Interesting reading.
 

This is probably the only thing I have ever read on the BF forum that was in the slightest bit interesting. A lot is aimed at the USA market but all is relevant to punters anywhere.

http://www.sartinmethodology.com/pu...WinningPMTR.pdf

I read the book "A day at the races" and I agree with the one comment, "Buck the popular opinion"

I only started to win consistently when I turned my attention to the 75% of horses that are actually not favoureds.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the popular belief that only 1 or 2 % of punters are consistent winners.

There are quite few more than that, the reason you don't often hear about them is because they don't advertise their success, and why should they?
Even on this forum there are a lot of steady winners.

Good luck to them all!
I always say, if someone can do it we all have a chance, start worrying when none can!

I've always figured on around 5%.
IMHO if someone's not winning regularly these days with all the competition available, then they never will.
Most punters will tell you that they "break even", except for those that keep records.

I have always been of the opinion that 5% actually make money, but about 1% to 2% make significant money. I mean really big money.
One only has to read some of the insane stuff posted on the Betfair forums by those claiming to pay premium charges, and one can conclude that many are telling porkies.

I agree Mark, the BF forums I've found quite useless and actually much nastier than other places.

The betfair forums are a source of a amusement, i am still shocked i have not been banned from there with all the **** i go on about.

Some of the assertions from the pdf are extremely negligent coming from a psychologist.
You can't cure a problem gambler by handing them a winning method.
A problem gambler is a problem gambler, not because he loses, but because he can't stop chasing or can't stop having "other" bets.

Losing is not the problem and to suggest that truckies who have been convicted of fraud offences can be cured by showing them what works, is fantasy.

His other assertions about gamblers being let off, because they had a problem, may have been relevant in the early 90's but is not applicable today.
A magistrate recently told me (not in court, my neighbour) that gambling problems are no longer an excuse, and magistrates are totally fed up with that excuse. They tend to be tougher on anyone who tries this defence.

I had forgotten all about it but I came across that essay maybe 4-5 years ago, maybe longer, & I don't recall having a lot of time for it back then, doubt much has changed.

& Chrome Prince, it does appear from some of the recent sentencing I have seen that yes, the 'gambling addict' defence is not the way to go these days, looks likely to add a year or two to the sentence (not that thats a bad thing).

I think I was looking more at the difference between winners & losers.

There probably is some value to be found there somewhere but at the time I found the whole thing irritating tbh - maybe I was in the middle of a losing run;)

Illustration:

This illustration is not personal, it's to show a principle, if I had the actual figures it be simple to prove mathematically this is probably correct.