We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
30 Oct 10
20:40
Joined:
Date Joined:
12 Mar 07
I was looking at two series of numbers generated by separate selection techniques from a comparably similar betting idea, and the following occurs.
Both sets generate fairly approx. good profit results.
So as I couldn't really separate them for betting purposes, I decided to bet both of them.
That is just add them together with the results of course being just the sum of the two.
But then really just for fun, I played around with a few other things.
I tried mutiplying the two of them and taking the square root of the result.
I got a relatively poor performance out of that but I did notice a strange characteristic on the fluctuations of the results, which indicated to me that just throwing away this sqrt idea was not perhaps a good thing to do.
So, essentially just out of curiosity, I subtracted the square root amount from the added amount.
eg ( x+y)-(SQRT(x*y))
And lo and behold itsmoothed out in quite a material manner the peaks anfd troughs of the simple ( x+y) results.
As result I could now leverage up if using the new, more complex approach and increase profitability substantially.
I am talking literally about a series thousands of selections here.
Not being a statistician, I ask.
Have I accidentally stumbled onto some well known ststistical smoothing process in this square root thing.
Or is it all likely just be a complete fluke and not likely to continue as it has ?
Both sets generate fairly approx. good profit results.
So as I couldn't really separate them for betting purposes, I decided to bet both of them.
That is just add them together with the results of course being just the sum of the two.
But then really just for fun, I played around with a few other things.
I tried mutiplying the two of them and taking the square root of the result.
I got a relatively poor performance out of that but I did notice a strange characteristic on the fluctuations of the results, which indicated to me that just throwing away this sqrt idea was not perhaps a good thing to do.
So, essentially just out of curiosity, I subtracted the square root amount from the added amount.
eg ( x+y)-(SQRT(x*y))
And lo and behold itsmoothed out in quite a material manner the peaks anfd troughs of the simple ( x+y) results.
As result I could now leverage up if using the new, more complex approach and increase profitability substantially.
I am talking literally about a series thousands of selections here.
Not being a statistician, I ask.
Have I accidentally stumbled onto some well known ststistical smoothing process in this square root thing.
Or is it all likely just be a complete fluke and not likely to continue as it has ?
Show More
The silence is deafening !
Seriously FAFH, I suspect 99% of the forum
haven't a clue as to what you are doing, hence
the silence.
Seriously FAFH, I suspect 99% of the forum
haven't a clue as to what you are doing, hence
the silence.
I would have thought the formula I put in was pretty basic and self explanatory.
Isn't it ?
Btw I don't think I know what I'm doing a lot of the time.
Hence all the questions.
Isn't it ?
Btw I don't think I know what I'm doing a lot of the time.
Hence all the questions.
I think that your example is too abstract for most people to try to work out what you are doing
I wouldn't think it was too abstract for any serious statistician though.
Perhaps he would need to know a few more factors probably.
Ass away, and if I can supply the answers I will.
But as I said, I'm not a statistician. I'm just playing around, in this case, with some numbers to see if I can extract a better performance from them.
I'm really just trying to ascertain if I've stumbled onto something meaningful or just a short term freakish phenomenon.
Not to worry.
If there are no answers out there, so be it. The basic numbers/results are good without having to trick them around in any manner, and I can carry on going with that as I have done to date.
Thanks for reading though.
Perhaps he would need to know a few more factors probably.
Ass away, and if I can supply the answers I will.
But as I said, I'm not a statistician. I'm just playing around, in this case, with some numbers to see if I can extract a better performance from them.
I'm really just trying to ascertain if I've stumbled onto something meaningful or just a short term freakish phenomenon.
Not to worry.
If there are no answers out there, so be it. The basic numbers/results are good without having to trick them around in any manner, and I can carry on going with that as I have done to date.
Thanks for reading though.
" Ass away--- " ?
A freudian slip ?
Anyway obviously I meant " Ask away--- "
A freudian slip ?
Anyway obviously I meant " Ask away--- "
Like the above poster I have no idea what you're doing and what the end game is but without even needing to calculate anything I can tell you several things, mainly that the larger a and b are the larger (a+b)-(a+b)^0.5 will be in relation to (axb)^0.5. [Probably] less importantly the larger the gap between a and b the larger the gap between the two expressions and if a and b are both below 2 then the first expression will actually be larger.
In short my answer to your initial question is 'I don't know the answer'. My statistical skills are limited at best. Although is the second expression really that 'more complex'? Perhaps statistically (who knows) but certainly not to someone who has even a basic grasp of algebra. Best of luck.
In short my answer to your initial question is 'I don't know the answer'. My statistical skills are limited at best. Although is the second expression really that 'more complex'? Perhaps statistically (who knows) but certainly not to someone who has even a basic grasp of algebra. Best of luck.
( x+y)-(SQRT(x*y)) will smooth out the variation between x and y.
So will lots of other functions.
What are x and y?
So will lots of other functions.
What are x and y?
I didn't mean complex in an algebraic sense.
I agree it's extremely simple.
I meant complex in the sense of is there something statistically significant that perhaps I'm doing, but am unaware of,being a layman.
