General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Any guesses?
Show More
Over the past 12 months about 25%. That probably drops substantially over a longer timeframe as a large portion of those who have a winning year by luck alone will be weeded out.
That's counting everyone who just places bets to exploit the freebets though.
If you asked how many have averaged more than £1k profit over the last 3 years with no losing years, it will surely be less than 5%, perhaps a lot less.
That's counting everyone who just places bets to exploit the freebets though.
If you asked how many have averaged more than £1k profit over the last 3 years with no losing years, it will surely be less than 5%, perhaps a lot less.
It's surely a lot easier to win overall and lose on bf or to win w/out exchange betting than to win on here.
Winning on here tends to take a big investment in time and technical skills.
Winning on here tends to take a big investment in time and technical skills.
The way you two are talking I imagine you both pretty big winners yourselves.
Would you prefer them perhaps to say untruthfully that it is like falling off a log ?
Btw whilst I agree with the general sentiment being expressed that it is not easy, I do not agree that it is quite as hard as being suggested by Investor and askari.
In my experience it is possible to win in you have a lot of time, commitment and patience. You do not need either a lot of capital or technical skills necessarily.
And the first three atrributes would be present in far more than 5% of all punters imo.
Btw whilst I agree with the general sentiment being expressed that it is not easy, I do not agree that it is quite as hard as being suggested by Investor and askari.
In my experience it is possible to win in you have a lot of time, commitment and patience. You do not need either a lot of capital or technical skills necessarily.
And the first three atrributes would be present in far more than 5% of all punters imo.
Technical skills and big bank are not required, I agree froggy, although I would be surprised if investors figures are far off the truth. I dont think time, committment and patience are enough, you still need to be really clever, especially if you are doing it with your "bare hands".
Cat
Maybe a better way of putting it would be to say that you can win without large capital and ttechnical skills, but you can't win without at least having time, commitment and patience.
I don't think cleverness really comes into the equation mandatorily, except in the general sense that to make money by yourself you generally need to be a bit clever by definition.
Maybe a better way of putting it would be to say that you can win without large capital and ttechnical skills, but you can't win without at least having time, commitment and patience.
I don't think cleverness really comes into the equation mandatorily, except in the general sense that to make money by yourself you generally need to be a bit clever by definition.
I think the winning percentage over one year
would be around 15% but could be higher if a
profit, however small, was the aim.
would be around 15% but could be higher if a
profit, however small, was the aim.
This Betfair article claims 25% of customers are net winners (it doesn't say over what time period or any other details though)
http://views.betfair.com/2012/04/betfairs-next-generation-sports-product-the-full-story/
http://views.betfair.com/2012/04/betfairs-next-generation-sports-product-the-full-story/
You dont need to be clever if you are watching pictures 3 seconds ahead of the majority 
obama, I am absolutely not a big winner but rather an enthusiast who draws a side income from the horses.
The degree to which I am an enthusiast can be measured by the fact that I earn about 2.4 times more per hour from my job (self-employed) than betting. It wd be hard-headed to give it up entirely and go full-pelt on growing my business.
As an old-fashioned pricer I wd prefer it if bf didn't exist at all and/or that bookies cdn't use it as a free tissue, meaning they had no need of indicative bets like mine. My ROI/margin is not that large and certainly 10+ years ago when I was betting much smaller, there were books that had no qualms taking my bets.
I agree w/ frog you don't need a big bank. My sense is that there aren't that many winners on bf who wd be taxed in the higher income bracket (40k plus year) who win through only selectively taking good prices. I'd find this hard b/c the time it wd take getting my bets on wd eat into my studying time.
Winners at this volume are rather market-making or turning over an exceptionally high volume of bets using algos & mechanical means of placing.
The degree to which I am an enthusiast can be measured by the fact that I earn about 2.4 times more per hour from my job (self-employed) than betting. It wd be hard-headed to give it up entirely and go full-pelt on growing my business.
As an old-fashioned pricer I wd prefer it if bf didn't exist at all and/or that bookies cdn't use it as a free tissue, meaning they had no need of indicative bets like mine. My ROI/margin is not that large and certainly 10+ years ago when I was betting much smaller, there were books that had no qualms taking my bets.
I agree w/ frog you don't need a big bank. My sense is that there aren't that many winners on bf who wd be taxed in the higher income bracket (40k plus year) who win through only selectively taking good prices. I'd find this hard b/c the time it wd take getting my bets on wd eat into my studying time.
