You are not a customer and never had any intention of being one.
Refusing to acknowledge the explanation is very telling. It's not coin flipping as you can see and as others have explained.
I've come to realise over time that it's not an issue if people don't get it. That partly explains why it's possible to do it. It also makes for a perfect example of poor thinking when I do any lectures and that helps people get a much better understanding. So thanks for your contribution.
HOW exactly are you doing money?
I'm glad you agree, that's the first and last intelligent thing you said all day.Thisisgambling wrote:Thread is pure comedy.
The jig is up boys, he's on to us. I knew this day would come, when someone intelligent enough would come along and unravel this entire conspiracy that we call trading. WAKE UP SHEEPLE! Trading is a lie, Bet Angel is a scam, Euler is a conman and the rest of us are all luckers and coinflippers.Thisisgambling wrote:I am asking question and nobyd is able to answer. Just some promise that there is money out there. Wait what does that sound like?
I'm a "nobb"(sic) just like you Thisisgambling and i'm at the same stage as you. I win some i lose some, get it wrong even when i get it right, see an opportunity and don't take it, lose discipline, the whole nine yards.
There are 2 paths you can take when first starting out at anything.
1) Throw in the towel and say this can't be done.
or
2) Keep working hard and know/believe one day you will make it.
You have chosen the former. Nobody that even made it at anything chose that option.
Everyone that made it chose the latter because they understood the concept and knew it could be done. There's no reason you can't do it too. You have to believe in yourself. I see the potential every day just looking at the ladder.
The edge that the professionals like Peter have is made up of so many variables it can't be defined other than to say it clearly requires experience and hard work on your own personal misgivings. Peter and all the other professionals basically learn that when X happens do Y and more often than not it will go in their favour.
Software like Bet Angel gives you the tools to help spot when X is happening and execute your Y.
You just have to get stuck in and keep going and eventually you'll feel/know when the toaster is about to pop.
There are 2 paths you can take when first starting out at anything.
1) Throw in the towel and say this can't be done.
or
2) Keep working hard and know/believe one day you will make it.
You have chosen the former. Nobody that even made it at anything chose that option.
Everyone that made it chose the latter because they understood the concept and knew it could be done. There's no reason you can't do it too. You have to believe in yourself. I see the potential every day just looking at the ladder.
The edge that the professionals like Peter have is made up of so many variables it can't be defined other than to say it clearly requires experience and hard work on your own personal misgivings. Peter and all the other professionals basically learn that when X happens do Y and more often than not it will go in their favour.
Software like Bet Angel gives you the tools to help spot when X is happening and execute your Y.
You just have to get stuck in and keep going and eventually you'll feel/know when the toaster is about to pop.
While it's obvious that whatshisname was trolling and just couldn't get it, we've put him out of his misery so everybody can refocus. It was fun for a while, but the complete failure to grasp a basic concept obviously wasn't going to stop them from saying the earth was flat. Guess that's his problem! It's amazing that people still don't get it.
I think the unfortunate thing about his rant is that he didn't realise you don't actually need to know the direction to make money. Price direction is just one of a number of strategies. That may have helped him come to terms with how people have made it work for them.
I have developed a detailed mathematical based explanation to refute the "it's all just gambling" view. I know, I know there are none so blind as those who will not see. I'll post it up later.Euler wrote:I think the unfortunate thing about his rant is that he didn't realise you don't actually need to know the direction to make money. Price direction is just one of a number of strategies. That may have helped him come to terms with how people have made it work for them.
I've never been to Sydney, therefore it doesn't exist, prove me wrong 
As part of my proof, I bet you I can find way more people that haven't been to Sydney than have, therefore anybody who says they have been to Sydney are all deluded.
As part of my proof, I bet you I can find way more people that haven't been to Sydney than have, therefore anybody who says they have been to Sydney are all deluded.
I've also just come across this thread. Funnily enough, this is the one that got to me the most. Do dismiss the prize awarded to some of the finest brains that ever existed as a "silly little trinket" beggars belief.weemac wrote:It was 2 nobel prize winners in Economics who helped to lose about 5 billion dollars in Long Term Capital (Mis)Management.
So that tells you a lot about that silly little trinket of a prize.
This. I know I called this guy a troll at the start of the thread and I started spamming memes but it was because of the hilarious manner in which he posted those questions. It's hard to believe that those who actually tried to explain something to him didn't even answer his original question, which is written in bold in the first post. Everyone just got sidetracked with topics such as Fama and coin flipping whilst avoiding the real issue at hand.Euler wrote:I think the unfortunate thing about his rant is that he didn't realise you don't actually need to know the direction to make money. Price direction is just one of a number of strategies. That may have helped him come to terms with how people have made it work for them.
We all know that this question is flawed but nobody actually pointed out the flawed logic behind it, until Euler mentioned it at the very end. If he is still reading this thread, that was the answer that he was looking for. He was operating under the assumption that you need to "predict the future/direction of the price" to make money, which is simply not true because you don't need to predict anything to make money, you can be completely clueless about the direction of the price and still make regular profit without a single losing day. In fact, I believe some of the best trading styles do not involve any predicting of price direction whatsoever, but it does not mean that money can't be made with predicting either. He simply failed to understand that there are MANY ways to trade and predicting is just one of them.Thisisgambling wrote:How do you guys making a steady profit, how exactly do you know if the graph will go down or if it will go up? How can you predict the future (the prices)?
