General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
OK ive often looked around this place and reckon you could with the right amount of capital bet fulltime, although if you are smart fulltime may not be the correct term as one large wager that wins is enough to keep you in income for the week or the month etc etc, simply by using some grey matter and discipline it can and probably is done, whos doing it, what are your stratagies, and what is the commision that betfair take on the large punters ,or is it the same as small punters. ...............just curios aye.
Show More
so the question still is who is a fulltime punter, who actually makes their income from it..................have been reading all comments, interesting.
and of course the other question is whats a good amount of capital to start off.
I'm full time but would be considered a dinosaur as I bet horses and EP's on them - high margin profit, turnover limited by what you can get on early so ultimately profit is capped - I'm thinking 100k a year is achievable using this method but my best is just half that.
As my bets are in the 0.5% to 3% of bankroll range - the starting capital is high - 20k+ is a bare minimum for the punting I do.
Quite simply, the more time you put into something, the more you get out of it.
I think there is a point where you could minimise the time spent on here, but you could really go either way and it is up to the individual on how they want to pursue something.
You may have something that you can bet on every race of every day, but my thinking is the more bets you find, the lower your profit margin, which is ok, because the more you turnover the more you make.
eg
You may be able to find 200 bets per week averaging a 1% profit margin. The higher you tweak that profit margin, the less qualifying bets you will find.
Maybe you want to only bet on things you feel you are getting 200% of true odds. You certainly can't do that on every race, and I would suggest opportunities will be limited. You will certainly be reducing variance so lesser bet frequency will be ok because your losing streaks will be minimal.
But in saying that, to find that value, you still have to put the time in. I mean how exactly do you plan on finding such good value to reduce your bet frequency if you aren't scanning the markets constantly trying to find that value? If you are on here anyway with a positive expectation strategy, then you may as well be betting on it.
Basically, you can't just pick one horse out for the week to concentrate on because it isn't only important the horse that you think has the best chance of winning, but the market value has to represent the value in which to get. So while your "best bet" of the month may well be right, but at the end of the day, if you are taking unders for the horses real chance of winning, then you will still ultimately lose out financially. So basically to find the best value runners, you need lots of options on what you are betting on.
Your best bet for example, may be a no bet at 1.50, but at 3.00 is a huge bet for you. To get that 3.00 about such a horse, you need to be actively searching for the best value.
Point being, to really minimise the time spent on here, you either need to automate your strategy placing lots of bets not searching for the best value, or you need to automate price finding, having an idea of what odds you are chasing for a particular runner, and you would also have to automate rating a horses chances.
If you aren't automated, you are spending your time rating the runners, spending time chasing the best price that meets your expectations. Either way, you are spending time. The only other option, is to have inside information, and have a good contact, meaning others are doing the groundwork for you.
Quite simply, you need to put the time in to get the rewards. If you aren't prepared to do that, then you have stuff all chance of living off the punt.
I make no claims about myself here, these are simply my thoughts on likely scenarios of the professional punter.
I think there is a point where you could minimise the time spent on here, but you could really go either way and it is up to the individual on how they want to pursue something.
You may have something that you can bet on every race of every day, but my thinking is the more bets you find, the lower your profit margin, which is ok, because the more you turnover the more you make.
eg
You may be able to find 200 bets per week averaging a 1% profit margin. The higher you tweak that profit margin, the less qualifying bets you will find.
Maybe you want to only bet on things you feel you are getting 200% of true odds. You certainly can't do that on every race, and I would suggest opportunities will be limited. You will certainly be reducing variance so lesser bet frequency will be ok because your losing streaks will be minimal.
But in saying that, to find that value, you still have to put the time in. I mean how exactly do you plan on finding such good value to reduce your bet frequency if you aren't scanning the markets constantly trying to find that value? If you are on here anyway with a positive expectation strategy, then you may as well be betting on it.
Basically, you can't just pick one horse out for the week to concentrate on because it isn't only important the horse that you think has the best chance of winning, but the market value has to represent the value in which to get. So while your "best bet" of the month may well be right, but at the end of the day, if you are taking unders for the horses real chance of winning, then you will still ultimately lose out financially. So basically to find the best value runners, you need lots of options on what you are betting on.
Your best bet for example, may be a no bet at 1.50, but at 3.00 is a huge bet for you. To get that 3.00 about such a horse, you need to be actively searching for the best value.