Winners at this volume are rather market-making or turning over an exceptionally high volume of bets using algos & mechanical means of placing.
it's not hard to be a consistent winner here, and it's not hard to be consistently up over a K, year after year.
what is hard is to escalate that to the point where it compares favourably with investing the same time and effort into a job, let alone a well-paid career.
what is hard is to escalate that to the point where it compares favourably with investing the same time and effort into a job, let alone a well-paid career.
That's pretty much exactly it, viva.
The amount of effort it takes to make a less than reasonable sum on here (without sheer luck at ridiculous odds/stakes), is hardly comparable to your general minimum wage job.
The amount of effort it takes to make a less than reasonable sum on here (without sheer luck at ridiculous odds/stakes), is hardly comparable to your general minimum wage job.
There was a statement recently which disclosed the percentage of BF customers making in excess of £15k pa. I can't remember what the figure was but it was less than 1%
Sad if true.
Seems to go against the general claims of success on here.
Seems to go against the general claims of success on here.
viva el presidente! 29 May 12 18:40
it's not hard to be a consistent winner here, and it's not hard to be consistently up over a K, year after year.
what is hard is to escalate that to the point where it compares favourably with investing the same time and effort into a job, let alone a well-paid career.
______________
....which is what i love about BF
.....i'm probably the only non academic full timer on here currently and also in BFs history , it's all partly due to those that could make it pay ,are not having to suffer a poor enough wage to bother.
it's not hard to be a consistent winner here, and it's not hard to be consistently up over a K, year after year.
what is hard is to escalate that to the point where it compares favourably with investing the same time and effort into a job, let alone a well-paid career.
______________
....which is what i love about BF
.....i'm probably the only non academic full timer on here currently and also in BFs history , it's all partly due to those that could make it pay ,are not having to suffer a poor enough wage to bother.
as a footnote ,i also spend less time on here now than i did when i was on here purely for fun /working full time for an employer .
...so there are exceptions to the rule Viva
...so there are exceptions to the rule Viva
Hats off to anyone who wins substantial amounts on here. I find it incredibly hard compared to beating the bookies.
And rg that again leads to the never-ending, never satisfactorily-answered question on here.
What is regarded on BF as " substantial " in the long term winning stakes arena ?.
What is regarded on BF as " substantial " in the long term winning stakes arena ?.
I'd classify substantial as 30K+ a year which is very decent considering tax free etc. Maybe even 25k a year would qualify IMO. As for long term winners, I'd consider 5 years +.
Yes, I agree. I think a valid benchmark could also be the amount you need to win to match the average take home pay but I would hardly call that "substantial".
no one really earns an 'average' wage though ,i'd say it depends on what you're used to ...more a case of what's going out as opposed to what's coming in .
for Joe Public 22k is the norm/mean/median , so that's the same as winning 19k on here simply because of the tax over commission situation less commuting of course.
As more than 99% of full timers however more likely come from an academic /public school/red brick uni background i would suggest the mean level is nearer 50k - so may full timers on here fail to fulfil their expectations
for Joe Public 22k is the norm/mean/median , so that's the same as winning 19k on here simply because of the tax over commission situation less commuting of course.
As more than 99% of full timers however more likely come from an academic /public school/red brick uni background i would suggest the mean level is nearer 50k - so may full timers on here fail to fulfil their expectations
" As more than 99% of full timers however more likely come from an academic/public school/red brick uni background ---".
Really ? That high ?
I would have thought contrarilrly that BF was more an evener out on things like background etc.
Really ? That high ?
I would have thought contrarilrly that BF was more an evener out on things like background etc.
The national statistics data base of Coachland -
FAFH - i don't think so
FAFH - i don't think so
They're a well educated lot on here .
This is the forum where the FT's reside isn't it ?
This is the forum where the FT's reside isn't it ?
Coach, your estimates are true of me; I wdn't have to work more than 10-15 hrs a week (depending on holidays) to take home the national median pay and can work much longer weeks, spaced around the racing, and still bet.
My business is less risk, less intellectual challenge and less interesting than the horses, meaning that betting (much less remunerative per hour) is a labour of love for me.
If I built up a big enough capital bank, which I absolutely don't have at the moment, I wd bet through the four or so placers I'm already using in the mornings, ride the fluctuations and not come on here at all.
