General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
05 Oct 10
18:18
Joined:
Date Joined:
12 Mar 07
How many people come on here and claim either to be making now or expect to be making soon 50,0000-100,000 pounds per year out of sports betting.?
Quite a few apparently.
Really I say.
Let's make a few basic assumptions to see how they might be doing this.
For debate sake, let's stop the argument as to whether value betting is the way to go or not, and assume it is.
How many value bets could one expect to find and successfully place in a week ?
Shall we assume 50 positional ones maybe ? Traders many more, but more of that later.
Let's assume that they bet on average 500 pounds per match/horse whatever, and make a profit of 5 % of turnover ( which is a good, professional profitability expectation).
So, they would be turning over 25,000 pounds per week at 5 % profit margin, thus making 1250 pounds per week,that is just over 50,000 pounds per annum.
Traders would make many more and have a larger turnover, but their profit margins would reduce proprtionately.
As far as the capital they would need to carry out such betting ?
Let's assume that for the position taking gamblers, that as many as 50 % of the bets they make are occurring on games taking place simultaneously or overlapping ( eg a large number of the football games on the weekend kick off at or around the same time).
So let's assume 25 games requiring at least 500 pounds per game of capital. Put in a margin, say another 500 pounds per game, to carry some losing sequences, and they could expect to need at least ( say) 25,000 pounds of capital to carry out their betting.
So, in summary, they would need to have 25,000 pounds of betting capital at the bare minimum, to make circa 50,000 pounds per year, if they can successfuly find 50 value bets every week and earn 5 % on turnover every week.
So how many can really do this ?
And let's be real, the above assumptions might even be hugely optimistic at that.
Quite a few apparently.
Really I say.
Let's make a few basic assumptions to see how they might be doing this.
For debate sake, let's stop the argument as to whether value betting is the way to go or not, and assume it is.
How many value bets could one expect to find and successfully place in a week ?
Shall we assume 50 positional ones maybe ? Traders many more, but more of that later.
Let's assume that they bet on average 500 pounds per match/horse whatever, and make a profit of 5 % of turnover ( which is a good, professional profitability expectation).
So, they would be turning over 25,000 pounds per week at 5 % profit margin, thus making 1250 pounds per week,that is just over 50,000 pounds per annum.
Traders would make many more and have a larger turnover, but their profit margins would reduce proprtionately.
As far as the capital they would need to carry out such betting ?
Let's assume that for the position taking gamblers, that as many as 50 % of the bets they make are occurring on games taking place simultaneously or overlapping ( eg a large number of the football games on the weekend kick off at or around the same time).
So let's assume 25 games requiring at least 500 pounds per game of capital. Put in a margin, say another 500 pounds per game, to carry some losing sequences, and they could expect to need at least ( say) 25,000 pounds of capital to carry out their betting.
So, in summary, they would need to have 25,000 pounds of betting capital at the bare minimum, to make circa 50,000 pounds per year, if they can successfuly find 50 value bets every week and earn 5 % on turnover every week.
So how many can really do this ?
And let's be real, the above assumptions might even be hugely optimistic at that.
Show More
All depends how much VALUE you get when you win on bets......
HORSE RACING is where you can get huge VALUE on horse winning....so getting 1 good winner daily , combined with not too many HITS on LAYS can enable good profits to be made.
There will be some on here that are "good enough" to catch the big odds winners , as well as short odds and medium odds winners to enable high profits to be made....
It looks like you are only talking about odds that are low in value ......if you have to get 50 VALUE winners a week.
HORSE RACING is where you can get huge VALUE on horse winning....so getting 1 good winner daily , combined with not too many HITS on LAYS can enable good profits to be made.
There will be some on here that are "good enough" to catch the big odds winners , as well as short odds and medium odds winners to enable high profits to be made....
It looks like you are only talking about odds that are low in value ......if you have to get 50 VALUE winners a week.
Koo... made over 600000 from 10,000 starting bank on here over roughly 12 month period.
So it can be done.....but he was /is a very good IR player re HORSES.....
So it can be done.....but he was /is a very good IR player re HORSES.....
I'm not saying that there are no successful professional gamblers.
