"Looking for value "

I'll give you a current edge to get you going.

Lay Liverpool in every EPL game of the season.

To pre-empt the usual critical responses my posts usually generate in spades, I will say that I personally cannot post up any such an example because it is not the way I have ever approached my betting, at least not deliberately.
I may well be getting value in some indirect form or manner, but I do not specifically search for it to find my betting opportunities.
But I fully accept the validity of the concept.

UA
Surly that is just an example of projecting the past to repeat in the future.
The essential gambler's fallacy isn't that ?

an edge.... local radio during inplay football games

betfair have of course sorted it with their 8 second clock

is that not an edge as so much as a sure thing ?




i used to back 3-3 draws at 66/1 to 100/1, it seemed a decent long term thing until one of the racing papers
wrote a feature on it and suggesting true odds were less than 66/1 and bookies chopped to about 50/1 at
which point there was an edge to the bookies

this was shortly after newcastle drew 3-3 with tranmere in zenith data cup,

funny thing was, once the big prices went there seemed to be less 3-3 draws

ok one more and then i'm off to bed

Be the first one in the queue to lay 1.01 on all outcomes.

Offer up bets at deliberately wrong prices and hope they get matched.

Or get your mate to go to a football game/tennis match and tell you of price changing events exactly when they happen down the phone.

Or pay someone lots of money who is involved in a particular match/event to act in a particular way so as to alter the outcome of said game/event.

By the way i'm a little confused you want an edge that has long since eroded but then surely this argument would be automatically countered by "ah but it wasn't really a true edge if it disappeared over time".

Right bedtime.

The old draw biases at certain courses were a fact. Backing the draws with a strong bias would have been value bets, simple enough.

You must know by now a value bet is taking a price which is longer than it's true chance of winning.

Phew! I don't know why I'm posting on here cos I too am looking for that magical edge!

Sometimes when an event is in play and it looks like a player/team etc. is almost certain to win the odds of the opposition are jumping about all over the place. 50 - 70 - 40 - 60.....

It's easy to back then lay, BUT whether it's profitable in the long run I don't know???

The thread thus far is just reinforcing my basic point.
That is the concept is either too mystical to explain with tangible examples, or too important to reveal with tangible examples.
It seems to be destined to remain in the realms of theory, to be unravelled/exploited only by a select few.
God bless'em.

I've learnt a lot by writing silly little computer programs that go through lots of results to try and find an edge. I've got really excited cos I'd have been up after 5 months. Then the 6th month has completely wiped me out! Fortunately I've not done it for real. But if I only had 5 months I may have done! I'm currently getting the 7th month (July) into my program. I'll keep you updated...

This was backing horses that were big odds.

"Looking for value"

There is value to be obtained whether it is from top 3 favourites in HORSERACE or whether it is in "high" odds ones.

To "see" the value you can devise a horse race rating system that is consistent in producing ratings to a high standard.

The RANK position of a horse in a rated race will for example then indicate a horse's chance of winning.

A horse say rated 3rd top rated is a 2-1 shot for comparison purposes. If the horse is 3rd top rated and is at SP odds of 3-1, then it is a "value" back. If the horse is an EVEN money shot at SP, then it is not a value BACK...........though laying it in WIN market may be dangerous as it is in top 3 rated.

Some may say this a CRUDE way of getting "true" odds for a horse's chances of winning..........but if the system of ratings consistently gets it "right", then in long run you should win.

I've just picked an old race that was posted on here in 2009 for an example.......of how such a system can indicate VALUE, both from LAYING and BACKING perspective.


From 6th MARCH 2009 at WINCANTON

16:20  Handicap Chase 5yo plus 3m 3f 110y Class 4  9 runners Soft

1,National Petition           2ND  4 JT 2ND/3RD FAV BFSP 3.96 LOW ODDS IR 2.55
2,Rebel melody                  1ST 100-30F BFSP  3.89 LOW ODDS IR 0 SFC: £26.54  Tricast: £208.05  Exacta: £27.60 
3,Kilty Storm                                2ND 7-1 4TH F BFSP 8.19 LOW ODDS IR 0.61
4,Himself Dreams On              40
5,Laudamus                    4 JT 2ND/3RD FAV
-------------------------------------Swingers:1&2:£4.70, 2&3:£12.10, 1&3:£6.10 
6,Wizard of Edge              11
7,Classic Clover                                3RD 10-1
8,Tradingup                  14
9,Blaze Ahead                  8 5TH F


Trust this helps.........................

