Carsh, is right if you look at it from his mathematical point of view.

There was a current affairs segment on how to consistantly win those free prizes you enter from various newspapers and magazines. Those cut-outs.

All promotional stuff, but it showed if the numbers are played right, you actualy can win these free prizes.

How ?
Let's say there was a free competition to win a washing machine.
Then there is another free competition to win a the latest wiz-bang PC
And lets say there are 10 more of these various free competitions.
Each of these promotional competitions require you to fill out the usual name,address, age,favorite color, star sighn etc etc etc. cut it out and snail-mail it by dead-line close date.

The trick with the niumbers side of things is , NOT to enter the same competition as many times as possible, but to enter as many competitions as possible, ONCE.
So if there are 10 competitions, all free to enter chances are you will be in front by winning a prize from one of the draws.
But you won't win if you enter the same draw 100 times.

Same principle, ain't it ?

Sorry about your washing machine crash!
No need to name the brand, but if it is what I think it is, our company is partly to blame, although our tech department pointed out at the time, that no matter how good our software is it can't make crappy hardware perform better!

Marcus.

"Fuzzy Logic" isn't that a bit contradictory.

I remember when the warm fuzzies came out - some moron's idea of warming up to the customer.


Shouldn't it be Crystal Logic or Clear Logic?, no - a double entendre Fuzzy meaning customer friendly or easy to use logic.

Next time I'm at the optometrist and view an eyechart, I'll tell them it's fuzzy (meaning easy to read) and walk out wearing Mr. Magoo glasses

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 399,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/03/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

[QUOTE

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 It's
a piece of crap] :-)[/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.......

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-)

Sorry Crash, can't agree with you on this one.

If a punter is out to make money ( and you seem to believe that no punter is actually out to make money) , the person going with the larger number of bets is probably seeking high turnover/ small profit margin./higher income.

Crash I have a method that seems to pick one winner in two...but it can take a year to come up with those two bets. Its riskier just backing the two selections heavily and trying to make all ones profit from those two bets in a year, than taking many many more bets for a smaller percentage profit..but much more revenue...

the above is precisely why some professional punters do both. Do you invest all of your money on one company share and hang you hopes on it, or do you spread your risk over a portfolio?

Thansk for the interesting post though..had me thinking..and that is good.

All this hostility for nought.

Crash is kind of right.


The more bets a punter has in a negative expectation game, the greater the chance of loss. One can defy the odds, but not forever.

Conversely, the less bets a punter has in a positive expectation game, the less the chance of a profit.

Although the odds don't change, like a coin flip, the greater the exposure to the game, the more likely the overall % loss or profit will result.

Why does this happen?

Take for example Kenchar, with his "hit-make a profit-run" approach.

There is more to this than simply the odds, there is the confidence factor as well. One is more likely to make a sound decision when having the first bet of the day, than when chasing a deep loss.

The only evidence lies in the number of times a punter was ahead for the day and gave it all back by betting more.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 399,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/03/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

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.

924

quote: " ( and you seem to believe that no punter is actually out to make money)",

Where do you folk get this drivel ? How do you deduct that from anything I have ever said anywhere? Follow my type....it's nonsense, it's not what I believe at all. Strewth, talk about putting words into a bloke's mouth.

and ...."the person going with the larger number of bets is probably seeking high turnover/ small profit margin./higher income".

What, a punter can't obtain high turn over/small profit margin/higher income with a smaller amount of larger bets [high $ turnover]?

Oh boy, I need a holiday.

Chrome,
Thanks, finally some insight here. You get my drift.
Horse racing is a mostly negative expectation game [for 95% of us anyway], regardless of the personal and often collective, positive spin we try to put on it. We have to work out ways to reduce the odds against us and hopefully, eventually get the odds in our favor by whatever means. When the odds are against us, the more we take them the more we will lose.

If we have X amount of concentration energy available per day for form study, stats analysis or whatever we do to choose our selections, and we divide that energy into say 8 lots, each used to select 8 winners from eight races in a day, we minimize our profit potential compared to dividing that energy into say 3 lots to select 3 winners from 3 races and having larger bets. We maximize profit potential by better utilization of our energy resources. Combine that with whatever else we are doing to improve our odds [finding genuine underlays etc.], and we increase our potential profitability.

I'm not going into the details of the random chance factor that is very much present in horse racing, but even an idiot can work out that the more of it we introduce into our betting, the less our profit potential is.

We all know that Casino odds are against us, do we increase our profit potential but having a 100 small bets rather than a few large ones? Of course we ****** don't. The exact opposite is true. Mathematically speaking, our best chance of winning there would be to have one large bet only, but that would make for a very boring visit to the Casino . The reason I say that for most of us, profit is not our ultimate reason for punting, is that none of us would be happy with one bet only. I certainly wouldn't be. 3 bets in a punting day though, is often OK by me nowadays.