General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
08 Feb 11
06:05
Joined:
Date Joined:
12 Mar 07
As someone who does not intentionally look for value in striking my bets, I ask the following perhaps naive question.
Is there just one accepted way of quantifying the perceived value you are getting, or your " edge " as some refer to.
For example, if I could consistently lay ( say) 2 to 1 chances at odds of ( say) 2.50, what would be my edge ?
Over (say) 999 lays the following should occur
Losses = 333 * 1.5 = 499.5
Gains = 666
Net Profit ( before commission) = 166.5
How would this translate into "edge" for ( say) Kelly calculations ?
Is there just one accepted way of quantifying the perceived value you are getting, or your " edge " as some refer to.
For example, if I could consistently lay ( say) 2 to 1 chances at odds of ( say) 2.50, what would be my edge ?
Over (say) 999 lays the following should occur
Losses = 333 * 1.5 = 499.5
Gains = 666
Net Profit ( before commission) = 166.5
How would this translate into "edge" for ( say) Kelly calculations ?
Show More
Without wishing to go on another "and another thing" rant.....
Most of what's said about gambling is just b0llocks, trotted out by people who have no idea what they're talking about. The Kelly criterion ISN'T just more of the same, it's the subject of a proper mathematical proof. Than means that if you can dis-prove it that's a real mathematical achievement, you should be looking for a professorship in a university, or a research fellowship at the very least.
I'm not saying that this can't be done, just that if your mate from down the pub "reckons" that Kelly is wrong, you should take that with a little pinch of salt. Even if he is a "professional gambler."
I'm not saying that this can't be done, just that if your mate from down the pub "reckons" that Kelly is wrong, you should take that with a little pinch of salt. Even if he is a "professional gambler."
Hi you guys i know your going to hate me but this is all about VALUE 4.50 Stanley zip said Stanley was the value it won on the bridle zip laid the other 4 . value v opinions you tell me
Not many value MEN will post on this thread .. if they do and there not talking bullshit zip will answer ,.
you value men just lump on 6.10 the fav , its past the post hows that for value
Looks like the zipper show over and out ......zzzzzzzzz
MT forget clocks get your ball on the 6.10 fav . thats if you got balls i have my doughts
Zipper you should live in Somalia.
You're good at hijacking things.
You're good at hijacking things.
Ayr robot your post 17.17 percentage of the bank can never be wiped out , but heres the nity grity does it win anything .
Mgt
He's already escaped ( from somewhere at least ).
He's already escaped ( from somewhere at least ).
Frog , zip was a card counter in Las Vegas 1993 .1999 ok it was a great 6 years but they got smart and brought out the 3 deck shoe , and that was us card counters over .. move on
Mr Manager take this to your Bank , a 4/6 winner has more credibility than a 5/1 loser .. get in the real world mug
Zip
When's the book coming out ?
Will it be in the fact or fiction section of the bookstore ?
Don't want to miss it.
When's the book coming out ?
Will it be in the fact or fiction section of the bookstore ?
Don't want to miss it.
Zips out now but you mugs / pin stickers theres 2 certs tomorrow and no they will not be put up in the div 2 comp or the AW comp . suck it and see zzzzzzzz
Frog it will be FACT i only deal in facts , the rest is for dreamers like The Management ..zzzzz
But before time or after time facts.
That's Mgt's issue with you.
That's Mgt's issue with you.
argosy Joined: 01 May 03
Replies: 44 10 Feb 11 17:09
the pg hypothesis makes a lot of sense to me. Over stake and the losing sequence will wipe you out. Mathematical probability ensures that all gamblers will have a long losing sequence at some stage.
The quick version of why his system is a load of tosh
Let's say the bet is 50% of bank at evens, it will be less normally but you can do that one yourself, it'll be the same outcome, just take longer.
Bank $10000
Bet 1 $5000 wins, new bank = $15000
Bet 2 $7500 wins, new bank = $22500
Bet 3 $11250 wins, new bank = $33750
Bet 4 $16875 wins, new bank = $50625
Bet 5 $25312.5 wins, new bank = $25312.5
Total profit = $15312.5
Now, what he's saying you should do is add up all the stakes = 65937.5 and divide by 5 for an average bet of $13187.5
He then says it returns more than the other system would.
Of course there's a huge problem with that.... and he's the one telling us not to overstake.
