100k+

You can bet pretty much what you like on high liquidity football markets on here. My ultimate aim is to bet six figure sums per game, on the match odds. Hopefully I will get there one day.

Just want to say that this thread is hugely valuable and should be read by anyone who is considering doing this seriously.  It should open your eyes to what's possible and the types of people you're up against.

So many golden nuggets in here if you can spot them and plenty of respect should go the posters for being so open in their approach.

An all time classic - well done guys.

Yep, good stuff

marky, I tried reading it all but unfortunately
dozed off half way down the second page !

Kenilworth It is more than a tad self indulgent and theres an element of "god I thought I was clever, but you are even smarter than me!" slightly sick-inducing and pretentious love in. but that's just the natural cynic in me, im sure froghair would approve [;)]

Nevertheless some very interesting points in amongst the dross.

Aye robot, i'd be interested to know if you do most of your trading pre-race or in-play, or is it a combination of both?

I must admit i'd suspect the drawback with trading on horse's prices pre-ace would be as you try to build your position with all these tiny 2 pound bets trying to lock in a tiny profit,and someone comes in with a huge wad of money and blows the whole market wide apart. I know one big player (or at least he claims to be, but i'm not so sure) who trys to do something similar but can have bad runs if theres a massive gamble on one horse on the other from left field. So froghair's suspicions about garaunteed profits accumalated with very little risk seem to be not so misplaced.

Personally I would imagine that by trading in-play you take away a lot of the risk of someone coming in with inside information and getting an edge on you in the market. I do remember reading this blog by this trader called adam heathcote, who claimed to make 300k trading on horse's prerace, without knowing anything whatsoever about horses (that reminded me of what you were saying, perhaps you are the same person? [;) ) but he seems to have dissapeared.

also your somewhat contemptous dismissal of the average gambler reminds me of what mordin said in "winning without thinking" that what unite's most professional gamblers that he has known isniversal contempt they show for the average punter. essentially the less like a sheep you can be,

sorry to keep doing these posts but something wrong with my computer.

back to my point, the universal contempt for the person, the less like a sheep you can be, the greater your chances of keeping afloat in the long run.

However although you are right in saying that these "mug punters" are addicted and will play whatever the weather, isn't that true of everybody? after all i'm pretty sure that anybody on this thread can make a great deal of money without the risks inherent in gambling. it's nothing to do with the money, really, it's the buzz, the willingness to live on the edge.

If I could best describe what defines success in gambling, I'd say it is the ability to understand how other's think and how best to take advantage of the mistakes they make again and again.

without understanding why people make the bet's they do, then we are all just reduced to guessers. It's getting inside the collective gambler's head that is the key to winning at gambling. You understand the reason's why a horse or a football team might be overbet half way there.

and you are half way there. fuucking comp, this is why I never use bots!

mythical prince

Kenilworth It is more than a tad self indulgent and theres an element of "god I thought I was clever, but you are even smarter than me!" slightly sick-inducing and pretentious love in. but that's just the natural cynic in me, im sure froghair would approve


mp, I'm sure you are right and I wasn't able to wade through near 500 posts, a great deal of them
exactly as you say, to find the supposed 'jewels' that lurk within. Good luck to anyone who has
that kind of patience.

More than 120 posts from one poster. Just thought I would
throw that one in.

However although you are right in saying that these "mug punters" are addicted and will play whatever the weather, isn't that true of everybody? after all i'm pretty sure that anybody on this thread can make a great deal of money without the risks inherent in gambling. it's nothing to do with the money, really, it's the buzz, the willingness to live on the edge.

It's everything to do with the money for me. I spend at least 40hours a week betting, and if I wasn't making a sufficient level of profit, i'd be doing something else. I'm already making quite a lot more than I was in my last job, but what really keeps me going is the potential to make a lot of money, much more than just the equivalent of a high wage.

couldn't someone with your skills make far more money working in the city though investor?

and you'd have the added advantage of a social life [;)]

yeah but who wants to socialise with those cvnts that work in the city?

I think I would rather empty dustbins than sit in
front of a computer for 40+hours per week, with
respect to the poster. Having said that, it would
be better than sitting in front of the computer
reading and posting 120+ posts on one thread. How
long would that take ?

To be fair Kenilworth, it's probably more exiting posting on threads than doing stat counts for how many times people have posted on threads

Except counting the posts took me about 5 minutes. I think I could
find something better to do than post 120+ times on a forum thread. Each
to their own, whatever turns you on etc. GL.

Except counting the posts took me about 5 minutes

Why did you spend 5 minutes counting them?

What percentage of players would you say make 100k+ on here?

