Tips for Tikay

[doubleup]

The Adzy/Camel horse (Baby Shine, EW)......




http://www.oddschecker.com/horse-racing-betting/kempton/14:05/winner

Is this a "dirty" EW thingie?

My enthusiasm is not tempered for the horse, but the bet needs reviewing as Alasi taken out. No longer the EW steal I thought.
TBH I am still on large regardless, but from a prudence point of view the value to nothing has been stolen.

FML.

Timing is a thing of beauty. Bad timing, not so much.......

Never mind, it is done now.

I'm blaming hector, for reminding me.

still 8 runners at the moment so surely ok for now?

[Marky147]

I can beat Dai Greene. I backed David Beckham before the GB squad was announced (envisaging him playing in the football, being involved in the ceremony and possibly coming back to England after the MLS)

You're not alone Tal

[tikay]

The Adzy/Camel horse (Baby Shine, EW)......




http://www.oddschecker.com/horse-racing-betting/kempton/14:05/winner

Is this a "dirty" EW thingie?

My enthusiasm is not tempered for the horse, but the bet needs reviewing as Alasi taken out. No longer the EW steal I thought.
TBH I am still on large regardless, but from a prudence point of view the value to nothing has been stolen.

FML.

Timing is a thing of beauty. Bad timing, not so much.......

Never mind, it is done now.

I'm blaming hector, for reminding me.

still 8 runners at the moment so surely ok for now?

That is my read, yes, it remains an 8 runner jobbie, after the withdrawal of Alasi.

http://www.racingpost.com/horses2/cards/card.sd?race_id=567173&r_date=2012-11-26#raceTabs=sc_

[Doobs]

The Adzy/Camel horse (Baby Shine, EW)......




http://www.oddschecker.com/horse-racing-betting/kempton/14:05/winner

Is this a "dirty" EW thingie?

My enthusiasm is not tempered for the horse, but the bet needs reviewing as Alasi taken out. No longer the EW steal I thought.
TBH I am still on large regardless, but from a prudence point of view the value to nothing has been stolen.

FML.

Timing is a thing of beauty. Bad timing, not so much.......

Never mind, it is done now.

I'm blaming hector, for reminding me.

still 8 runners at the moment so surely ok for now?

It is 9/1 on betfair, for those still interested.  I don't think the place bit has much value, as the place odds on betfair aren't too far from the fifth the odds on the 8/1 available at the bookies.

[tikay]

I can beat Dai Greene. I backed David Beckham before the GB squad was announced (envisaging him playing in the football, being involved in the ceremony and possibly coming back to England after the MLS)

If only there were an end of year "Fred Awards" with categories that included "Worst Bet of the Year".....

[Tal]

I can beat Dai Greene. I backed David Beckham before the GB squad was announced (envisaging him playing in the football, being involved in the ceremony and possibly coming back to England after the MLS)

If only there were an end of year "Fred Awards" with categories that included "Worst Bet of the Year".....

There was method in my

[tikay]

Uh-oh, scatter lads, Camel is on thread.

PS - It was hector's idea Keith, honest. And Tighty. And Ed. And Tal. Especially Tal.

[Doobs]

The approach to the greening up or otherwise of the Pujara bet should be determined by Fred's answers to the following questions...

1. What would a -£20 result mean to the Fred?
2. What would a +£140 result mean to the Fred?
3. What would a cast iron, 'write it in the column now', +£124 result mean to the Fred?
4. Do we feel that the market is sufficiently liquid to start hedging efficiently and passively? Ie. not smashing the lay side but rather putting up money ourselves?

Dependent on answers to the above we can work out what to do. Quite a useful example actually to begin considering utility in the world of punting.

Thanks Ed.


1) Of no consequence, it is a daily occurence, though not usually when so far ahead.

2) Like.

3) Like even more. My old Chairman taught me to "interpret" Balance Sheets, where turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, but CASH IS KING. Loss-making businesses with good cash flow can survive, profitable outfits with bad cash flow go under every day. I LOVE turning stuff - anything - into cash.

4) If I am honest, I don't really understand that. 

