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

The worst tipster in the history of the world

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    NeverWaining
    Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭NeverWaining


    Peintre Celebre wrote: »
    Birch's tip beaten at 8/13. Who decides to pay someone to tip an 8/13 shot

    8/13 shots win about 56.66% of races. If you can selectively choose 8/13 shots to win 66.66% of races then you won't ever have to work again. 66.66% means one in three losses.

    Let's say that person wasn't tipping horses. Let's say that he was in fact advising on the roll of a dice. He studied the dice and realised that there was actually four number 1's on this dice. He advises 1 each time. He makes a huge profit. Four sides in his favour here. That means one in three losses.

    Is he wrong the times that the dice doesn't roll a 1?


    You can't judge anybody on one selection. If you do you just don't understand the game.


  • Options
    #63
    Gregk961
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭Gregk961


    NeverWaining wrote: »
    8/13 shots win about 56.66% of races. If you can selectively choose 8/13 shots to win 66.66% of races then you won't ever have to work again. 66.66% means one in three losses.

    Let's say that person wasn't tipping horses. Let's say that he was in fact advising on the roll of a dice. He studied the dice and realised that there was actually four number 1's on this dice. He advises 1 each time. He makes a huge profit. Four sides in his favour here. That means one in three losses.

    Is he wrong the times that the dice doesn't roll a 1?


    You can't judge anybody on one selection. If you do you just don't understand the game.

    You've completely missed the point of the thread I fear. Have a look at the rest of it.


  • Options
    #64
    NeverWaining
    Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭NeverWaining


    Gregk961 wrote: »
    You've completely missed the point of the thread I fear. Have a look at the rest of it.
    I've read the thread and I'm not really sure why you don't understand my post as being relevant here.

    You need long term figures to make an accurate assumption on anybody. I'm not defending any individual tipster here, I'm simply getting that simple but important point out there.

    You can watch the best penalty taker miss a shot.
    You can watch the best dart player miss the bullseye.
    You can watch the best snooker player miss a pot.

    It's all a numbers game. Get some accurate long term results up. It's folly to judge anybody on anything else.


  • Options
    #65
    nuckeythompson
    Registered Users Posts: 939 ✭✭✭nuckeythompson


    The above is actually one of the sensible posts I've read in a long time. On another note newspaper tipster have to select on certain races and in some cases all of them. Their job is to read form for the average punter who cannot. So if it reads that the 8/13 shot should win on paper so be it. How many here would get paid for their tips from a paper?


  • Options
    #66
    diomed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,744 ✭✭✭diomed


    hurleronditch wrote: »
    Aidankkk is a former poster here, still lurks about a bit. He doesn't free tip here anymore, he's gone to a tenner a month on his website www.longshotvalue.com . His stats are incredible. Had So Fine today at 33/1. Incredible stuff.

    I've no link to him, except I have a wallet full of cash this evening and not for the first time
    Long odds pay more than short odds. This incredible fact does not register with most gamblers.
    I always look for high odds horses. The only times I collected anything worthwhile were at 10/1 or greater, often 25/1+.
    Most people expect a continuous string of winners. They prefer to boast about a winner (low odds) than endure a string of losers for one good winner.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Peintre Celebre
    Registered Users Posts: 2,484 ✭✭✭Peintre Celebre


    NeverWaining wrote: »
    8/13 shots win about 56.66% of races. If you can selectively choose 8/13 shots to win 66.66% of races then you won't ever have to work again. 66.66% means one in three losses.

    Let's say that person wasn't tipping horses. Let's say that he was in fact advising on the roll of a dice. He studied the dice and realised that there was actually four number 1's on this dice. He advises 1 each time. He makes a huge profit. Four sides in his favour here. That means one in three losses.

    Is he wrong the times that the dice doesn't roll a 1?


    You can't judge anybody on one selection. If you do you just don't understand the game.


    Have you read the thread


  • Options
    #68
    NeverWaining
    Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭NeverWaining


    Peintre Celebre wrote: »
    Have you read the thread

    I have. Is there anything you feel that I have missed?


  • Options
    #69
    Peintre Celebre
    Registered Users Posts: 2,484 ✭✭✭Peintre Celebre


    NeverWaining wrote: »
    I have. Is there anything you feel that I have missed?