Replies: 44 10 Feb 11 17:09
the pg hypothesis makes a lot of sense to me. Over stake and the losing sequence will wipe you out. Mathematical probability ensures that all gamblers will have a long losing sequence at some stage.
The quick version of why his system is a load of tosh
Let's say the bet is 50% of bank at evens, it will be less normally but you can do that one yourself, it'll be the same outcome, just take longer.
Bank $10000
Bet 1 $5000 wins, new bank = $15000
Bet 2 $7500 wins, new bank = $22500
Bet 3 $11250 wins, new bank = $33750
Bet 4 $16875 wins, new bank = $50625
Bet 5 $25312.5 wins, new bank = $25312.5
Total profit = $15312.5
Now, what he's saying you should do is add up all the stakes = 65937.5 and divide by 5 for an average bet of $13187.5
He then says it returns more than the other system would.
Of course there's a huge problem with that.... and he's the one telling us not to overstake.
The house COULD lose every spin, that's the point. It's not very likely, but it's possible just the same as it's possible for 1.01s to get turned over.
Can you calculate the odds of the house losing 37x35 stakes in a row, or to put it another way losing 37 approx 1.028 shots in a row? Those odds/that chance is what your layers edge is based on.
Apologies for hijacking Zip's thread :)
Can you calculate the odds of the house losing 37x35 stakes in a row, or to put it another way losing 37 approx 1.028 shots in a row? Those odds/that chance is what your layers edge is based on.
Apologies for hijacking Zip's thread :)
Naughty that last comment Trevh.
But luckily I'm not proprietorial.
But luckily I'm not proprietorial.
zipper Joined: 06 Jul 02
Replies: 3790 10 Feb 11 18:28
Frog , zip was a card counter in Las Vegas 1993 .1999 ok it was a great 6 years but they got smart and brought out the 3 deck shoe , and that was us card counters over .. move on
Why couldn't you beat a 3 deck shoe?
Also, Binions still had single deck in 1999.
Replies: 3790 10 Feb 11 18:28
Frog , zip was a card counter in Las Vegas 1993 .1999 ok it was a great 6 years but they got smart and brought out the 3 deck shoe , and that was us card counters over .. move on
Why couldn't you beat a 3 deck shoe?
Also, Binions still had single deck in 1999.
Can you calculate the odds of the house losing 37x35 stakes in a row, or to put it another way losing 37 approx 1.028 shots in a row?
There are two parts to the answer -
1: yes - of course.
2: but it's not relevant.
So, one at a time:
Assuming there is only one chip on the table (if that's what it's called) then the odds of an individual spin losing for the house are 1/37, so the odds of the house losing 37 consecutive times are (1/37)^37.
But it's neither here nor there - the house risks more than the player on every spin. The edge is calculated on the basis of each individual spin regardless of previous or future spins and is the same whether the player plays once or a million times. When I gave the example showing 37 spins that was just to show how the value/edge works it's way through by looking at a full series of "typical" results that accurately reflect the probabilities. You don't need to do this to calculate the layer's edge, you can use any one of the methods I gave above.
Ultimately the "backer's edge"-"layer's edge" distinction is a false one because there's no difference between backing and laying - the point is really that backing at 3 with true odds of 2 is not the same edge as laying at 2 with true odds of 3.
If you want to get a good feel for why this is then work through that example -
After 30 bets what is the return of backing at 3 with true odds of 2, and how much did you have to risk to make it?
Then also with 30 bets how much do you make by laying at 2 with true odds of 3 - and again, how much did you put at risk?
There are two parts to the answer -
1: yes - of course.
2: but it's not relevant.
So, one at a time:
Assuming there is only one chip on the table (if that's what it's called) then the odds of an individual spin losing for the house are 1/37, so the odds of the house losing 37 consecutive times are (1/37)^37.
But it's neither here nor there - the house risks more than the player on every spin. The edge is calculated on the basis of each individual spin regardless of previous or future spins and is the same whether the player plays once or a million times. When I gave the example showing 37 spins that was just to show how the value/edge works it's way through by looking at a full series of "typical" results that accurately reflect the probabilities. You don't need to do this to calculate the layer's edge, you can use any one of the methods I gave above.
Ultimately the "backer's edge"-"layer's edge" distinction is a false one because there's no difference between backing and laying - the point is really that backing at 3 with true odds of 2 is not the same edge as laying at 2 with true odds of 3.
