Can you really hope to win long term IF

Which terms?

All of it...there are some very simple people on Betfair like myself and five leaves left who don't understand a word of what you have written.

Do you know what expectation or expected value (EV) is? And how this relates to RoI and variance (just standard deviation squared)?

The first is just the arithmetic mean of a weighted distribution of values, for eg, on a fair coin toss, if A wins 10 units from B on the event of a head and B wins 11 units from A on the event of a tail then the EV of A is ((-11) x 0.5) + (10 x 0.5) = -0.5 units; the EV of B is (11 x 0.5) + ((-10) x 0.5) = +0.5 units.

This relates to an expected return on investment by taking the expected value and dividing it by the amount staked - in the case of A this is (-0.5)/11 = -4.545% RoI and for B, 0.5/10 = +5% RoI.

In the long run, over a series of bets, you want to ensure that your current RoI (a snapshot or sample of all the bets you'll ever make) is equivalent to a positive expected RoI based on a theoretical population EV.

So if you think you have an edge you can quantify this theoretical edge by working out your EV. To see whether you actually do have this EV you do a statistical test to see how it corresponds to your RoI. This could be hypothesis test or a more suitable form of test. However, to do all this you have to have a large enough sample. Usually the smaller the sample, the less variance needed to ensure a statistical test can be done.

You asked Jimmy.

Probit
You're quite obviously extremely well versed in all things statistical.
I will therefore repeat a question I have asked on here before ( risking the extreme ire of the poster called Lori).
That is, over 238 games, achieving 129 winners at avg. odds 2.40, I amateurly calculate that this is equivalent to be circa 3.06 standard deviations from the expected number of winners, being 99.175.
Is this correct and is it even remotely significant statistically ?

--amateurishly calculate ---"

Too simple? It's no more complicated than AS-level maths & statistics. So far anyway.

The expected number of winners is correct. To calculate the standard deviation you would need the raw data. I'm not sure if this is what your 3.06 sd figure is as you can't calculate it without the raw data.

Probit there are some problems with analysing variance.

Two examples:
-PC encourages an increase in volatility even if absolute returns stay the same (I can't think of any other environment where this is the case).
-Taking into account (negative) correlation between bets and markets will be very complicated. If someone is backing over 2.5 goals and laying 3 goals or more, their PnL will show swings that are not at all indicative of actual risk.

Probit
Isn't standard deviation just the square root of the variance and isn't the variance just a formula using the inputs of. no. of games and avg odds ?
Clearly I must be wrong on this ?
What raw data do I essentially then need to calculate variance over a number of games ?

Isn't standard deviation just the square root of the variance and isn't the variance just a formula using the inputs of. no. of games and avg odds ?

SD is just the sqrt of variance, however to calculate variance you need the individual data points. Within the formula for both (although you can of course rearrange it) you need to take away the mean from each individual data point and then square that resulting number.

The Investor, PC does encourage volatily for most people, which is why I said downside variance would probably be a better measure.

However, it is possible to algebraically formulate the premium charge and incorporate it into a model that can show the effects each individual bet's parameters will have on pushing you towards qualifying for it. From this you can monitor both this and variance and balance the two.

Obviously, you're not going to discount long odds value, but those who do profit from long odds shots have to realise that they're not good indicators of how profitable you are or are going to be long term.

You're also right about the difficulty of integrating two or more different but related markets. That's not something I've looked into much.

It's done in finance, and it would seem all that's necessary is to integrate such bets rather than count them as individual bets - in much the same way you would when trading on a single market. So, for eg with arbing, to take an extreme eg, instead of counting each individual opposing bet as separate you'd class them together as if they were bets taken on the same market. Also, it's worth noting that there are slightly better measures of risk and statistical dispersion than just variance and I suspect some of these can be applied to betting data just as well as they're applied in quantitative finance.

*And of course the point of arbing is to theoretically have zero market risk (operational risk being another matter). However, if you took them as two separate bets you'd actually have likely increased the variance.

I glad you can understand him Investor

Probit
So what you're saying in answer to my particular question is that you can't work with avg odds in calculating variance.
You have to assess the results of the number games at each individual odds level.
Correct ?
In that case you would have to have a reasonably high number of games at each odds level for any variance calculation to be meaningful ?
So it's not just the overall number of games in your sample, it has to be disseminated into more minute detail than that ?
Many thanks for putting up with these beginner type questions.
Some on here don't seem to have the patience to do that unfortunately.

