General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 65 comments are related to the topic:
Going with instinct??
Going with instinct??
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 65
|
By:
The football forum is without doubt the biggest circus in town.
Lotsa clowns if that's what you want. |
|
By:
I told you so.
Equaliser by OB in the 2nd minute of extra time. Just one of those " black swan' betting days. You have to be able to take them on the chin, if you want to be a successful long term punter. But geez they do p!ss you off in the short term, that's for sure. |
|
By:
Frog : I told you so.
Should have listened to your gut instinct Frog  |
|
By:
From experience, gut feelings often turn out to be correct. And if I'm picking out teams for my Saturday 'fun fiver acca', I make a point of always sticking with my initial convinctions rather than changing my mind based on form, price and even logic. Better to lose that way than for your original picks to win and not be on them.
Having said that, you only have to watch Premier League football in England every weekend of the season to know that gut instinct, that intangible 'edge', exhaustive research, call it what you will, all crumbles in your hands when some dipstick of a referee or linesman makes a bad decision that goes against you. There is usually no legislating for that, although the 'red card' bet looked safe on Monday the way Prattenberg was dishing them out like confetti in the Chelsea-Man City game. If he'd happened to send off a Chelsea player, or given City what was a blatant penalty that would probably put them 2-0 ahead, then the outcome would easily have been so different. In that case, it was much more to do with sheer luck than gut feeling or logic. Serious minded punters don't like to attribute most of what they do to luck, preferring to convince themselves that their winning bets were all inspired decisions based on knowledge and nous and that favourite expression of the wannabee pro gambler, 'the edge. But, without most of us even recognising it or admitting to it, luck can often determine how ultimately successful a punter you are. |
|
By:
One problem with this gut/instinct stuff is that it is too easy
to "create" one of these feelings yourself. Trying too hard to "receive" one of these feelings is too easy. Maybe I'm not explaining this too wellbut how many times have you scanned the racing page (for instance) and found your eye drawn to a certain runner (not necessarily reminding yourself that you've backed it before or you know something about its form or whatever)? The name just "means" something in your subconscious (possibly) or reminds you of something totally outside of racing/gambling. The amount of times these go in is very spooky in my opinion/experience! But, as I say, the minute you start noticing them win, you start "looking" for them and that's when you start "creating" them. Phew !!!  |
|
By:
On the topic of the thread(a change for me) I was once in a bookmakers and placed a £10 bet on see the stars to win the 2000 g race at newmarket, the race was a few minutes from start and my gut feeling was telling me this horse will run well and prove why it was anti-post favourite weeks earlier, also I had a feeling it would win the derby and looked at the anti-post price of 10/1 .My gut feeling then was do an anti-post double for both races as it would make me £2000 as I was going to put £20 on it as I had the cash.
How I wish I had followed my gut instinct. |
|
By:
I think the 'gut feeling' winners are remembered
better than the losers, it's as simple as that. The other explanation IMO is the expression 'gut feeling' actually being 'experience' ringing in your head, not so much about flagging up a 20/1 winner, but warning you against an odds on loser. |
|
By:
I trade with educated instinct...
|
|
By:
I trade with educated instinct...
|
|
By:
Luck does play a factor, but 'luck' is reduced the more bets you turnover. It's no mistake that long term betfair returns are eerily close to 100% (commission not included).
|
|
By:
McChicken_Sandwich
. I trade with educated instinct... ''educated instinct'' = experience. Yesterday's match ManC v Arsenal was a classic example with the home side leading 1-0 on the hour. This match was looking full of goals but experienced punters would have realised that it was a score the City were happy with and capable of not conceding, and so it turned out. If Arsenal had scored first I'm sure it wouldn't have stayed that way. City did their 'defending' in the visitors half. I suspect the same thing happened in the other three matches yesterday. |
|
By:
Instinct is very different according to the level of experience you have.
You might have an instinct to back a horse as it's colours and blue and blue is your favourite colour. You might have an instinct to back a horse as it's lashing down with rain and you remember last time out he won in heavy rain. Two different instincts - 2 different likely gambling outcomes. And then there is the whole issue of pricing. |
|
By:
Ken: experienced punters would
have realised that it was a score the City were happy with and capable of not conceding, and so it turned out. --------------------------------------------- This may be true of previous City sides under Mancini but was most definitely not the case yesterday. You're right, the game did have goals written all over it, both before KO and even more so once it got underway. Indeed, a more end to end, free-flowing encounter between two teams wholly committed to victory has not been seen in the PL all season and it was amazing that it remained 1-0 for 90+ mins. Nasri should have put a second goal on a plate for Balotelli while the left-back smashed a shot against a post. Arsenal also had clearcut chances. People often ridiclule accas on here, so it was ironic that my £5 treble of Liverpool-Spurs-City paid around 3/1 . . . but my much bigger £100 bet of 1.5+ goals in the City-Arsenal game was a loser! And I could not blame Mancini or City's tactics for that, just poor finishing and good goal keeping. I obviously regret losing £100, but the way the game panned out at least let me feeling that my gut instinct was not misplaced. As I said earlier, luck (bad luck in this case) came into effect again. |
|
By:
Plechy, it was a fact that City were happy with the score
also capable of not conceding from that point (60 mins) and I take on board your comments as to how the game played out. Serious bad luck with your bet, and refreshing to read an 'after time' losing bet ! GL in the future. |
|
By:
Anything can happen in a single match, some punters gut instincts will pan out to be right and at the same time some others will be wrong, it's all largely nonsense as far as making profits is concerned IMO, but that's what creates the betting market in the first place. If nobody had an opinion we would have sparse markets, so opinion bettors are most welcome.