    Yeah a bit it's clearly not one selection I focused on. 8/13 isn't 56.66 either


  • Options
    #70
    NeverWaining
    Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭NeverWaining


    Peintre Celebre wrote: »
    Yeah a bit it's clearly not one selection I focused on.
    You attacked an 8/13 shot because of it's price. That's the post I responded to and made a genuine point about a certain price not mattering.

    I covered the fact that you need long term results to judge anybody. I've looked through the thread again and fail to find them.


    I'd genuinely like to hear your thoughts on where I'm wrong. Debate is good.
    Peintre Celebre wrote: »
    8/13 isn't 56.66 either

    It is.


  • Options
    #71
    BumperD
    Registered Users Posts: 5,681 ✭✭✭BumperD


    Think (could be wrong) the criticism was towards someone putting up favs as tips and nothing else. I guess anyone could do the same. Despite your point about making it possible to turn a profit by just backing shorties alone, which is an important aside but an aside nonetheless. Most people don't have the bank roll to steam into 8/13 shots

    I too wonder how tipsters are paid to put up the odds on tissue fav and 2nd fav in alternate columns in the same paper but that's just me. You can pick them out any day of the week without any effort.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    ger664
    Registered Users Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭ger664


    NeverWaining wrote: »
    8/13 shots wins 13 races out of every 21 about 56.66% of races thats is 61.904%

    FYP


  • Options
    #73
    NeverWaining
    Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭NeverWaining


    NeverWaining wrote: »
    8/13 shots win about 56.66% of races.
    Peintre Celebre wrote: »
    8/13 isn't 56.66
    ger664 wrote: »
    FYP

    Ah guys come on, this is basic stuff that I shouldn't have to explain. I just had a look at my records - since 2003 8/13 shots have won exactly 56.66% of races.

    Do you think that horses priced at evens win 50% of races? They don't. (46.6%)
    Do you think that horses prices at 2/1 win 33.33% of races? They don't. (30.3%)

    Bookmakers have a margin. Don't mistake decimal odds for the actual probability of the event occurring.


  • Options
    #74
    Hulk Hands
    Registered Users Posts: 6,013 ✭✭✭Hulk Hands


    NeverWaining wrote: »
    Ah guys come on, this is basic stuff that I shouldn't have to explain. I just had a look at my records - since 2003 8/13 shots have won exactly 56.66% of races.

    Do you think that horses priced at evens win 50% of races? They don't. (46.6%)
    Do you think that horses prices at 2/1 win 33.33% of races? They don't. (30.3%)

    Bookmakers have a margin. Don't mistake decimal odds for the actual probability of the event occurring.

    Why is any of that relevant? Surely is this "tipster" is a good and succesful one, then the 8/13 he's backing should have positive margin in it for the customer (ie, be expected to win more than 62% of the time).

    What kind of sample size do you have to say with certainty that marginated 8/13 shots win 56.66% of the time? What happens when a smaller bookie decides to take more margin on a favourite than say Bet365? Is an 8/13 at Southwell on a Tuesday going to win 56.66% of the time, the same as an 8/13 shot at the Cheltenham festival where theyre betting a lot closer to the line?

    The line above about this being simple stuff that you shouldnt have to explain is ironic given that you come on to a racing forum and feel the need to explain "chance" to regular punters with a toddler level dice explanation. And then come out with this line, which means you've missed the point of the thread completely
    NeverWaining wrote: »
    ?
    You can't judge anybody on one selection. If you do you just don't understand the game.


  • Options
    #75
    fleet_admiral
    Registered Users Posts: 3,747 ✭✭✭fleet_admiral


    Jack Streep


  • Options
    #76
    NeverWaining
    Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭NeverWaining


    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    Why is any of that relevant?

    It's relevant because I mentioned that 8/13 shots win about 56.66% of the time and was twice told that this is wrong. At the very least somebody will have learned something.

    I could just as easily ask why your post is relevant? But to answer your questions:
    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    What kind of sample size do you have to say with certainty that marginated 8/13 shots win 56.66% of the time?
    As I mentioned the sample size is every race since 2003. 1,419 selections at 8/13 from Ireland and the UK.
    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    What happens when a smaller bookie decides to take more margin on a favourite than say Bet365?
    The industry starting price does not differ between bookmakers.
    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    Is an 8/13 at Southwell on a Tuesday going to win 56.66% of the time, the same as an 8/13 shot at the Cheltenham festival where theyre betting a lot closer to the line?
    You are obviously dealing with smaller sample sizes here and this is not recommended. 8/13 shots at Southwell on a Tuesday have won 12 of 21 races in this period (57.14%).
    There have been no 8/13 shots at the Cheltenham Festival over this time.
    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    The line above about this being simple stuff that you shouldnt have to explain is ironic given that you come on to a racing forum and feel the need to explain "chance" to regular punters with a toddler level dice explanation. And then come out with this line, which means you've missed the point of the thread completely

    I came on and made two good posts about the need for long term results and explaining why the price doesn't matter if there's an edge. Two posters misunderstood 8/13 probability which was a bit beside the point and off track but I explained this.