Essentially your answers for questions 1-3 show that you believe the marginal benefit you would derive from the potential extra +£16 (through not hedging out and 'letting it ride') < an assured positive position equal to roughly 90% of your maximum win.

This is perfectly normal. If I proposed a game of Heads or Tails with a £10 buy-in, the rule being that you had to call it correctly 5 times in a row to win the jackpot of £350, two things would have happened:

1. You have put yourself in a +ev position. The implied odds of the game are 31/1, whilst the payout of the game is 34/1.
2. You have decided to risk £10 knowing that almost 97% of the time you will see no return.

In short, you have risked capital because you believe it to have a positive financial expectation, even if this is unlikely to be realised in the short term.


Imagine you have called the first four coin tosses correctly. The last toss will determine whether you are -£10 or +£340.

The banker rings up and offers you £150 now to bugger off.

WWYD?

Most people would take it. Whilst one is 'mathematically' incorrect to do so (in this example probabilities are known as opposed to in the Pujara bet I concede) many in fact should take the £150 because of the utility securing said £150 provides for them. To understand this further, put an extra couple of zeros on the game and each stage therein.

It is my belief that the utility Fred will secure from greening out > the small amount of financial EV sacrificed in doing so.

Therefore you should green up.


***

The next necessity is doing so efficiently....

Many people will have been in the situation where they have copped the first 4 or 5 results of an acca, and decide to lock in some profit. What most probably fail to do however is ensure this is done in the most efficient manner.

Where the winnings results have finished at 1650 and the final leg kicks off at 1715 there is a time pressure that pushes this, in your instance, barring arrival to the market of knowledge hitherto unknown (the injury is worse than believed, for example), time is on your side, as the Stones may say.

If you are to hedge therefore you should do so 'passively'. That is to say rather than taking the prices that are on the exchange currently - which will be to > than 100% on the back side and < 100% on the lay side (as people attempt to nick the value either side of the 'true' (actually current equilibrium) price), you should put up offers ahead of the current 'bidders'.

So for example if the current best offer was 1.1 to back, I would do the following....

£20 @ 1.16
£40 @ 1.14
£60 @ 1.12

The total liability of these is £16 meaning your green on Pujara is reduced to £124. However, you take £120 (less comm) if he gets chinned.

Putting money up like this also ensures that you give 'as little away as possible' (once you have decided to hedge) as you match smaller amounts at the bigger prices and larger amounts at the shorter ones.




Clear as mud?!

I think this is all a bit late, as the best price is now 1.2, so somebody* is more gutless than the thread.

When I green out I tend to just make sure I don't lose, so would only lay a couple of quid here.  I guess I put a value on not losing, which is probably just a different psychological weakness.  

I have definitely reduced my greening out activities recently.

* probably a thread regular!

[Tal]

Uh-oh, scatter lads, Camel is on thread.

PS - It was hector's idea Keith, honest. And Tighty. And Ed. And Tal. Especially Tal.

 

[tikay]

The approach to the greening up or otherwise of the Pujara bet should be determined by Fred's answers to the following questions...

1. What would a -£20 result mean to the Fred?
2. What would a +£140 result mean to the Fred?
3. What would a cast iron, 'write it in the column now', +£124 result mean to the Fred?
4. Do we feel that the market is sufficiently liquid to start hedging efficiently and passively? Ie. not smashing the lay side but rather putting up money ourselves?

Dependent on answers to the above we can work out what to do. Quite a useful example actually to begin considering utility in the world of punting.

Thanks Ed.


1) Of no consequence, it is a daily occurence, though not usually when so far ahead.

2) Like.

3) Like even more. My old Chairman taught me to "interpret" Balance Sheets, where turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, but CASH IS KING. Loss-making businesses with good cash flow can survive, profitable outfits with bad cash flow go under every day. I LOVE turning stuff - anything - into cash.

4) If I am honest, I don't really understand that. 

Essentially your answers for questions 1-3 show that you believe the marginal benefit you would derive from the potential extra +£16 (through not hedging out and 'letting it ride') < an assured positive position equal to roughly 90% of your maximum win.