I'm just saying that it is a difficult road to travel.
People come on here and spout nonsensical claims of success, wheras the truth is probably far different.
I'm just saying that it is a difficult road to travel.
People come on here and spout nonsensical claims of success, wheras the truth is probably far different.
I think that in the future it will become more and more difficult for newcomers to make £10k a year, let alone £50k.
I'm pretty sure that if you had access to PnLs of Betfair customers, you would see that the top 1% probably make a huge chunk of the total profit.
I'm pretty sure that if you had access to PnLs of Betfair customers, you would see that the top 1% probably make a huge chunk of the total profit.
Thank you Investor.
Not everybody on here at least has their head in the clouds.
Not everybody on here at least has their head in the clouds.
I could answer at least some of your questions but I'm concerned that I would be accused of spouting nonsensical claims of success.
1% make 15,000 or more ....so 99% don't ...most lose ...FACT!
Have a go Massive.
I'm interested to know the counter arguments.
Just tell the whole truth, unadorned by exaggeration.
I'm interested to know the counter arguments.
Just tell the whole truth, unadorned by exaggeration.
You have the idea correct, but the maths you provide is too simplistic. People who make a decent living on here are, I guess, almost exclusively high turnover low margin. In running on sports like tennis, cricket and golf, your margin can be virtually zero and you can comfortably beat commission. Pre-off traders are similar.
As for betting capital, that is usually not the limit on profitability - it is liquidity at your required price. Betting capital only really becomes a problem if you are arbing/hedging across markets.
As for betting capital, that is usually not the limit on profitability - it is liquidity at your required price. Betting capital only really becomes a problem if you are arbing/hedging across markets.
Koo... made over 600000 from 10,000 starting bank on here over roughly 12 month period.
So it can be done.....but he was /is a very good IR player re HORSES.....
yep,
had nothing to do he got in at the start IR when half the rogues in edinburgh where making more money than they owed on the cross.
They were even confirming bets before placing ffs, dear lord.
feeding frenzy.
So it can be done.....but he was /is a very good IR player re HORSES.....
yep,
had nothing to do he got in at the start IR when half the rogues in edinburgh where making more money than they owed on the cross.
They were even confirming bets before placing ffs, dear lord.
feeding frenzy.
Massive
If I am interpreting you correctly, you are saying that in-running betting is probably the main way, if not the only way, to utilise BF most profitably.
It is very hard to assess exactly how such traders operate and exactly what their net margins are.
A lot of their turnover is just churning, closing bad positions before they get worse.
As somebody said elsewhere a trade is just two separate bets. If they are not done at value, then in the long run they will be a net losing propsition.
I suspect, though I'm not sure, that what you are really saying is that the big winners on BF and in the gambling world in general, are those who have an inside line on something and exploit it to the maximum, before their edge is closed down.
Sometimes this inside line is illegal, but not always of course. Just a case of a few smart minds being quicker off the mark in exploiting opportunities.
If I am interpreting you correctly, you are saying that in-running betting is probably the main way, if not the only way, to utilise BF most profitably.
It is very hard to assess exactly how such traders operate and exactly what their net margins are.
A lot of their turnover is just churning, closing bad positions before they get worse.
As somebody said elsewhere a trade is just two separate bets. If they are not done at value, then in the long run they will be a net losing propsition.
I suspect, though I'm not sure, that what you are really saying is that the big winners on BF and in the gambling world in general, are those who have an inside line on something and exploit it to the maximum, before their edge is closed down.
Sometimes this inside line is illegal, but not always of course. Just a case of a few smart minds being quicker off the mark in exploiting opportunities.
It's more challenging to apply bots in play, so there are definitely more chances for those making their money by placing bets manually.
The only big player who's figures are freely available is betting promotion.
You'll see that they actually make the vast majority of their profit betting before the off (in-play is described as 'Live' figures in bold):
PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION FOR 2009
Betting turnover
(SEK million)
Net turnover
after fees
(SEK million)
Gross margin
(%)
Soccer 5,332 30.0 0.56
Live 1,668 6.9 0.41
Other 1,218 7.1 0.58
Total 8,217 43.9 0.53
Of 43.9MSEK only 6.9MSEK is from in-play bets.