    You've asked me questions and ranted a bit at the end. If you are going to add to the thread why not make a few points of your own regarding your thoughts on judging selections or short prices vs long prices?


  • Options
    #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    BumperD wrote: »
    Think (could be wrong) the criticism was towards someone putting up favs as tips and nothing else. I guess anyone could do the same. Despite your point about making it possible to turn a profit by just backing shorties alone, which is an important aside but an aside nonetheless. Most people don't have the bank roll to steam into 8/13 shots

    That criticism would be completely unfair, given that Birch is specifically employed to pick short price horses (hence the name of the column).

    I wish people would understand that professional tipsters are given a brief rather than told to pick whatever the hell they like - or more importantly pick nothing if they don't see anything standing out.

    I don't follow his tips (I prefer to find big prices myself) but it is of course correct to point out that:
    1. Tipping short prices when they are VALUE is still worthwhile and can be profitable
    2. Nobody has actually posted Birch's figures over a meaningful period of time.


  • Options
    #78
    Hulk Hands
    Registered Users Posts: 6,013 ✭✭✭Hulk Hands


    NeverWaining wrote: »
    The industry starting price does not differ between bookmakers.

    SP is completely irrelavant these days. All it is is a small bunch of track bookmakers watching betfair and offering the customers a couple of ticks below for 15 mins before a race. The amount of margin taken in SP differs wildly between races, tracks, certain days of the week. You say the stats are from 2003, back in a time when bookmakers took more margin. Basically that 56.66% figure is an absolute garbage stat with no place in any relevant discussion and yet you're using it as some sort of indusputable evidence that you're correct.
    NeverWaining wrote: »
    I came on and made two good posts about the need for long term results and explaining why the price doesn't matter if there's an edge. Two posters misunderstood 8/13 probability which was a bit beside the point and off track but I explained this.

    You've asked me questions and ranted a bit at the end. If you are going to add to the thread why not make a few points of your own regarding your thoughts on judging selections or short prices vs long prices?

    No, you came on and made two very condescending posts explaining to longterm posters an incredibly simple concept as if they didnt already know this themselves. They didn't misunderstand 8/13 by quoting its true probability, sure how were they to know what that 56.66% garbage SP related stat meant?

    Everyone understands the basic concept that you can find value at odds on just like you can at huge prices. This thread is just highlighting how a certain tipster is consistently tipping these short prices at a very unsuccessful rate, which is quite astounding when backing short prices, as your ROI should be very close 0%, whether in profit or not, simply due to the way margins and favourite/longshot bias is construed. If this tipster had a proven track record of sucessfully tipping odds on shots, then there wouldnt be complaints about the tipping of such. As it is, it looks like its random selections to try and increase a poor win %


  • Options
    #79
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    SP is completely irrelavant these days. All it is is a small bunch of track bookmakers watching betfair and offering the customers a couple of ticks below for 15 mins before a race. The amount of margin taken in SP differs wildly between races, tracks, certain days of the week. You say the stats are from 2003, back in a time when bookmakers took more margin. Basically that 56.66% figure is an absolute garbage stat with no place in any relevant discussion and yet you're using it as some sort of indusputable evidence that you're correct.


    Every race SINCE 2003.

    To be fair, he simply stated that 8/13 shots win 56.6% of the time. Other posters then corrected him.

    And he has backed up his figure, which you would expect him to do when someone does a smug 'fyp' on him.

    Of course we haven't seen the workings, that's another story


  • Options
    #80
    NeverWaining
    Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭NeverWaining


    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    Basically that 56.66% figure is an absolute garbage stat with no place in any relevant discussion and yet you're using it as some sort of indusputable evidence that you're correct.
    56.66% represents every single 8/13 shot over the last 12 years. It's not my opinion or something I plucked out of my head. Simple facts.
    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    You say the stats are from 2003, back in a time when bookmakers took more margin.
    Now this is from your head. And it's wrong. We can do the last four years if you like (57.24%)? Or the last two (55.14%)?
    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    They didn't misunderstand 8/13 by quoting its true probability, sure how were they to know what that 56.66% garbage SP related stat meant?
    NeverWaining wrote: »
    8/13 shots win about 56.66% of races.
    I genuinely don't know how this could have been any clearer.



