Punting - why value is the key

ft9

Overthelast wrote: »

Colonel/Huntey -

Apologies to interrupt the debate but I have a question - is it possible you are both right?

ie Colonels op is a mathematical fact but Huntey can ignore value given his method of punting & still come out a winner (ignoring the exteme's of backing odds on shots)?

No both can't possibly be right as Colonel is completely dismissing Huntleys success and putting it down to 'fluke'.

faoile@n

faoile@n wrote: »

Huntley you appear to be changing tack as the thread evolves.

Do you still think the following is true from the Grandouet thread?

..... He said the same thing days ago.

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

No both can't possibly be right as Colonel is completely dismissing Huntleys success and putting it down to 'fluke'.

No I'm not which you would see if you
1. Had a clue what you're talking about (your last post on this thread indicated you don't, or found the concepts too hard)
2. actually read what I said

ft9

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

No I'm not which you would see if you
1. Had a clue what you're talking about (your last post on this thread indicated you don't, or found the concepts too hard)
2. actually read what I said

No one know's anything only you, seemingly. I closed all my online accounts recently and the majority were money making accounts. So I must have been flukey to make money in the few years I spent gambling online as I don't have a clue according to you. And Huntley has been very successful too and you are completely dismissing him.

You referred me to a post about tossing coins. I have no interest in discussing tossing coins with you.

The more this thread goes on you get more nasty as someone doesn't agree with you.

RichieLawlor

RichieLawless wrote: »

No one know's anything only you, seemingly. I closed all my online accounts recently and the majority were money making accounts. So I must have been flukey to make money in the few years I spent gambling online as I don't have a clue according to you. And Huntley has been very successful too and you are completely dismissing him.

You referred me to a post about tossing coins. I have no interest in discussing tossing coins with you.

The more this thread goes on you get more nasty as someone doesn't agree with you.

It's not Colonel Sanders that you have to agree with. It's a statistical fact. It's not his opinion.

The coin toss was an EXAMPLE, of what he is saying. The fact you can't comprehend that is frankly baffling.

Overthelast

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

No I'm not which you would see if you
1. Had a clue what you're talking about (your last post on this thread indicated you don't, or found the concepts too hard)
2. actually read what I said

Ok. Mr X focuses on backing winners. In doing do, to make a profit, he is implicitly getting value, although that does not form part of his decision making in backing a horse ie he focuses solely on form & finding a winning opportunity.

The reason I ask is I have a friend who is quite similar to Huntey (in punting terms) - I see you Colonel spotting price differentials/arb opportunities all the time (a lot quicker than I'd ever spot them) but my mate couldn't give a fiddlers about these in selecting his fights with bookies. He focuses solely (and very successfully) on trying to pick winners. He restricts himself to betting on track at the same 5 or 6 meetings each yr & makes money consistently. While he is getting value, for him, its not key or his focus.

I understand fully & agree with the mathematical facts you have stated - but I can see how a punter can be very successful by just focusing on picking their X no of "fights" per yr with the layers by selecting horses purely based on form. For them, finding value is secondary. Their implicity getting value, but its not "key" to their success.

ft9

RichieLawlor wrote: »

It's not Colonel Sanders that you have to agree with. It's a statistical fact. It's not his opinion.

The coin toss was an EXAMPLE, of what he is saying. The fact you can't comprehend that is frankly baffling.

I can comprehend the example of a coin toss with relation to value. But coins have no form, jockey, optimum trip, preferable ground, fences to jump.

Have me and Huntley been lucky with our gambling to date?

Slattsy

RichieLawless wrote: »

I can comprehend the example of a coin toss with relation to value. But coins have no form, jockey, optimum trip, preferable ground, fences to jump.

+1

RichieLawlor

RichieLawless wrote: »

I can comprehend the example of a coin toss with relation to value. But coins have no form, jockey, optimum trip, preferable ground, fences to jump.

Have me and Huntley been lucky with our gambling to date?

You actually don't understand. I'm not being dismissive here but you really don't get it.