Most probably not. I can accept that.
But I thought no harm asking, just in case there was.
I agree it's extremely simple.
I meant complex in the sense of is there something statistically significant that perhaps I'm doing, but am unaware of,being a layman.
Most probably not. I can accept that.
But I thought no harm asking, just in case there was.
x and y are just bet amounts, given out to me by an algorithm designed to select and calculate certain bet selections and relevant amounts on soccer games.
The x number comes from one algorithm and the y from another.
But they both refer to same game at the same time and bet in the same direction on the same thing.
So as I said I can combine them in essentially any manner I want.
I'm interested in your statement that the formula I have accidentally stumbled is in fact regarded as a smoothing type operation.
Could you perhaps expand a bit on that for me, in layman's terms.
Thanks in advance.
The x number comes from one algorithm and the y from another.
But they both refer to same game at the same time and bet in the same direction on the same thing.
So as I said I can combine them in essentially any manner I want.
I'm interested in your statement that the formula I have accidentally stumbled is in fact regarded as a smoothing type operation.
Could you perhaps expand a bit on that for me, in layman's terms.
Thanks in advance.
i like this one, it smooths things out also
E = mc2
*and i also agree, it's extremely simple
E = mc2
*and i also agree, it's extremely simple
I don't have enough energy to try that one out.
But thanks for the welcome input Lusi. On form as per usual.
But thanks for the welcome input Lusi. On form as per usual.
just kidding FAFH, don't take it wrong
i like your threads, they stir the pot [;)]
now, on a more serious note, your threads do raise questions also give some answers/clues thanks to the contributions of many that do it in good faith, there are a lot of different POV's and also shows that you are moving those brain cells around...you have been opening some interesting threads in the GBF, so keep them coming
*btw as im not a statistician i cant really give you any meaninful input, im more of a gestalt kind of guy [smiley:crazy]
i like your threads, they stir the pot [;)]
now, on a more serious note, your threads do raise questions also give some answers/clues thanks to the contributions of many that do it in good faith, there are a lot of different POV's and also shows that you are moving those brain cells around...you have been opening some interesting threads in the GBF, so keep them coming
*btw as im not a statistician i cant really give you any meaninful input, im more of a gestalt kind of guy [smiley:crazy]
Kind words Lusi. Tks.
I'm not used to such feedback.
In fact, I'm trying really hard to one day create a thread that doesn't stir the pot.
But at the moment, I'm finding it a bit beyond me, for some unaccountable reason.
Maybe this is the one.
It's so boring and abstract, I really can't see how it can raise the hackles in anybody.
Probably the ignorance and naivety of it might p!ss somebody off.
Something will that's for sure.
I'm not used to such feedback.
In fact, I'm trying really hard to one day create a thread that doesn't stir the pot.
But at the moment, I'm finding it a bit beyond me, for some unaccountable reason.
Maybe this is the one.
It's so boring and abstract, I really can't see how it can raise the hackles in anybody.
Probably the ignorance and naivety of it might p!ss somebody off.
Something will that's for sure.
If I understood, you bet on soccer, generating "random numbers"..around here, on soccer plays the overround is about 0,1 per cent..It means that random betting anything, whatever the generation source of the bet/stake, your expected result is to lose 0,1 per cent, on tournaround, as a gross margin, less the betfair tax on winnings..not so bad, a real resistent system, but, definetely, a system with the aim to lose money...
I'm in the game by many years and can confirm that the approach to "random numbers" is profitable, really so much, but you must have a pre set strategy on how to match them and how to use the results...hope this is of some utility...
I'm in the game by many years and can confirm that the approach to "random numbers" is profitable, really so much, but you must have a pre set strategy on how to match them and how to use the results...hope this is of some utility...
first thing that struck me was that you are generating random numbers, using one of the two main methods.
however, it does sound like you are now guessing i.e. no mention of the law of large numbers; the size of your dataset; regression analysis [linear, in this case]; P-Values; Chi-Squared analysis-of-fit, etc.
It is 7 years since I completed my stats degree, and although rusty in places, nowhere do I instantly recognise the "square-root of a product" as a distribution i.e. binomial/poisson/Std. Normal, etc.
And I use a distribution to price my football bot.
however, it does sound like you are now guessing i.e. no mention of the law of large numbers; the size of your dataset; regression analysis [linear, in this case]; P-Values; Chi-Squared analysis-of-fit, etc.
It is 7 years since I completed my stats degree, and although rusty in places, nowhere do I instantly recognise the "square-root of a product" as a distribution i.e. binomial/poisson/Std. Normal, etc.
And I use a distribution to price my football bot.
Have I accidentally stumbled onto some well known ststistical smoothing process in this square root thing.
what you have stumbled upon is a way of smoothing some historical results. i would strongly suggest you don't read anything into it.
what you have stumbled upon is a way of smoothing some historical results. i would strongly suggest you don't read anything into it.
Giotto
I don't know where you got the idea that I bet using " random" numbers".
Not true at all.
I would agree that any strategy using such an approach will ultimately lose.
I fluctuate my stakes on a formula type basis most certainly, in that there is no subjectivity involved, but there is a mathematical idea/foundation to the fluctuations.
