Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Grandouet

Options
1…34689…21

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Slattsy
    Registered Users Posts: 15,775 ✭✭✭✭Slattsy


    I'm up for a session.


  • Options
    #153
    hucklebuck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,173 ✭✭✭hucklebuck


    Huntley wrote: »
    Where is the mathematical fact that states value is the most fundamental aspect of gambling? Amongst all the clueless masses scampering to their computers to get a dig in nobody has acknowledged that without winning selections ones perception of value is totally redundant.

    Here is one, if you have a €1 bet on 100 selections and you think all selections are value.

    With 1 100/1 winner and 1 50/1 winner and everything else loses, your balance is €152

    With 76 winners at 1/1, your balance is €152

    With 2 winning selections you end up with the same money as 76 winning selections so the number of winners isn't that important


  • Options
    #154
    hucklebuck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,173 ✭✭✭hucklebuck


    ft9 wrote: »
    I think we all need to go on a bonding session in preparation for Cheltenham! I'd say it would turn into a massacre.

    All messing aside I would love to meet up for a few scoops, I was only thinking that the other day when myself and Huntley were de-railing the Gold Cup thread.

    We spent so much time taking the piss and arguing it might be just the tonic.


  • Options
    #155
    Huntley
    Registered Users Posts: 878 ✭✭✭Huntley


    hucklebuck wrote: »
    That would work except he is always right :rolleyes:

    I was waiting for your cue hucklebuck. Again, you are another who likes to talk plenty but fails to back it up. So much so that you wouldn't take a match bet of a couple of ton on a horse that you have frequently stated is better. Feel free to jump on the bandwagon though and pretend you have a clue.

    The difference between me and the majority of those throwing in digs is that I have frequently backed up my opinions with results. This topic is more perceptive but lets not forget the outrage directed towards me this time last year for my views, and it wasn't me who was made look foolish in the end.

    I don't really have the time currently to do it, but if you want to set up a selection log for Cheltenham and see who has the highest RoI I would oblige you. Provided there is a wager involved of course.
    RichieLawlor wrote: »
    I know I should listen to my own advice but this is such a great day for the forum.

    Quite comical that you seem to be aroused by the poor attempts to chastise me.
    RichieLawlor wrote: »
    I'm gonna have my 7 year old come on and explain the maths of it to Huntley

    We all saw the photos of you Dick, to say I'm sceptical of you actually having a child would be an understatement.


  • Options
    #156
    RichieLawlor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,873 ✭✭✭RichieLawlor


    hucklebuck wrote: »
    Here is one, if you have a €1 bet on 100 selections and you think all selections are value.

    With 1 100/1 winner and 1 50/1 winner and everything else loses, your balance is €152

    With 76 winners at 1/1, your balance is €152

    With 2 winning selections you end up with the same money as 76 winning selections so the number of winners isn't that important

    Whoa now, his head will explode


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    hucklebuck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,173 ✭✭✭hucklebuck


    RichieLawlor wrote: »
    I'm gonna have my 7 year old come on and explain the maths of it to Huntley

    They might be in the same class, it's normally 7 year olds that resort to name calling when in the midst of an argument.


  • Options
    #158
    RichieLawlor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,873 ✭✭✭RichieLawlor


    Huntley wrote: »

    We all saw the photos of you Dick, to say I'm sceptical of you actually having a child would be an understatement.

    Lol, it's a sad day when all the great Huntley has left is personal insults after he has revealed himself to be nothing more than a mouthpiece

    That's when you know your f***** old pal

    Lol


  • Options
    #159
    hucklebuck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,173 ✭✭✭hucklebuck


    Huntley wrote: »
    I was waiting for your cue hucklebuck. Again, you are another who likes to talk plenty but fails to back it up. So much so that you wouldn't take a match bet of a couple of ton on a horse that you have frequently stated is better.

