Losing strategies wanted

[Iron]

I disagree.

OK, you don't have as much information with ante-post as you do at SP. But if you know something about the horse that the rest of the market has missed, you might be able to grab some nice value before everyone else cottons on and the price comes in.

Jeff

Another big loser:

Play the ante-post markets, backing favourites weeks before a big race. The very height of retarded. That's probably why bookies love those ante-post markets.

[mister man]

Back all horses when they reach odd of 1.01 on BF on the basis that if their odds fall to 1.01, they can't possibly lose.

Back all favourites on the basis that, if they are favourites, they have the best chance of winning.

Back all steamers on the basis that all those punters who backed it and caused it to steam can't be wrong.

Lay all drifters on the basis that all those punters who layed it and caused it to drift can't be wrong.

Lay all horses that go into a big lead at the start of a race on the basis that they will run out of energy before the end and will get caught and passed.

in addition to stuarts vey helpful observations i would add that if you reverse the above and insert lay for back and back for lay, you will also have a losing strategy.

also its great when national figures contribute to the forum, so good on yer..

Quite right Mister Man. Reversing my suggestions also lose. BTW, who is Stuart?

Psycho

I thought you were, or do you just have the same nickname ???
p.s good posts

[psycho040253]

Mister Man

Nope, I'm a boring Paul - not as interesting as a Stuart. Was allocated the nickname Psycho by a fellow forumite on another forum a few years ago.

Psycho

[mister man]

ok, my mistake, and apologies...

[psycho040253]

ok, my mistake, and apologies...

Apology appreciated, accepted but not necessary.

Psycho

[Zenyatta]

Couple more bum betting systems:

*Always bet on Andy Murray to win a tennis grand slam, on the grounds that Britain hasn't had a grand slam winner in over 75 years, and surely Murray must win this time

*Always bet on England to win the world cup, on the grounds that this is surely the best England team since 1966, so surely this time will be different

[sprinter]

how about backing every favorite at SP?

Or picking one horse at random to lay off? (naturally its going to be the one that wins!

Had lots of losses last week because I didn't get my last horse matched when dutching. The one left out won four times in a row.....

[Iron]

You'd more or less break even, if it weren't for commission.

Jeff

how about backing every favorite at SP?

[psycho040253]

Here's one for the WPB:

Back odds-on favourites in flat races < 1 mile.

Laying them doesn't work either.

Psycho

[psycho040253]

Here's another for the WPB:

Back the favourite in a race. If it wins, the stake remains as is. If it loses, increase stakes to recover the losses and back the favourite in the next race - on the basis that, eventually, you will have a winner and get all of your losses back.

Hint: Between 1991 and 2010, in UK racing, on three occasions, there were at least 29 consecutive losing favourites.

Psycho

[Euler]

Using a martingale though ends up paying the exchange more in commission that the martingale can generate in net profits. So I don't count that as a 'real' losing strategy.

[psycho040253]

Using a martingale though ends up paying the exchange more in commission that the martingale can generate in net profits. So I don't count that as a 'real' losing strategy.

Mr Euler, good Sir.

You are being picky

Psycho

[LeTiss]

Here's another for the WPB:

Back the favourite in a race. If it wins, the stake remains as is. If it loses, increase stakes to recover the losses and back the favourite in the next race - on the basis that, eventually, you will have a winner and get all of your losses back.

Hint: Between 1991 and 2010, in UK racing, on three occasions, there were at least 29 consecutive losing favourites.

Psycho

I worked as a ladbrokes betting shop manager 20 years back. I encountered a guy who followed that system and ended up having a £1250 bet at 4/6. It won, but I'll always remember how relieved he was, almost to the point of shedding tears

I think the Martindale approach can be a winner for people, if they start off with a very small bet in relation to their bank, and do the same price all the time. Switching from 4/6 to 5/1 will end in disaster, but sticking to 4/1 prices all the time makes a little easier to understand the probability of winners and losing streaks

[Iron]

Suppose also that the system had a high chi-squared value - indicating that the results were probably not a fluke.

The challenge I have with Chi squared values is as follows.

Over many thousands of bets, an equity curve may have substantial periods in which it makes an overall profit, as well as lengthy periods during which it breaks even or makes an overall loss. In each case, you may get a Chi squared result over a statistically significant number of bets that says 'This result cannot realistically have been a fluke'.

So how can you be confident that the random sample you pick is representative of the system's performance more generally, and not an accident of randomness?

Jeff

[psycho040253]

Here's another for the WPB:

Back the favourite in a race. If it wins, the stake remains as is. If it loses, increase stakes to recover the losses and back the favourite in the next race - on the basis that, eventually, you will have a winner and get all of your losses back.

Hint: Between 1991 and 2010, in UK racing, on three occasions, there were at least 29 consecutive losing favourites.

Psycho

I worked as a ladbrokes betting shop manager 20 years back. I encountered a guy who followed that system and ended up having a £1250 bet at 4/6. It won, but I'll always remember how relieved he was, almost to the point of shedding tears

I think the Martindale approach can be a winner for people, if they start off with a very small bet in relation to their bank, and do the same price all the time. Switching from 4/6 to 5/1 will end in disaster, but sticking to 4/1 prices all the time makes a little easier to understand the probability of winners and losing streaks

Hi LeTiss

Thanks for your post.

If you back all 4/1 shots and increase stakes after a losing bet in order to exactly recoup any losses, here's what, statistically, should happen (if me maffs is right).

If 100 bets were to be placed, then, one would expect to encounter a losing run of 20 (rounded to nearest whole number).

At bet 21, the losses to date would be £71.05, assuming a starting stake of 50 pence. The stake would be £17.76 in order to break even. Not a great sum, I grant you. However, beyond this point, the stakes are beginning to rise quite rapidly, as are the losses.

IN THEORY, your strategy should make a small profit, long term.

However, there are some PRACTICAL issues:

1. There is a 95% probability that the longest losing run is 20. However, there is also a 5% probability that a longer losing run will be encountered.

2. A late odds change could mean that you could end up backing the wrong horse which could have an adverse effect on the longest losing run.

3. If the stakes start to rise dramatically, getting a sufficiently large enough bet on with a bookie may be an issue.

4. Because of the small stakes, the profits will, in turn, be small. A lot of effort for a small profit methinks. If the stakes are increased in order to increase the profit, then the stakes could become unusually high following even a modest losing run.

Psycho