But what I do in this area is not really the point of the question..
Trust me when I say, as I did in my few earlier posts, the two series of bet amounts do produce consistent profits on a stand alone basis.
I am only looking at various creative ways of combining them, apart from simply adding them together.
Maybe I am wasting my time, and there is no other way to use them and, if so, I am perfectly content with that.
I just thought I would point out the quite interesting results I got when doing what I did with the SQRT thing, in the hope, not necessarily the expectation, that it would trigger off some knowledge in others, particularly those skilled in statistics, which I'm not.
Thanks for your comments though.
I don't know where you got the idea that I bet using " random" numbers".
Not true at all.
I would agree that any strategy using such an approach will ultimately lose.
I fluctuate my stakes on a formula type basis most certainly, in that there is no subjectivity involved, but there is a mathematical idea/foundation to the fluctuations.
But what I do in this area is not really the point of the question..
Trust me when I say, as I did in my few earlier posts, the two series of bet amounts do produce consistent profits on a stand alone basis.
I am only looking at various creative ways of combining them, apart from simply adding them together.
Maybe I am wasting my time, and there is no other way to use them and, if so, I am perfectly content with that.
I just thought I would point out the quite interesting results I got when doing what I did with the SQRT thing, in the hope, not necessarily the expectation, that it would trigger off some knowledge in others, particularly those skilled in statistics, which I'm not.
Thanks for your comments though.
Look at the risk of insulting the intelligence of any or all who are reading this, it is pretty simple to see what I am doing here.
If the two bet amounts are the same, then I'm just halving the bet size in combinong them with this fancy formula.
However if they're not the same I'm not halving them.
And this is, for some unknown reason to me, smoothing out the peaks and troughs in performance.
And I'm asking if is there perhaps some underlying statistical explanation for the effect I'm getting.
The effect is quite marked and long running.
Trust all is a bit clearer now.
It's not all that important. More of a curiosity thing really.
If the two bet amounts are the same, then I'm just halving the bet size in combinong them with this fancy formula.
However if they're not the same I'm not halving them.
And this is, for some unknown reason to me, smoothing out the peaks and troughs in performance.
And I'm asking if is there perhaps some underlying statistical explanation for the effect I'm getting.
The effect is quite marked and long running.
Trust all is a bit clearer now.
It's not all that important. More of a curiosity thing really.
So I take it that this is a staking system.
Are x and y bets on the same event?
Are x and y bets on the same event?
Frog Hair, all this nonsense about X=Y add Z multiply by your birthday and the winner is a stand out
zipper dont do that nonsense let have a bit of fun and win a least £500.pounds now £500. pounds is a good days wage .
You put up your selection in the following races zip will put up mine and i will beat any formula out of sight, hey you have nothing to lose only your pride .
The races are
Lingfield 1.10 2.50 3.55 4.25 .
Huntingdon 2.30 4.05
Carlisle 2.05 3.45 ..
That makes 8 races zip will 8 bets today
Hope to see you later starting 1.10..zzzzz
zipper dont do that nonsense let have a bit of fun and win a least £500.pounds now £500. pounds is a good days wage .
You put up your selection in the following races zip will put up mine and i will beat any formula out of sight, hey you have nothing to lose only your pride .
The races are
Lingfield 1.10 2.50 3.55 4.25 .
Huntingdon 2.30 4.05
Carlisle 2.05 3.45 ..
That makes 8 races zip will 8 bets today
Hope to see you later starting 1.10..zzzzz
zipper ...he she knows very little re horse race betting....so you will have to get someone else to "play" with
....not me ...I'm too "busy"!
....not me ...I'm too "busy"!
DFC the Challenge is open to every one all are welcome hotshots , smart arses , aftertimers ...every one and Frog Hair
Look at the risk of insulting the intelligence of the OP , don't delude yourself with a staking plan you have happened across.
DFC hey i like that " Im too busy ".. zip has followed your thread and have got to say your good, very good .. not has good as me but your very good zipper .zzzzzzzzzzz
your asking what is the relationship between (x+y)-sqrt(x*y) and what?
DFC looks like this Hairy Frog is a no show ..
Well zip aint surprised you know how it is girls 3 pints of beer and a smell of the barmaids apron and them guys are falling all over the street
Well zip aint surprised you know how it is girls 3 pints of beer and a smell of the barmaids apron and them guys are falling all over the street
Look folks, the essence of my question is for some unknown reason evading most if not all of you ( zipper of course excluded).
There is no point, on this thread at least, in going into unrelated side issues, such as the merits or demerits of staking plans per se.
So let's leave it all there then.
Nothing gained. Nothing lost.
Thanks for your general interest in replying as you have thus far.
There is no point, on this thread at least, in going into unrelated side issues, such as the merits or demerits of staking plans per se.
So let's leave it all there then.
Nothing gained. Nothing lost.
Thanks for your general interest in replying as you have thus far.
Frog ~ you have started many threads, and asked many questions. You have written at length, sometimes cryptically and sometimes enigmatically. But finally I think I have realised what it is all about. And that is, you're just not that smart.
