DAILY LUCKY 15

[harry_rag]

7 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

I've  now had 263 L15s since I started analysing my data

With average luck I make it you should have had around 168 "blanks", 80 with 1 winner (hitting the double odds bonus), 14 with a double paying out, 1 treble and just 0.03 of a full house!

52 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

ROI is -5% and average odds is 8/1

Given those returns to level stakes singles (and assuming a 15% bonus for all 4 correct) I make it that your long term expected ROI from L15 is 7.08%. As you're so far ahead of that I'm not sure if that makes a convincing case for taking the money and running!  It illustrates the power of the L15 (largely due to the bonus for one winner) in terms of turning a negative ROI into a positive one.

If you could improve the singles return to break even then the L15 ROI improves to 18.6% and if you could turn it into a +5% ROI the L15 rises to 30.9%.

[harry_rag]

Just to give a bit more context to the power of the bonuses, without any the L15 would turn your -5% ROI into -10.3%. The double the odds bonus increases that to 5.84% and the +15% all 4 correct edges it up to 7.08%. Treble the odds for one winner turbo charges it to 23.2%.

So if you can find a bookie who will pay treble the odds for only one winner you really want to take advantage of that.

[Zilzalian]

4 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

I am "lucky" in that I normally have a lot of selections each day (30 today) although I only have serious bets on a few of them.

 

My biggest win so far was a treble at Leicester. A lot of my bets tend to be in lower class handicaps. 

My ROI since I started doing L15s is 268%, long term I would be happy to achieve anything above 3% so there has been a fair slice of luck so far.

Again, though, I am grateful to you for opening my eyes about L15s. 

My biggest win since November is also a (20p) treble beating 3 winners and a NR (40p). The trebles at higher odds are what i consider the backbone of my L15 bets. not sure if you remember the first time i posted a months worth of L15's? it just about broke even (the singles were in profit) on that occasion i didnt get 1 treble that month so broke even just off singles and doubles. after your query about what the singles produced i did say "it was unusual, i generally get at least 1 treble per month".

[The Equaliser]

5.00 Bri Red Alert 3/1

6.05 Nb Bint Havana Grey 5/1

7.15 Nb Vaynor 7/1

8.25 Nb AL Motasim 7/1

1 x 0.10 w L15 = 269.22 & 1 x 0.50 w Acca = 720.00 = Total 1051.40 for 2 points

I am happy to do these all day long 🙂

RESULTS UPDATE

I made a couple of mistakes with the last L15. I put in Red Alert instead of Yimou.  This was because the stats had Tony Carroll and William Carson with a 100% record at Brighton.  TC won the 3.30 with Jason Watson aboard but I got zilch.  Red Alert became a "bandwagon" horse"  Of course these can win but quite often the value has gone.  My biggest mistake was not backing Woodhay Wonder in the 6.05 at Newbury.  I noted it this morning and forgot it was running despite putting up Bin Havan Grey 🥵.

My YTD L15 Profit is 103.60 but my YTD Actual profit has dwindled to +4.64.

I am very happy to continue on like this as it only cost me 4 points for having an interest in 8 races.  As I said yesterday I will only put up 0.25 ew bets on long-priced outsiders from now on.  I think that in the main singles bets are a mug's game   🙂

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by The Equaliser
RESULTS UPDATE

[Zilzalian]

On 6/26/2023 at 11:46 AM, MCLARKE said:

System selections

For the next week or so i am going to see if i can identify your winners and losers before they run if put up in time. There may be an angle in seeing if any of your selections match up with mine, having said that it may well be better to do this on the winter aw program so even if it fails now i will try again after November. It will be of 3 options agree, disagree, no opinion.

[Zilzalian]

1 hour ago, harry_rag said:

Just to give a bit more context to the power of the bonuses, without any the L15 would turn your -5% ROI into -10.3%. The double the odds bonus increases that to 5.84% and the +15% all 4 correct edges it up to 7.08%. Treble the odds for one winner turbo charges it to 23.2%.

So if you can find a bookie who will pay treble the odds for only one winner you really want to take advantage of that.

To be honest Harry although i am aware that at the odds i back at will always produce profit for 1 winner i never even consider the bonus's. Betfred pay triple the odds lucky 15 or used to. Have you tried lucky 15's with football bets?

[harry_rag]

1 hour ago, Zilzalian said:

To be honest Harry although i am aware that at the odds i back at will always produce profit for 1 winner i never even consider the bonus's.