Just answer this. If someone tosses a coin ten times and you are backing heads every time at 4/6 and win every time is it a good bet. You win all ten but have taken 4/6 on the bet.

ft9

RichieLawlor wrote: »

You actually don't understand. I'm not being dismissive here but you really don't get it.

Just answer this. If someone tosses a coin ten times and you are backing heads every time at 4/6 and win every time is it a good bet. You win all ten but have taken 4/6 on the bet.

I really do understand Richie, it's simple stuff. No it's not a good bet. But coins have no form, jockey, optimum trip, preferable ground, fences to jump. + many other factors.

faoile@n

Seeing as the coin toss EXAMPLE isn't sufficient answer me this...

Arsenal play West Ham at home tomorrow night.

Form analysis, Manager history, Available players known in advance etc: CHECK
Weather forecast available in advance: CHECK
Arsenal are the most likely winners: CHECK
Value isn't as important as picking winners: CHECK

If I offer you 1/100 that Arsenal will win would you back them?

If not why not?

Answers on a postcard...

RoverJames

RoverJames wrote: »

............the bookies price up the vast majority of events consistently...................

faoile@n wrote: »

............
Arsenal play West Ham at home tomorrow night.

..............If I offer you 1/100 that Arsenal will win would you back them?

If not why not?

.........

That was an easy one.

Here's one for you, what price should Arsenel be in your opinion?

If you don't know you can use any future sporting event for illustration purposes once there's a market offer to use as comparison.

ft9

I'm not saying value is irrelevant, I am not debating that. It does play a small part in my gambling.

It's the attitude of the thread I have issue with, and these feckin coin tosses. I'm presuming that the coin toss is just being used as you think people don't understand what value is and you are aware it has nothing to do with racing?

Colonel Sanders

Before I respond to a few heated posts note the following:

I stated in the OP that you cannot win money in the long run without obtaining value, my definition of value (which I thought was the generally accepted definition) was bets that have +EV

The reason I say this is the fundamental element of gambling is that it is mathematically rigourous. All attempts to either prove me "wrong" or put forward alternative "fundamentals" have not been mathematically rigourous. I am being asked to contemplate something as fundamental on the basis of a finite number of finite series.

Other posters may be able to accept such "evidence" as fundamental, I can't. This is not meant to be arrogant or confrontational btw

So there is the reason I believe value to be the fundamental to gambling and have rejected all other attempts to say something different is "fundamental"

Also some people have stated they have no problem with the law of large numbers but do have a problem with stating value is fundamental. If you think really hard about it that is a contradictory viewpoint

Colonel Sanders

Huntley wrote: »

I have never stated that the law of large numbers is incorrect. I have said that your application of such theories being the most fundamental aspect in this circumstance is flawed.

This is actually a contradictory view btw. (

Huntley wrote: »

My evidence of being able to follow this and show a positive RoI is through my own methods, two separate logs on here are proof of that. You regard that as merely down to luck or a fluke

Incorrect, what I stated was:

If you have shown a +ive RoI over a long time period you have either
1. been lucky
2. have implicitly only backed what you deem the likeliest winner if you think the odds are in your favour (and have, on average, been proved correct)

There is a probability, p, attached to 1 and a probability 1-p attached to 2. Th longer the number of bets the +ive RoI is based on the smaller I'd belive p to be (however it is never zero)

Huntley wrote: »

Again, I still think that this whole topic is subjective which is why your insistence on merely acknowledging your own view as 'correct' has resulted in my loss of interest debating with you

I view them as "correct" as they are rigourous mathematical results

Huntley wrote: »

My own evidence of not adhering to your view whilst still showing to prove successful isn't satisfactory enough for you because there isn't a mathematical equation to support it

You're "evidence" has been addressed above. You have actually "proved" nothing

Morgans said:

The key is picking the horse you think will win the race AND that horse representing value for long term success.

which you agree with

Huntley wrote: »

The difference is that I regard the first part as more fundamental to successful gambling and Colonel Sanders gives more credence to the second part.