So, if it isn't a staking system, what is it? And what exactly are x and y? And what do you do with the answer?
We are curious about this, but your opening post does seem confusing.
We are curious about this, but your opening post does seem confusing.
Whatever.
You're all right.
I'm all wrong.
Sorry Marksman ( you're a earnest, good guy) but I just can't be bothered with it all any more, not when all the usual sad, sorry lot of sh!tkickers come out time and time again.
Unfckinbelievable as they say.
You're all right.
I'm all wrong.
Sorry Marksman ( you're a earnest, good guy) but I just can't be bothered with it all any more, not when all the usual sad, sorry lot of sh!tkickers come out time and time again.
Unfckinbelievable as they say.
FAFH,
Well then please stop starting this fishing expeditions.
Having re-read the thread in full [and indeed, other threads], you seem to exist on this forum purely to unearth the edges of other players.
I'm sorry I bothered trying to help you.
Do your own research - you're worse than the robots that try & manipulate prices in football games immediately after a goal has been scored & the market suspended...
Well then please stop starting this fishing expeditions.
Having re-read the thread in full [and indeed, other threads], you seem to exist on this forum purely to unearth the edges of other players.
I'm sorry I bothered trying to help you.
Do your own research - you're worse than the robots that try & manipulate prices in football games immediately after a goal has been scored & the market suspended...
A pissant, harmless thread like this turns into another slanging match with the usual suspects, and even a few unusual new ones.
I'm really sorry to say it but there is a relatively small bunch of @rsewipes on here who are totally negative and soul destroying.
The hate BF, they hate the bookies, they hate my posting style, they hate the commission they have to pay, they hate everything it appears.
They just suck the blood out of anybody who comes on here who apparently does not roll over and show due deference to their views and opinions.
You can't debate with them, because they hate debating.
You can't question them, because they hate questions.
You can't be polite to them, because they hate being polite.
You can however be angry with them, because they love to be angry.
I sure hope their gambling lives are choc a bloc with excitement, because the rest of their lives sound as dull as dishwater.
Well I'm off down to the yacht club to meet up with a few of my exciting, stimulating, successful real life mates.
No envy or jealousy there. They've all got big dcks.
Just put in the last few sentences only to really p!ss off those who know they are who I'm talking about.
To the rest of you, all the very best in your gambling exploits.
And yes I'll pick up my dummy as I go out the front door.
I'm really sorry to say it but there is a relatively small bunch of @rsewipes on here who are totally negative and soul destroying.
The hate BF, they hate the bookies, they hate my posting style, they hate the commission they have to pay, they hate everything it appears.
They just suck the blood out of anybody who comes on here who apparently does not roll over and show due deference to their views and opinions.
You can't debate with them, because they hate debating.
You can't question them, because they hate questions.
You can't be polite to them, because they hate being polite.
You can however be angry with them, because they love to be angry.
I sure hope their gambling lives are choc a bloc with excitement, because the rest of their lives sound as dull as dishwater.
Well I'm off down to the yacht club to meet up with a few of my exciting, stimulating, successful real life mates.
No envy or jealousy there. They've all got big dcks.
Just put in the last few sentences only to really p!ss off those who know they are who I'm talking about.
To the rest of you, all the very best in your gambling exploits.
And yes I'll pick up my dummy as I go out the front door.
Well I'm off down to the yacht club to meet up with a few of my exciting, stimulating, successful real life mates.
No envy or jealousy there. They've all got big dcks.
Tea all over the screen.
Meltdown post of the year.
No envy or jealousy there. They've all got big dcks.
Tea all over the screen.
Meltdown post of the year.
Actually I think I have got it: Suppose system X says have £10 on a team, and system Y tells you to have £10 on the other team, you calculate your bets as follows:
£10 on team X and £10 on team Y minus the square root of 10 times 10= £10
So the total stake will now be £10, so we have £5 on each team and hope that its not a draw.
£10 on team X and £10 on team Y minus the square root of 10 times 10= £10
So the total stake will now be £10, so we have £5 on each team and hope that its not a draw.
I can see how this approach will cause smoothing, but that is not the same as being profitable.
This is how statistics are interpreted by me.
3.45 ZETLAND STAKES
This race looks set up for Picture Editor, unbeaten after two runs and a win over distance.
Thought that Defence of Duress would be the one to test him after beating Little Rocky who ran a good 2nd to Stoute’s hotpot Sea World a few days ago.
That one didn’t declare at 48 hour stage so it maybe down to Godolphin to test the fav with Shooting Gallery.
There are a few reasons not to back Picture Editor.
1. Penalty carriers have won only 3 races from 11 races when a penalty was carried.
2. Usually past winners have just won a maiden race, and only 5 winners from 28 races had won a race other than maiden. ( 3 of those include a hcp race)
3. Only 3 past winners of the 28 races won more than ONE race. Two of those were pre 1986 (when it became listed ) and other won Listed race in 2000.
4. The winner of the Leicester 10 furlong race has provided ONE winner, Adnaan 1998 who won it on fouth attempt to break his maiden for John Dunop.
