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.

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].

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.



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

Kenny, you must have a gambling problem as you logic [the personal attack approach] is more disturbing than offensive. Your obviously close to an emotional breakdown. Have a Bex and a good lie down [often].

Doc.
Point taken about the innuendo. I was wrong. Looking again it's quite funny :-) I'm shocked I didn't spot it straight away. My forum attempts are competing with anxious visions of being washed down a river crossing on a 4X4 trip over the Vic. alps next week. What odds that happening ?

Quote: '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.' End quote.

Yes, I agree with that statement too Doc. I can buy one tatts ticket and win 1st. prize and you can buy a million of them and miss out [or vis-a-vis]. Your statement though was incomplete. If we both lose, who will lose the most? I'd call that an advantage, wouldn't you?

Lets simplify my original point. Punter A and B have exactly the same selection ability [handicapping ability]. Simpler still: Punter A and B are the same punter [we'll call him 'Ace'] and for the past 5 years Ace has been averaging 3 bets a day and for the 5yrs. before that 7 bets a day and he made a profit during both periods [the word loss in 'profit/loss' in my original example obviously freaked out some readers here, so Ace is a winner]. He bets to win only on one selection per race and bets the same amount per day [total daily turnover] and makes his own selections by handicapping his races.

Ace won more over the last 5yrs. than the previous 5yrs. His strike rate improved yet his handicapping ability was the same during both periods. Why was his POT higher by having less bets ?

Now we come to my point about odds. All Ace's bets over the last 10yrs. where at 5/1 odds [for simplicity]. 6x5/6x1 units for 5yrs. and 3x5/3x1 units for 5yrs. I had assumed in my original post that all punters here realize that there is no such thing as true odds in racing because to work out true odds all possibilities must be known. A casino has true odds but never in a horse race. So our 5/1 odds are a mixture of true odds and random odds [random chance]. I'd say 1/3rd true odds [represents the fav. SR] and 2/3rds. random chance odds which through good form study Ace can reduce but never eliminate.

Ace, buy reducing the amount of bets he had, reduced his random chance odds against him over the 5yr. period. Does that make sense now or have I completely descended into murk here ? If so, please explain why.

Slowman,

Quote: "CRASH CRASH CRASH it works like this the sniper has one chance from 1km the other bloke has 40 at 100m,end result is no different,they both end up feeding ther family tonight,,,,,,,,,but mamma allways said a machine gunner is what sniper wants to be............hope everyone enjoyed the day......slowman......."

Do you think your machine gunner would ever get within 100m of a sniper who's a kilometer away ? I don't think so. 8-)

Crash,

Would you agree that every favorite has the same percentage chance as the one before it?

ie; if the favorite has not got up for 5 races it is no more likely than its every day percentage to get up in the next.


If so then your logic is flawed because you assume that a group of 3 bets has less chance than a group of 7 bets to fall victim to the 2/3rds random chance theory.

In actuality EACH RACE has the same % chance as the one before and after it of falling victim to your random chance theory.



If one isnt talking theoreticly for a moment and i assume that there is a little bit of your punting history in Ace then more than likely the higher rate of success with 3 bets as opposed to 7 can simply be put down to using the same amount of time to study 7 races as you know do for 3 resulting in a better more alert and select handicapping style.

Quote,

"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."

Does this statement have hard statistical evidence to back it up or do you in fact claim to know "most" pro-punters or "most" other punters ????

I doubt that either is true,which makes the whole argument irrelevant.

These blanket bomb statements dragged from god-knows-where and used to underline spurious arguments simply indicate a dogmatic determination to be right.

"Facts" can be verified."Opinion" is simply that.

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.