Lori
You're being serious here.
Incredible.

OK let's assume you're right in your assumption.
It still means that he, and presumably quite a few others, as he apparently doesn't seem to beunique in his claim, are running bots which are apparently scalable into pretty attractive total earnings figures, generating over 20,000 % pa ROC?
That's what you believe, and I don't ?
And you believe it based on no other info about Bayes, or the others, than what you read on here ?

And these super bots have never been the subject of media speculation as to who owns and runs them to achieve such spectacular success ?
Despite the fact that it would put the owners in the top 1% ( I'm guessing here) of earners in the country perhaps ? Adjust that percentage how you see fit. It will still be low and extraordinary.

And remember Lori, I really don't need the money and I'm even fckin impressed.
Of course you don't believe that because you don't think I'm smart enough to have made money in any manner do you, based on the totality of my posts on here on gambling ?
Logical. Of course it is not.

frog, your tone with others is a bit grating.

nobody really cares if you do or don't believe the people who say it can be done.

can it be done? yes. is it dead easy and everyone can do it? no, very few have done it

we may as well be arguing over whether there is a cat in my garden - you think my claim is preposterous and i can't be bothered to send you a picture

fwiw i wouldn't fancy making 100k from 1k in a year as i don't generate enough turnover, being mainly a position taker.

but it would still be nothing more than a matter of time to do it, if someone has an edge that beats commission/pc and they stake well then they will win.

the limiting factor about how long you can grow your bankroll at a good rate is market liquidity, but 100k is a very fair amount to make before that is a concern, in most markets

Keep digging away Frog, someone may slip up and reveal all eventually :)

I do in running, but manually. Hence I'm on here contributing to this drivel.

Frog, the mega bucks are bots on the exchange games FACT!! and don't let anyone tell you any different... i've met the guy who runs those mega bots!!

i'm talking 2 years ago ish - if things have changed since then then i was unaware of it as never something I had looked at

Yep I might even agree to that.
Except that it's common knowledge now that BF sets the markets in Xgames.
And only the mkt setters will win on Xgames.
I think Bayes in fact was one of those rudely displaced by BF on Xgames.
But those are bots dealing with exact quantifiable odds, and cannot lose in the long run at least.
I to a degree, don't dispute that Bayes can and does make very good money on all areas of BF.
I am just challenging the extent of that success, in terms of the capital required to achieve it.

All our posts crossed.
But the important questions remain unsatisfactorily unanswered to me I'm afraid to say.
I'm sure Bayes et al will come back and say they owe neither me nor any others any further explanation of the extraordinary claims of capital utilisation.
Fair enough.
But don't expect to be believed when quoting such fantasy type figures, when compared to real world of finance out there.

FINE AS FROG HAIR
I am just challenging the extent of that success, in terms of the capital required to achieve it.

Do you actually understand trading Frog ?

If I lay a horse at 10 for £100 and back it at 11 for £90.11 I've locked in a profit of around £9 after comms, I only need a bank of £1K and once the bets been closed I'm free to go in again and move onto the next race. There are around 200 UK races alone each week so it shouldn't take a genius to work out you can make a decent living if you're able to spot those type of moves within prices.

By:
FINE AS FROG HAIR
When: 18 Nov 10 18:23
I would think that to make more than 100K a year out of betting, you would need to dedicate at least 500K of capital, and that would be cutting it fine.
So if you think there are hundreds dedicating that amount of capital, then hundreds would be your answer.

So that would be a return of 20% minus operating expenses.
The Swedish market maker Betting Promotion does much better than that on a capital base of £Millions. Their returns do seem to have been steadily declining over the years though.



By:
steeringjobnap
When: 18 Nov 10 18:38
FAFH.

Even Findlay reckons 8% ROI is the ceiling.

Veitch claims 16%, but he appears privy to "sharp" info from yards.

20% ROI impossible imo.


You're misinterpreting ROI. This statistic measures return on bets placed. It's confusing because this is peculiar to betting. Instead of considering your bank size, you consider the total of your stakes as your investment. So that means if Findlay places £1Million worth of bets, he expects to make £80,000. It does not involve a measure of time, so whether it takes him 10 years or 2 weeks does not influence this stat.

