The worst tipster in the history of the world

danganabu

Shemale wrote: »

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

That would be true if the true probability was 8/13 which of course is not

Shemale

danganabu wrote: »

That would be true if the true probability was 8/13 which of course is not

That is true either way, the more outcomes the more accurate the probability, few percent off for over round but each 8/13 will carry different levels of over round, all depends on the other prices.

danganabu

Shemale wrote: »

That is true either way, the more outcomes the more accurate the probability, few percent off for over round but each 8/13 will carry different levels of over round, all depends on the other prices.

I think we are more or less saying the same thing just coming at it from different perspectives!!

This thread has gone horribly off topic, I blame Richard Birch to be honest

Shemale

I blame Thommo, the only thing worse than his tipping is his commentary

NeverWaining

Shemale you have an awful lot wrong there but I think you know now.

You're another mixing up the decimal price with the actual chance of winning. There is a bookmakers edge in there to be accounted for. Forget about the 62%. It averages out at 57%.

Statistically speaking every 8/13 shot since 2003 is not small. That's not even a bit small. It's 1,420 instances over 12 years. How big a sample size would you think that you need?


You're not wrong about Thommo!

Shemale

NeverWaining wrote: »

Statistically speaking every 8/13 shot since 2003 is not small. That's not even a bit small. It's 1,420 instances over 12 years. How big a sample size would you think that you need?

Statistically speaking 1,400 is very small to have an accurate outcome, a coin toss could need 10,000 tosses to be very close to .5 for either outcome. The number of years isn't a factor.

NeverWaining

Shemale wrote: »

Statistically speaking 1,400 is very small to have an accurate outcome, a coin toss could need 10,000 tosses to be very close to .5 for either outcome. The number of years isn't a factor.

Shemale it isn't 62%. That just doesn't make any sense and you really should understand why. Yes the more results the closer a coin toss will get to 50%, that's childs play. But 1,400 results are just not going to be as far off as you seem to think they could be.
I could use every result (every price which will be much more than 10,000) and calculate the average bookmakers edge and bring that figure back to 8/13 and use that to prove to you that the result is much closer to 57% than 62% or you can try to figure it out yourself and gain yourself a better understanding of it all.

Nonoperational

Shemale wrote: »

Statistically speaking 1,400 is very small to have an accurate outcome, a coin toss could need 10,000 tosses to be very close to .5 for either outcome. The number of years isn't a factor.

You're missing the point completely.

Shemale

NeverWaining wrote: »

gain yourself a better understanding of it all.

Nonoperational wrote: »

You're missing the point completely.

Nope, not at all, I understand and already twice mentioned bookies over round.

There has been a major increase in greedy bookies over-round in recent years. A few years ago it was about 109%, the last few years 125% - 130% seems to be the norm and this years National was reported around 165%. Changes these large to the over round since are drastically going to skew the data particularly a small sample.

It would be interesting to see the actual prices of these horses net of the over round against the 57% win rate in your data.

Anyway, as previously stated this is a subjective thread on tipster, if you want to start a statistical thread work away.

Harry Palmr

http://www.bettingtools.co.uk/ tips

no longer free to see

NeverWaining

Shemale wrote: »

Nope, not at all, I understand and already twice mentioned bookies over round.

There has been a major increase in greedy bookies over-round in recent years. A few years ago it was about 109%, the last few years 125% - 130% seems to be the norm and this years National was reported around 165%. Changes these large to the over round since are drastically going to skew the data particularly a small sample.

It would be interesting to see the actual prices of these horses net of the over round against the 57% win rate in your data.

Anyway, as previously stated this is a subjective thread on tipster, if you want to start a statistical thread work away.

I think you're just arguing for the sake of winning an argument rather than discussing and remaining open to learning.
You have obviously some interest in the sport but your ideas/beliefs seem to be all wrong. Why don't you look into the stats yourself?

Again you're totally wrong on the over-round. The National over-round is changing drastically but that has very, very little to do with the average and nothing to do with 8/13 shots. The average over-round has actually improved over time, not at all like you suggest.

Shemale

NeverWaining wrote: »

I think you're just arguing for the sake of winning an argument rather than discussing and remaining open to learning.
You have obviously some interest in the sport but your ideas/beliefs seem to be all wrong. Why don't you look into the stats yourself?

Again you're totally wrong on the over-round. The National over-round is changing drastically but that has very, very little to do with the average and nothing to do with 8/13 shots. The average over-round has actually improved over time, not at all like you suggest.

I have replied in a new thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057542451

abarkie

Harry Palmr wrote: »

http://www.bettingtools.co.uk/ tips

no longer free to see

Agreed but it doesn't change the stats.

abarkie

abarkie wrote: »

I am happy to predict he won't be in profit from now to 31/12/2015.

He has lost his way.

Five Saturdays before the end of the year and I will say that only 1 week will show a profit.

Do you have a prediction?

1 day to go and he has had 1 winner since the Hennessy - Josies Orders @ 9/2 at Cheltenham.

As i said before, i believe he needs to freshen up his tipping / approach.

Anyway, good luck all for the New Year

morrga

Bruce Millington, RP Editor, is the disaster behind Richard Birch and Tom Segal. He has gone for the overkill on the tipping front. Segal is been asked to tip at the slightest hint of a decent race. And he has to tip ante post all year round despite often admitting in his columns that 'horse x will probably win but will be a similar price on the day so I'll give you a value loser instead'. That paper must rely on Pricewise for a good chunk of its sales.

Richard Birch does pen very good articles on a Monday and Tuesday and I find when his rationale makes sense to you, is the time to back his tips. Agree the column in the app is brutal and a great means to a laying profit! Another cheap way of looking for hits because it's their bookies parties they are trying to please.

uxiant

I feel sorry for Tom Segal in those ante post columns. Most of the time there's no value at all like in the King George when all the likely winners were much, much bigger on the day.