|
By:
Don't bet on horses, dogs or football. Bet on niche markets where if you study you will have more knowledge than bookmakers or folks that bet on exchanges.
This is good advice. You are highly unlikely to find a long-term edge in these sports unless you have access to inside information or understand where markets have inefficiencies due to participants acting irrationally. I'd include tennis in this list too. In my experience, you have more chance of finding an edge in sports from other countries. Study the data, and see where trends exist, often more many years. E.g. Small Road 'Dogs in the NFL. |
|
By:
Alot of folk who do not have a passion for horseracing believe that its totally bent and you can only win with inside information . This is 100% false info .
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
You should concentrate on a maximum of two niche sports/betting mediums. They should normally only have two possible results. Research the event well in advance, price up the contenders, sit and wait for the bookies/exchanges estimating what the prices should be. Mine is politics, it's a licence to print money.
|
|
By:
Alot of folk who do not have a passion for horseracing believe that its totally bent and you can only win with inside information . This is 100% false info .
I don't disagree that you can win without inside information, but it is rare and time consuming, and certainly true that insiders have an advantage that most people will not be able to overcome long term. My anecdotal Two Swallows story https://green-all-over.blogspot.com/2009/01/two-swallows.html explains the disadvantage you are up against. There are more even playing fields and markets than those of horse racing. |
|
By:
I listened to Dylan Evans talking about expert gamblers on youtube, well worth a listen.
|
|
By:
I think the term gamblers is often poorly used. For what it's worth I don't consider myself a gambler, the folks who bet against me are gamblers. Now that might initially seem aloof but I am trying to emphasise the point that if you do your study/ preparation on your niche market, then you should be in a position to know the true chances of the contestants. Now it's just a case of waiting till bookies/exchanges price up your market.
|
|
By:
if you do your study/ preparation on your niche market, then you should be in a position to know the true chances of the contestants.
Agreed. And you will be in a position to know what market biases are at play, and where the value may lay. I don't see the same opportunities in horse racing. |
|
By:
There are biases in virtually all betting mediums, some very minor and some massive. In football eg, a Man U supporter is very unlikely to bet Man City to beat his team in a derby, irrespective of the price. In politics, it's all about bias. There is no way that a diehard Conservative will bet Labour or SNP say, to beat their party at any level, whether it's a constituency, by election, whatever. This is where if you are completely independent and can price markets according to their true chances, you can consistently return a profit. In the USA the bias divisions are even worse on a straight democratic/republican bet. These same biases are present in multiple events, from major sports to specials bets such as strictly come dancing and if you can remain independent in your assessments on any event, you will have greatly increased your winning chances.
|
|
By:
CPFC
When you started with your bank of £100, (98.50), can you recall what it had grown to after the first year. |
|
By:
When you started with your bank of £100, (98.50), can you recall what it had grown to after the first year.
I opened my account in 2004, and it was around £1,300 later that year, but I was clueless and just lucky. Just as fast, I was down to £20 and as I related in my blog in 2012, was one loss away from giving up: https://green-all-over.blogspot.com/2012/09/janus-day.html I've told my Betfair story before, but in short, I started in March 2004, with a deposit (after fees) of £98.50, and spent the rest of that year and 2005 going up to a four figure sum, then down to a low two figure sum, and within £20 of going bust, at which point I would have walked away. I started recording my bets as a New Year resolution in 2006 and it's one I've managed to keep going to this day. At the end of 2005 my Betfair balance was £1,329.05, end of 2006 £32,703.91, 2007 £49,439.70, 2008 £101,039.64. I hit the lifetime limit on 27th August 2012. My most profitable sport was NBA where a simple strategy of laying a team taking a lead proved very lucrative for many years. Basketball is a game of runs and momentum... I also found it helpful to blog. My blog https://green-all-over.blogspot.com/ isn't a P&L blog but it's been going since 2008 and gives some insight into how my betting has evolved over the years. Some of the older posts are a little embarrassing to read, but I've left everything out there as it's all part of the learning process. |
|
By:
Thanks for all that information CPFC, I will check the blog as well. I am finding this more difficult than I anticipated. I am currently trying to overhaul every aspect of what I have done previously.
