Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
29 Sep 23
10:16
Joined:
Date Joined:
22 Apr 04
Doubt anyone saw it, as was on Birmingham Live TV, The Jeremy Kyle show, only caught the end of it, a discussion about problem gambling with 2 other women.
Not particularly interesting with 2 very loud blokes talking over the ladies. Findlays contribution was basically to educate people how to bet on Sports with a degree of skill rather than just gamble on games of chance/luck and wants the government to ban On line casinos as these are what lead bored women mainly to become addicted to gambling.
One of the women bet on Politics markets only and claimed to be successful, the other woman was something to do with the GC.
Not particularly interesting with 2 very loud blokes talking over the ladies. Findlays contribution was basically to educate people how to bet on Sports with a degree of skill rather than just gamble on games of chance/luck and wants the government to ban On line casinos as these are what lead bored women mainly to become addicted to gambling.
One of the women bet on Politics markets only and claimed to be successful, the other woman was something to do with the GC.
Show More
Was on Talk Tv, agree that part wasn't very interesting, the guy who stole £250K from his employers talked the most sense.
Harry is a legendary figure after that £1 million punt on New Zealand in an earlier world cup. I seem to remember from his starsports interview that he would bet on two flies climbing a wall. Not my perfect choice of a gambling tutor tbph
Always felt sorry for his gardener who put his life savings on NZ . Harry didn't force him of course -I often wonder if Harry ever reimbursed him -imagine having saved -I think it was about £30000 - over years and losing it in one go.
Harry was (is?) a good judge of judges but a lousy judge. OK when having his card marked, in other words. Bigger balls than me though, I'll give him that, and a far more exciting life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt6A-_z6bSc Here it is. HF on 40 minutes in.
Was an awful program, completely biased and very misinformed. On talk tv of all places, wouldn’t have been out of place on the BBC.
Jeremy Kyle was a terrible choice of person to host it. He spent most of the show pointing out that he himself used to be a gambling addict, he must have mentioned it about 27 times, as if we were meant to be surprised that it could even happen to somebody like him.
Jeremy Kyle was a terrible choice of person to host it. He spent most of the show pointing out that he himself used to be a gambling addict, he must have mentioned it about 27 times, as if we were meant to be surprised that it could even happen to somebody like him.
Still at least you managed to get a dig in at the BBC!
saw on that morning fraud prog the othewr day with naga mulchetty a doctor stole 1.1 million from his practises and spoonked it up the wall with online casinos ,he was found guilty got jailed but the online casinos paid £900,000 back to the practises he stole it from ........couldnt belive it
Yes, sparrow, my main intention was just to take a swipe at the BBC.
I used them because they have literally made dozens of programs about gambling addiction and have helped to push the narrative that is being set. They aren’t alone, all other media outlets are doing it too, but if you look at their iPlayer listings there are loads of them.
The only one worth watching is the Louis Theroux one from about 15 years ago set in Las Vegas.
I used them because they have literally made dozens of programs about gambling addiction and have helped to push the narrative that is being set. They aren’t alone, all other media outlets are doing it too, but if you look at their iPlayer listings there are loads of them.
The only one worth watching is the Louis Theroux one from about 15 years ago set in Las Vegas.
The lady said:
''The betting industry needs losers. That means betting addicts.
10% of gamblers provide 80% of the profits from betting.
The industry needs addictive and problem gamblers in order to survive.''
But how does she know that big losers are problem gamblers? She was assuming that none of them can afford to lose.
How could she know that?
''The betting industry needs losers. That means betting addicts.
10% of gamblers provide 80% of the profits from betting.
The industry needs addictive and problem gamblers in order to survive.''
But how does she know that big losers are problem gamblers? She was assuming that none of them can afford to lose.
How could she know that?
Was the doctor an ethnic minority Foyles? Surprised the GC and BBC haven't come up with some theory that ethnics are at more risk of becoming addicts to push their bonkers agenda, like covid discriminated against them, maybe only a matter of time though?
With luck the inquiry (still not officially announced) into the GCs possible misuse of funds will uncover something and get them discredited along with their nonsense.
