Racing / Epsm 22nd Jul : 7f Hcap 22-Jul-10 20:50 22-Jul-10 20:57 100.81
Horse Racing / Folk 22nd Jul : 1m1f Hcap 22-Jul-10 20:40 22-Jul-10 20:45 95.78
Horse Racing / Donc 22nd Jul : 1m2f Hcap 22-Jul-10 20:30 22-Jul-10 20:34 47.55
Horse Racing / Epsm 22nd Jul : 1m2f Mdn Stks 22-Jul-10 19:45 22-Jul-10 19:56 50.40
Horse Racing / Folk 22nd Jul : 7f Hcap 22-Jul-10 19:35 22-Jul-10 19:41 47.55
Horse Racing / Epsm 22nd Jul : 6f Mdn Stks 22-Jul-10 19:15 22-Jul-10 19:23 47.55
Horse Racing / Epsm 22nd Jul : 5f Hcap 22-Jul-10 18:40 22-Jul-10 18:48 50.40
Horse Racing / Folk 22nd Jul : To Be Placed 22-Jul-10 18:00 22-Jul-10 18:04 0.78
Total available: £59,567.17
Wallets: Main: £59,567.17 | AUS: £0.00
Wallets: Main: £59,567.17 | AUS: £0.00
Total available: £79,567.17
Wallets: Main: £79,567.17 | AUS: £0.00
any1 can post that, can't understand why any1 would need their ego massaged so much that they have to post figures on an internet forum.
Wallets: Main: £79,567.17 | AUS: £0.00
any1 can post that, can't understand why any1 would need their ego massaged so much that they have to post figures on an internet forum.
Facts lol D/ssonf & Dust Must Be No Good At The Aussie Stuff
Come on, dlarssonf... some catching up to do! 
Total available: £179,567.17
Wallets: Main: $179,567.17 | AUS: £0.40
Some good points raised on this fred, seems there's not going to be a definitive answer though. Each to his own I suppose?
Total available: £179,567.17
Wallets: Main: $179,567.17 | AUS: £0.40
Some good points raised on this fred, seems there's not going to be a definitive answer though. Each to his own I suppose?
TheAdvisor
"Just interested to see really".... Curious to know if there is anyone out there, and by that I mean it is you only form of income.....
Yes, there are quite a few, just under 3 years myself, but I know at least half a dozen guys who have been much longer.
There are several more who I am pretty sure would fit that description who post on the forum but don't know them personally.
"Just interested to see really".... Curious to know if there is anyone out there, and by that I mean it is you only form of income.....
Yes, there are quite a few, just under 3 years myself, but I know at least half a dozen guys who have been much longer.
There are several more who I am pretty sure would fit that description who post on the forum but don't know them personally.
Compound Magic
Is it me being stupid or what?
You said earlier, "A good test I utilize is ~ What if every horse that won lost, would the objective method I am using still be profitable"
Surely if every horse that won was viewed as a loser, you'd have no winners at all, so the method, objective or not could not be profitable could it?
One method I've used in the past to validate a selection source was what I think was called the 'countback' method.
Say you'd run a profitable system/method over a reasonable period and had lets say 60 winners from 300 bets. I would remove the 12 longest priced winners from the analysis (20% of the total number of winners) and see if the system/method was still in profit.
Is it me being stupid or what?
You said earlier, "A good test I utilize is ~ What if every horse that won lost, would the objective method I am using still be profitable"
Surely if every horse that won was viewed as a loser, you'd have no winners at all, so the method, objective or not could not be profitable could it?
One method I've used in the past to validate a selection source was what I think was called the 'countback' method.
Say you'd run a profitable system/method over a reasonable period and had lets say 60 winners from 300 bets. I would remove the 12 longest priced winners from the analysis (20% of the total number of winners) and see if the system/method was still in profit.
top2rated
Two parts to this answer ~ I will see if I can explain it clearly.
If I only had 1 Selection to win in each race and my selections won 2 out of 8 races then if all the winners in the eight races became losers I would miss out on those two winners but my other 6 selections may win 1 or two of those races that I did not have the winner in because they came second which would now be promoted to 1st
The other part is that I back multiple selections that I deem are value to back in each race and also lay multiple selections in the same event.
