OZmium Sports Betting and Horse Racing Forums

OZmium Sports Betting and Horse Racing Forums (http://forums.ozmium.com.au/index.php)
-   Horse Race Betting Systems (http://forums.ozmium.com.au/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Interesting reading. (http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=23438)

Mark 16th February 2012 04:18 PM

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

lomaca 16th February 2012 04:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
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!

Mark 16th February 2012 04:52 PM

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.

Chrome Prince 16th February 2012 04:58 PM

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.

Shaun 16th February 2012 05:40 PM

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.

Chrome Prince 16th February 2012 06:35 PM

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.

norisk 16th February 2012 06:49 PM

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).

Mark 16th February 2012 07:02 PM

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

norisk 16th February 2012 08:23 PM

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;)

Puntz 17th February 2012 12:36 AM

Illustration:
Quote:
Question:
A:Why would a judge send a "problem gambler" to prison if that judge has shares with the same TAB the gambler was betting at ?

OR

B:Why WON'T the judge send a "problem gambler" to prison if that judge has shares with the same TAB the gambler was betting at?

B: Because the judge then has to give it all back to pay for the gambler he put in prison!

Solution:
Remove the equation of shares in a TAB.
Pay the taxes to the gov, the TAB take, and give the rest to the winning gambler/s.
Problem solved.

All this malarkey about psychology has it's place for those with delusions, yes that is correct. Remove the delusion by "smashing" it, that means allowing a gambler's self imposed crisis to go on to the point where there is no money to buy bread = hunger = reality.
Gotta eat!

But mathematically speaking, if the pool has a 3-way split ( gov,TAB/Shares then the winning punter gets the crumbs, who really has CAUSED the problem in the first place?

The Judge! cos he is a share holder, he is just as guilty as those who are in party of that "share holders department", he has no real claim to that money cos he has put in no effort to have it in the fist place.
Plus the extra people employed to get the transfer of funds to the judge/shareholder.

The effort/energy came from all those that make up the final event, the winner of the race. What real biziness has a share holder got to with it while they can't even be at the races because they are at their work sending people to prison? None/Zilch.

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.


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 01:37 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.