Author 
Topic Search Topic Options

ExceedAndExcel
Champion
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 10939

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 2:32am 
3blindmice wrote:
It was implied above by TBV's master punter.
If having one big bet annually isn't a good strategy for a supposedly educated punter how would it be better for someone with (supposedly) a dartboard?
You've baffled me with "maths" though and I'm a bit slow at times so you'll need to explain this "simple probability" you speak of..
I suggested that you could select an arbitrary win ratio for said "mug punter" but I'll do it for you. Say his dartboard chances are 1 in 10 (nice round fig). Feel free to demonstrate mathematically how his chances of success are higher for 1 or for 100 bets (or any number of bets for that matter). The probability of a head/tail on a two sided penny might be a good starting point.  No, he said it was the best strategy for a mug not that they would suddenly become a winning gambler. Best strategy simply means the best chance for them to come out ahead. Here is as simple an example as I can give you: Suppose we only bet on races with 2 runners where both are exactly equal in ability  ie they have a 50% chance of winning each time. You can back either at $1.95. I bet $10,000 on 1 race each year  what is the probability that I’m ahead after 20 years? You bet $10 on 1,000 races each year  what is the probability that you are ahead after 20 years? Both strategies turn over exactly the same amount of money and have exactly the same expected loss but one has a higher chance of being ahead. I’ll let you do the calcs. Alternatively there will be any number of maths nerd forums where the inhabitants will be more than happy to do them for you. Either way, please report back to the forum as to which strategy gives the best chance of being ahead over the time period.


Sponsored Links

Click here to view the promotions at Bet Easy.


Sneck
Champion
Joined: 16 Feb 2013
Location: Payout Queue
Status: Offline
Points: 7560

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 2:41am 
3blindmice wrote:
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
Illogical nonsense to say the least. 
No it’s not. The more bets a mug punter has the more certain it is that they will lose. One large bet per year and they will fluke a winning year once in a while. A thousand small bets per year and you can take it to the bank that they will lose year after year after year. 
You need to look at the parameters better. A so called "mug punter" will, as you point out, "fluke" (supposedly) a win every now and again. Pick any number you want  one in twenty say  and that's the number of years it will take before they (possibly) score in the one big annual bet stakes.
If you and others think it's a winning strategy why haven't you done it? After all these "mug punters" have FAR less chance of hitting the jackpot than some of the supposedly great punters on here who sing their own praises. The answer is obvious. Putting all your eggs in one basket is a high risk strategy 
If you're EV variance is your friend but we can dig deeper. It's about expectation. If you are wagering on EV propositions the optimal bet is 0. If you choose to wager on EV propositions greater turnover will result in greater loss of expectation. Reinvesting is a disaster. Run the following numbers at different EV and you'll see it's correct. $500 turnover a week vs $5,000 once a year. It's possible that the spot has a higher EV than the average bet. Some could even turn a EV proposition into a +EV proposition which would be phenomenal. Because I'm not EV. I've posted about exploiting bonuses and promotions as introductory winning strategies.


maccamax
Champion
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 28134

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 2:55am 
Several good examples have been obvious and mentioned on here recently. Purely to help anyone who needs to be taught.
People were backing Impending early for the Stradbroke on Betfair as low as $3.3 to $4.8. ALL IN, a week before the race. $5 to $6 was always available on Sportsbet. On race day he went to $8.
Surprising how often this type of example happens.
These victims are true "mug Punters" with no chance of winning. Hopefully some opinions from the more experienced contributors can be of some help to them over time.

<b


Sneck
Champion
Joined: 16 Feb 2013
Location: Payout Queue
Status: Offline
Points: 7560

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 3:14am 
3blindmice wrote:
It was implied above by TBV's master punter. 
No it wasn't but if you ask how I can suggest that the spot may be higher EV than the average bet it is because we can be sure they'll do their homework on this one.