I may have 50.00 to win on two or three selections and lay to a liability 4 or 5 horses in the same event.
In a 100% book if I can find value (over my odds) on one or more selections it stands to reason that the remaining horses must be under my odds and therefore a lay bet
By doing it this way I can have smaller bets, pay less commission and have smaller losing runs.
Hope that answer is clear.
Two parts to this answer ~ I will see if I can explain it clearly.
If I only had 1 Selection to win in each race and my selections won 2 out of 8 races then if all the winners in the eight races became losers I would miss out on those two winners but my other 6 selections may win 1 or two of those races that I did not have the winner in because they came second which would now be promoted to 1st
The other part is that I back multiple selections that I deem are value to back in each race and also lay multiple selections in the same event.
I may have 50.00 to win on two or three selections and lay to a liability 4 or 5 horses in the same event.
In a 100% book if I can find value (over my odds) on one or more selections it stands to reason that the remaining horses must be under my odds and therefore a lay bet
By doing it this way I can have smaller bets, pay less commission and have smaller losing runs.
Hope that answer is clear.
johnizere Joined: 17 Mar 04
Replies: 6122 23 Jul 10 07:37
Come on, dlarssonf... some catching up to do! Silly
Total available: £179,567.17
Wallets: Main: $179,567.17 | AUS: £0.40
Some good points raised on this fred, seems there's not going to be a definitive answer though. Each to his own I suppose?
well done John another average week for you mate[;)]
Replies: 6122 23 Jul 10 07:37
Come on, dlarssonf... some catching up to do! Silly
Total available: £179,567.17
Wallets: Main: $179,567.17 | AUS: £0.40
Some good points raised on this fred, seems there's not going to be a definitive answer though. Each to his own I suppose?
well done John another average week for you mate[;)]
''Back in October 2009, in an interview in the Evening Standard, Mark Davies, MD at Betfair said, (of pro gamblers)-
"There are very few people who are consistently profitable, and none of these people are in the UK"''
LIES
"There are very few people who are consistently profitable, and none of these people are in the UK"''
LIES
He was misquoted duncan. He was talking about the five or so biggest winners on betfair, none of whom are from the UK.
Thirsk 23rd Jul - 17:30 5f Hcap
Lay
Speedy Senorita 6.2 £106.00 £657.20 £551.20
This is how it is done [:)]
Lay
Speedy Senorita 6.2 £106.00 £657.20 £551.20
This is how it is done [:)]
gedgd
gds
g
dfsg
sgh
es
yrty
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MMMMMMMMANNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
gds
g
dfsg
sgh
es
yrty
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MMMMMMMMANNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
[>o] [>o]
Feck N. Eejit Joined: 10 Jan 02
Replies: 1470 23 Jul 10 16:35
He was misquoted duncan. He was talking about the five or so biggest winners on betfair, none of whom are from the UK.
Do you know who the biggest winners are Feck? Is Betting Promotion one of them?
I think more than half of BF customers are in Britain. Ironic that the biggest winners are all from abroad.
Replies: 1470 23 Jul 10 16:35
He was misquoted duncan. He was talking about the five or so biggest winners on betfair, none of whom are from the UK.
Do you know who the biggest winners are Feck? Is Betting Promotion one of them?
I think more than half of BF customers are in Britain. Ironic that the biggest winners are all from abroad.
If Feck wants 9/2, I'll lay him 9/4 cos he is a big mister. Maybe, softly, softly, is the way to go?
Investor, not sure what you mean by 'Betting Promotion'. Two of the biggest would have to be the Hong Kong (presumably the late Alan Woods) mob and the Australian guy you've probably seen articles on. Both operate with computerised tissues.
Norma, I'm the sh1te under these guy's shoes. If you offer me 9/4 offer them 7/4.
Norma, I'm the sh1te under these guy's shoes. If you offer me 9/4 offer them 7/4.
you mean Zeljko?