As somebody said elsewhere a trade is just two separate bets. If they are not done at value, then in the long run they will be a net losing propsition.
Let's say you have determined a correct price of 2.00 for two separate selections in separate markets. In one case you are able to lay at 1.95, and in another you are able to back at 2.05.
Nice you have two value bets.
Now another guy also lays at 1.95, and he backs at 2.05 in the same market (fair odds 2.00). Ignoring the hugely beneficial effect of lower commission both players have the same edge (assuming their assessment of fair odds 2.00 is correct).
Even if there was no commission to pay the second guy is in a much better position, because his bets are negatively correlated. If both players can find these kind of bets regularly and start with the same balance, the trader is extremely likely to massively outperform the bettor, even at 0% commission because he can use larger stakes.
The only big player who's figures are freely available is betting promotion.
You'll see that they actually make the vast majority of their profit betting before the off (in-play is described as 'Live' figures in bold):
PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION FOR 2009
Betting turnover
(SEK million)
Net turnover
after fees
(SEK million)
Gross margin
(%)
Soccer 5,332 30.0 0.56
Live 1,668 6.9 0.41
Other 1,218 7.1 0.58
Total 8,217 43.9 0.53
Of 43.9MSEK only 6.9MSEK is from in-play bets.
As somebody said elsewhere a trade is just two separate bets. If they are not done at value, then in the long run they will be a net losing propsition.
Let's say you have determined a correct price of 2.00 for two separate selections in separate markets. In one case you are able to lay at 1.95, and in another you are able to back at 2.05.
Nice you have two value bets.
Now another guy also lays at 1.95, and he backs at 2.05 in the same market (fair odds 2.00). Ignoring the hugely beneficial effect of lower commission both players have the same edge (assuming their assessment of fair odds 2.00 is correct).
Even if there was no commission to pay the second guy is in a much better position, because his bets are negatively correlated. If both players can find these kind of bets regularly and start with the same balance, the trader is extremely likely to massively outperform the bettor, even at 0% commission because he can use larger stakes.
Also a trader can profit from small odds discrepancies, in a tennis match, lay player A at 1.09, lay player B at 12.
For someone who was only placing bets and not trading, the only situation I could imagine either one of these bets making sense is for someone on a very low commission rate who is a PC payer, and wants to reduce overall charges.
For someone who was only placing bets and not trading, the only situation I could imagine either one of these bets making sense is for someone on a very low commission rate who is a PC payer, and wants to reduce overall charges.
I'll take the bait Frog Hair and give you a recent example of how I operate.
My first proper attempt at beating the bookies 12 years ago was on golf betting. I wrote a model and found the best odds in an attempt to make a profit. I was just about beating the overround when Betfair emerged and I found better things to do. I don't often trade golf these days but I thought I'd have a go on the Ryder Cup because of the liquidity and the fairly decent radio coverage. With my previous background in golf betting I quickly cobbled together a few macros in Excel and built a semi-plausible model (even if I do say so myself). I dabbled on Friday, missed Saturday completely, but got stuck in on Sunday and Monday. I stayed fairly true to my model, took positions when the odds looked favourable, and closed them if I ever got parity or better (the exception, as always, was the price on the tie, which defies all known mathematics - but that's another story).
My position obviously oscillated continuously, as did my luck, but at no point was I really punting on who would win the trophy. I was simply taking many micro positions where the odds were, according to my model, in my favour. I made a few mistakes, some costly. My misclick back of Europe at 1.1 when Fowler holed out for a half even got a mention on the forum. In the final analysis I 'turned over' 1.86 million. My margin, both perceived and real, will have been tiny, and I'll leave you to speculate on that. Not all of my bets will have been value but I'd be fairly sure that the majority were. I wasn't certain to make a profit, but I wouldn't have traded it if I didn't expect to.