3blindmice
Champion
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 12:44pm 
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
It was implied above by TBV's master punter.
If having one big bet annually isn't a good strategy for a supposedly educated punter how would it be better for someone with (supposedly) a dartboard?
You've baffled me with "maths" though and I'm a bit slow at times so you'll need to explain this "simple probability" you speak of..
I suggested that you could select an arbitrary win ratio for said "mug punter" but I'll do it for you. Say his dartboard chances are 1 in 10 (nice round fig). Feel free to demonstrate mathematically how his chances of success are higher for 1 or for 100 bets (or any number of bets for that matter). The probability of a head/tail on a two sided penny might be a good starting point. 
No, he said it was the best strategy for a mug not that they would suddenly become a winning gambler. Best strategy simply means the best chance for them to come out ahead.
Here is as simple an example as I can give you:
Suppose we only bet on races with 2 runners where both are exactly equal in ability  ie they have a 50% chance of winning each time. You can back either at $1.95.
I bet $10,000 on 1 race each year  what is the probability that I’m ahead after 20 years? You bet $10 on 1,000 races each year  what is the probability that you are ahead after 20 years?
Both strategies turn over exactly the same amount of money and have exactly the same expected loss but one has a higher chance of being ahead.
I’ll let you do the calcs. Alternatively there will be any number of maths nerd forums where the inhabitants will be more than happy to do them for you. Either way, please report back to the forum as to which strategy gives the best chance of being ahead over the time period. 
Let me state the obvious. The whole notion of the ubiquitous "mug punter" with particular habits and poor average strike rates etc is a nonsense. All we know is that many punters are losing in the long term.
Nevertheless the one annual hit was raised in passing by Tlaz, and not because he wanted to have a cheap shot at anyone.
So I'm still interested in the maths surrounding yiur (collective) claims 9Sneck, EE/Pal, 3Bs). if we arbitrarily ascribe to them the (low  they're "mugs" after all) possibility of jagging a winner in any race as 1 in 10 (as I suggested above), I want to see the maths for your claim. Long time since I did probability but your "natural variance" played no part from my poor recollection.


3blindmice
Champion
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 1:00pm 
Sneck wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
It was implied above by TBV's master punter.  No it wasn't but if you ask how I can suggest that the spot may be higher EV than the average bet it is because we can be sure they'll do their homework on this one.

Your words exactly were: This is actually the best system for a mug punter. If they only pick one spot per year they might even be able to find a profitable one.
That not only states some miraculous "best system" but implies that it could (with "natural variance"  lol) be a winning strategy.
Might gives an out every time. They might hit a 100/1 shot in their annual shot. They might not hit anything in their lifetime. The maths tells us the likelihood, although it requires us to plug in some completely arbitrary numbers.
And yet "mug punters" apparently have far greater difficulty in picking winners (making winning bets) than we brilliant folk at TBV. So I want to know the maths behind your claims.
Essentially every time "they" step up to the plate their ability to back a winner is relatively low. But miraculously that ability is supposedly enhanced if they save all their hard earned (hopefully discretional spend) for one big bet a year. Now there are numerous psychological factors which come into play there but I'm still struggling with the maths and I very much doubt I'll be getting the answer here.


ExceedAndExcel
Champion
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 10939

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 1:04pm 
3blindmice wrote:
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
It was implied above by TBV's master punter.
If having one big bet annually isn't a good strategy for a supposedly educated punter how would it be better for someone with (supposedly) a dartboard?
You've baffled me with "maths" though and I'm a bit slow at times so you'll need to explain this "simple probability" you speak of..
I suggested that you could select an arbitrary win ratio for said "mug punter" but I'll do it for you. Say his dartboard chances are 1 in 10 (nice round fig). Feel free to demonstrate mathematically how his chances of success are higher for 1 or for 100 bets (or any number of bets for that matter). The probability of a head/tail on a two sided penny might be a good starting point. 
No, he said it was the best strategy for a mug not that they would suddenly become a winning gambler. Best strategy simply means the best chance for them to come out ahead.
Here is as simple an example as I can give you:
Suppose we only bet on races with 2 runners where both are exactly equal in ability  ie they have a 50% chance of winning each time. You can back either at $1.95.
I bet $10,000 on 1 race each year  what is the probability that I’m ahead after 20 years? You bet $10 on 1,000 races each year  what is the probability that you are ahead after 20 years?
Both strategies turn over exactly the same amount of money and have exactly the same expected loss but one has a higher chance of being ahead.
I’ll let you do the calcs. Alternatively there will be any number of maths nerd forums where the inhabitants will be more than happy to do them for you. Either way, please report back to the forum as to which strategy gives the best chance of being ahead over the time period. 
Let me state the obvious. The whole notion of the ubiquitous "mug punter" with particular habits and poor average strike rates etc is a nonsense. All we know is that many punters are losing in the long term.
Nevertheless the one annual hit was raised in passing by Tlaz, and not because he wanted to have a cheap shot at anyone.
So I'm still interested in the maths surrounding yiur (collective) claims 9Sneck, EE/Pal, 3Bs). if we arbitrarily ascribe to them the (low  they're "mugs" after all) possibility of jagging a winner in any race as 1 in 10 (as I suggested above), I want to see the maths for your claim. Long time since I did probability but your "natural variance" played no part from my poor recollection.  If I recall you’ve incorrectly accused me of being several other people in the past. “Fletch” was another one that was me apparently despite the rest of the forum knowing it was Brooke. Tip: you put too much trust in the word of certain moderators. Needless to say your detective skills are as poor as the maths skills you’ve displayed here. You could have worked out the answer to the question I posed in about 5 minutes with a simple excel formula. Sad that I need to spoon feed you. Excel won’t go as high as 1,000 bets a year for 20 years but there’s no need to. The chance of being ahead after 1 bet (ie if I had one bet in my whole lifetime) is 50% chance To be ahead after 20 bets as above I need to back at least 11 out of 20 winners @1.95 = 41.1% chance To be ahead after 500 bets I need to back at least 257 out of 500 winners @1.95 = 28.1% chance To be ahead after 1,000 bets I need to back at least 513 out of 1,000 winners @1.95 = 23.4% chance The more bets you have the closer the chance of being ahead gets to O%. If you still feel the need to argue try verifying it yourself. nCm will be your friend.