With luck the inquiry (still not officially announced) into the GCs possible misuse of funds will uncover something and get them discredited along with their nonsense.
It doesn’t matter what channel you watch ,bbc, itv, sky, talk tv, gb news, betfair forum. It’s always the same misinformed opinions.
It’s now assumed that everybody who has lost money is an addict or problem gambler.
The “losing punter” no longer exists.
The “losing punter” no longer exists.
Remember the day of The Eclipse at Sandown some years ago? Ok koral whipper-snapper voicebox on live tv during transmission steadfastly denied his firm refused bettors the "guaranteed" prices before 10am despite viewers phoning in to say otherwise. But, his boss - the senior voicebox - came on air later on and admitted ok koral did refuse early morning prices because of the deluge of bets on one horse; online liability incurred prior to 10am.
Bookies speak with forked-tongue. Forget this at your peril.
Bookies speak with forked-tongue. Forget this at your peril.
All them tv channels that generate a big slice of their income from adverts and show casino/slots adverts every 15 minutes (including in prime-time) are part of a (leftie) anti-gambling conspiracy BR? 
Small staking recreational punter = fine.
Medium/large staking recreational punter = addict/problem gambler/victim.
Nobody is allowed to lose anymore. Not in the regulated market anyway.
Medium/large staking recreational punter = addict/problem gambler/victim.
Nobody is allowed to lose anymore. Not in the regulated market anyway.
Not part of the conspiracy TM, just hypocritical.
Like you, want it both ways.
Like you, want it both ways.
Regarding the actual topic Harry Findlay - he's a cheeky chappie and a good raconteur - but he pretty much ticks all of the boxes for problem gambler:
Chasing, Betting more than he can afford, Betting with borrowed money, losing a house, impact on others (especially family and friends), cost to society, etc, etc.
Chasing, Betting more than he can afford, Betting with borrowed money, losing a house, impact on others (especially family and friends), cost to society, etc, etc.
The Management 29 Sep 23 13:53
Regarding the actual topic Harry Findlay - he's a cheeky chappie and a good raconteur - but he pretty much ticks all of the boxes for problem gambler:
Chasing, Betting more than he can afford, Betting with borrowed money, losing a house, impact on others (especially family and friends), cost to society, etc, etc.
Ffs I have to agree, who would have thought…..ffs
Regarding the actual topic Harry Findlay - he's a cheeky chappie and a good raconteur - but he pretty much ticks all of the boxes for problem gambler:
Chasing, Betting more than he can afford, Betting with borrowed money, losing a house, impact on others (especially family and friends), cost to society, etc, etc.
Ffs I have to agree, who would have thought…..ffs
Lol the management diagnosing people again.
That’s the problem TM, people like you who think they know what is best for everybody else. If HF wants to gamble, and I’m pretty sure he does, that’s for him to decide.
That’s the problem TM, people like you who think they know what is best for everybody else. If HF wants to gamble, and I’m pretty sure he does, that’s for him to decide.
The Management 29 Sep 23 13:49
All them tv channels that generate a big slice of their income from adverts and show casino/slots adverts every 15 minutes (including in prime-time) are part of a (leftie) anti-gambling conspiracy BR?
Indeed those channels do rely on bookmakers. TM.
All them tv channels that generate a big slice of their income from adverts and show casino/slots adverts every 15 minutes (including in prime-time) are part of a (leftie) anti-gambling conspiracy BR?
Indeed those channels do rely on bookmakers. TM.
Dreadful admitting to selling a home ffs….”we was on @ 1/2” ffs……
I don't have a clue what is best for everybody else but you don't need 7 years at medical school to diagnose Harry imo.
People like me? - do you you mean taxpayers? - that pick up the pieces?
I'm currently picking up the pieces for the last banking crisis, the current energy sector crisis, the telecoms sector crisis, the water sector crisis, the transport sector crisis, the pensions sector crisis, the NHS crisis, the Education crisis, etc, etc.
I can do without picking up the pieces for the on-line bookmakers.
People like me? - do you you mean taxpayers? - that pick up the pieces?