My first proper attempt at beating the bookies 12 years ago was on golf betting. I wrote a model and found the best odds in an attempt to make a profit. I was just about beating the overround when Betfair emerged and I found better things to do. I don't often trade golf these days but I thought I'd have a go on the Ryder Cup because of the liquidity and the fairly decent radio coverage. With my previous background in golf betting I quickly cobbled together a few macros in Excel and built a semi-plausible model (even if I do say so myself). I dabbled on Friday, missed Saturday completely, but got stuck in on Sunday and Monday. I stayed fairly true to my model, took positions when the odds looked favourable, and closed them if I ever got parity or better (the exception, as always, was the price on the tie, which defies all known mathematics - but that's another story).
My position obviously oscillated continuously, as did my luck, but at no point was I really punting on who would win the trophy. I was simply taking many micro positions where the odds were, according to my model, in my favour. I made a few mistakes, some costly. My misclick back of Europe at 1.1 when Fowler holed out for a half even got a mention on the forum. In the final analysis I 'turned over' 1.86 million. My margin, both perceived and real, will have been tiny, and I'll leave you to speculate on that. Not all of my bets will have been value but I'd be fairly sure that the majority were. I wasn't certain to make a profit, but I wouldn't have traded it if I didn't expect to.
Well I've always thought you were actually one of the true pros on here.
I know you have seeded markets and run mkt. making bots.
But I believe you are one of very few true substantial earners on here, in the past certainly, if not now.
Keep it up.
I concur that smart, active traders with great skills and a lot of dedication can and will make profits.
But even you would surely admit that it is difficult, hard work.
I know you have seeded markets and run mkt. making bots.
But I believe you are one of very few true substantial earners on here, in the past certainly, if not now.
Keep it up.
I concur that smart, active traders with great skills and a lot of dedication can and will make profits.
But even you would surely admit that it is difficult, hard work.
(the exception, as always, was the price on the tie, which defies all known mathematics - but that's another story
I wasn't the only one praying for Mahan to hole out then
I wasn't the only one praying for Mahan to hole out then
FINE AS FROG HAIR - I can't quite work you out. You speak intelligently about the subject, yet on other threads appear to e clutching at straws. Are you a serial winner, or a winner in the making?
I don't know about clutching at straws.
I know I'm clutching my throat quie often in my gambling forays.
Bottom line, I'm just searching for the truth about things, just as most of us are, or should be.
I know I'm clutching my throat quie often in my gambling forays.
Bottom line, I'm just searching for the truth about things, just as most of us are, or should be.
Don't forget that Walter Mitty's aside, the forum presents a pretty distorted view of things.
I think the figure is something like 5% of people on betfair use the forum and 1% of people on betfair win 15k or more per year. I always get these numbers mixed up as they're quoted and re-quoted and original source seems long since forgotten, but that kind of order doesn't seem unreasonable.
I think it's fair to assume that of that 1%, a large percentage will use the forum, let's say half.
so it's not unreasonable that 10% of forumites are winning 15k a year
I think the figure is something like 5% of people on betfair use the forum and 1% of people on betfair win 15k or more per year. I always get these numbers mixed up as they're quoted and re-quoted and original source seems long since forgotten, but that kind of order doesn't seem unreasonable.
I think it's fair to assume that of that 1%, a large percentage will use the forum, let's say half.
so it's not unreasonable that 10% of forumites are winning 15k a year
The Betfairy
FINE AS FROG HAIR - I can't quite work you out. You speak intelligently about the subject, yet on other threads appear to e clutching at straws. Are you a serial winner, or a winner in the making?
He's just trying to be nice to people, whilst sitting on
the fence.
FINE AS FROG HAIR - I can't quite work you out. You speak intelligently about the subject, yet on other threads appear to e clutching at straws. Are you a serial winner, or a winner in the making?
He's just trying to be nice to people, whilst sitting on
the fence.
I can't believe 1% make 15k or more per year, was that stat put out by Betfair? (I would guess yes).
Lori
Now that's what I call mathematical analysis el supremo.
I hope your value calculations are a mite more accurate and validly substantiated.
Now that's what I call mathematical analysis el supremo.
I hope your value calculations are a mite more accurate and validly substantiated.
Anyway I'm not talking about people making 100 pounds per month.
I think, like most, that there are quite a few people making that sort of figure.
I'm more talking about those claiming to make a living out of BF.
To do that, you would surely have to ratchet up your winnings quite a bit more than that monthly level.