3blindmice
Champion
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 1:31pm 
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
It was implied above by TBV's master punter.
If having one big bet annually isn't a good strategy for a supposedly educated punter how would it be better for someone with (supposedly) a dartboard?
You've baffled me with "maths" though and I'm a bit slow at times so you'll need to explain this "simple probability" you speak of..
I suggested that you could select an arbitrary win ratio for said "mug punter" but I'll do it for you. Say his dartboard chances are 1 in 10 (nice round fig). Feel free to demonstrate mathematically how his chances of success are higher for 1 or for 100 bets (or any number of bets for that matter). The probability of a head/tail on a two sided penny might be a good starting point. 
No, he said it was the best strategy for a mug not that they would suddenly become a winning gambler. Best strategy simply means the best chance for them to come out ahead.
Here is as simple an example as I can give you:
Suppose we only bet on races with 2 runners where both are exactly equal in ability  ie they have a 50% chance of winning each time. You can back either at $1.95.
I bet $10,000 on 1 race each year  what is the probability that I’m ahead after 20 years? You bet $10 on 1,000 races each year  what is the probability that you are ahead after 20 years?
Both strategies turn over exactly the same amount of money and have exactly the same expected loss but one has a higher chance of being ahead.
I’ll let you do the calcs. Alternatively there will be any number of maths nerd forums where the inhabitants will be more than happy to do them for you. Either way, please report back to the forum as to which strategy gives the best chance of being ahead over the time period. 
Let me state the obvious. The whole notion of the ubiquitous "mug punter" with particular habits and poor average strike rates etc is a nonsense. All we know is that many punters are losing in the long term.
Nevertheless the one annual hit was raised in passing by Tlaz, and not because he wanted to have a cheap shot at anyone.
So I'm still interested in the maths surrounding yiur (collective) claims 9Sneck, EE/Pal, 3Bs). if we arbitrarily ascribe to them the (low  they're "mugs" after all) possibility of jagging a winner in any race as 1 in 10 (as I suggested above), I want to see the maths for your claim. Long time since I did probability but your "natural variance" played no part from my poor recollection. 
If I recall you’ve incorrectly accused me of being several other people in the past. “Fletch” was another one that was me apparently despite the rest of the forum knowing it was Brooke. Tip: you put too much trust in the word of certain moderators. Needless to say your detective skills are as poor as the maths skills you’ve displayed here.
You could have worked out the answer to the question I posed in about 5 minutes with a simple excel formula. Sad that I need to spoon feed you.
Excel won’t go as high as 1,000 bets a year for 20 years but there’s no need to.
The chance of being ahead after 1 bet (ie if I had one bet in my whole lifetime) is 50% chance To be ahead after 20 bets as above I need to back at least 11 out of 20 winners @1.95 = 41.1% chance To be ahead after 500 bets I need to back at least 257 out of 500 winners @1.95 = 28.1% chance To be ahead after 1,000 bets I need to back at least 513 out of 1,000 winners @1.95 = 23.4% chance
The more bets you have the closer the chance of being ahead gets to O%.
If you still feel the need to argue try verifying it yourself. nCm will be your friend. 
Lol, thought that little prompt might ring a bell. The cock crowed on that a long time ago. Suffice to say that inside "knowledge" is a useful thing in both punting and on forums.
It's basically a ludicrous argument but let's keep the hits going for the Mayor for a bit longer.
You still have the basic proposition incorrect, or perhaps we have different starting points for the "mug punter". Your Excel ramble above ignores so many factors in race punting that it's not funny. My punting has got FAR better over the years after thousands of bets so your theory has hit a roadblock immediately. Experience, less focus on the recreational aspect, FAR better access to relays and data, and the oft mentioned hard work have no doubt played a part.


