General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Many moons ago in the early 1980's I had a summer job on the buildings in lovely Crawley Town. There was a painter on the job,who liked a bet, every lunchtime he used to nip into the bookies and place his system bets.
The system iicrc was something like this.He would select a greyhound meeting that was just starting,and place £5 on fav in the first race,if it won he stopped,if not a tenner on fav in second race,if it won,he stopped,if it did not win £15 on fav in third race,if it won or lost he stopped for the day.
I can't remember what his strategy was if there was a losing day,as it was so long ago.I do recall asking him why he didn't do it for the horses,and he had two reasons.
Reason 1 - he said it was less likely that favs would be odds on in the dog races,so when he was on bet two or three a profit would be made if bet was successful.
Reason 2 - he could have his bets during his lunch as horse races were more spaced out.
I don't know why this entered my head after all these years,but it did the other day.I realise it is very flawed but as a young impressionable teenager I thought this guy had found the holy grail
.
I just thought I would post it up,couldn't be any worse than a lot of tipsters seling their bogus tips or racing post tipsters I guess.
The system iicrc was something like this.He would select a greyhound meeting that was just starting,and place £5 on fav in the first race,if it won he stopped,if not a tenner on fav in second race,if it won,he stopped,if it did not win £15 on fav in third race,if it won or lost he stopped for the day.
I can't remember what his strategy was if there was a losing day,as it was so long ago.I do recall asking him why he didn't do it for the horses,and he had two reasons.
Reason 1 - he said it was less likely that favs would be odds on in the dog races,so when he was on bet two or three a profit would be made if bet was successful.
Reason 2 - he could have his bets during his lunch as horse races were more spaced out.
I don't know why this entered my head after all these years,but it did the other day.I realise it is very flawed but as a young impressionable teenager I thought this guy had found the holy grail
. I just thought I would post it up,couldn't be any worse than a lot of tipsters seling their bogus tips or racing post tipsters I guess.
Show More
imo you have two types of systems. Form related and structural.
For a form related system to be successful, there must be a factor related to the success of the bet that is either ignored by the large majority or given too much weight by the large majority. The former will provide a profitable back and the latter a profitable lay.
Structural bets are for example dirty each way races, 6 places at golf. The place bet being profitable enough to cover the loss from the win bet. Think there probably were plenty of structural bets in betfair markets a few years ago eg over-rounds but not so many these days.....
Obv the two can be combined.
For a form related system to be successful, there must be a factor related to the success of the bet that is either ignored by the large majority or given too much weight by the large majority. The former will provide a profitable back and the latter a profitable lay.
Structural bets are for example dirty each way races, 6 places at golf. The place bet being profitable enough to cover the loss from the win bet. Think there probably were plenty of structural bets in betfair markets a few years ago eg over-rounds but not so many these days.....
Obv the two can be combined.
all of his bets are at bookies odds. long term its a big loser,in fact the longer he goes on,the more he loses
dave1357 You was highly critical of the reverse labouchere system on the thread i started the other day imo this is not a good system 
Fivers and tenners were more in them days, with inflation, possibly three times as much.
Aug 7, 2014 -- 8:13PM, UnlikelyWinner wrote:
dave1357 You was highly critical of the reverse labouchere system on the thread i started the other day imo this is not a good system
your having reading problems again - where did I say that OP's system would work? I made a general point about systems. You are a fool who will be parted from his money if you follow the nonsense in your thread.
dave1357 • August 3, 2014 1:30 PM BST
OP, to save you a great deal of wasted time and misery, there is only one system that works:
If (decimal) odds available = X and odds of winning are < X, bet.
Was shocked you was all to quick to rubbish the system i posted
OP, to save you a great deal of wasted time and misery, there is only one system that works:
If (decimal) odds available = X and odds of winning are < X, bet.
Was shocked you was all to quick to rubbish the system i posted
any system that works is a subset of If (decimal) odds available = X and odds of winning are < X, bet.
Several knowledgeable people have told you that "your system" is nonsense and that apparently one of its proponents is a conman and a thief.
You admitted that you were not looking for value in your bets, so all you are doing is randomly betting and paying 5% commission to Betfair.