And therein lies the problem.
Many of the modestly successful betting strategies being employed, as are generally outlined on this forum, and of which I don't really dispute their veracity, are just not practically scalable to levels needed to make a good living.
I think, like most, that there are quite a few people making that sort of figure.
I'm more talking about those claiming to make a living out of BF.
To do that, you would surely have to ratchet up your winnings quite a bit more than that monthly level.
And therein lies the problem.
Many of the modestly successful betting strategies being employed, as are generally outlined on this forum, and of which I don't really dispute their veracity, are just not practically scalable to levels needed to make a good living.
Sorry, obviously meant 1000 pounds per month.
As I said, I'm merely re-quoting figures that have been regularly posted on here.
I've stated many times that winning at gambling requires hard work, obviously value calculations are a bit different to forum banter.
I've stated many times that winning at gambling requires hard work, obviously value calculations are a bit different to forum banter.
Why wouldn't 1000 pounds a month be a living?
That's equivalent to something like a 15k/year job!
That's equivalent to something like a 15k/year job!
Without sounding arrogant, I would say that we must have different ideas of living.
Not much champagne, in a 15000 pounds a year living budget.
Not much of anything in fact.
But each to his own.
Not much champagne, in a 15000 pounds a year living budget.
Not much of anything in fact.
But each to his own.
Btw before you ask, no I don't even try to rely on BF to make me a living.
I use it to provide a good side income to pay for some extra luxuries.
That way, there's no pressure to perform day in and day out, and no pressure to try to scale up.
Both of these two targets would take most, if not all, of the pleasure out of my gambling activities.
I use it to provide a good side income to pay for some extra luxuries.
That way, there's no pressure to perform day in and day out, and no pressure to try to scale up.
Both of these two targets would take most, if not all, of the pleasure out of my gambling activities.
Not much champagne in how many people live though surely?
Median annual earnings in 2008 was £20,801, so if you'll allow that 1k a month to stretch to £1400, then gambling's an average job. (I'm assuming tax is around 20%)
Median annual earnings in 2008 was £20,801, so if you'll allow that 1k a month to stretch to £1400, then gambling's an average job. (I'm assuming tax is around 20%)
No pleasure without pain eh ?
Anyway I think we're basically agreeing on the matter I raised in the first post on here.
Making 50000-100000 pounds per year is most likely well out of the reach of most on here, both theoretically and practically.
Anyway I think we're basically agreeing on the matter I raised in the first post on here.
Making 50000-100000 pounds per year is most likely well out of the reach of most on here, both theoretically and practically.
So it could be that your definition of "making a living" is different to most people's due to you being in a high income job. £44k (35k after tax) would put you in the top 10%. That would be lower than your opening post, but higher than the £1k a month you can see is possible.
Would it be a gigantic stretch to double £1k a month to allow for someone going full time and move up to 24k a year (which is about top 25% wage (32k))
Would it be a gigantic stretch to double £1k a month to allow for someone going full time and move up to 24k a year (which is about top 25% wage (32k))
Well your opening post makes the assumption that many people claim to be making 50k+, I see very few people claiming that.
You seem to have made the link between "living" and "50k" as we see many people claiming to be making a living.
You seem to have made the link between "living" and "50k" as we see many people claiming to be making a living.
Lori
Actually I do think it is quite difficult to scale up from 1K pm to 2K pm.
Getting bets on of the size you want when you want to at the price you want ( in your and many others' cases your value price ), is not always as simple as you would like it to be.
That's why many strategies that show profit on paper do not work in real life in a scalable sense.
Actually I do think it is quite difficult to scale up from 1K pm to 2K pm.
Getting bets on of the size you want when you want to at the price you want ( in your and many others' cases your value price ), is not always as simple as you would like it to be.
That's why many strategies that show profit on paper do not work in real life in a scalable sense.
I'm a night owl. You too apparently ?
A good time actually to get some good bets on, if you are position taking before the start of the day's upcoming football matches.
A good time actually to get some good bets on, if you are position taking before the start of the day's upcoming football matches.
My sleep pattern is dictated for the most part by what sport is on. Today is a special case as I'm having a day doing virtually nothing (there was some darts earlier) after nearly killing myself through lack of sleep from Friday thru Monday!