ExceedAndExcel
Champion
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 10939

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 1:40pm 
3blindmice wrote:
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
It was implied above by TBV's master punter.
If having one big bet annually isn't a good strategy for a supposedly educated punter how would it be better for someone with (supposedly) a dartboard?
You've baffled me with "maths" though and I'm a bit slow at times so you'll need to explain this "simple probability" you speak of..
I suggested that you could select an arbitrary win ratio for said "mug punter" but I'll do it for you. Say his dartboard chances are 1 in 10 (nice round fig). Feel free to demonstrate mathematically how his chances of success are higher for 1 or for 100 bets (or any number of bets for that matter). The probability of a head/tail on a two sided penny might be a good starting point. 
No, he said it was the best strategy for a mug not that they would suddenly become a winning gambler. Best strategy simply means the best chance for them to come out ahead.
Here is as simple an example as I can give you:
Suppose we only bet on races with 2 runners where both are exactly equal in ability  ie they have a 50% chance of winning each time. You can back either at $1.95.
I bet $10,000 on 1 race each year  what is the probability that I’m ahead after 20 years? You bet $10 on 1,000 races each year  what is the probability that you are ahead after 20 years?
Both strategies turn over exactly the same amount of money and have exactly the same expected loss but one has a higher chance of being ahead.
I’ll let you do the calcs. Alternatively there will be any number of maths nerd forums where the inhabitants will be more than happy to do them for you. Either way, please report back to the forum as to which strategy gives the best chance of being ahead over the time period. 
Let me state the obvious. The whole notion of the ubiquitous "mug punter" with particular habits and poor average strike rates etc is a nonsense. All we know is that many punters are losing in the long term.
Nevertheless the one annual hit was raised in passing by Tlaz, and not because he wanted to have a cheap shot at anyone.
So I'm still interested in the maths surrounding yiur (collective) claims 9Sneck, EE/Pal, 3Bs). if we arbitrarily ascribe to them the (low  they're "mugs" after all) possibility of jagging a winner in any race as 1 in 10 (as I suggested above), I want to see the maths for your claim. Long time since I did probability but your "natural variance" played no part from my poor recollection. 
If I recall you’ve incorrectly accused me of being several other people in the past. “Fletch” was another one that was me apparently despite the rest of the forum knowing it was Brooke. Tip: you put too much trust in the word of certain moderators. Needless to say your detective skills are as poor as the maths skills you’ve displayed here.
You could have worked out the answer to the question I posed in about 5 minutes with a simple excel formula. Sad that I need to spoon feed you.
Excel won’t go as high as 1,000 bets a year for 20 years but there’s no need to.
The chance of being ahead after 1 bet (ie if I had one bet in my whole lifetime) is 50% chance To be ahead after 20 bets as above I need to back at least 11 out of 20 winners @1.95 = 41.1% chance To be ahead after 500 bets I need to back at least 257 out of 500 winners @1.95 = 28.1% chance To be ahead after 1,000 bets I need to back at least 513 out of 1,000 winners @1.95 = 23.4% chance
The more bets you have the closer the chance of being ahead gets to O%.
If you still feel the need to argue try verifying it yourself. nCm will be your friend. 
Lol, thought that little prompt might ring a bell. The cock crowed on that a long time ago. Suffice to say that inside "knowledge" is a useful thing in both punting and on forums.
It's basically a ludicrous argument but let's keep the hits going for the Mayor for a bit longer.
You still have the basic proposition incorrect, or perhaps we have different starting points for the "mug punter". Your Excel ramble above ignores so many factors in race punting that it's not funny. My punting has got FAR better over the years after thousands of bets so your theory has hit a roadblock immediately. Experience, less focus on the recreational aspect, FAR better access to relays and data, and the oft mentioned hard work have no doubt played a part.
 You’re well known for incorrect accusation so very little prompting needed at all. By all means continue to think you have inside info, as with your ramblings here the comedy value makes it well worthwhile. You would be better advised to ignore this thread or at least try to get it back on track. Poor attempt to go off on a tangent, even by your standards. The indesputsble facts are that the more bets a EV gambler (like you) has, the more certain they are to lose. If you want the highest chance of coming out a winner for the same amount of turnover then maximising the size and minimising the number of bets is the best strategy. Babble away all you like but nothing will change that.


