General Betting
Some great contributions have been made on those threads on various aspects. I would particularly note: kenilworth, ZEALOT, FINE AS FROG HAIR, c0rbchenk0, racingguru, DFCIRONMAN, aye robot, Slicer, pittsburgh phil, bf_fananatic, tobermory, Beat The OverRound, BJT, caprisun, acornel. I mention you all in one lump because it would be too tiresome to attribute each contribution
I've been on BF around 10 years. April 2013- March 2014 is the first full year I've made a profit (and it's not much). I'm set to make a modest profit in 2014 - 2015 too. Overall though, I've lost far more than I've made, and I've thrown in the towell more than once.
Anyway, here are a few thoughts of mine on the remarks made on those threads. They all relate to UK and IRE horse racing.
Market efficiency and Edge. I think the BF markets are pretty much 100% efficient, which means that it is extremely difficult to gain any sort of edge. Successful betting strategies inevitably become exposed, and so the edge disappears. For example - and I've never tried this strategy by the way - I wonder what %ge those who back late runners make now, compared to before "Well Handicapped Horses" came out? Excellent and informative as the book is, I'd say it's worth to punters was diminished very soon after its publication.
Form and selectivity. I've stopped pretending I can read form (and thus find an edge) better than odds-compilers, and I've accepted that I don't have enough years in me to learn. I therefore don't have the tools to be all that selective in which races I bet on and which I don't. I take my hat off to those of you who have mastered it. Surprisingly though, there is an advantage to this...
...Data and analysis. You can't have enough data, but you can over-analyse what you have. Some great points were made about data filtering (i.e. what is the logic behind an apparent increase in profit after filtering your data). The bigger your sample, the more likely you can apply the results to future races.
Money Management. I used to have daily targets and a "recovery plan". If I didn't hit my target, then the recovery plan was to hit the days target plus the square root of the previous days losses. Sounds reasonable? - no, it's total b0llocks. I say, hit your target (these days my target is any profit on the day) and stop betting. If you don't hit it, then see your losses for exactly what they are - which is lost.
Commission. Commission is a killer, and you need to get it down. However, if you are backing only, you can pay around 3% - 3.5% even if you have no discount. There's no trick to it and its all above board. Simple as it is though, I'd ask you not to disclose it if you know how its done, because there are a lot of people who don't!
***
If you're interested, here's what I do now.
1. I get the earliest shows I can from a sample of bookmakers.
2. I derive the "true odds" from these shows. This isn't just a case of dividing 1 by the over round, there are several race-dependant factors which I'm not sharing with you. It doesn't matter whether what I come up with actually are the true odds - the point is the figures I derive work for my purposes.
3. I will back, or dutch, up to the first three runners whos odds have drifted (on BF) from the "true odds" I have derived. (Again, whether it's 1, 2, 3 or no runners is dependant on other race factors, and I'm not sharing what those are, either).
4. I withdraw exactly half the profits every day. (More accurately, I transfer them to the Aus bank, then transfer back and withdraw in increments of £100 whenever the Aus bank goes over that figure).
5. My unit stake is 1/250 of the bank.
The bottom line is - wait for it - 2.3% profit on level stakes after commission. I have made a profit 550 days out of 571, and on average it takes 13 days to get back to profit after a losing day.
It can be tedious sometimes, and I'm guilty losing on the odd stupid bet when I'm bored (which leaves me SEETHING at myself). I do like the discipline of getting up at 7 AM to do the inputs though. (I don't bet on holiday, but I still input the data, much to Mrs Strikes chagrin!) It's certainly a long way from the millionaire lifestyle I envisaged when I first joined, but these days, I have no more ambition than to provide a trickle of income for when I'm old and can't work. And have fun doing it, of course.