Even if I don't keep increasing my racing profits, I can see m/s pulling back to start selling overseas.
racingguru, I've had years where I've lost more than the average amount I've won--partly through poor betting but also partly just down to variance. The more I bet here (trading), the more my results smooth out. Imv if you can produce winning tissue, bf tends to play to yr risk-aversion instincts.
My business is less risk, less intellectual challenge and less interesting than the horses, meaning that betting (much less remunerative per hour) is a labour of love for me.
If I built up a big enough capital bank, which I absolutely don't have at the moment, I wd bet through the four or so placers I'm already using in the mornings, ride the fluctuations and not come on here at all.
Even if I don't keep increasing my racing profits, I can see m/s pulling back to start selling overseas.
racingguru, I've had years where I've lost more than the average amount I've won--partly through poor betting but also partly just down to variance. The more I bet here (trading), the more my results smooth out. Imv if you can produce winning tissue, bf tends to play to yr risk-aversion instincts.
askari1 - guess I'm not very risk averse then. I still find it hard to fathom how being a best odds punter how with the bookies my profit to stake is close to 20% yet on here it is around 1.3% after commission. Guess I should be pleased to be a net winner on here after 11 years on here.
askari- do not lose complete interest in your business - or get someone to run it for you if its boring youre probably much like me in the sense that if something is worth doing at all it has to be fun .
g/luck this w/end with the h/racing
youre probably much like me in the sense that if something is worth doing at all it has to be fun .g/luck this w/end with the h/racing
Racingguru, I meant that it is common for someone when prices move their way to want to take some of the profit--and common, when prices move against them, for them to be more risk-seeking and either stand the bet or put more on.
Presumably you are standing yr morning price w/ the books and betting on here later on--when a horse drifts out to what you consider value.
The reason you're not making the same amount has (in v. large part) to be that you are getting on a disproportionate number of non-triers.
There is more to it than the wisdom of crowds suggesting you're wrong.
This is the main reason why I find m/s screen-watching so much. If I fancy a horse at a price, take it in the morning and the price drops, I'm happy. If it drifts to what I'd think ridiculously good value, I'm suspicious and will keep getting in and out of the bet to try to catch it at the top. This goes w. trying to make a market at the bottom for the steamers I think have been over-bet.
I doubt your bet-sizes allow you to do this, tho'. I'm prepared to try to cash in tiny advantages based on my tissue prices.
Coach, cheers--Derby weekend has crept on me amazingly fast this yr.
Presumably you are standing yr morning price w/ the books and betting on here later on--when a horse drifts out to what you consider value.
The reason you're not making the same amount has (in v. large part) to be that you are getting on a disproportionate number of non-triers.
There is more to it than the wisdom of crowds suggesting you're wrong.
This is the main reason why I find m/s screen-watching so much. If I fancy a horse at a price, take it in the morning and the price drops, I'm happy. If it drifts to what I'd think ridiculously good value, I'm suspicious and will keep getting in and out of the bet to try to catch it at the top. This goes w. trying to make a market at the bottom for the steamers I think have been over-bet.
I doubt your bet-sizes allow you to do this, tho'. I'm prepared to try to cash in tiny advantages based on my tissue prices.
Coach, cheers--Derby weekend has crept on me amazingly fast this yr.
May 31, 2012 -- 1:24PM, racingguru wrote:
I'd classify substantial as 30K+ a year which is very decent considering tax free etc. Maybe even 25k a year would qualify IMO. As for long term winners, I'd consider 5 years +.
i think 5 year is a too long. it all depends on the strategy, if the strategy was formulated based on sound analysis taking past performance into consideration, i may call it long term profitable edge even after a couple of days testing on a large number of sample.
Henok - long term profitable edges do not exist in sports betting. They are fluid and constantly need adapting on to keep the edge. Therefore a short period of testing on a large number of events will at best tell you that you have a short term profitable advantage.
The ability to improve and keep your edge defines a long term winner. For me after 2 years of consistent winning (2000 bets approx) I was pretty sure I could maintain the edge only to drop from a 24% profit to stake in year 2 to 6% in year 3. So that caused a lot of doubt until a 15% year in year 4 followed by 17% in year 5. By then I knew I was safe to really up the staking.