If you want to get a good feel for why this is then work through that example -
After 30 bets what is the return of backing at 3 with true odds of 2, and how much did you have to risk to make it?
Then also with 30 bets how much do you make by laying at 2 with true odds of 3 - and again, how much did you put at risk?
zip was a card counter in Las Vegas 1993 .1999
How long do we think it took him to get to 52?
but they got smart and brought out the 3 deck shoe
I can imagine that 156 would be beyond him right enough.
How long do we think it took him to get to 52?
but they got smart and brought out the 3 deck shoe
I can imagine that 156 would be beyond him right enough.
I hear his real problem was that he couldn't count without moving his lips.
My point is that calculating the value of an edge by using how much you put at risk to make the profit maybe theoretically correct, but as in the example of roulette where the house would have to lose (1/37)^37 times in a row to justify your computation, in the real world it's not going to happen, ever, which makes a mockery of the 0.007% edge figure.
What if the punter decided to back black each spin? The house now has a liability of 1 stake x 37 spins to make 1 stake, or 2.7%. You can't therefore say that the overall roulette house edge is a mere 0.007%, which is what the question was many posts ago.
What if the punter decided to back black each spin? The house now has a liability of 1 stake x 37 spins to make 1 stake, or 2.7%. You can't therefore say that the overall roulette house edge is a mere 0.007%, which is what the question was many posts ago.
Just to correct that, *where the house would have to lose a (1/37)^37 chance* i.e.(losing 37 x 97% chances in a row).
Trevh,
I think I've been pretty clear that that edge calculation is for a single chip on the table, other combinations of bets give different edges, we've been over that already.
As the number of chips on the table increases the house' edge increases and can even reach infinity whereas the punter's edge decreases and can reach -100% (no possibility of a win).
This came up because you asked me to clarify how edges were calculated for layers, I've been through all the maths of that pretty exhaustively and shown you how to reach the right solution in several different ways, so unless you can point to a problem in the maths you'll have to concede that the matter is settled.
If you're not clear on it I really would encourage you to work through a simple example (given above) - work out what the return is and what the risk is on backing 30 bets at 3 with a true value of 2, then laying 30 bets at 2 with a true value of 3, this will illustrate the point perfectly.
It's a massive mistake to say that things "can't happen in the real world" - in fact it's the fundamental mistake that leaves many in the poor house. It's what makes people back bad value 1.01s or think that Martingale type "progressive staking" is a good idea.
There are two ways of looking at unlikely events:
People who view things probabilistically will say that is an event CAN happen, then it almost certainly WILL happen, it's just a matter of how often, or how long you have to wait.
People who view things intuitively without thinking through probabilities will often say that if an event is unlikely (and it doesn't even have to be all that unlikely) then it almost certainly won't happen. They are wrong.
I can't think off the top of my head how you can quickly calculate how many times you have to spin a roulette wheel before it becomes likely that you'll hit 37 consecutive zeros (I'm not very strong on maths - I only know the basic stuff) but doubtless someone will post it up very shortly - and I would say think of this:
How many roulette wheels are there in the world?
How often are they spun?
How long has that been going on for?
The odds against something may be large, but if you spin the wheel enough times it will come up.
That's the last thing I'm going to say about roulette because frankly I'm getting a bit bored of it.
I think I've been pretty clear that that edge calculation is for a single chip on the table, other combinations of bets give different edges, we've been over that already.
As the number of chips on the table increases the house' edge increases and can even reach infinity whereas the punter's edge decreases and can reach -100% (no possibility of a win).
This came up because you asked me to clarify how edges were calculated for layers, I've been through all the maths of that pretty exhaustively and shown you how to reach the right solution in several different ways, so unless you can point to a problem in the maths you'll have to concede that the matter is settled.
If you're not clear on it I really would encourage you to work through a simple example (given above) - work out what the return is and what the risk is on backing 30 bets at 3 with a true value of 2, then laying 30 bets at 2 with a true value of 3, this will illustrate the point perfectly.
It's a massive mistake to say that things "can't happen in the real world" - in fact it's the fundamental mistake that leaves many in the poor house. It's what makes people back bad value 1.01s or think that Martingale type "progressive staking" is a good idea.
There are two ways of looking at unlikely events:
People who view things probabilistically will say that is an event CAN happen, then it almost certainly WILL happen, it's just a matter of how often, or how long you have to wait.