I'm currently picking up the pieces for the last banking crisis, the current energy sector crisis, the telecoms sector crisis, the water sector crisis, the transport sector crisis, the pensions sector crisis, the NHS crisis, the Education crisis, etc, etc.
I can do without picking up the pieces for the on-line bookmakers.
And if you sell your house to start a business that's OK ? Well yes it is if you have talent at the business or gambling. Sounds loony to those without talent of course.
Yeah the ‘big pro’ sold the house (allegedly) to fund business…..gambling ffs
There are already laws in place to deal with the likes of Harry Findlay, hence the nine months he spent in Brixton for credit card fraud.
Hence no further need for regulations or judgements about what he does with his money.
Hence no further need for regulations or judgements about what he does with his money.
Would Terry Ramsden and Harry be in same category?
They are legendary figures nonetheless, they added colour to life and the nags. Would love to read a Warts And All Autobiography by Tel but it can't be like his Star Sports interview where anything conrentious was off-limits.
They are legendary figures nonetheless, they added colour to life and the nags. Would love to read a Warts And All Autobiography by Tel but it can't be like his Star Sports interview where anything conrentious was off-limits.
the best gamblers ( winners long term ) have losing runs and something may have to be sold.
They might ponder how they got into the position of having to sell their house in order to raise funds.
I don't think you can call yourself a "pro" (imo) if you entertain a staking plan that might leave you homeless.
Never understood all the attention he gets - given that everything he touches seems to turn to sh1t sooner or later. Would much rather hear from somebody clever that has been successful - like Tony Bloom.
Never understood all the attention he gets - given that everything he touches seems to turn to sh1t sooner or later. Would much rather hear from somebody clever that has been successful - like Tony Bloom.
Dr. many pro's have said you have to maximise income from your tank ( total wealth ) This obviously carries risk to ready cash. eg. If you are given 8/1 heads or tails you go nearly full bank.
you go nearly full bank.
Then sell your house for the next bet if it goes down?
That's not very professional.
The bankruptcy courts are full of those kinds of professionals.
Then sell your house for the next bet if it goes down?
That's not very professional.
The bankruptcy courts are full of those kinds of professionals.
TM , many punters can see something of themselves in Findlay ( minus ever being a couple of million in front ) but with Bloom there isn't much cliff edge stuff it's grinding out ( albeit big ) money just like working for a living. Not really the punter's dream that.
Tony Bloom was also clever enough to see what Harry was, by refusing to bail him out or lend him anymore money.
Now you mention bankruptcy. That doesn't happen if you are playing with your own assets.
howard (14:36 post) and the dealer (14:36 post0 - both spot on imo.
Grinding is the reality - if you want flash/sexy gambling - watch a Matt Damon film imo
Grinding is the reality - if you want flash/sexy gambling - watch a Matt Damon film imo
Daughters house (allegedly) which is worse….ffs
I'm sure your right dealer in that case. The points I'm making are general. Bloom clearly not in it for kicks. Harry is. But most successful pro gamblers have got over a compulsive condition if they ever had one.
I've mentioned this before but it's relevant to this thread.
H.F. Twitter profile @TheDogHarry states....... " Jackpot Betting Addict. "
I doubt somehow that he has deposit limits or asked for A.C. checks with the nanny.
H.F. Twitter profile @TheDogHarry states....... " Jackpot Betting Addict. "
I doubt somehow that he has deposit limits or asked for A.C. checks with the nanny.
I do not know Mr Findlay except he once owned Denman - his claim-to-fame. Is he an overall winner on betting or does he lose more than he wins?
According to the Kelly criterion your optimal bet is about 43.75% of your capital
Showws how mad the Kelly staking system really is. Fancy having to gamble nearly half your capital on the toss of a coin! Call it wrong twice in a row and you've done two thirds of your entire bank.
kelly is correct for optimal growth of a sum of capital, so any loss is just a matter of time to recover, but it's probably academic, as if you think that an 8-1 chace is actually even money, there is probably something quite significant that you've overlooked.