More than you'd think, because BF isn't a zero sum game (excluding commision). It just appears to the casual observer it is.

kenilworth

hope you aware that you have 4k posts here, a lot more than many that have posted on this thread

lusitano, you've had nearly 5k in 3 years while
my 4k is over nearly 6 years, so you have been
quite busy. What do you say about that ?

for what the new beta forum says its the last 6 months activity

but you seem to have problems with that, i don't

i've had in my life too much social activity tbh, but if you're in the early twenties i might agree with you, but...im not in my early twenties

Neither am I.

Luistano is a troublemaker and an idiot.

whats happened to this thread,i was enjojing reading

ROI isn't how much you grow your bank annually you fvcking f@ggot. If I bet 100 pounds on a 1.2 shot and it comes in then my ROI is 20 percent.

So what's your ROI if you lose?

ok, sorry, i misunderstood

my fund has decreased by 75 percent since the start of the season

ROI is a useless measure in gambling. Avocado's definition of ROI tells you nothing more than the odds of a single bet (which you already know). You're better off expressing that as "odds" not "ROI."

The growth you see in your total bank might be expressed as ROI but it's not a good way of looking at returns because in gambling your money is never really "invested" in the way that it is when you buy shares (for example). Nor is the size of your bank necessarily relevant to your returns.

Of course you can make an analogy between sports gambling and financial investing but it will always be weak and flawed. It's much better to call gambling what it is and use the native terminology wherever possible as that's the most accurate way of describing what we do.

Gambling is a game that you win or lose, we are more accurately described as "players" not "investors", we don't "buy and sell" we "back" and "lay," our transactions are wagers, not investments.

Yes - If you must use one of these measures that's more sensible but you have to think carefully about the most relevant way to calculate your turnover if you back and lay the same selection (for example). If I were to do this I'd take my "turnover" to be my wins per market. So the calculation would be:
overall profit / total of winning markets. This still doesn't give you the whole picture though.

Another way you might do it is calculate your total edge by dividing the number of winning bets you had (all your individual bets) by the number you would have expected if all of your odds had been "true." This would give you an average value for your bets- but would still be flawed because of the comm structure and because you may have staked different amounts on different events.

Ultimately I don't bother with any of this stuff because it doesn't tell me anything I don't already know. I analyse the results of individual strategies quite closely but I don't bother with overall measures at all.

I'm not just talking about one bet. Your ROI is the percentage of what you've made/lost in relation to what you've staked. If I've staked a million and I end up 100k up then my ROI is 10 percent.

How do you work it out if you have ...
Back 70 on B'ham at 2.90
lay 50 B'ham at 1.70
back 50 the draw at 2.4
Lay 40 the draw at 2.0

B'ham win, profit 88, what is my ROI ?

Racingguru, ROI refers to profit on turnover. This is peculiar to gambling, and the source of a lot of confusion.

it opens up a whole can of worms in any case, as even turnover can be difficult to define. I use 'bet volume', which is the sum total of back bets, plus the backer's stake for your lay bets. Others may sum the liability of all bets. Others still may use the maximum liability per event to calculate it.

I also look at 'market turnover' which refers to the sum total of the absolute values of profit per market (losses are added to the total as a positive number).

Although profit on turnover on it's own may not be all that useful as a stat, it becomes more interesting when you add the turnover ratio. Someone with a 3% profit on turnover could be making 10x as much as someone with a 6% profit on turnover, but if you know the turnover ratio, you get more of a complete picture to assess the results.

havent seen fishing like this since Janov & schalke05 top bombing

aye robot
Date Joined: 17 Jan 08
Add contact | Send message
When: 03 Dec 10 16:23
ROI is a useless measure in gambling. Avocado's definition of ROI tells you nothing more than the odds of a single bet (which you already know). You're better off expressing that as "odds" not "ROI."

The growth you see in your total bank might be expressed as ROI but it's not a good way of looking at returns because in gambling your money is never really "invested" in the way that it is when you buy shares (for example). Nor is the size of your bank necessarily relevant to your returns.

Of course you can make an analogy between sports gambling and financial investing but it will always be weak and flawed. It's much better to call gambling what it is and use the native terminology wherever possible as that's the most accurate way of describing what we do.

Gambling is a game that you win or lose, we are more accurately described as "players" not "investors", we don't "buy and sell" we "back" and "lay," our transactions are wagers, not investments.

I see that quite differently. For what I do, the size of my bank is very relevant to the returns. For instance,  using a £20k bank instead of a £10k bank, I would expect to make signicantly more money (though not double). This almost certainly wouldn't be the case for you.