I altered the top rated horse as it was shown as ...

1,National Petition             4 2ND 2ND/3RD FAV BFSP 3.96 LOW ODDS IR 2.55



I wrong typed 2nd twice.......it should only be JT 2nd/3rd fav........and it did not finish 2nd......
the horse ranked 3rd finished 2nd at 7-1 SP......


Sorry...but late now and a bit knackered................

If you are a long time punter and still looking for an edge you are probably missing a lot by trying to look for something exotic. It's a lot simpler than that.

UA gave you a cast iron value edge and you dismissed it, it really is that easy.

Both the top rated and 2nd top rated are at VALUE SP odds...to back.......( the JT 2nd/3rd fav and FAV).

The JT 2nd/3rd fav ranked 5th  is a 4-1 SP shot according to RANK position.....therefore at 4-1 SP it is neither a back or a lay...............

The system generally gets it "right" on 4th and 5th favourites......in that whatever horse is RANKED above the other, then the one below it it is a LAY....whether at VALUE odds or not !

The VALUE in respect of such a strategy is the generally accuracy for such a horse, that is below the other from 4th and 5th favs, does rarely win.................

FAFH, backing or laying the prevailing score during the last
20 minutes play, but dependent on prices available, can
produce profits in most matches, especially if the sides are of
fairly even ability.

This the most obvious example (that indeed doesn't work any more )


The Hole-in-One Gang (1991)

''In the summer of 1991 Essex boys Paul Simmons (an on-course bookmaker's clerk) and John Carter (a former betting shop manager) toured the British Isles looking for independent betting shops who would give them odds on a hole-in-one being scored at the British Open, the Benson & Hedges, the Volvo PGA, the U.S. Open and the European Open.

Their research had shown the probability of a hole-in-one at any of these events was no bigger than even money but they were still able to get odds of up to 100/1 on the occurrence and managed to place several doubles, trebles and accumulators (of it happening at all five events) placed at double-digit prices.

There was a hole-in-one at all five tournaments and when Spaniard Miguel Angel Jimenez sunk the last of them at the European Open at Walton Heath, Surrey, Simmons and Carter's winnings totalled more than £500,000 not including the 12 bookmakers that refused to pay them out, declared themselves bankrupt or did not renew their betting permit. ''


double figure odds on something they calculated at Evens , can't get a better example of value betting than that

No doubt about the value edge in that story tober.
Thanks for reminding us all about it.
In my case, more than reminding, as I had never actually heard it before.

why bother.......once you regularly start to find an edge betfair will tax you and remove it?

Froggie, it seems the unblock function has stopped working, so I can't read your OP, but I assume you are asking about edges.

Firstly, an edge by definition, is something most people don't know about. By posting an edge on here rather more people will know about, and it becomes somewhat less of an edge.

Secondly, the advice I gave someone recently is to trade a lot of markets for small stakes and just watch happens. When the market moves, understand why it moves. If you know why it moves, you can predict it.

There are still edges to be found. I found a great one a few weeks back. And I'm kicking myself for not seeing it years ago.

Some of the edges I have been using for years are still good. Some are no longer worth the bother.

Thirdly, look at less popular sports and matches. I made good money on Singapore soccer for several years.

To me, it seems like the best value is found in big odds, BUT the problem is they're unlikely to win.

There are tennis players that are 1000 to win Wimbledon that would surely win it in less than 1000 attempts. Even though their true odds should be much less, it's so unlikely that they'll win that 1000 still seems like a safe lay.

I just used Wimbledon as an example but the same could be said about other sports etc.

I hope I'm not talking a load of crap here, which wouldn't be too uncommon for me!

basically any research can lead to an edge. it is understanding what is going on and using this information to make future decisions. a simple look at your profit and loss can give you an edge. even knowing that you are rubbish at gambling can be considered an edge if you use this knowledge to restrict yourself from betting or to change your betting style.

Specialise - Be more knowledgeable than the masses about one sport,team or market.

"knowing that you are rubbish at gambling means you know you have no edge"

That's not really the kind of edge people on this forum are likely to be talking about, is it?

I guess it's an edge over those who are rubbish at gambling and DON'T know it, but it's not an edge over the prices available to bet at... and surely that's closer to the best definition of an edge

My definition of 'edge' is recognising wrong prices, caused through
over reaction to minor things like team selection in football.