Point being, to really minimise the time spent on here, you either need to automate your strategy placing lots of bets not searching for the best value, or you need to automate price finding, having an idea of what odds you are chasing for a particular runner, and you would also have to automate rating a horses chances.
If you aren't automated, you are spending your time rating the runners, spending time chasing the best price that meets your expectations. Either way, you are spending time. The only other option, is to have inside information, and have a good contact, meaning others are doing the groundwork for you.
Quite simply, you need to put the time in to get the rewards. If you aren't prepared to do that, then you have stuff all chance of living off the punt.
I make no claims about myself here, these are simply my thoughts on likely scenarios of the professional punter.
Quite simply, the more time you put into something, the more you get out of it.
--------
not always the case, ime. sometimes you have to step away a bit.
--------
not always the case, ime. sometimes you have to step away a bit.
I'm full time but would be considered a dinosaur as I bet horses and EP's on them
EP's?
EP's?
An EP (short for extended play) is a musical recording which contains more music than a single, but is too short to qualify as a full album or LP.
Or Early Prices maybe.
God, paulme, if you spent your time studying or researching things instead of asking question after question on here, you may be a little more successful.
Or Early Prices maybe.
God, paulme, if you spent your time studying or researching things instead of asking question after question on here, you may be a little more successful.
I'm not sure he'd have the intellect to be a cleaning lady Cat!
ah i see you've turned into a **** again lord bobbin. didnt last long did it.
how the hell would i know what EP meant? ask anyone on the street and i bet 10 out of 10 wouldnt get it right. does that make them dumber than a cleaning lady. infact ask your wives and girlfriends and mothers. then declare them all thicker than a cleaning lady.
bunch of thick cvnts
how the hell would i know what EP meant? ask anyone on the street and i bet 10 out of 10 wouldnt get it right. does that make them dumber than a cleaning lady. infact ask your wives and girlfriends and mothers. then declare them all thicker than a cleaning lady.
bunch of thick cvnts
oh that shuld read tw@t by the way bobbin. which is what you are.
HTH
HTH
You've ruined it paulme, Peggy wouldn't be rude like that.
cat flap if you have a wife seriously ask her what EP means? if she gets it wrong she's a dumber than a cleaning lady. probably don't as your an unfriendly git.
if you're (more likely) not married the same applies to your mother.
HTH
if you're (more likely) not married the same applies to your mother.
HTH
So now your insulting me, my non-existent wife and my mother?
only because you started it
i'm here to be nice and friendly. you should try it
i'm here to be nice and friendly. you should try it
but yes your logic is that anyone who doesnt know that EP = early prices is dumber than a cleaning lady from a 70s sitcom.
ask your best mates and your family yes and report back please as to who fits your criteria?
ask your best mates and your family yes and report back please as to who fits your criteria?
you said i remind you of peggy from hi de hi, on the back of my unknowing of what EP stands for... no?
No, I just said you remind me of Peggy. I didn't say why.
Paul, anyone who had been doing horse racing for eight months, as you have, should be able to work out what EP means. If you haven't, it's probably because you can't soak up basic information. This isn't an isolated case - you've had to ask the meaning of several things that would have been obvious had you read up a little (hence your argument with Birdy).
Sorry dlarssonf. I'll stop posting here, and hopefully Paul will do likewise...
Wasn't aimed at you Lord Bobbin, I find your posts helpful and sincere
yep until someone doesnt know something and he turns nasty on them.
surely u could have guessed( or taken a guess) at what ep meant tho paul??
There was me thinking it was a documentary about ramadan
unwise from paulme.
miss cathcart will be furious.
miss cathcart will be furious.
maybe u could follow winning teams/sportsmen mikenz , eg barcelona, seb vettel , nadal etc chances are they will win more than most times. tiger woods in his day.
Someone I know well, who has a lot of experience of Betfair as part of a group of punters who work together, once told me that he reckons if he had a starting bank of £100k he could easily win £300 per day simply by laying every favourite horse for £300 in each race.
He does not have a particularly good knowledge of horseracing either. He said he would not study form, conditions, seek advice or tips, or do any kind of research before every race. Just check the result.
He said that he would stop betting each day as soon as the first lay (to stakes of £300) was successful. It could obviously happen in the first race of the day or the last. This would clearly require a lot of self-discipline because after winning £300 in race one, there would be a big temptation to roll the dice again in race two, rather than wait till the next day's bet.
