Bets that must lose money
Think you need to define what you mean by "Must" ?Bet Angel wrote:Currently doing some new research and was interested in getting views from members on silly, stupid bets that 'must' lose money. My view is too blinkered on bad positions so I'm looking for some external feedback.
My own personal opinion is that as long as a trade is available (irrespective of the odds) then nothing is impossible, I've had winning lays at 1.01 and a couple of backs 1000; both of which I wouldnt have though possible at one time..(Although I dont trade tennis, this seems to be a regular occurrence??)
There was a thread on here a couple of months ago where the market was on the ref on the world cup final. Although Howard Webb was announced the person, the market was still trading after it was announced. I actually layed him the night before for a sizeable chunk him being the ref AFTER it was confirmed and traded out a couple of ticks higher the following day...
regards
Peter
PS I maybe mistaken but wasnt there something similar in Big Brother where a contestant left the BB House (traded at 1000/1) and then came back>>??
I jest slightly hence the quotes around 'must'. I'm just looking for bets that are off the radar of an ordinary punter, something that 'shouldnt' happen. There are consistent losers out there so I am looking at what sort of positions they consistently lose on.
I would count systems in this mix as well. There seems to be a large number of people who can't make money punting so there must be something they are constantly doing wrong, or silly mistakes they are making, or positions they are taking.
I would count systems in this mix as well. There seems to be a large number of people who can't make money punting so there must be something they are constantly doing wrong, or silly mistakes they are making, or positions they are taking.
Peter, one has to be inadvertently going in play on Horses, if humans didn't take any action during inplay and let the bet run it would probably be a breakeven event in the long run , but human nature means inevitably cock ups , where the bets that had a chance are greened up up for little ( as relief sets in) and reds are allowed to become maximum reds (as panic sets in) as all hope fades away. Definately a losing venture overall.
Following big steamers and getting involved at the end when the price has collapsed was shown to produce a clear net loss when betfair did some research on this back in 2004, although it seems to me that nowadays layers are very ready to take on large amounts once a runner gets to such and such a price (feels to me that there are bots programmed to do this) and this may put the breaks on how low a gamble will go nowadays
Yes, I can see the logic and illogic in how that would work. A sort of cut your profits but let your losses run.harvard16 wrote:Peter, one has to be inadvertently going in play on Horses, if humans didn't take any action during inplay and let the bet run it would probably be a breakeven event in the long run , but human nature means inevitably cock ups , where the bets that had a chance are greened up up for little ( as relief sets in) and reds are allowed to become maximum reds (as panic sets in) as all hope fades away. Definately a losing venture overall.
I've been messing around with that mentality of late.harvard16 wrote:Peter, one has to be inadvertently going in play on Horses, if humans didn't take any action during inplay and let the bet run it would probably be a breakeven event in the long run , but human nature means inevitably cock ups , where the bets that had a chance are greened up up for little ( as relief sets in) and reds are allowed to become maximum reds (as panic sets in) as all hope fades away. Definately a losing venture overall.
In August, I had 3 days where I layed every horse for 20% less than it's start price & 'kept all' when the race started
I obviously took some hits, but I only used £2 stakes and made £11 from 87 races, so the mark up was fairly good
I have well got over this hurdle, Let the gains run and kill the losses, once you accept one cannot be right all the time and you take action have a look at the figures at the bottom of BA after a week.Bet Angel wrote:Yes, I can see the logic and illogic in how that would work. A sort of cut your profits but let your losses run.harvard16 wrote:Peter, one has to be inadvertently going in play on Horses, if humans didn't take any action during inplay and let the bet run it would probably be a breakeven event in the long run , but human nature means inevitably cock ups , where the bets that had a chance are greened up up for little ( as relief sets in) and reds are allowed to become maximum reds (as panic sets in) as all hope fades away. Definately a losing venture overall.
-
CaerMyrddin
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:47 am
You must be aware of those bots that will use sophisticated Martingale kindalike idea.Currently doing some new research and was interested in getting views from members on silly, stupid bets that 'must' lose money. My view is too blinkered on bad positions so I'm looking for some external feedback.
I think I get some money from them on a daily basis
Hi LeTissLeTiss 4pm wrote:I've been messing around with that mentality of late.harvard16 wrote:Peter, one has to be inadvertently going in play on Horses, if humans didn't take any action during inplay and let the bet run it would probably be a breakeven event in the long run , but human nature means inevitably cock ups , where the bets that had a chance are greened up up for little ( as relief sets in) and reds are allowed to become maximum reds (as panic sets in) as all hope fades away. Definately a losing venture overall.
In August, I had 3 days where I layed every horse for 20% less than it's start price & 'kept all' when the race started
I obviously took some hits, but I only used £2 stakes and made £11 from 87 races, so the mark up was fairly good
It would be interesting to do the reverse of this...ie back at 20% higher than the SP (Or even higher at say 50%)
Regards
Peter
I think most losing punters lose mainly due to their staking than their selection process. Its not that they ae particularly bad at picking winners and keep selecting bad bets, its how they bet that usually determines how much they lose.
The biggest losers are the chasers.People who cant handle their money. Is it called 'gamblers fallacy'?
I used to work in betting shops about 10 years ago so observed losing punters and their habbits.
The worst punter in the shop (or the best depending on which side of the counter you were on) was a chinese man. He used to steel the takings from his popular restaurant and come and blow them in the shop. He got found out, sent to prison, but when he got out he just carried on doing exactly the same again.
His problem was his staking and chasing. Win or lose his stakes would increase. He had to carry on gambling until he blew the lot, he was compulsive. If he started losing, he would go on the chase, bets would get bigger and bigger, until he blew the lot. If he won, he would up his stakes. Bet bigger, until he hit a couple of losers, then he would be chasing that, until eventually he would lose what he won, then a whole load more trying to get that back.
You could have offered this man 6/4 on the toss of a coin, though due to his suicidal and crazy staking, he would still end up going broke.
I think bad money management rather than bad bet selection leads most losing punters to lose.
The biggest losers are the chasers.People who cant handle their money. Is it called 'gamblers fallacy'?
I used to work in betting shops about 10 years ago so observed losing punters and their habbits.
The worst punter in the shop (or the best depending on which side of the counter you were on) was a chinese man. He used to steel the takings from his popular restaurant and come and blow them in the shop. He got found out, sent to prison, but when he got out he just carried on doing exactly the same again.
His problem was his staking and chasing. Win or lose his stakes would increase. He had to carry on gambling until he blew the lot, he was compulsive. If he started losing, he would go on the chase, bets would get bigger and bigger, until he blew the lot. If he won, he would up his stakes. Bet bigger, until he hit a couple of losers, then he would be chasing that, until eventually he would lose what he won, then a whole load more trying to get that back.
You could have offered this man 6/4 on the toss of a coin, though due to his suicidal and crazy staking, he would still end up going broke.
I think bad money management rather than bad bet selection leads most losing punters to lose.