Methinks Probit must be a quant in the City or an academic ?.

FAFH which sport/s are you into?

Only football Rocket.

FATH, it's that you need to individual data points (the difference between the actual return for each bet and expected return supposing the odds to be fair) b/f you can calculate the standard deviation and the variance of the series of bets.

The prob. for me (w/out thinking that I'm being facetious) w/ comparing my ROI with my estimate of my edge is that I don't have a bog enough sample. Each race is only run once. In other words, it is highly unlikely that my edge is stable across each event in which I bet.

In fact, whenever I try to verify my edge, it turns out that I have less edge than I thought, since I won (sometimes a lot) less than I thought I was going to. Even so, my p-value (likelihood of getting equally extreme results randomly) for my winning series of bets shows a likelihood of having got the results by chance of below 0.5%. This is outright positions over (on average) a three-year period, excluding arbs.

Probit, what are these better measures of statistical dispersion than variance? I have always been suspicious of Sharpe and information ratios because they tell us what happened in the past, not how likely things are to happen in the future. I'm interested in particular in quantifying tail risks.

Btw, the Investor is obviously right to suggest that the player losing on average £50 a week is not losing that money in a drip-drip way every weekend. He is much more likely to take averagely -ve value bets and to suffer a once-in-a-lifetime/once-every-few-years blowout.

The thing I always say to anyone who asks about gambling is that you have above all to protect y/s against a drawdown that will have a genuine effect on yr life.

yes askari1, the dreaded "Black Swan" that so many here fail to acknowledge

"Few economists saw our current crisis coming, but this predictive failure was the least of the field’s problems. More important was the profession’s blindness to the very possibility of catastrophic failures in a market economy."

and thats when all their math/stats/assumptions goes down the drain (if they dont have a sound staking/withdrawal plan,imo)

Froggy, why do you ask a question about market makers and price takers when you have previously stated that you don't believe it is possible to accurately price up a sporting event? Based on your assumptions neither the market maker or price taker would have an accurate idea of what they were doing?

Surely the outcome of all people matching bets on this basis would be that everyone is ground down by the commission & PC in the end?

I'm sorry to see that you haven't improved the manner in which you converse with people. It must be your contrarian approach to life .

Good luck in your search to elicit as much information as possible from other forum users.

In response to your initial post, the answer to that should be obvious.

Before it becomes received wisdom, a correction to the figure for the average loss per loser. The figure I calculated was £50 PER MONTH NOT PER WEEK.

Given that the total TAKE from gambling is £3.6 BILLION I think we can safely answer part of FAFH's original question "can you really hope to win long term", as being a NO in the collective sense.

Enough contributors have illustrated the difficulty of actually statistically measuring how many and how much and for how long winners may win.

Probit explains why it is is necessary to exclude those whose profits may come from long-priced wins because of the variance involved. Unfortunately, many of us, those that may be reasonably numerate but combine that with extensive knowledge of the game being being played, recognise that that is the nature of the beast for traditional gambling. Really big wins do come along because occasionally opportunities present themselves for going in hard at big prices (usually ante-post)and when they come off they make the year or several years. The rest of the time may be bread and butter but being able to judge the moment is part of what makes a long-term successful gambler.

Many of the people on BF and on this forum are of the new kind of player, and that's fine. There's room for everyone.But it sometimes seems to me that the world of the traditional opinion player gets overlooked as do the methods.

That brings me to FAFH's main question i.e. "Always taking prices  = guaranteed long term losses ?
"

The simple answer is NO this is a false conclusion.

Layers win because of the over-round but that requires them to lay as many horses as possible preferably in proportion to the odds. But they are vulnerable to individuals who have some mathematical knowhow, some expertise in terms of specialist knowledge, who can win.

Aye robot has explained that it takes an awful lot of losers to fund one reasonable winner. It doesn't really matter what that figure actually is, but it's a lot.

There is a lot of wishful thinking amongst players generally but its obvious that those that can sustain a good profit over the years are few and far between. That's not a message that BF or BM's wish to be widely known. But I think  people do know that for most people gambling is a mug's game.

About 1% of accounts are in profit of 1k or more on here.

I can't provide a link for this, I just know it to be true.