They do their heavy lifting in the background regardless! Taking @MCLARKE's average odds but with a +5% ROI you'd increase that to 11.1% by doing a L15 even with no bonus. Double odds 1 winner gets you to 30.1% and treble odds to 48.9%. If you aren't getting a bonus you're mathematically better off doing yankees rather than L15 (as the singles don't multiply your edge) with an ROI of 24.1% You'd just need to withstand longer losing runs due to getting nothing back for singles.

1 hour ago, Zilzalian said:

Betfred pay triple the odds lucky 15 or used to. Have you tried lucky 15's with football bets?

I'd love to but the initial problem is I don't know if I've got any accounts that would pay a bonus for 1 winner even on horses and I'm not aware of a single bookie I can bet with (online or shops) that offers a bonus for sports bets (it's generally horses and, maybe, dogs only). If I could find somewhere to do it I'd probably give it a go but I'd have to change my betting approach to line up 4 selections at the same time. I tend to bet on a game by game basis and prefer to have confirmed line ups for a my main betting. I could try it theoretically (say a first goalscorer L15 on a day with plenty of games) but it would be a lot of wasted effort for something I could never do in practice.

[MCLARKE]

All very interesting.

I am amazed that in all my years of betting I have never seen the benefits of lucky 15s mentioned anywhere. I assume the bet has been available for a few years and is not a recent phenomenon.

It is the only time I have seen a method of turning a losing system into a profitable one.

The only downsides I can see are :-

1 There can be long losing runs

2. You need to find 4 candidates each day (ideally they should be best priced with the bookmaker you are using)

3. You will be shut down by the bookmaker after making a profit

 

 

[MCLARKE]

4 hours ago, harry_rag said:

So if you can find a bookie who will pay treble the odds for only one winner you really want to take advantage of that.

The only 1 I can find is Betfred and unfortunately I was reseticted by them a long time ago. Various forums state Boylesports is treble but when I placed a bet with them I "only" got double.

[Zilzalian]

17 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

All very interesting.

I am amazed that in all my years of betting I have never seen the benefits of lucky 15s mentioned anywhere. I assume the bet has been available for a few years and is not a recent phenomenon.

It is the only time I have seen a method of turning a losing system into a profitable one.

The only downsides I can see are :-

1 There can be long losing runs

2. You need to find 4 candidates each day (ideally they should be best priced with the bookmaker you are using)

3. You will be shut down by the bookmaker after making a profit

 

 

Lucky 15/31/63 have been available all my  40Years of betting, when i first started betting after about 3 months or so i took every betting slip home to study inc football slips, i then sorted them into piles and studied each and every one the only angle i could find interest in the football ones were first goal scorers and anytime in the match goal scorers. The racing ones i began two piles, 1. rejected and 2. further investigation. Given my financial situation at the time i quickly realised that my best option of winning anything decent was the Luckys. Fortunately i was one of the first i knew that had a computer so i needed some ammo and started to do speed figures (my own formula) and quickly realised how useful they were but i still to this day maintain that notebook and memory are the very best tools for the job ( i point to what i said yesterday about Young Merlin 11/1 as a great example) The other main ingredient with Luckys is time and effort to reject or accept a selection. In my estimation 20 hours a week is the very minimum amount of work to put in, i have a direct correlation in my betting patterns with more effort more success, less effort and i may as well take my money and run regarding L15. I do not put all my eggs in this basket, i do singles, forecasts and tricasts where i think they are good use of my time in races i have already assessed.

[Zilzalian]

1 hour ago, harry_rag said:

They do their heavy lifting in the background regardless! Taking @MCLARKE's average odds but with a +5% ROI you'd increase that to 11.1% by doing a L15 even with no bonus. Double odds 1 winner gets you to 30.1% and treble odds to 48.9%. If you aren't getting a bonus you're mathematically better off doing yankees rather than L15 (as the singles don't multiply your edge) with an ROI of 24.1% You'd just need to withstand longer losing runs due to getting nothing back for singles.

I'd love to but the initial problem is I don't know if I've got any accounts that would pay a bonus for 1 winner even on horses and I'm not aware of a single bookie I can bet with (online or shops) that offers a bonus for sports bets (it's generally horses and, maybe, dogs only). If I could find somewhere to do it I'd probably give it a go but I'd have to change my betting approach to line up 4 selections at the same time. I tend to bet on a game by game basis and prefer to have confirmed line ups for a my main betting. I could try it theoretically (say a first goalscorer L15 on a day with plenty of games) but it would be a lot of wasted effort for something I could never do in practice.