But the point of all this is, if I can work out a way of getting this far, then anyone can. I wish you all the best of luck.
|
By:
One more thing I forgot (relating to Market efficiency and edge). I'd say even if you're successful at the moment, never, ever stop investigating new edges, because tomorrow the one you have will get cottoned-on to and disappear. As someone said on one of the other threads: if you've thought of it, then someone else probably has too. But don't stop thinking anyway.
|
|
By:
I stopped reading at this line, "I say, hit your target (these days my target is any profit on the day) and stop betting." Although to be honest I should have stopped when I saw some of the names listed as giving "great contributions".
|
|
By:
interesting write-up stevie...thanks for going to the trouble
|
|
By:
If I could give any 17 year old advice before they are legally allowed to bet I would tell them all to avoid betting on horses
Also, your unit stake is 1/250 of the bank ... there must be times where you have lost a fortune when you should be staking higher? I also don't agree with stopping when you hit a target, there could well be the best bets of the day after you have made target |
|
By:
"If I could give any 17 year old advice before they are legally allowed to bet I would tell them all to avoid betting on horses"
I'd agree on that, 90% of all my losses on here has been from horse racing this is probably a combination of the sport being the preferred medium for betting by bookies for centuries because of its of random nature and inside information only a few are privileged to, ally this to super efficient markets and your looking at very difficult exam paper to come up with the right answers to. I believe Tennis or maybe even cricket might be an easier area to look into Just for good measure I am going to give a tip Audley Harrison..............Celebrity Big Brother..........22.0 If you if you eliminate Ulrika Johnson who has lived here almost all her life I don't think a foreigner has ever one CBB. No foreigner rule cuts down half the field. The 2 form threads which seem most important are.. victory by the most famous person in the house even if their a cnt like Davidson or Johnson or their simply the nicest person in the house. Most of the Brits I don't know from Adam (believe me they wont get many vote). Audley Harrison is a famous face amongst a load of no hope foreigners and a few British wanabies and I believe he's quite a nice guy. Feeling sorry for the person hasn't been a big factor in this show historically so I can't see the favourite Maloney winning. |
|
By:
Examples of most famous people winning without being particularly liked
Denise Welch....who seemed a complete bitch Julian Clary... whose act seems to be completely dominated by anal sex with men and fisting. |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Hi Schalke 04
As you know, the thing about keeping all your data is that you can "replay" your betting over and over again, but with different selections/targets/limits, etc. And you're right in that I could have staked higher (ie divided the bank into fewer points) and made more. In fact, in 18-odd months, I have never sustained an actual loss of more than 34 points, or an implied loss (setting any position of profit to zero) of greater than 67 points. This stands to reason, given that many of the bets are dutched and thus at collectively lowish odds. At my average punting odds, I could safely set the bank at around 160 points. Why don't I? Two reasons: 1) It doesn't suit my temprement (these days) to have any less than a huge margin of safety, because experience tells me that losing my bank makes me miserable! And 2) Because the way I arrange betting around life rather than the other way around means that the betting will occasionally lose out to life. In fact, yesterday was a perfect example of this. I was around 7 points down as of the the 1715 at Thirsk, when I then had to go and pick up family from the airport. (I can't take a position in advance, because my selections depend on market moves). If I'd waited 25 minutes for the 1740 at Roscommon, I'd have ended the day just over 1 point up! But that's how it goes. As for targets: I do understand why targets are anathema to some, like Ghetto Joe above, but I'd say they're essential to those of us who aren't very selective. They work for me, at any rate. btw, I've followed your "challenge" and "1.05" threads with interest over the years. They don't suit me personally, but clearly they work for you - which is the whole point of this thread, really.  |
|
By:
...and then there are days like today where the 16:00 brings me to just over 4 points up, so now I can mow the lawn. Or something.
|
|
By:
Points? points? which currency is that is that from Asia or maybe South America? That sounds suspiciously like somebody just marking them on the newspaper in contrast to somebody whose actually placing money on to their selection.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
ADVICE; don't bet on horses, dogs, unless u are prepared to do the work
only bet on sports and level stake at about 2% of bank |
|
By:
Hi no moves.
Sorry you're suspicious. I don't need to prove that bank points equate to real money wagered, lost & won - but I can. Would it help if I PM'd you a screenshot of yesterday's P&L? |
|
By:
Commission. Commission is a killer, and you need to get it down. However, if you are backing only, you can pay around 3% - 3.5% even if you have no discount. There's no trick to it and its all above board. Simple as it is though, I'd ask you not to disclose it if you know how its done, because there are a lot of people who don't!