He mentioned this scenario because he is soon due to release £100k equity from his house and this is the plan he has had in mind.
Of course, people who know these things on here will swiftly point out that if you laid every fave in every meeting in the UK, you would actually lose money over the course of the year. When I pointed this out to my mate, he said that the key to him succeeding was that he wouldn't lay every fave, only as many as it took each day to bag his first winning lay.
He further argued the point that (not sure if this is correct) but faves have only once won every race on the card in a UK meeting.
It's a bit off topic, but my mate's £100k starting bank addresses the OP's question.
He does not have a particularly good knowledge of horseracing either. He said he would not study form, conditions, seek advice or tips, or do any kind of research before every race. Just check the result.
He said that he would stop betting each day as soon as the first lay (to stakes of £300) was successful. It could obviously happen in the first race of the day or the last. This would clearly require a lot of self-discipline because after winning £300 in race one, there would be a big temptation to roll the dice again in race two, rather than wait till the next day's bet.
He mentioned this scenario because he is soon due to release £100k equity from his house and this is the plan he has had in mind.
Of course, people who know these things on here will swiftly point out that if you laid every fave in every meeting in the UK, you would actually lose money over the course of the year. When I pointed this out to my mate, he said that the key to him succeeding was that he wouldn't lay every fave, only as many as it took each day to bag his first winning lay.
He further argued the point that (not sure if this is correct) but faves have only once won every race on the card in a UK meeting.
It's a bit off topic, but my mate's £100k starting bank addresses the OP's question.
Assuming the first 2 favourites won at odds against, then the 3rd one lost (won for your mate) would he stop at a loss for the day, or will he be aiming to make £300 a day?
With a bank of £100,000 in theory as your friend said, would he just keep on doubling his stakes until he is 300 in profit.
E.g. First horse is 2/1 so he lays it for a liability of 600 to make 300.
It losses and he is happy for the day.
If it wins then he is down 600. The next race the favourite is 2/1 again. Is he going to lay it for a liability of 1800 to win 900. His 900 win minus the 600 loss. Happy for the day again.
But my thinking is it wouldn't take many winners in a row to be balls deep in trouble.
E.g. First horse is 2/1 so he lays it for a liability of 600 to make 300.
It losses and he is happy for the day.
If it wins then he is down 600. The next race the favourite is 2/1 again. Is he going to lay it for a liability of 1800 to win 900. His 900 win minus the 600 loss. Happy for the day again.
But my thinking is it wouldn't take many winners in a row to be balls deep in trouble.
Plechy, are you joking? Your friend is risking his house on this harebrained scheme?
He is talking nonsense, so please do your best to convince him of the futility of his plan.
He is talking nonsense, so please do your best to convince him of the futility of his plan.
I've heard some strange ones in my time but this just about takes the biscuit...
Needs so much luck for that to work for a short while and he will only make 100k profit a year if it works...
Easier ways to double his money over a year then this way....
Needs so much luck for that to work for a short while and he will only make 100k profit a year if it works...
Easier ways to double his money over a year then this way....
Plechy : Of course, people who know these things on here will swiftly point out that if you laid every fave in every meeting in the UK, you would actually lose money over the course of the year.
So why not back them?
When I pointed this out to my mate, he said that the key to him succeeding was that he wouldn't lay every fave, only as many as it took each day to bag his first winning lay.
So his method will only be successful if the random sequence of results is in his favour for a long period. Not good.
So why not back them?
When I pointed this out to my mate, he said that the key to him succeeding was that he wouldn't lay every fave, only as many as it took each day to bag his first winning lay.
So his method will only be successful if the random sequence of results is in his favour for a long period. Not good.
Still the same environment, nothing ever changes here.
There are two brigades, the clowns and insulters, and the "what about this" guys that have no idea, put in no research and just hope to get lucky.
What does amaze me, is that if one looks past all the insults and drivel, there are some clear winning strategies posted on this forum, yet it seems most have not caught on!
In fact, even if you're a muppet with no ability, there are click and win strategies.
No you can't win layiong every favourite, you can't win laying the draw, you can't win martingale staking, and you can't win spending all your time trolling the forums.
Seeing as it's happy hour...
1. Lay the field at SP to set liability and earn greater than 5% after commission.
2. Lay the field up to $9.00 limit and earn greater than 10% after commission.
If you can't stand the highs and lows, then get out and get a job.