Sandown, Dave Edwards et al
My initial post was a question not a conclusion.
I was simply raising it to elicit opinions on both sides of the matter.
I was neirher on one side nor the other.
But it does appear pretty obvious from the overall weighting of the answers, that price taking is not intrinsically disadsantageous.
Good to know for those who perhaps had some doubts.

Rob the bantam

I can well believe that myself. Pity you can't verify the source.

By: This user is offline. The Management
Date Joined: 27 Dec 00 Add contact | Send message When: 23 Feb 11 16:52 That fig is probably customers that have bothered to register for the forum - also no indication of whether still active or not.


I think you're right. Those are forum usernames rather than account usernames.

...and how many people actually are on the forum. I reckon it's about 35 as most people seem to have multiple user names

Some information here, but still room for some speculation.
  Betfair financial report from first half of their fiscal year :

   http://corporate.betfair.com/en/media/press-releases/2010/14-12-2010.aspx

Anopther annoying thing, the forum wont let you copy and paste long links.

  http://corporate.betfair.com/en/media/pres s-releases/2010/14-12-2010.aspx

You will have to delete the space between the two s's in press.

Also found an announcement saying that they reached 3 millions registred users in April 2010.  The link I posted said there were 654.000 active accounts during that 6 month period and Betfair usually think of an active account as those who have placed at least one bet during that period.
   This would indicate that they have something like 2.5 million dormant accounts, roughly 75 - 80 % of all accounts.
  No doubt Betfair can manipulate any number they go public with in the way that suits them best.

FWIW Eddie, if you put a full stop in the line above the link, then it works.

I have no idea why, but it does.

.
www.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.blah.blah.test.

isnt it 2 fullstops?
not to be pedantic

.
blahblah.doyou.work.senor.hombre.qtepasaahorascarface.com

...
ocondos.fullstops.funcionas.mejor.com

ahah seems 1 fullstop it is
sorry

I think a lot of people here are underestimating what proportion of accounts might be in profit.

firstly, much as we like to think we're an incredible elite, it's not that hard to make a modest amount of money on here. to make a large amount, undoubtedly - but to make the kind of money that counts as a modest second income/beer money/a subsistence wage doesn't take any exceptional talent.

secondly, whilst it's true that one big-time winner will be funded by a lot of small time losers, the opposite scenario is also possible. one large scale loser can fund several small winners.

sadly, a lot of the money some of us make will be coming from people with serious gambling problems. let's not kid ourselves that that's not true, or that taking their money makes us superbrains.

Sounds like good common sense to me Viva.

I agree with most of what you post Presidente, but I can't agree with that. To make money long term on BF is extremely difficult, you make it sound easy. I would expect out of every 1000 people who open an account with BF this year, only a few will make money over the course of the next 5 years, maybe even just one or two per 1000 new accounts. I'm very surprised how people here seem to underestimate BF's commission drain.

I'm with Sandown on how difficult it is to maintain a good profit over a series of years.

An analogy often in my mind for betting (price taking) is w/ batting in cricket. You score 1s, a few 4s and mostly survive dot balls. You are looking above all to avoid getting out. A steady stream of betting profits is as rare as a steady stream of 2s in the traditional form of cricket.

much as we like to think we're an incredible elite

Well we all have an ego, so there's fair amount of truth in that, but having spent my entire life around people who gamble the idea that 25% win just strikes me as beyond belief.

I agree with the last paragraph. As someone who could have easily have gone down that path I have massive sympathy for those who really struggle with their gambling.

It also backs up my belief that the main thing that seperates winners from the losers on here is their psychology and not their intellect.

Of course only a tiny proportion of losers are compulsive gamblers, but I believe it's the lack of discipline and desire of your average losere that stops them being a winner, rather than a lack of intellect.

It also backs up my belief that the main thing that seperates winners from the losers on here is their psychology and not their intellect.

I agree with that. Having said that, if an intelligent person acts stupidly, their intelligence is wasted on them.

heya trev. well, I agree that if we were talking about just those accounts used for straightforward positional gambling (ie people treating BF like a bookmaker), commission would be the killer and the %age showing a net long-term profit would be very low.

but there's a whole other class of users who commission drain doesn't really affect, and for those showing a modest (I emphasise modest) profit isn't that hard. so the real question here is, how does the usage of BF by active users divide up?