I didn't know the Hong Kong guys even used Betfair, but then I'm not clued up on horse racing stuff. I think the pros in horse racing making more than bettors on any other sport though.
Betting promotion is a Swedish market maker for betting exchanges. As they are a listed company you can find out a lot about them relative to the other secretive large operators. They focus on football and don't get involved with horse racing at all.
www.bettingpromotion.com
I didn't know the Hong Kong guys even used Betfair, but then I'm not clued up on horse racing stuff. I think the pros in horse racing making more than bettors on any other sport though.
Betting promotion is a Swedish market maker for betting exchanges. As they are a listed company you can find out a lot about them relative to the other secretive large operators. They focus on football and don't get involved with horse racing at all.
www.bettingpromotion.com
They focus on football and don't get involved with horse racing at all
I think they tried but found horse racing markets didnt operate in such a straight forward manner as football. Got the impression they fought it was bent, but could be wrong
I think they tried but found horse racing markets didnt operate in such a straight forward manner as football. Got the impression they fought it was bent, but could be wrong
What is this Swedish company actually doing? Just laying short price favourites?
I'm a pro gambler. I was taught how to make millions on here by my good friend Elliot Short. I am literally rolling in it now.
Investor, I'd agree the horse racing pros make most despite the corruption. There's a lot more opportunities with decent liquidity in horse racing and it's a lot harder to work out a tissue because of the number of variables. I've done well out of horse racing despite the fact that I find, on average, I get 30% more on the losers than I do on the winners. That's equivalent to having 30% of your stake voided on every winning bet. Much of that is down to corruption. I reckon a bigger percentage of my profits goes back into racing (if feeding insiders could be termed that) than most bookmakers do.
HooRoo Joined: 09 Apr 07
Replies: 47 21 Jul 10 16:30
Back in October 2009, in an interview in the Evening Standard, Mark Davies, MD at Betfair said, (of pro gamblers)-
"There are very few people who are consistently profitable, and none of these people are in the UK"
Says it all, really.
well hes talking rubbish or clearly hasnt examined his clientbase well enough.
ive been on here 8 years and made a profit totally from betfair for the past 6 years.
my friend has done likewise for a similar period and we both live in london so theres 2 for starters !!
Replies: 47 21 Jul 10 16:30
Back in October 2009, in an interview in the Evening Standard, Mark Davies, MD at Betfair said, (of pro gamblers)-
"There are very few people who are consistently profitable, and none of these people are in the UK"
Says it all, really.
well hes talking rubbish or clearly hasnt examined his clientbase well enough.
ive been on here 8 years and made a profit totally from betfair for the past 6 years.
my friend has done likewise for a similar period and we both live in london so theres 2 for starters !!
johnizere - I like how you added 40p to the Australian wallet :)
"Much of that is down to corruption" Can you elaborate?
You can get what you want on the non-triers because the laying connections know it's already beat. On the stable gambles on the other hand you're competing with connections who can continually undercut you because they have a better idea of the horse's true chances. "Gamble landed" is my least favourite racing saying as I usually get only a fraction of my intended stake on before the price collapses.
You can get what you want on the non-triers because the laying connections know it's already beat. On the stable gambles on the other hand you're competing with connections who can continually undercut you because they have a better idea of the horse's true chances. "Gamble landed" is my least favourite racing saying as I usually get only a fraction of my intended stake on before the price collapses.
If it were that simple you should be able to discern between the triers and the non triers just by looking at the price movements and make sure that you end up with more on the triers.
Who said it was simple? Suppose you back at 6.0, 6.4, 7.0 and it ends up 20.0? It's easy being wise after the event.
I am new here, so there are many things that I don't understand. Feck, I would like you to clarify something for me please. Are you saying that the only people who make money consistently on Betfair, and presumably qualify for the Premium Charge (whatever that is), are cheats with inside information or cheats with bots combined with an unsporting strategy (including trading)?
I don't see where I've said that on this particular thread but yes Marksman the bulk of winners on here would be lost without inside information, a time advantage, a quirk in the interface or a copying strategy. That is not to say you cannot win using a straight bat, far from it.
