Tips for Tikay

[Doobs]

40/1 sounds about right to me, if anything it should be more like 50/1.

The McLaren isn't really getting any quicker (in comparison to rivals) as such. We're seeing the odd quick lap, when they turn their engine up to full power, but they don't have the fuel efficiency or electrical power supply in order to support this over anything more than three laps. This track is one of the worst ones to be down on power. I expect that McLaren might sneak a point this weekend, but they will be nowhere near the podium - unless we get a ludicrously crazy race.

There is a reason things are 40-1 and 150-1 Peter.  Not sure being negative on every suggestion is the way forward?  The question is of value.  Doobs doesn't "expect" these suggestions to happen just that they are too big a price?

I think you mis-understood the point of my post, perhaps I didn't explain my point very clearly. I'm trying to say that I don't believe 40/1 is value, that's what I was trying to express by saying: "if anything it should be more like 50/1".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of this thread an open discussion on the viability of suggested bets? I am entitled to voice my opinion, with justification of course - which I believe I did provide.

You aren't really adding anything though.  Alonso isn't ever getting in the top 3 on raw pace.   What we need for that to happen is some rain and/or carnage at the front.   Most of the time that doesn't happen.  I just felt 33/1 doesn't reflect that likelihood. If it is dry tomorrow, the price I backed Alonso will be too short.  If it rains we are likely to see a similar late price collapse as we did in Monaco.  

On the Bottas bet, it is a far better bet than your Force India bets.  This is simply because I used the each way betting to get a much better price than was available in the podium markets.   You could have done the same with the Force India bets, and effectively have got a free win bet.  

[DropTheHammer]

40/1 sounds about right to me, if anything it should be more like 50/1.

The McLaren isn't really getting any quicker (in comparison to rivals) as such. We're seeing the odd quick lap, when they turn their engine up to full power, but they don't have the fuel efficiency or electrical power supply in order to support this over anything more than three laps. This track is one of the worst ones to be down on power. I expect that McLaren might sneak a point this weekend, but they will be nowhere near the podium - unless we get a ludicrously crazy race.

There is a reason things are 40-1 and 150-1 Peter.  Not sure being negative on every suggestion is the way forward?  The question is of value.  Doobs doesn't "expect" these suggestions to happen just that they are too big a price?

I think you mis-understood the point of my post, perhaps I didn't explain my point very clearly. I'm trying to say that I don't believe 40/1 is value, that's what I was trying to express by saying: "if anything it should be more like 50/1".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of this thread an open discussion on the viability of suggested bets? I am entitled to voice my opinion, with justification of course - which I believe I did provide.

You are.  I just noticed that Doobs made two suggestions this weekend which are obviously long shots with reasoning and you immediately talked then down seemingly on the basis that you don't think they will happen.  Why do you think it is 50-1 rather than 40-1 or 33-1?  Felt arbitrary to me.

eh? Peter's clearly said that, in his opinion, those things will happen less frequently than the current odds on offer. Surely that is exactly the opinions that are needed?

It's been said many times that informed/knowledgable opinions are welcome, if they're expressed politely, which Peter's seem to be on both counts...

[DungBeetle]

Just my opinion.  Doobs stuck some long shots up with reasoning.  Peter immediately dismissed them and on the Alonso one just stated its 50-1 rather than 40-1 with no reasoning except McLaren are poor.  I have no problem people dismissing a bet if there was rationale but there was nothing there.  It's obviously a long shot and Doobs doesn't think they have a monster car all of a sudden does he?

[Sportshead]

To be fair to Peter he didn't just dismiss the idea he just disagreed and gave quite clear reasonings why

Have seen many bet suggestions 'dismissed' much more bluntly than that

[Dekka]

Doobs point about the e/w prices on the F1 being far better than the podium prices is exactly why I read this thread.  What's not to like about a free win bet?

Peter clearly knows his stuff on Motorsport, I worked in F1 and usually (but not always) agree with much of his reasoning but I don't always understand his staking suggestions.  

EG: Peter put up this bet earlier.  To Reach Q3 - Carlos Sainz @ 7/5 with the exchange. The Toro Rosso won't be as strong over one lap, but this should be closer to EVS than 7/5. Suggest £10.

If we're getting 7/5 about an even money shot why are we only putting a tenner on?  

In the same post Peter suggested £50 on Lewis to win P3 at 4/5 because it was "considerably overpriced".  Was it really that much more overpriced than the Sainz bet?

Or am I missing something?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm grateful for all the tips I follow on here win or lose but I'm genuinely a bit baffled by the recommended stakes on some of the F1 bets.

[Peter-27]

40/1 sounds about right to me, if anything it should be more like 50/1.

The McLaren isn't really getting any quicker (in comparison to rivals) as such. We're seeing the odd quick lap, when they turn their engine up to full power, but they don't have the fuel efficiency or electrical power supply in order to support this over anything more than three laps. This track is one of the worst ones to be down on power. I expect that McLaren might sneak a point this weekend, but they will be nowhere near the podium - unless we get a ludicrously crazy race.

There is a reason things are 40-1 and 150-1 Peter.  Not sure being negative on every suggestion is the way forward?  The question is of value.  Doobs doesn't "expect" these suggestions to happen just that they are too big a price?

I think you mis-understood the point of my post, perhaps I didn't explain my point very clearly. I'm trying to say that I don't believe 40/1 is value, that's what I was trying to express by saying: "if anything it should be more like 50/1".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of this thread an open discussion on the viability of suggested bets? I am entitled to voice my opinion, with justification of course - which I believe I did provide.