I signed up before the 2006 world cup to have some fun bets, because I'd heard you could get better prices than in hills. within a couple of weeks I'd started playing about with the site for small stakes to see what you could do, and I've never put any more money in since.

now, as I say, I'd love to think that makes me special in some way. but my gut feeling is there are a lot of people out there doing the same, because it's just not that hard. it's a form of self-employment that rewards people who are averse to getting a proper job and have a slightly obsessional streak. and also don't have too much in the way of financial responsibilities.

taking it up to a level where it's your sole income and it's making you rich - yes, that's impressive. because almost by definition most of the easy stuff doesn't scale. and I can say that without bragging because five years on, I still haven't, and probably won't.

^christ that's long. sorry

Yeah please stop emulating my long winded prose style.
I own that on here, don't forget it.

are you saying you could be Pithier?

viva el presidente

I don not wish to appear patronising but your view that it is rather easy to make some level of profit based on your own experience and an impression of what others must be doing if only they played in the non-traditional manner, is both naive and dangerously misleading for others who might be thinking of gambling on here.

Believe me, I know people who have done tens of thousands believing that it is all so simple and your views will only encourage others with no skills to get involved. Whilst I wish to win I do not wish to do so at the expense of people who can't afford to lose.

The fact of the matter is that anyone can win by getting their 5 year old to put a finger on a horse's name or whatever, and if randomness favours them, they may show ahead even after a long trial. but rest assured that after commission plenty of others will find that their 5 year olds have caused them to do their dough. For the one who wins, it may seem all rather easy to win but ask the others what they think.

If you took 4 players playing against each other across 1000 bets for a £100 stake on a 4.0 shot and with  say 5% commission deducted on winnings and with all players betting blind, there is a reasonable chance that one of them will come out ahead but the others will be losers. Chance may favour one player to the extent that he wins 30% of plays with the others proportionately less. The 30% win player may have a profit of £15k but the others will lose to the extent of £30k between them what with the exchanges commission of £15k and the winning players £15k profit.

Stand back, my friend, and consider the total picture and not just your very narrow view of it from your perspective.

A good player recognises that luck/chance always plays a part, a bad player doesn't and believes that it is all down to his skill alone.

people do play in a non-traditional manner. we know that. the nature of the platform encourages tick trading and market-making both pre-off and IP, as well as other strategies that have virtually nothing to do with predicting outcomes. we know that's what lots of people do, because a) they tell us and b) nature abhors a financially profitable vacuum.

my point is that those things aren't hard to do to a low level, if you treat it as work. I stand by that - and your suggestion that that's inciting people to do their money is frankly a bit odd. how? the only sensible way to learn do that is to start small and experiment. which is surely the best advice you could give anyone new to the site anyway.

fwiw, my gut feel for the proportion of active users in consistent profit would be somewhere nearer 10% than 5.

viva el presidente

What "people tell us" is totally unreliable as a source because its unverifiable and in any event this forum clearly attracts people who know what they are doing not those who don't (at least as far as posting is concerned.)

b) nature abhors a financially profitable vacuum. is an attempt to refer to some supposedly irrefutable law that is pure b*ll***t.

Your "gut feel" re the % of winners as a substantiation is no better than anyone else's and for that reason is meaningless just as mine is.As aye robot has said, we just don't know.

This is a negative sum game. You win at others expense and the platform provider takes a turn.We can surmise that "insiders" do pretty well. As do those who are botted up, those who have a edge in IR and  opinion players who know what they are doing.You say that its easy to win small tick-trading and market making. BF is raking off its commission. So just who is losing then? Can't be no-one.

I started here in 2006 with three friends of mine, we all started together, i was the only skeptic and they were the "this is so easy! we are going to make a ton!" type, needless to say that i'm the only one still doing it fulltime, all of them make the occasional bet but the early easy statement turned into a fear one

viva el president maybe you are one of those that had everything in the right place to start winning from the get go and never looked back but thats hardly the rule thats the exception and if there are here 10% or 5% of winners or whatever, i would imagine that people that never lost or never had to make another deposit must be something like 0.00001% or less

It also backs up my belief that the main thing that seperates winners from the losers on here is their psychology and not their intellect.

I agree 100%. The mental approach is undoubtedly the most important aspect. Nobody is exempt from this one, no matter how good they are.