The premium charge is such that if you've paid less than 20% of your lifetime profit in commission you will be charged a premium to make that the case. It affects very few winning gamblers who are using a straight bat though.
The premium charge is such that if you've paid less than 20% of your lifetime profit in commission you will be charged a premium to make that the case. It affects very few winning gamblers who are using a straight bat though.
You are the one being wise after the event by implying that when you back losers you are the victim of corruption
Where did I say that I was a victim of corruption because I bet losers?
Feck,I know you didn't say all that on this thread, but I have read your thread about a self matching clock that beats a loophole. And when I did a google search to find out about the "Premium Charge", your name came up and you seemed to be implying that the PC was Betfair's way of taxing cheats.
Fair enough marksman.
Tolmi, where abouts?
Investor, I'd agree the horse racing pros make most despite the corruption. There's a lot more opportunities with decent liquidity in horse racing and it's a lot harder to work out a tissue because of the number of variables. I've done well out of horse racing despite the fact that I find, on average, I get 30% more on the losers than I do on the winners. That's equivalent to having 30% of your stake voided on every winning bet. Much of that is down to corruption. I reckon a bigger percentage of my profits goes back into racing (if feeding insiders could be termed that) than most bookmakers do.
Tolmi, where abouts?
Investor, I'd agree the horse racing pros make most despite the corruption. There's a lot more opportunities with decent liquidity in horse racing and it's a lot harder to work out a tissue because of the number of variables. I've done well out of horse racing despite the fact that I find, on average, I get 30% more on the losers than I do on the winners. That's equivalent to having 30% of your stake voided on every winning bet. Much of that is down to corruption. I reckon a bigger percentage of my profits goes back into racing (if feeding insiders could be termed that) than most bookmakers do.
You say that you get 30% more on losers than winners.Then you state that much of that is down to corruption.The natural corollary of that is that many of your losers are down to corruption whereas not many of your winners are.
Tolmi, I wrote
I find, on average, I get 30% more on the losers than I do on the winners. That's equivalent to having 30% of your stake voided on every winning bet.
and when you asked me to explain I added
You can get what you want on the non-triers because the laying connections know it's already beat. On the stable gambles on the other hand you're competing with connections who can continually undercut you because they have a better idea of the horse's true chances. "Gamble landed" is my least favourite racing saying as I usually get only a fraction of my intended stake on before the price collapses.
It seems fairly logical to me. Why would I think my winners were corrupt (aside maybe from previous ability being hidden)?
I find, on average, I get 30% more on the losers than I do on the winners. That's equivalent to having 30% of your stake voided on every winning bet.
and when you asked me to explain I added
You can get what you want on the non-triers because the laying connections know it's already beat. On the stable gambles on the other hand you're competing with connections who can continually undercut you because they have a better idea of the horse's true chances. "Gamble landed" is my least favourite racing saying as I usually get only a fraction of my intended stake on before the price collapses.
It seems fairly logical to me. Why would I think my winners were corrupt (aside maybe from previous ability being hidden)?
I think your last statement sums it up.You seem to suffer from a common problem among gamblers.When you back winners you congratulate yourself on your good judgement and when you back losers you look for outside reasons as to why you backed a loser instead of first analysing why your judgement might have been wrong.
I will not waste any more of your time.Your answers have given me the answer to my question without you realising it.
I will not waste any more of your time.Your answers have given me the answer to my question without you realising it.
If I was a large gambler betting horses at random I'd expect to see something similar to the 30% figure even if racing was 100% straight because I'd find it easier to get laid by sharks on wrongly priced horses than on value horses. As I keep my own tissue and make a decent profit it's stretching the imagination to think that other sharks disagree with my pricing on many of my losers but agree with my pricing on almost all the winners. It therefore seems logical to me to assume it's down to the corruption that's rampant within uk horseracing. I doubt you'll be able to get your head round that either if you're an apologist for uk racing as the @rsehole that posted after you seems to be.
So 'TheAdvisor', have the entries on this thread (even though many are off subject) satisfied your curiosity?