My overall aim is to increase my net worth (and to a lesser extent disposable income). Betting profits are a substantial part of my overall income, and I see alloction of capital as a pure investment decision, whether it be for betfair or not.


I really don't think there is a need to differentiate between this and other 'investments' other than on the grounds that people may be fooling themselves by calling it an investment.

Investment generally refers to using capital to make a profit. Under that simple definition, I think it qualifies as investment.

There are two inputs that create profitability for successful people on Betfair
1) labour or time spent (this could be trading/betting, building bots etc.)
2) capital (betfair balance, paying for software/hardware, perhaps even employees)

For Aye Robot, I guess 2) is far less important than point 1). For me capital is important. If I removed 80% of my balance, it would severly affect my ability to make a profit for an extended period of time, whereas other may be able to get back to their original bank size in a matter of weeks or days.

No doubt, Aye Robot is able to operate way more efficiently than I do, but the question becomes:

If you can make £100,000 per year using a £10k bank (the actual size of the bank doesn't matter, it's just an example), is it worth using a £50k bank to make £110,000? My answer would be yes obviously if the risk characteristics are also similar. These are the kind of questions where ROI starts to matter, as you need to decide what you are going to do with your excess capital. Perhaps you just spend it, but if you want to use it to make more money, you have to decide how to use (or if you like invest [;)]) the money.

On the narrow point, I did include a caveat:

The growth you see in your total bank might be expressed as ROI but it's not a good way of looking at returns because in gambling your money is never really "invested" in the way that it is when you buy shares (for example). Nor is the size of your bank necessarily relevant to your returns.

On the wider point; If you're functioning profitably and don't have a problem with gambling then you can call it what you like, it doesn't matter. The problem is that many people are essentially in denial about their gambling and using the language of "proper" investment just reinforces the idea that what they're doing is sensible and worthwhile when it's not.

There are two fundamental differences between gambling and investing that spring to mind (I'm sure there are many more besides). The first is that investing is basically a positive sum game (over long time periods), whereas sports betting is a negative sum game. The second is that by investing in shares you materially effect the outcome of your investment by helping the company capitalise it's business- your investment helps the company you are investing in. In gambling this is not the case. These kind of fundamental differences far outweigh any passing similarities between the two.

Investment generally refers to using capital to make a profit.

This is not right. Investing is capitalising a business. You might use capital to make a profit in any number of ways- for instance currency speculation, which is also not investment.

When you think about it the word "investment" is much miss used as a euphemism, it's not just gamblers who are guilty of this. For example governments often talk about "investing in hospitals" - this is nonsense, hospitals don't make a profit, we spend on hospitals.

Investment generally refers to using capital to make a profit.

Surely this is generally accepted. You will find this as a definition in dictionaries. Admittedly it's not the same capitalising a business, which is another definition of 'investment'.

Investing in your education, or investing in art/collectibles, are correct uses of the term as far as I'm concerned.

Your main point of difference seems to lie in the fact that investment as you define it has a beneficial financial effect for all parties involved (on average at least, as it's a positive sum game)

I'm having a look around on the internet, and finding some conflicting views on this too, an interesting one from the wikipedia entry on 'speculation':

In finance, speculation is a financial action that does not promise safety of the initial investment along with the return on the principal sum.

In a financial context, the terms "speculation" and "investment" are actually quite specific. For instance, although the word "investment" is typically used, in a general sense, to mean any act of placing money in a financial vehicle with the intent of producing returns over a period of time, most ventured money—including funds placed in the world's stock markets—is actually not investment, but speculation.


Talking about safety of the initial investment, which is actually not investment


Speculating is the assumption of risk in anticipation of gain but recognizing a higher than average possibility of loss. The term speculation implies that a business or investment risk can be analyzed and measured, and its distinction from the term Investment is one of degree of risk. It differs from gambling, which is based on random outcomes.

At best these definitions seem very subjective. This would suggest that a speculator who makes very consistent profits metamorphoses into an investor.

aye robotInvestment generally refers to using capital to make a profit.

This is not right. Investing is capitalising a business. You might use capital to make a profit in any number of ways- for instance currency speculation, which is also not investment.

When you think about it the word "investment" is much miss used as a euphemism, it's not just gamblers who are guilty of this. For example governments often talk about "investing in hospitals" - this is nonsense, hospitals don't make a profit, we spend on hospitals.
===========================================================================================

How "wide" is your vision?

Appears to be very VERY limited!

For example ........so ....you regard an "investment " in BUILDING ...a "hospital"...as being NOT an "investment"!


Some people regard PROPERTY as an "investment " .......LONG-TERM!....Not you.......

