Bankers versus Stats

[GETT1NLOTS]

Ok.. I'm going to break a forum rule here (to a degree) by discussing past bets that have been posted.... but not as 'Naps' or Bankers. Every week since I got back into betting about 6 months ago (about when I found this site actually) I have looked through the football coupon and (as most of us do?) thought "That's my banker". And every week, And HONESTLY, Every week that Banker has won. (This week it was Sheff Utd, last week it was Everton etc) Now this has got me thinking.... well re-thinking actually. When I joined this forum a few months ago I came here thinking that you could pick one team a week, place a BIG bet and IF you had a sound knowledge of football - not because you studied - just because you loved the game - you could turn a profit. HOWEVER My head soon got turned with talk of Value, Yields, Stats and other such things. (Actually I agree with Value analysing). Anyway as a result of these new ideas (to me anyway) I tried a 'Draw' betting system based on the odds of a home team and other such nonsenses believing that my original thoughts of staying away from the ONE BIG BET PER WEEK THEORY had been erroneous. (Incidentally, rightly or wrongly I had always believed in this theory prior to coming on the forum because that's what I thought PROFESSIONAL GAMBLERS did - still don't know if that's true or not?). As a result of trying stat analysis, staking plans, yield 'proofed' ideas etc I broke even or lost a bit. But my BANKERS came in every week. So (getting ready for major abuse here) I have had to come out and speak my mind. :| I think it is possible to win at football betting based on placing one big bet as and when you feel a team is a BANKER. Now you might cover with a Draw as well to break even (all depending on the value offered) however 90 - 95% of the time just a straight win. You AVOID accys, trebles, doubles. You avoid backing a team just because a statistical yield plan thingybob says so. You avoid even backing a team because they represent value (like Birmingham yesterday that I honestly thought might get something with Bellamy and Woodgate out.) You just back your banker, based on football knowledge, gut feeling, form and team information because betting in ANY other way is the bookmakers DREAM. You see, I believe that most of us get the majority of our 'calls' right. Just read through the 'tips' threads. It's that we ruin our bets with that ONE extra selection that goes on the end. And all the while... the BANKER rolls in... laughing at you. :lol Your thoughts please. Feel free to be BRUTAL. :p

[GETT1NLOTS]

Re: Bankers versus Stats Sorry I need to add another couple of things. (It won't let me edit?) I don't back draws as the main BANKER bet EVER because if you think a game is so close it will end in a draw then defacto you are saying that the game could go either way surely? What's the sense backing a game like that? Backing a draw to COVER a BANKER might make sense to cover what you might consider the 'luck factor' against your selection - depending on the value of the odds. Also I accept that whilst, as I have said honestly, in the last six months my bankers have come in (including the mid season break so probably only 10 -12 weeks in all) I accept that no-one can get them right 100% of the time. That would be ridiculous. But I believe that I can get my BANKER right over 75% of the time and considering I back teams between 1.66 (min) to 2.8 range normally as my banker (I do not and would NEVER back teams at 1.12 like Man Utd, Celtic, Rangers) I should turn a really good profit. The next bit (akin to a Martindale staking plan I might or might not add. mI need to think more about the following.) I have a healthy bank (for me anyway) and I believe that if a BANKER went down one week I would increase my bet the next week to regin my losses AND the money I had expected to win (my lost wages from the previous week!!! :lol ). I think based on my bank AND my needed weekly 'wage' I could do this for a maximum of 4 weeks. I refuse to believe that I would get 4 BANKERS wrong in any streak - ever. Right.... that should get us arguing. ;)