Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Anybody come across, used? heard rumours good or bad, loved or hated these sites?
Show More
tobymug adding poor reading comprehension to his list of deficiencies.
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
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
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.
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.
I repeat
hugh taylor tips win at advertised prices but lose at sp - tobymug says that doesn't matter.
hugh taylor tips win at advertised prices but lose at sp - tobymug says that doesn't matter.
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.
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
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?
Or perhaps are you still a Brimardon subscriber, let us know?
You've missed the point completely. And gone off at a tangent going on about bookies.
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.
Ok Dave explain how " value" e.g a 33/1 loser trumps a 6/4 winner works IYO?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's a diferent matter, the odds can be easily calculated to reflect each one's chance.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
My pastime though is backing on horse racing so maybe I learned a bit imvho?
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.
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.
That is exactly the point you miss i.e got the value but no pay out!!!
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?
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.
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.
4/1 paid zilch so kind of tells you the "value" angle / perception is complete fantasy?
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.
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.
Waffling about what happens when you lose and ignoring what happens when you win is idiotic
You sound like the brother of Gaze, send no more funds my free advice Dave!!! HTH
Your advice? You have exhibited in this thead the most laughable ignorance about probability. You sound like someone who thinks winning the lottery is even money, you eother win or you don't.
It's a misconception is that you can't win long term playing the favourite.
But following favourites blindly is of course, useless, as the figures show.
But the more a selection drifts (along with its chance in many cases) the greater it's value becomes in the eyes of a value seeker.
Which goes right against the statistics.
But following favourites blindly is of course, useless, as the figures show.
But the more a selection drifts (along with its chance in many cases) the greater it's value becomes in the eyes of a value seeker.
Which goes right against the statistics.
Apr 29, 2024 -- 3:29PM, dave1357 wrote:
hugh taylor tips win at advertised prices but lose at sp - tobymug says that doesn't matter.
Dave obviously Tobymug is not correct.
the reason why people subscribe to tipsters like Hugh Taylor is to get the selections @ the best possible prices available and then profit from the information, but because he is so well known and historically so good the bookies have people who subscribe, or use him as a Mark, allow him a certain amount and then cut the prices.
Theoretically if he puts up 10 selections all @ 6/1 and all bets are the same stakes then if 2 win, he is winning 40% on his layout,
But if you did all the same selections but got on @reduced prices say 7/2 you would be losing 10% on your layout
Ultimately anybody following him who doesn’t get the initial prices but takes the 4/1 are losing short & long-term, so reality is bookies would welcome them even though they are linked to HT.
And anybody getting on at the prices HT is getting will be made a no good 0.001% SF or just get sent the CS email no more bets.
Bookies winning big time even when they are accommodating HT, and they would probably only allow him maximum £50 a bet.
Apr 29, 2024 -- 6:18PM, TameTheTiger wrote:
If I roll a dice and offered the below odds, which would you back ?1 33/12 6/43 5/14 5/15 5/16 5/1I rolled a 2, well done winners.
Spot on Tiger and the same applies if 1 is 10/1 and 2 is 3/1 or any other variant that gives you the winners odds at less than 5/1
Apr 29, 2024 -- 8:24PM, GIB2712 wrote:
Apr 29, 2024 -- 6:18PM, TameTheTiger wrote:If I roll a dice and offered the below odds, which would you back ?1 33/12 6/43 5/14 5/15 5/16 5/1I rolled a 2, well done winners.Spot on Tiger and the same applies if 1 is 10/1 and 2 is 3/1 or any other variant that gives you the winners odds at less than 5/1
typo obviously 4/1 should have been 7/2
It’s a shame tipsters like Taylor and Pricewise are so far in front of typical punters with regard to picking winners.
But for those with a little more knowledge of the game, tipsters like those pair can narrow the field considerably.
They can then concentrate on picking the best from their selections, with most of the hard work already done.
But of course, the value has disappeared - lol.
But for those with a little more knowledge of the game, tipsters like those pair can narrow the field considerably.
They can then concentrate on picking the best from their selections, with most of the hard work already done.
But of course, the value has disappeared - lol.
It's incredible (imo) that after 25 odd years of the forum, this kind of discussion still takes place.