If you ignore the rest of his hilarious rant, this question was actually perfectly legitimate. I was asked the very same question by my family members and I explained to them the concept behind my trading style to put their mind at ease, so that they don't think that I'm just a random gambler, as I'm sure most of us have already answered this exact question many times before.
This guy was a perfect example of what the public opinion is regarding sports trading, for those that know sports trading even exists, it speaks volumes about the level of their ignorance.
-
Lost The Rider
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 2:44 pm
I hope he doesn't have a defined contribution pension, considering his lack of faith in traders to produce a ROI
For the mathematically minded.
Let us conduct a thought experiment.
Let us propose we have a participant on betfair, Mr Gazuty.
To keep things simple this version of betfair only allows a yes/no outcome bet with a 50/50 probability. For the naysayers it's all down to luck.
Mr Gazuty pays 5% commission on winnings. He starts with a bank of $1000 and pursues a modest staking plan and risks $5 on each outcome.
After 1000 events Mr Gazuty needs to have won at least 513 times to break even. ((513 X 4.75) - (487 X 5)).
What is the probability of 513 or more successful outcomes out of 1000 attempts with a 50% probability? (Calculate it here http://stattrek.com/m/online-calculator/binomial.aspx).
It's 21.4%. High enough for the naysayers to believe Mr Gazuty could easily be successful from random dumb luck.
Mr Gazuty continues.
He reaches 10,000 events.
Now to break even he needs to have won at least 5128 times.
What is the probability of 5,128 or more successful outcomes out of 10000 attempts with a 50% probability?
Its 0.5%. So after 10,000 events the chances of Mr Gazuty achieving success through pure luck is 0.5%.
And once we get to 20,000 events The probability of achieving more than 10,256 winning results through pure dumb luck is 0.015%.
Now ask yourself this question. Let's change from Mr Gazuty to the real gazuty.
The real gazuty has participated in over 70,000 markets. On the same methodology as above he'd need to be successful in at least 35,897 to be in front (and he has been).
The probability of that through random luck? You do the math.
It's possible I don't have an edge. But that possibility is infinitesimal after participating in so markets.
Still don't believe me. Interested in a challenge? Let's each start with a new account of $500. Winner takes all after one year with a participation in at least 200 markets (just to reduce the random walk). (Trouble is my non believer noob competitors will be wiped out and I'll be collecting zero from them - apart from what I collect from them through the market along the way).
At the end of the day, traders and their variants with an edge are liquidity providers to the market and their profit is the price paid for providing that liquidity.
Let us conduct a thought experiment.
Let us propose we have a participant on betfair, Mr Gazuty.
To keep things simple this version of betfair only allows a yes/no outcome bet with a 50/50 probability. For the naysayers it's all down to luck.
Mr Gazuty pays 5% commission on winnings. He starts with a bank of $1000 and pursues a modest staking plan and risks $5 on each outcome.
After 1000 events Mr Gazuty needs to have won at least 513 times to break even. ((513 X 4.75) - (487 X 5)).
What is the probability of 513 or more successful outcomes out of 1000 attempts with a 50% probability? (Calculate it here http://stattrek.com/m/online-calculator/binomial.aspx).
It's 21.4%. High enough for the naysayers to believe Mr Gazuty could easily be successful from random dumb luck.
Mr Gazuty continues.
He reaches 10,000 events.
Now to break even he needs to have won at least 5128 times.
What is the probability of 5,128 or more successful outcomes out of 10000 attempts with a 50% probability?
Its 0.5%. So after 10,000 events the chances of Mr Gazuty achieving success through pure luck is 0.5%.
And once we get to 20,000 events The probability of achieving more than 10,256 winning results through pure dumb luck is 0.015%.
Now ask yourself this question. Let's change from Mr Gazuty to the real gazuty.
The real gazuty has participated in over 70,000 markets. On the same methodology as above he'd need to be successful in at least 35,897 to be in front (and he has been).
The probability of that through random luck? You do the math.
It's possible I don't have an edge. But that possibility is infinitesimal after participating in so markets.
Still don't believe me. Interested in a challenge? Let's each start with a new account of $500. Winner takes all after one year with a participation in at least 200 markets (just to reduce the random walk). (Trouble is my non believer noob competitors will be wiped out and I'll be collecting zero from them - apart from what I collect from them through the market along the way).
At the end of the day, traders and their variants with an edge are liquidity providers to the market and their profit is the price paid for providing that liquidity.
-
marksmeets302
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:37 pm
Excellent post Mr. Gazuty.
Within a couple of months I'll celebrate my 250.000th race. Didn't do the math, but the odds of that being luck and still doing the victory dance for 72% of the time must be incredibly small.
Within a couple of months I'll celebrate my 250.000th race. Didn't do the math, but the odds of that being luck and still doing the victory dance for 72% of the time must be incredibly small.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.