Unless you are "cheating", you never know when you place the bet whether you are actually getting value. You only think you are!
It is only the analysis of long term results that can indicate this... (even then you may just be lucky!)

everybody has there own opinion of what is value and what isnt...theres no such thing as the correct price

everybody has there own opinion of what is value and what isnt...theres no such thing as the correct price

not in sports betting as probabilities are not mathematically fixed but there is such a thing as the incorrect price - and that's not an oxymoronic statement,  an edge is having an advantage over the oddsmakers, inside info being the biggest,

I strike numerous value bets every day by laying horses at short odds that are panic backed in running.

Everybody believes in value (properly described as "expected value") - even those people who say they don't. Anyone who has ever asked themselves "is that a good price?" is making an analysis of value however crudely and/or badly. Everyone has some grasp of relative likelihood ("probability") and they have a notion of how much money they'll get back from a bet, the balance they make between those two things is an assessment of value. Your results as a gambler tell you exactly how good you are at making that assessment.

Even people who don't bet make value calculations, any decision that you take in the presence of uncertainties about the outcome can be described as an assessment of expected value. These decisions may involve money but they needn't necessarily.

You can almost never say whether you achieved good value for an individual bet, however for a large group of bets an average value can be determined, each bet in the group must therefore have had an individual value (positive or negative), that number does exist - it's just unknowable.

sheppy123 21 Jun 13 09:20 Joined: 28 May 12 | Topic/replies: 117 | Blogger: sheppy123's blog
To me, it seems like the best value is found in big odds, BUT the problem is they're unlikely to win.

There are tennis players that are 1000 to win Wimbledon that would surely win it in less than 1000 attempts. Even though their true odds should be much less, it's so unlikely that they'll win that 1000 still seems like a safe lay.

I just used Wimbledon as an example but the same could be said about other sports etc.

I hope I'm not talking a load of crap here, which wouldn't be too uncommon for me!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm afraid you are talking crap.

How can you say something is a "safe lay" at 1000 when the true price is 500? That is a guaranteed losing strategy.

Also I'd like you to give me an example of the players who are 1000 to win Wimbledon that are value, I haven't looked at the winner's market but I'd guess there isn't one who is value.

Also I can say with 99.99999% certainty that since Betfair began the layers are up on the backers at the 1000 price, even with the big in running horses errors.

sweetchildofmine
Date Joined:     26 Aug 07
Add contact | Send message
21 Jun 13 15:50 Joined: 26 Aug 07 | Topic/replies: 15,212 | Blogger: sweetchildofmine's blog
everybody has there own opinion of what is value and what isnt...theres no such thing as the correct price
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course there is you just can't quantify it.

If you were omnipotent you would know the exact price of everything.

well yes i suppose that could be argued is right, its just none of us can be sure what the correct price is

for example chelsea v man utd, you couldnt say for certainty whether 6/4, 13/8, 7/4 etc is the correct price, but if chelsea were 6/1 then thats obviously the incorrect price

sheppy123 21 Jun 13 09:20 Joined: 28 May 12 | Topic/replies: 117 | Blogger: sheppy123's blog
To me, it seems like the best value is found in big odds, BUT the problem is they're unlikely to win.

There are tennis players that are 1000 to win Wimbledon that would surely win it in less than 1000 attempts. Even though their true odds should be much less, it's so unlikely that they'll win that 1000 still seems like a safe lay.

I just used Wimbledon as an example but the same could be said about other sports etc.

I hope I'm not talking a load of crap here, which wouldn't be too uncommon for me!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm afraid you are talking crap. Happy

How can you say something is a "safe lay" at 1000 when the true price is 500? That is a guaranteed losing strategy.

Also I'd like you to give me an example of the players who are 1000 to win Wimbledon that are value, I haven't looked at the winner's market but I'd guess there isn't one who is value.

Also I can say with 99.99999% certainty that since Betfair began the layers are up on the backers at the 1000 price, even with the big in running horses errors.

...................................................................................................................................................................................................

Get On MASSIVE - Show me where I said that something is a "safe lay" at 1000? You can't cos I never said it! Who's talking crap now!

"Also I'd like you to give me an example of the players who are 1000 to win Wimbledon that are value, I haven't looked at the winner's market but I'd guess there isn't one who is value."

You'll definitely think I'm talking crap now, but I believe that every single player @ 1000 is value!