Horse racing is very difficult and as such, value is admittedly very subjective - so the only way you will know if you are getting it is via your account balance over a period of time.
However if you take any scenario that is less subjective like a coin toss, a dice roll, a roulette spin, etc, etc, etc.
You simply cannot argue that there is not a 100% mathematically "correct" price and and there are also two variations of an "incorrect" price (on that is higher than the "correct" price & one that is lower. That's a fact!
As I said, horse racing is very difficult and therefore very subjective, so there isn't a solid mathematical formula for ascertaining the "mathematically correct" price - but the same still applies - there are still only three scenarios (in the long-term) and even three punters backing the exact same selections can still fall into three different categories:
1) Normally getting the mathematically "correct" price in the long term = break even or lose to commission.
2) Normally getting the "incorrect" price that is less than the "correct" price in the long term = loser.
3) Normally getting the "incorrect price that is more than the "correct" price in the long term = winner.
These are facts! When the subject matter is very objective (a coin toss, roulette spin, dice roll, etc) you cannot dispute that these are facts. Just because the subject matter is more subjective (horse racing) doesn't suddenly mean that you can dispute them!
Betfair SP isn't an all-knowing, all-seeing genius for every event that takes place - but if you persistently beat it over a long period of time - you will win - no matter what your selections!
If you bet at 10% under over a long period of time - you will lose - no matter what your selections!
Horse racing is very difficult and as such, value is admittedly very subjective - so the only way you will know if you are getting it is via your account balance over a period of time.
However if you take any scenario that is less subjective like a coin toss, a dice roll, a roulette spin, etc, etc, etc.
You simply cannot argue that there is not a 100% mathematically "correct" price and and there are also two variations of an "incorrect" price (on that is higher than the "correct" price & one that is lower. That's a fact!
As I said, horse racing is very difficult and therefore very subjective, so there isn't a solid mathematical formula for ascertaining the "mathematically correct" price - but the same still applies - there are still only three scenarios (in the long-term) and even three punters backing the exact same selections can still fall into three different categories:
1) Normally getting the mathematically "correct" price in the long term = break even or lose to commission.
2) Normally getting the "incorrect" price that is less than the "correct" price in the long term = loser.
3) Normally getting the "incorrect price that is more than the "correct" price in the long term = winner.
These are facts! When the subject matter is very objective (a coin toss, roulette spin, dice roll, etc) you cannot dispute that these are facts. Just because the subject matter is more subjective (horse racing) doesn't suddenly mean that you can dispute them!
Betfair SP isn't an all-knowing, all-seeing genius for every event that takes place - but if you persistently beat it over a long period of time - you will win - no matter what your selections!
If you bet at 10% under over a long period of time - you will lose - no matter what your selections!
The only thing more incredible than this "discussion" still taking place 25 years after the forum started - is that I just spent 10 minutes of my life typing all that^
Getting back on topic (tipsters). The way "tipsters" have evolved over the last 20 years also confirms that price is the only thing that matters!
Hugh Taylor, price-wise and a couple of others are among the more reputable and I enjoy reading (some of) their thoughts with regard to how they analyse a race and how they arrive at a selection.
But realistically, they are no different to the shysters of old. The shysters of old would feed you false information regarding their past record i.e. they would after-time winners. The modern day "tipster" is slightly more sophisticated, they don't after-time winners, they after-time (fictional) prices!
Showing a level stake profit at "advised" prices is a completely different matter to showing a level stake profit at "available" prices.
So as dave1357 has pointed out, price is the only thing that matters - because the guy always getting the "advised" prices to his desired stake (if there even is such a guy) is likely a winner - the guy taking "available" prices is likely a loser.
Hugh Taylor, price-wise and a couple of others are among the more reputable and I enjoy reading (some of) their thoughts with regard to how they analyse a race and how they arrive at a selection.
But realistically, they are no different to the shysters of old. The shysters of old would feed you false information regarding their past record i.e. they would after-time winners. The modern day "tipster" is slightly more sophisticated, they don't after-time winners, they after-time (fictional) prices!
Showing a level stake profit at "advised" prices is a completely different matter to showing a level stake profit at "available" prices.
So as dave1357 has pointed out, price is the only thing that matters - because the guy always getting the "advised" prices to his desired stake (if there even is such a guy) is likely a winner - the guy taking "available" prices is likely a loser.