Click and win - simple.
There are two brigades, the clowns and insulters, and the "what about this" guys that have no idea, put in no research and just hope to get lucky.
What does amaze me, is that if one looks past all the insults and drivel, there are some clear winning strategies posted on this forum, yet it seems most have not caught on!
In fact, even if you're a muppet with no ability, there are click and win strategies.
No you can't win layiong every favourite, you can't win laying the draw, you can't win martingale staking, and you can't win spending all your time trolling the forums.
Seeing as it's happy hour...
1. Lay the field at SP to set liability and earn greater than 5% after commission.
2. Lay the field up to $9.00 limit and earn greater than 10% after commission.
If you can't stand the highs and lows, then get out and get a job.
Click and win - simple.
Plechy please tell us you are fishing? If not just ask your mate to give the 100k as soon as he can as it least it will be going to somebody he knows.
@beat the overround , hi , i think u would need a big bank for this yes? as some horses odds must be high if same liabilty for the whole field?
or anybody? i normally only do football , just had a look at the horses , some of the odds are pretty high [smiley:crazy]
howardisawinker & john2179: My mate's plan would be to make £300 per day, by doubling stakes until he bagged a winner if necessary, and then stop there. Start again the next day by laying faves to win another £300. That's the discipline, not to get too greedy by winning £300 and then laying in the next race in the hope of winning another £300. The 'balls deep' fear is why he reckons he needs a starting bank of £100k.
TheInvestor2: He's not risking his house - he has a nice place to live and would simply be using his half of the equity from a divorce settlement on his and his ex's property (which she still lives in).
Trevh: You wouldn't back every fave for the same reason you wouldn't lay every one. Both result in overall losses.
Paul.Merson: 'So much luck'? As my mate argues, faves have won all 7 races at any one meeting anywhere in the UK only ONCE in racing history. So by that reckoning, his worst case scenario is that he finally wins in the 8th race! Hence he needs £100k to weather any potential storm and on the basis that history could repeat itself!
Beat The Overround & TheVis: BTO - my mate's not the patient kind to sit there, glued to racing all day, trying to make returns from race after race. Each to their own.
I know absolutely nothing about horseracing, so I'm certainly not 'fishing'. Wouldn't bet a penny on anything with four legs and where the strong potential exists for jockeys, trainers, owners and Uncle Tom Cobbly to bet anonymously against their own runners through the exchanges with impunity.
TheInvestor2: He's not risking his house - he has a nice place to live and would simply be using his half of the equity from a divorce settlement on his and his ex's property (which she still lives in).
Trevh: You wouldn't back every fave for the same reason you wouldn't lay every one. Both result in overall losses.
Paul.Merson: 'So much luck'? As my mate argues, faves have won all 7 races at any one meeting anywhere in the UK only ONCE in racing history. So by that reckoning, his worst case scenario is that he finally wins in the 8th race! Hence he needs £100k to weather any potential storm and on the basis that history could repeat itself!
Beat The Overround & TheVis: BTO - my mate's not the patient kind to sit there, glued to racing all day, trying to make returns from race after race. Each to their own.
I know absolutely nothing about horseracing, so I'm certainly not 'fishing'. Wouldn't bet a penny on anything with four legs and where the strong potential exists for jockeys, trainers, owners and Uncle Tom Cobbly to bet anonymously against their own runners through the exchanges with impunity.
i had one pro friend that use to bet black at roulette and try to win 1% on each bet...I haven't seen him for some time, I wonder what happen to him 
"Harebrained scheme" lol. Plechy, tell your mate I have a scheme that might interest him. A guy in Nigeria is trying to get £65 million out of the country, all your mate needs to do is make a downpayment of £12k and he'll be in for a big share of the millions. It's a 'sure thing', should appeal to your mate.
He mentioned this scenario because he is soon due to release £100k equity from his house and this is the plan he has had in mind.
If you really know this person well, acquire a length of rope and tie him to a permanent fixture before administering as many slaps as you deem sufficient to get him to snap out of it. His plan sucks. Tell him to hold on to his equity.
If you really know this person well, acquire a length of rope and tie him to a permanent fixture before administering as many slaps as you deem sufficient to get him to snap out of it. His plan sucks. Tell him to hold on to his equity.
plechy you mate is doing nothing other than martingdale betting. The only sure thing to happen eventually is he will go bust, or get in deep trouble and/or will end up staking so much after a losing run that he will not be able to get matched.