Most people don't have the mathematical ability and/or the judgement and are unteachable.  They'd never make money no matter how determined and disciplined they are.  One also goes hand in hand with the other.  If you have some success or seem to have a natural ability for it you become more determined and focused, if you don't you tend to give up quick.

I just have to think about my past experiences with temps, accounts clerks and their general inability to do basic book-keeping.  To think I could teach any of them to make even a modest profit on here I'd say you are having a complete laugh.  In any case I think its a subject that you have to work out for yourself.

Very true Clydebank , very few people have the maths brains to do it ...and that's good

IMO the only winner here is BF with his 5% commission ...
The money moves from one gambler to another and the only winner here is BF

Nah. There are plenty of winners on Betfair.

Most people don't have the mathematical ability and/or the judgement and are unteachable

I don't believe you need maths skills above your average 12 year old to win on here.
The top few peercent of winners are probably naturally gifted at maths, but the majority don't need much beyond basic percentages.

As for psychology. Gambling naturally attracts those who are least psychologically equipped to be long term winners.
Gambling attracts thrill seekers and short term thinkers.
You require the complete opposite psychology to win long term.

You are miles off base.  It's a lot easier to get an A* in maths than teach the maths needed on here.  I should know since my eldest son is doing it at the moment and will get an A* easily and the maths I use would be beyond him I think and I am by no way a person who uses the most complex maths.

You specialise in a very small niche area where maths is less important than any other area of betting I can think of.  Judgement, experience and natural instincts are the key not mathematical derivates, which is why bookies don't like them.

frog can u do me a favour

I've also made money in the past in horse racing and I make money at poker atm
The most maths I ever used was in horse racing, though I'd say logic rather than pure maths, or statistics which I've never studied.
I did mechanics as the applied part of my maths a-level rather than stats,

When I was winning on the horses I used nothing beyond o-level maths and even less at poker.

Discipline, Desire and Time and the 3 biggest things that make a winning gambler.
Maths is miles down the list.

Q. Does the bettor/investor with a long term positive expectancy based on their analytical approach stand any chance of realising those potential profits without the correct mental approach?

A. ?

I'm torn on the maths debate, you don't need much maths for poker (especially SNGs) or specials betting. ICM is pretty much teachable through trial and error using something like SNGWiz (Maths obviously helps those people learn faster, but you can learn it times table fashion too) and specials is definitely a mix of gut and research. I think the maths of ranges and stuff in cash poker, while not complex, may require too much logic for non mathematically minded people to really get to grips with beyond small stakes. (You could have taught a monkey to win at poker 20 years ago, but it's got tougher)

I'm not great at maths but I do use significant chunks of logic in a lot of my models. My model that spotted Nigeria cheating in the soccer world cup would probably be beyond a lot of people who don't think logically.

I think you could quite easily teach someone to win at gambling in the current environment in niche markets but I don't think you could teach them to find their own edges when that environment changes.


As an aside, as you know we're poles apart on the discipline word, but I do like the desire word. I've always claimed that discipline is a word for losers and that you need to work incredibly hard to keep up with the times. Maybe we could compromise and call this discipline/work thing "Desire" as if you've got the desire you're not placing unfathmomable fun bets and you're probably working your duck off.

Lori, a bit off topic, but I never knew Nigeria cheated in the World Cup. Can you please say or explain what they did ?

Yep, I'd agree with the last paragraph.
90%+ of punters don't have the desire or the willingness to put in the time and effort to become a winner.
They just like the buzz and fun of a bet and they'll often kid themselves after a few nice wins that they're good at it.
That belief will keep them going through the all the losers, til their next good run. Repeat ad infintum.
Overall they'll be losing but won't know how much because they won't be keeping a record of their bets.
They may even be kidding themselves that they're winning.

I'd also agree that you don't need much maths for poker. I'd say SNG's probably require the most though, as you have to constantly weigh up stack size and this ICM thingy which I still have very little knowledge of ;)
It's probably why it's the one form of poker I lose at and no longer play.

In cash stack size is of little importance and it's all about weighing u
up the strength of your hand and the possible strength of your opponents hand post flop.
That's mostly about the ability to concentrate and read your opponent.
and very little to do with maths.
MTT's which I'm enjoying more and more are a mix. There are times it's all about the maths of push or fold, but for long periods there's lots of pre flop play too.