Yes, and you're no nearer to solving the puzzle than you were 25 years ago.
Things aren't what they used to be in the glory years but I'm STILL doing ok thanks DC.
There are horses for tipping and horses for backing.
Hugh Taylor is paid to supply tips on a daily basis.
The ones he backs with his own money might be very few. That’s if he bets.
I don’t know if he bets at all.
Hugh Taylor is paid to supply tips on a daily basis.
The ones he backs with his own money might be very few. That’s if he bets.
I don’t know if he bets at all.
This price debate took off around the start of the exchange with the so called arbers betting early and laying back on here. Many people thought they had discovered the road to riches but all they did was spoil matters for others. I never understood why people who played seriously and studied form could ever give money to these shysters but just me call me old fashioned.
Dr Crippen - you have an account that is in (life-time) deficit yes? We both know it.
Now go back and add 10% onto all the prices you ever took. Evens becomes 11/10, 5/1 becomes 11/2, 20/1 becomes 22/1, 50/1 becomes 55/1 etc. Hey presto, you have recovered all your losses and maybe even have a winning account!
Hugh is at least a good read - but Gaze was top of the league one month on some shyster site and even got some subscribers (allegedly). That tells you all you need to know about most "tipsters".
Now go back and add 10% onto all the prices you ever took. Evens becomes 11/10, 5/1 becomes 11/2, 20/1 becomes 22/1, 50/1 becomes 55/1 etc. Hey presto, you have recovered all your losses and maybe even have a winning account!
Hugh is at least a good read - but Gaze was top of the league one month on some shyster site and even got some subscribers (allegedly). That tells you all you need to know about most "tipsters".
sparrow, by that reasoning, you could call everybody that is a winner a shyster. They are all just doing whatever it takes to get the best price that they can. I have more admiration for what you just described than I do for a "time traveller" - but both are just doing whatever it take to get ahead (get the best price) and win.
Great couple of posts TM but be careful banging your head against that brick wall as it'll eventually crack.
Always believed that the term value is just simply a posh word for personal opinion ( unless mathematically proven ) and will always be subjective enough to mean different things to different people in all walks of life.
If we all identified where this thing called value existed then there'd be no exchange as one punters perception of a value back is another persons lay.
Good luck today all
Always believed that the term value is just simply a posh word for personal opinion ( unless mathematically proven ) and will always be subjective enough to mean different things to different people in all walks of life.
If we all identified where this thing called value existed then there'd be no exchange as one punters perception of a value back is another persons lay.
Good luck today all
Now go back and add 10% onto all the prices you ever took...
Agreed, but that's where your thinking goes wrong.
In your fictitious account, if you could reduce your losers by 10% without eliminating too many winners. How would that look?
See the difference; trying to improve selections, instead of improving the prices of p!ss poor selections. Which are simply used as an excuse for losing.
As you’ve just demonstrated for us.
Agreed, but that's where your thinking goes wrong.
In your fictitious account, if you could reduce your losers by 10% without eliminating too many winners. How would that look?
See the difference; trying to improve selections, instead of improving the prices of p!ss poor selections. Which are simply used as an excuse for losing.
As you’ve just demonstrated for us.
Punters will always find some excuse for losing. Lack of discipline, chasing loses, and now the daddy of them all - cramped prices.
Yet it all comes down to one thing - the loser doesn't know enough to begin with.
Hugh Tayler can do it, so why can't we? The answer is above.
Yet it all comes down to one thing - the loser doesn't know enough to begin with.
Hugh Tayler can do it, so why can't we? The answer is above.
Dr Crippen30 Apr 24 12:01Joined: 16 Apr 02 | Topic/replies: 55,411 | Blogger: Dr Crippen's blog
Agreed, but that's where your thinking goes wrong.
In your fictitious account, if you could reduce your losers by 10% without eliminating too many winners. How would that look?
See the difference; trying to improve selections, instead of improving the prices of p!ss poor selections. Which are simply used as an excuse for losing.
As you’ve just demonstrated for us.
We don't have to "improve selections" ffs, we could both have exactly the same selections - but if I get them at average 10/3 and you get them at average 3/1, I will win more or lose less than you!