You have previously stated that you give 100% credibility to the first part in fact you said:

Huntley wrote: »

What value is there in a losing selection? In my opinion, there is none.

Huntley wrote: »

any winning selection is a value bet

But then you say

Huntley wrote: »

It isn't difficult to take account of both opinions (not facts), as you have done so yourself. The only one struggling to do so is Colonel Sanders, who is insistent on repeating his stance without acknowledging the flip side of the coin.

So you do not believe the statement "you cannot win in the long run unless you obtain value"?

If you don't obtain value you will lose in the long run no matter what your strike rate (NB if you're betting on uncertain events the probability of a 100% strike rate in the long run is 0)

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

I think that there is a tiny minority of people who could do it due to knowing more than the rest of us. Again, I'm a firm believer that the bookies price up the vast majority of events consistently.

I believe there to be none

RoverJames wrote: »

I
To decide are these few punters lucky, value hunters or excellent form interpreters isn't really for you or me to decide.

I'm repeating myself but this view is backed up by wht I outlined in my OP, which you claim to agree with

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

No both can't possibly be right as Colonel is completely dismissing Huntleys success and putting it down to 'fluke'.

Incorrect what I said was:

If you have shown a +ive RoI over a long time period you have either
1. been lucky
2. have implicitly only backed what you deem the likeliest winner if you think the odds are in your favour (and have, on average, been proved correct)

RichieLawless wrote: »

No one know's anything only you, seemingly.

Where have I said that? What I have said is no one has presented an alternative view to my OP based on anything but what is effectively conjecture

RichieLawless wrote: »

I closed all my online accounts recently and the majority were money making accounts. So I must have been flukey to make money in the few years I spent gambling online as I don't have a clue according to you. And Huntley has been very successful too and you are completely dismissing him.

See the post above where you accused me of calling Huntley's succes a "fluke"

RichieLawless wrote: »

You referred me to a post about tossing coins. I have no interest in discussing tossing coins with you.

I referred you to post where I stated I had quoted statements Huntley had made that were incorrect as you requested me to do. That post contained examples using coin tosses.

RichieLawless wrote: »

The more this thread goes on you get more nasty as someone doesn't agree with you.

I am not getting "nasty", view points are being put forward that are not backed up with proof. I am merely pointing this out (repeatedly in some cases)

RichieLawless wrote: »

I can comprehend the example of a coin toss with relation to value. But coins have no form, jockey, optimum trip, preferable ground, fences to jump.

A coin toss was used as a simple example where:

1. Prior probabilities are actually known
2. EV's can be explicitly calculated
3. Any ideas being discussed can be illustrated with a numerical example

RichieLawless wrote: »

Have me and Huntley been lucky with our gambling to date?

I have answered this already

Slattsy wrote: »

+1

-1

RichieLawless wrote: »

It's the attitude of the thread I have issue with, and these feckin coin tosses.

My posts in this thread have been quite theoretical, I make no apologises for that as I am expressing a view point based on a topic conceptually easy but mathematically difficult

RichieLawless wrote: »

I'm presuming that the coin toss is just being used as you think people don't understand what value is and you are aware it has nothing to do with racing?

You presume wrong, see above

ft9

So you think a coin toss is like horse racing. That's me done on this thread.

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

So you think a coin toss is like horse racing.

Where did I say that? What I said was

A coin toss was used as a simple example where:

1. Prior probabilities are actually known
2. EV's can be explicitly calculated
3. Any ideas being discussed can be illustrated with a numerical example

1 and 2 are not true for a horse race so how you can infer that I was implying a coin toss is like a horse race is beyond me

RichieLawless wrote: »

That's me done on this thread.

Good, leave the adult thread to the adults

ft9

I said I presume you realise a coin toss has nothing to do withh racing and you said wrong.

Adults thread? There is your nasty streak again shown when your not having it your own way. Traits of a bully.

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

I believe there to be none.............

I believe you are wrong
Neither of us can prove the other is incorrect, you might like to think you can by reeling off the law of large numbers speel but that speel doesn't take into account the chance that someone knows enough to overcome the 15% bookies gross profit margin through selective punting that's winner driven, not value driven.