    Your SP rant is just bizarre. You can argue that the system is out of date but to say it's completely irrelevant when we still use it in every single race of every single day is just plain and simply wrong.


  • Options
    #81
    Gregk961
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭Gregk961


    Getting away from 8/13 probabilities, do you think Richard Birch is a decent tipster? Have you looked at his picks the last few days?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    NeverWaining
    Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭NeverWaining


    Gregk961 wrote: »
    Getting away from 8/13 probabilities, do you think Richard Birch is a decent tipster? Have you looked at his picks the last few days?

    No idea. I'd probably take 8/13 on him being not very good though!


  • Options
    #83
    Gregk961
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭Gregk961


    NeverWaining wrote: »
    No idea. I'd probably take 8/13 on him being not very good though!

    Id snap those odds up if I could get them!


  • Options
    #84
    Peintre Celebre
    Registered Users Posts: 2,484 ✭✭✭Peintre Celebre


    I don't have long term results and can't find them anywhere, but I've looked at his tips enough times to know that his strike rate is woeful. Someone saying he tips shorties because that's the name of his column. Fair enough, but you don't always see shorties in a NAP table. The thread has been here long enough for anyone to make up their minds, but there hasn't been more than three winners in all this time (I can only remember one but there's a few days I missed it) and for those prices that is woeful.


  • Options
    #85
    Peintre Celebre
    Registered Users Posts: 2,484 ✭✭✭Peintre Celebre


    NeverWaining wrote: »
    No idea. I'd probably take 8/13 on him being not very good though!

    1/10 would be value


  • Options
    #86
    Peintre Celebre
    Registered Users Posts: 2,484 ✭✭✭Peintre Celebre


    I meant to say.....

    I only have his Pricewise Extra tips

    Since Jan 1.........

    From 62 tips his ROI on early prices is -14.05%. At sp it's -27.6


    Taken from BF forum. No evidence to back it up though (2014)


  • Options
    #87
    ZeroThreat
    Registered Users Posts: 2,181 ✭✭✭ZeroThreat


    Can't say I know much about horse racing personally, but if Mark Lawrenson did horse tips, they'd be the worst tips in the world! :)


  • Options
    #88
    Nonoperational
    Registered Users Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭Nonoperational


    Most people are completely missing the point of NeverWainings' posts (although this may not be the best thread for them). I find it an interesting topic. The 56.66% of 8/13 shots winning is what you'd expect, a little below the mathematical probability. That's why it's so important to beat SP and back horses that you think are mispriced. If all those 8/13 shots actually started evens and you got the evens and 56.66% of them one then you'd make a profit. If If you backed only 8/13 shots and you managed to get greater than 62% of them in you'd make a profit.

    The tipster sounds ****e though!


  • Options
    #89
    Shemale
    Registered Users Posts: 3,376 ✭✭✭Shemale


    NeverWaining wrote: »
    I came on and made two good posts about the need for long term results and explaining why the price doesn't matter if there's an edge. Two posters misunderstood 8/13 probability which was a bit beside the point and off track but I explained this.

    Two good but irrelevant posts, this is a subjective post about peoples observations, by all means set up a statistical post about the subject.

    While it is good of you to shoot down other posters, it is unbelievably clear your sample size is far too small yet you have a cut at Hulk about his.

    If your sample size is big enough you should be very close to 62%


  • Options
    #90
    danganabu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,277 ✭✭✭danganabu


    Shemale wrote: »
    Two good but irrelevant posts, this is a subjective post about peoples observations, by all means set up a statistical post about the subject.

    While it is good of you to shoot down other posters, it is unbelievably clear your sample size is far too small yet you have a cut at Hulk about his.

    If your sample size is big enough you should be very close to 62%

    How is every single race in the UK and Ireland from 2003 too small a sample size??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Shemale
    Registered Users Posts: 3,376 ✭✭✭Shemale


    danganabu wrote: »
    How is every single race in the UK and Ireland from 2003 too small a sample size??

    Statistically speaking it is small and the more and more events that occur the closer the result will be to 62%


Advertisement