Just the same as Pricewise at "advised" prices versus Pricewise at "available" prices!
Agreed, but that's where your thinking goes wrong.
In your fictitious account, if you could reduce your losers by 10% without eliminating too many winners. How would that look?
See the difference; trying to improve selections, instead of improving the prices of p!ss poor selections. Which are simply used as an excuse for losing.
As you’ve just demonstrated for us.
We don't have to "improve selections" ffs, we could both have exactly the same selections - but if I get them at average 10/3 and you get them at average 3/1, I will win more or lose less than you!
Just the same as Pricewise at "advised" prices versus Pricewise at "available" prices!
Just to add - I can "beat the price" i.e. it is actually possible to do, it can be done on every selection in every race, everyday. I can't do it that well (sadly), but it is possible and winners do it often enough to make it pay. You can only eliminate your losing selections after the race!
You can only eliminate your losing selections after the race!
Rather like Gaze does when he's making everything fit just right for the next holy grail
Rather like Gaze does when he's making everything fit just right for the next holy grail
It goes without saying that everybody seeks to obtain the best price about their selection. No one is arguing with that.
That is different to letting the price choose the horse for you.
How many times have we heard - ''I fancy this one, but it's too short?'' Then that horse wins.
A very successful punter I used to hang out with wouldn't bet if his selection wasn't backed. And he always bet the market leader. So he never got what they call value.
He went in the opposite direction ''the price is too big, there's not enough confidence behind it''
We all have our different ways of doing things. But for me finding the winner comes above all else.
That is different to letting the price choose the horse for you.
How many times have we heard - ''I fancy this one, but it's too short?'' Then that horse wins.
A very successful punter I used to hang out with wouldn't bet if his selection wasn't backed. And he always bet the market leader. So he never got what they call value.
He went in the opposite direction ''the price is too big, there's not enough confidence behind it''
We all have our different ways of doing things. But for me finding the winner comes above all else.
Dr Crippen30 Apr 24 14:06Joined: 16 Apr 02 | Topic/replies: 55,412 | Blogger: Dr Crippen's blog
We all have our different ways of doing things. But for me finding the winner comes above all else.
That's logical for sure but it's the kind of thinking that saw Thommo get beaten by a dog in a tipping contest!
On any individual/single race (in the win only market) of course the only thing that matters is finding the winner - but over a lifetime of your chosen races the only thing that matters is the price.
When Hugh Taylor or the current Price-wise incumbent tip you one up, they aren't saying "this is the winner for sure" - they are saying "at that price it's worth a bet because over time (at that price) I will end up being ahead.
Sadly that price doesn't actually exist!
We all have our different ways of doing things. But for me finding the winner comes above all else.
That's logical for sure but it's the kind of thinking that saw Thommo get beaten by a dog in a tipping contest!
On any individual/single race (in the win only market) of course the only thing that matters is finding the winner - but over a lifetime of your chosen races the only thing that matters is the price.
When Hugh Taylor or the current Price-wise incumbent tip you one up, they aren't saying "this is the winner for sure" - they are saying "at that price it's worth a bet because over time (at that price) I will end up being ahead.
Sadly that price doesn't actually exist!
You can only eliminate your losing selections after the race!
So how can you change the price if it starts to drift after you’ve taken it?
There's plenty you can do to cut down losers. You can stop backing half-chances for a start if you're doing that. They always cost you in the long run.
You can set minimum requirements for your selections.
So how can you change the price if it starts to drift after you’ve taken it?
There's plenty you can do to cut down losers. You can stop backing half-chances for a start if you're doing that. They always cost you in the long run.
You can set minimum requirements for your selections.
When Hugh Taylor or the current Price-wise incumbent tip you one up, they aren't saying "this is the winner for sure" - they are saying "at that price it's worth a bet because over time (at that price) I will end up being ahead.
Yes I can see that, it's the same principle as getting 6/4 on the toss of a coin.
And the same way the tipster I mentioned on Gibs other thread yesterday at 12:26, used to operate with rank outsiders.
Yes I can see that, it's the same principle as getting 6/4 on the toss of a coin.
And the same way the tipster I mentioned on Gibs other thread yesterday at 12:26, used to operate with rank outsiders.
I did a form check on H. Taylors selections yesterday out of interest.