The staking did increase gradually from year 1 to year 5 but for me because of the relatively small number of bets a year and betting bigger prices meaning bigger droughts between winners (73 losers in a row is my worst), I didn't have the confidence to really increase the betting size significantly till after year 5.
If the average number bets in a season is much greater then of course long term winner could be as short as 3 years but the process of adapting the edge is very important so I don't think anyone can be too confident before then.
The ability to improve and keep your edge defines a long term winner. For me after 2 years of consistent winning (2000 bets approx) I was pretty sure I could maintain the edge only to drop from a 24% profit to stake in year 2 to 6% in year 3. So that caused a lot of doubt until a 15% year in year 4 followed by 17% in year 5. By then I knew I was safe to really up the staking.
The staking did increase gradually from year 1 to year 5 but for me because of the relatively small number of bets a year and betting bigger prices meaning bigger droughts between winners (73 losers in a row is my worst), I didn't have the confidence to really increase the betting size significantly till after year 5.
If the average number bets in a season is much greater then of course long term winner could be as short as 3 years but the process of adapting the edge is very important so I don't think anyone can be too confident before then.
some edges have existed since time begun and will exist for ever more /
I agree with GB.
How can rg be so absolute in his opinion " long term profitable edges do not exist in sports betting ".
If that was the case, all bookmakers would have gone bankrupt over time ?.
Also, now that we have exchange betting, and no one party is ever always taking the other side of winning bets/systems, how can long term edges even be necessarily identified by external parties, and closed down accordingly ?
How can rg be so absolute in his opinion " long term profitable edges do not exist in sports betting ".
If that was the case, all bookmakers would have gone bankrupt over time ?.
Also, now that we have exchange betting, and no one party is ever always taking the other side of winning bets/systems, how can long term edges even be necessarily identified by external parties, and closed down accordingly ?
Horses are not hard to beat at EP's - getting on is however the challenge.
I just say the edges are not absolute as the betting markets are constantly evolving and bookmakers adjust with the times. Do you guys remember athletics betting years back 1/4 odds, 1/5 odds 1,2,3?
Was the easiest thing in the world to beat but what happened - win only, 1/4 odds 1,2. Same for horses I remember times in the 80's/90's where a horse would be priced up early at 8/1 and end up at 7/2. Nowadays you'd be lucky to get the same horse at 5/1 in the morning. BF has changed a lot of things as has tax free and the availability of information so people have had to adjust their strategies. Nowadays pros create their own odds by manipulating the markets here to generate EP's to their requirements. Never happened in old days.
Just examples of how you have to move with the times to keep your edge. Sure there are old edges like bad ews that have been around forever but you can't play those and expect accounts to last.
I just say the edges are not absolute as the betting markets are constantly evolving and bookmakers adjust with the times. Do you guys remember athletics betting years back 1/4 odds, 1/5 odds 1,2,3?
Was the easiest thing in the world to beat but what happened - win only, 1/4 odds 1,2. Same for horses I remember times in the 80's/90's where a horse would be priced up early at 8/1 and end up at 7/2. Nowadays you'd be lucky to get the same horse at 5/1 in the morning. BF has changed a lot of things as has tax free and the availability of information so people have had to adjust their strategies. Nowadays pros create their own odds by manipulating the markets here to generate EP's to their requirements. Never happened in old days.
Just examples of how you have to move with the times to keep your edge. Sure there are old edges like bad ews that have been around forever but you can't play those and expect accounts to last.
I think you're both right, edges need to be monitored constantly to be able to adapt to changes and competition, but I do think a few edges are long term, and some seem to go round in repeat cycles.
Glasgow Brian is right.
A couple of the core profitable strategies I still use are ones I discovered during my first few months on here. Not only have they in fact persisted over 9 years, but I can justify, in terms of certain psychological principles, why they are likely to persist indefinitely.
A couple of the core profitable strategies I still use are ones I discovered during my first few months on here. Not only have they in fact persisted over 9 years, but I can justify, in terms of certain psychological principles, why they are likely to persist indefinitely.
Hello there Contrarian3.
I don't believe what you are saying that your strategies will always persist. Please can you send me full details of these strategies and i will happily confirm to everyone if you are telling the truth or not.
Cheers.
I don't believe what you are saying that your strategies will always persist. Please can you send me full details of these strategies and i will happily confirm to everyone if you are telling the truth or not.
Cheers.