    Lol, My cue? I was in this thread before you showed up rubbishing pretty much the world as we know it. Fails to back it up? Lol, we both have logs but yours is far superior:rolleyes:. You seem to have this messiah complex where you think people take you word as gospel, not so much. I love your confidence in yourself. I have already stated I would much rather have 7/1 about Zarkandar than evens.
    Huntley wrote: »
    Feel free to jump on the bandwagon though and pretend you have a clue.

    1 + 1 = 2 - FACT
    Huntley wrote: »
    The difference between me and the majority of those throwing in digs is that I have frequently backed up my opinions with results. This topic is more perceptive but lets not forget the outrage directed towards me this time last year for my views, and it wasn't me who was made look foolish in the end.
    I am waiting for the whole maths thing to be debunked.
    Huntley wrote: »
    We all saw the photos of you Dick, to say I'm sceptical of you actually having a child would be an understatement.

    We all saw the photos? I didn't, maybe you are stalking him?

    If you are talking about the article he posted ages ago, If I recall he did a tipping piece. Maybe you don't win as much as you lead us to believe?


  • Options
    #160
    NewApproach
    Registered Users Posts: 2,185 ✭✭✭NewApproach


    Huntley wrote: »
    I was waiting for your cue hucklebuck. Again, you are another who likes to talk plenty but fails to back it up. So much so that you wouldn't take a match bet of a couple of ton on a horse that you have frequently stated is better. Feel free to jump on the bandwagon though and pretend you have a clue.

    The difference between me and the majority of those throwing in digs is that I have frequently backed up my opinions with results. This topic is more perceptive but lets not forget the outrage directed towards me this time last year for my views, and it wasn't me who was made look foolish in the end.

    I don't really have the time currently to do it, but if you want to set up a selection log for Cheltenham and see who has the highest RoI I would oblige you. Provided there is a wager involved of course.



    Quite comical that you seem to be aroused by the poor attempts to chastise me.



    We all saw the photos of you Dick, to say I'm sceptical of you actually having a child would be an understatement.

    What would a Cheltenham log prove? It is a sample size of about 15 bets maximum. You claiming it to be a worthwhile measure proves nothing more than your complete ignorance of the basic theory of statistics or probability.


  • Options
    #161
    Nulty
    Registered Users Posts: 7,838 ✭✭✭Nulty


    Huntley is just a smooth talking charmer. I'd be surprised if everyone here still had their pants on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    mdwexford
    Registered Users Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭mdwexford


    Thread kicked off nicely.

    I used to kind of like Huntleys posts either ripping people out of it or sometimes talking a lot of sense about form but I'm shocked here by his lack of acceptance that if the price isn't right long term you are going to lose.

    There is plenty of math involved in punting if you are serious about it.


  • Options
    #163
    UrbanSea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,335 ✭✭✭✭UrbanSea


    Huntley there's no need for personal insults, inconspicuous or otherwise


  • Options
    #164
    hucklebuck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,173 ✭✭✭hucklebuck


    I am having quite the quandry today!

    I was thinking what if a bookie has enhanced odds on a horse I want to back up to a certain time in their shops?

    As maths is wrong I wonder if:

    Odds still exist
    Time still exists

    What if I go to the shops to buy meat and I ask how much half a kilo of mince is and they say what is a kilo? What is a Euro? What if the tills dont work?

    Is my car going to start? Will the train run?

    Hell will this post make it to the internet?

    What kind of sorcery is this computer if maths is wrong?


  • Options
    #165
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    Sleep easy Hucklebuck, I've every faith in the law of large numbers

    Anyway, that discussion is probably for another thread.


  • Options
    #166
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Huntley wrote: »
    Do you understand the idiocy in stating that value is the most important aspect of successful gambling? The only value that counts is a winning selection. That is the most fundamental aspect of gambling, without it you cannot be successful.

    There is no 'winner' when you place a bet. All there is is the probability of each horse winning the race.