You are quite entitled to enjoy your betting and employ any methods you like, but if you post drivel, claiming that bet size manipulation can overcome a negative edge, you should expect to be viewed as an idiot.
Several knowledgeable people have told you that "your system" is nonsense and that apparently one of its proponents is a conman and a thief.
You admitted that you were not looking for value in your bets, so all you are doing is randomly betting and paying 5% commission to Betfair.
You are quite entitled to enjoy your betting and employ any methods you like, but if you post drivel, claiming that bet size manipulation can overcome a negative edge, you should expect to be viewed as an idiot.
I stated value is not an issue for me using reverse labouchere its about finding winners.
First im a fool and now viewed as an idiot what next
First im a fool and now viewed as an idiot what next
UnlikelyWinner 04 Aug 14 13:24
dave1357 For this system to work i don't consider value, i want to back a horse imo which has the best chance regardless of odds
============================================================================================
"best chance" is purely a subjective view.
VALUE is everything with horse racing bets.
Of course trying to find the winner of a race is important to improving any system, but you must have a method of deciding whether a bet is VALUE or not.
I believe, if you rate a race, that the RANK POSITION compared to SP odds is the "best" method of deciding whether a bet is VALUE or not.
If you ignore taking VALUE into account, then you probably will be doomed to failure in long or short run.
Don't believe anyone has a method of working out what the "true odds" of a horse winning a race is, but you can have methods of trying to calculate whether a horse is a VALUE bet or not.
I may have a top rated horse having SP odds of odds on, but for me......just backing it at odds on is not enough VALUE for me. This is purely a personal , aggressive approach, re odds on being TOP RATED. My view is that it may well win....but my "system" of ratings should indicate that one of the 3 horses below it in ratings is where the 2nd horse might come from...so would rather do a SFC type bet with the odds on one winning and using 3 below it to be 2nd.
If you don't consider VALUE, then just likely your "system" will work long term.
dave1357 For this system to work i don't consider value, i want to back a horse imo which has the best chance regardless of odds
============================================================================================
"best chance" is purely a subjective view.
VALUE is everything with horse racing bets.
Of course trying to find the winner of a race is important to improving any system, but you must have a method of deciding whether a bet is VALUE or not.
I believe, if you rate a race, that the RANK POSITION compared to SP odds is the "best" method of deciding whether a bet is VALUE or not.
If you ignore taking VALUE into account, then you probably will be doomed to failure in long or short run.
Don't believe anyone has a method of working out what the "true odds" of a horse winning a race is, but you can have methods of trying to calculate whether a horse is a VALUE bet or not.
I may have a top rated horse having SP odds of odds on, but for me......just backing it at odds on is not enough VALUE for me. This is purely a personal , aggressive approach, re odds on being TOP RATED. My view is that it may well win....but my "system" of ratings should indicate that one of the 3 horses below it in ratings is where the 2nd horse might come from...so would rather do a SFC type bet with the odds on one winning and using 3 below it to be 2nd.
If you don't consider VALUE, then just likely your "system" will work long term.
Must admit....that have had no odds on shots as top rated in "QUALIFYING RACES" ( H/C races only "qualify", subject to other criteria)...
However, on other race types rated.....the above would be my approach to odds on shots as ,normally, on such races the ratings would be good enough to adopt a SFC approach to odds on shots being top rated.
However, on other race types rated.....the above would be my approach to odds on shots as ,normally, on such races the ratings would be good enough to adopt a SFC approach to odds on shots being top rated.
"You was highly critical of the reverse labouchere system on the thread i started the other day"
The reverse labouchere has been outlawed by The Catholic church as a mortal sin and may make you go blind!
The reverse labouchere has been outlawed by The Catholic church as a mortal sin and may make you go blind!
DFCIRONMAN I agree with most of what you state, but imo for me using this system i won't not back a 6/4 shot because i think it should be priced at 2/1 or even 5/2 if i think it's got the best form chance of winning im putting my money down.
I have backed countless horses that represent value and they lose and i've not backed so many horses what i don't consider value and many a time won, like i stated i want to back winners, if the horse is 5/4 and i should be backing at 7/4 or 2/1 i seriously don't care as long most of them win. And i can't see why that will fail the system, what will fail the system is backing horse that lose.