My ROI in 2009 was less than 2%, but my return on capital employed was well over 100%


By:
Contrarian
When: 18 Nov 10 19:24

It is a major misconception to assume that a large capital base is needed to generate large profits. It might be for position-takers, but for in-play traders, say, more than about £20k is totally unnecessary.


When you say 'totally unnecessary', do you mean it would be pointless for you to use a bank size larger than that?
Any incremental gain would still be beneficial. I would rather make £480 per day from a £100,000 bank, than £400 per day from a £20,000 bank.
Assuming 250 active days in the year this leads to a 500% return for the inital £20k (£100,000) and a 25% return for the next £80k (£20,000). Anything that leads to a return in excess of 20% would be worthwhile for me (actually as a PC payer, anything with a return over 0% would be worthwhile)

By:
Contrarian
When: 18 Nov 10 21:39
FAFH,

Well, actually, for many IP traders, the risk of losing in the long run is infinitesimally small. Because, over the course of, say, a month, the trader is doing thousands of bets (I, eg., each week trade over 200 markets, and probably match about £2m) if he has an edge, the probability of being down over any extended time period is virtually zero.

I think that's a dangerous assumption, because your models are never going to describe the real world perfectly. There are other things to consider. How do you deal with your account being hacked and the money stole etc.? You're protected by the fact that you evidently withdraw all your winnings and keep your balance to £20k, so you could simply replace it. That won't be the case for everyone though.

FINE AS FROG HAIR
When: 19 Nov 10 00:02
Out of interest, does anyone really believe the post by Get On Massive.
Surely not.
I sincerely hope he was just taking the michael.
Otherwise?
Better not go there.


Of course I believe it. It's been pretty well documented that people have been able to do this. What I see a lot on Betfair is that people often say something can't be done, because they can't do it. This includes successful people, who think their way really works and others are bullsh!tting. If he had claimed he could turn that £100k into £10M on here the next year, I wouldn't believe it though


FINE AS FROG HAIR
When: 19 Nov 10 13:49
And these super bots have never been the subject of media speculation as to who owns and runs them to achieve such spectacular success ?
Despite the fact that it would put the owners in the top 1% ( I'm guessing here) of earners in the country perhaps ? Adjust that percentage how you see fit. It will still be low and extraordinary.


Betfair don't tell the media anything. In fact, Mark Davies was even quoted in the Evening Standard saying that 'very few customers make a consistent profit on Betfair, and none of these are in the UK.', while blatantly untrue, I have been told this was a misquote. If you read the article, it does seem like Davies is quite deliberately giving the impression that there is no money to be made for whatever reason.

If I was making £1M or £2M or £10M a year, I also wouldn't tell the media anything. No surprises there.

How about I make an alternative style appeal to people's common sense.
If all this trading success is achievable without any large capital requirement, that is capital is essentially not a barrier to entry, then how come we're not getting ( say) groups of smart students coming together to work the angles.
That's what happened at MIT when BJ card counting became publicly known.
If all that is required here are some highly developed mathematical  and computer programming skills, then why isn't the field starting to get crowded to the point that these sorts of astronomical ROCs are being reduced if not totally eliminated.
Trading per se is not rocket science, as many keep pointing out to me.
Where are all the budding entrepreneurs in all this, particularly those not well endowed financially.
After all, it's money for the taking if you believe what you read on here.
Doesn't make sense, any way you look at it all.

Typical inane response form our resident yellow belly.

What's inane about it? Who do you actually think you're conversing with in this thread? Random people?

then how come we're not getting ( say) groups of smart students coming together to work the angles

Presumably some insight into Sport is required to go along with the maths (unlike card games).

Also on your point about BJ , correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe it was a fully tested out theory until the fill advent and easy availability of PCs made for further detailed analysis and full development of strategies. Whatever, they got onto it eventually and their example of what can be done has been well taken to heart by all students around the world.
It won't take so long next time such a golden opportunity arises.
And if you believe unconditionally all you read on here, this is the golden opportunity they have all been waiting for.
Or is it ?

You NEED an "edgE or"edges" FAFH....and bloody students don't have that.........they might have the discipline though

You're wrong.

Thorp's strategy, while not optimal, was a massive winner and in practical terms was probably very close to optimal anyway for a human sat in casino conditions.