Jun 4, 2012 -- 3:39PM, U.A. wrote:
Hello there Contrarian3.I don't believe what you are saying that your strategies will always persist. Please can you send me full details of these strategies and i will happily confirm to everyone if you are telling the truth or not.Cheers.
racingguru, u are right. i said longterm to stress a strategies feasiblity for an acceptably long timespan. but as u said it is important to be able to adapt to changes. although 5 years is still too long to convince urself u can make it betting unless u are the type who makes a couple of hundred bets a year.
contrarian, if ur edge can survive the test of time, then it must safe to share it. could u tell us ur strategy to prove ur claim
contrarian, if ur edge can survive the test of time, then it must safe to share it. could u tell us ur strategy to prove ur claim
U.A. and Henok,
One of my main long-term strategies would probably only be slightly affected if I were to share it on here (although the fewer people that know it the better), but another - something which some, but not many others are also doing - would be utterly destroyed.
One of my main long-term strategies would probably only be slightly affected if I were to share it on here (although the fewer people that know it the better), but another - something which some, but not many others are also doing - would be utterly destroyed.
Contrarian
You seem to work hard and it seem to work good for you and I wish you
continued success!
You seem to work hard and it seem to work good for you and I wish you
continued success!
My patented long-term strategy of laying England to win the world cup has proved successful for a number of years now. (I think there was a slight blip in profits in the sixties though?)
Paying £203 Premium Charge this week, soul destroying, to have Betfair just deduct your account that amount is horrific.
I have a friend who is on 49.44% charges lifetime yet has paid 1500 quid in premium charge. Surely these type of punters should have their PC returned to them. Maybe all PC returned if you get back to over 35%? Would seem fairer but not a chance in hell BF would do that.
I can see what you're thinking but it logically implies that if he dips below 40% again he will have to pay it all back and that anyone who dips below 40% for the first time will incur charges retrospectively?
If he dips below 20% you mean surely? Fat chance of that - he got lucky early and paid a chunk unfairly and now isn't remotely close.
He pays it back - he'd have had to have a blinding run to get there so sure he wouldn't mind it. 50% charges to 20% for someone who has been he for a few years is gonna take a hell of a lot of doing I'd have thought.
All I'm saying basically BF is robbing some people blind with the PC that should never have got trapped by it and in these cases they should give the PC back - surely these people weren't the ones intended for the charge?
All I'm saying basically BF is robbing some people blind with the PC that should never have got trapped by it and in these cases they should give the PC back - surely these people weren't the ones intended for the charge?
How will you decide who gets it back and who doesn't? And do you volunteer to man the help desk explaining your decisions to those who don't?
I do see what your saying btw, if he'd had his good run later he would have been better off.
Could be very easy to do and ALL PC payers would agree to it.
Basically a refund would would come off the total charges paid so for my friend it would like 56K down to 54.5k knocking him down from 49.44% to 48.12%.
If the customer reached 20% they'd be in line for PC again. Maybe a good point at where to introduce paybacks is 30%? but as long as its fixed everyone would know where they stand.
It would be a good PR move for BF as well.
Basically a refund would would come off the total charges paid so for my friend it would like 56K down to 54.5k knocking him down from 49.44% to 48.12%.
If the customer reached 20% they'd be in line for PC again. Maybe a good point at where to introduce paybacks is 30%? but as long as its fixed everyone would know where they stand.
It would be a good PR move for BF as well.
Coachbuster
30 May 12 20:05
Joined:
08 Apr 06
....which is what i love about BF Wink.....i'm probably the only non academic full timer on here currently and also in BFs history , it's all partly due to those that could make it pay ,are not having to suffer a poor enough wage to bother.
No you're not mate. :-)
30 May 12 20:05
Joined:
08 Apr 06
....which is what i love about BF Wink.....i'm probably the only non academic full timer on here currently and also in BFs history , it's all partly due to those that could make it pay ,are not having to suffer a poor enough wage to bother.
No you're not mate. :-)
The winning punters are stealing off other less able punters .
You can get an idea of how the distribution of winners and losers might look by using the final table for the premiership and recasting it.
The exchange works on the principle that for a winner to win there must be a loser (or losers).
So, re-cast the Premiership table on the basis of net wins and allocate say 10pts for net wins and -10pts for net losses, to represent how the exchange works.
You would find 7 teams with plus points, 2 with no points and 11 with minus points.