There was one sequence a few years ago when I think it was 10 UK favs on the bounce won - something like that. Can't remember the details other than 6 went in at Wolves one evening and this meeting was topped and tailed with a couple before and after - something like that anyway.
Plus hasn't there already been one meeting this year when all the favs won - Ludlow rings a bell but others will know for sure.
This really is mug betting of the highest order.
There was one sequence a few years ago when I think it was 10 UK favs on the bounce won - something like that. Can't remember the details other than 6 went in at Wolves one evening and this meeting was topped and tailed with a couple before and after - something like that anyway.
Plus hasn't there already been one meeting this year when all the favs won - Ludlow rings a bell but others will know for sure.
This really is mug betting of the highest order.
PS your mate might want to check his facts. I've just done a quick search and came up with an 8 runner meeting at Catterick in 2001 when 8 favs won from 8 races on the card.
Tell your mate he needs at least 500k and should really bet on cricket, tennis and golf rather than horses. I could do with the extra dosh.
I'm fairly sure it happened at two consecutive Thirsk meetings.
I found the sequence involving wolves I was looking for:
15th Dec 2007 6 favs won on the bounce Sat evening meet, then Sun 16th only uk meet had first 4 favs winning at Kempton.
How much would your mate be staking on race 11 to get his £300 back?
15th Dec 2007 6 favs won on the bounce Sat evening meet, then Sun 16th only uk meet had first 4 favs winning at Kempton.
How much would your mate be staking on race 11 to get his £300 back?
Couldn't resist popping back briefly for one quick post on this.. The idea's one of the most idiotic and poorly thought out ever on Betfair. If he's using Martingales he's going to run out of liquidity after only a few races.
Let's say every favourite goes off at 4.0 and we disregard commission charges.... He lays the first one at 4.0. If he wants to make £300, then he's looking at a loss of £900 if that favourite wins.
Race 2. He now has to win back £900 and put on an extra £300 in order to make his profit. He lays the next fave at 4.0 with a bet of £1200. If this fave wins, he's looking at having lost £3600 on the race, plus the £900 he lost on the first race. Total losses £4,500
Race 3. He now has to win back £4,500 and put on an extra £300 in order to make his profit. He lays the next fave at 4.0 with a bet of £4,800. If this one loses he's looking at having lost £14,400 on the race, plus the £4,500 he lost on the first two races. Total losses £18,900.
If he's not finding it difficult to place a bet on the market due to liquidity at this point, then he's going to find it absolutely impossible should a fourth fave go in in a row. And he'll basically have lost all of his money by that point in any case.
It doesn't get much better with lower odds. If he's restricting himself to an average of 3.0, I estimate by the time four faves have won, he'll be needing to recoup £24K. There just isn't going to be the liquidity to allow him to carry on going. And the fifth fave winning in a row (which does happen every so often) will kill him completely.
It's a dire dire system. Plechy, I'm assuming this is your system rather than one of a 'friend'. Don't do it. You're simply going to lose your money.
Let's say every favourite goes off at 4.0 and we disregard commission charges.... He lays the first one at 4.0. If he wants to make £300, then he's looking at a loss of £900 if that favourite wins.
Race 2. He now has to win back £900 and put on an extra £300 in order to make his profit. He lays the next fave at 4.0 with a bet of £1200. If this fave wins, he's looking at having lost £3600 on the race, plus the £900 he lost on the first race. Total losses £4,500
Race 3. He now has to win back £4,500 and put on an extra £300 in order to make his profit. He lays the next fave at 4.0 with a bet of £4,800. If this one loses he's looking at having lost £14,400 on the race, plus the £4,500 he lost on the first two races. Total losses £18,900.
If he's not finding it difficult to place a bet on the market due to liquidity at this point, then he's going to find it absolutely impossible should a fourth fave go in in a row. And he'll basically have lost all of his money by that point in any case.
It doesn't get much better with lower odds. If he's restricting himself to an average of 3.0, I estimate by the time four faves have won, he'll be needing to recoup £24K. There just isn't going to be the liquidity to allow him to carry on going. And the fifth fave winning in a row (which does happen every so often) will kill him completely.
It's a dire dire system. Plechy, I'm assuming this is your system rather than one of a 'friend'. Don't do it. You're simply going to lose your money.