2 wrong in a row and your left with ~ 25%
But that off a full bankroll... I doubt anyone would commit 100% of the roll.
Gamblers/investors must think about staking for the next day/week/month/quarter
But that off a full bankroll... I doubt anyone would commit 100% of the roll.
Gamblers/investors must think about staking for the next day/week/month/quarter
Your bank is £1,000. You lose 43.75% of that bank on the first toss. So you're left with £552.50
43.75% of £552.50 is £241.72. So, after two incorrect calls you will have lost £437.50 on the first toss, plus £241.72 on the second toss, equals £679.72, near enough two thirds.
Either way, two thirds or three quarters, it's a mad way to bet.
Dave: What you're arguing is that if you make an 8/1 shot even money, the Kelly system forces you to revise your pricing, for no other reason than you can't afford to use your staking system. Not because you've overlooked something. What if you go over the event again, and still make the 8/1 shot even money? What do you do now? The only option is to abandon Kelly.
43.75% of £552.50 is £241.72. So, after two incorrect calls you will have lost £437.50 on the first toss, plus £241.72 on the second toss, equals £679.72, near enough two thirds.
Either way, two thirds or three quarters, it's a mad way to bet.
Dave: What you're arguing is that if you make an 8/1 shot even money, the Kelly system forces you to revise your pricing, for no other reason than you can't afford to use your staking system. Not because you've overlooked something. What if you go over the event again, and still make the 8/1 shot even money? What do you do now? The only option is to abandon Kelly.
but if you are a serious gambler then you are not all on a bet, no matter how good the odds offered are.
Thinking back to George Baker falling off in the Flying childers, nothing is a cert.
Plus if you don't have a workable edge, ie you are getting 4/1 on an even money shot, then give up gambling and look on it as recreational punting.
Do it down the pub and if you win buy a round and if you loose put it down to a good night out.
Thinking back to George Baker falling off in the Flying childers, nothing is a cert.
Plus if you don't have a workable edge, ie you are getting 4/1 on an even money shot, then give up gambling and look on it as recreational punting.
Do it down the pub and if you win buy a round and if you loose put it down to a good night out.
There are a few plays I've been involved in that have been practical certainties, ie barring an act of god. Due to most participants not fully understanding what they are betting on. They are obviously infrequent, and your stakes are still limited in regard to what you can get down. Not sports related, though.
Dave: What you're arguing is that if you make an 8/1 shot even money, the Kelly system forces you to revise your pricing, for no other reason than you can't afford to use your staking system.
No I'm not. Kelly is about optimal growth. If you want to increase your capital at the fastest rate, you put the amount suggested on your selection. It doesn't matter what happens in the short term.
I was being flippant (see cider in ear) with my comment about even money shots available at 8-1. Kelly also doesn't understand that you have eat, so while increasing your capital at the fastest rate, you need to make arrangements for that.
No I'm not. Kelly is about optimal growth. If you want to increase your capital at the fastest rate, you put the amount suggested on your selection. It doesn't matter what happens in the short term.
I was being flippant (see cider in ear) with my comment about even money shots available at 8-1. Kelly also doesn't understand that you have eat, so while increasing your capital at the fastest rate, you need to make arrangements for that.
It's just theory isn't it. They will never legislate for people legitimately and systematically trying to profit from gambling anyway. So it's moot.
If I recall correctly, one of those times I was hitting my betfair exposure limit. In regular times, I don't ordinarily bet over £100. One of those opportunities was so great, I was trying to bet in k's on any platform that would take the cash (including bfex). I doubt I would be able to do it again, in the unlikely event of a similar opportunity arising.
If I recall correctly, one of those times I was hitting my betfair exposure limit. In regular times, I don't ordinarily bet over £100. One of those opportunities was so great, I was trying to bet in k's on any platform that would take the cash (including bfex). I doubt I would be able to do it again, in the unlikely event of a similar opportunity arising.
Read Harry Findlays book watched a few videos and I have to say that I like the man without meeting him, the only thing I can’t work out is how he gets so much money on
simple 1kev . if you are considered a long term mug punter you will get on . the key is long term . bookmakers will think that way . lots of punters dont .