People who view things intuitively without thinking through probabilities will often say that if an event is unlikely (and it doesn't even have to be all that unlikely) then it almost certainly won't happen. They are wrong.
I can't think off the top of my head how you can quickly calculate how many times you have to spin a roulette wheel before it becomes likely that you'll hit 37 consecutive zeros (I'm not very strong on maths - I only know the basic stuff) but doubtless someone will post it up very shortly - and I would say think of this:
How many roulette wheels are there in the world?
How often are they spun?
How long has that been going on for?
The odds against something may be large, but if you spin the wheel enough times it will come up.
That's the last thing I'm going to say about roulette because frankly I'm getting a bit bored of it.
I watched some people playing roulette in a casino the other week. They were covering almost every eventuality with 25p chips dumped seemingly at random across the board. Of course they won nearly every spin and their banks crept up and they looked skillfully smug until the inevitable Schalke event struck and they had to slink back to the counter to get some more chips.
Always funny watching folk do that, cat.
Almost as funny as watching them write down the numbers that come up or staring thoughtfully at the electronic board that displays the previous numbers.
Almost as funny as watching them write down the numbers that come up or staring thoughtfully at the electronic board that displays the previous numbers.
Aye robot you have never been in a casino well that makes your 23.36 post look the nonsence i though it was . any how why are you not in bed before 23.36 thats 11.36 our time .
any how why are you not in bed before 23.36
You know I don't sleep Zip, i just turn on my screen-saver and de-fragment.
You know I don't sleep Zip, i just turn on my screen-saver and de-fragment.
aye robot .. Its only a bit of fun , lets keep it that way . zip dont do piss taking.
Fair enough, I don't really want to fall out with anyone.
Value doesnt always matter.
A very wise man once told me..... 'Value doesnt even come into it.. if you never bet a loser'.!
A very wise man once told me..... 'Value doesnt even come into it.. if you never bet a loser'.!
Magical that wise man was very wise take this 2.05 Patsy Finnegan .. there aint no value .. but its the only one there paying out on and no this is not after time get on
Shame he wasn't wise enough to figure out that if you never back a loser you must be betting at very good value.
Patsy Finnegan made 3 bad jumps .. but he would not have beat the winner bad jumps or not ..zip was wrong never mind 3 certs to follow .
How do you figure that out Robot?.
I thought the essence of value preconceived before an event is over has nothing at all to do with the end result.
What has your eventual strike rate to do with the value you are getting.?
Maybe it has a lot to do with the value you're asking for, or should be asking for.
But most don't actually ever ask for anything, they just take what's given to them by the pros.
I thought the essence of value preconceived before an event is over has nothing at all to do with the end result.
What has your eventual strike rate to do with the value you are getting.?
Maybe it has a lot to do with the value you're asking for, or should be asking for.
But most don't actually ever ask for anything, they just take what's given to them by the pros.
Come on FAFH - If you back 100 horses at 2 how many do you expect to win? 50 right? So if more than 50 win what have you been doing? Backing value innit. If 100 of them win what kind of value have you got? Bl00dy good value that's what.
^ obviously 100 isn't really enough to say that, but you get my point.
^ by which I mean that over 50 out of 100 isn't necessarily value, but 100/100 almost certainly is.
Yep, but how many of the winners were really value, and how many of the losers were really value also ?
Not referring to the 100 % example where there are no losers. Would be tasty eh ?
For the millionth time.....
You can't ever tell the value of an individual sports bet definitively either before or after the result. You can only see the average value in a set of results, and even then only in probabilistic terms. If you strike 100 bets at 2 and win them all then it's overwhelmingly likely that you have struck some pretty awesome value.
You can't ever tell the value of an individual sports bet definitively either before or after the result. You can only see the average value in a set of results, and even then only in probabilistic terms. If you strike 100 bets at 2 and win them all then it's overwhelmingly likely that you have struck some pretty awesome value.
aye robot
are u a backer
a layer
or trade in running?
are u a backer
a layer
or trade in running?
Mostly IR horse bots. Will bet any old how if it's likely to be value.
but are these bots greening up in running?
Robot
I agree with the statement that you never " know " value in betting on a sports event.
But the Kelly followers, have to try to estimate it as successfully as they can, BEFORE the event.
I agree with the statement that you never " know " value in betting on a sports event.
But the Kelly followers, have to try to estimate it as successfully as they can, BEFORE the event.
