Bob - the winning streak was not really based on gut feeling or trading. To be honest, the Test series I benefited from since last August were pretty clear cut . . . England hammering India at home; India avenging big style at home; and then Australia hammering India in Oz.

I would invariably back the home team with a couple of hundred pounds from Day One and top up as the game progressed over the five days. I guess the most I would have 'on the line' at stake would be somewhwere between £500-600 at any given time during a Test, which is peanuts compared to the pro's.

But the key point is, I would watch most of the game, even if it meant early hours viewing from the UK. I invested a lot of time watching the matches develop, but I enjoy doing that anyway regardless of betting, so it was no sacrifice in termns of time and effort.

To be honest, I've just thrown £100 away backing England in the first T20 v Pakistan earlier tonight (Thurs). I didn't trade a penny during the game. I let my initial feeling ride. They should have won it, but... well, we've all got millions of reasons why things don't go the way we expected them to, haven't we?

Basel's late winner v Bayern Munich cost me £400 last night, so it's not a great time. But I will learn from that too. Unlike in Test match cricket, a football team can dominate for 60% of the game, but still inexplicably lose at the death, sometimes by 2-3 goals.

From now on, in football, I'm going to be betting small stakes on the inexplicable happening!

The major difference between a pro gambler and a typical adventure recreational or compulsive gambler is the belief in the merit of the big hit or the "big win".

Punters with more wisdom will off dumped the belief in taking on high risk to arrive at quick gain in favor of a methodical application of edge bets of minimal size and let organic growth take its much slower but positive course.

typo * "every day with care"