If a Hospital say helps people in a locality to get BACK TO HEALTH more quickly .....then this surely is an important "investment" re the economy .........................or Do you regard "illness" as UNIMPORTANT factor re howe YOU value society?

Seems to me that you are a "dinosaur".....................  who is a cross between ATTILA THE HUN and HITLER!


You clearly don't regard EDUCATION either as "important" either!

How do you "value" health the aye robot?

Is the private sector profits all you "value"?

How do you "value" health then aye robot?

Is the private sector profits all you "value"?

DFCIRONMAN

You are making a very basic error of logic. I made a statement about the meaning of a word, not about the value of healthcare. Your response is absurd.

Investing in hospitals means investing in the well-being of the community. His response is not absurd, it is an understandable reaction to someone seeing investment purely as financial, which clearly it is not.

His response is not only absurd, it also goes to further illustrate my point. Spending on hospitals is obviously a good thing, but "spending" is the word, not "investment". The word "investment" is used by politicians to make it harder to object to spending because "spending" is seen as bad, whereas "investment" is seen as good. DFC has got his knickers in a twist because he's confused emotive language with objective reality. Spending is not bad in itself, it just depends what you're spending on. We ought to be able to comfortably use the word "spending" when that's what we mean.

Gamblers use euphemisms like "investment" to make Gambling sound good, when it's usually not.

Returning to the core point:
When you invest you use capital to make a return, but that doesn't mean that every use of capital in pursuit of a return is an investment. A dog has four legs but not every four legged animal is a dog.

Particular forms of activity on the stock market may or may not be investments, some cases are unclear. Buying into a share issue obviously is investment, speculating on currencies obviously isn't, buying shares on the secondary market may be arguable.

Gambling is quiet close to speculating, very far from investing.

To be fair to DFC his post was made late at night and may have been slightly influenced by alcohol. None the less, this part is particularly absurd:

Seems to me that you are a "dinosaur".....................  who is a cross between ATTILA THE HUN and HITLER!

can we get back on thread please.

aye robotInvestment generally refers to using capital to make a profit.
=================================================================================


Yes ...i was "under the influence of alcohol" ....and I apologise for comparing you to ATTILA THE HUN and HITLER.........I don't apologise for you being a dinosaur though


If you build a hospital .....there is absolutely no doubt it is a LONG-TERM ASSET that is being obtained. Therefore, it is not REVENUE EXPENDITURE.

The same also applies to EQUIPMENT purchased by HOSPITALS.........Such expenditure is on ASSETS which should last a few years ........the "value" of their use is not  a cost that should be written off as soon as bought!

I agree that GAMBLING is not anything like "investing" in ASSETS that last a few years!

I find your view on "spending" re-hospitals as being "absurd" in view of the nature of assets being obtained that will last a few years.........................

aye robot - BTW I respect you quite a lot on the subject matter of your posts generally ...however, I believe you are well "wrong" re-above disparaging way you write off hospital expenditure as being JUST "SPENDING"!

DFC, this is getting quite off topic so I'm not going to dwell on it much more, but there is nothing disparaging about the use of the word "spending" - that's exactly my point. My use of the word is not pejorative, it's simply the most accurate term.

All spending has a return of some kind, even if that return is just looking good or enjoying a pint. Spending on hospitals undoubtedly has many beneficial returns. However, unless those returns are financial your spending is not really an investment- otherwise how is any spending different from investment? If I buy a nice pair of shoes I may enjoy a return for many years but they will never be an investment. Hospital buildings may be assets but ultimately they are still costs, they do not generate income - they simply use resources. Stating this doesn't mean I am anti hospitals, of course I'm not. The point is simply that the word "investment" is much misused.

I completley agree with the points made by aye robot but I do think that as no investment is ever guaranteed, an investment inot a gambling method/system could be just as likely or moreso to bring a return than a traditional investment into a business etc.

If there's thought and methodology behind putting money into something that could provide returns, to me it's an invetment but ultimately it will always be a gamble to some degree.

NHS organisations that also provide private treatment

The DH guidance applies to all organisations in England that provide or arrange NHS secondary and specialist healthcare. This type of care is normally provided in hospital.

If your NHS organisation chooses to provide private healthcare, you may receive your private treatment, for example:

    * in a separate wing of an NHS hospital
    * at a private clinic run after NHS hours
    * in a private room

Your NHS and private treatment can be supervised by one clinical team, although you will receive the treatments separately. However, you shouldn’t need the same test twice, for example, to diagnose or monitor your condition. In this case, the test will probably be part of your NHS care.