FAFH: 09 Feb 11 15:21
greedkillsmybankagain:
Not exaclty, I just strike a whole bunch of (hopefully) value bets, that said, I very often come out green.
greedkillsmybankagain:
Not exaclty, I just strike a whole bunch of (hopefully) value bets, that said, I very often come out green.
Mister Management, zip here , 4 things you admire about me on the first 3 your spot on not convinded about the lucky pin stuff .. zip dont do luck, luck runs out . But knowledge is for ever you should try it someday
Re the guy about gambing joints who played the 52 deck pack they only played to the holiday makers , card counters were not welcome but that was 19 years ago move on I did .
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
Illeism is the act of referring to oneself in the third person instead of the more appropriate first person.
Illeism is sometimes used in literature as a stylistic device. In real life usage, illeism can reflect a number of different stylistic intentions or involuntary circumstances
Illeism is also a (literary) device used to show idiocy, such as the character Mongo in Blazing Saddles, e.g. "Mongo like candy" and "Mongo only pawn in game of life."
Illeism in everyday speech can have a variety of intentions depending on context. One common usage is to impart humility, a common practice in feudal societies and other societies where honorifics are important to observe ("Your servant awaits your orders"), as well as in master-slave relationships ("This slave needs to be punished"). The use of illeism in this context imparts a sense of lack of self, implying a diminished importance of the speaker in relation to the addressee.
Conversely, in different contexts, illeism can be used to reinforce self-promotion, as used to sometimes comic effect by Bob Dole throughout his political career.[2] This was particularly made notable during the United States presidential election, 1996 and lampooned broadly in popular media for years afterwards.
Similarly illeism is used with an air of grandeur, to give the speaker lofty airs. Idiosyncratic and conceited people are known to either use or are lampooned as using illeism to puff themselves up or illustrate their egoism.
Anyone on this forum spring to mind?
.
Illeism is the act of referring to oneself in the third person instead of the more appropriate first person.
Illeism is sometimes used in literature as a stylistic device. In real life usage, illeism can reflect a number of different stylistic intentions or involuntary circumstances
Illeism is also a (literary) device used to show idiocy, such as the character Mongo in Blazing Saddles, e.g. "Mongo like candy" and "Mongo only pawn in game of life."
Illeism in everyday speech can have a variety of intentions depending on context. One common usage is to impart humility, a common practice in feudal societies and other societies where honorifics are important to observe ("Your servant awaits your orders"), as well as in master-slave relationships ("This slave needs to be punished"). The use of illeism in this context imparts a sense of lack of self, implying a diminished importance of the speaker in relation to the addressee.
Conversely, in different contexts, illeism can be used to reinforce self-promotion, as used to sometimes comic effect by Bob Dole throughout his political career.[2] This was particularly made notable during the United States presidential election, 1996 and lampooned broadly in popular media for years afterwards.
Similarly illeism is used with an air of grandeur, to give the speaker lofty airs. Idiosyncratic and conceited people are known to either use or are lampooned as using illeism to puff themselves up or illustrate their egoism.
Anyone on this forum spring to mind?
Sandown , that seems like me ....Zipper .. And your point is ???
Zipper
I think my point is obvious - read the last para again.
I think my point is obvious - read the last para again.
Sandown i dont need to read anything twice ive had a very good eduction , now your point is put up or shut up ////
aye robot
Shame he wasn't wise enough to figure out that if you never back a loser you must be betting at very good value.
Or maybe the point is.. everyone does bet losers (unless its treble twisted). So value does obv matter.?
Shame he wasn't wise enough to figure out that if you never back a loser you must be betting at very good value.
Or maybe the point is.. everyone does bet losers (unless its treble twisted). So value does obv matter.?
so unless you can point to a problem in the maths you'll have to concede that the matter is settled.
Haha! You implied at first the overall house edge is 0.0007%, corrected to 0.007%, then you said it depends on the punters at the table. So in conclusion, what is the overall roulette house edge, which was the original question. I said it is 2.7% and you have yet to answer.
If you're not clear on it I really would encourage you to work through a simple example (given above) - work out what the return is and what the risk is on backing 30 bets at 3 with a true value of 2, then laying 30 bets at 2 with a true value of 3, this will illustrate the point perfectly.
Rather patronising.
