does having a university/private school ....

No foyles

thats my way of thinking jimnast also .

Probably.

A statistics degree might be a help.

Probably means they don't have to gamble.

99.6% of gamblers are clueless addicted degenearted clowns...

#FACT

No.  The Earl of Lucan proved that quite conclusively all those years ago.

99.6%  of posters on here have never heard of the word "degenearted"

New graduates would struggle to get their minds around sex allowances and weight for age imo

Don’t even mention the grey race to them…oh lord.

They’re easy to spot because they usually cripple the price on horses from Mrs John Harrington because they think he’s a she.

And they actively report anyone who calls pumpkin head Pumpkin Head because it’s fat shaming.

And they celebrate winners with jazz hands.

Maybe in the past it was helpful because it at least showed you had some level of discipline and knowledge but I’m not so sure these days.

Given the problems state schools have recruiting specialist mathematics teachers, maybe?

Those from a state school who attempt to punt for a living will be far more hungry than those from private education who would almost certainly have funds to fall back on ,almost all the people I have known who make the punting pay had never had private education if fact some never attended state school very often.

Although not punters, most of those old bookmakers clerks in the days when racecourses were packed with punters went to state schools and their aptitude for figures was quite incredible.

University education is now offered to nearly 50% of the population so should in no way be bracketed with private schools. I went to a small town comprehensive but went on to University and postgraduate degrees. I'm not sure either were relevant to my betting or racing interest which predated primary school never mind any other education. I grew up in a farming family and point to points took up every Saturday afternoon from March through May so I was taken to them before I could walk! I doubt that amany schools teach probability theory or how a bookmaker arrives at prices. I still find it miraculous how fast a market on here reaches a 102% book and stays there more or less until the event starts regardless of price movements on individual horses/teams.

University education is now offered to nearly 50% of the population so should in no way be bracketed with private schools. I went to a small town comprehensive but went on to University and postgraduate degrees. I'm not sure either were relevant to my betting or racing interest which predated primary school never mind any other education. I grew up in a farming family and point to points took up every Saturday afternoon from March through May so I was taken to them before I could walk! I doubt that amany schools teach probability theory or how a bookmaker arrives at prices. I still find it miraculous how fast a market on here reaches a 102% book and stays there more or less until the event starts regardless of price movements on individual horses/teams.

Apologies for duplicate. No idea why. University education gave me no help with how computers behave.

What are the odds of getting bummed at private school? Yes 4/5, No 5/4

It seems no thread on this forum can escape odd people.

No. I'd actually argue the opposite.

On a Uni course with some academics, terrible gamblers.

Not to mention Uni a waste of time.

Certainly not a waste of time. I met quite a few life long racing mates at Uni. More seriously, it also got me a part time lecturing job when farming got tougher.

sageform, I was taught maths by a PE teacher and a music teacher, I did my Maths GCSE coursework on some basic formulae of how to calculate permuatations in multiple wagers, drew a few coloured charts to liven it up, think the teachers were perplexed, but got top marks!
As for your rapid 102% book isn't that simply bots working 24/7?

Easy answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no , we're all individuals with differing aptitudes for things , so impossible to generalize.


Good luck today all 

Derek Thompson went to grammar school and he is the best gambler this country has ever produced.

You only have to look on here to get a sense Foyles,Gaze,StewB and the Premier non triers i.e the long odds on muppets simply guessing and I suspect that applies to the majority of new punters who do it just for the excitement.Two ways racing punters get hooked on the gambling aspect of game in the main,their first ever bet winning and thinking it is easy or losing and then trying to get their money back.

I doubt their formal education helps other than a grasp pf basic arithmetic further down the road when/if they realise it takes a lot of hard work to reach the point of understanding the myriad of knowledge required to beat the book.You would assume a higher IQ would fare better and probably correct, however a mate of mine left school with only a couple of O Levels and was the youngest licensed bookie in the UK at one time.

He was/is a wizard at mental arithmetic and the only person I have ever known who could settle a Round Robin without a check a bet machine.