His first loser was won by the raceform selection, backed from 7 into 5.
His drifted from 7 out to 9.
His second loser finished last and went from 9 to 11.
The winner here was backed from 8 into 7.
His third selection Magnificent Match looked the business in this situation, but in a race full of unpredictable 3yos.
Even after running what looks like an improvement on his previous run, he lost as well, after drifting a tad.
Again the winner was backed, this time from 16 into 6.
As you can see, you would not have had a problem getting on at the advertised prices on all three of his selections.
His first loser was won by the raceform selection, backed from 7 into 5.
His drifted from 7 out to 9.
His second loser finished last and went from 9 to 11.
The winner here was backed from 8 into 7.
His third selection Magnificent Match looked the business in this situation, but in a race full of unpredictable 3yos.
Even after running what looks like an improvement on his previous run, he lost as well, after drifting a tad.
Again the winner was backed, this time from 16 into 6.
As you can see, you would not have had a problem getting on at the advertised prices on all three of his selections.
Yes I can see that, it's the same principle as getting 6/4 on the toss of a coin.
Except that horse racing results aren't entirely random.
And there are many false favourites. Which is why punters study form.
Except that horse racing results aren't entirely random.
And there are many false favourites. Which is why punters study form.
Some old boy on you tube has been calling a few tipsters out, one of them has disappeared again Sandrovitch.
"Some old boy on you tube has been calling a few tipsters out, one of them has disappeared again Sandrovitch".
Remember him from years ago at least 20 years or so, large adverts in the sporting press with a picture of him looking into a crystal ball 'The Vision of Sandrovitch !' And in his own words "A Mastermind of Betting" Remember he was tipping football and cricket bets.
Remember him from years ago at least 20 years or so, large adverts in the sporting press with a picture of him looking into a crystal ball 'The Vision of Sandrovitch !' And in his own words "A Mastermind of Betting" Remember he was tipping football and cricket bets.
Oh deary me..
If price is not EVERYTHING, then how do you explain the below table ?
The ONLY difference between loss or profit in the table below is the price you struck your bet.
Bets Wins P/L SP P/L BSP
29,092 7,063 -1,952.04 273.17
If price is not EVERYTHING, then how do you explain the below table ?
The ONLY difference between loss or profit in the table below is the price you struck your bet.
Bets Wins P/L SP P/L BSP
29,092 7,063 -1,952.04 273.17
Oneten when did you last have a reality check that highlights idiots betting at SP whatever genre'?
There is no difference between winning or losing st SPs other than the rate at which punters win more often than lose which is why layers / bookies win more often than they lose!!! HTH
There is no difference between winning or losing st SPs other than the rate at which punters win more often than lose which is why layers / bookies win more often than they lose!!! HTH
Of course the price is important, but for the horse to win is essential.
I don't think there's a punter in the land who'd take a shorter price than the one they can get.
If price is not EVERYTHING
It has to win first.
Most people struggle to find winners, let alone dictate the prices they back them at.
That is the myth of value in a price. It's nothing more than a smart phrase invented by tipsters to explain long losing runs, ''keep getting value and you can't help but win in the long run.'' Except you don't.
The second get out is ''if only you could get on at the early price.'' Which is another excuse for a poor win to lose ratio.
Because what you see as value, another punter will see as red warning light.
I see Hugh Taylors first selection today was easy to back again. I thought they all shortened when he tipped them?
I don't think there's a punter in the land who'd take a shorter price than the one they can get.
If price is not EVERYTHING
It has to win first.
Most people struggle to find winners, let alone dictate the prices they back them at.
That is the myth of value in a price. It's nothing more than a smart phrase invented by tipsters to explain long losing runs, ''keep getting value and you can't help but win in the long run.'' Except you don't.
The second get out is ''if only you could get on at the early price.'' Which is another excuse for a poor win to lose ratio.
Because what you see as value, another punter will see as red warning light.
I see Hugh Taylors first selection today was easy to back again. I thought they all shortened when he tipped them?