I think its you that has the problem getting your head around things by virtue of your failure to realise your own failings and instead blaming them on something else.You are using the knowledge of what has happened after an event to give reason to what you experienced before it.As I have stated earlier if corruption is that easy to spot after an event then it should be simple for you from betting patterns to tailor your stake downwards on losers before an event.
If you have a problem with the logic of what I'm saying then address the logic rather than just stating I'm wrong. Most of the horses I bet (including the winners) are drifters so it isn't easy determining which are non-triers being laid by connections particularly as they can enter the market at any point (it's fine saying Hillside Girl's a non trier after it's drifted from 2.0 to 20.0 but at what point did it become obvious?). I could cut my stakes down to £2, bet early and never be affected by corruption but I'd then be wasting my time. A shop can know it's losing money because of shoplifting without necessarily knowing how to stop the shoplifting. If everyone's negatives are down to their own failings and none of them are down to corruption where do you think the insiders' ill gottens come from? A hole in the ground?
I think if you re read your posts on this topic you might find that earlier you are moaning about connections undercutting you and you being not able to get enough on.Then you state that most of your bets are drifters including the winners.Maybe I'm wrong but this seems to me that while these statements are not mutually exclusive they are contradictory in many instances.You continually are missing my point on the corruption issue however.At no stage did I ever say corruption did not exist.Of course it does but equally there are many factors which can affect a horses's performance which might not be known to everyone.Paddock inspection being the easiest one to highlight.Unless you are physically there or rely on a good judge to inform you have no idea how it looks.A horse can drift simply because it does not look well while a conspiracy theorist such as yourself puts it down to corruption.
If you continue to blame corruption as a reason for losing bets as a matter of course then you are failing to address your failings as a punter as the most likely reason for a poor performance is something totally unconnected to corruption.
If you continue to blame corruption as a reason for losing bets as a matter of course then you are failing to address your failings as a punter as the most likely reason for a poor performance is something totally unconnected to corruption.
I think if you re read your posts on this topic you might find that earlier you are moaning about connections undercutting you and you being not able to get enough on.Then you state that most of your bets are drifters including the winners.Maybe I'm wrong but this seems to me that while these statements are not mutually exclusive they are contradictory in many instances.
I can see why you'd think that but it actually explains part of the discrepancy. The gambled winners are the ones I get very little on before the price collapses. Also, sometimes when I start betting a drifter I halt the drift other times I don't. Some drifters are easier to back than others.
I would agree paddock inspection was in part to blame for the figure but a) I only ever claimed "much" of the 30% was down to the corruption and b) where possible I always check out drifters going down and at the start on TV to see if there's any visible cause for the drift.
As for the rest of your post, do you mean when I see horses I lost thousands on being mentioned in court/BHA cases or see them being 'steadied' at the start and run up against a wall of horses with airshots applied I should think I've only got myself to blame? If the government hadn't bailed out the banks and we all ended up skint would it be our own faults?
I can see why you'd think that but it actually explains part of the discrepancy. The gambled winners are the ones I get very little on before the price collapses. Also, sometimes when I start betting a drifter I halt the drift other times I don't. Some drifters are easier to back than others.
I would agree paddock inspection was in part to blame for the figure but a) I only ever claimed "much" of the 30% was down to the corruption and b) where possible I always check out drifters going down and at the start on TV to see if there's any visible cause for the drift.
As for the rest of your post, do you mean when I see horses I lost thousands on being mentioned in court/BHA cases or see them being 'steadied' at the start and run up against a wall of horses with airshots applied I should think I've only got myself to blame? If the government hadn't bailed out the banks and we all ended up skint would it be our own faults?
Think if you had used the word some instead of much I probably would not have even replied
Fair enough Tolmi. Some ado about nothing.
I'll get me coat.
I'll get me coat.
"It affects very few winning gamblers who are using a straight bat though."
Feck - I'd say you are so wrong with this
Feck - I'd say you are so wrong with this
I can't say for sure sparky but I'd think if they were it would be a low percentage of their overall commission.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539