I have backed countless horses that represent value and they lose and i've not backed so many horses what i don't consider value and many a time won, like i stated i want to back winners, if the horse is 5/4 and i should be backing at 7/4 or 2/1 i seriously don't care as long most of them win. And i can't see why that will fail the system, what will fail the system is backing horse that lose.
Generally my "system" of ratings indicates say ....looking at top 5 favourites.....which ones are VALUE to BACK and which ones are VALUE to LAY.
The "system" is rarely "wrong" re the RANK order for say top 5 favourites........whereas, if I was just using my judgment , ad-libbing, the "system" will be "right" more than I would be. This is because the ratings are prepared in a systematic fashion, though there is some subjective input, that generally produces ratings up to a high standard.
If you are taking odds that are NOT VALUE, then without any doubt you will lose in long or short run.
From what you have posted above UW.....backing a horse when it is not VALUE can only lose you money eventually.
If you know that your "system" will produce winners at VALUE odds, frequently enough to make profit, then this logically is a far better way to bet than backing a horse when you know the "system" indicates it is a poor VALUE or NO VALUE bet.
I rated some races in JANUARY this year, and was a bit disappointed in that there were few what I would call ....good odds winners ( if that is what I was trying to get ). It was just one of those periods when good odds winners were not winning the race types rated.
Generally though the "system" was very good on indicating, using RANK POSITION compared to SP ODDS, the VALUE BACKS and LAYS , in WIN market, amongst the top 5 in market. Considering this is where most of the liquidity is, then the "system" had still worked to a high standard during a dry period for good odds winners on races rated.
As suspect most of your selections for your "system" would be at the top 5 favourites end of market, then I know my "system" would outperform anyone backing or laying in WIN market at this end of market, without taking VALUE into account! Of course you might get a run of LUCK, but generally in long term the "system" would outperform you in long term ( though you might also be blitzed in short term if UnlikelyWinner you don't get enough winners and you are selecting poor or no VALUE horses.)
.
You will soon find out if you attempt the REV LAB with too many poor or no VALUE selections.
GL if you try this.......as LUCK is only thing that can avert disaster with your approach on VALUE.
Cheers the noooooooooooo
The "system" is rarely "wrong" re the RANK order for say top 5 favourites........whereas, if I was just using my judgment , ad-libbing, the "system" will be "right" more than I would be. This is because the ratings are prepared in a systematic fashion, though there is some subjective input, that generally produces ratings up to a high standard.
If you are taking odds that are NOT VALUE, then without any doubt you will lose in long or short run.
From what you have posted above UW.....backing a horse when it is not VALUE can only lose you money eventually.
If you know that your "system" will produce winners at VALUE odds, frequently enough to make profit, then this logically is a far better way to bet than backing a horse when you know the "system" indicates it is a poor VALUE or NO VALUE bet.
I rated some races in JANUARY this year, and was a bit disappointed in that there were few what I would call ....good odds winners ( if that is what I was trying to get ). It was just one of those periods when good odds winners were not winning the race types rated.
Generally though the "system" was very good on indicating, using RANK POSITION compared to SP ODDS, the VALUE BACKS and LAYS , in WIN market, amongst the top 5 in market. Considering this is where most of the liquidity is, then the "system" had still worked to a high standard during a dry period for good odds winners on races rated.
As suspect most of your selections for your "system" would be at the top 5 favourites end of market, then I know my "system" would outperform anyone backing or laying in WIN market at this end of market, without taking VALUE into account! Of course you might get a run of LUCK, but generally in long term the "system" would outperform you in long term ( though you might also be blitzed in short term if UnlikelyWinner you don't get enough winners and you are selecting poor or no VALUE horses.)
.You will soon find out if you attempt the REV LAB with too many poor or no VALUE selections.
GL if you try this.......as LUCK is only thing that can avert disaster with your approach on VALUE.
Cheers the noooooooooooo
If a barrel has a leak in it, you can stir the water about as much as you like, but it will still end up empty
Thankyou for sharing, they say you learn something new each day 
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539