    In the original example, if I thought a given horse had a 12.5% chance of winning (even if I'm just instinctively doing that in my head) I would back it at 8/1 and I wouldn't at 6/1. Keep doing the former for 12.5% horses and I make money. Keep doing the latter and I lose. Simple as that.

    NB if I think a horse has a 25% chance of winning, fine - I'd back it at either 6/1 or 8/1. The point still holds.

    Successful betting (long term) requires being good at identifying what chance each horse has of winning the race and then backing them when the bookie has it 'wrong'.

    Saying it's about 'picking winners' is like saying successful investment is about buying shares low and selling them high.


  • Options
    #167
    droidman123
    Registered Users Posts: 5,409 ✭✭✭droidman123


    I will openly admit i dont understand to much in the way of mathematics theorms or stats or laws of probabilitites. My passion is for horse racing.now i suppose people can say they all go hand in hand and thats fair enough. At the start of this "debate" i simply said if i fancied a horse that i thought should be about 8-1 and it turned out to be only 6-1 i would still back it. I still stand by that.i dont think that makes me a mug punter or clueless about gambling.its just my way. I,ve been backing horses over 30 years...mostly losing....but i get enjoyment from watching my selections run. I think its wrong to over complicate the do,s and donts about gambling unless you are a pro punter,which i am not. Happy punting : )


  • Options
    #168
    Nulty
    Registered Users Posts: 7,838 ✭✭✭Nulty


    droidman123 wrote: »
    I will openly admit i dont understand to much in the way of mathematics theorms or stats or laws of probabilitites. My passion is for horse racing.now i suppose people can say they all go hand in hand and thats fair enough. At the start of this "debate" i simply said if i fancied a horse that i thought should be about 8-1 and it turned out to be only 6-1 i would still back it. I still stand by that.i dont think that makes me a mug punter or clueless about gambling.its just my way. I,ve been backing horses over 30 years...mostly losing....but i get enjoyment from watching my selections run. I think its wrong to over complicate the do,s and donts about gambling unless you are a pro punter,which i am not. Happy punting : )

    Kind of like when you go to buy a TV and you see the price in the catalogue as €499 but when you get to the shop it's €550. Do you still buy it? Was there another TV that was better for €600 - you could just pay an extra €50 and get the better one. Maybe go to another shop and see if you can get it for €499, or even on the internet for €460....


  • Options
    #169
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    droidman123 wrote: »
    I will openly admit i dont understand to much in the way of mathematics theorms or stats or laws of probabilitites. My passion is for horse racing.now i suppose people can say they all go hand in hand and thats fair enough. At the start of this "debate" i simply said if i fancied a horse that i thought should be about 8-1 and it turned out to be only 6-1 i would still back it. I still stand by that.i dont think that makes me a mug punter or clueless about gambling.its just my way. I,ve been backing horses over 30 years...mostly losing....but i get enjoyment from watching my selections run. I think its wrong to over complicate the do,s and donts about gambling unless you are a pro punter,which i am not. Happy punting : )

    FWIW, although I understand the maths and the principles behind betting for profit, I bet for fun.

    I think getting an edge is harder than ever, particularly since the exchanges arrived on the scene. We're in a world of near-perfect information and that makes prices more 'accurate' than ever before.

    On the plus side margins are lower than ever, but even so I don't kid myself that without a lot of work I would ever consistently make money at this game. I think many people who claim to do this are on a lucky run and nothing more.

    I love trying to find unfancied, under-the-radar horses from unfashionable yards. And when I find one I go looking for another 3 to put in the Lucky15. The very definition of a mug.


  • Options
    #170
    droidman123
    Registered Users Posts: 5,409 ✭✭✭droidman123


    Nulty wrote: »

    Kind of like when you go to buy a TV and you see the price in the catalogue as €499 but when you get to the shop it's €550. Do you still buy it? Was there another TV that was better for €600 - you could just pay an extra €50 and get the better one. Maybe go to another shop and see if you can get it for €499, or even on the internet for €460....
    In that instance i would sue the shop for false advertising ; )


  • Options
    #171
    droidman123
    Registered Users Posts: 5,409 ✭✭✭droidman123


    Orinoco wrote: »

    FWIW, although I understand the maths and the principles behind betting for profit, I bet for fun.