Specialist NHS equipment, such as scanners, may be used for private patients, as long as this does not affect the care of NHS patients.
=======================================================


As "hospitals " do obtain REVENUE from sources like the above........do you still regard them as just like a pair of shoes?

The NHS And Private Care
The NHS is actually one of the UK's largest providers of private medical care. Many Trust hospitals have private patients unit, which offer private rooms with ensuite facilities and excellent service. There are, in fact, more NHS Trust private units than any of the private hospital groups. The NHS's private patient units are often smaller than those in private hospitals ( typically they only have ten beds). However, treatment at NHS Trust hospitals' private patients unit are quite often excluded by many of the largest insurance schemes, although there are exceptions.

Are you under the impression that the NHS makes a profit? Or even tries to?

We spend money on hospitals to care for the sick, not to make a profit.

Insofar as there are profit making enterprises running within the NHS you could describe spending on those as "investment" but overall expenditure on the NHS is not investment and nor should it be. If you buy an MRI scanner and use it in the NHS then that's not an investment even if you partially offset the cost by renting it out privately. The fact that some of the money is spent on assets doesn't make it investment either because those assets are by their very nature depreciating, even hospital buildings fall into this category.

One might be tempted to say that this is an argument about semantics, ultimately we can make the word "investment" mean anything we like - but this is just dodging the issue. Accurate use of words is not expansive, it's reductionist. The question is not "can word X be made to mean Y?" but "of all the words available, which best describes Y?" Spending on the NHS is more accurately described as "spending" than "investing." In the same way gambling (in all it's forms) is most accurately described in it's native terminology.

You have now altered what you posted previously .......to "Spending on the NHS is more accurately described as "spending" than "investing."".................


Previously you stated - "For example governments often talk about "investing in hospitals" - this is nonsense, hospitals don't make a profit, we spend on hospitals."


Words are important ....and your original post is not "accurate" ......

Anyway .....we clearly disagree re the use of word "investment"...............so best just to leave it at that ...GL with your BOTS

Those two statements are entirely compatible DFC. One is more strongly worded than the other but they are not contradictory.

If it's any comfort to you my bots are doing cr@p at the moment- which is why I'm on here working on them as fighting over nonsense rather than out there doing something better.

No comfort to me at all ....GL anyway , as usually enjoy reading your posts........

What do you do DFC (gambling wise)?

HORSES ......still "learning" re LAYING ....but BACKS generally "fine". Unfortunately due to too many HITS on LAYS ....learning can be costly ...treading water a bit . Eventually I might get regular profits though ....

FOOTBALL - mainly CS LAYS ......but although doing well re profits , from small bank....I don't really have an "edge" ....just reasonable "guesser"...

our tax money should "in theory", in the 21st century, guarantee:

1st... assure us that security from any kind of threat is being taken care of
2nd... assure us that we don't need to spend our lives accumulating money reserves for what is an almost sure thing... we will die of some kind of disease, sooner or later

now after saying this we have two choices, either we spend our extra money travelling, buying houses, clothes, cars, etc,etc... or we save our money in order to delay our most probable destiny


the problem of the health care, being so expensive and because of that being considered a "spending" as more to do with the way governments bend to the powers of the big pharmaceutical companies and other health care related companies than anything else ... now my question is ... what sort of incentive, profit wise,  would i have to make an instant cure to a disease??? if that gives me a one time profit??
If i can control a disease and ensure that it becomes chronic, that assures profits on the long run along with inflation and everything else??

thats the problem of making health care a business

Coming back to the investing discussion. ( The ethics of drug companies are not really relevant to this type of forum, though very interesting and provocative such a debate can be).
If you sre gambling purely for fun, you're obviously not investing anything of import in any meaningful sense.
If, however, you are gambling with the serious intent of making money, then you are investing your time and resources, in exactly the same manner as you would invest these two items in any other money making venture.
And, as such, you shouild always evaluate your returns from gambling to those achievable in any and all alternative money making ventures which may be readily available to you, given your particular personal circumstances.
The best and only way to do this is to quantify how much dedicated capital and time you need to make a certain amount of money gambling , and compare such figures to those realistically achievable alternatively elsewhere.
If you're achieving the returns quoted by Aye Robot, Contrarian, Bayes et al, then stop right there.
You will never better them.
If you're only achieving more normal returns, then such comparative analysis must and should be continuously carried out. Or else, how would you know if you couldn't be doing something better with your time and money.?