5. Apart from Adnaan three other winners of Leicester 10f race failed – Philanprophy 2005 (unplcd), Sunday Symphony 2004 (unplcd), Cohn Blue 2003 (2nd).
Reasons to back Picture Editor.
1. Twelve of the 28 winners had won over 9 or 10 furlongs
2. Nine favs have won. The two shortest price winners (Evens and 4/5) were both trained by Cecil (his only wins of this race)
Previous Cecil runners in race.
1982 WON Evs fav Form 4111 (hcp wins)
1984 Unpl 4/1 Form 120
1985 Unpl 8/1 Form 210
1988 Unpl 5/2f Form 211
1990 3rd 11/4 Form 1
1992 Unpl 13/8f Form 211
2007 WON 4/5f Form 1
2010 3rd 4/6f Form 11
Nothing else really stands out this year but I wouldn't want to take an odds on price
2010-10-30
15:51 12584210138 2010-10-29
19:49 GB Newm 30th Oct / 15:45 1m2f Cond Stks / Picture Editor
Lay 1.55 159.00 Won
Lot of hard research, but not as complicated as numbers and square root, so it seems.
3.45 ZETLAND STAKES
This race looks set up for Picture Editor, unbeaten after two runs and a win over distance.
Thought that Defence of Duress would be the one to test him after beating Little Rocky who ran a good 2nd to Stoute’s hotpot Sea World a few days ago.
That one didn’t declare at 48 hour stage so it maybe down to Godolphin to test the fav with Shooting Gallery.
There are a few reasons not to back Picture Editor.
1. Penalty carriers have won only 3 races from 11 races when a penalty was carried.
2. Usually past winners have just won a maiden race, and only 5 winners from 28 races had won a race other than maiden. ( 3 of those include a hcp race)
3. Only 3 past winners of the 28 races won more than ONE race. Two of those were pre 1986 (when it became listed ) and other won Listed race in 2000.
4. The winner of the Leicester 10 furlong race has provided ONE winner, Adnaan 1998 who won it on fouth attempt to break his maiden for John Dunop.
5. Apart from Adnaan three other winners of Leicester 10f race failed – Philanprophy 2005 (unplcd), Sunday Symphony 2004 (unplcd), Cohn Blue 2003 (2nd).
Reasons to back Picture Editor.
1. Twelve of the 28 winners had won over 9 or 10 furlongs
2. Nine favs have won. The two shortest price winners (Evens and 4/5) were both trained by Cecil (his only wins of this race)
Previous Cecil runners in race.
1982 WON Evs fav Form 4111 (hcp wins)
1984 Unpl 4/1 Form 120
1985 Unpl 8/1 Form 210
1988 Unpl 5/2f Form 211
1990 3rd 11/4 Form 1
1992 Unpl 13/8f Form 211
2007 WON 4/5f Form 1
2010 3rd 4/6f Form 11
Nothing else really stands out this year but I wouldn't want to take an odds on price
2010-10-30
15:51 12584210138 2010-10-29
19:49 GB Newm 30th Oct / 15:45 1m2f Cond Stks / Picture Editor
Lay 1.55 159.00 Won
Lot of hard research, but not as complicated as numbers and square root, so it seems.
Pinza
Interesting to see your stats on the Leicester 10 furlong race. I wouldn't expect a 2yo that won that race to be necessarily good, as the most likely reason for running in it would be that the horse is too slow to be competitive in conditions mile races. This is confirmed by the fact that he only won his 1 mile maiden by a short head.
But he is trained by Henry Cecil, who is back at the top of his game. He ran Twice Over in the Zetland and won it easily, And Twice Over proved to be top class at 1m 2f. (And the rumours about Frankel's terrific works proved to be right)
Sometimes it is right to go against the stats, even though they may seem solid. I didn't have a bet in that race, but well done to you for doing so.
Interesting to see your stats on the Leicester 10 furlong race. I wouldn't expect a 2yo that won that race to be necessarily good, as the most likely reason for running in it would be that the horse is too slow to be competitive in conditions mile races. This is confirmed by the fact that he only won his 1 mile maiden by a short head.
But he is trained by Henry Cecil, who is back at the top of his game. He ran Twice Over in the Zetland and won it easily, And Twice Over proved to be top class at 1m 2f. (And the rumours about Frankel's terrific works proved to be right)
Sometimes it is right to go against the stats, even though they may seem solid. I didn't have a bet in that race, but well done to you for doing so.
Well just had a few quick ones.
Thought I'd just pop back to see how my last post was going down.
Must say I'm a bit disappointed lads.
Not much for me to get my teeth into there.
A big bunch of **** if you ask me.
I suppose the continued stress and failure you endure in your everyday attempts to become big time, high net worth full time gamblers, is slowly but surely taking a toll on your cllective confidences.
Let alone all the barbs you have to take from friends and acquaintances as to your non- contribution to the good of society, your non-payment of a fair share of income tax, your blood sucking greed to win at all costs, your lonely, anti-social hours of study and toil, your neglect of your loved ones, your little unkempt bedsits because of your inability to get mortgages. The list is endless.