Sneck
Champion
Joined: 16 Feb 2013
Location: Payout Queue
Status: Offline
Points: 7560

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 2:02pm 
3blindmice wrote:
Sneck wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
It was implied above by TBV's master punter.  No it wasn't but if you ask how I can suggest that the spot may be higher EV than the average bet it is because we can be sure they'll do their homework on this one.

Your words exactly were: This is actually the best system for a mug punter. If they only pick one spot per year they might even be able to find a profitable one.
That not only states some miraculous "best system" but implies that it could (with "natural variance"  lol) be a winning strategy.
Might gives an out every time. They might hit a 100/1 shot in their annual shot. They might not hit anything in their lifetime. The maths tells us the likelihood, although it requires us to plug in some completely arbitrary numbers.
And yet "mug punters" apparently have far greater difficulty in picking winners (making winning bets) than we brilliant folk at TBV. So I want to know the maths behind your claims.
Essentially every time "they" step up to the plate their ability to back a winner is relatively low. But miraculously that ability is supposedly enhanced if they save all their hard earned (hopefully discretional spend) for one big bet a year. Now there are numerous psychological factors which come into play there but I'm still struggling with the maths and I very much doubt I'll be getting the answer here.

I repeat, run the following numbers at different EV. $500 turnover a week vs $5,000 once a year. The large bet once a year is superior because turnover is reduced given there is no reinvestment. No one who turns over $500 a week would bet $26,000 in one bet, it's just not going to happen. E&E did a good job explaining variance. At no point is there an implication that the system is profitable because of natural variance. The might refers to betting habits, if they have one large bet a year it is fair to assume they'll employ the best analysis they're capable of and show more care placing the wager. There's no data but it's straight forward psychology. It can be reasonable assumed that the large wager size motivate the punter the practice better habits. If they had good punting habits than they wouldn't be a mug punter. For example, I know mug punters who get stable information and if they restricted their wagering to these runners they'd do alot better. But they prefer to back runners they essential picked out with a dartboard. Make them bet $5,000 and alot of that shoddy analysis is going straight out the window.


3blindmice
Champion
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 2:30pm 
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
You’re well known for incorrect accusation so very little prompting needed at all. By all means continue to think you have inside info, as with your ramblings here the comedy value makes it well worthwhile.
You would be better advised to ignore this thread or at least try to get it back on track. Poor attempt to go off on a tangent, even by your standards. The indesputsble facts are that the more bets a EV gambler (like you) has, the more certain they are to lose. If you want the highest chance of coming out a winner for the same amount of turnover then maximising the size and minimising the number of bets is the best strategy. Babble away all you like but nothing will change that.

Well known among you and your aliases presumably E&E?
It's not actually relevant to the original scenario proposed (a "mug punter" putting all his/her eggs in one basket rather than spreading his/her bets out over the year) but the obvious question from your Excel rambles is this. Why do you continue to bet if every bet reduces your chances of wining overall?


ExceedAndExcel
Champion
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 10939

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 2:35pm 
3blindmice wrote:
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
You’re well known for incorrect accusation so very little prompting needed at all. By all means continue to think you have inside info, as with your ramblings here the comedy value makes it well worthwhile.
You would be better advised to ignore this thread or at least try to get it back on track. Poor attempt to go off on a tangent, even by your standards. The indesputsble facts are that the more bets a EV gambler (like you) has, the more certain they are to lose. If you want the highest chance of coming out a winner for the same amount of turnover then maximising the size and minimising the number of bets is the best strategy. Babble away all you like but nothing will change that.

Well known among you and your aliases presumably E&E?
It's not actually relevant to the original scenario proposed (a "mug punter" putting all his/her eggs in one basket rather than spreading his/her bets out over the year) but the obvious question from your Excel rambles is this. Why do you continue to bet if every bet reduces your chances of wining overall?  How many have I had? Refresh my memory as to what your guesses were? Why do people continue to bet? Is this a serious question? Why don’t you answer? Why do YOU continue to bet despite continuing to lose? I hope it’s for entertainment.


