Punting - why value is the key

RichieLawlor

RichieLawlor wrote: »

Nice how CS list 4/5 points and RJ picks one out of the middle to answer and skips the rest.

Sure he won't answer my query
Nice how you have no opinion of your own today, your last one made you look a gnome.

RichieLawlor

RichieLawlor wrote: »

Oh look what I found. RJ first post in the thread.

Read on....

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

FWIW I've been accused by at least 3 posters of attributing their successful punting to "luck". This is not what I stated if they bothered to read (and understand) what I posted they'd see this. I'll not respond to any further posts on this topic as I've repeated myself at least 3 times

Secondly I'll not reply to any further posts that call my ideas "wrong", "flawed", "inept" or suggest I'm "struggling" based on posts along the lines of "look at my (finite) betting history & I don't care about value". Again I've replied to this repeatedly

*eagerly awaits a juvenile comment stating I'm running out of ground or that another poster has "won"*

Everyone's betting history is finite
No doubt you struggle with that concept too.

Colonel Sanders

Exhibit B your honour

RoverJames wrote: »

Everyone's betting history is finite
No doubt you struggle with that concept too.

It's official, you're either
1 trolling
2 more clueless than even I thought

I hope for your sake its 1 as if its 2 then wow. Simply wow!

Not sure why I'm bothering but.....

Where have I said elsewhere. If you read the OP (and understand - I really think the understanding bit is what you're having trouble with) you'll see I am referring to value being a "fundamental" if success in the long run is your goal.

Remember the OP which you stated was on the ball?

In any case I will no longer respond to your posts unless you actually post something of substance worthy of replying to relevant to the thread which I have not already answered multiple times.

And I'm most certainly not holding my breath on that one.....

Ah repeat it all again :pac:
Just scan the notes and lash them up.

mdwexford

But RJ has made 1200 in 4 months laying 9 horses a day.

He must be an expert. :rolleyes:

Wow smilies are fun.

mdwexford

mdwexford wrote: »

But RJ has made 1200 in 4 months laying 9 horses a day.

He must be an expert. :rolleyes:

Wow smilies are fun.

Few things, I'll point out for you
- as you reckoned the 2012 Gold Cup was a two horse race your knowledge of punting is very weak
- as you reckoned both Long Run and KS both should have been shorter your knowledge of value is non existent as the bookies won't be giving much value on the market leaders in the Gold Cup
- €1500 - €190 is not €1200
- I don't lay horses every day so your 9 a day estimate is way out
- I'm no expert but am 100% confident neither yourself
Colonel Sanders or RichieLawlor have the ability, intellect or knowledge of racing, punting or value to do what I've done.

- your buddy reckons 750 is a large number, my number of bets is far in excess of that, to do what I've done says something that the three of ye won't like.
- Maths boy would like to put it down as luck or a fluke, it can't be value as he reckons I have no clue about that.

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

..........

Concept 3: The Law Of Large Numbers

........If we could place an infinite number of bets we would be certain to achieve our EV .................

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

..............

Where have I said elsewhere. If you read the OP (and understand - I really think the understanding bit is what you're having trouble with) you'll see I am referring to value being a "fundamental" if success in the long run is your goal....................

We can't place an infinite number of bets, the smaller the number the less the results can be explained by the law of large numbers.

750 horse racing bets is a small number.

I make all of my betfair profit due to value so I am not at all struggling with the understanding of anything you have posted, you are struggling with the application of your degree, as you've said you are pedantic.

RichieLawlor

RoverJames wrote: »

Few things, I'll point out for you
- as you reckoned the 2012 Gold Cup was a two horse race your knowledge of punting is very weak
- as you reckoned both Long Run and KS both should have been shorter your knowledge of value is non existent as the bookies won't be giving much value on the market leaders in the Gold Cup
- €1500 - €190 is not €1200
- I don't lay horses every day so your 9 a day estimate is way out
- I'm no expert but am 100% confident neither yourself
Colonel Sanders or RichieLawlor have the ability, intellect or knowledge of racing, punting or value to do what I've done.

- your buddy reckons 750 is a large number, my number of bets is far in excess of that, to do what I've done says something that the three of ye won't like.
- Maths boy would like to put it down as luck or a fluke, it can't be value as he reckons I have no clue about that.

I'd kill myself if it took me 1000 bets to earn 1200 quid.

I think you might be a bit slow. Calm down there old boy :rolleyes:

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

There is none so blind as those that will not see

Probably worth bumping

Colonel Sanders

RJ look up "convergence in probability" and "almost surely"

If you can grasp that concept re-read my posts (especially the ones responding to people saying I said they were merely "lucky" or the ones where you said I can't apply the law of large numbers to selective punting) & then may begin to make sense

*que jibe about college notes*

faoile@n

Why are you repeatedly using the notional figure of 750 to discredit the OP when in fact you place a number of bets far in excess of that?

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Concept 3: The Law Of Large Numbers

The law of large numbers says, in lay mans terms, that the larger the number of "good" bets we place the closer and closer our profit on turnover will get to our EV (5% in the coin toss example)

You should also reference this part of my "on the ball" OP if you are about to post about "luck" and what you believe I have said about it (but not been able to quote)

faoile@n

faoile@n wrote: »

Why are you repeatedly using the notional figure of 750 to discredit the OP when in fact you place a number of bets far in excess of that?