Btw to all you traders out there.
I've been inspired by your tales of success and, in my modest way, am now trying to emulate them.
Will let you know when I reach the magic 20,000 % pa ROC ?
First signs are extremely encouraging.
But struggling to get over the 10,000% pa mark.
Must do better.

sorry FAFH and everyone else for going way off topic

but here it is an example of what im saying in practical terms

TED TALKS:

"TEDxBoston - Frank Reynolds - Changing the Face of Neuroscience" on youtube...one man with a personal problem that makes more than millions of dollars spent in whatever kind of research

link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtPwGZ4y428

btw if you like new things and new points of views, you have tons of hours in the TEd Talks conferences to see in you tube [;)]

ok here it is one more video a bit more related to gambling from the Ted Talks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLmzxmRcUTo

[;)]

On the investment/hospitals discussion (and the wider ramifications of those arguments) I'm firmly with DFC.  I admire many of your posts Aye Robot - but I'm afraid you are just plain wrong on this one.

It is entirely possible to make an investment that is not targeted at making money.  In the case of hospitals there are two specific reasons why an investment might be made.  Firstly, is to reduce costs.  In this case whilst the investment may not result in a positive P&L, the business case may well stack up because it provides a positive NPV - the case being made on doing the same (or more) for less cost.

Secondly, academics have long worked on ways of valuing good health.  A healthy nation has all sorts of impacts on things like GDP per capita, lower payments in certain types of benefit, and so on.  In this area it is possible to make a case for investment in health.  As a simple example, if you look at malaria; the per capita GDP for those countries without malaria is five times those of countries with it.  A similar case exists for countries with high incidence of HIV.  Relatively small investments (and yes I mean investments) can have a very profitable return in terms of GDP per capita.

On the point of speculation vs investment, ROI etc.  It might be helpful to explore the concept of ROR - Return on Risk.

At that rate, Frog, it won't be long before we see you giving interviews like this modest guy.

He says: “I doubt there's many people earning more than me on Betfair – it's substantial by any terms.”

When there's racing in the UK, Australia and the US he'll be up at 2am working the Australian market. The UK business is usually between 2pm and 5pm, and then the US comes online at 9pm until 1pm.

I've also been providing a lot of the liquidity for X Factor - people would be horrified about how much of that market was me.

He deposited £1,000 and his first-ever bet (position) was placed with £5. He says he's never had to put more money in, and currently has £250,000 in his account.

he himself suggests £40,000 a month wouldn't be unreasonable for some top Betfair traders.

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/12/06/
channel_man_turns_over_quarter_billion_on_betfair/

thanks for the link Ghetto Joe. Usually have time for Warren Buffet but dont get what hes saying there. might google his views on gambling

Unhealthy eating leads to an increased GDP per capita. As a simple example, if you look at obesity; the per capita GDP for those countries with a high level of obesity is x times higher than those of countries with a low level of obesity.

Beefy, whilst your assertion, that the provision of good health services is likely to have a positive impact on a nation's economy, is much more reasonable than my assertion above, your misuse of statistics to support your assertion is equally ludicrous.

There are many factors that contribute to a nation's GDP per capita. The quality of the health services provided may well be one of those factors. Despite this, the statistic that you quoted, linking GDP to the prevalence of malaria and HIV, does not represent credible evidence in support of your assertion, despite your implication otherwise.

Is this a gambling forum or not ?
Anyway show me a healthy gambler .
A seedy, stressed out lot if ever there was.

jt45

I agree with you that there are many factors that contribute to a nation's GDP per capita.  However, I think your claim of my misusing statistics as being ludicrous is a trifle strong.

I draw your attention to Jeffrey Sachs & Pia Malaney's paper published in Nature (Feb 2002) The economic and social burden of malaria


"Where malaria prospers most, human societies have prospered least. The global distribution of per-capita gross domestic product shows a striking correlation between malaria and poverty, and malaria-endemic countries also have lower rates of economic growth. There are multiple channels by which malaria impedes development, including effects on fertility, population growth, saving and investment, worker productivity, absenteeism, premature mortality and medical costs."

Sadly I can't find a free link to it.

My point here is (and I used it to rebut Aye Robot's assertion that it is not possible to invest in health, only spend), whilst I'm not suggesting that malaria is the only cause of low per capaita GDP in those countries where it is endemic, there are very strong correlations between the two.  I used this as an example of how it is possible to make an "investment" in health for a return in a nation's overall wealth.  The Americans did it in the southern states, as did the Romans in southern Italy.

brendanuk1
When: 07 Dec 10 11:40
thanks for the link Ghetto Joe. Usually have time for Warren Buffet but dont get what hes saying there. might google his views on gambling


Buffet says:
“Gambling involves creating risk that doesn't need to be created,” replied Buffett. “If you want to go out and gamble on a where little ball is going to fall on a wheel that's revolving, that's a created risk. You can watch a football game without betting on it, but you can't live in a house on the Florida coast without having a risk that your entire investment can disappear. But I hope that you're right and that the house wins in both cases.”