I actually think the following post perfectly illustrates where you are coming from...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82620620

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

................

Powers often have huge priced specials on soccer, I am not the biggest soccer fan. I price then at Betfair lay prices + an additional 10%. If they are bigger than that I back them. I keep track of:

1. The price Powers offered
2. The price implied by Betfair lay prices
3. EV assuming 2 is correct
4. P&L assuming you have their max on and also you bet them all to win €200 (€200 as the lowest price I've ever seen offered is evs, and the max bet is usually €200)
..............

No where in that selection process is any knowledge on the subject you are having a bet on, yet you no doubt reckon that's a sound strategy.

So it's quite easy for all of us to see how you can't fathom how in depth knowledge could give someone more of an edge than the tactic above.

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Good, leave the adult thread to the adults

To the other posters, this probably sounds snide and childish. However I make no apologises due to the poster stating:

No both can't possibly be right as Colonel is completely dismissing Huntleys success and putting it down to 'fluke'.

And

So you think a coin toss is like horse racing.

Both show 1 of the following:

1. the poster was responding having not even bothered to read my posts he was having a go at
2. They do not have any idea what I am talking about
3. They are deliberately trying to wind me up

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

No where in that selection process is any knowledge on the subject you are having a bet on, yet you no doubt reckon that's a sound strategy.

I didn't say I had "no doubt". There you go putting words in my mouth AGAIN

I have "very little" knowledge of the sport but a lot of knowledge of the actual market

Yes I believe the collective minds of those forming very liquid Betfair markets (+ a very generous safety margin) will result in me obtaining long run value. I believe this is sound or at least sound enough to be trialled against small % of my bank

The constant 10% add on results in higher EV being required from bets with lower expected strike rates. So far it is proving quite profitable and actual results are quite close to expected

RoverJames wrote: »

So it's quite easy for all of us to see how you can't fathom how in depth knowledge could give someone more of an edge than the tactic above.

it is quite difficult for me to fathom something that violates the law of large numbers

faoile@n

RoverJames wrote: »

That was an easy one.

Here's one for you, what price should Arsenel be in your opinion?

If you don't know you can use any future sporting event for illustration purposes once there's a market offer to use as comparison.

What does the price have to do with it? Did you not get the memo price and value are irrelevant? Its all about picking winners after all...

Now instead of dodging my perfectly legitimate question you kindly answer would you back Arsenal to beat West Ham at 1/100?

If not why not?

RichieLawlor

Honestly folks, CS is not even giving his opinion. He just stating mathematical facts.

It's not an argumentative subject.

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

I said I presume you realise a coin toss has nothing to do withh racing and you said wrong.

Where did I say this please?

The only statement you made that I said was incorrect was the following:

No both can't possibly be right as Colonel is completely dismissing Huntleys success and putting it down to 'fluke'.

RichieLawless wrote: »

Adults thread? There is your nasty streak again shown when your not having it your own way. Traits of a bully.

My own way? :rolleyes:

Colonel Sanders

faoile@n wrote: »

What does the price have to do with it? Did you not get the memo price and value are irrelevant? Its all about picking winners after all...

Now instead of dodging my perfectly legitimate question you kindly answer would you back Arsenal to beat West Ham at 1/100?

If not why not?

I asked the same question on the thread where the argument first erupted and was ignored

I asked the poster in question if he wasn't taking 1.01 why not as we'd identified the most likely winner

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawlor wrote: »

Honestly folks, CS is not even giving his opinion. He just stating mathematical facts.

It's not an argumentative subject.

wasting your time, I've tried and failed

ft9

Well you do get worked up if everyone is not agreeing with you. You are coming across as a bully imo on this thread. I have no interest in constantly arguing with you and reading your smart comments.

RichieLawlor

RichieLawless wrote: »

Well you do get worked up if everyone is not agreeing with you. You are coming across as a bully imo on this thread. I have no interest in constantly arguing with you and reading your smart comments.