Dr Crippen
Hugh Taylor has proven his tipping historically is a guaranteed long term profit provider, he is and has been transparent with his column for years, people subscribe because of that fact, and it’s all been visible to be proofed by anyone.
but that doesn’t mean individually that all his horses will start shorter it means that when the bookies honour his bets a very high % of them get reduced immediately has nothing to do with the SP or exchanges, the punters online who follow him in are linked and have their accounts SF accordingly and they will definitely not be on BOG
The post I did the other day gives the theoretical long-term value of how he can win, and his followers can lose which is the reason why they are allowed bets at the reduced odd, so reality is bookies would welcome them even though they are linked to HT.
I am certain there are people on the exchanges who profit from laying his selections at these reduced prices and think he’s rubbish.
Most subscribers and followers follow him blindly because of his reputation and he guarantees consistent returns and probably never even notice whether they are in long term profit or not just that its better than they do themselves.
Hugh Taylor has proven his tipping historically is a guaranteed long term profit provider, he is and has been transparent with his column for years, people subscribe because of that fact, and it’s all been visible to be proofed by anyone.
but that doesn’t mean individually that all his horses will start shorter it means that when the bookies honour his bets a very high % of them get reduced immediately has nothing to do with the SP or exchanges, the punters online who follow him in are linked and have their accounts SF accordingly and they will definitely not be on BOG
The post I did the other day gives the theoretical long-term value of how he can win, and his followers can lose which is the reason why they are allowed bets at the reduced odd, so reality is bookies would welcome them even though they are linked to HT.
I am certain there are people on the exchanges who profit from laying his selections at these reduced prices and think he’s rubbish.
Most subscribers and followers follow him blindly because of his reputation and he guarantees consistent returns and probably never even notice whether they are in long term profit or not just that its better than they do themselves.
Dr Crippen01 May 24 18:17Joined: 16 Apr 02 | Topic/replies: 55,431 | Blogger: Dr Crippen's blog
Of course the price is important, but for the horse to win is essential.
If you are having £1 million on a single selection (ask Harry Findlay how that worked out for him!), this is true, it would just be essential that your selection wins.
Not amny people are doing that imo - The much more likely way that winning punters will stake £1 million is via hundreds/thousands of bets with a slightly positive expectation. Some losers are inevitable via that (much more realistic and less stressful) route.
Of course the price is important, but for the horse to win is essential.
If you are having £1 million on a single selection (ask Harry Findlay how that worked out for him!), this is true, it would just be essential that your selection wins.
Not amny people are doing that imo - The much more likely way that winning punters will stake £1 million is via hundreds/thousands of bets with a slightly positive expectation. Some losers are inevitable via that (much more realistic and less stressful) route.
I wasn't knocking the tips that appear in Hugh Taylor's column.
I simply commented on the fact that all the tips from that source given in the last few days drifted in the market and got beat.
A word of warning to anyone who are impressed by claims of profit.
Beware of any method or tipster who doesn't give their results at SP.
If they don’t give the profit or loss at SP, then why not?
I simply commented on the fact that all the tips from that source given in the last few days drifted in the market and got beat.
A word of warning to anyone who are impressed by claims of profit.
Beware of any method or tipster who doesn't give their results at SP.
If they don’t give the profit or loss at SP, then why not?
Or rather, ask yourself why they don't.
Because that is the measure that counts.
Because that is the measure that counts.
SP is irrelevant, BFSP is Irrelevant, Early price is irrelevant, the Tote return is irrelevant.
The only price that matters is the one that you took! Someone with a big following that gives tips based on price is always going to do badly at any measure apart from "advised" price.
So we've gone full-circle. Some of the "best tipsters in the game" are only ahead of the game at fictional (unobtainable) prices.
Because....... you guessed it......... price is the only thing that matters!!
The only price that matters is the one that you took! Someone with a big following that gives tips based on price is always going to do badly at any measure apart from "advised" price.
So we've gone full-circle. Some of the "best tipsters in the game" are only ahead of the game at fictional (unobtainable) prices.
Because....... you guessed it......... price is the only thing that matters!!
Little wonder you are reduced to trolling TM, clueless that winning strike rate outdoes every "Value" priced loser!! HTH
You've got me there! - all those people losing at roulette, it's nothing to do with the prices, they just need to pick the right colour or number more often.
Move the goalposts to games of chance sum up your knowledge of betting or making a book, all you ever flap your gums about are hypotheticals!!
