I agree that if there is value to be had and you have a big enough bank you can make a heap but this person moves form one race to the next, moving usually when the current race ends. They then usually just try to get all of their bet matched seemingly regardless of odds. That to me is not value hunting. What would be value hunting is laying this guy when they take way under the odds. I am sure there are some layers who have made an awful lot taking this person on.LeTiss 4pm wrote:IMO some of the biggest winners on BF are punters, who take advantage of getting books near 100% and just smash into what they see as value.
Mad Bomber??
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
-
enzabella2009
- Posts: 747
- Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:58 pm
Fair enough.
I would like to ask you a question if possible. Do you trade only on the 3 favorites? When you open the ladder how many horses are you checking? The reason I am asking you that is that sometimes I got caught by the bomber on 30/1, 20/1 and 10/1 horses. Sometimes I lost money, sometimes I made a decent profit but, what that affascinated me most is that those horses have won the race. I have seen Him/Her on the football market as well and often successfully bombed the team that was going to score 1st. Like you I am 100% sure he/she is the same person or group of people that work togheter.
He does not have to necessarly to place a lay bet after he bombed the back side. He may have already placed several back bet on the rest of the selection or his lay bets are already waiting the queue before he bombs or he/she select only possible winners and move on to the next market. Even he makes 0.1% return on his overroll bombs he/she still making decent money. Ofc he can also lose but, then he/she is not different from us. Deep down and in total fairness we are all gamblers.
I would like to ask you a question if possible. Do you trade only on the 3 favorites? When you open the ladder how many horses are you checking? The reason I am asking you that is that sometimes I got caught by the bomber on 30/1, 20/1 and 10/1 horses. Sometimes I lost money, sometimes I made a decent profit but, what that affascinated me most is that those horses have won the race. I have seen Him/Her on the football market as well and often successfully bombed the team that was going to score 1st. Like you I am 100% sure he/she is the same person or group of people that work togheter.
He does not have to necessarly to place a lay bet after he bombed the back side. He may have already placed several back bet on the rest of the selection or his lay bets are already waiting the queue before he bombs or he/she select only possible winners and move on to the next market. Even he makes 0.1% return on his overroll bombs he/she still making decent money. Ofc he can also lose but, then he/she is not different from us. Deep down and in total fairness we are all gamblers.
I totally agree with Lettis4pm except I am not the bomber and touch wood I am not losing money at the moment..andyfuller wrote:No frustration from me with the Bomber, I welcome them with open arms as I know several others do.
I have heard of Billy Waters btw and am aware that betting and trading is big outside of the UK as well as inside it.
What's your reasoning for why the bomber is making money you must have some to make you come to that conclusion?
My reasoning/evidence why they are losing is because of the size of money they throw into the market and more often than not they have no way of recouping this money and I don't believe they ever try. I.e they are not backing with the big amounts and then laying off.
Also I see them following no logical plan. They tend to just place a bet on the fav then when that race is over move to the next race and place a bet on the fav again. The key determinate as to when they place a bet is usually the finishing of the previous race as opposed to the price the horse is trading at.
Also we often hear the market is very efficient and especially at the front of the book over the long run prices the runners very accurately. However, the bomber is repeatedly taking way under the odds which long term means one thing - they loose.
LeTiss 4pm wrote:Andy,
I understand your reasoning why you think Enzabella's fella is losing money, but this is an area of BF that fascinates me. IMO some of the biggest winners on BF are punters, who take advantage of getting books near 100% and just smash into what they see as value.
My understanding of Billy Waters is that he's a perfect example. He's primarily a professional gambler who uses all sorts of sporting + financial analysis to determine his selections. I think gamblers and traders cross each other to the point it becomes a bit blurred as to who is who.
Andy. I have no idea whether the "bomber" is a net winner or net loser in the markets, nor am I familiar with his in-running bets (I'm not in that market normally), assuming that its the same guy doing both pre and in-running bets.
However, through observation, he does have the same MO pre race and that implies that he isn't just randomly placing a single win bet and moving on to the next race. He always places his bet (not a rounded amount) at a specific time or rather at a particular conformation of odds movement; his stakes vary according to both "how much" is in the back queue and the how that money is structured (top heavy) at the succession of odds below the current price. His bet almost always takes all the money down to the next or the next+1 resistance level from where it generally only ever recovers about half the drop. I cannot tell if the subsequent lay bets belong to the same person but they always, in total, at least match the large single bet.
It does not seem a coincidence that his bet takes out all the odds down to a specific key technical level every time; whether or not he is left with a portion unmatched after the transaction. The mere fact that the odds drop suddenly causes a temporary paralysis of the market followed by a "cautious" amount of laying. There is ample time for largish lay bets to offset the huge back bet and those lay bets all appear to be at odds lower than the artificial median created as a result of the bet.