I like your description of the game Plechy, but it just reinforces what I've said if you analyse it. Your gut instinct was misplaced IMO, you're saying it wasn't because you have the benefit of hindsight which is irrelevant. Maybe I'm wrong though and guessing based on experience does produce consistent profits for some punters? In the other thread (u25k I think) reports tens of thousands of profit by guessing outcomes in-play, which I would not have thought long term to be possible. |
|
By:
My GUESS is that you're right trevh.
I think the most appropriate usage of the word " gut" in a gambling context would be in some such phrase as " I've had a gut full of bad luck, and I'm sick of it " |
|
By:
An example of Gut instinct +experience is when you see one side
pressing hard for a goal, betting shortening, and a little voice in your head saying ''Haven't I seen this before ?''. Without the experience you dive in as the attacking side are 'bound to score'. More often than not, they do score etc, but the market has over reacted to the possibility. |
|
By:
I could be argued that the perfect time to bet is when far to many punter have a gut feeling of an event occuring and over bet on it, then its very profitable to lay off the accumulative"gut feeling"
|
|
By:
look at the effect of the prices of every runner a jockey sits on when he has a good run of winners, or a trainer that has had a good week, all the horse with bad form suddenly drop from oursiders to say 4/1 shots,easy pickings if you can spot the confirmed bad runners out of the reduced tissue prices layed by the firms.
|
|
By:
market compilers are always looking for the next big flame to burn the fingers of many punters.
|
|
By:
Kato star is a classic example now that its in the twilight of its career and the odds are via historical reckoning of the horse and many other semi-retired runners that the horse will not win.
|
|
By:
I thought last evening's match at Wigan was a classic example. There must
have been some who were thinking ''have I not seen this before'' at L'pool's failure to score. As the match progressed the visitors price was always about 4 times that of the home side, which I always thought was too big also the draw price, with Wigan clearly happy to take a point. |
|
By:
I take it you mean the home side was about 4 times the price of the visitors?
And careful, that sounds dangerously like aftertiming  |
|
By:
Careless of me but you know what I mean. I also know
what you mean regards after timing, as it happened I wasn't playing in markets relating to the result i.e. I didn't lay Liverpool, nor did i back the draw. Corners and bookings were my interests but on reflection Liverpool ran out of ideas in the second half becoming less dominant though the market seemed to be ignoring that.  |
|
By:
Ken: Have to admit that I was seduced into backing Liverpool on the evidence of the first 10 mins of total domination and a goal looking likely with every attack they made. Beforehand, and in light of Wigan's draw with Chelsea, I thought Liverpool were too short at around 1.58 but they came flying out of the traps and suddenly the price didn't look so unreasonable. It wasn't gut instinct that convinced me they woudl take an early lead - it seemed inevitable.
I wasted £30 but what can you do other than act on the evidence of your own eyes? No-one watching the first half an hour of this game would have bet a penny on it ending 0-0. Wigan may have been happy to have gained a point at the end, especially after enduring so much sustained pressure early on, but one of Martinez's endearing qualities is that his team do not merely sit back and soak up pressure; they also try to be progressive. So, the 0-0 never looked on. This was the only game of seven in the PL last night that let me down in an over 1.5 goals 7-fold acca (including one of under 2.5 for Everton v Swansea. My gut instinct is telling me to lay Chelsea tonight and back over 1.5gls. |
|
By:
Ken: I'm intrigued by your comment that 'corners and bookings' are your interest. Presumably you have enjoyed good results from them.
There is an element of luck/risk involved in whatever we back or lay, of course, but these seem to me like two markets that are particularly prone to horrendous moments of bad luck and the costly ill judgement of match officials. When weighing up the likely outcome of, say, Spurs v Chelsea tonight, how on earth do you begin to predict how many yellow cards will be dished out or how many times the ball will deflect off a player for a corner? I suppose some refs have a record of issuing cards more than others. But do you keep a record of teams who have a habit of conceding most corners, for instance? Just interested, that's all. GL |