Not for long Freddie. I'm like Keyser Soze. 'And like that LordBobbin's gone..'
Unless Feck takes issue with my maths, in which case I'll be back again!
Unless Feck takes issue with my maths, in which case I'll be back again!
(There should have been a p u f f of wind in the middle of that quote. Seems Betfair censors wind now!)
It honestly isn't me, chaps, but next time I urge him to have a re-think!
It wasn't one of those 'this is what I'm going to do from tomorrow' ideas. It was more a conversation over a ruby murray and too many Cobras.
Thanks for the constructive responses. I did tell him it sounded foolhardy.
It wasn't one of those 'this is what I'm going to do from tomorrow' ideas. It was more a conversation over a ruby murray and too many Cobras.
Thanks for the constructive responses. I did tell him it sounded foolhardy.
excellent example LordBobbin.. i once layed 4-5 horses in a row and they all won!! so such losing streaks are definitely possible
Plechy just in case he's still not convinced, two other points occur to me that haven't been mentioned as far as I've seen. You mention the phrase "release of equity", which suggests to me that he was planning to borrow the money. It's a long time since I mortgaged/borrowed and I'm not right up to date but I'd imagine it would cost him at least £4k a year to service the debt so that's £4k he needs to make annually just to stand still. Secondly, my knowledge of horse racing is very limited, apart from Frankel (wink icon)I've not backed or laid a horse in years, but as far as I know it's not uncommon for favouritism in a market to change hands shortly before the off. That could mess up his system, he lays a horse at 4-1, market leader at the time he gets matched, only to find it wins the race at 9-2, with another horse which started 7-2 favourite finishing back down the field. So the favourite lost but so did your mate. I realise that could work for him as well as against him but the potential upside will only ever be £300 daily profit while the potential downside will be a great deal higher. And it ruins his idea that all the favourites winning in a day only happens once every x number of years.
my take on fulltime punting is that i reckon horses are a waste of time..............others may think otherwise
I think your mates system has already been debunked, but I will throw my 2 cents in.
I don't believe for a second that laying every favourite in every race will send you broke. Why would it? Very possible to lay every favourite in every race as a source of income, and 100,000 would easily be enough bankroll to do it. Not sure about 300 a day, but definately 200 would be attainable on that sort of bankroll.
Problem for your mate though, is this is reliant on market reading, as the value is obtained through laying at better than average price. The simple fact that your mate would be blindly laying at whatever price, and stopping at 300 for the day is just ridiculous and proves that he has no concept of how to actually make money punting. The only way to profit from the punt, is to be betting at value. You can't do that going in blind.
I don't believe for a second that laying every favourite in every race will send you broke. Why would it? Very possible to lay every favourite in every race as a source of income, and 100,000 would easily be enough bankroll to do it. Not sure about 300 a day, but definately 200 would be attainable on that sort of bankroll.
Problem for your mate though, is this is reliant on market reading, as the value is obtained through laying at better than average price. The simple fact that your mate would be blindly laying at whatever price, and stopping at 300 for the day is just ridiculous and proves that he has no concept of how to actually make money punting. The only way to profit from the punt, is to be betting at value. You can't do that going in blind.
mikenz, the short answer is you win by finding value.
The longer answer to yr initial question is that the strategies of most of the full-time winners on here wd horrify and alienate you in seeming to have nothing to do with sports or betting at all.
They are instead all about triggers and conditions being met and bots and occasionally prices or likelihoods.
You shd take seriously contrarian's suggestion that he expects a return of 0.2% each time on the value of his bet. Let's also suppose that someone betting at the same margin (maybe contrarian) is making six figs. a year. You can reverse-engineer this yourself. He has to win just under 275 quid a day, assuming no holidays. He has to bet around 137k a day. That wd be 137 bets a day assuming a thousand pounds value at risk per bet.
It is obvious that these opportunities don't present themselves just to your judgment or 'reading' of the form. They rely on a robust, defined and almost certainly automated selection method.
The selection method is one that carries an edge (pretty much however small). There are lots of edges out there (winners will all have there own). If you want to win, find an edge, begin betting small and proceed to betting bigger (though still a small portion of yr accumulating bank).
Some people who don't win have posted some awful guff on this thread, which I hope people wanting to win will ignore.
The correct message (as some others have said) is 'work hard to find an edge, work hard in exploiting it, stake rationally and win'.