I would agree it's difficult to scale from 1k to 2k on the same markets, but if it's your only source of income, you can scale sideways (more markets) rather than upwards, as you have time to hunt down lesser, but still profitable, edges.
The Investor Joined: 05 Jun 06
Replies: 2708 05 Oct 10 20:10
I think that in the future it will become more and more difficult for newcomers to make £10k a year, let alone £50k.
I'm pretty sure that if you had access to PnLs of Betfair customers, you would see that the top 1% probably make a huge chunk of the total profit.
^
exactly. and the margins will get finer, and the standards will get higher, until almost noone is winning big.
the betfair glory days are long gone.
Replies: 2708 05 Oct 10 20:10
I think that in the future it will become more and more difficult for newcomers to make £10k a year, let alone £50k.
I'm pretty sure that if you had access to PnLs of Betfair customers, you would see that the top 1% probably make a huge chunk of the total profit.
^
exactly. and the margins will get finer, and the standards will get higher, until almost noone is winning big.
the betfair glory days are long gone.
Bayes. Joined: 13 Sep 05
Replies: 201 05 Oct 10 22:52
I'll take the bait Frog Hair and give you a recent example of how I operate.
My first proper attempt at beating the bookies 12 years ago was on golf betting. I wrote a model and found the best odds in an attempt to make a profit. I was just about beating the overround when Betfair emerged and I found better things to do. I don't often trade golf these days but I thought I'd have a go on the Ryder Cup because of the liquidity and the fairly decent radio coverage.
not being funny, but someone claiming to turn over 1.86 million on an event can surely afford something more sophisticated than just a radio, like say, sky?!
beggining to see your point froghair
Replies: 201 05 Oct 10 22:52
I'll take the bait Frog Hair and give you a recent example of how I operate.
My first proper attempt at beating the bookies 12 years ago was on golf betting. I wrote a model and found the best odds in an attempt to make a profit. I was just about beating the overround when Betfair emerged and I found better things to do. I don't often trade golf these days but I thought I'd have a go on the Ryder Cup because of the liquidity and the fairly decent radio coverage.
not being funny, but someone claiming to turn over 1.86 million on an event can surely afford something more sophisticated than just a radio, like say, sky?!
beggining to see your point froghair
I think Bayes is in fact the real deal.
I'm sure he has his good reasons for the quote about the radio coverage.
I'm sure he has his good reasons for the quote about the radio coverage.
Sky was about 2 minutes behind at times, the radio, for the large part, was live.
not being funny, but someone claiming to turn over 1.86 million on an event can surely afford something more sophisticated than just a radio, like say, sky?!
Lol. Or I might go the whole hog and trade it via Sky HD?
Lol. Or I might go the whole hog and trade it via Sky HD?
The Betfairy Joined: 29 Apr 06
Replies: 7371 05 Oct 10 23:04
FINE AS FROG HAIR - I can't quite work you out. You speak intelligently about the subject, yet on other threads appear to e clutching at straws. Are you a serial winner, or a winner in the making?
He comes across as a more Autistic version of Avocado.
Replies: 7371 05 Oct 10 23:04
FINE AS FROG HAIR - I can't quite work you out. You speak intelligently about the subject, yet on other threads appear to e clutching at straws. Are you a serial winner, or a winner in the making?
He comes across as a more Autistic version of Avocado.
The Betfairy
FINE AS FROG HAIR - I can't quite work you out. You speak intelligently about the subject, yet on other threads appear to e clutching at straws. Are you a serial winner, or a winner in the making?
Neither. As a small loser IMO searching for clues.
FINE AS FROG HAIR - I can't quite work you out. You speak intelligently about the subject, yet on other threads appear to e clutching at straws. Are you a serial winner, or a winner in the making?
Neither. As a small loser IMO searching for clues.