If a team is 10/1 to beat Utd and you think that if they were to play 10 times they'd win at least once then that's value.

Well I don't think it would take 1000 attempts for any of these 1000 players to win.

Nadal, Djokovic & Federer will get injured at some point!!!

sheppy thats where i take issue..most players are @ 1000 purely for the reason they cant be any higher on here..the majority should be 10,000 plus..you get golfers in the majors @1000 some of whom are in their eighties and will struggle to break 90, and should be a million

also..yes those 3 players will get injured at some point, but all at once, in the same tournament?

another example, look at the world cup 2014 betting, the likes of wales, ethiopia and burkino faso are 1000, and a million wouldnt be enough

I doubt there are any players 1000 at Wimbledon that are value, maybe 1 or 2 , certainly not more than that

Most of those would be 100/1 just to win 1 match vs any of the big 4

The RANK position of a horse in a rated race will for example then indicate a horse's chance of winning.

A horse say rated 3rd top rated is a 2-1 shot for comparison purposes. If the horse is 3rd top rated and is at SP odds of 3-1, then it is a "value" back.


DFC ,with that system you would have decided the 2nd/ 3rd favs would always have been value backs against Frankel . They were usually double figure odds, and even that was poor value against such a horse.

It's very simple to look at the form and decide which order horses should be in the betting but the probability depends on precisely how much better the favourite is than the 2nd fav etc

Phew! How do I get myself out of this mess!

Firstly - sweetchildofmine - I definitely see your point about 1000 being the most. Some things should be far more than that. I am constantly being amazed at how many good players there are that I've never heard of. They lose BUT they often don't get slaughtered like their odds suggest. I got carried away when I said that every player is better than 1000, but I'm sure that a lot are. I'm gonna make a note of all the 1000 players and then come back and slaughter you all when one wins!!! See you in 2025!!!

tobermory - Phew! 100/1 - have they got their feet tied together! I get your point. I think though that they might be massive odds to beat several players but not all of them. You only have to win 7 games, and I believe that some of these big odds guys could do it. The way Nadal's going, he'll be scratching his arse when the ball is coming at him!!!

sheppy123
Date Joined:     28 May 12
Add contact | Send message
22 Jun 13 13:53 Joined: 28 May 12 | Topic/replies: 119 | Blogger: sheppy123's blog
sheppy123 21 Jun 13 09:20 Joined: 28 May 12 | Topic/replies: 117 | Blogger: sheppy123's blog

There are tennis players that are 1000 to win Wimbledon that would surely win it in less than 1000 attempts. Even though their true odds should be much less, it's so unlikely that they'll win that 1000 still seems like a safe lay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get On MASSIVE - Show me where I said that something is a "safe lay" at 1000? You can't cos I never said it! Who's talking crap now!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the above where you said it.

3.5 fav slips up at ascot......2077 traded at 1000

Get On MASSIVE - Phew! I wish you all the best but I think we're getting our wires crossed. To me "A safe lay" at 1000 means that there's no chance of them winning. I think completely the opposite.

He says 'seems like a safe lay' in a post where he is stating that they should be much shorter, so to me he is saying it is not.

Get On Massive - I'm REALLY sorry! I've just read my post from yesterday and it really is confusing!

"There are tennis players that are 1000 to win Wimbledon that would surely win it in less than 1000 attempts. Even though their true odds should be much less, it's so unlikely that they'll win that 1000 still seems like a safe lay."

It sounds like I'm contradicting myself saying that I think that 1000 is a safe lay!

What I meant was... People feel safe laying at 1000 cos there's no way they're gonna win.

So you're right, I did say "safe lay" I appologize deeply, but it was meant in a different context! Sorry, I think I've taken over this thread!!!

Thanks for making the point tobermoray.

FRANKEL obviously is an exceptional horse and would be TOP RATED in every race.....if I rated the race probably.

It would be odds on in every race....and would be likely to win.

Such extreme odds on shots IF THEY ARE TOP RATED........then I certainly would not back it to win at such low odds.......However, the SFC type bet would then be the bet choice with FRANKEL being the winner...and 2nd top and 3rd top rated horses being in SFC to be 2nd ( 2 bets etc ).

Most favourites are NOT odds on shots.....and not as good as FRANKEL.

I'll check to see if there was a race rated that had an odds on shot in it on 6th March 2009 to see how I rated it and what result was......