If you want to win, you can.
The longer answer to yr initial question is that the strategies of most of the full-time winners on here wd horrify and alienate you in seeming to have nothing to do with sports or betting at all.
They are instead all about triggers and conditions being met and bots and occasionally prices or likelihoods.
You shd take seriously contrarian's suggestion that he expects a return of 0.2% each time on the value of his bet. Let's also suppose that someone betting at the same margin (maybe contrarian) is making six figs. a year. You can reverse-engineer this yourself. He has to win just under 275 quid a day, assuming no holidays. He has to bet around 137k a day. That wd be 137 bets a day assuming a thousand pounds value at risk per bet.
It is obvious that these opportunities don't present themselves just to your judgment or 'reading' of the form. They rely on a robust, defined and almost certainly automated selection method.
The selection method is one that carries an edge (pretty much however small). There are lots of edges out there (winners will all have there own). If you want to win, find an edge, begin betting small and proceed to betting bigger (though still a small portion of yr accumulating bank).
Some people who don't win have posted some awful guff on this thread, which I hope people wanting to win will ignore.
The correct message (as some others have said) is 'work hard to find an edge, work hard in exploiting it, stake rationally and win'.
If you want to win, you can.
As for horses being a waste of time, there are many professionals making a living betting on them (with edges) w/out inside info.
I make a small second income but am not professional. I look for a margin 5-8 times as big as contrarian's by making a selective book and arbing at the big meetings. I also take on a few naked back bets. On a massive week like Royal Ascot, I wd be cycling 200k + through the markets.
Temperamentally I wd be unhappy to lose, but this is a hobby for me and not something that I think I can make more money on than my career.
I make a small second income but am not professional. I look for a margin 5-8 times as big as contrarian's by making a selective book and arbing at the big meetings. I also take on a few naked back bets. On a massive week like Royal Ascot, I wd be cycling 200k + through the markets.
Temperamentally I wd be unhappy to lose, but this is a hobby for me and not something that I think I can make more money on than my career.
Plechy, the danger w/ a Martingdale is that you keep losing and 1) the markets get too small for you; 2) you are forced to take appalling value, wh/ hits you eventually; 3) you bottle it.
For all these reasons yr mate's scheme is asinine.
It also makes no reference to value and so is not going to win other than through luck on that score alone.
For all these reasons yr mate's scheme is asinine.
It also makes no reference to value and so is not going to win other than through luck on that score alone.
Guys,
You are over complicating things.....!
As an example, consider a bettor with an available fortune, or credit, of 243 (approximately 9 trillion) units, roughly the size of the current US national debt in dollars. With this very large fortune, the player can afford to lose on the first 42 tosses, but a loss on the 43rd cannot be covered. The probability of losing on the first 42 tosses is q42, which will be a very small number unless tails are nearly certain on each toss. In the fair case where q = 1 / 2, we could expect to wait something on the order of 242 tosses before seeing 42 consecutive tails; tossing coins at the rate of one toss per second, this would require approximately 279,000 years.
This version of the game is likely to be unattractive to both players. The player with the fortune can expect to see a head and gain one unit on average every two tosses, or two seconds, corresponding to an annual income of about 31.6 million units until disaster (42 tails) occurs. This is only a 0.0036 percent return on the fortune at risk. The other player can look forward to steady losses of 31.6 million units per year until hitting an incredibly large jackpot, probably in something like 279,000 years, a period far longer than any currency has yet existed. If q > 1 / 2, this version of the game is also unfavorable to the first player in the sense that it would have negative expected winnings.
The impossibility of winning over the long run, given a limit of the size of bets or a limit in the size of one's bankroll or line of credit, is proven by the optional stopping theorem.[2]
You are over complicating things.....!
As an example, consider a bettor with an available fortune, or credit, of 243 (approximately 9 trillion) units, roughly the size of the current US national debt in dollars. With this very large fortune, the player can afford to lose on the first 42 tosses, but a loss on the 43rd cannot be covered. The probability of losing on the first 42 tosses is q42, which will be a very small number unless tails are nearly certain on each toss. In the fair case where q = 1 / 2, we could expect to wait something on the order of 242 tosses before seeing 42 consecutive tails; tossing coins at the rate of one toss per second, this would require approximately 279,000 years.
