AN OBVIOUS EQUATION which most punters ignore
 

My point here is to refute the the belief that most punters here [or anywhere for that matter], punt to win money. The love of the sport and any other reasons are secondary. It's a nonsense. Profit comes last for most punter's reasons for punting. This punter included [I've stated quite a few times here I punt for pleasure].


To make my point I'll use an example and I'm going to keep it very simple.

Theoretical:
Punter "A" had 7 bets today and the odds were: 5/1,4/1,7/1,5/1,4/1,3/1,4/1.
Punter 'B' had 3 bets: 4/1,3/1,6/1
Both punters are exactly equal in their ability to select winners. Punter A likes more action than B though.

We will not get into results for the day here because it will cloud the issue. They might show on any particular day, neither punter winning, both loosing, one winning and the other loosing or both punters winning.

The question here is who got the best odds on the day [meaning the least exposure to loss], and more importantly, which punter will show more profit [or less loss] over the long haul, punter A or B ?

Punter B naturally. Every time, regardless of results for the day. When the odds are against us, the more bets we have, the more exposure to loss there is.

Lets see why:
Punter A's odds for the day were 5+4+7+5+4+3+4/1x7 units bet.
Punter B's odds were 4+3+6/1x3 units bet.

Punter B's odds of losing on the day are naturally less, which also means his profit or loss situation over say a year [or longer] will be much better than A's situation.

The above is the very simple reason why most Pro punters [who bet for profit] have very few bets. Most punters here and elsewhere do the exact opposite.

grammar Police
 

Normally enjoy your work crash without exception - but on this occasion .......

From the example given you wrongly presume both punters (all punters) lose. Therefore, the more bets you have the more you will lose. The flunkey with the least bets will lose least, therefore, he is more likely to win. This is flawed logic.

The flunkey (sorry punter) who generates a positive expectation on total investment will generate profit whether he has one, two or five trillion bets. The flunkey who generates a negative expectation across one, two or five trillion bets will lose (unless he strikes the PowerBall on one of those -ve exp bets). The number of bets engaged will not turn losers into winners.

Now, can you please edit the "loosing" in your post to what it should be before Sportz gets wind of this continuing grammatical failing of yours. It's driving everyone to despair.



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

Doc.

Sorry for the poor spelling. Loose/lose is one I'm always mangling because I type at speed. What you [also] failed to pull me up on and that neither of us noticed in the sentence:

"They might show on any particular day, neither punter winning, both loosing, one winning and the other loosing or both punters winning.'
Is the fact that 'both losing' [correct spelling] certainly doesn't need to be there at all after 'neither punter winning' :-)

You made no effort whatsoever to logically dispute my point. You just passed judgment on it as 'flawed logic'. Please prove your point. The odds are on my side, not yours.


Having a go at someone's spelling/grammar [education] is a good trick when you are going to disagree with their argument. It adds weight [but not logic I'm afraid] to your own point by saying with the innuendo: 'I'm a better speller so I'm obviously more intelligent and therefore my point of view is correct'.

After just lambasting a poster in another thread for the crime of using innuendo about someone else's forum handle to put their view down, here you are pulling the exact same trick of using innuendo to put my point down [of course by mentioning Sportz you have allowed yourself the out of 'I was just joking' in case you need it] with no factual logic whatsoever to support your condemnation. You can't beat hypocrisy for a profession on the net. You should take up politics :-)

To anyone else reading this thread my point is simply this:

If a punter with a machine gun betting approach [lots of bets every day], changes his betting from a machine gun approach to a sniper rifle approach, his win/loss situation will dramatically improve.


As far a the Doc's logic of 'who generates a positive expectation on total investment will generate profit' [which simply means, if a punter THINKS he will win, the more he bets the better his chances of doing so] is concerned, I'll refer it to this quote:

"The minds capacity to play with the truth is an astonishing thing. There is always a way to tamper with the evidence" [unknown].

I think with a defeatest attitude similar to the above quote the punter regardless of how many bets he has is pushing you know what up hill.


A method of selecting horses that comes up with 2 bets a week has no more validity than a method that produces 20 imo,the selection method itself is really the key.

As for which approach is more fun,this depends on the individual,we are all very different creatures,some get off on action some get off on methodical patient discretion.


I'm an advocate of breaking your punting down into serious bets and fun bets,that way if your serious betting method doesnt produce a bet in a race you want to bet in you can still have a crack.

I think the Doc has got you bang to rights on this one Crash. As he says "From the example given you wrongly presume both punters (all punters) lose." Your quote outlined above shows what he says is correct.
Punters who (successfully) punt in order to win money don't have the odds against them. If they win long term they obviously have the odds in their favour, so you are assuming your fictitious punters are losers.
If a punter has a winning system and he bets on more races which fit that system he stands to win more. If a punter has a losing system he stands to lose more from betting more races. It's simple.

KV

This is an example of why you should always read over what you have written to make sure it is really what you wanted to say.

What you actually said Crash, is : All punters lose, so those that bet more will lose more. Yet "pro punters" are "pro punters" because they bet less, hence making a profit.

I am obviously not alone in completely disagreeing with your logic here...

All three of you are arguing against yourselves. You have read what I've said. Ignored it and then argued against something else [which I never said, but you have said] so you could argue against it.

Did I say all punters lose ? No I didn't [not 'basically' either], but it gives your arguments legs and even I would disagree with that statement, So please, either shoot me down with the hard logic of maths or remain smug in 'convenient logic' [only relies on belief not facts] you present to justify poor punting habits.

I'm talking about the cold hard facts of odds here [maths] not personalities or punting types or even betting habits or styles. What do I have to do, reduce it to tossing pennies [heads or tails] so you will get my point about the maths ?

What will I get in reply ? I bet it will be more opinion. Perhaps even some fuzzy logic [I have a new washing machine with 'fuzzy logic'. It's a piece of crap] :-)

Of course, I should have seen it, you're right as always and we three are wrong. I wish I could get a bet on you never admitting you're wrong, No, it'd be too short a price.
Your first post here looked to be an ill thought out bunch of rubbish, anyone who could be bothered answering it could see that and told you so, no maths needed. Guess we'll just have to suppose you knew what you meant but don't explain things very well, that's about the kindest thing I can come up with.
Do keep posting though, it gives us something to think about.

KV

take a break
 

For God's sake crash I was talking "tounge in cheek". Now I know it may not be that obvious in written form but truly ruly - it was merely a poor attempt at dry humour (I was having a back-hand crack at Sportz).

Now that we've made up let's face the cold hard facts (an approach you normally embrace as distinct from the comatosed dreamers that proliferate this Forum). The premise of your original post is wrong.

The punter who places fewer wagers will not enjoy an advantage over the punter who places many wagers - JUST BECAUSE HE PLACES FEWER WAGERS.

If that is not the premise of your original post then you will need to spell things out a little clearer as it appears I am not alone in my misunderstanding.

When I said "negative expectation" I did not mean the punter is engaging a thought process. I meant (and it is widely understood) the methodology employed produces a loss over a series of bets ie buying lotto tickets is a -ve expection game.

Come on now crash, lighten up - your work is at normally the top of the pile.



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