Which explains the difference between insurance and gambling. One is used to hedge risk, and the other creates risk out of thin air.

This is also how I separate trading from gambling. If you place a bet, risk is being created for you (and the opposing player if he is a position taker). If you then trade out of that position, you are no longer creating risk, you are transferring it.

In the documentary Warren Buffet: the world's greatest moneymaker, Evan Davis asks Buffet I'ts a gamble isn't it? And Buffet is noticably uncomfortable with that comparison. He states the process he goes through when selecting investments, as if that cannot be equally applied to a 'gambling decision'.

My view is that he doesn't like it simply because it would be extremely bad for business if the investments he makes would start to be referred to as gambling. The word often has negative connotations, and is linked to recklessness.

Most of the things we do in life 'don't need to be created'. We don't need to drink Coca-Cola, we don't need to run around after a football, we don't need to play guitar. Creating risk is not necessarily a bad thing, as it can be a form of entertainment. In any case creating risk (in a small way) in order to learn how to deal with larger risks, is something that could be beneficial for everyone involved.

Beefie (my apologies for misspelling your name in my previous post),

I don't doubt that the prevalence of malaria and other diseases can have a negative impact on a nation's economy.

I believe that you misused the statistic that you quoted, linking GDP to malaria, as evidence to prove a link between health and GDP. Whilst ludicrous may have been slightly strong, I maintain that the statistic you used does not, without considerable additional qualification, support that assertion and therefore the use of it was misleading.

In my opinion the statistic that you quoted may suggest that countries with a high GDP are likely to be better equipped to tackle malaria and other health issues than countries with a low GDP. It certainly doesn't prove that the presence of malaria necessarily leads to a substantially lower GDP.

thanks. His views on gambling dont sit with his other views on value etc for me. I had never thought of looking up his views on gambling before, but looked around and there is some other agenda imo. The 2 are if not identical then very similar to my way of thinking. Your explanation is a good rational as to why he says the things he does about gambling.

look at this
http://www.casinowatch.org/commentary/buffett_on_gambling.html

You're teaching your citizenry all the time by the actions you take as legislators and as administrators of a state like this. Essentially to teach you that the state is on the other side of the transaction from you--they're trying to get you to do something dumb--I just think the state ought to be doing things for its citizens, not do something to its citizens

It ok for private companies to give bad deals to public but not the state. or this

"I think it's cynical on the part of the state to raise money from people who basically can't afford it by promising them a dream that is not going to come true for any but the tiniest tiniest fraction of the people who participate"

swap dream for American dream

Definately uneasy territory for him or maybe hes a just mug gambler

Investor
You say that you differentiate trading from gambling simply because in the former your risk is ended ( transferred) before the final result and in the latter at the final result.
Both, however, can result in either a profit or a loss.
What's the actual difference then ?
Just the timing of when the profit or loss occurs ?
If so, what's the bottom line P/L difference?
Nothing, except perhaps you can move on quicker to your next bet/trade. Which again you might lose or win.
I think you might be kidding yourself a bit here. ?

Personally I think the governments should drop the 'price controls' on gambling.

If I wanted to set up a casino/bar/restaurant/hotel complex where the casino operates to a 0% margin, cross subsidizing the casino's operating costs with profits from the other segments, I simply wouldn't get a licence.

Governments say they are protecting their citizens from getting ripped off, but they are also holding back the far better deals for the consumer that would lead to lower profit and lower tax income.

A state controlled lottery is the biggest price fixing scam there is. People pay £1 to win on average less than 50p. If there was fair competition, someone would be able to pay out 99p for each £1 spent. So there is a large element of truth in the state 'doing something to it's citizens'. The

My solution would be to legalize 'free gambling', without a fixed edge. Then market forces should create a more level playing field.

Get rid of price controls and licenses altogether. It just stifles competition.

Would need very good regulation. The public would need to be protected from those that would be tempted rip them off as the cant compete by being fair open and transparent. I would play The Investors Lotto but you might have to pay 50% tax on profit. Its very interesting discussion though.

jt45

You make a good point.  Chicken and egg - is it the malaria contributing to low GDP, or the other way round.  Although I didn't provide the evidence in the post (so your point is a fair one), there are a number of sources that indicate it's the latter, such as the eradication of malaria in the southern states.  The point here being that when the Congress made funds available (stumped up an "investment") to combat the disease, the economies of the southern states improved dramatically.

You may well argue of course that without the USA's high GDP per capita they wouldn't have been able to afford to combat the disease - and I couldn't argue with that.