This is perfectly normal. If I proposed a game of Heads or Tails with a £10 buy-in, the rule being that you had to call it correctly 5 times in a row to win the jackpot of £350, two things would have happened:

1. You have put yourself in a +ev position. The implied odds of the game are 31/1, whilst the payout of the game is 34/1.
2. You have decided to risk £10 knowing that almost 97% of the time you will see no return.

In short, you have risked capital because you believe it to have a positive financial expectation, even if this is unlikely to be realised in the short term.


Imagine you have called the first four coin tosses correctly. The last toss will determine whether you are -£10 or +£340.

The banker rings up and offers you £150 now to bugger off.

WWYD?

Most people would take it. Whilst one is 'mathematically' incorrect to do so (in this example probabilities are known as opposed to in the Pujara bet I concede) many in fact should take the £150 because of the utility securing said £150 provides for them. To understand this further, put an extra couple of zeros on the game and each stage therein.

It is my belief that the utility Fred will secure from greening out > the small amount of financial EV sacrificed in doing so.

Therefore you should green up.


***

The next necessity is doing so efficiently....

Many people will have been in the situation where they have copped the first 4 or 5 results of an acca, and decide to lock in some profit. What most probably fail to do however is ensure this is done in the most efficient manner.

Where the winnings results have finished at 1650 and the final leg kicks off at 1715 there is a time pressure that pushes this, in your instance, barring arrival to the market of knowledge hitherto unknown (the injury is worse than believed, for example), time is on your side, as the Stones may say.

If you are to hedge therefore you should do so 'passively'. That is to say rather than taking the prices that are on the exchange currently - which will be to > than 100% on the back side and < 100% on the lay side (as people attempt to nick the value either side of the 'true' (actually current equilibrium) price), you should put up offers ahead of the current 'bidders'.

So for example if the current best offer was 1.1 to back, I would do the following....

£20 @ 1.16
£40 @ 1.14
£60 @ 1.12

The total liability of these is £16 meaning your green on Pujara is reduced to £124. However, you take £120 (less comm) if he gets chinned.

Putting money up like this also ensures that you give 'as little away as possible' (once you have decided to hedge) as you match smaller amounts at the bigger prices and larger amounts at the shorter ones.




Clear as mud?!

I think this is all a bit late, as the best price is now 1.2, so somebody* is more gutless than the thread.

When I green out I tend to just make sure I don't lose, so would only lay a couple of quid here.  I guess I put a value on not losing, which is probably just a different psychological weakness.  

I have definitely reduced my greening out activities recently.

* probably a thread regular!

Note - we have not done the deed yet.

[Doobs]

The approach to the greening up or otherwise of the Pujara bet should be determined by Fred's answers to the following questions...

1. What would a -£20 result mean to the Fred?
2. What would a +£140 result mean to the Fred?
3. What would a cast iron, 'write it in the column now', +£124 result mean to the Fred?
4. Do we feel that the market is sufficiently liquid to start hedging efficiently and passively? Ie. not smashing the lay side but rather putting up money ourselves?

Dependent on answers to the above we can work out what to do. Quite a useful example actually to begin considering utility in the world of punting.

Thanks Ed.


1) Of no consequence, it is a daily occurence, though not usually when so far ahead.

2) Like.

3) Like even more. My old Chairman taught me to "interpret" Balance Sheets, where turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, but CASH IS KING. Loss-making businesses with good cash flow can survive, profitable outfits with bad cash flow go under every day. I LOVE turning stuff - anything - into cash.

4) If I am honest, I don't really understand that. 

Essentially your answers for questions 1-3 show that you believe the marginal benefit you would derive from the potential extra +£16 (through not hedging out and 'letting it ride') < an assured positive position equal to roughly 90% of your maximum win.

This is perfectly normal. If I proposed a game of Heads or Tails with a £10 buy-in, the rule being that you had to call it correctly 5 times in a row to win the jackpot of £350, two things would have happened:

1. You have put yourself in a +ev position. The implied odds of the game are 31/1, whilst the payout of the game is 34/1.
2. You have decided to risk £10 knowing that almost 97% of the time you will see no return.

In short, you have risked capital because you believe it to have a positive financial expectation, even if this is unlikely to be realised in the short term.