This is no meltdown by me boyos.
This is just a bit of me letting off some steam. Helped by a few sherbets.
You don't want to see, or read to be more exact, a meltdown by me. It wouldn't be pretty believe me.
The first line of any such tirade probably wouldn't get past the censor.
Now hopefully, this might get your juices running a bit more, get the blood up a bit more.
Pinza
Not really the type of answer I was looking for, as you probably know.
Marksman
You're a serious, honest type of guy. You're out of your depth in the sarcasm market. Stick to your abilities. Hence I exclude you from all this, unless of course you want to be seen as one of the boys.
A sorry lot most of you are indeed.
My sympathies to you all. It must be a pretty tough life you're leading.
Thought I'd just pop back to see how my last post was going down.
Must say I'm a bit disappointed lads.
Not much for me to get my teeth into there.
A big bunch of **** if you ask me.
I suppose the continued stress and failure you endure in your everyday attempts to become big time, high net worth full time gamblers, is slowly but surely taking a toll on your cllective confidences.
Let alone all the barbs you have to take from friends and acquaintances as to your non- contribution to the good of society, your non-payment of a fair share of income tax, your blood sucking greed to win at all costs, your lonely, anti-social hours of study and toil, your neglect of your loved ones, your little unkempt bedsits because of your inability to get mortgages. The list is endless.
This is no meltdown by me boyos.
This is just a bit of me letting off some steam. Helped by a few sherbets.
You don't want to see, or read to be more exact, a meltdown by me. It wouldn't be pretty believe me.
The first line of any such tirade probably wouldn't get past the censor.
Now hopefully, this might get your juices running a bit more, get the blood up a bit more.
Pinza
Not really the type of answer I was looking for, as you probably know.
Marksman
You're a serious, honest type of guy. You're out of your depth in the sarcasm market. Stick to your abilities. Hence I exclude you from all this, unless of course you want to be seen as one of the boys.
A sorry lot most of you are indeed.
My sympathies to you all. It must be a pretty tough life you're leading.
FINE AS FROG HAIR Joined: 12 Mar 07
Replies: 1112 31 Oct 10 21:00
I'm having fun.
I hope you all are.
Having fun? Chance would be a fine thing. After backing Hannagan to win the jockeys title, I have had to sit and watch Hughes ride circles round him. And when Hannagan did get involved in a finish with Hughes, he went down in a head bob at Lingfield today. It really was on the nod, and Hughes's horse had his head down on the line.
But glad you are having fun, Froggie. (Unfortunately, me and alcohol are a bad combination, so I won't personally be looking for comfort in drink tonight.)
Replies: 1112 31 Oct 10 21:00
I'm having fun.
I hope you all are.
Having fun? Chance would be a fine thing. After backing Hannagan to win the jockeys title, I have had to sit and watch Hughes ride circles round him. And when Hannagan did get involved in a finish with Hughes, he went down in a head bob at Lingfield today. It really was on the nod, and Hughes's horse had his head down on the line.
But glad you are having fun, Froggie. (Unfortunately, me and alcohol are a bad combination, so I won't personally be looking for comfort in drink tonight.)
Btw I exclude the more intelligent amongst you from my last post.
It is all pretty obviously just a deliberate wind up by me of the lesser intelligent ones ( the majority I'm afraid to say), who seem to try to cover that fact up by being rude and abusive.
I thought I would try it out myself to see how it feels.
And you know what really concerns me most ?
It feels good. Now that is a worry.
It is all pretty obviously just a deliberate wind up by me of the lesser intelligent ones ( the majority I'm afraid to say), who seem to try to cover that fact up by being rude and abusive.
I thought I would try it out myself to see how it feels.
And you know what really concerns me most ?
It feels good. Now that is a worry.
Sorry to hear that Marksman.
I understand it can be real tough going out there for a certain honest few.
And I really don't want to expose any raw nerves or internal doubts you might have in taking on this professional gambling game full time.
So I regret if I have done so in any form or manner in your particular case.
Lori
Me angry ?
What on earth makes you think that ?
I love being called a charlatan, a thief, a liar, a fraud etc etc.
And I thought this forum was going to be a warm, fuzzy like place.
I'm must be stupid that is for sure.
I understand it can be real tough going out there for a certain honest few.
And I really don't want to expose any raw nerves or internal doubts you might have in taking on this professional gambling game full time.
So I regret if I have done so in any form or manner in your particular case.
Lori
Me angry ?
What on earth makes you think that ?
I love being called a charlatan, a thief, a liar, a fraud etc etc.
And I thought this forum was going to be a warm, fuzzy like place.
I'm must be stupid that is for sure.
Frog Hair, I must admit your threads have a car crash quality to them - you don't want to watch, but you can't stop yourself.
Anyway, when I lost interest when I found out x and y were staking amounts. I thought you might have been predicting something interesting like goals scored.
Anyway, when I lost interest when I found out x and y were staking amounts. I thought you might have been predicting something interesting like goals scored.
We agree at last pxb.
Wonders never cease.
Btw what does it really matter what x and y are.?
For all you know I may in fact be staking on goals scored for that matter. Or I may not be.
