Jump to content
Announcements
** October Nap's Competition Result: 1st Zilzalian, 2nd Mickyftm32, 3rd Joales, 4th internetmails KO Cup: redno2009, Most Winners: Xtc12**
** Football Tipster Competition Result : 1st MrJol, 2nd buga00, 3rd glavintoby, 4th Boulder5111, 5th bobsyerunkle **

Recommended Posts

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OddsAgainst

Re: Bankers versus Stats Looks like you are talking about 26 in a row here less say, 8 weeks for the close season. About 18 bankers in a row? Without the odds there is no much one can say other than that is a quite remarkable performance. Why not post them up every week and enter them for the systems league? At the end of the day it does not matter whether you find value objectively, subjectively or with a mix of both, as long as you find it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Bankers versus Stats Odds I have added a bit more detail since your reply so actually I think it is more like 10 to 12 selections on the trot rather than 18... but that is working on memory... although I am clear the bankers have not gone down once. I know that your response (as any sane person would say) would be "Ok - post them". That's fair enough and although I believe it might be bad 'joo joo' :lol (you know the gambling Gods and all that) I think that's what I will do starting next week. Assuming I pick a banker (very rarely I cant see one). I would still like debates and comments from others as I can't be the first to have believed in himself to this extent surely???.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bcrazy

Re: Bankers versus Stats

I refuse to believe that I would get 4 BANKERS wrong in any streak - ever.
Sorry but I'm afraid to tell you you will get a shock here. You reckon you could get around 75% right? Well then this gives you a 0.39% chance of getting your 1st 4 bets all wrong- may not sound much but after 100 bets the chances of having got 4 in a row wrong will be reasonably big (any figures Mick?). If you are this good at picking your bankers then stick to level stakes as increasing them will increase risk and the amount of luck needed to profit. Losing 3 in a row does not make it any more likely (or less likely) your 4th bet will win. Also you make have problems with your nerves staking the amount needed on your 4th bet.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Bankers versus Stats BCrazy, I see your point. To be fair it's not a 'shock' as you put it but I suppose the stats speak for themselves. If I state that 75% of my bankers should be right then obviously 25% will be wrong (assuming I don't back the draw to cover the win stake). This meansd that of course the 25% could come in a run of 4 in a row. So 'thanks' that helps with the Martingdale'esk' part I tagged on to the end. Still, I maintain though that even with 75% correct, if I keep the bets the same - I will make a healthy profit. ;) p.s. I expected a more vitriolic attack from you lot than this! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Weststander

Re: Bankers versus Stats Hi G, don't doubt your winning run,so it might be worth analysing how you make your selection. Is it an instintive choice,in which case you might be picking up on subjective factors that aren't reflected in the price. Or are you really familiar with the team's you're selecting or opposing,so you get to know the ebb and flow of their form. Think you're right to fear the bad "joo joo. By posting you're adding another subconcious factor to your selection process,namely"this pick will be posted",therefore you're almost bound to approach it in a slightly different manner. From a purely stats point of view,the law of averages is bound to get you in the end.The longer the run of selections,the closer the actual proportions of winners tends toward the true proportions. Add in that soccer's statistically quite noisey(few goals,therefore luck plays a big part) & sooner or later the losers will arrive. Thinking that something carn't lose is always a bit dangerous because unless an outcome is formally forbidden it's always got some probability of happening,no matter how small. W.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Bankers versus Stats West, You mention a number of points I appreciate greatly. Firstly I agree, the 'joo joo', is something I worry about because AS YOU SAY I believe knowing that my picks are going to be posted in the future MIGHT effect the selection of the BANKER. Having said that.... I am going to post the banker anyway: - Because if I don't I know people (including me somehow) will doubt the validity of the BANKER, ONE BET ONLY system. Thanks for your input. Wish me 'luck'???? :|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Bankers versus Stats West, by the way, You're right. The BANKER is often picked on a PART instinctive intuition - not only price. Is this to do with price, value, form, know-how, team selections or a combination of all - I don't know? I put it down to the LOVE of the game that i would follow ANYWAY and this knowledge MIGHT lead me to know better than the bookie sometimes??? Dunno???????

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lardonio

Re: Bankers versus Stats I think all that is needed now is for you to share your bankers and we can all see how this will work out. I'm nearly getting a headache reading your thread, so let's just have your selections for the next months and see what happens. I'll follow them if they seem sound. Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Bankers versus Stats Agreed and Thanx. I will add the exact nature of the staking plan that will go alongside the bankers later in the week when I evaluate my bank and the realities of what I would need the weekly wage to be - taking into account the inevitability of the occasional loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Oddsfellow

Re: Bankers versus Stats Interesting stuff. The question for me though is what is a banker. I suppose it is a bet of high confidence. But in order for it to work the odds need to be right as well. You say you had Everton last week but if they had been 1.20 instead of 1.7 would it have been viewed the same. So i think without even realising it we all do value analysis of some sort. The question of how many times to bet is covered in an excellent article on Professional Gambler. What it recommends is lots of little bets with a small advantage to minimise risk but maximise returns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Bankers versus Stats You're quite correct that I do take value into consideration. And you are right again when you say that I would not have a banker at 1.2. It has to be a game that I see a clear winner in BUT not at stupidly prohibative odds. If the banker isn't at least 1.66 then I wouldn't back it as I know I will get the occasional one wrong and need my correct selections to make enough profit to cover the odd wrong pick... On the subject of the 'Professional Gambler' you refer to - is that a book, a website or....? Please let me know. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...