20 -1 0213000 CagliariG (3) Invalid selection -1.00 -£7.16 (26.09%) SR
Div 2 naps table
His altermole ego done even worse
Div 2 naps table
His altermole ego done even worse
Take heart Quixall, he has failed more times than you and never provided a single proof of any success.
Never lost a challenge yet for proofs madmutt, fancy a head to head for charity?
I'd question why anyone would get into a head to head with a banned poster who has evaded the rules of BF
For now
Giving advice on value, price & SR
Don't make me laff
Challenge yourself if so good
Prem in 3 months
If not donate
That should sort your chaff out
For now
Giving advice on value, price & SR
Don't make me laff
Challenge yourself if so good
Prem in 3 months
If not donate
That should sort your chaff out
Sorts you out as being a cowardly troll with no guts.........AGAIN!!!
Hot air tubbymug
All you got
Anyone you wish cancer on now smirf has moved on to better place ?
Tubbymug iam iam iam
Pot to p in
Failed squaddie
failed cop
Failed punter
Rast my case
All you got
Anyone you wish cancer on now smirf has moved on to better place ?
Tubbymug iam iam iam
Pot to p in
Failed squaddie
failed cop
Failed punter
Rast my case
Hotshot tubbymug
20 -1 0213000 CagliariG (3) Invalid selection -1.00 -£7.16 (26.09%) SR
Div 2 naps table
His altermole ego done even worse
20 -1 0213000 CagliariG (3) Invalid selection -1.00 -£7.16 (26.09%) SR
Div 2 naps table
His altermole ego done even worse
Hotshot tubby altarmole ego
Boy theres been a lot
Div 2 naps table
22 -1 02120-d GT Mole (3) Nighteyes - 5.00 Yarmouth Lost -1.00 -£8.71 (21.74%) SR
Boy theres been a lot
Div 2 naps table
22 -1 02120-d GT Mole (3) Nighteyes - 5.00 Yarmouth Lost -1.00 -£8.71 (21.74%) SR
Outsiders beyond your comprehension in a competition madmutt?
You are the NAFFI entrant of surviving aka No Ambition And F@ck All Intellect ,odds on just to avoid relegation, sad tbh!!!
You are the NAFFI entrant of surviving aka No Ambition And F@ck All Intellect ,odds on just to avoid relegation, sad tbh!!!
Cagliari,it’s obvious you don’t have a clue regarding value,overpriced or underlay……
Plain and simple for all to see……
Plain and simple for all to see……
Well there you go. It's easy.
First find your winners, anybody can do that, lol.
Now the only thing holding you back are prices.
So if you're getting one winner in ten, make sure that winner is at least 10/1.
And two winners in ten requires two winners over 4/1. Let's say 9/2 for comfort.
We've cracked it!
Barbados here we come.
First find your winners, anybody can do that, lol.
Now the only thing holding you back are prices.
So if you're getting one winner in ten, make sure that winner is at least 10/1.
And two winners in ten requires two winners over 4/1. Let's say 9/2 for comfort.
We've cracked it!
Barbados here we come.
Except you can't find the winners let alone choose your own prices.
You've made a fair point there Dr C (imo) - which possibly explains why of the
You've made a fair point there Dr C (imo) - which possibly explains why of the
Last try ffs!
You've made a fair point there Dr C (imo) - which possibly explains why of the less than 1% of people on here that are consistently making it pay, probably more than 90% of them aren't doing it by trying to select (pre-race) the winner of a horse race!
They are betting on prices, not selections.
You've made a fair point there Dr C (imo) - which possibly explains why of the less than 1% of people on here that are consistently making it pay, probably more than 90% of them aren't doing it by trying to select (pre-race) the winner of a horse race!
They are betting on prices, not selections.
The outcome (the winner) is often going to be of very little interest to them.
Some of my best wins have emanated from backing a losing selection 
I once spent about 7 hours rooting for a snooker player I don't like - because I had £50.50 green on him and only £50.25 on the other guy! 
Should have level greened the odd 25p TM and gone out for the day 
I'm old-school Hayden
I still enjoy the buzz that the extra 25p gives me!
I still enjoy the buzz that the extra 25p gives me!
At my age i don't like to take on too much variance - but you've got to have a little bit if you want to feel alive
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539