3blindmice
Champion
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 2:41pm 
Sneck wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
Sneck wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
It was implied above by TBV's master punter.  No it wasn't but if you ask how I can suggest that the spot may be higher EV than the average bet it is because we can be sure they'll do their homework on this one.

Your words exactly were: This is actually the best system for a mug punter. If they only pick one spot per year they might even be able to find a profitable one.
That not only states some miraculous "best system" but implies that it could (with "natural variance"  lol) be a winning strategy.
Might gives an out every time. They might hit a 100/1 shot in their annual shot. They might not hit anything in their lifetime. The maths tells us the likelihood, although it requires us to plug in some completely arbitrary numbers.
And yet "mug punters" apparently have far greater difficulty in picking winners (making winning bets) than we brilliant folk at TBV. So I want to know the maths behind your claims.
Essentially every time "they" step up to the plate their ability to back a winner is relatively low. But miraculously that ability is supposedly enhanced if they save all their hard earned (hopefully discretional spend) for one big bet a year. Now there are numerous psychological factors which come into play there but I'm still struggling with the maths and I very much doubt I'll be getting the answer here.
 I repeat, run the following numbers at different EV. $500 turnover a week vs $5,000 once a year. The large bet once a year is superior because turnover is reduced given there is no reinvestment. No one who turns over $500 a week would bet $26,000 in one bet, it's just not going to happen.
E&E did a good job explaining variance. At no point is there an implication that the system is profitable because of natural variance.
The might refers to betting habits, if they have one large bet a year it is fair to assume they'll employ the best analysis they're capable of and show more care placing the wager. There's no data but it's straight forward psychology. It can be reasonable assumed that the large wager size motivate the punter the practice better habits. If they had good punting habits than they wouldn't be a mug punter.
For example, I know mug punters who get stable information and if they restricted their wagering to these runners they'd do alot better. But they prefer to back runners they essential picked out with a dartboard. Make them bet $5,000 and alot of that shoddy analysis is going straight out the window.

Yes I alluded to the psychology, which is far more complex than that. Most horse punters bet for interest rather than a need for profit and obviously don't use all the tools available. If that was the basis for your original comment then in some cases I might agree. That larger sum might not only focus them but it might also put a handful on the path of realising the vaue of "doing the form" and what they are really risking over the longer term.


3blindmice
Champion
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 2:57pm 
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
You’re well known for incorrect accusation so very little prompting needed at all. By all means continue to think you have inside info, as with your ramblings here the comedy value makes it well worthwhile.
You would be better advised to ignore this thread or at least try to get it back on track. Poor attempt to go off on a tangent, even by your standards. The indesputsble facts are that the more bets a EV gambler (like you) has, the more certain they are to lose. If you want the highest chance of coming out a winner for the same amount of turnover then maximising the size and minimising the number of bets is the best strategy. Babble away all you like but nothing will change that.

Well known among you and your aliases presumably E&E?
It's not actually relevant to the original scenario proposed (a "mug punter" putting all his/her eggs in one basket rather than spreading his/her bets out over the year) but the obvious question from your Excel rambles is this. Why do you continue to bet if every bet reduces your chances of wining overall? 
How many have I had? Refresh my memory as to what your guesses were?
Why do people continue to bet? Is this a serious question? Why don’t you answer? Why do YOU continue to bet despite continuing to lose? I hope it’s for entertainment. 
I'd need to refresh my memory on your aliases as well but with a 100% confidence level the answer is a number greater than 1, and >= 2. There have been no greater certainties in the history of betting  as we both well know. It could have been your dog or another family member I suppose but there's a greater chance of Trump being the messiah returned.
I didn't ask why "people" bet  that's been answered many times by far smarter people. I keep betting because I enjoy horses, horse racing and, thanks for yoor "concern", but I'm travelling along comfortably since abandoning the fun and distractions of TAB agencies and racetracks.