16:50  Yeomy Hcap Chase 5yo plus 2m 7f 110y Class 4 11 runners Good to Soft Soft IP

1,Sea Cadet                                   2ND 10-1 3RD FAV  1&2:£2.50 WITH FAV
2,Carnt Spell                33     
3,Donald Will Do             4 2ND FAV
4,Ballyvaden                                   1ST 4-5FStraight Forecast: £8.21  Tricast: £77.18  Exacta: £11.10 
5,Junctiontwentyfour           20
6,Jacarado                                        3RD 14-1  2&3 £8.20    WITH 3RD FAV  1&3:£4.10  WITH FAV
------NON-QUALIFYING BACKING RACE - BUT QUALIFYING LAY RACE
7,Nous Voila            25
8,King Coal           N/R
9,Kercabellec            50
10,Marked Man              18
11,Sir Brastias           33
12,Lescer's Lad            28
===================================================================


The 3rd fav was top rated......and finished 2nd......so"happy" with standard of ratings for that race.

The first 3 home were all rated above the line.....so again system up to a reasonable standard.

OK with that race would have lost due to odds on shot winning.....but that is only 1 race ...

Next race where odds on shot on that day was :-

19:50   Handicap 4yo plus 7f Class 5  11 runners Standard

1,Romantic Verse   12 4TH F  BFSP17.5  LOW ODDS IR 18
2,Dancing Maite                   3RD 14-1SP 5TH F BFSP 20  LOW ODDS IR 4    1&3:£29.90 
3,Royal Challenge                 2ND 40-1 SP  BFSP 49 LOW ODDS IR 8.8    1&2:£12.40  WITH FAV  2&3 £0.00. WITH 2ND TR
4,Mr Macattack                           1ST 4-6FStraight Forecast: £53.65  Tricast: £264.60  Exacta: £29.80 
5,Kipchak             11-2 JT 2ND/3RD FAV
6,Tri Chara          11-2 JT 2ND/3RD FAV
------------------------------------------------------------
7,Misterisland    N/R
8,Albero di Giuda      50
9,Sarwin              16
10,Rubenstar              20
11,Dhhamaan              100
12,Kabeer             40




A bit similar to the previous race in that the odds on shot won.......and the first 3 home were all above the line....


Happy enough with standard of ratings....though again this would be a losing race.

On the 6th March 2009 backing the first 5 favourites in market that are VALUE backs would have given
8.165 points profit after commission.......so even with 2 odds on ones winning the system stood up on ratings that day.

tobermory 22 Jun 13 14:40 
The RANK position of a horse in a rated race will for example then indicate a horse's chance of winning.

A horse say rated 3rd top rated is a 2-1 shot for comparison purposes. If the horse is 3rd top rated and is at SP odds of 3-1, then it is a "value" back.


DFC ,with that system you would have decided the 2nd/ 3rd favs would always have been value backs against Frankel . They were usually double figure odds, and even that was poor value against such a horse.

It's very simple to look at the form and decide which order horses should be in the betting but the probability depends on precisely how much better the favourite is than the 2nd fav etc

=============================================================================================


Generally i don't care how better the fav is to that of 2nd and 3rd favs etc....I just go by what RATINGS indicate are the value bets.

The "probability" ....that is the measure I use is just the RANK position being the indicator of odds/chances of winning........You got to "trust" the system even when you "like" a horse's chances of winning that the system does not rate highly!

I remember a GRAND NATIONAL race I rated ( the only one taken on) where COMPLY OR DIE was rated BELOW the LINE! Just no way i would have layed that one as.....I liked the horse's chance to win BUT THE SYSTEM DIDN'T........However, the system is generally "correct" and i am generally "WRONG"

Found the race...
16:15            Chase (Hcnficap) Grade 3   (Class 1) (6yo+) 4m4f Good 30 fenães

1,Cloudy Lane     7-1JF
2,Snowy Morninç             `    3RD 16-1
3.Naunton Brook      !    6¶-1
4,Kelami                  66-1 0
5,Butler's Cabin0 ( 0    10-1 JT 3RD /4TH /5THFAV
6,Fundamentalist        (66-1M

7,Mr Pointment     0  `  25-1           
8,Point Barrow           25-1
9,Vodka Bleu              20-1
10,King Johns Castle          2ND 20-1Straight Forecast: ã148.57  Tricast: £2268.11  Exacta> £172.10  Trifecta: £466t.00 
11,Ardaghey              100-1
12,Turko                 33-1
13,Cornish Sett         80-1