[harry_rag]

33 minutes ago, Zilzalian said:

Just been ploughing back through all my "betting" folder emails and looking at the various "get stuffed" missives I've had withdrawing BOG and offers generally. I'll have to take a closer look tomorrow but none of them appear to specifically cover L15 bonuses (assuming the firm offered them in the first place). Can't find anything from 365 but there may be a few emails lost due to predating my current laptop. I'd make it long odds on that I won't get the bonus from 365 but it should be easy to verify (do a few small goalscorer ones till I hit 1 winner and see what the return is). Given I don't benefit from two goals up or the 25% bet builder boost I think I know the outcome unfortunately!

[harry_rag]

I put 4 selections in my slip and I don't even get offered the option of doing a L15! 

I can see all the other options up to and including the yankee but no sign of the L15.

Tried it with 4 draws in footy and 4 horses from tomorrow's racing. Obviously I could still do the yankee and 4 singles to same stake but not the L15 as a "single" bet.

Maybe that's how you're cut off from getting the bonus?

Edited June 27, 2023 by harry_rag

[MCLARKE]

5 hours ago, harry_rag said:

Given those returns to level stakes singles (and assuming a 15% bonus for all 4 correct) I make it that your long term expected ROI from L15 is 7.08%. As you're so far ahead of that I'm not sure if that makes a convincing case for taking the money and running!  It illustrates the power of the L15 (largely due to the bonus for one winner) in terms of turning a negative ROI into a positive one.

I've done further analysis of my systems data as long term these will be the selections I expect will show the highest return at level stakes.

I have removed duplicate entries (I sometimes use a selection more than once to complete a lucky 15).

This reduces my ROI from -1% to -4% (which in itself shows that I have been lucky in the duplicate horses I have selected).

This has left me with 624 selections (156 L15s).

Assuming I bet them in the date order that they are in my spreadsheet (a tad theoretical because some of them will span separate days) then I generate a profit of £283 from a stake of £234 (121% roi).

There would have been 1 treble, 12 doubles, 56 singles and 156 blanks.

The 56 singles would have contributed £32.90 profit from the doubles boost. This is a 14% return on turnover which is encouraging as it matches the theoretical expectations.

My next step is to run a number of simulations of the data in random order and see what the results are.

I'm still trying to find a flaw in the lucky 15s but I'm running out of options.

[Zilzalian]

38 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

I've done further analysis of my systems data as long term these will be the selections I expect will show the highest return at level stakes.

I have removed duplicate entries (I sometimes use a selection more than once to complete a lucky 15).

This reduces my ROI from -1% to -4% (which in itself shows that I have been lucky in the duplicate horses I have selected).

This has left me with 624 selections (156 L15s).

Assuming I bet them in the date order that they are in my spreadsheet (a tad theoretical because some of them will span separate days) then I generate a profit of £283 from a stake of £234 (121% roi).

There would have been 1 treble, 12 doubles, 56 singles and 156 blanks.

The 56 singles would have contributed £32.90 profit from the doubles boost. This is a 14% return on turnover which is encouraging as it matches the theoretical expectations.

My next step is to run a number of simulations of the data in random order and see what the results are.

I'm still trying to find a flaw in the lucky 15s but I'm running out of options.

@MCLARKE @harry_rag18 members submitted a lucky 15 per day for 5 days that's 90 L15s. How much did the bookies make off the 18 over the week? Why and how did they make that money?

[MCLARKE]

3 minutes ago, Zilzalian said:

18 members submitted a lucky 15 per day for 5 days that's 90 L15s. How much did the bookies make off the 18 over the week? Why and how did they make that money?

Fair point.

I suspect in most cases it's a long time before that treble or four timer comes in, by which time they may well have lost interest.

I've obviously been influenced by the fact I struck gold so early !

[Zilzalian]

1 minute ago, MCLARKE said:

Fair point.

I suspect in most cases it's a long time before that treble or four timer comes in, by which time they may well have lost interest.

I've obviously been influenced by the fact I struck gold so early !

Quick back of fag packet we staked £270 returned £171 A loss of £99. Next question- would the bookies be happy with that return? and still the question of how did they make that money? with respect your last line is irrelevant.

[harry_rag]

32 minutes ago, Zilzalian said:

Quick back of fag packet we staked £270 returned £171 A loss of £99. Next question- would the bookies be happy with that return? and still the question of how did they make that money? with respect your last line is irrelevant.