Read Gambling for life by Harry F and read Public enemy No 1 by Patrick Veitch.
Then ask yourself if you had a spare 50 large, who would you ask to invest it.
Then ask yourself if you had a spare 50 large, who would you ask to invest it.
You are probably right Doctor, but what a hard read the Veitch book was.!
10 million….and millions on the all blacks…..zzzz
A person with a 42inch @rse climbs down a 6 inch chimney every Xmas eve ffs…..
A person with a 42inch @rse climbs down a 6 inch chimney every Xmas eve ffs…..
Unless it was Mr Curley or a trainer eg Mr Hills any other professional punter with a high profile ie big mouth I'm no fan of; a successful punter is intelligently quiet and modest whilst executing their next betting strategy. They do not tell the world and whoever willing to listen how it's done until near retirement or retirement.
They turn to other means for fuel books,tv and other…..
Mind you it’s all down to bottle if you have the cash would you have the bottle to ask for an even 20 large or any other ?
Plus can you deal with a loss mentality supposing you still have plenty of funds….
Plus can you deal with a loss mentality supposing you still have plenty of funds….
formoftheace 30 Sep 23 09:29
Mind you it’s all down to bottle if you have the cash would you have the bottle to ask for an even 20 large or any other ?
Plus can you deal with a loss mentality supposing you still have plenty of funds…
A proper gambler can easily deal with losing streaks but if not then you really shouldn't be having bets.
Mind you it’s all down to bottle if you have the cash would you have the bottle to ask for an even 20 large or any other ?
Plus can you deal with a loss mentality supposing you still have plenty of funds…
A proper gambler can easily deal with losing streaks but if not then you really shouldn't be having bets.
apparently the best punters are those who turn large fortunes in to small fortunes as long as they can boast about some big wins in between, 
formoftheace 30 Sep 23 10:32
All in the mind and not the pocket….imo
Losing streaks for real and not in the mind.
All in the mind and not the pocket….imo
Losing streaks for real and not in the mind.
poster 25 Dec 05
apparently the best punters are those who turn large fortunes in to small fortunes as long as they can boast about some big wins in between
nailed it
apparently the best punters are those who turn large fortunes in to small fortunes as long as they can boast about some big wins in between
nailed it
I cannot imagine being a "pro" punter and not betting in 10's of thousands.
Potts didn’t punt in thousands,or Nevison and probably countless others
If I see The Anorak at Salisbury on Thursday, I must ask him for a loan ...
cacique 30 Sep 23 13:24
Potts that made his money from mining..
Different Potts
Potts that made his money from mining..
Different Potts
Quixall what planet have you been on? Dave Nevison not betting in thousands when he was doing it for a living is like saying you are successful at football betting!!!
Btw the Anorak got the hump because I mentioned that Dave was critical about how small Alans stakes were, I thought it was common knowledge at the time tbf.
Btw the Anorak got the hump because I mentioned that Dave was critical about how small Alans stakes were, I thought it was common knowledge at the time tbf.
Sep 30, 2023 -- 1:59PM, formoftheace wrote:
cacique 30 Sep 23 13:24
Good point about kidology to get the money on. If they think Harry is out of control he gets the big money on ( or he did before recent nonsense )
I’m very confident Nevison wasn’t punting in thousands
Maybe the odd bet but I reckon between a monkey and a grand….occasionally
I remember him on the Scottish tracks and a few down south and can’t remember him punting large
You notice things in the betting ring Cagliari…..
His fav saying to people when they asked him a question……”the favourite “ ffs
His fav saying to people when they asked him a question……”the favourite “ ffs
What was he carrying when you saw him, he was never without it? And btw unlikely you would have seen him placing many bets.hth
Accounts I think…..probably cash it makes you feel good. I did see a lot of big players on course,bigger players than Nevo
Last time I saw him was at Musselburgh signing books….
Last time I saw him was at Musselburgh signing books….
Why would he carry accounts? It was an item that was obvious and impossible to miss.
Phone account ffs
Probably timeform book I can’t remember
Probably timeform book I can’t remember
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539