h-bomb you should post your selections on here in advance and what odds you get for reference.  It would be interesting to follow.

In the unlikely event you are successful, then non-believers like me will doff our virtual caps.

Good luck whatever you do.

If it's likely to fail, perhaps I'd be better doing it offline then.

Not sure I could take the abuse of the heckling masses who would undoubtedly flock. I've seen it on here too many times. Everything inevitably turns into a feeding frenzy.

Thanks again to all of you who posted, for your helpful advice

Thanks JLivermore, that's very sound advice. Thanks for explaining, as Kelly is somewhat of a mystery to me.

Looking forward to starting.

From what you've all said, it sounds highly likely that my sample of the last 100 bets isn't a win-rate that can be maintained.

But if I can keep it above 5 percent that would still be good wouldn't it? I think that can be done. But I suppose we'll see.

For what it's worth, my big tip for tomorrow is Anderson to beat Fish in the tennis @ 6/5 with Bet365

Hi Still standing.

Trust me, it's not followers I want. I don't care if nobody ever knows. But I needed to come on here to get the benefit of other people's knowledge and experience.

In fact, posting my bets on here seems to be an almost pointless exercise, win or lose. I can think of 2 positives. Firstly, to get further advice from people such as yourselves, about things you may notice I'm doing wrong. Secondly, it would help my discipline to have all bets well documented and carefully considered.

The price for this would be that I'd become the entertainment - the latest 'Mug' for the crowds to toss rotten fruit at if things didn't go to plan. Not sure if going public is worth it or not.

I would be risking 3% of my bank on each bet if I was betting at around evens each time. As a rule of thumb you can expect a losing run of 10 times your average odds to happen several times a year, and perhaps once a year a losing run of double that, so around 20 losses in a row in your case.

How many bets are you basing your 16% edge on? It sounds like you may have had an extended lucky run, unless you're consistently backing evens shots at around 2.32 which is possible but highly unlikely as you said you don't look at value.

hbomb if somebody had done level stakes on your 128 selections what would their return have been - say for £100 bet per time?

though average odds about 9/2, or 2/9 as laying, so more likely to be volatile i expect

TheVis,

My apologies, been out all day.

Now this has taken quite a lot of checking. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of the early prices, but here is what I do know:

I tipped 95 winners from 136 selections (success rate of 69.853 %)

I only have records of the prices for the last 44 of these 95 winners. But prices always have to be at least 1.80 or bigger (rules of  the employer)

Anyway, I added up the prices for the 44 winners and they averaged out at 2.0007. Lets call it a straight 2.0.

Allowing for Betfair commission of 5% say on profits, that would mean an average return of 195 pounds to a 100 pound bet, by my reckoning.

So that equals an estimated return of 95 x 195 = 18,525 from an initial staking of 136 x 100 = 13,600.


18,525 divided by 13,600 = 1.36 = 36 percent edge?

Obviously the sample size is only 136. But the prices of around evens are accurate.

Of course nobody would expect that edge to continue. But it has for now.


Does this help?

Hi racingguru,

Markets for these particular 136 tips were all major European football leagues. Mostly English Prem, La Liga. Basically markets where you could back these selections for hundreds at these prices before the off, and then for thousands in running.

I'd guess the early success is down to mostly statistical analysis, but also backed up by a very extensive knowledge of sport.

Everybody said the 16 percent couldn't be sustained, so this tipping column running at 36 percent surely can't.

To be honest though, I always knew I was choosing way more winners than losers. Doing accs for many years, (which I now understand are a fool's bets) I'd always be getting far more right than wrong.

So just recently I started to document my results to see if this was true. Doing the tipping column (which was then I started studying the stats rather than just using my sporting knowldege alone) seems to have raised my percentage of winners.

Please please nobody ask him/her where to read ( subscribe ?) to his/her tipping column. It all seems to be leading in that direction, with the mention of the tipping column becoming increasingly frequent as time goes on.
Or am I being too sceptical/disbelieving yet once again ?

Doing accs for many years, (which I now understand are a fool's bets)


i always disagree slightly about this....sure, it's hard to drop on a big-priced acca, but if you are consistently getting value prices about your selections an acca is multiplying that value surely?

Duncan, provided the prices aren't different the amount of value is the same whether you take individual bets or combine them in an accumulator.

FAFH and CATFLAQPO,

I understand your cynicism. But relax, I won't be plugging any tipping column, indeed the tips have always been free to view for what it's worth. I think I'll save myself the embarrassment of revealing where though, as like I've already said this isn't about trying to attract attention....merely to find a good staking system.



TO ALL,

Surely on evens selections, wouldn't there be a 'Normal distribution' of the number of winners being picked? From say 1000 people making 100 selections, wouldn't most fall around the 50 winners mark (the MEAN), and for every person hitting 20/50 there'd be an opposite person hitting 80/100 (very few of these obviously), but hence a Normal distribution, for those who understand statistics.

That's all of course, making the assumption that the odds are TRULY evens. And of course, adjusting for Betfair's commission would drag those winners a little closer to the MEAN value of 50. Anyway, my point is, surely there has to quite a lot of people hitting winning percentages over 50, especially in the 50-60 range.


DUNCAN,

I understand now that accs are foolish from a money-making perspective, because you can regularly get 6/7 right, 8/9 right, 7/9 right, and make no profit, despite having a fantastic strike rate, which is something I always seemed to do. I was always looking for the big win and betting more for fun than business, rather than considering that actually, the slow and steady approach of backing singles could actually pay-off in the long-run.


RACINGURU

I understand what I consider the true odds to be, but so far have been selecting regardless of price. I understand there are many here who believe winning is all about getting value. I would argue though that MAKING PROFIT is about two things.....getting increased value, or picking more winners. Almost everybody here seems to have written-off picking more winners than losers as impossible, which I find extremely strange. I mean for every hopeless bettor backing 20 percent winners at evens, all you have to do is lay his selections to get your 80 percent winner.


HEREIN LIES AN ISSUE THOUGH. For example, I had selected Liverpool v Wigan to be OVER 2,5 goals at the weekend. I would have expected the price to around 2.10. Instead, the Betfair price was 1.72.

Now value-hunters would have had me not back it, but I did, and it won. If you are backing more winners than losers, then surely you can't afford to not-back selections you don't consider value, as you're throwing away winners?

To succeed, isn't it a case of getting good value OR getting many winners?

Apologies if you are genuine h-bomb but I've seen so many of these types of thread. If you've found an edge it is a very straight forward matter indeed to make money, staking is just common sense and the very last thing you want to do is tell anyone about it.

And your last post is totally clueless, I'm afraid.

Catflaqpo,

I'm no expert. Can you explain why what I said was clueless? Maybe it was. I'm just saying how it appears to me. Quite possible I'm wrong.

You are, value is everything.

There is no such thing as "judgement of winners" so no trial necessary.

Bye all, and good luck with picking winners, or finding value

agreed there has to be a price you will not have the bet, a price you will take the bet and then a range in-between where it is no bet