This version of the game is likely to be unattractive to both players. The player with the fortune can expect to see a head and gain one unit on average every two tosses, or two seconds, corresponding to an annual income of about 31.6 million units until disaster (42 tails) occurs. This is only a 0.0036 percent return on the fortune at risk. The other player can look forward to steady losses of 31.6 million units per year until hitting an incredibly large jackpot, probably in something like 279,000 years, a period far longer than any currency has yet existed. If q > 1 / 2, this version of the game is also unfavorable to the first player in the sense that it would have negative expected winnings.
The impossibility of winning over the long run, given a limit of the size of bets or a limit in the size of one's bankroll or line of credit, is proven by the optional stopping theorem.[2]
A friend told me his friend who'd bet on BF for a while was automating his betting, i was impressed and told him it could be the way to go. He then told me his bot was going to lay the favourite in each race until he won then he'd stop for the day! I explained you need to get value for each bet on average and this system would fail.
I wonder if its the same guy.Surely there cant be 2 of em.
Does he live anywhere near Bromley in Kent?
I wonder if its the same guy.Surely there cant be 2 of em.
Does he live anywhere near Bromley in Kent?
i would stress that these days i find the horses to hard to study aye,, never use to be like that
I always find the stop for the day when in profit funny. What is it that makes the remaining races worthless until midnight has come and gone?
duh! it's because probability starts again on the next day
So your mate lays all favs and wins zip can save you time and effort if laying favs is your game Get The Racing look in general betting page 2 Today its page 21 The Most Popular Nap of the day here are the stats since Jan 1 won 117..lost 246 resulting in 55.24 points loss I have never seen them show a profit and i can go back a least 12 years all comments are welcome ..
duh, so if the next race is 3.50 why not just assume the "day" starts at 3.50 instead of midnight.
The 'probability starts again on the next day'? Duh! The probability is based on the bets that you play. No more and no less. You could start 'probability' the next minute, the next day, the next month, the next year, the first race after you next see a black cat etc.
A sequence of 20 races will have the same probability regardless of whether that's 20 races in a day or 20 races in a decade.
If you want to be dismissive of Feck, Martinch, I'd suggest you at least have a tiny hint of a clue first..
A sequence of 20 races will have the same probability regardless of whether that's 20 races in a day or 20 races in a decade.
If you want to be dismissive of Feck, Martinch, I'd suggest you at least have a tiny hint of a clue first..
Feck, in all probability it won't be the last time!!!
No! Well, Paul's not around at the moment, so it's quite nice around here! Sort of like when I was a teenager and the parents would go away for a few days and leave me in charge of the house. (Only you'd have to reverse the maturity levels in order to make the example apply to Paul, obviously...)
If you really know this person well, acquire a length of rope and tie him to a permanent fixture before administering as many slaps as you deem sufficient to get him to snap out of it. His plan sucks. Tell him to hold on to his equity.
that is my favourite post of the day
that is my favourite post of the day
prove its your favourite post of the day paulme.
Ive found an agency that might employ you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFQZFL0yoo
Ive found an agency that might employ you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFQZFL0yoo
Paulme laughing at a post mocking the arbitrary laying of nags irrespective of price, form etc...oh the irony.
mobojangles, it can be well worth it to take bets that (if repeated weekly) you wdn't expect to see a return over the course of yr lifetime.
The Scoop6 and some other pool bets are often examples of this.
It's not advised to deploy much of yr bank on them, though, as trying to know how much liability to lay off is a mug's game w/ the information provided by the Tote (now owned by Fred Done).
The Scoop6 and some other pool bets are often examples of this.
It's not advised to deploy much of yr bank on them, though, as trying to know how much liability to lay off is a mug's game w/ the information provided by the Tote (now owned by Fred Done).
Professional punters follow few rules:
- Good tools for analysis of the event
- Statistics
- Sense of risk
- Value betting. Google it for more information
- Money management. Usually it's a good practice bet 5% of your bank, doesn't matter if you lose some bet, if you follow the previous points you should be on profit on the long run.
Personally I found an useful tool with spicebets (google it for more info)
- Good tools for analysis of the event
- Statistics
- Sense of risk
- Value betting. Google it for more information
- Money management. Usually it's a good practice bet 5% of your bank, doesn't matter if you lose some bet, if you follow the previous points you should be on profit on the long run.
Personally I found an useful tool with spicebets (google it for more info)
doesn't require much intelligence to see that plechy's "mate" is actually plechy, however much he denies it.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539