The evidence (a) the precise entry (b) careful not to go below technical support/resistance (c) stake calculated to match a specific queue conformation and size all suggest that he is a trader who does not tread softly softly but rather calculates and times his bets with precision.
I could be wrong but as a trading technique it does work.
However, through observation, he does have the same MO pre race and that implies that he isn't just randomly placing a single win bet and moving on to the next race. He always places his bet (not a rounded amount) at a specific time or rather at a particular conformation of odds movement; his stakes vary according to both "how much" is in the back queue and the how that money is structured (top heavy) at the succession of odds below the current price. His bet almost always takes all the money down to the next or the next+1 resistance level from where it generally only ever recovers about half the drop. I cannot tell if the subsequent lay bets belong to the same person but they always, in total, at least match the large single bet.
It does not seem a coincidence that his bet takes out all the odds down to a specific key technical level every time; whether or not he is left with a portion unmatched after the transaction. The mere fact that the odds drop suddenly causes a temporary paralysis of the market followed by a "cautious" amount of laying. There is ample time for largish lay bets to offset the huge back bet and those lay bets all appear to be at odds lower than the artificial median created as a result of the bet.
The evidence (a) the precise entry (b) careful not to go below technical support/resistance (c) stake calculated to match a specific queue conformation and size all suggest that he is a trader who does not tread softly softly but rather calculates and times his bets with precision.
I could be wrong but as a trading technique it does work.
-
steven1976
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:28 am
James. Much of the time he does go through previous resistant points, or have I miss understood something? Id go as far as saying he purposely goes through resistant points
-
enzabella2009
- Posts: 747
- Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:58 pm
I love this james1st guy. When I try to explain that the bomber is no fool who wastes money without any concept, at times I have difficulty to explain it well because of my bad English. Thank god james1st gives the correct meaning to everything that I would love to write. Jeff also helps a lot to be honest, but often he follows the same current of Andy and company and often I disagree with most of this guys. 
BTW Jeff is still my overall favorite
BTW Jeff is still my overall favorite
James1st wrote:Andy. I have no idea whether the "bomber" is a net winner or net loser in the markets, nor am I familiar with his in-running bets (I'm not in that market normally), assuming that its the same guy doing both pre and in-running bets.
However, through observation, he does have the same MO pre race and that implies that he isn't just randomly placing a single win bet and moving on to the next race. He always places his bet (not a rounded amount) at a specific time or rather at a particular conformation of odds movement; his stakes vary according to both "how much" is in the back queue and the how that money is structured (top heavy) at the succession of odds below the current price. His bet almost always takes all the money down to the next or the next+1 resistance level from where it generally only ever recovers about half the drop. I cannot tell if the subsequent lay bets belong to the same person but they always, in total, at least match the large single bet.
It does not seem a coincidence that his bet takes out all the odds down to a specific key technical level every time; whether or not he is left with a portion unmatched after the transaction. The mere fact that the odds drop suddenly causes a temporary paralysis of the market followed by a "cautious" amount of laying. There is ample time for largish lay bets to offset the huge back bet and those lay bets all appear to be at odds lower than the artificial median created as a result of the bet.
The evidence (a) the precise entry (b) careful not to go below technical support/resistance (c) stake calculated to match a specific queue conformation and size all suggest that he is a trader who does not tread softly softly but rather calculates and times his bets with precision.
I could be wrong but as a trading technique it does work.
-
onemichael
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:05 am
Its been interesting reading both sides of the story of the bomber. The truth is we will never know. One side seems to be that the guy really knows what his doing, the that he is just a punter.
I took the sp of all the afternoon races yesterday and asuming he backed each horse to £30,000 he would have come out £30,000 down.
I took the sp of all the afternoon races yesterday and asuming he backed each horse to £30,000 he would have come out £30,000 down.
A year or so ago he appeared one saturday and bombed one horse in each of the first 18 races. 17 of them lost.
Surely you only have to watch what he's doing to see he's not making money.... how many times has he bombed one horse in a race on RUK, watched it lose, then seconds later you see a bomb go in on the fav on an ATR race which is already in progress?
Is the whole thing not based on the assumption that because he clearly has money he must know what he's doing?
Surely you only have to watch what he's doing to see he's not making money.... how many times has he bombed one horse in a race on RUK, watched it lose, then seconds later you see a bomb go in on the fav on an ATR race which is already in progress?
Is the whole thing not based on the assumption that because he clearly has money he must know what he's doing?
Is the whole thing not based on the assumption that because he clearly has money he must know what he's doing?
Completely agree with this.
Exactly the same arguments were put forward about the Bromyard fraudster, he must know what he is doing as he is betting so much.
Turned out to be desperation, not inspiration.
Completely agree with this.
Exactly the same arguments were put forward about the Bromyard fraudster, he must know what he is doing as he is betting so much.
Turned out to be desperation, not inspiration.