It's NOT HIM you are disagreeing with. It's statistics you are arguing against.

It's like talking to a child

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

............ So far it is proving quite profitable and actual results are quite close to expected..............

If you put €200 on 1000 of those bets I'd expect a gross profit of €13,000 (ish)

You can tell us yourself how many of these qualifying bets you come across per annum, I'd be thinking the number is quite small

For sh1ts and giggles you can also tell us how correct or otherwise my estimate is

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

Well you do get worked up if everyone is not agreeing with you.

No I put out an OP, in which I outlined a viewpoint backed up by very rigourous mathematics

In response to posters who either say I am "wrong" or put up alternative theories (none of which have been backed by anything but conjecture) I respond stating why I have a problem with these viewpoints.

I have got angry once or twice tbh, mainly due to one poster who has continually put words in my mouth or on occasions where 20 posts have come and gone and we've merely gone round in circles

Any how I thought you were finished with this thread :rolleyes:

faoile@n

faoile@n wrote: »

What does the price have to do with it? ..........

All of my comments are based on the punter buying into the bookie being consistent.

No bookie will have Arsenal as a 1/100 shot, as they are largely consistent.

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

............

I asked the poster in question if he wasn't taking 1.01 why not as we'd identified the most likely winner

Same applies to you old boy, we buy into the bookie being largely consistent, so when they offer you 10% over the betfair lay price you lash on as you are presuming you are getting value despite knowing nothing about the event you are betting on.

I'm a tad dissapointed to see I made you angry once or twice. I'll reiterate, I'm putting no words in your mouth, your speel is all here and both readable and quotable by all.

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

..........

Any how I thought you were finished with this thread :rolleyes:

Sure we thought you were finished too but here you are regurgitating your college notes in strings of posts with 20 mins between them while (presumably) you consult an online or offline resource.

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

If you put €200 on 1000 of those bets I'd expect a gross profit of €13,000 (ish)

average EV (so far) is about 8-9% which is €16-18k on 1000 x €200

RoverJames wrote: »

You can tell us yourself how many of these qualifying bets you come across per annum, I'd be thinking the number is quite small

On average, one a week. Maybe slightly less when there's no football on (most of them are football but not all)

RoverJames wrote: »

For sh1ts and giggles you can also tell us how correct or otherwise my estimate is

So far (albeit on a small sample) actual RoI is slightly ahead of expected

If I can get 1000 x €200 bets on I'll report back

Huntley

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

I view them as "correct" as they are rigorous mathematical results

This is the crux of the problem, you are adamant that one cannot turn a positive RoI in the long run if they do not adhere to theories and equations.

Apart from my own personal methods, there are two logs on this site from myself that negate this. Your response being that;

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

If you have shown a +ive RoI over a long time period you have either
1. been lucky
2. have implicitly only backed what you deem the likeliest winner if you think the odds are in your favour (and have, on average, been proved correct)

Now, I have backed plenty of likely winners where the odds weren't necessarily in my favour. Provided it wasn't anything ridiculously short with a huge liability I was happy to make a bet on the likeliest winner. This then puts me into category 1 in your 'system' as being "lucky". That is a very cumbersome and general response, I would give far more credibility to the idea that other people can simply turn a positive RoI using different methods.

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

What I define the term "value" to be is not subjective. It is obtaining odds that under estimate the probability of an occurance.

How does one decipher value and obtain odds that "underestimate the probability of an occurrence"?

It is through reading and understanding race form enough to select the likeliest winner. Therefore I think that this aspect is far more fundamental as without the ability to do so then you cannot find the value. Taking ones ability to read form and select winners as (a) and value as (b), then one cannot have (b) without (a). This isn't difficult to understand and just because there is not a mathematical equation to support it doesn't make it incorrect. *Essentially my a and b model is actually an equation.

Nobody is disputing the mathematical facts, rather that they are too literal in this context and it is your opinion that they need to be applied for successful gambling.