As for Horse racing my 1st winning stratergy was based on stopwatch (the sporting life speed figures) in 2yo races. I was using very few variables and very little maths.
I then went onto all age H'cps where I used dozens of variables, but again nothing beyond O-Level maths.

Maybe I'm in the minority and most pros are all using complex degree level maths to find an edge.
I'm not convinced.


This post by L.Mansini I suspect sums up the main difference between winners and losers.

I have no strategy beyond lumping on cricket matches in-play based on feeling, from playing at a good level and thousands of hours watching
(He has a very good knowledge and wealth of experience in the market he plays, successfully)

I have no staking plan beyond withdrawing profit over a certain level, so i dont go crazy and lose too much in a day,  and only topping up my account twice in losing weeks

(This suggests he doesn't use much if any maths, but has a problem with discipline and when he has that under control he wins long term)


I'm sure a more mathematical approach would improve his profit, but I'm not convinced by a huge amount.

What makes him a winner is the desire to put the time and effort in to bulid up experience in a particular market and then have the discipline to bet with in your limits and not to spunk away your winnings from markets you have decent knowledge of in markets you have little or no knowledge of, just for the buzz.

You don't have to look far on this forum to find a huge proportion of gamblers who do the latter. And the fact that they post on here in the 1st place suggests to me that they're likely to be more disciplined than your average punter.

Discipline, Desire, Time, Experience, hard work, Specialisation all more important than maths

** Lots of post flop play in mtt's, that should read

.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8805137.stm

It seems nothing was ever proven so I retract my comment with an apology.

Anyway, my spreadsheet highlighted an anomoly in Nigeria's odds which went my way.

I did mechanics as the applied part of my maths a-level rather than stats,

that says it all you did maths a level ffs.....you are out of touch with the intellectual fallabilities your fellow man.  My wife is the same.  Doesn't realise how good she is at what she does.

FiveLeaves: Discipline, Desire, Time, Experience, hard work, Specialisation all more important than maths

True enough Fiveleaves, but if I change desire to aspiration it gets a bit worrying...

D iscipline
E xperience
A spiration
T ime
H ard work
S pecialisation

Hmm, do successful punters live shorter lives? I wouldn't be surprised, stressing over a computer screen all day isn't the best way to keep healthy. hehe

It's got nothing to do with Maths at A level standard or working out complex maths puzzles ,its more to do with the  speed of working out 'maths' problems .

Its like comparing a fast hot hatch to a sluggish but well built and comfy Jaguar from the lights.

On here you need to be the hot hatch , a lot of academics aren't quick thinkers, theyre more deep thinkers .

That's a liability on here ,think deep and you could be bucket loads down in no time.

LOL

The first mistake is trying to pinpoint what every punter does...

more math...less math...whatever??

you guys keep trying to catalog them all, but your EGO's are so big that you don't understand that it is just too much to put it in words

you just can't get to terms that many have made more than you with much less

and of that i'm sure [;)]

Chaos is inherent in all compounded things. Strive on with diligence.

Mental arithmetic
Unified framework for model-based betting
Game Theoretic approach

Personal responsibility
Undertanding of probability theory
Novel idea generation and creativity
Time management
Experience and expertise
Recognition of patterns

[x] Do you spend too much time on the forum?

yes! Investor [;)]

as long as I don't have bets going on

I was referring to myself actually I need to keep myself in check and do something more useful.

it would be so easy if I would go out and speak to others about what I do, but people have such pre-conceived ideas about gambling that it makes almost impossible to talk about

Indeed...

You'll get more money bet laying at 1.01 than the combined totals backing from 110 to 200.  Annoys me that I cant lay someat at 110 and 120 for all the money in China because some bot has jumped in first at 1.01.  That tells you all you need to know about the mathematical nous of the majority of punters.  Winning can be about complex statistical approaches and mathematical programs and will be for virtually all the really big winners but that is not what I am talking about.  It's about having an inate and instinctive feel for figures that seems so simple to some but is lost on most people

I am rapidly (or perhaps slowly) recognising some of the gems posted here.  No sarcasm but some of this is educational.

May I comment on this one before I get around to looking at the whole?

Its like comparing a fast hot hatch to a sluggish but well built and comfy Jaguar from the lights.
On here you need to be the hot hatch , a lot of academics aren't quick thinkers, theyre more deep thinkers .