It's a massive mistake to say that things "can't happen in the real world" [snip]
I can't think off the top of my head how you can quickly calculate how many times you have to spin a roulette wheel before it becomes likely that you'll hit 37 consecutive zeros (I'm not very strong on maths - I only know the basic stuff) but doubtless someone will post it up very shortly - and I would say think of this:
How many roulette wheels are there in the world?
How often are they spun?
How long has that been going on for?
The odds against something may be large, but if you spin the wheel enough times it will come up.
No it won't, not before the Sun dies and Earth is no more! I'm very surprised that you believe it's possible. I believe the longest run of just under evens shots ever recorded was around 35. The chance of spinning 37 zero's has a statistical significance of zero, which renders your 0.007% edge theory inappropriate, and would result in severe under staking.
Haha! You implied at first the overall house edge is 0.0007%, corrected to 0.007%, then you said it depends on the punters at the table. So in conclusion, what is the overall roulette house edge, which was the original question. I said it is 2.7% and you have yet to answer.
If you're not clear on it I really would encourage you to work through a simple example (given above) - work out what the return is and what the risk is on backing 30 bets at 3 with a true value of 2, then laying 30 bets at 2 with a true value of 3, this will illustrate the point perfectly.
Rather patronising.
It's a massive mistake to say that things "can't happen in the real world" [snip]
I can't think off the top of my head how you can quickly calculate how many times you have to spin a roulette wheel before it becomes likely that you'll hit 37 consecutive zeros (I'm not very strong on maths - I only know the basic stuff) but doubtless someone will post it up very shortly - and I would say think of this:
How many roulette wheels are there in the world?
How often are they spun?
How long has that been going on for?
The odds against something may be large, but if you spin the wheel enough times it will come up.
No it won't, not before the Sun dies and Earth is no more! I'm very surprised that you believe it's possible. I believe the longest run of just under evens shots ever recorded was around 35. The chance of spinning 37 zero's has a statistical significance of zero, which renders your 0.007% edge theory inappropriate, and would result in severe under staking.
What you are discovering is why when you use Kelly you have to put in the chance of winning as well as the edge.
OK then.
Lets assume you price up 2 horse races and make your favourite 2/1 in each.
They are 3/1 and 10/1 respectively. Your tank is £1,000.
How much do you stake on each? What would be your base stake and how much after applying your Kelly coefficient?
Lets assume you price up 2 horse races and make your favourite 2/1 in each.
They are 3/1 and 10/1 respectively. Your tank is £1,000.
How much do you stake on each? What would be your base stake and how much after applying your Kelly coefficient?
The 1k on the 3/1 shot , Why i could not be that so far out .. lets see gamble on .
.
http://www.sbrforum.com/betting-tools/kelly-calculator/
If they're on seperate races, note that you only bet 11.11% on the 4.0
and 26.67% on the 11.0, but as you're betting on a combined better chance within the same race you can bet bigger.
http://www.sbrforum.com/betting-tools/kelly-calculator/
If they're on seperate races, note that you only bet 11.11% on the 4.0
and 26.67% on the 11.0, but as you're betting on a combined better chance within the same race you can bet bigger.
The Management , watch your words they all try some try harder than others .. some are trying to win some are trying to get their H/C mark down .. some are trying to be races horses . the rest are very trying .. its only a bit of fun .
Also note that if you bet on two individual horses running in different races at the same time you have to lower your stakes to 23.70% and 8.15% because you have more money in play.
Lori forget that nonsence .......put em in a win double
You actually should have a double of 2.96% on top of the two singles with correct play zip.
Lori , you lost me whats what you say 2.96% on each ///// whats 2.96 of a grand .. these kids and if it won how much do we have on the next cert .
If it wins we take wifey out to a nice lunch and buy nursey some flowers.... unless you fancy doing that the other way around for a change of course. Nursey might prefer that.
The Management. Heres how to play a yankie 11 bets any one lose you have lost 7 bets your down to 4 bets another on gets beat your down to a double . that cost you 11 points . forget that play it this way 3 pionts win 4 timer IF they all go in it works out a bit more than the yankie .. for £12 quid you can have 4 shots at it zip
MT your so right very few of my win bets are unplaced thats why i bet 1 win..6 place 2 win ..18 place on the other hand if its a cert ALL IN my max and yes i do have a max .. The other part of my income is laying .
The Management, When i feel like that headache , pains all over well go into a dark room, lay down take about 3 sleepings pills about 3 Anadin a bottle of Jack Daniels .. Oh and dont forget the Nurse about 6.00pm to night you will be fine.... promise .