That isn't contradictory, they were not established with the view of being synonymous with successful gambling. Others, who do not even share my view on the topic, can see its credibility as it is possible to turn a positive RoI without solely adhering to these "rigorous mathematical" equations.

ft9

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

No I put out an OP, in which I outlined a viewpoint backed up by very rigourous mathematics

In response to posters who either say I am "wrong" or put up alternative theories (none of which have been backed by anything but conjecture) I respond stating why I have a problem with these viewpoints.

I have got angry once or twice tbh, mainly due to one poster who has continually put words in my mouth or on occasions where 20 posts have come and gone and we've merely gone round in circles

Any how I thought you were finished with this thread :rolleyes:

I did say that, but came back to stand up for myself after your cheap shot.
When you are resorting to that smiley, it says it all.

Overthelast

Your being a little bit too dogmatic on reverting to your mathematical mantra.

The title states "Punting - Why Value is the Key".

I accept your well laid out fact based calculations why someone who makes a profit must be getting value in the long run.

However, I can see how "value" is not the key for someone selecting on form & making a relatively small # of bets each yr & turning a tasty profit. Without winners, value would become irrelevant - they would be broke relatively quickly if they kept backing value losers. As such, its secondary, an offshoot.

You accept that understanding your concepts is quite difficult for some yet your having a great deal of difficulty understanding other points of view.

"it is quite difficult for me to fathom something that violates the law of large numbers" - You've couched each reply to conform with your view of "value" punting - hence your having a great deal of difficulty understanding why value, rather than being key, may actually be of secondary importance.

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

average EV (so far) is about 8-9% which is €16-18k on 1000 x €200 ..........

Over how many bets?

ft9

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

wasting your time, I've tried and failed

/thread

Colonel Sanders

Huntley wrote: »

This is the crux of the problem, you are adamant that one cannot turn a positive RoI in the long run if they do not adhere to theories and equations.

I am adamant one cannot turn a +ive RoI in the long run unless your weighted EV is +ive. If you don't believe this you actually do have a problem with the law of large numbers, despite stating elsewhere you didn't

This is the mythical "mathematical fact" I have referred to over and over again, which you maintained didn't exist

Huntley wrote: »

Apart from my own personal methods, there are two logs on this site from myself that negate this

2 logs based on finite sample sizes do not equate to "the long run", why are you not getting this?

Huntley wrote: »

Now, I have backed plenty of likely winners where the odds weren't necessarily in my favour.

This is irrational to me, and I would have thought irrational to most people

Huntley wrote: »

This then puts me into category 1 in your 'system' as being "lucky".

Yes, this would make me assign a higher probability to option 1, luck

Huntley wrote: »

That is a very cumbersome and general response

It is a response, wait for it, backed up by rigourous mathematics.

Huntley wrote: »

I would give far more credibility to the idea that other people can simple turn a positive RoI using different methods.

IMO you are wrong to do so

Huntley wrote: »

How does one decipher value and obtain odds that "underestimate the probability of an occurrence"?

It is a subjective assessment (think we both actually agree on that). I have continually mentioned metrics that one can keep track of to see how they are faring over large number of bets

Huntley wrote: »

It is through reading and understanding race form enough to select the likeliest winner.

No it selecting the runner (who may or may not be the likeliest winner) that gives the bettor the most EV (or at least some +EV)

Huntley wrote: »

Therefore I think that this aspect is far more fundamental as without the ability to do so then you cannot find the value

So likeliest winner = value (or at least "best value"). I'm afraid I disagree if this is the case

Huntley wrote: »

Nobody is disputing the mathematical facts

you have done so repeatedly and are doing so again in this very post I m replying to

Huntley wrote: »

That isn't contradictory, they were not established with the view of being synonymous with successful gambling

It is contradictory. They were established to be applied to a sequence of random variables. A series of bets placed on uncertain outcomes can be thought of as a series of random variables. Whether the originator was a gambler, I don't know

Huntley wrote: »

Others, who do not even share my view on the topic, can see its credibility

It has no credibility in my view as it is based solely on conjecture

Huntley wrote: »

it is possible to turn a positive RoI without solely adhering to these "rigorous mathematical" equations

It is not possible to return a +ive RoI in the long run without obtaining prices that underestimate your selections chances

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

Over how many bets?