One here you don't need to be a hot hatch, in my very humble view.  You can be a comfy Jag and choose not race from the lights. Provided the Jag driver thinks deeply he will win the race, or at the least get placed.


More analogies please.

On here you need to be a space shuttle, fast enough to escape the atmosphere while 3-25 % of you is ripped off by heat and pressure, until finally you arrive in outer space and get a wonderful view of the earth and a peaceful feeling in your belly

Then when you make it to the moon people say you are just a liar who filmed your p&l in a film studio in arizona

Then you ask yourself if money really makes you happy in outer space

Then you ask yourself if money really makes you happy in outer space


I guess it depends on what the wimmin are like. 


I am off to ponder more.

that says it all you did maths a level ffs.....you are out of touch with the intellectual fallabilities your fellow man

I'm not saying a decent head for figures isn't one of the things required to become a long term winner, I'm just saying it's not the most impotant.
Also the degree level complex maths that some use on here, although obvioulsy uselful for them, isn't needed at all by most winners.

I also believe that gambling naturally attracts those with a head for figures.
it doesn't naturally attract those with a 'winning' psychological make up.
Infact it attracts people with the opposite of what is needed psychologically.

So what group are you in then?

[b]jimmy69
Date Joined:     11 Apr 01
Blogger: jimmy69's blog
Add contact | Send message
28 Feb 11 14:40 Joined: 11 Apr 01 | Topic/replies: 12,938 | Blogger: jimmy69's blog
So what group are you in then?
[/b]


If it helps, I have talked to many over the years who think they can make money on betfair.  Most have gone... completely blown their banks.

Some who do are complete shocks, to the extent that I can say for the last time that nothing will shock me again.

Group? Not sure I'm in groups.

I have a natural head for figures, but when I started I was appalling equipped to be a winner. Like most gamblers I did it for the short term buzz. I'm also by nature quite lazy.
The one positive psychological trait I have is that I can be very obsessive and that can overcome my laziness and eventually helped  me overcome my lack of discipline.

are you thinking of footsoldiers, alex?

Alex, that backs up my thinking that many pros are constantly battling their desire to chase the buzz of the 'big win'

There was a very successful and well known specials punter who succumbed to that desire not that long ago, apparently.

..and blew the lot

fll If you are talking about who I think you are he crashed and burned primarily because his edge had gone or been severely diminshed.  The pressure bought on by that caused his punting demise.

CLYDEBANK29
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
Add contact | Send message
When: 28 Feb 11 10:34
Joined:
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
| Topic/replies: 1,288 | Blogger: CLYDEBANK29's blog
You'll get more money bet laying at 1.01 than the combined totals backing from 110 to 200.  Annoys me that I cant lay someat at 110 and 120 for all the money in China because some bot has jumped in first at 1.01.  That tells you all you need to know about the mathematical nous of the majority of punters.  Winning can be about complex statistical approaches and mathematical programs and will be for virtually all the really big winners but that is not what I am talking about.  It's about having an inate and instinctive feel for figures that seems so simple to some but is lost on most people


Yes oddly that is true. When I'm first in the queue at 1.01 I'll sometimes still be getting matched when the inverse hits 300.  When betting at extreme odds increments, I tend to put money up on both sides. So I lay at 34 then back the inverse at 1.03. The same bet, but 34 is better value for me. As 1.03 is so much more likely to get matched though, I put only a small fraction of my total liabilty on the lay. Obviously I place that bet first to stop getting cross matched.

Investor

So I lay at 34 then back the inverse at 1.03. The same bet, but 34 is better value for me.


Can this be correct? Or am I missing something ?

what doesn't make sense to you about it?

viva

The assumption clearly behind the way it is expressed is that if the horse (assume horses) hits 34 then its a loser and vice versa its a winner.OK I understand that.


But tell me why it is not as if not more profitable to play the opposite way around because spikes may mean that 34 gets hit without losing and 1.03 may lose?

You can tell that this is not what I do, right? It's not the way I play.

on a yes/no market (eg sending offs in football), laying yes at 34 is a very marginally better way of having the same bet as backing yes at 1.03.

it's the difference between backing at 33.3/1 and backing at 33/1

OK I see that. I misread the context.

*backing no, obviously.