All the help I have been getting is of great benefit to me, really appreciated. |
|
By:
You need discipline *AND* an edge.
No Discipline, No Edge = lose rapidly Yes Discipline, No Edge = lose slowly No Discipline, Yes Edge = win until you go on tilt and explode spectacularly Yes Discipline, Yes Edge = HOLY GRAIL |
|
By:
When you think of betting as fun you have absolutely no chance of winning long term but if you are betting in £1s there is no problem at all . The problem begins when you begin losing big money over a number of months and you have no control . Always remember that you would have to turnover about 30k ( an average of £600 a week ) to win 3k per annum , and that would be a fabulous result - Not the £2000 turnover to win the 100k that many believe .
|
|
By:
The average lottery player gets 25% of their stake returned.
The average racehorse punter gets 75% of their stake returned. If you put the work in it's not hard to change the racing loss into a profit. The advantage with racing is there are so many horses, races, trainers, owners, courses that if you research, study, work hard you'll find lots of edges ... strategies. Talking to punters the majority don't put the work in. History tends to repeat itself, you can learn so much from it and that helps when betting horses. |
|
By:
"The average racehorse punter gets 75% of their stake returned"
Does that translate as "The bookies edge is 25%"? If so I can't see how any amount of "work" could overcome an over-round of that magnitude without inside knowledge. I've never used a high street bookie. On BF I feel I'm getting fair "market" odds minus any slippage due to liquidity issues. Over many years I have been net profitable, but nearly half my profit has been absorbed in commission. I definitely made more money in the past than I have in recent years, but that may be due to different circumstances for me - I'm not necessarily blaming BF or liquidity, etc though these may be a factor. One thing is certain - you can have a significant edge and still lose in the long run if your bet-sizing is wrong. The Kelly criterion proves this. Discipline is often inversely proportional to buzz - getting that balance right is tricky for some. Shaping your book for a big but unlikely win instead of greening out for regular modest profits on any outcome is a temptation that you usually have to resist. Increasing a position as it goes against you, hoping for a reversal trade can pay off but leads to a much bigger loss when it goes wrong, then you have to battle "recovery" psychology for your following bets with a reduced bank which leads you back to the "rare big win vs regular small gains" discipline. In the financial markets they have a saying:- "It's not you against the markets - it's just you" |
|
By:
"Over many years I have been net profitable, but nearly half my profit has been absorbed in commission." You need to take into account commission when placing your bets and working out profit/loss.
|
|
By:
As long as punters are sensible and not addicts punting is cheap entertainment even if they lose.
Comments I've heard over the years by punters. If a horse opens up 9-1 get on. 1st dog race on a Saturday bet no. 1. My mate bets no.1 or e.w. or if the horse is spotform and sf and Newsboy tipped. Another mate bets horses with gold or silver in the name. If you can't improve 25% on that I'd worry for you. |
|
By:
And there's the punters that are not online so have no access for intensive form research.
Horseracing is easiest way to turn a profit for me and that's with online accounts. I find betting on exchange harder, horses drift and lose mostly but others drift alarmingly yet still turn up and win. Hardly bet on here, just can't find a bet. Like guaranteed prices gives you a chance of finishing ahead. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
yes, well said re: horse racing. you can gain edges in racing, and actually in all sports betting, that's why bookmakers restrict people, but they don't restrict casino players
|
|
By:
I can only speak from my own experience .
Concentrate on one sport . Know more about that sport than the layer . Be able to arrive at a percentage chance of your wager being successful . Bet when the odds are in your favour . Be prepared for bans , limits and pc charges . It will not last forever unless you find other ways of getting on . It's a marathon , not a sprint . |
|
By:
headache reading this pish
|
|
By:
No bet is better than a bad bet.
|
|
By:
Lol Grande.
|
|
By:
Why do so many lose at gambling? One simple reason - gambling is a zero sum game before costs, therefore the costs of providing any platform has to come out of the total pool gambled before the winnings can get distributed, making it a minus-sum game. The total won by the winners can never exceed the total lost by the losers. if you have a random distribution of large winners and losers versus small winners and losers then overall there would always be more losers than winners once you reduce the pool by the costs. As for the distribution of winners and losers, this is where psychological factors come in. It also stands to reason that small losers can stay in the game indefinitely as their day-job replenishes their banks whereas large losers will soon be wiped out, so a larger number of small losers would need to be the norm in order that there would be enough money to pay off both the many small winners and the few large winners who would no longer be balanced by the quickly-eliminated large losers.