Mister Manager zip forgot to say the nurse has to have a white shirt and white suspenders .. other wise it dont work be happy
Lori
Mathematical probability suggests betting 2/1 shots will produce a losing sequence of around 15 at some stage.
Therefore you will go skint very quickly as the stakes you propose will be unable to accomodate the losers. Even on a reducing balance there will be precious little left to stage a comeback.
Mathematical probability suggests betting 2/1 shots will produce a losing sequence of around 15 at some stage.
Therefore you will go skint very quickly as the stakes you propose will be unable to accomodate the losers. Even on a reducing balance there will be precious little left to stage a comeback.
The good news is that the rate you win at is fast enough to cover it either before it happens, or afterwards.
Also, the original problem was a 1/2 shot not a 2/1 shot.
Everyone is of course free to bet how much they are comfortable with, I merely gave the optimal numbers that can be mathematically proved (Assuming I didn't make an error with the calculator that is) to give the highest EG, which is what most gamblers want.
Also, the original problem was a 1/2 shot not a 2/1 shot.
Everyone is of course free to bet how much they are comfortable with, I merely gave the optimal numbers that can be mathematically proved (Assuming I didn't make an error with the calculator that is) to give the highest EG, which is what most gamblers want.
Just analyse the debunking I gave of the rubbish the pro gambler site produced where they recommend you bet more than your entire bankroll on every bet and you'll see this is entirely preferable unless you have a good loan company nearby. (10 Feb 19:09 post)
That's as detailed as I should need to go in fairness, it's quite clear you can't bet more than your bankroll in the real world, no matter how much he'd like you to.
That's as detailed as I should need to go in fairness, it's quite clear you can't bet more than your bankroll in the real world, no matter how much he'd like you to.
Lori
With respect. A losing sequence is just that and is not dependent on the price of the horse. If the losing sequence is 15 then you need to cater for that plus some to get out.
In a world of infinte money Kelly works, so too does Martingale.
Unfortunately in the real world funds are limited.
With respect. A losing sequence is just that and is not dependent on the price of the horse. If the losing sequence is 15 then you need to cater for that plus some to get out.
In a world of infinte money Kelly works, so too does Martingale.
Unfortunately in the real world funds are limited.
Kelly caters for it. You'll need to read through the proof on Wiki if you want more info I've tried hard to explain it to you but it's not some hocus pocus, it's an actual mathematical proof.
Anyone who runs into a 1 in 14 million losing streak like you've described is going to have trouble no matter what the staking plan. Thankfully for all of us, that's the same chance as winning the lottery.
All we can do is allow for the times where we don't run into a lottery winning streak of bad luck and maximize what we win while we run "average"
You linked to a site that recommends betting more than your entire bankroll as level stakes on every bet, which is clearly silly.
I'm always happy to discuss opinions with other gamblers as it helps both parties to learn, I'm not however happy to have long discussions about things that are facts while someone says they're not, so I'll have to sign out of this discussion at this point.
Anyone who runs into a 1 in 14 million losing streak like you've described is going to have trouble no matter what the staking plan. Thankfully for all of us, that's the same chance as winning the lottery.
All we can do is allow for the times where we don't run into a lottery winning streak of bad luck and maximize what we win while we run "average"
You linked to a site that recommends betting more than your entire bankroll as level stakes on every bet, which is clearly silly.
I'm always happy to discuss opinions with other gamblers as it helps both parties to learn, I'm not however happy to have long discussions about things that are facts while someone says they're not, so I'll have to sign out of this discussion at this point.
I just wanted to say how glad I am that there are still punters around like zipper.
Thesnapper , would you like to elaborate .. keep it clean and remember its fun
I mean...dammit jim...thank goodness we all aren't number crunching computer geeks who never leave our computers and are afraid to wager a man-sized bet over the kelly limit for implied ranges on verified data sets! Thanks goodness, I say, for a manly-man-among men like mr zipper who damn well will stand up and wager a decent amount just because the damn horse is clearly going to run well...and then won't sit around and cry about a loser...he'll rush on and wager on the next race...never keep a good man like mr zipper down. cheers and all the best to you ... keep it up. Don't let this crew of nay-sayers and pencil-necks ..statisticians and other motley beatniks put you off.
