The problem with people talking about having a edge like this, is that it has no definition.
Two people using the same system starting a month or even a day apart can have wildly different results.
does one have a edge and the other not ???
or has one just got lucky ???.
It's all a load of balls really, a historical edge is just that history and a edge based on just a few results is untested.
Trying new ideas with a small bank is the only way forward imo, that way you can slowly build up and if you have more money left at the time you decide to quit than you had a t the start,
then and only then have you found a edge.
Short "1st run" favorite
Freddy
Let's say you have 5,000 results relating to short-priced favorites, and you get a healthy profit. You can do a Chi squared test to show whether your profit could realistically be due to randomness.
However, the fact that a system worked historically doesn't mean it will work in the future, given that the market has the potential to evolve and reduce or even eliminate inefficiencies. For example, if you'd have backed all of Adrian Massey's top rated horses in 1991, you'd have made a 9% profit. In 2010, you'd have made a big loss: http://adrianmassey.no-ip.org/web1/sel/sel0.php.
Jeff
Let's say you have 5,000 results relating to short-priced favorites, and you get a healthy profit. You can do a Chi squared test to show whether your profit could realistically be due to randomness.
However, the fact that a system worked historically doesn't mean it will work in the future, given that the market has the potential to evolve and reduce or even eliminate inefficiencies. For example, if you'd have backed all of Adrian Massey's top rated horses in 1991, you'd have made a 9% profit. In 2010, you'd have made a big loss: http://adrianmassey.no-ip.org/web1/sel/sel0.php.
Jeff
Exactly, and that's why i said unless someone can define a edge it's hard to talk about 
.
Based on the Adrian Massey results you posted if you had started doing that in 1991 you would have had a edge for years, but would you have stopped doing it at just the right time ??? . And it's unlikely you would have started in 1991 anyway as there was no historical data
to back it up,
you would just have to have got lucky based on a hunch.
hence the reason why i think stuff like this is mostly pie in the sky
.Based on the Adrian Massey results you posted if you had started doing that in 1991 you would have had a edge for years, but would you have stopped doing it at just the right time ??? . And it's unlikely you would have started in 1991 anyway as there was no historical data
to back it up, you would just have to have got lucky based on a hunch.
hence the reason why i think stuff like this is mostly pie in the sky
Hi Freddy
When you place a bet or lay, you're assuming that you know something that the guy on the other side of the bet doesn't. That's possibly a presumptuous assumption. He and the other people on his side of the book probably aren't all idiots, and they believe that they know something you don't (and may well do so!).
I suspect that the market often over-reacts (for example, because a horse is hyped up by the Racing Post). Indeed, Betfair published some stats a while back that showed that a profit could be made from backing drifters and laying steamers. The problem, however, is that often the market drifts and steams heavily for a very good reason, and I don't see how you can distinguish a hype-driven move from a rational one (or ascertain when a rational move has overshot the true price). My gut tells me that I can spot when a market has gone crazy and there is value to be had, but if I am being brutally honest with myself betting on such horses amounts to gambling, not systematic investing.
IMHO, if you are betting on horses on Betfair, there are two basic routes to long-term profits: trading and acquiring insider knowledge. I'm not sure even being a form guru helps when you're up against people who know stuff about a horse that's not in the public domain (and I'm not just referring to corruption).
Jeff
When you place a bet or lay, you're assuming that you know something that the guy on the other side of the bet doesn't. That's possibly a presumptuous assumption. He and the other people on his side of the book probably aren't all idiots, and they believe that they know something you don't (and may well do so!).
I suspect that the market often over-reacts (for example, because a horse is hyped up by the Racing Post). Indeed, Betfair published some stats a while back that showed that a profit could be made from backing drifters and laying steamers. The problem, however, is that often the market drifts and steams heavily for a very good reason, and I don't see how you can distinguish a hype-driven move from a rational one (or ascertain when a rational move has overshot the true price). My gut tells me that I can spot when a market has gone crazy and there is value to be had, but if I am being brutally honest with myself betting on such horses amounts to gambling, not systematic investing.