I thought I knew about most things on here but not this. Come on! Give us a clue. |
|
By:
Hi logroller,
Presumably you bet on the sports you know and your level 1/50 bank stake reflects your potential liabilities if things go t1ts up for a while at the average odds you punt at. And your advice (don't bet on horses, dogs, unless you are prepared to do the work) is the right advice for you. The right advice for me - from painful experience - is "don't go near f'cking sports unless it's an international football match (or tennis match) you can watch live". |
|
By:
Hi Schalke
Yes, as long as you can devise a way to make profit in betting it doesn't matter if everyone hates it, or loves it, as long as it is working for you ... my betting over the last 12 years has worked for me, a lot of it was experimental though as seen with all my challenges on here ... but thats something I love most in betting, creating a large amount of winnings from basically nothing. Thats what gives me my "buzz". It takes a thick skin to "Experiment" publicly on here! My "buzz" bets are few and far between  - generally England internationals and the odd special. What I've described here is routine - even boring - but it makes a profit. |
|
By:
I will never find any type of betting "boring", as it makes watching all the different sports that bit better to watch. What I do find "boring" sometimes is constantly writing up bets ... I do however love using the forum as my place to record it all, and there are a few people out there I want to prove wrong.
|
|
By:
Hi Stevie
Glad to hear you are making a profit. Your methods have some similarities with a sub set of my methods. One thing you need to do is get the whole thing automated. My betting activity continues whether I am away or not and I do not spend any time punching in data. This leaves more time for writing code to experiment with new strategies. If you need any advice on auto' bet placement get in touch. |
|
By:
Why would anyone want to bet on something that is easy. By definition that means anyone can spot an edge. The fact that horse racing may be more complex is what makes it attractive and the reason viable edges can be found
|
|
By:
I tried very,VERY hard to read all of this thread but
eventually had to give up, too bizarre. |
|
By:
Schalke - your challenges are a bit of history on these forums
Just out of interest, you say it works and that's fine of course if so - but you are betting on very short prices I notice mostly? So, I guess what works for you is the lack of losing runs, a very psychological benefit for sure. You also mention betting on 'anything' as they are the 1.01 etc types - is there any skill in the picks with that sort of strategy? I'm not having a dig, and sure you've been asked that before, but it sounds random? |
|
By:
A poster called Pekerdunne said this a while ago:
'Know your inbuilt bias. You will have one' I found this to be very valuable. Mine is Test Cricket which requires a lot of patience because there are relatively few tv matches throughout the year. I try to make 3 successful trades through the 5 days totalling between 10 and 25% of my bank. Sometimes a test goes by and I've only made 5% but that's ok. Patience the key. I can compound pretty successfully if I retain discipline. My motto is 'if you think you're going to slow, slow down..' I have other methods to keep me interested. So for example a 'Value Level Stake Bank' for other sports or different formats of cricket.. I look for prices that are quite high. Low strike rate but good returns. |
|
By:
strategic in running lays on Sir Henry's runners after backing them pre race was a goldmine.
RIP |
|
By:
Seeing that my Audley Harrison tip I gave earlier in the thread for Big Brother is doing quite nicely I feel inclined to give another suggestion.
Bet number 2.....Strictly Come Dancing Now do not get this mixed up with a dancing competition, it is not! I repeat it is not a dancing competition! It is in fact a beauty competition. If you look at past winners its littered by gorgeous looking people (alright its sometimes the professional partner who is the beautiful looking one E.g. Goth and that sports presenter, whose name I can't remember) but many times previously you could pick the winner simply by judging their photographs before the competition commences. A man over forty has never won this and never will. A women over thirty is highly unlikely to win this (one did in the first series but Strictly was a very insignificant entity then, much different to the high profile position it occupies now. My tip is...........Thom Evans 7/1 Betfred. There some nice looking women in the house but hardly spelbounding and everything being equal I'd rather plump for a man; its probable the majority of the audience are women, who are unlikely to be minded to vote for the sexiest girl on Strictly Come Dancing. |
