General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
?
Hugh Taylor gets around 30 point profit per month on average.
Hugh Taylor gets around 30 point profit per month on average.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 22
|
By:
30pt a month isn't too much of a problem....getting 30 pts at a decent stake is the hard part
|
|
By:
Hearing Harry made bankrupt last week made me sadder
|
|
By:
what's all this business with points? Pro's are concerned with a few things but points profit per month is NOT one of them.
Things a pro is concerned about. 1 - % profit to stake - and keeping that edge. 2 - Total annual profit. 3 - Continually finding means to get on at the right prices. 4 - getting paid. That's it! |
|
By:
That's told him...so lets have no more of this points nonsense.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
No pro thinks in points,points how many points do you need to buy a pint,pay the gas bill or go on holiday.Ihave been getting a liveing for 30 years by punting,never ever thought in in points.JUST POUNDS. Points is for the con artists and i say best of luck to them,as every one has to get a crust somehow.THE BEST ARE YOUR AVERAGE BOOKMAKER.BUT every now and again they get it wrong,THATS WHEN THE PRO PERFORMS.
|
|
By:
pulio - Point 1 is simple - % profit to stake = total profit/total staked over year x 100. This is important to the pro punter because it measures his edge.
My problem is "points" is such a tipster thing. Pro punters are thinking about how much money they win and their edge as these are real and not hypothetical. The claim of 30 points profit per month means nothing unless qualified by how many "points" are bet per month. eg:30 points profit on 90 points turnover is way different to 30 points profit on 9000 points turnover. Further people who claim "points" profits rarely qualify them by real bets and being able to get these fictitious "points" at real bookmaker prices. It is one thing punters fail to realise when they follow a tipster especially Segal followers. Next is this "monthly" thing- no pro thinks monthly. They wouldn't be pro if they are living month to month. |
|
By:
If someone backs say 1,000 1.01 shots, 1,000 1.02 and 1,000 1.03 shots and has only 10 losers, his edge is enormous, yet his point profit on a simplistic measure like that is minimal and would be meaningless.
Further, as someone has said, there's not much mileage in having huge points profits if you can't get on at those prices or can only get tiny amounts on. You will find that you get the greatest points profit or edges in events where it is hardest to get money on. |
|
By:
The best measure is 'what % of the other guy's money staked am I getting and how much is that in total'.
|
|
By:
Next is this "monthly" thing- no pro thinks monthly. They wouldn't be pro if they are living month to month
What a load of bollocks. Making a living by betting is just another form of self employment...unfortunatly some "pros" like to big themselves up a bit by talking this sort of nonsense. I'm not bothered about my profit or loss this month...which proves just what a "Pro" I am. |
|
By:
No one enjoys a losing month ...pro or regular punter but the point is a pro will look at it in the grand scheme of things. I mean from experience I know it's very likely I'll lose one or two months every betting season (7 months) but the month's losses are accepted as part of how it goes and that it will turn at some point as you are pretty sure you have a significant edge.
Another factor is a pro should have grasped a reasonable knowledge of how to stake so a really bad month shouldn't damage their bank by more than 10-15%. I guess all pros are different and how they approach betting is different but for me a bad month isn't gonna mean I change my betting, don't have the bullets to fire the next month or family go hungry. |
|
By:
Fwiw I agree with everything racingguru has said.
I seem to make around 2% net profit on turnover pretty consistently every year, but have lots of losing days and the odd losing month, which used to be a worry but now I just plod on. I'm always happier to have a winning month than a losing one obviously, but the objective is to get the bets matched so in that respect a losing month will typically be just as successful as a winning one, although I know from experience that many punters can't understand that :) |
|
By:
I agree, when you start thinking in terms of months you are doomed to failure. Yes any one can work out a monthly average but its not something a pro really reflects on
|
|
By:
Don't think you can categorise a pro punter in to one type.
Some will only bet 5 % of their bank on one bet yet others given the right price would be willing to put 33% on the line. Some pros keep detailed monthly records and percentage rates of return, others don't. Points can be used to keep track( how many points profit on say £200 a point bets put on). The tipsters points profits aren't relevant due to little money being able to be put on at those prices. The stero typical view that a pro gambler is in control of their emotions at all times, cool level headed etc... as he gradually builds his bankroll is an illusion in many cases. Look at the world of Poker those that have prospered range from the wild Mike Matsou and Stu Unger to the more reserved Chip Reese and Doyle Brunson. More than one way to skin a cat. |
|
By:
Tinkler - I don't know any pros how would be willing to put 33% of their bank on the line on one bet - at least their "pro" label wouldn't last too long as they'd be busted pretty soon.
Talking horses here but bets typically range from 0.4% - 3% max. |
|
By:
If you offered a 8/1 on the toss of a coin most would shove 33% of their bank. If it came up the wrong way the bank just has to be built up again.
Very Ocassionally the 8/1 on a perceived evens shot crops up in a horse racing event. Kelly Criterion ( accepted as mathematically best way to stake) dictates the size of the stake given the perceived potential edge. Those betting low amounts of their bank must either perceive they have a low edge on each bet or not be betting to maximise their potential winnings. |
|
By:
I use Kelly but I bet in the real world. Firstly your example is 44% on full Kelly but regardless that situation NEVER happens. Every pro on horses that I have come across that uses Kelly uses a modified version, typically 1/3 kelly to 1/4 kelly. I use a modified Kelly based on grade/type of race based on how well I've done empirically on that type of race for last 12 years.
Now it may be fair to argue that this isn't optimising potential profits but with a bad run is always possible (I've had 57 consecutive losers on year) especially for people like me who tend to back bigger priced horses and therefore despite having a huge edge you have to err on the side of caution with your staking. I will agree that there are many types of pro but the ones who stay pro for extended periods don't bet 33% of bank or full Kelly. |
|
By:
If I could bet 8/1 on a coin toss that I knew to be fair and had the time to get the funds together I'd stick 80% of the cash I could get my hands on on it. Win or lose I wouldn't be a pro, as if it won I'd quit and if it lost I'd quit, but it would be an opportunity I couldn't refuse.
|
|
By:
why do people create these hypothetical scenarios? when using kelly you are estimating the horses chances to the best of your ability. It is not fact. There is variance and error all the time so how anyone could come up with a scenario in the real world where they make an 8/1 shot even money is beyond me - it's laughable and childish.
|
|
By:
You assume that because you cannt spot an even money shot that's available at 8/1 no one can. Do these bets occur in the real world ,for sure,imo, albeit rarely.
|
|
By:
racingguru 02 Oct 13 17:13 Joined: 06 Jan 01 | Topic/replies: 1,170 | Blogger: racingguru's blog
why do people create these hypothetical scenarios? when using kelly you are estimating the horses chances to the best of your ability. It is not fact. There is variance and error all the time so how anyone could come up with a scenario in the real world where they make an 8/1 shot even money is beyond me - it's laughable and childish. Hypothetical scenarios are not required to risk a large portion of wealth though. I've lost close to 33% of my net worth before in one day (Feb 2010 was -14.80% for the whole month), nothing wrong with that. The only reason it is so much less likely to happen again (on here at least), is that I'm at capacity for what the market will bear for my strategies, so the % fluctuations diminish relative to an increasing amount of capital. |
|
By:
The pros are all with the bookies and on purple now.Not in this ghost town.
|