3 legs and a wheel
-
Posts
138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by 3 legs and a wheel
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.I put forward a couple of valid questions. I was asking because the thread is a "tad" interesting. 2 losers and you jump ship? Ok then. :ok -
Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System
But you layed it @ Evens' date=' and it went off at an SP of 1.67... So in effect you got poor value as you backed the horse @ 50% higher than the SP... That would be the same as laying a 6/1 shot @ 9/1.. The stat you provided was at SP, and you didn't lay at SP. Correct me if i am wrong.[/quote'] Aidymacs If you read this thread, it states quite clearly that horses should be layed as soon after the off as possible. As such, the horse wouldn't have been layed at evens. It would have been layed considerably below. Is there anything else that you wish to vent your spleen at? -
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.Why didn't you name the horse in the post? What use is it to anybody? I agree a thread like this may be of help to someone, but in my opinion it's a load of nonsense. You never name the horse, you rant about races without ever mentioning a horse, you seem to have no staking plan in place along with profit/loss and yield structures. And the one horse i see you mentioned, won. I can't see why you can't name the horse's you intend to lay in the morning, it's not like you have much of an effect on the market. -
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.I would never lay Willie Mullins in an Irish Bumper. -
Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Damn won @ 8/11.:cry
-
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.
-
Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Damn - my first loser.:cry
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System
Because I use the following set of rules, as identified in the first post on this thread:Why have you choosen not to take any other races? Just wondering ur reason?I look at the
odds of the favourite and then at its form and then at the form of the other horses. I then ask myself one question: Is it reasonable that this horse is favourite? If the answer is ‘Yes’ – it’s a no bet. If the answer is ‘Maybe’ – it’s a no bet. If the answer is ‘No Way On God’s Earth Should That Horse Be Favourite’ – I wade in with me size 9 boots and lay the little sucker. I don’t spend forever lookin’ at the form. I just have a quick look-see. And when I say quick, I mean VERY quick. I tend not to look at Handicaps but then, a favourite in a handicap says to me ‘For God’s sake, 3 Legs, what are you waiting for – LAY ME’. So, I do. Very often, these horses steam like gud uns. Then, just before the off, they will tick up ever so slightly. When they do this, I change me size 9 boots and puts on me size 12’s and really get stuck in. My theory is that the last-minute slight tick upwards is the smart money laying it.None of the races that I've looked at today fulfilled the above criteria. If you think that there have been races that did - please tell me which ones and I'll have a look and give an opinion.
-
Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Anther Irish race selection has bitten the dust. That leaves us with a selection in a late race at Ascot and one in an even later Irish race. Let's hope that they don't bite the dust too.
-
Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Well, the bad news is that now the punters have started to get properly stuck into the markets, the Lingfield race is a no go as is the race that I was gonna trade at Market Rasen as is one of the Irish races. We are now left with 3 potential races: One at Ascot and two in Ireland. They are all evening races. Oh buggery bollocks. (Am I allowed to say that?).
-
Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System On a couple of occasions on this thread, I have stated that I don't like trading. I do it, on occasions, but not that often. Here's the rationale: No matter how good a system is, if you don't get value on a bet, long-term, you WILL lose. When trading, it is necessary to obtain value on both the back and lay sides of the bet or to get sufficient positive value on one side of the trade to more than offset the negative value obtained on the other side. To get value on one bet on a horse isn't easy. To get value on two bets on the same horse in the same race is difficult, even at best. Yup, there are traders out there who make a good living, but, they are few and far between. There's another reason for not trading. Suppose you get matched on a bet and, before you get the chance to trade out, the technology fails. Now what? I've known traders lose thousands on this problem.
-
Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Although I don't like trading, I have also spotted a decent trading opportunity for today in one of the later Market Rasen races. The nag looks like a hold up horse to me - which will suite the jockey's riding style and the course. The final bend at Rasen is down hill. Then, there's a double-dip in the long straight followed by climb to the finish. It often throws up some odd finishes and a race outcome can change dramatically in the last couple of furlongs because the horses can get caught out easily. I expect the horse to go off at fairly short odds, then drift in running and then fall again towards the end.
-
Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System
Nice one 3 legs' date=' look forward to seeing your selections!![/quote'] I also can't wait to see what my selections will be for today. It's getting exciting isn't it?:lol -
Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Coo wee. What a lot of racing there is today. Me system has found 5 possible races today. Two in particular stand out where someone is definitely extracting the urine - big time. Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls! I am seriously having a look-see at one of the later races at Lingfield, a late race at Ascot and 3 in Ireland where I believe shenanigans are afoot. Will keep you informed as things develop.
-
Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System And Enter The Indian comes second at 15/8. That's a 7/4 and a 15/8 selection which went down today - courtesy of the Bleedin' Obvious laying system. That's it for today. Lets see what tomorrow brings.
-
Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System Clonmel 6:40 Enter the Indian's odds are lower that I would expect and should be layed. It's an egg and spoon race. The form of the other runners is appalling - just like Enter the Indian's.
-
Re: The Bleedin' Obvious Laying System
Hahaha sorry 3 legs' date=', just a bit excited there haha!! Looking forward to seeing how u get on with the next one!! Can u give us the reason for choosing it again, was good info for last race!![/quote']Can we please have the rationale that goes with your last tip?
:D
betfair martigale
in At The Races - Racing Forum
Posted
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.