Imagine you have called the first four coin tosses correctly. The last toss will determine whether you are -£10 or +£340.

The banker rings up and offers you £150 now to bugger off.

WWYD?

Most people would take it. Whilst one is 'mathematically' incorrect to do so (in this example probabilities are known as opposed to in the Pujara bet I concede) many in fact should take the £150 because of the utility securing said £150 provides for them. To understand this further, put an extra couple of zeros on the game and each stage therein.

It is my belief that the utility Fred will secure from greening out > the small amount of financial EV sacrificed in doing so.

Therefore you should green up.


***

The next necessity is doing so efficiently....

Many people will have been in the situation where they have copped the first 4 or 5 results of an acca, and decide to lock in some profit. What most probably fail to do however is ensure this is done in the most efficient manner.

Where the winnings results have finished at 1650 and the final leg kicks off at 1715 there is a time pressure that pushes this, in your instance, barring arrival to the market of knowledge hitherto unknown (the injury is worse than believed, for example), time is on your side, as the Stones may say.

If you are to hedge therefore you should do so 'passively'. That is to say rather than taking the prices that are on the exchange currently - which will be to > than 100% on the back side and < 100% on the lay side (as people attempt to nick the value either side of the 'true' (actually current equilibrium) price), you should put up offers ahead of the current 'bidders'.

So for example if the current best offer was 1.1 to back, I would do the following....

£20 @ 1.16
£40 @ 1.14
£60 @ 1.12

The total liability of these is £16 meaning your green on Pujara is reduced to £124. However, you take £120 (less comm) if he gets chinned.

Putting money up like this also ensures that you give 'as little away as possible' (once you have decided to hedge) as you match smaller amounts at the bigger prices and larger amounts at the shorter ones.




Clear as mud?!

I think this is all a bit late, as the best price is now 1.2, so somebody* is more gutless than the thread.

When I green out I tend to just make sure I don't lose, so would only lay a couple of quid here.  I guess I put a value on not losing, which is probably just a different psychological weakness.  

I have definitely reduced my greening out activities recently.

* probably a thread regular!

Note - we have not done the deed yet.

Half tempted to punish 1.2 man.  He is 200 runs clear of his nearest pursuer.  It is only the thought that the layer could be privy to better news than I have on the injury situation that stops me.

[Bad Beat]

 I just had a really good look at that 2.05 race.

 I think it's quite a good ew event with eight runners and I think you can disregard Annimation, Wild Rhubarb and Alpine Breeze who need to improve a lot.

 I like opposing Knockfierna who looks quirky and who is back here to hurdles having jumped poorly over fences.

 I quite like opposing Kim Bailey's Kaffie. It's been off a long time after a setback and it seems weak in the market. He didn't seem that enthusiastic on his blog.

 That leaves us Kells Bell (bit short, stable not totally firing), Baby Shine (up in trip and Lucy Wadham seemed worried about ground) and Miss Milbourne.

 Generally I prefer to back horses down in trip ew rather than those up in trip, but I think Miss Milborne will love the trip and ground.

 I would suggest a saver ew at 11/2. (I have bet it).

[tikay]

I just had a really good look at that 2.05 race.

 I think it's quite a good ew event with eight runners and I think you can disregard Annimation, Wild Rhubarb and Alpine Breeze who need to improve a lot.

 I like opposing Knockfierna who looks quirky and who is back here to hurdles having jumped poorly over fences.

 I quite like opposing Kim Bailey's Kaffie. It's been off a long time after a setback and it seems weak in the market. He didn't seem that enthusiastic on his blog.

 That leaves us Kells Bell (bit short, stable not totally firing), Baby Shine (up in trip and Lucy Wadham seemed worried about ground) and Miss Milbourne.

 Generally I prefer to back horses down in trip ew rather than those up in trip, but I think Miss Milborne will love the trip and ground.

 I would suggest a saver ew at 11/2. (I have bet it).

Neil,

We have £10 EW on Baby Smile.

Fiver EW saver on Miss Milborne?

[Chompy]

Have we completely given up on Ben Ainslie?

[tikay]

Have we completely given up on Ben Ainslie?

He remains on the Spready, £25 @ 16/1.