    I think getting an edge is harder than ever, particularly since the exchanges arrived on the scene. We're in a world of near-perfect information and that makes prices more 'accurate' than ever before.

    On the plus side margins are lower than ever, but even so I don't kid myself that without a lot of work I would ever consistently make money at this game. I think many people who claim to do this are on a lucky run and nothing more.

    I love trying to find unfancied, under-the-radar horses from unfashionable yards. And when I find one I go looking for another 3 to put in the Lucky15. The very definition of a mug.
    Lol definitly not a mug, you just enjoy horse racing.and dont let anybody tell you they beat the bookies more times than not, anyone that says that is deluded ; )


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    Colonel Sanders wrote: »

    Anyway, that discussion is probably for another thread.

    Such as this one


  • Options
    #173
    Huntley
    Registered Users Posts: 878 ✭✭✭Huntley


    UrbanSea wrote: »
    Huntley there's no need for personal insults, inconspicuous or otherwise

    Are you incognisant to his own comments? If he is big enough to make a comment he is big enough to take one. (No pun intended if you think that is an inconspicuous jab)
    RichieLawlor wrote: »
    Lol Huntley is worse than that clown in the Simonsig thread.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Successful betting (long term) requires being good at identifying what chance each horse has of winning the race and then backing them when the bookie has it 'wrong'.

    What is the marker to decide whether the bookie is wrong? The only marker is the selection winning, in which case the bookies price should always be lower than what was offered. (Essentially no price should be offered)

    It is all subjective, you may think that you are backing horses which are 'value', it may not be to someone else.

    Selecting horses that can win is far more important. Without winning selections than 'value' is totally redundant. You can pick as many horses as you perceive to be value but if they are not the likeliest winner than it is pointless. It is ones ability to find these winning selections which will determine whether they are successful in the long run or not.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Saying it's about 'picking winners' is like saying successful investment is about buying shares low and selling them high.

    Precisely, when you break it down to its most basic form that is the fundamental aspect of successful gambling.

    I determine value by the selection that is most likely to win. If a horses price collapses from 20's to 2's and loses does that mean the price is value? What value is there in a losing selection? In my opinion, there is none.

    In contrast to that, if the price collapses from 20's to 2's and the horse wins does that mean that the winning price wasn't value? To me it doesn't, as any winning selection is a value bet. The bookies got it wrong by pricing it at 20's, but likewise they did at 2's aswell.

    My views aren't as outrageous as much as the clueless masses who descended yesterday hoped, and there is plenty of credibility behind my thinking. Whether a bunch of strangers on the internet can accept that doesn't bother me. I don't post here to come across self righteous, I do it to provide different angles and analysis on races. The reason so many people were aroused yesterday to chastise me is because I can be very dismissive of idiotic opinions, which I most certainly am not accustomed to myself. Whether I come across arrogant is irrelevant, if people want to analyse my posts they will see that I rarely give bad advice.

    As I said, I'm not stating that to come across self righteous or to be praised, it is just a fact. There are too many clueless goons like hucklebuck and Dick who have no problem jumping on the bandwagon to criticise others but rarely provide any beneficial insight or analysis. I provide plenty of free analysis on races that usually pays dividends and in return the majority are waiting for a slip up to berate me.

    Its becoming quite tedious and it is no surprise that the piss poor analysis in general is synonymous with the external views about this forum.


  • Options
    #174
    rossom
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭rossom


    I can't understand how people completely dismiss the notion of value. Betting is all about individual perception of the likely outcome of an event and is placed PRIOR to the event occurring. I would classify value as receiving odds that exceed your particular perception of how an event will unfold.