Probably a bit less staked given a few of us didn’t do one every day (I still accounted for that as zero returned). I’d say the sample size is so small as to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, one half decent treble would have made it loss making for the bookies. I’d be more interested in how they’ve faired in this thread, especially barring @MCLARKE’s results.

In terms of how they made the money, the obvious aside (absence of a decent winning ticket) are you getting at the angle of us backing so many different horses in the same races?

[Zilzalian]

27 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

Probably a bit less staked given a few of us didn’t do one every day (I still accounted for that as zero returned). I’d say the sample size is so small as to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, one half decent treble would have made it loss making for the bookies. I’d be more interested in how they’ve faired in this thread, especially barring @MCLARKE’s results.

In terms of how they made the money, the obvious aside (absence of a decent winning ticket) are you getting at the angle of us backing so many different horses in the same races?

Just thinking out loud harry i have a simple theory and that is incompetence by punters the bookies love the small stakes Lucky 15, that's what they were designed for. Then some got a bit higher stakes winners, they counteracted most of that with the Cash out. To be successful consistently you need to be competent with your reading of races and knowing as much as possible about the horses you are dealing with and more importantly which ones to reject at the fav end of the market.

[harry_rag]

Bottom line is that multis are a bookies benefit but they are also a benefit (used judiciously) for any punter who can show a profit to level stakes singles. The bonus for one winner on a L15 is of huge value to the punter as it increases profits for those that make them and can turn small losses into a profit. Offering those bonuses must cost firms quite a lot of money (especially at treble the odds) and may well be a close call in terms of cost/benefit analysis. If they were a no-brainer then every firm would offer them rather than a few and they would be offered more widely on sports bets rather than on a racing only basis.

As you allude to, the average ROI of the typical racing punter must be terrible for such a generous offer to be viable. I’d suggest that if the average punter on here (using simple bottom line from the monthly naps comp) was representative of punters as a whole then the bookies wouldn’t be making a profit from L15s with a bonus.

[MCLARKE]

5 hours ago, harry_rag said:

As you allude to, the average ROI of the typical racing punter must be terrible for such a generous offer to be viable. I’d suggest that if the average punter on here (using simple bottom line from the monthly naps comp) was representative of punters as a whole then the bookies wouldn’t be making a profit from L15s with a bonus.

Yes we need to be grateful that there are so many incompetent punters out there. At the end of the day that is really who we are competing with, the bookie is just the middleman taking his margin / commission.

@Zilzalian makes a good point about cash outs, I suspect a lot of punters will take the cash out, destroying any potential benefit they have. The cash outs are usually terrible value.

It is human nature, apparently the psychological impact of making a loss is twice that of making a gain.

[Villa Chris]

13 hours ago, The Equaliser said:

5.00 Bri Red Alert 3/1

6.05 Nb Bint Havana Grey 5/1

7.15 Nb Vaynor 7/1

8.25 Nb AL Motasim 7/1

1 x 0.10 w L15 = 269.22 & 1 x 0.50 w Acca = 720.00 = Total 1051.40 for 2 points

I am happy to do these all day long 🙂

RESULTS UPDATE

I made a couple of mistakes with the last L15. I put in Red Alert instead of Yimou.  This was because the stats had Tony Carroll and William Carson with a 100% record at Brighton.  TC won the 3.30 with Jason Watson aboard but I got zilch.  Red Alert became a "bandwagon" horse"  Of course these can win but quite often the value has gone.  My biggest mistake was not backing Woodhay Wonder in the 6.05 at Newbury.  I noted it this morning and forgot it was running despite putting up Bin Havan Grey 🥵.

My YTD L15 Profit is 103.60 but my YTD Actual profit has dwindled to +4.64.

I am very happy to continue on like this as it only cost me 4 points for having an interest in 8 races.  As I said yesterday I will only put up 0.25 ew bets on long-priced outsiders from now on.  I think that in the main singles bets are a mug's game   🙂

 

I’m a fan of the lucky 15 but singles are definitely not a mugs game. 

[harry_rag]

7 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

Yes we need to be grateful that there are so many incompetent punters out there.

And purely recreational punters who are content in the knowledge that they lose in the long run but happy that the losses are paying for their entertainment when watching the races or a footy game. I wonder what the negative ROI of the average punter is? I assume that L15s are profitable for the bookies even with the bonus offer but I suppose, in theory, some things are offered as "loss leaders" to draw in otherwise profitable customers (those superboost offers like 1/3 boosted to evens are clear examples of that but, of course, the stakes are limited). I can imagine double the odds for one winner still being profitable but treble must be pushing it.