14,Simon                 11-1
15,Iron Man              50-1
16,Bewleys Berry          12-1
17,Hi Cloy               
18,Dun Doire             33-1

19,Idle Talk              66-1
20,Knowhere              66-1
21,Nadover              125-1
-----------------m------------------------TOTE  WIN £8.90 PL £2.50, £4.60, £5.00, £3.10; Ex £172.10; CSF £148.57; TRICAST £2268.11Pool: £79,485.23, 12.10 w/u TRIFECTA £4664.00 Pool: £79,485.23, 12.10 w/u
22,Mon Mome          28
23,Bob Hall                100
24,Joaaci                66
25,Mckelvey            25
26,Hedgehunter         10 JT 3RD/4TH/5TH FAV
27,Comply Or Die                  1ST 7-1 JF NO WAY WOULD I HAVE LAYED THIS HORSE !
28,No Full            125
29,L'ami                33
30,Contraband         100
31,Chelsea Harbour        14
32,Madison Du Berlais  66
33,Baily Breeze          66
34,Philson Run          25
35,Black Apalachi         66
36,Backbeat            100
37,Slim Pickings                 4TH 10-1 JT 3RD/4TH /5THFAV
38,D'Argent           25
39,Milan Deux Mille  125
40,Tumbling Dice    100

If I had layed COMPLY OR DIE , then using the RANK POSITION and odds.....the other horses that should be layed were ....

RANK NUMBER
14
16
26
31
37


So damage on a lay winning would help to negate the loss on winner.....

Horses 34 and 38 would be too high odds to lay ....though technically they would be value lays according to RANK and ODDS position.

There are lots of simple systems out there that return small ROIs year in, year out. But 1% ROI is not enough for your average 'all-in' 'I want it now' punter. Patience, mindset & money management is just as important as finding something that works (an EDGE).

definition of an edge: 'Something that works after several thousand bets'

Plenty of value on football in the lower leagues.

Work up a plan on analysing every game of every team around 5-7 different leagues and you will soon spot value, if team A is on a good run and team B is on a poor run of results then the bookies will side heavily on team A before looking how team A & team B actually played.

Analyse teams 'form' not results
Injuries/sus
Rumours/News
Fitness/Fatigue

Make it all easy accessible through spreadsheets, heat maps etc... alot of work and many many hours needs to be put in.

Is it worth giving up a full time day job ? well thats your decision.

i have produced a form based system thatb has given me consistant profits over a three year system. last season i had a 74% ROI

In your dreams, but understandable considering
your weakness for the hard stuff.

all true i have no reason to lie

well done dragon and best of luck..you unfortunately will get the odd poster that believe just because they cant make it work, then neither can you.

thanks sweet child all my results can be viewed on another forum since i do not post my tips on here anymore due to the abuse i had to suffer from a minority off ill informed and misguided individuals. i am hoping that my system will continue to give me a healthy profit in the forthcoming season

yeah tell me about it..ive had to resort to blocking certain posters, it just wasnt worth the hassle and wasnt any fun anymore, which is what the forum used to be

dragon, sorry about that dig of mine, as you didn't
deserve it considering your honesty. Mind you, 74% rpi,
is not possible IMO, perhaps you meant 7.4%

apology accepted ken sorry i should have said strike rate not return on investment which for last year was around 17%

spot on scm the forum i go on has a smallnumber well informed individuals who share information and thoughts on all sorts of betting

inbox the addy, is it the one gtfi runs or milan?

gtfi runs been going for about 18mths now has about 70 members. main problem is getting a wide level of contribution but its defo worth a look i will addy it

received thanks, i'll have a look

no probs

froggy - here are 2 edges that will win you money long term .



Horses - lay all UNLUCKY horses next time out .


Football - When UNDER 2.5 goals  is a clear favourite ---- and a goal is scored within 10 mins ----  BACK UNDERS straight after the game restarts .

thats a good shout zealot..the vast majority of unlucky horses are over bet

Zealot, there are no point and click systems and your 2 edges
are doomed for that reason. Each bet has to be judged on it's merit,
especially when endorsed by 'sweety'!

Zealot define 'unlucky' and there are hundreds of football matches 24/7, nearly every day of the year. That would take some managing.

You dont know what unlucky means ?