    This is extremely basic (and a little skewed as there are only two finite possibilities) but I think its the easiest way to quantify what value is. If somebody is about to flip a coin and offers you 5/1 that it will land on heads then, regardless of the outcome, you are getting bigger odds than the 50-50 outcome. If the coin lands on tails fair enough you lost the bet but you were receiving grossly inflated odds that heads wouldn't occur.

    I apply that same mantra to long term betting and profitability. If you are offered 10/1 about horses that you feel has a 50% chance of winning 10 times you only have to be right once in 9 attempts to turn a profit. Thus, although a bet may lose a few times your perceived value (which is different for each individual) greatly exceeds the chances of your expected outcome.

    Another example. If a bookmaker offered you 10/1 on Simonsig in his next race against 3 100 rated rivals its clearly massive value despite what result occurs. Given that Simonsig's chances would be clearly an awful lot better that 1 win in 10 runnings, his price is inflated and is, as such, value. If Simonsig does not win the race due to some reason then although you have lost, considering you placed the bet prior to the event then he was still value at 10/1. If the race is run 10 more times he is bound to win the majority if not all of the rest of the races and you will turn a profit.

    Also, for conjectures sake, you back Simonsig at 10/1 and the saddle slips after the last fence and the jockey falls off when he was 50L clear. Would you not say that, even though Simonsig lost, he was still tremendous value at 10/1?!

    In essence its about backing a horse whose chances you feel are better than the odds available.

    Of course its not that simple and I'll cite an example of how I would view a horse.

    A few weeks ago there was a horse named Kakatosi making his debut for a new stable and he was clearly very well handicapped on his old form but he had badly lost his way. 10/1 were the odds available.

    Before making the bet, I weighed up a bunch of information and tried to see if the bookmakers price and my personal opinion of his chances correlated. I looked into a number of mitigating factors with regards the horse and weighed up the likelihood of those happening vs the bookmakers odds (or the chance they gave him). Upon analysing a number of factors such as if the likelihood he would be rejuvenated by a new trainer, his handicap mark against what he had achieved, his suitability for the course etc. I came to the conclusion that, even when factoring those 'ifs' into the equation, I felt the chance of those factors occurring were more probable than 10/1 (i.e. in my opinion he was overpriced) and as such I backed him.

    Kakatosi ended up winning the race but even if he hadn't - if I was presented with the same scenario and same odds on 10 more occasions I would back every single time as I was receiving odds that were inflated to the chance I gave him.


  • Options
    #175
    RichieLawlor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,873 ✭✭✭RichieLawlor


    Lol Huntley, still unwilling to Learn, your a joke poster now, a figure of a amusement. Check back the last few pages, basically the whole forum, lurker included have you figured out.

    Comedy poster now, you have proved your ignorance.

    #awaiting childish retort from comedy figure.

    Lol


  • Options
    #176
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Huntley wrote: »
    I determine value by the selection that is most likely to win. If a horses price collapses from 20's to 2's and loses does that mean the price is value? What value is there in a losing selection? In my opinion, there is none.

    In contrast to that, if the price collapses from 20's to 2's and the horse wins does that mean that the winning price wasn't value? To me it doesn't, as any winning selection is a value bet. The bookies got it wrong by pricing it at 20's, but likewise they did at 2's aswell.


    This is PRECISELY the same as tossing a coin, and AFTER it has landed heads claiming that obviously a bet on heads at 1/5 was a value bet. I mean look - heads was a winner! Lol is the only response to this.

    I think you are making the mistake of believing there is a 'winner' of the race that is set in stone and, if only you can figure it out, any price on that winner is correct. Racing isn't like that.


  • Options
    #177
    BQQ
    Registered Users Posts: 2,028 ✭✭✭BQQ


    rossom wrote: »
    I can't understand how people completely dismiss the notion of value. Betting is all about individual perception of the likely outcome of an event and is placed PRIOR to the event occurring. I would classify value as receiving odds that exceed your particular perception of how an event will unfold.


    A lot of people are missing the point.
    Everyone factors in value (even if only subconsciously).
    There are always prices you would take and prices you wouldn't.

