General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Well come on people learning comes at cost... how much ??
Show More
Nah we all hit the ground running.
Easy peasy.
Easy peasy.
im outta the game but i wud say lots. and even then you probably wont learn
It's something that most of us would prefer to forget ?
£24.30 odd (You could lay 66p at 1.33 back then for a £2 min. not sure you still can)
I was about 100 quid down. FAFH, you have 2 posts on this thread without giving us your answer. Will we get your answer on your next post, I do hope so. I look forward to finding out.
I honestly have no idea.
All I know is that I had a very large number of false starts before I found a strategy worth sticking to long term.
I find it pretty hard to believe in fact that anybody can succeed in gamblng, or in fact most things in life, without a large degree of experimentation.
Of course, that is only if they are trying to do something out of the ordinary.
All I know is that I had a very large number of false starts before I found a strategy worth sticking to long term.
I find it pretty hard to believe in fact that anybody can succeed in gamblng, or in fact most things in life, without a large degree of experimentation.
Of course, that is only if they are trying to do something out of the ordinary.
I have never won on bf. All my wins have been big multiples w/ the books I have arbed off.
I was once within under £300 of the premium charge on my experimental account, took fright and stupidly lost a significant amount of money in real terms.
Imv it is easier to win w/ the books than on the exchanges. Many tech-ed up experts find it easy to win on here, but making manual books and taking positions I don't. My site winnings don't come close to covering Pricewise, other tipster and my own selection arbs.
I was once within under £300 of the premium charge on my experimental account, took fright and stupidly lost a significant amount of money in real terms.
Imv it is easier to win w/ the books than on the exchanges. Many tech-ed up experts find it easy to win on here, but making manual books and taking positions I don't. My site winnings don't come close to covering Pricewise, other tipster and my own selection arbs.
i did the reverse.
made thousands. lost thousands. mow in process (i hope of winning thousands again)
made thousands. lost thousands. mow in process (i hope of winning thousands again)
When I joined 2004, I only used the exchange as you would a bookmaker. Went well for a little while, then had a bad run, and realised I was about 3,000 DOWN!.. I gave it a break for a couple of years, then came back around 2008/9.. had another look and grasped the concept of exchange betting, ie backing/laying/trading etc.
Since then I've more than held my own, even making a consistent profit, and have almost got back my initial losses. It's all about bank protection for me nowadays, I really hate losing.. most of my bets are lays, I can't pick winners to save my life. Small is good for a punter like me, impatience and greed will ruin you on here. Good luck!
Since then I've more than held my own, even making a consistent profit, and have almost got back my initial losses. It's all about bank protection for me nowadays, I really hate losing.. most of my bets are lays, I can't pick winners to save my life. Small is good for a punter like me, impatience and greed will ruin you on here. Good luck!
About 400AUD.
Impatience and greed will ruin you on here.
Excellent advice.
Impatience and greed will ruin you on here.
Excellent advice.
Impatience and greed will ruin you anywhere in fact.
If you lose money at the start, but learn valuable lessons from your losses, then it can perhaps be best considered as an investment , not just a loss.
If you lose money at the start, but learn valuable lessons from your losses, then it can perhaps be best considered as an investment , not just a loss.
Ah 400 little aussie battlers, as they are wont to say in Oz.
i lost about 5 grand before i stumbled upon what i needed to keep me in check betting wise
the solution wil no doubt set me up as some sort of mug but it was the only thing i could do to solve my disciplne problem
i borrowed a 2 grand bank off my brother knowing full well that i couldnt make the repayments each month without winning 10% over the course of the month
the end result is i paid my brother back after 2 months instead of 10 and i have managed to get a new car out of it
knowing i had to win made me think a lot more about each bet i was placing
the solution wil no doubt set me up as some sort of mug but it was the only thing i could do to solve my disciplne problem
i borrowed a 2 grand bank off my brother knowing full well that i couldnt make the repayments each month without winning 10% over the course of the month
the end result is i paid my brother back after 2 months instead of 10 and i have managed to get a new car out of it
knowing i had to win made me think a lot more about each bet i was placing
Wouldn't recommend that solution to anyone else.
Some people do of course respond well to pressure, but it's not usually a good frame of mind to take into any risk assessment activity.
Glad to hear it worked out well for you though.
Some people do of course respond well to pressure, but it's not usually a good frame of mind to take into any risk assessment activity.
Glad to hear it worked out well for you though.
The lesson I learned from that $400 is that you have to cover the spread as well as commission in order to make money here.
Illuminating.
Why didn't all of us others realize that for so long ?
Why didn't all of us others realize that for so long ?
20k and i still dont have it back,anybody wanting to help me let me know,my downfall is always chasing losses and in to much of a
hurry,yesterday i made 14% of my bank today i may lose 20%.
i think i have a good crasp of what i am doing i just cant stick to the game plan.
hurry,yesterday i made 14% of my bank today i may lose 20%.
i think i have a good crasp of what i am doing i just cant stick to the game plan.
