Announcements
** July Nap's Competition Result : 1st Rainbow, 2nd Trainmad091, 3rd Zidane123, KO Cup Bathtime For Rupert, Most Winners Alastair, Goodwood Comp: Glavintoby**
**July Poker League Result : 1st Craggwood £75, 2nd Like2Fish £45, 3rd Rivrd £30**

3 legs and a wheel

New Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 3 legs and a wheel

  • Rank
    Banned
  • Birthday 02/04/1953
  1. Re: betfair martigale Only 1 in 3 (approximately) of all favourites win, not 50%, as you suggest in your post. Therefore, I can only assume that you are not planning to lay all favourites. If the strike rate of the favourites that you are planning to lay is 50%, as you state in your post, then I can only presume that the average Betfair odds of your selections is around 2.0. If this is the case you can expect to encounter at least 1 losing run of at least 10 over the course of 1,000 bets. Therefore, if you bet the minimum of £2 per bet, then the stake of your 10th losing bet will be £1,024. If you have an infinite bank and an infinite amount of time, then Martingale will always win. Do you have an infinite amount of money and an infinite amount of time? I have personal experience of a company and an individual who each lost in excess of £300,000 using the Martingale system. Charles Wells, of the man who broke the bank of Monte Carlo fame, broke the bank on several occasions in 1894. He later admitted that he used Martingale and that he was extremely lucky. Do you feel lucky? By the way, he died a pauper. If you have a system that wins without using Martingale to recover your losses, then I would suggest that you use it in this form. If it is a loss-making system without Martingale, then I would suggest that you bin it. I'm with Jay and the Saint on this one. However, whatever you choose to do, I wish you every success and please keep us informed of your exploits.
  2. Re: 1 WORD THAT SPERATES A PROFESSIONAL GAMBLER FROM A NORMAL GAMBLER PLEASE AND WHY? I said in the past that I wouldn't post on this forum any more but this thread has intrigued me. The answer, IMHO, is LUCK and here’s why: If you have discipline alone, you will have nothing to apply that discipline to except fresh air. So discipline, in itself, is not the answer. If you have discipline but a system without an edge, all that you will become is a disciplined loser. If you have a system with an edge but you are ill-disciplined, then again you will most probably become a disciplined loser. To develop or purchase a system that has an edge, you will need mathematical ability and the logic to apply it. But, without discipline, you will most probably lose. If you don’t have a system but have ‘insider knowledge’, you will also fail without discipline because horses aren’t machines. Even though they may be the best animal in the race, they still lose. A good example was the sad case of George Washington in the 2007 Breeders Cup. That means that either you need (discipline + inside knowledge) or (discipline + an edge + mathematical ability + logic). However, they aren’t one word answers. LUCK, however, is a one word answer. With luck, you don’t need inside information nor do you need mathematical or logical ability nor do you need discipline nor do you need a system with an edge. If luck isn’t the answer, then this one has me beaten.
  3. Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Cheers Allan Please feel free to PM me when you have 50 posts. Will not be posting again - but will help you.
  4. Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Cheers Allan Please feel free to PM me when you have 50 posts. Will not be posting again but will help you if I can
  5. Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System No Aidymac, you didn't put forward a couple of valid questions at all. You made statements which, actually, were incorrect and were deliberately inflamatory. 1. YOU STATED that you wouldn't lay Mullins' Horses in NH races. However, BACKING his horses is the WRONG thing to do and LAYING them is perfectly reasonable. 2. You STATED that this thread was nonsense. 3. You STATED that I layed a horse at evens when, actually, I layed it way below these odds. In what way are these statements questions? You may not know the difference between a statement and a question, but I do. Thus far, I have found the good folks on this forum very helpful. Sadly, this cannot be said of you. I'm not jumping ship because of 2 losers. I'm jumping ship, as you put it, because I have no wish to continue having exchanges with someone such as your good self.
  6. Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Aidymac You are right. I don't have a staking plan or a p/l or a yield structure. Why? I'm not testing the system. I went live with it a long time ago. There is no one on this forum that posts lay bets. There is no one on this forum who is concentrating on finding value. This thread is all about both. The rationale behind the selections is what's important, not the selections. That way, readers are then free to go off and develop their own variation on this theme. There is a valid reason why I don't mention selections until the off but I'd prefer not to say. You obviously don't appreciate this thread. So be it and please feel tree not to read it. In fact, you won't need to avoid it because I will not be writing another post again. I have better things to do.
  7. Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Aidymac Willie Mullins, before today, had a SR of 31% in National Hunt Flat Races over the past 5 seasons. Backing his horses to win in such races, however, produces a loss since they often start at low odds. The stats are on Racing Post to prove it. Laying his horses in such races is a reasonable option since they are often over bet because of his record.
  8. Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Damn won @ 8/11.:cry
  9. Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Downpatrick 8:35 Dysart Dancer came 6th in its one and only start. The others in the race may not be up to much but neither is this horse. It is a highly speculative favourite and, at evens, has to be a value lay.
  10. Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Damn - my first loser.:cry
  11. Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Ascot 7:45 Thunderball isn’t top rated and isn’t any better than a couple of others I could mention. At 2/1 there’s a bit of value in laying it.
  12. Re: Santos Ratings (Top Rated -7.15 pts, Second Rated +36.28 pts) At long last Santos - your Top Rated selections get their ass in gear. About time too.:nana
  13. Re: Red hot favourites system There is a direct relationship between risk and reward. The more you risk, the greater the reward. However, the greater the reward, the greater the chance that the bank will be lost. Conversely, the lower the risk, the lower the chance of losing the bank but the lower the reward. So, when it comes to a staking plan, it's a case of how much risk are you comfortable with taking? That, then, determines the reward. Rather than just take a FF at it and use some random % of the bank, I've found that it's better to derive the % mathematically. To do this, take the greater of the actual and theoretical LLR. Then, multiply this by a Risk factor between 2 and 4. The more you trust the system, the lower the risk factor. I trust your system, therefore, I allocate a risk factor of 2. Then, divide the result into 100 to give the % of the bank that should be allocated to each bet. In the case of your system, the actual LLR (4) is greater than the theoretical LLR so we use 4. We multiply 4 by the risk factor (2). This gives us 8. Then, we divide 100 by 8 to give 12.5%. So, we allocate 12.5% of the bank per bet. This means that we would only lose the bank if we encountered a losing run which is 2 times the LLR that we are likely to encounter with 95% probability. Of course, we need to ratchet the stakes because, otherwise, we will loose the bank anyway.
  14. Re: Red hot favourites system Finally, Skips graces us with his presence.:ok I hope you have a note to explain your absence? BTW, If your 10% stake was randomly selected, I have reason to believe that 12.5% would be more appropriate.