The top 2 teams (10%) would account for over 50% of the total profits, the top 4 (20%) for 75% of the profits, following a Pareto distribution.
BF take a minimum of 20% of net profits so it follows that BF's income would be similarly distributed.
As some of the top teams might find themselves in the bottom half the following season (net losers) it follows that from year to year not all teams (players) would be consistently in the profitable area. Few will want to admit to the possibility that their profits may come through chance/random factors but that is a fact, so it it is plausible to believe that perhaps the percentages may be halved for those who are consistently in profit from year to year.
Many of those who are (bot operators) should really be placed in a separate category to the players as they are de factor extensions of Bf in that they take a cut off the top for bringing some sort of liquidity to the market, although I wouldn't like to guess at what that figure might be.
The spread of losers might be much greater than on a one to one basis as its likely that a lot of smaller losers might account for each sum won, in which case the actual % of total users represented by winners would have to be reduced further, and again, a guess might be that halving the % is possible. This would say reduce those winning 50% of profits from say 10% to 5% for a year, and 2.5% for consistently winning.
The exchange works on the principle that for a winner to win there must be a loser (or losers).
So, re-cast the Premiership table on the basis of net wins and allocate say 10pts for net wins and -10pts for net losses, to represent how the exchange works.
You would find 7 teams with plus points, 2 with no points and 11 with minus points.
The top 2 teams (10%) would account for over 50% of the total profits, the top 4 (20%) for 75% of the profits, following a Pareto distribution.
BF take a minimum of 20% of net profits so it follows that BF's income would be similarly distributed.
As some of the top teams might find themselves in the bottom half the following season (net losers) it follows that from year to year not all teams (players) would be consistently in the profitable area. Few will want to admit to the possibility that their profits may come through chance/random factors but that is a fact, so it it is plausible to believe that perhaps the percentages may be halved for those who are consistently in profit from year to year.
Many of those who are (bot operators) should really be placed in a separate category to the players as they are de factor extensions of Bf in that they take a cut off the top for bringing some sort of liquidity to the market, although I wouldn't like to guess at what that figure might be.
The spread of losers might be much greater than on a one to one basis as its likely that a lot of smaller losers might account for each sum won, in which case the actual % of total users represented by winners would have to be reduced further, and again, a guess might be that halving the % is possible. This would say reduce those winning 50% of profits from say 10% to 5% for a year, and 2.5% for consistently winning.
Zealot - some truth in what you say ,and for life in general .
Those who's brain works a certain way has an advantage -in work,exams,betting .... hardly fair really ,but then how do you get around it - using your brain is still cheating your way through life ,no different really to a woman using her sexuality or even a mugger using his natural strength when you think about it ?
Those who's brain works a certain way has an advantage -in work,exams,betting .... hardly fair really ,but then how do you get around it - using your brain is still cheating your way through life ,no different really to a woman using her sexuality or even a mugger using his natural strength when you think about it ?
Really don't think it's a matter of some people's brains being wired the right way to be good at gambling and some that are predisposed to be lifetime losers.
I think there is a basic level of intelligence required and the ability to look at things with unbiased perspective. After that the skills required to win consistently are all learnt through hard work and perseverence.
I think there is a basic level of intelligence required and the ability to look at things with unbiased perspective. After that the skills required to win consistently are all learnt through hard work and perseverence.
sorry hadn't finished.
I know its easier for lifetime losers to think the winners are cheating them or have superior feeds, some of which may be true but the biggest reason they lose and at the rate they lose is they haven't worked on what it takes to win.
I know its easier for lifetime losers to think the winners are cheating them or have superior feeds, some of which may be true but the biggest reason they lose and at the rate they lose is they haven't worked on what it takes to win.
i agree with racingguru. i think if there is any persanlity trait which significantly differentiates the winners from losers, it has to be about the emotional aspects of placing bets and handling wins and loses.
As in any sport, the better players/teams will beat the lesser players and the best players will beat the better players. You might as well ask what makes Drokovik, Federer, Nadal better than Murray who is better than all those ranked below him. Or Man City/Man U better than Wolves.The result is that winnings gravitate to the top and losses to the bottom of the hierarchy. Talent,experience,discipline,strategy,hardwork,personality, resources,intelligence to name but a few of the qualities required.
Motivation is a big factor. I'm sure their are plenty of people who could do well at this game but prefer to make a living elsewhere.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539