What a fykin zombie u are

each bet DOES NOT have to be judged on its merit .

exactly zealot..of course some of those ''unlucky'' horses will win next time out, buy they will invariably be a lot shorter than they ought to be

no need to be rude is there Zealot?

I don't believe in luck so therefore don't believe in 'unlucky' horses. If you mean horses that find trouble invariably they will continue to find trouble - it's in their nature. So if you mean this - then yes - it is a generally well-known way of making money. Missing the break, falling, jockey mistiming his effort, etc is not 'unlucky' it's just bad performance in my eyes. Part & parcel of the sport if you like.

My account is in profit and ticking along nicely - not bad for a zombie. I use click and win systems btw. There are dozens out there. Like I said, people generally don't get a large enough sample size so give up at the first signs of trouble. Vice versa, they dive in headfirst after a small sample because it was looking good, only for the edge to be false and their money disappear. Poor bank management is another reason why most fail.

Finally, 1% ROI is not good enough for the 'want it now' punters. They don't have the mindset to be successful so ramble from one system to the next hoping to find a 'golden oak' that will give them 30%. You won't find it testing ten bets, it depends on the sport & potential turnover, but you need at least 500 in a sample IMO. Of course having the time and patience to test out systems is another factor in people failing.

It is incredibly boring, logging on and waiting for your selections all day long. There can be two hour breaks inbetween races. You can be watching some sh i te football all day long in Japan, Argentina or Turkey, etc. Then there is the rigmorale of getting matched at the price you want. So even if you do find the formula it doesn't mean you live a bed of roses.

I read a book on 'golden oaks' I forgot the author. I will dig it out sometime and post his 'golden oaks'. The fact he has written a book about it and potentially hundreds of readers using the same systems means they are probably useless now in all honesty. But I recommend reading it to give you an idea of how and why some simple things work.

The main thing for me is 'logic', is there a good reason why it's working and is it likely to continue? Backing your fourth best rated because it's the only way your sample returns a profit is obviously not logical and unlikely to continue. Similar to backing all horses beginning with R or something ridiculous. Is there sound logic? If so it could be an edge. Think outside the box and be prepared for the long haul.

A well known Golden Oak is laying short favs in heavy going. It works year in, year out, there is sound logic and will always continue. You won't make enough to retire but it all adds up and goes in the pot.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

ROI is often confused for return on turnover, as seen here. My ROT was less than 2% last year but that represented a healthy 600% ROI :)

Its a betting forum/site, how is value ever obtained?

Simple equation: Bet Good value = high risk. Bet High risk = poor value.

I like to go with the latter and reap lots of poor value bets for high risk, each to their own.

How about jockey taking wrong course near end of race when in lead.......this surely is just down to BAD LUCK if you backed it...and GOOD LUCK if you get the winner after such an occurrence or layed the one not taking correct course.


Generally such an occurrence should not prevent you being a long term winner ....but LUCK does exist IMO with racing .......

Odd occurrences are more likely to happen in FOOTBALL though....such as one LIVERPOOL player scoring a good goal to give team lead...then sticking hand up to give penalty away , then biting opponent late in match! For 1 player to be involved in all 3 occurrences in 1 match is not run of the mill ......you might say just part and parcel of FOOTBALL, and it is, but on that game LUCK has taken a hand to effect outcome, as it often does in FOOTBALL betting.

And Nalbandian kicking the line judge! How bad luck would that have been!

only jokin quit - good answer tho

Trevh I don't get it, ROT, yield, ROI all the same to me. As long as your winning

DFC a jockey taking the wrong course or a player giving away a silly penalty is bad performance or human error. Part & parcel of betting on sport. Luck can only come into betting if you are overstaking or betting with no proven edge IMO. It should all even out in the long run. Unfortunately in this day and age the human 'errors' might well be deliberate. I've watched many Mickey Mouse football matches where the players are deliberately missing (Argentina & Turkey immediately spring to mind).

I watched a dutch league game where the losing side had a last-gasp penalty for a consolition goal. I was on overs so needed him to score. He missed and his own team mates came up and patted him on the back, like relieved or something. What the fck? We know it goes on, we just hope to be on the right side the next time. I tried match reading IP, I thought "I know a lot about football - should be easy". Naaah, the ref kills you every time.

so true hejik, its not in fact the case that you're always losing your cash cos you're clueless about football and understand betting even less , no its the pesky refs fault every time !