It's irrelevant essentially to the question I asked.
I was disappointed, though not necessarily surprised, that you didn't follow up on my invite to elaborate on your interesting statement about my little equation might actually have some smoothing characteristics, in a technical statistical sense.
Please explain what the subject being predicted has any bearing on ?
Wonders never cease.
Btw what does it really matter what x and y are.?
For all you know I may in fact be staking on goals scored for that matter. Or I may not be.
It's irrelevant essentially to the question I asked.
I was disappointed, though not necessarily surprised, that you didn't follow up on my invite to elaborate on your interesting statement about my little equation might actually have some smoothing characteristics, in a technical statistical sense.
Please explain what the subject being predicted has any bearing on ?
Staking amounts aren't predictions. You could just as well pull numbers out of the telephone directory.
I'm not interested in wasting my time on staking amount systems.
BTW, the system I mentioned earlier has had 3 new wins, zero loses and 1 voided game.
I'm not interested in wasting my time on staking amount systems.
BTW, the system I mentioned earlier has had 3 new wins, zero loses and 1 voided game.
Forget pxb
You're a jerk of the first order.
Think about it.
Every strategy in the world has a staking system, unless you totally flat bet.
It's just the premise of the staking system that changes case by case.
Obviously most people vary their stakes according the size of their edge as it's commonly called.
Somecalculate their edge by so-called value analysis. I calculate my edge differently. That's all.
As far as my equation is concerned, I tried to express my question in layman's terms, to make it more easily understandable. It obviously didn't work.
eg I referred to the smoothing out of the performance peaks and troughs.
Another more technical way of putting it would have been to say it reduces the volatility of my results/performance. That is smoooths it out.
Thus, although it obvoiously reduces the results in an absolute sense as it makes the bets smaller, contrastingly by virtue of the decrease in volatility, I could leverage up more, that is stake larger amounts relative to my capital base, and earn more money.
Got it sweetheart.?
You're a jerk of the first order.
Think about it.
Every strategy in the world has a staking system, unless you totally flat bet.
It's just the premise of the staking system that changes case by case.
Obviously most people vary their stakes according the size of their edge as it's commonly called.
Somecalculate their edge by so-called value analysis. I calculate my edge differently. That's all.
As far as my equation is concerned, I tried to express my question in layman's terms, to make it more easily understandable. It obviously didn't work.
eg I referred to the smoothing out of the performance peaks and troughs.
Another more technical way of putting it would have been to say it reduces the volatility of my results/performance. That is smoooths it out.
Thus, although it obvoiously reduces the results in an absolute sense as it makes the bets smaller, contrastingly by virtue of the decrease in volatility, I could leverage up more, that is stake larger amounts relative to my capital base, and earn more money.
Got it sweetheart.?
dear me.
Froggy, you really need to have a word with yourself after this performance.
Froggy, you really need to have a word with yourself after this performance.
You're right Dave.
I have and I'm sorted now.
OK ?
Of course I still don't have any answers.
But that's a minor matter.
If you think a pipsqueak jerk like pxb who once started a post with " I know more than most on this -- " is a more intelligent, credible poster than me, then we're on a different planet.
For sure ths is all OTT type posting from me, but what can you do ?
Just STFU I suppose.
Not my nature unfortunately I suppose.
I don't give up on things, either people or ideas.
But, in this case of the BF general betting forum, I'm getting close to a first.
I have and I'm sorted now.
OK ?
Of course I still don't have any answers.
But that's a minor matter.
If you think a pipsqueak jerk like pxb who once started a post with " I know more than most on this -- " is a more intelligent, credible poster than me, then we're on a different planet.
For sure ths is all OTT type posting from me, but what can you do ?
Just STFU I suppose.
Not my nature unfortunately I suppose.
I don't give up on things, either people or ideas.
But, in this case of the BF general betting forum, I'm getting close to a first.
Armpits
As the late great Tommy Cooper used to say " Well don't ".
As the late great Tommy Cooper used to say " Well don't ".
I tried mutiplying the two of them and taking the square root of the result.
I got a relatively poor performance out of that but I did notice a strange characteristic on the fluctuations of the results, which indicated to me that just throwing away this sqrt idea was not perhaps a good thing to do.
So, essentially just out of curiosity, I subtracted the square root amount from the added amount.
eg ( x+y)-(SQRT(x*y))
And lo and behold itsmoothed out in quite a material manner the peaks anfd troughs of the simple ( x+y) results.
As result I could now leverage up if using the new, more complex approach and increase profitability substantially.
If we put some random numbers to x and y, say 10.0 and 5.0, x+y becomes 15.0, and the sqrt of x*y becomes 7.1, and (x+y)-(SQRT(x*y)) becomes 7.9.
Maybe I have misunderstood, but I can't immediately see how betting at the sqrt of x*y (7.1) would show a "relatively poor result", while betting at ( x+y)-(SQRT(x*y)) (7.9) a better result?
7.9 is obviously a better price if you're backing, but the price is probably true at both 7.9 and 7.1, so that's not the answer. Is the "strange characteristic" less volatility? If so 7.1 should be less volatile than 7.9, so that's not the answer either.