IMHO, if you are betting on horses on Betfair, there are two basic routes to long-term profits: trading and acquiring insider knowledge. I'm not sure even being a form guru helps when you're up against people who know stuff about a horse that's not in the public domain (and I'm not just referring to corruption).
Jeff
-
giulio2010
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:11 am
As usual there are missunderstanding...Like I said it's only a test and we need 6-12 months to provide some good results...We are having just dialogues in some possible egdes...Like I said previously there are no claim of having found an holy grails..I don't mean to fool anyone here...There are people in this forum that never showed their P&L but seems to have so much credibility...I know what may be but it's difficult to make a proper explanation without telling the truth...
If there was so much hostility I do not see why there would be a need to prove something ... but will continue to post in other topics....I am starting to think Stef was right about this forum...If you are not British or your name is not Peter webb, people will always try to belittle what 'you're trying to do even if you show your P & L always positive...It's a lost cause....If I said I am trying this and I let you know...why do you need be so negative and say I will lose money, I will have no edges and only our people are good at this...Maybe you don't realize but that is exactly what your message is about...Good luck with your negativity...
If there was so much hostility I do not see why there would be a need to prove something ... but will continue to post in other topics....I am starting to think Stef was right about this forum...If you are not British or your name is not Peter webb, people will always try to belittle what 'you're trying to do even if you show your P & L always positive...It's a lost cause....If I said I am trying this and I let you know...why do you need be so negative and say I will lose money, I will have no edges and only our people are good at this...Maybe you don't realize but that is exactly what your message is about...Good luck with your negativity...
No one is being negative, they are just giving their views, after all that's what forums are for 
.
I was just asking what people's definition of an edge was, which no one has yet answered, so i carn't say if you have found one or not im sorry .
Not sure what your talking about with regard to people's P&L, how can anyone prove that on a internet forum ???.
Some people are well respected here simply because they been here a long time and offer good advice and have good knowledge of the subject. That's all, there is no conspiracy theory .
Jeff disagrees with me with me all the time but i don't get my nickers in a twist about it
but on this occasion i think we agree
.
. I was just asking what people's definition of an edge was, which no one has yet answered, so i carn't say if you have found one or not im sorry
.Not sure what your talking about with regard to people's P&L, how can anyone prove that on a internet forum ???.
Some people are well respected here simply because they been here a long time and offer good advice and have good knowledge of the subject. That's all, there is no conspiracy theory
.Jeff disagrees with me with me all the time but i don't get my nickers in a twist about it
but on this occasion i think we agree
.
Last edited by freddy on Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Giulio
No-one is being negative and I don't detect any hostility. There's definitely none on my part - I'm actually enjoying this discussion.
You have to eliminate approaches that don't work to find the truth - that is part of the creative process. All I'm saying is this: Let's say you get 12 months of data, and it shows a nice overall profit. What does it tell you? All it tells you is that your system worked historically. It might carry on giving you profits as long as Betfair exists, or it might fall apart next week. Who knows?
BTW, it's not the case that I assume that everything Peter does will necessarily work till the end of time. Whilst Peter unquestionably has an edge based on his results to date, there is nothing to say that his current techniques will always work. If the markets change, he may need to adapt some of those techniques. That said, I suspect that a lot of the methods Peter uses are based on exploiting aspects of crowd behavior, and human nature is unlikely to change anytime soon...
Jeff
No-one is being negative and I don't detect any hostility.
There's definitely none on my part - I'm actually enjoying this discussion.You have to eliminate approaches that don't work to find the truth - that is part of the creative process. All I'm saying is this: Let's say you get 12 months of data, and it shows a nice overall profit. What does it tell you? All it tells you is that your system worked historically. It might carry on giving you profits as long as Betfair exists, or it might fall apart next week. Who knows?
BTW, it's not the case that I assume that everything Peter does will necessarily work till the end of time.
Whilst Peter unquestionably has an edge based on his results to date, there is nothing to say that his current techniques will always work. If the markets change, he may need to adapt some of those techniques. That said, I suspect that a lot of the methods Peter uses are based on exploiting aspects of crowd behavior, and human nature is unlikely to change anytime soon... Jeff