    Value is subjective though.
    For example:
    A horse is 4/1 but you think it should be 2/1.
    On the other hand, I think it should be 6/1.

    So, is it a value bet or not?
    What determines whether it is or not is how well you assess the 101 or more factors that go into analysing a race. (And, in fairness, you are pretty good at it Rossom)

    Others are not so good at reading the form, so even though they are only backing what they believe are value bets, they are not actually getting value and they're losing in the long term.

    So, basically, it's about reading the form well.


  • Options
    #178
    hucklebuck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,173 ✭✭✭hucklebuck


    Huntley wrote: »
    As I said, I'm not stating that to come across self righteous or to be praised, it is just a fact. There are too many clueless goons like hucklebuck and Dick who have no problem jumping on the bandwagon to criticise others but rarely provide any beneficial insight or analysis. I provide plenty of free analysis on races that usually pays dividends and in return the majority are waiting for a slip up to berate me.

    Its becoming quite tedious and it is no surprise that the piss poor analysis in general is synonymous with the external views about this forum.

    Ha ha ha ha ha, maths is wrong. Ha ha ha ha ha the most informative poster on here ha ha ha.

    Back to calling names. Lmao, the narcissist and his seige mentality. So we are goons because we criticise you when you say something that has been proven over thousands of years(fact) and shaped the world we live in is wrong. If we take a view on horse(opinion) and its wrong it gets dragged up in any other thread we are talking in.

    If you dont like being called on something you posted then don't do it, this bandwagon is people doing what you do. Everyone gets things wrong from time to time but most people here dont berate others.

    As for having to pick winners the crux of your argument is wrong. If you hit the bar with a 6/1 shot and he places you get more than your stake back.

    How would there even be betting without probability as the odds are based on it.

    On value I took a view that Flemenstar would have to be at least 6/4 for the Lexus for me to get involved, while I thought he was the best horse in the race I thought the doubts over him staying the trip justified mystand.

    Its silly to write off value as a betting strategy as it occurs if you take a different view to the bookie based on the probability of the selection winning the race.

    One of my friends is a maths genius but is very busy in work. I will see if he has time to work out a programme to calculate the probability of a horse winning based on previous form and scope for improvement. If he can do it I will do a log based on trying to find value against the bookies prices.

    Urban can you please merge the value part of this thread with Colonels new post?


  • Options
    #179
    RichieLawlor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,873 ✭✭✭RichieLawlor


    Huntley is very quick to bring up previous posting history as a stick to beat posters. Example, I suggested Grand Crus should run in the arkle, which he brought up 9 months later.

    He is an Internet bully who has been proven to be as clueless as they come.

    May I suggest closing that account AGAIN to save yourself from continuous ridicule lol


  • Options
    #180
    droidman123
    Registered Users Posts: 5,409 ✭✭✭droidman123


    RichieLawlor wrote: »
    Huntley is very quick to bring up previous posting history as a stick to beat posters. Example, I suggested Grand Crus should run in the arkle, which he brought up 9 months later.

    He is an Internet bully who has been proven to be as clueless as they come.

    May I suggest closing that account AGAIN to save yourself from continuous ridicule lol
    Pots and kettles????


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    RichieLawlor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,873 ✭✭✭RichieLawlor


    droidman123 wrote: »
    Pots and kettles????

    Fair point. But the difference is everything I post is either (a) my own opinion or (b) backed up by stats or facts.

    I do like I have a pop if I think a poster is being completely foolish.

    Huntley is trying to argue against Mathemathical FACTS, with complete tripe.

    If I say Overturn lacks the class to win an arkle, it is my opinion based on his runs so far. I could possibly be wrong. I think he is a grinder and that's what wins him races. Opinion.

    2+2 = 4. That is a fact, no matter what I say or how I try to spin it, the answer is still 4. While that is not exactly what Huntley is saying, it is in essence the same thing.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement