give that a try buddy
Very interested in achieving the following..
-
elcapitain
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:01 pm
but you can use martingale for a system where u lay the favourite for each meeting and it has only had a favourite win across the card just once in the last 10 years, even factoring that in, it created over a 2% profit.
give that a try buddy
give that a try buddy
You can if you have a sado-masochistic streak, but if betting the deli to win a pickle isn't your idea of fun, I'd avoid it...elcapitain wrote:but you can use martingale for a system where u lay the favourite for each meeting
Mugsgame summed up the folly of martingale perfectly in this post: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=7575&p=59602&hilit ... ale#p59607
Jeff
No, it isn't.
Martingale is a suicidal system.
People who do well at martingale are like the turkey who thinks it's safe because its owner keeps it well fed day after day. Then one day at around Christmas, it discovers the horrible truth...
Have a play with the attached martingale simulator, which simulates lays at random odds between 1.1 and 4.0. Occasionally, you'll be able to survive 2,000 lays, which may illustrate why some people think that they have found a successful martingale system. Sooner or later however, they will hand their money back to the market though...
Jeff
Martingale is a suicidal system.
People who do well at martingale are like the turkey who thinks it's safe because its owner keeps it well fed day after day. Then one day at around Christmas, it discovers the horrible truth...
Have a play with the attached martingale simulator, which simulates lays at random odds between 1.1 and 4.0. Occasionally, you'll be able to survive 2,000 lays, which may illustrate why some people think that they have found a successful martingale system. Sooner or later however, they will hand their money back to the market though...
Jeff
elcapitain wrote:Jeff, its a profitable system.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
elcapitain
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:01 pm
guys, to be clear, lay the fav across each card, doubling up until it loses IS a profitable system. once you have a loser. you then stop for the day.
it is a slight variation of martingale, but IS profitable.
there has only been 1 occassion the fav's have gone through the card in the last 10 years and the system is still profitable taking that into account.
it is a slight variation of martingale, but IS profitable.
there has only been 1 occassion the fav's have gone through the card in the last 10 years and the system is still profitable taking that into account.
-
elcapitain
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:01 pm
5 cards today and 5 winners #WINNING #TIGER BLOOD 
No, it isn't a profitable system. It's madness. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is.elcapitain wrote:guys, to be clear, lay the fav across each card, doubling up until it loses IS a profitable system. once you have a loser. you then stop for the day.
Where's the edge that your profit is going to come from? There isn't one.
You might well manage to ride your luck for thousands of lays (although you could easily be blown out far before then), but sooner or later the odds will catch up with you. As Mugsgame wrote in the aforementioned post:
'Did I mention that last year there was a sequence of 23 winning favs'.
Your system doesn't have an edge (as you'll discover for yourself if you run my spreadsheet a few times).
If it were possible to win long-term via martingale, the high street bookmakers would all be broke by now.
Jeff
Last edited by Iron on Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
elcapitain
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:01 pm
Jeff, of the 23 lays, how many went across the card?
No idea, but it shouldn't make a blind bit of difference. If I lay two horses at 2.0 on different races in the same card, the chances of either of them winning is the same as if I'd laid one 2.0 horse at Kempton and one 2.0 horse at Chepstow. Separate races within a card are as much independent events as separate races on different cards.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that you only lose once every 10 years with your system. What's the point of making lots of small gains (out of each of which Betfair takes their cut), only to lose it all when the black swan swims in and the unthinkable happens?
You might as well join the people who routinely lay horses at 1000.0, and occasionally lose their shirts...
Jeff
Let's say, for argument's sake, that you only lose once every 10 years with your system. What's the point of making lots of small gains (out of each of which Betfair takes their cut), only to lose it all when the black swan swims in and the unthinkable happens?
You might as well join the people who routinely lay horses at 1000.0, and occasionally lose their shirts...
Jeff
elcapitain wrote:Jeff, of the 23 lays, how many went across the card?
-
elcapitain
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:01 pm
i guess i can sleep easy at night then Jeff.
yes, the chances of a win across the card is a once in 10 years event and STILL is in profit. >2%
yes, the chances of a win across the card is a once in 10 years event and STILL is in profit. >2%
You sure we are talking about a one in ten year event?
'Out of a total of 3,097 6 race meetings in the past 9 years just 8 produced all 6 winning favourites. That is 8 meetings in 9 years, which means that roughly one 6 race meeting a year will have all 6 favourites winning.'
From http://www.flatstats.co.uk/articles/eig ... rites.html
Anyway, for any newbies reading this and wondering who to believe, before you even think about a 'stop at a winner' strategy do a bit of research on Google, and ask yourself where the long-term edge comes from (hint: there isn't one).
If martingale worked, then the casinos would have been put out of business years ago.
Jeff
'Out of a total of 3,097 6 race meetings in the past 9 years just 8 produced all 6 winning favourites. That is 8 meetings in 9 years, which means that roughly one 6 race meeting a year will have all 6 favourites winning.'
From http://www.flatstats.co.uk/articles/eig ... rites.html
Anyway, for any newbies reading this and wondering who to believe, before you even think about a 'stop at a winner' strategy do a bit of research on Google, and ask yourself where the long-term edge comes from (hint: there isn't one).
If martingale worked, then the casinos would have been put out of business years ago.
Jeff
elcapitain wrote: yes, the chances of a win across the card is a once in 10 years event and STILL is in profit. >2%
-
elcapitain
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:01 pm
I think most people can withstand a run of 6 winners Jeff and just 1 per year.
#TIGERBLOOD
#TIGERBLOOD
Newbies - Before you follow El Capitain's advice, I urge you to read the following:
From http://www.flatstats.co.uk/newsletters/ ... ter_6.html:
The Best System in the World?
A couple of months ago, over at Pittsburgh Phil's Place, a message was posted which raised quite a few eyebrows. The poster claimed to have discovered a method which could make £50 profit every day, at every race meeting.
A quick check of the rules proved that the system was quite incredible. If you had followed this system since the start of 2003, you would have won over £22,000. If you had followed the system since the rules were first posted on 12th August, you would have raked in a cool profit of £11,150.
So what are the rules for this system? Is it a con? Why has it worked? Will it fail? These are the questions I asked and attempted to answer.
Rules: Lay the favourite in every race at a meeting progressively to win £50. Stop when target achieved.
This is a loss retrieval system employing a stop at a winner mechanism. Favourites are laid in succession with progressive stakes, and when the target is achieved you stop. Basically, you lay the favourite in the first race to win £50. If the favourite loses, you gain £50 and stop. If the favourite wins, you then lay the fav in the next race to recover your loss from the first and to gain £50, and so on.
e.g.
Race 1: Lucky Jim 2/1 fav. Risk £100 to win £50. Lucky Jim "wins" therefore bank -£100
Race 2: Blue Boy Evens fav. Risk £150 to win £150. Blue Boy "wins" therefore bank -£250
Race 3: Budmeister Evens fav. Risk £300 to win £300. Budmeister "loses" therefore winnings=£300, bank=+£50. Target achieved. Stop betting.
Some of you may have spotted that this is like a typical fool's gold system used on Roulette tables. This kind of system is often used at dog tracks too. Punters believe that there has never been a meeting at say Crayford where the favourite has never won. Therefore, you keep backing the favourite to win your target plus any loses from earlier races and stop at a winner.
The beauty of this system, is that it is not based on chasing losses on finding winning favourites: it is chasing losses on losing favourites and this seems to make sense. If favourites win 32% of the time, and if backing them using a loss retrieval method is so bad, then doing the opposite should be profitable. By laying the favourite instead, the system has (in general) a 68% of winning on the first leg. And it is very unlikely that all favourites will win in every race.
The thinking behind this system is sound. The reason why it is so appealing is because favourites do lose more often than they win and it is extremely rare for favourites to "go through the card". Usually, you only have to get to the first or second race for this method to achieve it's goal. Therefore, you shouldn't need to risk too much cash up front.
So is this really the Best System in the World?
No. And to be honest, it is an extremely dangerous system. If you follow it you may indeed be cleaning up £50 at every meeting, every day for the next few months. But one day the system will crash. This will happen when all favourites will go through the card, or the first five have gone in and you have to put up a huge bet on the sixth just to clear £50.
Analysing 10 years worth of flat turf data revealed the following results:
Total number of meetings bet on: 5,178
Total number of winning meetings: 5,164
Total number of losing meetings: 14
Now that does sound incredible. Out of 5178 meetings bet on, the system achieved it's target of clearing £50 profit 5,164 times. That is a success rate of 99.7%. But what about those 14 losing days? How much did the system lose on those days? What is the overall profit after 10 years?
Total amount staked: £3,600,335
Total Profit: £15,491
ROI: 0.43%
The profits do not look so good now. In 10 years, the net gain is £15,491. What is even more disappointing is the return on investment figure of just 0.43%. Even Barclays pay more interest than that. If you had just laid every favourite in every race instead you would have made a profit 10 times greater than that.
On some days you would have placed ridiculous bets which may not have got matched.
465 occasions £1,000+ bets were placed
40 occasions £10,000+ bets were placed
6 occasions £50,000+ bets were placed
2 occasions £100,000+ bets were placed
On two occasions, early wins by the favourite meant that bets of £100,000 or more had to be put up! In some instances, not even Betfair would be able to supply enough backers to match the bet. The biggest bet which had to be offered was in 1999 at Warwick. £134,000 would have had to have been placed on the favourite in the last race.
This is why loss retrieval / doubling up methods fail. At some stage you will have to place telephone number size bets. And the biggest danger is that you run out of races at a meeting and are unable to "retrieve your earlier stakes", i.e. the favourite goes through the card.
The last time this happened was two years ago at Catterick. On the 9th October 2001 all eight favourites won. Running this system at that meeting would have lost you £34,939 in just one day.