Only you know what x and y are, but I would guess you're looking at something that has reduced volatility from just backing at x, simply because you've introduced y, and probably the sqrt idea means nothing.
I got a relatively poor performance out of that but I did notice a strange characteristic on the fluctuations of the results, which indicated to me that just throwing away this sqrt idea was not perhaps a good thing to do.
So, essentially just out of curiosity, I subtracted the square root amount from the added amount.
eg ( x+y)-(SQRT(x*y))
And lo and behold itsmoothed out in quite a material manner the peaks anfd troughs of the simple ( x+y) results.
As result I could now leverage up if using the new, more complex approach and increase profitability substantially.
If we put some random numbers to x and y, say 10.0 and 5.0, x+y becomes 15.0, and the sqrt of x*y becomes 7.1, and (x+y)-(SQRT(x*y)) becomes 7.9.
Maybe I have misunderstood, but I can't immediately see how betting at the sqrt of x*y (7.1) would show a "relatively poor result", while betting at ( x+y)-(SQRT(x*y)) (7.9) a better result?
7.9 is obviously a better price if you're backing, but the price is probably true at both 7.9 and 7.1, so that's not the answer. Is the "strange characteristic" less volatility? If so 7.1 should be less volatile than 7.9, so that's not the answer either.
Only you know what x and y are, but I would guess you're looking at something that has reduced volatility from just backing at x, simply because you've introduced y, and probably the sqrt idea means nothing.
Trevh
Using your example.
The 10 and 5 are bet amounts on the same event in the same direction at the same time. They are not in any way prices.
So instead of betting 15 units , I would bet the strange amount 7.9 units, which you correctly calculated. As I said it's not simply half.
Now for some strange reason it just doesn't produce less absolute profits, as one would expect from a smaller bet amount, it produces less volatility, that is shaloower troughs between the peaks of profitability.
The effect is quite noticeable and is showing no signs of decreasing as the sample size gets bigger.
Hence my question. What may be happening here.?
Maybe the answer is nothing long term. Maybe it's just a short term freak phenomenon.
I simply don't know one way or the other.
At the moment all it is is interesting.
But I just thought, perhaps foolishly in light of all the confusion I seem to have created, that somebody might just have some useful ideas.
Thanks for your effort though.
Your very helpful and considered response which I have come to expect from you as being quite normal , is much appreciated in all the current mayhem.
Using your example.
The 10 and 5 are bet amounts on the same event in the same direction at the same time. They are not in any way prices.
So instead of betting 15 units , I would bet the strange amount 7.9 units, which you correctly calculated. As I said it's not simply half.
Now for some strange reason it just doesn't produce less absolute profits, as one would expect from a smaller bet amount, it produces less volatility, that is shaloower troughs between the peaks of profitability.
The effect is quite noticeable and is showing no signs of decreasing as the sample size gets bigger.
Hence my question. What may be happening here.?
Maybe the answer is nothing long term. Maybe it's just a short term freak phenomenon.
I simply don't know one way or the other.
At the moment all it is is interesting.
But I just thought, perhaps foolishly in light of all the confusion I seem to have created, that somebody might just have some useful ideas.
Thanks for your effort though.
Your very helpful and considered response which I have come to expect from you as being quite normal , is much appreciated in all the current mayhem.
Btw are you up perhaps to becoming my PR consultant on this forum ?
A nice challenging job I would think, don't you ?
A nice challenging job I would think, don't you ?
Could it just be that when both x and y are high the betting scenario is more obvious to other participants who pile in and take some of your value.
I don't think I'm ready for that challenge fafh, you do seem to have a knack of attracting abusive responses, I'm not sure why? Maybe you have history with some of these posters? Perhaps pxb will be up for the job?Now for some strange reason it just doesn't produce less absolute profits, as one would expect from a smaller bet amount, it produces less volatility, that is shaloower troughs between the peaks of profitability.
Can't quite get my head around that, I know that backing smaller amounts at lower odds in certain markets can produce the same or even better profitability, but not if you're backing smaller amounts at the same odds?
The only factors that affect my staking is my available to bet amount and how much the market will bear without my bets distorting the odds.
IMO anyone who thinks a staking system is important is never going to make money here.
BTW, I had my most profitable day ever yesterday. A market was badly mispriced for reasons I explained to you in an earlier thread but you predictably ignored, and I piled in with all my available funds and made a whopping profit.
IMO anyone who thinks a staking system is important is never going to make money here.
BTW, I had my most profitable day ever yesterday. A market was badly mispriced for reasons I explained to you in an earlier thread but you predictably ignored, and I piled in with all my available funds and made a whopping profit.
There is another badly mispriced market coming up, but for this market I will run around putting cash bets on at bookmakers in order to arb a loss here in order to get my pc liability down.
Kelly Criteria - it's probably an effect similar to that. Look into it if you have not previously, it will optimise your profitability longterm.
Frog Hair , lets have some fun today.. tell you what you bring this x-y plus z system. you pick the races any race today any were .. and zip will put up my lucky stabs in the dark .. you on .
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539