The Snapper zips his own man this 3.45 warwick Silver Kate about 15/8 lay it till your nose bleeds ok thats a bit Aggressive but thats the only way i know cause my dad was like that and he did ok
The Snapper just read your post 14.58 Heres one from zip .......they wont .
that's just great man....KEEP ON ROCKIN IN THE FREE WORLD!!!...never stop being aggressive...double up those stakes when you need to!
dammit jim...double up the stakes even if you don't need to!! It's only a bit of fun FFS!!!
Lori
The odds of a losing run of 15 in a fair sample is nearer to 50% and NOT 1 in 14 million
The odds of a losing run of 15 in a fair sample is nearer to 50% and NOT 1 in 14 million
If you pick 15 1/2 shots, the chances are 1 in 14 million. If you expand the sample size, that's great but you'll be winning money along the way to cover the 15 loses when it turns up.
You'll lose 15 2/1 shots something like 1 in 500, but you'll still have nearly 1% of your bankroll left at that point even if it's the first 15 bets you have, which is more than adequate to rebuild.
The simple fact of kelly, no matter how you word it, is that you double your bankroll twice as often as you halve it. That means you quarter it once in nine, you divide it by 8 once in 27 and so on.
You'll have horrible unintuitive swings, yet it's still the optimal staking plan in a vacuum. (assuming you're not eating it and so on)
You'll lose 15 2/1 shots something like 1 in 500, but you'll still have nearly 1% of your bankroll left at that point even if it's the first 15 bets you have, which is more than adequate to rebuild.
The simple fact of kelly, no matter how you word it, is that you double your bankroll twice as often as you halve it. That means you quarter it once in nine, you divide it by 8 once in 27 and so on.
You'll have horrible unintuitive swings, yet it's still the optimal staking plan in a vacuum. (assuming you're not eating it and so on)
*The 1/2 came about because I thought the original question had both in the same race, i see that's not the case now, however all the other numbers presented are still correct as I gave all three cases.
It's something like 1.5% of your roll you have left even if you bet the 10/1 shot and it loses 15 times. Clearly you rebuild so fast that this is plenty.
It's something like 1.5% of your roll you have left even if you bet the 10/1 shot and it loses 15 times. Clearly you rebuild so fast that this is plenty.
The Management you soon recovered, hope you took my advice.
Re nose bleeds, I have at least 3 a day, but move on.
Ayr 4.30 Malin Bay. 5.05 Kings Guard
Lingfield 4.50 Franco is my name.
Back all 3 off the boards, any price the 3 horses the bookies put up, back them till your ears ache.
Re nose bleeds, I have at least 3 a day, but move on.
Ayr 4.30 Malin Bay. 5.05 Kings Guard
Lingfield 4.50 Franco is my name.
Back all 3 off the boards, any price the 3 horses the bookies put up, back them till your ears ache.
For completeness, if you bet the 3/1 shot that should be 2/1, you still have 17% of your roll left after 15 straight losers.
I leave as an exercise for the reader to see just how quickly these two stakes rebuild when they have an average run of form, let alone a good one.
I leave as an exercise for the reader to see just how quickly these two stakes rebuild when they have an average run of form, let alone a good one.
The Management the site going down last week saved me £1,400
at the time nobody Believe me its true
but move on you soon recovered was it the white shirt or white suspenders belt that did it for you dont answer .its a mans things sorry girls but it is a mans thing Girls you know how weak we are and we call you **** ..roll over darling
at the time nobody Believe me its true
but move on you soon recovered was it the white shirt or white suspenders belt that did it for you dont answer .its a mans things sorry girls but it is a mans thing Girls you know how weak we are and we call you **** ..roll over darling
Land of the FREE home of the brave and we cannot post ****
The Management you can see from my posts zip has had a very poor day re winners But this is what sorts the Men from the Boys and please dont come re chasing Ayr 5.05 Kings Guards ..
zip will tell you about chasing tomorrow .
zip will tell you about chasing tomorrow .
The Management .. zips been wrong all afternoon all my win bets have been beat , and no names no pack drill zip laid 3 all 3 won
Frog try this for value zip in the next 2 hours thats about 7.30 pm earth time , will go out with my wife and nusre to our fav eating place both will make sure i enjoy the evening hows that for value . and to boot zip did his brains today .. but the Nurse said darling zip you never had a brain dont you just love em and zip is paying the drinks are on me . good to talk ......
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539