Consider this (still based on your average odds figure).

A punter with an ROI of -8.3% from singles would see that worsen to -16.6% if they did L15 with no bonus but hit break even with the benefit of double the odds for one winner. 

An ROI of -15.4% would slump to -29% doing L15 with no bonus but hit break even at treble the odds.

Based on that I'd expect offering double the odds to still be profitable but treble the odds must be cutting the profit to the bone. I'd suspect any firm offering treble the odds to be fairly ruthless when it comes to limiting profitable customers and withdrawing offers etc.

All of this, of course, ignores the reality that x% of new customers will also play casino and lottery products etc. which are a source of relentless profit for the firms! Money given away in bonuses on one bet are just part of their acquisition costs for new customers and retaining existing ones.

[The Equaliser]

6 hours ago, Villa Chris said:

I’m a fan of the lucky 15 but singles are definitely not a mugs game. 

They have proven to be for me I'm afraid.  In handicaps, it looks as though anything can win a race.  I will be most interested if anyone can come up with and publish a strategy for winning decent money on singles bets

[Villa Chris]

19 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

They have proven to be for me I'm afraid.  In handicaps, it looks as though anything can win a race.  I will be most interested if anyone can come up with and publish a strategy for winning decent money on singles bets

It’s definitely not easy I know that, especially handicaps. I think there’s people out there who do very well on singles. For me singles is your bread and butter .

[harry_rag]

9 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

I will be most interested if anyone can come up with and publish a strategy for winning decent money on singles bets

Follow my anytime goalscorer system bets which currently have an ROI of around 11%, follow my Bet 365 Bet Builder selections which currently have an ROI of around 22%. I'm being slightly facetious (you mean racing and the latter ROI is no doubt unsustainable in the longer term) but the point stands; the strategy you're looking for is to "simply" back selections consistently at better than the true odds. Some people are a good enough judge of horses to do that but they would either choose not to share their secret or wouldn't be able to articulate how they do it.

You may well have alighted on the optimum way for you to spend your betting budget; as a small stakes punter who hasn't been beating the odds with single bets then the L15 with double (or treble) the odds for one winner probably gets you the best possible return and provides you with the most entertainment from your betting. I'd suggest still recording what your return would be to level stakes singles and trying to improve that but you may feel that involves more time and effort than you wish to spend.

[Zilzalian]

52 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

And purely recreational punters who are content in the knowledge that they lose in the long run but happy that the losses are paying for their entertainment when watching the races or a footy game. I wonder what the negative ROI of the average punter is? I assume that L15s are profitable for the bookies even with the bonus offer but I suppose, in theory, some things are offered as "loss leaders" to draw in otherwise profitable customers (those superboost offers like 1/3 boosted to evens are clear examples of that but, of course, the stakes are limited). I can imagine double the odds for one winner still being profitable but treble must be pushing it.

Consider this (still based on your average odds figure).

A punter with an ROI of -8.3% from singles would see that worsen to -16.6% if they did L15 with no bonus but hit break even with the benefit of double the odds for one winner. 

An ROI of -15.4% would slump to -29% doing L15 with no bonus but hit break even at treble the odds.

Based on that I'd expect offering double the odds to still be profitable but treble the odds must be cutting the profit to the bone. I'd suspect any firm offering treble the odds to be fairly ruthless when it comes to limiting profitable customers and withdrawing offers etc.

All of this, of course, ignores the reality that x% of new customers will also play casino and lottery products etc. which are a source of relentless profit for the firms! Money given away in bonuses on one bet are just part of their acquisition costs for new customers and retaining existing ones.

One thing is for sure harry there are not many bookies these days they are now pretty much all accountants.  I think the first paragraph of your musing is very accurate. Not many Harry Rags and Clarkeys around in bookies shops. One thing i did realise from an early age the "winners" were all old bstards that had all the experience. Betfred used to market themselves the "Bonus King" believe it or not they used to offer 100% bonus for a 6/6 Lucky 63, 50% for 5/5 lucky 31 and 25% the L15 not sure if they still do.

[MCLARKE]

System selections

[Zilzalian]

33 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

They have proven to be for me I'm afraid.  In handicaps, it looks as though anything can win a race.  I will be most interested if anyone can come up with and publish a strategy for winning decent money on singles bets

Took your time getting there lad, Prizing you off those trixies was like trying shift chuddy gum off ya carpet. Strategy for winning on singles is about 40 hours a week, dedication, discipline and hard graft, it really is that simple.

[MCLARKE]

5yo selections