FAFH, whilst I agree that there are very few real winner and many on here are a bit deluded I think your opening analysis is flawed in that it only considers two very basic approaches whereas I think most of the winning is done by more sophisticated operators. I'll use my stats from yesterday as an example; Yesterday I matched about 1500 bets over 23 events, the average exposure of each bet was about £11. Overall I came out just a little over £900 on top after comm. That's a below average number of bets for me but an above average profit. Although I have a fair amount of money in my account I didn't need it, £1000 in the account would have been more than enough. So you can see that I don't need 25k and I expect many more than 50 winners a month.
A different way to estimate the number of winners would be to ask "how many losers does each winner need?"
I'd guestimate that your average loser can afford to loose £200 a month, let's assume that only half of that is eaten up by comm (it's probably much more than that but never mind), that leaves £100. So for every £10k a month winner you need at least 100 average losers. Obviously this isn't accurate but it allows a quick guess that will get you somewhere in the ball park.
A different way to estimate the number of winners would be to ask "how many losers does each winner need?"
I'd guestimate that your average loser can afford to loose £200 a month, let's assume that only half of that is eaten up by comm (it's probably much more than that but never mind), that leaves £100. So for every £10k a month winner you need at least 100 average losers. Obviously this isn't accurate but it allows a quick guess that will get you somewhere in the ball park.
if your betting to make a living or decent wage--STRESS LEVELS must rocket
prob end up not enjoying betting as possible downside can lead to ruination.
prob end up not enjoying betting as possible downside can lead to ruination.
mythical prince 06 Oct 10 02:48
not being funny, but someone claiming to turn over 1.86 million on an event can surely afford something more sophisticated than just a radio, like say, sky?!
Some of my biggest wins from very low risk bets have come from listening to a long wave battery powered radio.
Ever heard the saying "the early bird catches the worm"? Never truer than for in-play betting.
not being funny, but someone claiming to turn over 1.86 million on an event can surely afford something more sophisticated than just a radio, like say, sky?!
Some of my biggest wins from very low risk bets have come from listening to a long wave battery powered radio.
Ever heard the saying "the early bird catches the worm"? Never truer than for in-play betting.
FINE AS FROG HAIR
Gee thanks K.
You're so perceptive as usual.
I do get to the point, but why are you responding to just my post ?
Gee thanks K.
You're so perceptive as usual.
I do get to the point, but why are you responding to just my post ?
aye robot, How much basic commission did you pay on your profit
of yesterday if it is not too inquisitive a question ?
of yesterday if it is not too inquisitive a question ?
It does. I've consistently maintained that I don't have a problem with it. That said, yesterday's comm was unusually low. Overall I pay about 10% on average.
I was aware that you were one of the few people who pay the PC that didn't object, much to the consternation of others who did.
Lori Joined: 20 Apr 04
Replies: 23357 05 Oct 10 23:26
Don't forget that Walter Mitty's aside, the forum presents a pretty distorted view of things.
I think the figure is something like 5% of people on betfair use the forum and 1% of people on betfair win 15k or more per year. I always get these numbers mixed up as they're quoted and re-quoted and original source seems long since forgotten, but that kind of order doesn't seem unreasonable.
I think it's fair to assume that of that 1%, a large percentage will use the forum, let's say half.
so it's not unreasonable that 10% of forumites are winning 15k a year
^ why would you assume that thought lori?
Replies: 23357 05 Oct 10 23:26
Don't forget that Walter Mitty's aside, the forum presents a pretty distorted view of things.
I think the figure is something like 5% of people on betfair use the forum and 1% of people on betfair win 15k or more per year. I always get these numbers mixed up as they're quoted and re-quoted and original source seems long since forgotten, but that kind of order doesn't seem unreasonable.
I think it's fair to assume that of that 1%, a large percentage will use the forum, let's say half.
so it's not unreasonable that 10% of forumites are winning 15k a year
^ why would you assume that thought lori?
I'd think that most winners use all resources possible. Despite the large amount of total rubbish posted on here, the forum is certainly a valuable resource
I tend to agree with Lori, winners usually need to be on the site a lot, even if you're basically just keeping an eye on things and you get bored so you start checking the forum- then you get sucked in.
Got sucked in a few years ago, I admit, it lasted for a few months and now I just can't be bothered with the new forum format and the amount of British humor nonsense.
Nuffin funny on here mate.
Serious stuff only.
Serious stuff only.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539