Night Watchman - i assume you didn't tell your brother what the money was for when you borrowed it?
lost 8.5k first 18 months down to my last £43 had it on hanton at 5 the horse that fallon substituted for an inexperienced apprentice who was supposed to have been stuck in traffic won at 7/4 i think, pulled like a train all race won by a neck, used that 200 on something i had noticed on US racing to get the 8.5k back in 5 months full time 6 months later
Only 2k a year!
@ biscuit1979
i did tell him what i was using the money for but i lied about being able to make the repayments on top of my usual outgoings if it all went wrong
i did tell him what i was using the money for but i lied about being able to make the repayments on top of my usual outgoings if it all went wrong
not that much , but lost 12k prior to betfair on a multi level marketing scam, which brought me to betfair. Around 20k up now from start.
sounds bad news that pistachio 
, glad youve got it back on here
FAFH ... nope, lost onlt small amounts each time due to small volumes ,then had a break ,then came back with my masterplan
, glad youve got it back on here FAFH ... nope, lost onlt small amounts each time due to small volumes ,then had a break ,then came back with my masterplan
yes coach , but a slow process and havnt managed to build my finances back up to the level i did have.
I've just really noticed that the thread title refers to how much you lost BEFORE YOU STARTED WINNING.
Maybe that disqualifies many from answering ?
Maybe that disqualifies many from answering ?
I started with £2k. The most I've ever been in negative territory is £135.47 on 10/08/2006.
At the end of November '06 I was around breakeven, and analysed what worked and what didn't work. During the next 3 years I made about £60k without ever having a losing streak much more than £1k. I grew profits exponentially initially, for instance in 2007 I only made £1k, with a maximum drawdown of £80 I think. from December '09 results started to become more volatile, partly deliberately, as I felt I could make more by increasing risk. So far that hasn't worked out as well as I expected, although I have made more.
At the end of November '06 I was around breakeven, and analysed what worked and what didn't work. During the next 3 years I made about £60k without ever having a losing streak much more than £1k. I grew profits exponentially initially, for instance in 2007 I only made £1k, with a maximum drawdown of £80 I think. from December '09 results started to become more volatile, partly deliberately, as I felt I could make more by increasing risk. So far that hasn't worked out as well as I expected, although I have made more.
In no other area of financial endeavour could such returns on capital ever be made, perhaps excepting dot com start ups ?
Great and inspiring stuff when you hear about it .
Great and inspiring stuff when you hear about it .
Microsoft and Google have an "ever-increasing stream of earnings with virtually no major capital requirements". But I've dug up an example for you of a traditional business, making in excess of 100% returns virtually every year for a number of decades.
See's Candy: Capital required to run the business: $40 Million. Pre-tax Profits $82 Million. The key of course, is that they can't say, "hey this is great, let's invest $40 Billion and make $82 Billion next year." They are already at capacity, and if they are as successful as they realistically can be, they can increase profits by about 2% above inflation per year, for the coming years. They make $82 Million, but can't even reinvest half of it. The rest has to be used elsewhere at a much lower yield.
Below is some info. I suggest you use the link at the bottom (page 7), as the formatting is a bit crappy.
"Let’s look at the prototype of a dream business, our own See’s Candy. The boxed-chocolates
industry in which it operates is unexciting: Per-capita consumption in the U.S. is extremely low and doesn’t
grow. Many once-important brands have disappeared, and only three companies have earned more than
token profits over the last forty years. Indeed, I believe that See’s, though it obtains the bulk of its revenues
from only a few states, accounts for nearly half of the entire industry’s earnings.
At See’s, annual sales were 16 million pounds of candy when Blue Chip Stamps purchased the
company in 1972. (Charlie and I controlled Blue Chip at the time and later merged it into Berkshire.) Last
year See’s sold 31 million pounds, a growth rate of only 2% annually. Yet its durable competitive
advantage, built by the See’s family over a 50-year period, and strengthened subsequently by Chuck
Huggins and Brad Kinstler, has produced extraordinary results for Berkshire.
We bought See’s for $25 million when its sales were $30 million and pre-tax earnings were less
than $5 million. The capital then required to conduct the business was $8 million. (Modest seasonal debt
was also needed for a few months each year.) Consequently, the company was earning 60% pre-tax on
invested capital. Two factors helped to minimize the funds required for operations. First, the product was
sold for cash, and that eliminated accounts receivable. Second, the production and distribution cycle was
short, which minimized inventories.
Last year See’s sales were $383 million, and pre-tax profits were $82 million. The capital now
required to run the business is $40 million. This means we have had to reinvest only $32 million since
1972 to handle the modest physical growth – and somewhat immodest financial growth – of the business.
In the meantime pre-tax earnings have totaled $1.35 billion. All of that, except for the $32 million, has
been sent to Berkshire (or, in the early years, to Blue Chip). After paying corporate taxes on the profits, we
have used the rest to buy other attractive businesses. Just as Adam and Eve kick-started an activity that led
to six billion humans, See’s has given birth to multiple new streams of cash for us. (The biblical command
to “be fruitful and multiply” is one we take seriously at Berkshire.)
There aren’t many See’s in Corporate America. Typically, companies that increase their earnings
from $5 million to $82 million require, say, $400 million or so of capital investment to finance their
growth. That’s because growing businesses have both working capital needs that increase in proportion to
sales growth and significant requirements for fixed asset investments."