TJMitchell
Champion
Joined: 29 Jun 2014
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 1380

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 3:50pm 
Close this garbage thread already. You could read the recent posts and have no idea what the title would be.


maccamax
Champion
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 28134

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 3:55pm 
I would suggest an inexperienced punter would be better off following a known form student ( like (say) Tom Waterhouse's freebies ) combined to a sensible staking plan ( to match the comfortable punting bank ). More chance of finishing in front than blindly having an interest in everything that moves. I respect the opinion of quite a few people on here actually and at least explore WHY they are thinking that way. Have been steered into quite a few winning wagers. FWIW.. I had one bet yesterday .. probably just one today. AND who knows ... WINX might get into silly odds ( all in )for the Cox Plate soon and i'll be very interested in laying her ( with Trading in mind )

<b


ExceedAndExcel
Champion
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 10939

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Jul 2018 at 9:40pm 
3blindmice wrote:
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
You’re well known for incorrect accusation so very little prompting needed at all. By all means continue to think you have inside info, as with your ramblings here the comedy value makes it well worthwhile.
You would be better advised to ignore this thread or at least try to get it back on track. Poor attempt to go off on a tangent, even by your standards. The indesputsble facts are that the more bets a EV gambler (like you) has, the more certain they are to lose. If you want the highest chance of coming out a winner for the same amount of turnover then maximising the size and minimising the number of bets is the best strategy. Babble away all you like but nothing will change that.

Well known among you and your aliases presumably E&E?
It's not actually relevant to the original scenario proposed (a "mug punter" putting all his/her eggs in one basket rather than spreading his/her bets out over the year) but the obvious question from your Excel rambles is this. Why do you continue to bet if every bet reduces your chances of wining overall? 
How many have I had? Refresh my memory as to what your guesses were?
Why do people continue to bet? Is this a serious question? Why don’t you answer? Why do YOU continue to bet despite continuing to lose? I hope it’s for entertainment. 
I'd need to refresh my memory on your aliases as well but with a 100% confidence level the answer is a number greater than 1, and >= 2. There have been no greater certainties in the history of betting  as we both well know. It could have been your dog or another family member I suppose but there's a greater chance of Trump being the messiah returned.
I didn't ask why "people" bet  that's been answered many times by far smarter people. I keep betting because I enjoy horses, horse racing and, thanks for yoor "concern", but I'm travelling along comfortably since abandoning the fun and distractions of TAB agencies and racetracks.
 Please do refresh your memory, I could use a retro laugh. Can one of them be Whale please? Maybe Dr E just for a real giggle. Oh you were asking why “I” continue to bet? I would have thought that one would have been pretty obvious. Try reading some of the many pieces of advice I’ve given out here. I’m sure you’ll work it out. Glad to hear you only bet for enjoyment. A smart move when maths isn’t your strong suit. Oh, and no concern from me. Losing gamblers like yourself are a big reason why I’m able to win. Please don’t ever change.


maccamax
Champion
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 28134

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 1:05am 
BACK TO THE , methods , ratings & anything else that is of help to some of us . I've been at the Gambling caper for over 70 years and I"M STILL LEARNING. Many new style gambles have emerged in recent years ,Laying, Trading and the surge to Sports betting is just a few worth mention.
I've been a Ratings person , You soon recognise the class of a horse by the number it consistently produces. With weight adjustments and unbiased assessments of the variables for the race at hand, You are correct enough of the time to show a profit.
The few good gamblers I know of, can operate around the clock if they wish . The Footballs, Cricket , Tennis ( becoming even more popular ) racing , You name it. There is excellent advice on these threads if people absorb some of the "means of attack" . Don't deter people's good advice By discouraging them. I'm not a good Trader over time , but probably improving.

<b


correctweight
Champion
Joined: 20 May 2010
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 2504

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 9:39am 
Guys getting off topic haha.
In short Bataash is a around 10 to 15 rating points too high imo. Should be rated near the Nicconi type G1 winners.


TOLEDO
Champion
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 577

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 9:49am 
Quick example my 1 bet is best. Assume 50% probability payout $2.
Longterm profit/loss is $0
However if you only have 1 bet your probability of 100% profit is 50% your probability of 100% loss is also 50%
As the number of bets increases the probability of a overall win or loss approaches 0
Therefore 1 bet has the highest chance of being profitable (it also has the highest chance of being a loss)


Tlazolteotl
Champion
Joined: 02 Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14753

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 11:05am 
maccamax wrote:
BACK TO THE , methods , ratings & anything else that is of help to some of us . I've been at the Gambling caper for over 70 years and I"M STILL LEARNING. Many new style gambles have emerged in recent years ,Laying, Trading and the surge to Sports betting is just a few worth mention.
I've been a Ratings person , You soon recognise the class of a horse by the number it consistently produces. With weight adjustments and unbiased assessments of the variables for the race at hand, You are correct enough of the time to show a profit.
The few good gamblers I know of, can operate around the clock if they wish . The Footballs, Cricket , Tennis ( becoming even more popular ) racing , You name it. There is excellent advice on these threads if people absorb some of the "means of attack" . Don't deter people's good advice By discouraging them.
I'm not a good Trader over time , but probably improving. 
Who do you bet with?


