|
By:
(£75 to Dr Crippen as price doesn't matter)
I didn't say it didn't matter at all. I said you've got your priorities wrong. Decent prices won’t compensate for lousy selections. But you can get by on lousy prices if your selections are always decent. You need the confidence to know that you’re nearly always right. What does it matter if you’re getting 5/2 and the 3/1 has gone, if it wins? |
|
By:
Have any of you ever shown a profit over a long period?
|
|
By:
‘’It’s a good bet at 2/1 but 6/4 is too short,’’ what a load of bollox.
If you know it’s nailed on, anything over evens can be taken. If you can’t see that it’s nailed on, then you’re probably out of your depth. |
|
By:
Wasting your time crippen, most on here would rather claim they got value at e.g 5/1 and beaten rather than 6/4 and a winner, exactly as you say, no win = no value, same as the overound moaners who refuse to bet because they perceive the "value" is gone if it appears big.
|
|
By:
The layer has also got an opinion on price and who is to say which is correct layer or punter? It's just a matter of opinion and nothing else.
|
|
By:
hugh taylor tips win at advertised prices but lose at sp - tobymug says that doesn't matter.
|
|
By:
Some time ago I layed a dog at 1.88 and after a drift out to 3/1 it won. I commented later on the drift and was told that at least I layed at the right price. Does that mean that punters who took the 2/1 to win were mugs?
|
|
By:
Dave if you are so thick you rely on tipsters there is only one mug in town!! HTH
|
|
By:
tobymug adding poor reading comprehension to his list of deficiencies.
|
|
By:
if youd laid it rather than layed it wouldnt have won
mug bets do cop but in the long run you will do it in. hard to believe this has to be stated. you could get 9 winners on a union jack but its still the muggiest bet of all time ask a bookmaker if prices matter. or a winning punter |
|
By:
Prices only matter to both bookmaker and punter alike on the final outcome of an event, the false flag of having to obtain " Value" is a misnomer, overused by so called tipsters and pundits, the only value is in a profit whichever side you are on.
A tipster who tips a horse @ say 5/1 and the followers get on at the price have had no more value than those that can / could only get 3/1 if the tip loses? Common sense or not? If the nag wins @ 6/4 and those who backed it are in profit are they going to moan about missing the "value" or accept the profit? Makes no difference to a backer what price a horse is if it wins if they have any sense of long term profit and there are more winners than losers. Getting the "value" is a personal opinion or assessment of an event and has no bearing long term on profit and loss provided the bettor wins more than loses e.g backing 5 winners @ 6/4 returns more than 5 losers @ 10/1 that are backed into 6/4 despite Dave et al thinking they got the "Value"? Different story for a bookie doing the same which is why odds shorten obviously but as sparrow indicates, a bookies odds are just an opinion as are a punters. |
|
By:
I repeat
hugh taylor tips win at advertised prices but lose at sp - tobymug says that doesn't matter. |
|
By:
He apparently thinks that a punter backing horses at an sp of 6/4 wins the same amount as a punter backing those horses at 5/1.
|
|
By:
having a big bowl of value for me dinner tonight
|
|
By:
And tries to justify this drivel by saying when a horses loses, they lose the same amount, although an obvious tactic is available to ensure even that doesn't happen
|
|
By:
Dave are you really as thick as you portray? That apart can you provide any evidence of your assertions which I have ignored so far as the points I make are simply the facts of punting and laying?
Or perhaps are you still a Brimardon subscriber, let us know? |
|
By:
You've missed the point completely. And gone off at a tangent going on about bookies.
|
|
By:
That was meant for mitolo.
|
|
By:
I have to pick winners to win, but I also have to get the best price on those winners to win. My 4 winners today would have paid nearly 2 points less had I not taken the better prices.
|
|
By:
Ok Dave explain how " value" e.g a 33/1 loser trumps a 6/4 winner works IYO?
|
|
By:
Well for a fecking start, I can lay off the 33-1 shot to ensure I make more money that the mug who bet it at 6/4 AND not lose anything when it loses. If you are too thick to work out how that works, just remember how back in the day you would aftertime in running lays when your "tips" lost.
|
|
By:
If I roll a dice and offered the below odds, which would you back ?
1 33/1 2 6/4 3 5/1 4 5/1 5 5/1 6 5/1 I rolled a 2, well done winners. |
|
By:
If I roll a dice and offered the below odds, which would you back ?
1 33/1 2 6/4 3 5/1 4 5/1 5 5/1 6 5/1 I rolled a 2, well done winners. |
|
By:
That's a diferent matter, the odds can be easily calculated to reflect each one's chance.
|
|
By:
Bring that bull up then Dave?
Does not exist as you know but no need at this early stage for a meltdown just because you do not understand how a book works on both sides? I never mentioned backing a 33/1 shot winning @ 6/4 and the fact if it happened you could lay off, your fantasy mind at work? What I said was a 33/1 loser pays less than a 6/4 winner or do you disagree? |
|
By:
The only thing I would say about odds and value - is that it is virtually impossible to assess the precise odds of a horse, but if you are backing horses at 5-1 that go off at 6/4, your method is one that will produce far more profit than someone who backs the same horses at sp.
|
|
By:
Only if it wins!!!!!!!
NAP |
|
By:
When you back the horse you have an outcome set and a payout. Winning and losing doesn't happen till the event has concluded. Unless you are betting on **** events the only things that matters are the odds offered and odds of winning.
|
|
By:
r i g g e d events
|
|
By:
Seems like you have gone into meltdown but have accepted the event outcome as being the crux, only been laying a book for over 40 years around the Med Basin Dave and then Central Europe, long before BF.
My pastime though is backing on horse racing so maybe I learned a bit imvho? |
|
By:
That isn't too say that someone entirely ignoring odds and betting the horse he thinks is most likely to win, can't be a long term winner, but his bets are very likely to be skewed towards favourites and very likely to represent losing bets.
|
|
By:
You don't seem to have learned much if you don't think that the payout you get ultimately decides whether you are a winner or a loser.
|
|
By:
That is exactly the point you miss i.e got the value but no pay out!!!
|
|
By:
You could argue that Liosa is poor value in the 1900 hrs Wolves but unless Marco wins you could question why he went there instead of Windsor, 4/1 long gone but will I be happy if he is beaten because I got the 4/1 IYO?
|
|
By:
No one has suggested that you ignore the odds entirely.
No runner is a certainty due the nature of horse racing. Anyone can see that the winners have to pay for the losers. And the further you stay from the market leaders the harder it gets. |
|
By:
stray
|
|
By:
4/1 paid zilch so kind of tells you the "value" angle / perception is complete fantasy?
|
|
By:
When you place the bet, you don't know for certain (unless the race is r i g g e d) what will happen. That's why it is called gambling.
Over the long term it obviously doesn't matter what odds you get, as long as you are winning at a greater rate than the odds would suggest. As I said above though, it is unlikely that a selection method that produces favourites as the most likely winners will be profitable. But that doesn't mean that on a selective basis it couldn't work. |
|
By:
Waffling about what happens when you lose and ignoring what happens when you win is idiotic
|
|
By:
You sound like the brother of Gaze, send no more funds my free advice Dave!!! HTH
|