.
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2007ar/2007ar.pdf
See's Candy: Capital required to run the business: $40 Million. Pre-tax Profits $82 Million. The key of course, is that they can't say, "hey this is great, let's invest $40 Billion and make $82 Billion next year." They are already at capacity, and if they are as successful as they realistically can be, they can increase profits by about 2% above inflation per year, for the coming years. They make $82 Million, but can't even reinvest half of it. The rest has to be used elsewhere at a much lower yield.
Below is some info. I suggest you use the link at the bottom (page 7), as the formatting is a bit crappy.
"Let’s look at the prototype of a dream business, our own See’s Candy. The boxed-chocolates
industry in which it operates is unexciting: Per-capita consumption in the U.S. is extremely low and doesn’t
grow. Many once-important brands have disappeared, and only three companies have earned more than
token profits over the last forty years. Indeed, I believe that See’s, though it obtains the bulk of its revenues
from only a few states, accounts for nearly half of the entire industry’s earnings.
At See’s, annual sales were 16 million pounds of candy when Blue Chip Stamps purchased the
company in 1972. (Charlie and I controlled Blue Chip at the time and later merged it into Berkshire.) Last
year See’s sold 31 million pounds, a growth rate of only 2% annually. Yet its durable competitive
advantage, built by the See’s family over a 50-year period, and strengthened subsequently by Chuck
Huggins and Brad Kinstler, has produced extraordinary results for Berkshire.
We bought See’s for $25 million when its sales were $30 million and pre-tax earnings were less
than $5 million. The capital then required to conduct the business was $8 million. (Modest seasonal debt
was also needed for a few months each year.) Consequently, the company was earning 60% pre-tax on
invested capital. Two factors helped to minimize the funds required for operations. First, the product was
sold for cash, and that eliminated accounts receivable. Second, the production and distribution cycle was
short, which minimized inventories.
Last year See’s sales were $383 million, and pre-tax profits were $82 million. The capital now
required to run the business is $40 million. This means we have had to reinvest only $32 million since
1972 to handle the modest physical growth – and somewhat immodest financial growth – of the business.
In the meantime pre-tax earnings have totaled $1.35 billion. All of that, except for the $32 million, has
been sent to Berkshire (or, in the early years, to Blue Chip). After paying corporate taxes on the profits, we
have used the rest to buy other attractive businesses. Just as Adam and Eve kick-started an activity that led
to six billion humans, See’s has given birth to multiple new streams of cash for us. (The biblical command
to “be fruitful and multiply” is one we take seriously at Berkshire.)
There aren’t many See’s in Corporate America. Typically, companies that increase their earnings
from $5 million to $82 million require, say, $400 million or so of capital investment to finance their
growth. That’s because growing businesses have both working capital needs that increase in proportion to
sales growth and significant requirements for fixed asset investments."
.
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2007ar/2007ar.pdf
Good old Warren and Charlie.
Read all about that one many times before.
Read all about that one many times before.
Bit out of both our leagues ? Or mine at least.
Well, the same thing happens all the time on a smaller scale.
A friend of mine set up a company in Holland renting out rooms in houses. Most estate agents won't touch this, as there is more hassle involved than just renting out the houses to a single family.
He started with virtually zero capital, and I was his first customer. He started renting out my house in 2007. Now he has about a dozen employees, and is renting out hundreds of rooms. He's about to open a second office, and has built up other business interests.
It's a fairly easy sell when you tell a landlord you can get him more money if he rents out his place room by room. Add to that the fact that there is virtually no competition from traditional estate agents, and you have a formula for what could turn out to be sustained explosive growth.
He's already on the road to becoming very wealthy, and is only in his mid twenties.
A friend of mine set up a company in Holland renting out rooms in houses. Most estate agents won't touch this, as there is more hassle involved than just renting out the houses to a single family.
He started with virtually zero capital, and I was his first customer. He started renting out my house in 2007. Now he has about a dozen employees, and is renting out hundreds of rooms. He's about to open a second office, and has built up other business interests.
It's a fairly easy sell when you tell a landlord you can get him more money if he rents out his place room by room. Add to that the fact that there is virtually no competition from traditional estate agents, and you have a formula for what could turn out to be sustained explosive growth.
He's already on the road to becoming very wealthy, and is only in his mid twenties.
Its taken me nearly six years and much head scratching to get back to evens. About 12 months ago decided wasn't going to reload bank and soo couldn't afford to have losses to wipe myself out.
Also said to myself if i had £10 and put it in bank what would i get and then set out to compound up at a very slow rate. It works , especially if you can take the knocks like betfair going down or your pc crashing at the wrong moment ( or your wife disturbing you at critical moments!!!!)
Never going to be big winner but trying to cover cost of this years season tickets.
Also said to myself if i had £10 and put it in bank what would i get and then set out to compound up at a very slow rate. It works , especially if you can take the knocks like betfair going down or your pc crashing at the wrong moment ( or your wife disturbing you at critical moments!!!!)
Never going to be big winner but trying to cover cost of this years season tickets.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539