Cag, I'd agree the long-term hooked must've had a decent early win so they know it's possible otherwise they are just stupid. As for beating the formbook,in lean spells I harker back to my teenage years when I seemed to know more and win more often. I did know most of the runners in those days which is not the case today.

*hark back, never enjoyed English.

I certainly would not put foyles in the same bracket as those premier league mob.

I doubt anybody would jimnast!!

swifty, you are probably right but I'm afraid that bots are beyond my ken. I also seemed to find it easier to back winners when a student but I'm sure it is rose tinted glasses looking back 60 years. I have always enjoyed following horses, owners and breeders with little regard for form or "value". Some of the people I knew but many I didn't. I do remember a horse that was amateur ridden by its owner that won at Worcester at big odds a few times and collecting 33 shillings to 1 on more than one occasion. Probably around 1964 or so. As my spending allowance was £20 per term, that went a long way. As a family we knew the Turnells, Haines, Bushes and many others in the Beaufort area who occasionally gave us some good info but usually I was following blind.

Sorry calgliari I thought that’s what you meant .

Bots are well beyond me also sageform

Thankfully

jimnast 11 Jul 23 13:05 
Bots are well beyond me also sageform

Thankfully





Should ban the bloody things and then see how clever some people are.

I don't mind the bots, they sometimes give me money...

2 computers side by side.. 1 is basic, the other is advanced.. while the advanced can undoubtedly "do more", the basic can at least match the advanced when it comes to routine tasks. IF the basic has no breadth desire and is firmly dedicated to 1 specific task/program, it can even outperform the advanced.   

Since betting is not a complicated process, emotional structure is the be-all.

I could and have been successful without a BOT , but i'd much rather have it on my side as it means you can get more of a life by just programming it to get on with the job.

To answer original question, I doubt education has much to do with it (or IQ). IMHO gambling success is mostly determined by emotional regulation vs financial wealth. i.e. for me I can have £10 bets all day and be reasonably successful, £100 bets and it gets more difficult. My tendency is gravitate to "safer" larger bets, which invariably means shorter prices and then my strike rate becomes critical.

I ran racing competitions thoughout the 90's, typically over 100 days with cira 20 participants phoning in one selection per day. I kept stats which revealed some interesting stuff. Some things I remember was bets in the range evens-15/8 was must successful, followed by 2/1-9/2. The least successful was odds on, followed by above 16/1. When the weather allowed ground to become consistent during the flat season (G-F or F), backing favourites became very profitable.

One thing I have noticed is hardly any of my friends gamble, they have no interest at all, although will have a day out racing for the crack. I've come to the conclusion the gambling habit is probably acquired if early bets are successful.

No, all you need to win is some common sense and basic spreadsheets. You track what works and what doesn't, then bet the opposite of what really doesn't work, i.e. lay the mugs.

But do you enjoy watching racing? To me that is more important. I limit my losses by using minimum stakes and laying off short in running which is very risk averse but keeps my losses to a trivial amount. I know that I should limit to one bet per week or something of that order and bet sensible but bigger stakes but that is boring. I was 95% confident that Mr Freedom and Coverdale would win their last 3 races respectively but that worm of doubt stops me staking any more. They will both win one more with reasonable luck in running but after that, the handicapper might put a stop to them.

I don't think it makes any difference whether or not you went to private school or/and university. Many people I know never had either opportunity but would have easily held their own had they done so.
Do I think intelligence aids gambling? Certainly. But, of course, gambling comes in many guises and other attributes are required including patience and confidence.
Instances where I believe intelligence will play a role include playing cards, horseracing/dog racing etc, stock exchange and I am sure there are others I am unfamiliar with. In some sports there are more knowledgeable people who can take on the bookmakers and those making the bookmakers prices and in some activities you are not taking on the bookmakers but other opponents, often of mixed ability. That is why I am sure intelligence can be a major asset. I know luck plays a huge part but I think that will even itself out over time.
My advice is to find out what you are good at and be disciplined. Know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em, as they say.