750 bets over 50 years - selective punting.
I don't practise selective punting, I lay horses I reckon are underpriced on betfair. The number of bets I place would be a large number over 12 months.

mark renton

Why cant we all just live in peace and harmony?

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

RJ look up "convergence in probability" and "almost surely"

If you can grasp that concept re-read my posts (especially the ones responding to people saying I said they were merely "lucky" or the ones where you said I can't apply the law of large numbers to selective punting) & then may begin to make sense

*que jibe about college notes*

I have no intention whatsoever of looking at any reference you advise:)

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

You should also reference this part of my "on the ball" OP if you are about to post about "luck" and what you believe I have said about it (but not been able to quote)

Again, not applicable to all punters.

Colonel Sanders

Have edited below to include other factors that influence p:

What the hell, for the last time (and I mean last time):

A +ive RoI is due to one of 2 mutually exclusive things:

1. The gambler has placed a series of bets where the weighted EV is +ive
2. The gambler has placed a series of bets where the weighted EV is -ive, but variance has been kind

I will call the person "lucky" if 2 is the case. If p is the probability of 1, 1-p is the probability of 2

If you show me a +ive RoI based on 10 bets I am not very confident whether its down to 1 or 2 so I might estimate p to be in the region of 0.5

If you show me a +ive RoI over 1,000 bets I will be more confident 1 is the case (confident bit not certain). I will assign a value in excess of 0.5 to p but a value less than 1.

If you show me a +ive RoI over 10,000,000 bets I will be even more confident 1 is the case and would assign a value to p that would be very close to 1 (but not equal 1)

This is how the law of large numbers is relevant to finite samples of bets.

In the limiting case where we have an infinite sample p=1 (and hence the probability of option 2 is 1-p = 0) i.e. you cannot win in the long run unless your weighted EV is +ive

EDIT: the above is the case where we only know:
1. Whether RoI is positive (not the size of it)
2. The numbers of bets

There would be other influences on p also

eg the size of the RoI and actual turnover. Perversely the conditional expectation of a -EV punter given he's shown a +ive RoI over the short term can actually be quite high depending on the average price they're taking

Markets they're betting on. If the RoI is based on roulette p is close to zero (can't say zero as they may be in cahoots with a casino worker)

Staking. If they're betting fivers and showing a huge loss after 9,999 bets then bets an even 10k to show a profit after 10,000 that would influence p

etc etc etc

There are any number of factors you could consider (given the information is available) to influence your estimate of p

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

I have no intention whatsoever of looking at any reference you advise:)
.

Would this be because you wouldn't have a clue what the content meant?

Seriously this is my last reply (directly to you) unless you can actually add something worthy of reading to the thread

RichieLawlor

RichieLawlor wrote: »

I'd kill myself if it took me 1000 bets to earn 1200 quid.

I think you might be a bit slow. Calm down there old boy :rolleyes:

The ROI after commission is quite decent, so too is starting from a small betting bank and letting it grow by profit.

Only to be sneered at by f*ck wits who have no clue

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Would this be because you wouldn't have a clue what the content meant?

Seriously this is my last reply

Not at all, I'd haveno interest in reading references not applicable to small sample sizes made up of what are essentially outliers.
Seems as you have no clue about the application of the law of large numbers I'd suspect your latest reference point is equally misunderstood by yourself.

A pure maths degree, you're some add for it.

Best of luck with the paddy power enhancements, when that hits a losing run thetes always GA

Colonel Sanders

Damn iPhone why can't I post smiley faces & get in on the fun

byronbay2

RichieLawlor wrote: »

I'd kill myself if it took me 1000 bets to earn 1200 quid.

In fairness, that is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on Boards - and I'm including AH and CT in that!
I reckon this thread has run it's course (it's been fun!) and all you can do is agree to differ at this stage.

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

What the hell, for the last time (and I mean last time):..................

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

..............

Seriously this is my last reply

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Damn iPhone why can't I post smiley faces & get in on the fun

Quite indecisive as well as not knowing much about selective punting, pickng winners etc etc

byronbay2

byronbay2 wrote: »

In fairness, that is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on Boards.........

You wouldn't hear it in the canteen in Fas

Colonel Sanders

byronbay2 wrote: »

I reckon this thread has run it's course.

I actually agree with you tbh

Slattsy

RichieLawlor wrote: »

I'd kill myself if it took me 1000 bets to earn 1200 quid. QUOTE]

Start a log and lets see how long it takes you to reach 1200e

mark renton

U gonna man up Richie?

RichieLawlor

mark renton wrote: »

U gonna man up Richie?

So if I start a log and put up a €1500 win/lay bet on Simonsig for the Arkle and win the bet, does this make me a better punter than RJ

I assume it would since I would have more profit.

Lol maths

Lol sample size

Slattsy

RichieLawlor wrote: »

So if I start a log and put up a €1500 win/lay bet on Simonsig for the Arkle and win the bet, does this make me a better punter than RJ

I assume it would since I would have more profit.

Lol maths

Lol sample size

Ha. Fair point.
But ya know what I meant (smiley face)

Colonel Sanders

Smiley face

This could become the craze that sweeps the nation