Compare the above with "gambling" on some kind of investment, such as the stockmarket. then it is no longer a zero-sum game over the long-term as the value of companies have a positive expectation. You still have to deduct the costs of trading from the overall pool but the overall pool isn't fixed anymore. There is an in-built assumption that you buy shares in companies so that they can expand and grow and increase their profits over and above the rate of erosion of the value of the money used to buy the shares. The extra money is coming from the customers of the company, minus the raw materials, taxes and salaries, etc paid. So the actual pool of money that would be split between winning and losing investors is increasing over time. That's simply not true for gambling - the winners only get paid from what's left out of the losers' money. |
|
By:
TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY roadrunner ,
a long term strategy is learning about your chosen specialization, gambling is no different to learning a trade, studying to be a doctor or lawyer, what they have in common is it takes years to accomplish the necessary knowledge and skills to be successful , the only difference is with gambling you dont get a qualification certificate and you have to rely on yourself to learn, there are no lectures or teachers, if you have the talent you will search for your own path to succeed, the dedication it takes is not compatible with most peoples lives. this is one of the reasons so few people make it to the top of the mountain, there are a myriad of other reasons as well, and last but not least talent. |
|
By:
Just remember that PATIENCE with an EDGE and correct MONEY MANAGEMENT is all you need to be successful at betting .
|
|
By:
the same reason as people drink, it makes it feel better and avoid boredom especially in these times
|
|
By:
Does anyone know why Gaze always looses?
|
|
By:
Of the majority of people who actually lose regularly at gambling (but not to the degree that addiction is ruining their lives), I think that the important thing to them is to appear to be a winner. They want wins so that they can brag to their mates or co-workers or other inhabitants of that betting shop (including the staff). It is of secondary importance whether the betting actually brings in any long term income. To them, the cost of gambling is worth it for the high of winning (which is greatly enhanced by showing off to other people about the win).
These are the recreational players that the big firms are after and want to keep. The big firms don't want winners and, at the moment, they don't want problem gamblers (because of the bad publicity that they are now bringing). If these recreational losers actually started winning overall, it would put them outside their comfort zones. For instance, they would start questioning why they bother working (even though work brings in far more money than gambling with small or moderate stakes). They would start worrying about what their mates would think of them if it became obvious that they were supplementing their income with winnings. So I think that the majority of recreational gamblers lose because, deep down, this is what they want. It is just giving the appearance of being a winner which is important to them: Giving the impression that they are cleverer than other people or have access to information that the general public doesn't have. |
|
By:
Mark - there is no way the recreational punter WANTS to lose . They have no other choice because winning at betting is a skill like no other . They have zero of the skills in order to become a winner . Any divvy can click a button or write a bet out on a piece of paper but to be a long-term winner you need to have the psychological skills that are essential to become successful . They are very difficult to master and often go against what the mind would normally think . You have to change your way of thinking which can take some serious time and on top of that you need sound money management , patience , discipline and of course a decent sized edge .
Many say it’s the hardest game there is . To become skilled in anything , experts say you need AT LEAST 10,000 good man hours before achieving your goals but with WINNING AT BETTING , punters think you can just jump straight in head first and be a success !!!! It’s like anything else . Give it the respect it deserves . Work hard and be bold . |
|
By:
Why do so many lose at gambling?
1. It's a zero sum game. (For every winner there has to be one or more losers.) 2. There is deduction taken on by the middleman (which is large enough to erode most banks in the long run) 3 Horseracing is equal parts form skill, investment skill, random chance (luck). Most punters never learn enough of the first, usually have no idea of the second, and can't accept that the third can disrupt the mindset of even the most skilful (causing a rush of blood to the head, panic, over-confidence, desperation) 4. It's Darwinism in brutal reality i.e. survival of the fittest. Evolve or die out. |