On average, there has been one meeting a year where the favourite goes through the card. The fact that this hasn't happened for two years now must flag up some danger signals that a 'wipeout' is due.
If you follow this system you may get mesmerised by it's success. You may continue to make another £11,150 in the next few months, but one day you will get shafted by this system and quite possibly lose the lot.
From http://www.flatstats.co.uk/newsletters/ ... ter_6.html:
The Best System in the World?
A couple of months ago, over at Pittsburgh Phil's Place, a message was posted which raised quite a few eyebrows. The poster claimed to have discovered a method which could make £50 profit every day, at every race meeting.
A quick check of the rules proved that the system was quite incredible. If you had followed this system since the start of 2003, you would have won over £22,000. If you had followed the system since the rules were first posted on 12th August, you would have raked in a cool profit of £11,150.
So what are the rules for this system? Is it a con? Why has it worked? Will it fail? These are the questions I asked and attempted to answer.
Rules: Lay the favourite in every race at a meeting progressively to win £50. Stop when target achieved.
This is a loss retrieval system employing a stop at a winner mechanism. Favourites are laid in succession with progressive stakes, and when the target is achieved you stop. Basically, you lay the favourite in the first race to win £50. If the favourite loses, you gain £50 and stop. If the favourite wins, you then lay the fav in the next race to recover your loss from the first and to gain £50, and so on.
e.g.
Race 1: Lucky Jim 2/1 fav. Risk £100 to win £50. Lucky Jim "wins" therefore bank -£100
Race 2: Blue Boy Evens fav. Risk £150 to win £150. Blue Boy "wins" therefore bank -£250
Race 3: Budmeister Evens fav. Risk £300 to win £300. Budmeister "loses" therefore winnings=£300, bank=+£50. Target achieved. Stop betting.
Some of you may have spotted that this is like a typical fool's gold system used on Roulette tables. This kind of system is often used at dog tracks too. Punters believe that there has never been a meeting at say Crayford where the favourite has never won. Therefore, you keep backing the favourite to win your target plus any loses from earlier races and stop at a winner.
The beauty of this system, is that it is not based on chasing losses on finding winning favourites: it is chasing losses on losing favourites and this seems to make sense. If favourites win 32% of the time, and if backing them using a loss retrieval method is so bad, then doing the opposite should be profitable. By laying the favourite instead, the system has (in general) a 68% of winning on the first leg. And it is very unlikely that all favourites will win in every race.
The thinking behind this system is sound. The reason why it is so appealing is because favourites do lose more often than they win and it is extremely rare for favourites to "go through the card". Usually, you only have to get to the first or second race for this method to achieve it's goal. Therefore, you shouldn't need to risk too much cash up front.
So is this really the Best System in the World?
No. And to be honest, it is an extremely dangerous system. If you follow it you may indeed be cleaning up £50 at every meeting, every day for the next few months. But one day the system will crash. This will happen when all favourites will go through the card, or the first five have gone in and you have to put up a huge bet on the sixth just to clear £50.
Analysing 10 years worth of flat turf data revealed the following results:
Total number of meetings bet on: 5,178
Total number of winning meetings: 5,164
Total number of losing meetings: 14
Now that does sound incredible. Out of 5178 meetings bet on, the system achieved it's target of clearing £50 profit 5,164 times. That is a success rate of 99.7%. But what about those 14 losing days? How much did the system lose on those days? What is the overall profit after 10 years?
Total amount staked: £3,600,335
Total Profit: £15,491
ROI: 0.43%
The profits do not look so good now. In 10 years, the net gain is £15,491. What is even more disappointing is the return on investment figure of just 0.43%. Even Barclays pay more interest than that. If you had just laid every favourite in every race instead you would have made a profit 10 times greater than that.
On some days you would have placed ridiculous bets which may not have got matched.
465 occasions £1,000+ bets were placed
40 occasions £10,000+ bets were placed
6 occasions £50,000+ bets were placed
2 occasions £100,000+ bets were placed
On two occasions, early wins by the favourite meant that bets of £100,000 or more had to be put up! In some instances, not even Betfair would be able to supply enough backers to match the bet. The biggest bet which had to be offered was in 1999 at Warwick. £134,000 would have had to have been placed on the favourite in the last race.
This is why loss retrieval / doubling up methods fail. At some stage you will have to place telephone number size bets. And the biggest danger is that you run out of races at a meeting and are unable to "retrieve your earlier stakes", i.e. the favourite goes through the card.
The last time this happened was two years ago at Catterick. On the 9th October 2001 all eight favourites won. Running this system at that meeting would have lost you £34,939 in just one day.
On average, there has been one meeting a year where the favourite goes through the card. The fact that this hasn't happened for two years now must flag up some danger signals that a 'wipeout' is due.
If you follow this system you may get mesmerised by it's success. You may continue to make another £11,150 in the next few months, but one day you will get shafted by this system and quite possibly lose the lot.
Last edited by Iron on Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.