Tips for Tikay

[Doobs]

BUMP

[BigAdz]

"As I said, it was out there for a bit of discussion, and it is fact that if you dabble in odds on shots etcetc.
"

can you explain this please?

i think you may be suggesting betting odds on is never value if you are then why do you say that

No. I NEVER said that at all. My statement was that if you back odds on then if you have a loser, you need two winners to get into profit. In no way does this suggest I was saying odds on shots couldnt be value Horse.
My point was that we need to be bang on the money when backing odds on, as its a long way back, if you get my drift.

[horseplayer]

"As I said, it was out there for a bit of discussion, and it is fact that if you dabble in odds on shots etcetc.
"

can you explain this please?

i think you may be suggesting betting odds on is never value if you are then why do you say that

No. I NEVER said that at all. My statement was that if you back odds on then if you have a loser, you need two winners to get into profit. In no way does this suggest I was saying odds on shots couldnt be value Horse.
My point was that we need to be bang on the money when backing odds on, as its a long way back, if you get my drift.

as long as you are staking correctly then it should not matter

i quite regularly back ten or twelve losers (or more) in a row at the 5-1 to  16-1 bracket

[Doobs]

"As I said, it was out there for a bit of discussion, and it is fact that if you dabble in odds on shots etcetc.
"

can you explain this please?

i think you may be suggesting betting odds on is never value if you are then why do you say that

No. I NEVER said that at all. My statement was that if you back odds on then if you have a loser, you need two winners to get into profit. In no way does this suggest I was saying odds on shots couldnt be value Horse.
My point was that we need to be bang on the money when backing odds on, as its a long way back, if you get my drift.

This is just a bit misleading.  If you back at 10/11 you have to back 11 winners in 21 to break even.  The fact you are losing after 1 winner and 1 loser doesn't matter at all to anyone with an ounce of common sense.  It isn't a long way back, it is a tiny way back.

[typhoon13]

Enjoying this.

[horseplayer]

just because the bet is slight odds on does not mean that you are always going to bet a winner

if it was that easy then we would all be £££

in a way i take your point in that in my opinion betting in and around the 10-11 mark is a very difficult way of making anymore than a marginal profit

but i dont think anybody would really dispute that

[Tal]

As long as, generally speaking, the bets made are at prices Fred considers greater than the actual probability of it happening, it doesn't matter what that price is; we do well.

Take Sprinter Sacre. I wasn't convinced the price was meritorious but it sparked a debate that led to a bet on him at 2/9. Won hands and heels (sample size of one, etc etc...) but the point is the conclusion was reached by Fred that the price should be shorter than 2/9 so a bet was correct.

In theory, there's a smaller value margin the shorter the price inthe sense that, if something is marked as a 10% chance of winning, there's a 90% window of debate for changing circumstances, favourable conditions, an unwell opponent, a swathe of public opinion, whatever. If it has a >50% chance, your room for manoeuvre is less apparent.

Doesn't mean there isn't value and it doesn't mean a 10-1 shot is worth a punt because someone "fancies it".

I like Fred's balance of reasoned bets, mind-bending calculations and niche Banzais. On the whole, the principle is beating the bookies and we have fun debating the lines of attack.

Reflection and self-criticism are essential, but I think the chastening experiences Fred occasionally has call less for self-flaggilation and more for a cold wash and "back to work".

[Tal]

For the record, I'm not suggesting the elders always price things up better than the bookies. Just that, as has been said so often, we have the benefit of being selective with our markets and can concentrate our efforts more easily.

I say "we". I mean people who know what they're doing. Not me.

[typhoon13]

I know a syndicate who invest in volume and if they are targeting an horse priced at 5/2 in a race with 8 runners they would take the 5/2 each way.

Now thats not everybody's cup of tea but they expect the horse to win, if it gets turned over into a place their strategy cushions the blow a little.

All interesting stuff, differing views is what makes markets.

[BigAdz]

I think people are misconstruing my original arguement, that is not a debate over whether backing odds onlong or short term is profitable, but that maybe some contributors are feeling under pressure/not using their usual clear focus, to provide regular bets, just because they have been on a hot streak.

The numbers will bear this out one way or another.

Again, not trying to wind anyone up, just pointing out that our shorter price stuff is suffering at the mo

[DungBeetle]

Just noticed Stoke are a shade of odds against to beat Wigan at home tomorrow night. Surely this is an over-reaction to Stoke's recent indifferent form.  If this game was at the end of November, Stoke would have been 4/6 I imagine.  Wigan hardly been pulling up trees either, and Pulis will have this down as the game to get back on track.

Recommend £40 on Stoke to beat Wigan at 21/20.

[millidonk]

Can't wait. 49ers to get me back in the game for 2013. Legoooooooo

[tikay]

Ha!

Attaboy, Milli, it's all good fun.

Hope you get the lot on Sunday.

Pardon me asking, but have you hedged or saved on the game?

I have a hunch you are going to go for it, balls out, do or die, the lot or nothing!

Fred still has that decision to make, or more correctly, how best to do it.

Fred will be pretty busy on Sunday night. Wonder what the mood will be like on monday morning?........

Whatever happens, there'll be no complaints from me.

[millidonk]

Ha!

Attaboy, Milli, it's all good fun.

Hope you get the lot on Sunday.

Pardon me asking, but have you hedged or saved on the game?

I have a hunch you are going to go for it, balls out, do or die, the lot or nothing!

Fred still has that decision to make, or more correctly, how best to do it.

I WAS going to let it ride (I am on 1/2 your stake fwiw), but after a bit more thought I think I will go the Tighty route on the day and play Ravens +3/4 or whatever they are for a smidge more than my stake back then we get to sweat 49ers winning by a couple of points! Now that would be nice.

[tikay]

Ha!

Attaboy, Milli, it's all good fun.

Hope you get the lot on Sunday.

Pardon me asking, but have you hedged or saved on the game?

I have a hunch you are going to go for it, balls out, do or die, the lot or nothing!

Fred still has that decision to make, or more correctly, how best to do it.

I WAS going to let it ride (I am on 1/2 your stake fwiw), but after a bit more thought I think I will go the Tighty route on the day and play Ravens +3/4 or whatever they are for a smidge more than my stake back then we get to sweat 49ers winning by a couple of points! Now that would be nice.

A freeroll then. And you still get the fun sweat. What's not to like for recreationals like you & me?