Smartgambler
Pro-Punter

Go Back   OZmium Sports Betting and Horse Racing Forums > Public Forums > Horse Race Betting Systems
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark all topics as read

To advertise on these
forums, e-mail us.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 16th February 2012, 04:18 PM
Mark Mark is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Qld
Posts: 1,392
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16th February 2012, 04:48 PM
lomaca lomaca is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 1,096
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16th February 2012, 04:52 PM
Mark Mark is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Qld
Posts: 1,392
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16th February 2012, 04:58 PM
Chrome Prince Chrome Prince is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 4,431
Default

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.
__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 420,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/06/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16th February 2012, 05:40 PM
Shaun Shaun is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 3,403
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 16th February 2012, 06:35 PM
Chrome Prince Chrome Prince is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 4,431
Default

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.
__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 420,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/06/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16th February 2012, 06:49 PM
norisk norisk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 334
Default

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).

Last edited by norisk : 16th February 2012 at 06:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 16th February 2012, 07:02 PM
Mark Mark is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Qld
Posts: 1,392
Default

I think I was looking more at the difference between winners & losers.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 16th February 2012, 08:23 PM
norisk norisk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 334
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 17th February 2012, 12:36 AM
Puntz Puntz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 282
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 07:34 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2008 OZmium Pty. Ltd. All rights reserved . ACN 091184655