Sneck
Champion
Joined: 16 Feb 2013
Location: Payout Queue
Status: Offline
Points: 7560

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 12:46pm 
3blindmice wrote:
Yes I alluded to the psychology, which is far more complex than that. Most horse punters bet for interest rather than a need for profit and obviously don't use all the tools available. If that was the basis for your original comment then in some cases I might agree. That larger sum might not only focus them but it might also put a handful on the path of realising the vaue of "doing the form" and what they are really risking over the longer term. 
Your major point of contention appears to stem from the lack of a path towards professional wagering which you appear to see as a prerequisite. What you are really complaining about is the use of best without it meeting your prerequisite. I'm not sure this is coherent with your past statements but we're talking about best in terms of expectation.


3blindmice
Champion
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 2:29pm 
ExceedAndExcel wrote:
Please do refresh your memory, I could use a retro laugh. Can one of them be Whale please? Maybe Dr E just for a real giggle.
Oh you were asking why “I” continue to bet? I would have thought that one would have been pretty obvious. Try reading some of the many pieces of advice I’ve given out here. I’m sure you’ll work it out.
Glad to hear you only bet for enjoyment. A smart move when maths isn’t your strong suit. Oh, and no concern from me. Losing gamblers like yourself are a big reason why I’m able to win. Please don’t ever change. 
In fact maths is a strong suit. My bullgelati meter has a pretty good record also. Here's a life hint: it may be an anonymous forum but little lies easily turn into big ones.


3blindmice
Champion
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 2:38pm 
Sneck wrote:
3blindmice wrote:
Yes I alluded to the psychology, which is far more complex than that. Most horse punters bet for interest rather than a need for profit and obviously don't use all the tools available. If that was the basis for your original comment then in some cases I might agree. That larger sum might not only focus them but it might also put a handful on the path of realising the vaue of "doing the form" and what they are really risking over the longer term.  Your major point of contention appears to stem from the lack of a path towards professional wagering which you appear to see as a prerequisite. What you are really complaining about is the use of best without it meeting your prerequisite. I'm not sure this is coherent with your past statements but we're talking about best in terms of expectation.

I'm sure that attempt at English is as good as you're capable of but let me simplify for you to put you out of your pain. Tlaz raised the one bet strategy, you claimed it would be a good one for your so called mug punters, I called your claim rubbish and asked for the maths. In fact there is no maths available because there is no single definable entity as a "mug punter" and there are far too many variables for any valid conclusion


3blindmice
Champion
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 2:44pm 
TOLEDO wrote:
Quick example my 1 bet is best.Assume 50% probability payout $2.
Longterm profit/loss is $0
However if you only have 1 bet your probability of 100% profit is 50% your probability of 100% loss is also 50%
As the number of bets increases the probability of a overall win or loss approaches 0
Therefore 1 bet has the highest chance of being profitable (it also has the highest chance of being a loss)

I'd be selling your system asap, before someone else cashes in. It has nothing whatsoever to do with race punting where prices fluctuate wildly, let alone the likehood of a so called "mug punter" being able to get a oneoff selection correct.


ExceedAndExcel
Champion
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 10939

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 3:48pm 
If by strong suit you mean being able to work out how much your occasionally winning bet pays out then yeah, you’re a real Pascal. Of course the last page or so of you broadcasting to the world that you don’t have the faintest clue about probability, variance, expectation and their implications for both winning and losing gamblers shows a very different reality. Here’s a life hint for you: stay in your lane. And when you do make the mistake of veering out of it try not to double down on your cluelessnesss. If you ever want to become a winner do follow some of the not so subtle hints I regularly drop the forum. At the very least you’ll be able to recoup a portion of the cash you donk off elsewhere. Or you could keep trusting that “bullgelati meter” of yours.


3blindmice
Champion
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 3:58pm 
Your bravado probably goes down well in the pubs eh Pal, er E&E? A "winner" with the personality of an empty beer carton? Something to aspire to I suppose. I'll put it in the diary in case I ever need a lobotomy.


ExceedAndExcel
Champion
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 10939

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 4:04pm 


3blindmice
Champion
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 4:15pm 
Something seems to be bothering you. This probably won't help but it's a free gift. Suggestion for your next alias  Unknowing Marionette.


ExceedAndExcel
Champion
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 10939

Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 4:24pm 

