Jump to content
** March Poker League Result : =1st Bridscott, =1st Like2Fish, 3rd avongirl **
Download the PL Forum App!
** ELO Ratings are now back **

Valiant Thor

Regular Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,023

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Valiant Thor

    £20 Daily Challenge - All Welcome

    in At The Races - Racing Forum

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

    That’s got my head whirling! Luck definitely exists in my opinion, and may play a part in the outcome of an individual bet (as in bad bets can win and good bets can lose) but, in the long run, you get what you deserve. Most punters fail to appreciate how much the outcome of a sporting event is determined by luck rather than the skill of the participants (hence the fallacy of “buying money”).

    I don’t know if literally everything is quantifiable but I agree that most things are, though most punters only scratch the surface of actually doing so. I think one of the most productive things you could do is quantify how much the result of any given event is determined by the skill of the participants and how much by luck. So I think you have to believe in luck if only to quantify it! :eyes

    I definitely think that most punters tend to attribute winning bets to their skill and judgement and losing ones to bad luck.

    People especial punters use luck as an emotional crutch IMO
    The horse in question where 'unlucky' was mentioned was Johnny Boom which lost by a nose, why is that classed as unlucky
    does that mean the other horse was lucky, there could be numerous reasons , horse tiring jockey went to soon or too late etc .
    An event can only be expressed as a static %age chance in your /mine opinion before the event and then only using past and some present available data.
    Once the event starts it then becomes dynamic , just because we cant quantify what happens in its dynamic state does not make it luck or bad luck whatever the final event happens to be, it is what it is so get over it.
    Its similar to a punter bemoaning his 2/7 shot losing as his last £ goes down the pan . (they still lose 23% of the time) but that never entered his perception of how things would turn out , so blames everyone but himself for backing it,

    £20 Daily Challenge - All Welcome

    in At The Races - Racing Forum

    Posted

    On 9/5/2021 at 7:17 PM, Valiant Thor said:

    AUG  +62.14
    SEPT +31.61
    image.png.911c1c8a78ef0d87040e135c5007e720.png
    DRUMLEE WATAR..7.59pts
    JOHNNY BOOM.....4.82pts
    GLORIOUS RIO.......7.59pts
    20pts Staked B365
    1 winner small profit/break even

    DRUMLEE WATAR..7.59pts...NR ...+7.59
    JOHNNY BOOM.....4.82pts...LOST...2nd
    GLORIOUS RIO.......7.59pts...WON...+20.87
    STAKED...20...RETURNED...28.46...PROFIT...8.46
    AUG  +62.14
    SEPT +40.10

    £20 Daily Challenge - All Welcome

    in At The Races - Racing Forum

    Posted

    17 hours ago, Valiant Thor said:

    AUG  +62.14
    SEPT +19.20

    image.png.0fdf44acff7225ceb68eb0f0652ce3db.png
    SOPHIES STAR 5.89pts
    MINELLA TRUMP 6.63pts
    PAGAN 3.06pts
    GREAT EMBASSADOR 4.42PTS
    20pts staked ...B365
    2 for profit

    SOPHIES STAR 5.89pts......................NR   +5.89
    MINELLA TRUMP 6.63pts...............WON +13.26
    PAGAN 3.06pts.................................LOST
    GREAT EMBASSADOR 4.42PTS.......WON +13.26
    STAKED 20..RETURNED....32.41...PROFIT +12.41
    AUG  +62.14
    SEPT +31.61

    Racing Chat - Tuesday 31st August

    in At The Races - Racing Forum

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Zilzalian said:

    Interesting observations

    I dont have any stats on 'tipsters' per say as I pay absolutely no attention to them whatsoever.(fools gold springs to mind)
    The observations come from my own personal naps (Hcp & non Hcp) where the majority of my profit comes from my non handicap naps.
    So in theory (Einstein made a living out of these ?) If similar happens with 'tipsters' then a similar ratio should apply.
    If I did have any data I could run a Monte Carlo simulation and give a better idea re profit / loss but unfortunately I don't and I have no intention of collating any just to prove point.
    As their profit / loss shows , combined it is a blatantly obvious all there tips are crap so looking at their best guesses (naps) one would surmise should at least get some wheat from the chaff.
    Hope that gives you a little more insight into the thinking behind it  :ok

     

    Racing Chat - Tuesday 31st August

    in At The Races - Racing Forum

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

    I just find it all fascinating that combining the three main sporting press tipsters still manages to lose money.

    Just 2 things if you must continue this folly

    1/ You will never win money because you flit from one 'idea' to another like a butterfly on crack looking for the perfect flower. (it aint going to happen)
    Something doesn't work as singles you try a trixie ,that doesn't work, you'll try a yankee, you'll stick the same losing selections into a lucky 15 oh surprise surprise that doesn't work either. Its been bleeding obvious since Gods dog was alive they dont make money blindly following their selections, if they did every bookmaker on the planet would be shut down, even a blind man on a galloping horse could see that .

    2/ I care not who you describe as 'the top 3' but If you even spent a modicum of your time actually analysing these 'tips' you'll find somewhere near what looks like a profit in just 4 lines
    First............. Split these tips into naps only by any one of your 'the top 3'
    Second........ Split the naps into handicap / non handicap selections
    Third.............You should find the return (profit) from the winners split approx 20/25% to 75/80% in the non handicaps favour (ergo: most of the profit comes from them)
    Fourth...........Ditch the Handicap naps
    TA~DAAAA  your somewhat nearer to making a profit in 4 lines of the bleeding obvious than you have been since you started

    I'll make the bleeding obvious even more bleeding obvious

    The RP has a selection box with 13 paid guessers for each meeting
    look at the selections of the NON HCP races only
    If there is only 1 horse that is napped then that is a selection (it may be napped by more than 1 guesser as long as its the only horse napped its a selection )

    The mind boggling theory behind this is for all the crap they turn out they might actually spend some real time selecting a decent horse as a nap and if no other horse has been napped then not much attention has been paid to them, ergo; all being well it should be a reasonable selection due to it
    a) being the only napped horse in a race
    b) the handicapper hasn't messed about with the weights yet

    There were 3 selections today actualy

    Epsom 3.15 New Mission (Newmarket nap) won @ 4/5
    Epsom 4.35 Uncle Dick (The Times nap) lost @ 9/2 (was also my selection in £20 challenge but for different reasons than above , SIGH :\)
    NAbb 4.25 Beholden (Lambourn nap) won @ 1/4

    Restrictive odds on the winners maybe but dutching all 3 would have produced a 30% roi .

    A steady drip fills a bucket as they say and all for free, it brings a tear to your eye ?

     

    Racing Chat - Tuesday 31st August

    in At The Races - Racing Forum

    Posted

    47 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

    It was quite shocking yesterday to find that 13 out of 15 of these lost

    Why is that , they're just paid guessers nothing more nothing less

    image.png.1d64788f066c076f82c0d5836e955a3c.png

    The above validates my point, there's only 2 in profit from there naps ,Charlatans the lot of them.

    Dont fall for the bullshit thrown out , ''I get paid for the hours I put in studying'' , It hasn't done them much good has it ?

    If your going to lose lose your own way, not following some of these lot over a cliff.

    Im glad they dont make aeroplanes :eek

     

×
×
  • Create New...