The only role for a regulator I can see would be to stop fraudulent activity. For instance when casino edge is larger than what they say it is. Market forces should take care of the rest.

There is the problem of gambling addiction. In theory I would be for operators being free to decide how many FOBT's they want in their shop but I'm not totally convinced on that one.

A huge shoal of red herrings was last seen heading towards this thread. It is sad to report that its arrival suffocated the life out of all previous inhabitants.

blast from the past

yes duncan an overall great thread if not one of the best
and the general betting forum was on fire at the time, much of it because of FINE HAS FROG HAIR reverse psychology


Avocado
29 Nov 10 11:32
Joined:
06 May 10
| Topic/replies: 7,026 | Blogger: Avocado's blog
Luistano is a troublemaker and an idiot.



is he MIA/KIA?
another dreamer for sure

shame it kills my eyes so much to read these long threads at the end of a day on here....some good ones back then....you're right, General Betting has gone a bit flat in recent months...

Why don't you simply do a bit of business maths, use a spreadsheet like excel, then find what the expected growth of turnover and profit was going to be pre pc2 date for betfair,rounded to nearest quarter, then compare the projection against actual performance figures taking into account any change in expenditure above any unusual costings.

This should leave you with a figure that will represent the extra profit harvested from the customers with highest performance figures via the premium charging mechanism.

Of course you then have to arrive at an x figure that is the amount of large players around that account for this extra profit but alas this figure is too complex to discover but looking at the recent upturn in profits it must be a considerable number and one that now must share a special relationship with betfair which is quite healthy in comparison with traditional bookmakers as betfair does truly embrace winners, lets hope betfair also embraces good management of all matters and runs a true course and tight ship into the future of betting this new millennium.

i think the moment may have passed, bf!

presuming you're on the right thread, that is

interesting thread. What percentage of players(number of players) would you say make 100k+ on here at the moment?

not sure how anyone not inside the company could possibly know that henok.

Who is still on £100k+ ? Sadly, not me anymore!

I'm losing £100k+ in 2018, does that count?

Any games in particular hit you hard, i'm guessing the goal markets, so maybe Liverpool Man City with the 3 quick Liverpool goals?

I assume most of the posters on this thread made a fortune as there are, as usual, very few of them remaining.

Just for the record - I'm still doing just fine. I don't post much anymore as there aren't many interesting threads to comment on but last year was my best ever. Gambling doesn't work out for most people, but in my case it has changed my life very much for the better.

Ttt

Great ttt G hall

Again an amazing window on some truly great minds that used to come to this forum and discuss
gambling with each other for a bit of escapism.
There's a fair bit of chaff in this thread, and I started just ignoring Fine as Frog hairs many many post as I thought his endless naysaying a bit absurd, he obviously didn't know the calibre
of the people he was talking too. It was a bit surprising to me how any people kept responding
to his posts considering his untenable position.

I fell of my chair in surprise at one point.
I'd so love to find this chart again, but it's not on the internet anymore
(unless anyone knows how to resurrect it from the net archive websites)

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=24bu26h&s=6

I've only got to page 9, will be back another day to read the rest.

Thanks again G Hall

No problem Escapee I have been trying to locate the thread investor had where he turned 63 pounds into 6 figures but so far can't find it

I didn't know of or don't remember Investor creating a thread blogging his journey.

I met him fairly early on in his adventure, whilst he was fairly open about what he was doing,
he didn't strike me as the sort of person to blog about it, especially from the very start.
Because the nature of the bets he was doing could have been so easily over run by others like aye robot automating it.
Well, in the initial stages where he knew the odds of an event was 1/150 to 1/5000 and he was getting lays matched at 1.02 or 1.03 and not trading risk out to prevent a catastrophe when
events played out to near loss of the bet.

if you find it, I'd deffo read it.

G'luck

I think there's no specific blog, but he used to regularly post daily wins/losses in this thread, and somewhere in there will likely be the Newcastle Arsenal game from 0-4 to 4-4, when he took a 50k+ hit on match odds and goals markets:

http://community.betfair.com/football/go/thread/view/94070/28506359/how-much-has-everyone-wonlost-gone-again#flvWelcomeHeader

Thanks Andriy

I sped read upto page 10 of 225 pages and gave up.

Not calibre of contributors to this thread or the "Not enough Draws" thread recently ttt'd

some of the posts Investor2 made, made me question if he really was Investor, others made me think oh yeah, he is.

Thanks guys for replies, I been looking for what's not there , some of the posters at that time were making a lot of money by the look of it, still interesting reading compared to most of today's forum.