1000, as stated....

Colonel Sanders

Overthelast wrote: »

Your being a little bit too dogmatic on reverting to your mathematical mantra.

I disagree, I cannot accept something not rigourous as "fundamental"

Overthelast wrote: »

I accept your well laid out fact based calculations why someone who makes a profit must be getting value in the long run.

OK

Overthelast wrote: »

However, I can see how "value" is not the key for someone selecting on form & making a relatively small # of bets each yr & turning a tasty profit. Without winners, value would become irrelevant - they would be broke relatively quickly if they kept backing value losers. As such, its secondary, an offshoot.

Not being smart but is this not a contradiction?

as long as they are backing horses with a non-zero probability of winning in the long run actual strike rate approaches expected.

Some people are saying back winners and value will look after itself

I can rigourously state get value and winners will look after themselves

Overthelast wrote: »

You accept that understanding your concepts is quite difficult for some yet your having a great deal of difficulty understanding other points of view.

I cannot accept a view that:

1. Violates a mathematical rigouous idea
2. is backed u with mere conjecture

Overthelast wrote: »

your having a great deal of difficulty understanding why value, rather than being key, may actually be of secondary importance.

I am having difficultly seeing this, I thought my responses throughout this thread would have made that clear

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

/thread

There is none so blind as those that will not see

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

average EV (so far) is about 8-9% which is €16-18k on 1000 x €200



On average, one a week............

RoverJames wrote: »

Over how many bets?

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

1000, as stated....

So you've been availing of these offers for 20 years?

I'll ask again, how many of these bets have you placed?

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

So you've been availing of these offers for 20 years?

I'll ask again, how many of these bets have you placed?

you quoted a post where I mentioned an EV of €16-18k. I was responding to that, it was in no way clear that you were asking how many I had actually placed

If you mean how many bets have I actually placed I would say 60-70. I don't have my spreadsheet to hand to give the exact figure

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

you quoted a post where I mentioned an EV of €16-18k. I was responding to that, it was in no way clear that you were asking how many I had actually placed

If you mean how many bets have I actually placed I would say 60-70. I don't have my spreadsheet to hand to give the exact figure

I was querying the so far bit

9 out of 10 people would have known that imo

hucklebuck

RichieLawless wrote: »

I closed all my online accounts recently and the majority were money making accounts.

If you were that profitable why were you in Huntleys log looking for his selections?

While I had a look through there I could see Rover has posted a bit there too.

Interesting that the person who is on his second user account has two people arguing with the theory of large numbers while he took a sabbatical.

Colonel Sanders

anyhow my son is teething so will probably be awake on the hour tonight so I'm off to bed (with probability 1 )

hucklebuck

hucklebuck wrote: »

............

Interesting that the person who is on his second user account has two people arguing with the theory of large numbers while he took a sabbatical.

What are you suggesting?
Please do spell it out so we can laugh at what a silly chap you are making yourself out to be.

I'd say ft9 was in Huntley's thread as it was a great read, very insightful and had plenty of winners.

Not what you'd read too often around here

What sabbatical are you referring to btw?
Also it's clear from my posts I have no issue with the law of large numbers, when applied correctly. N/A with regard to selective punting as it's not throws of the dice we are talking about.

ft9

hucklebuck wrote: »

If you were that profitable why were you in Huntleys log looking for his selections?

While I had a look through there I could see Rover has posted a bit there too.

Interesting that the person who is on his second user account has two people arguing with the theory of large numbers while he took a sabbatical.

I was in Huntleys thread because he's proven to be successful, and I value his opinion, often he punts the same horse as me. Great minds and all that eh.
You think I wasn't profitable and that I made that up? Or would I not be allowed to look at a thread on the internet because my accounts were positive?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about a second user account as I've only ever had one. I changed my name as a joke alright, but it should be back to normal in the morning.