You are.  I just noticed that Doobs made two suggestions this weekend which are obviously long shots with reasoning and you immediately talked then down seemingly on the basis that you don't think they will happen.  Why do you think it is 50-1 rather than 40-1 or 33-1?  Felt arbitrary to me.

I feel like I've already provided justification of why it should be 50-1 rather than 40-1. Even in a bonkers race, you still need to be competitive to "podiumvate", and, as per the justification I gave, McLaren just won't be competitive. Ferrari, Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Force India and Williams all have more chance than McLaren. I would happily offer 40/1 if I were the bookie.

Why did my comments feel arbitrary to you?

40/1 sounds about right to me, if anything it should be more like 50/1.

The McLaren isn't really getting any quicker (in comparison to rivals) as such. We're seeing the odd quick lap, when they turn their engine up to full power, but they don't have the fuel efficiency or electrical power supply in order to support this over anything more than three laps. This track is one of the worst ones to be down on power. I expect that McLaren might sneak a point this weekend, but they will be nowhere near the podium - unless we get a ludicrously crazy race.

There is a reason things are 40-1 and 150-1 Peter.  Not sure being negative on every suggestion is the way forward?  The question is of value.  Doobs doesn't "expect" these suggestions to happen just that they are too big a price?

I think you mis-understood the point of my post, perhaps I didn't explain my point very clearly. I'm trying to say that I don't believe 40/1 is value, that's what I was trying to express by saying: "if anything it should be more like 50/1".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of this thread an open discussion on the viability of suggested bets? I am entitled to voice my opinion, with justification of course - which I believe I did provide.

You aren't really adding anything though.  Alonso isn't ever getting in the top 3 on raw pace.   What we need for that to happen is some rain and/or carnage at the front.   Most of the time that doesn't happen.  I just felt 33/1 doesn't reflect that likelihood. If it is dry tomorrow, the price I backed Alonso will be too short.  If it rains we are likely to see a similar late price collapse as we did in Monaco.  

On the Bottas bet, it is a far better bet than your Force India bets.  This is simply because I used the each way betting to get a much better price than was available in the podium markets.   You could have done the same with the Force India bets, and effectively have got a free win bet.  

Agreed, a crazy race is needed for this to happen. However, even in the event we do get a crazy race, I still wouldn't say 40/1 represents value. Alonso would need more than 40 races like this to grab a podium given how far their car behind is at the moment.

For Alonso to grab a podium, you would need eight to ten cars ahead of him to retire/have problems, I think the chances of that happening are higher than 40/1.

As for your Bottas/Force India comparison. Firstly, it's not a competition about who suggested the better bet, we all want all our bets to win Secondly, I disagree with the premise. In my opinion, a Force India podium is more likely than 14/1 (albeit only just), whereas a Bottas podium is less likely than 30/1 (150/1 @ 1/5th odds). I felt like I provided justification for why Bottas is worse than 30/1 for the podium.

40/1 sounds about right to me, if anything it should be more like 50/1.

The McLaren isn't really getting any quicker (in comparison to rivals) as such. We're seeing the odd quick lap, when they turn their engine up to full power, but they don't have the fuel efficiency or electrical power supply in order to support this over anything more than three laps. This track is one of the worst ones to be down on power. I expect that McLaren might sneak a point this weekend, but they will be nowhere near the podium - unless we get a ludicrously crazy race.

There is a reason things are 40-1 and 150-1 Peter.  Not sure being negative on every suggestion is the way forward?  The question is of value.  Doobs doesn't "expect" these suggestions to happen just that they are too big a price?

I think you mis-understood the point of my post, perhaps I didn't explain my point very clearly. I'm trying to say that I don't believe 40/1 is value, that's what I was trying to express by saying: "if anything it should be more like 50/1".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of this thread an open discussion on the viability of suggested bets? I am entitled to voice my opinion, with justification of course - which I believe I did provide.

You are.  I just noticed that Doobs made two suggestions this weekend which are obviously long shots with reasoning and you immediately talked then down seemingly on the basis that you don't think they will happen.  Why do you think it is 50-1 rather than 40-1 or 33-1?  Felt arbitrary to me.

eh? Peter's clearly said that, in his opinion, those things will happen less frequently than the current odds on offer. Surely that is exactly the opinions that are needed?

It's been said many times that informed/knowledgable opinions are welcome, if they're expressed politely, which Peter's seem to be on both counts...

Thank you, I appreciate that  

Just my opinion.  Doobs stuck some long shots up with reasoning.  Peter immediately dismissed them and on the Alonso one just stated its 50-1 rather than 40-1 with no reasoning except McLaren are poor.  I have no problem people dismissing a bet if there was rationale but there was nothing there.  It's obviously a long shot and Doobs doesn't think they have a monster car all of a sudden does he?

You're boiling down my argument from:

"The McLaren isn't really getting any quicker (in comparison to rivals) as such. We're seeing the odd quick lap, when they turn their engine up to full power, but they don't have the fuel efficiency or electrical power supply in order to support this over anything more than three laps. This track is one of the worst ones to be down on power. I expect that McLaren might sneak a point this weekend, but they will be nowhere near the podium - unless we get a ludicrously crazy race."

to

"McLaren are poor"

Which I don't think is fair at all.

Long shots are fine, if they are value spots. In both cases (Bottas & Alonso) I expressed my opinion that I don't believe they're value spots - and I used my knowledge of the sport to explain why, not really sure what else to say, or what more you wanted from me.

I'm 24 years old, and while I have been gambling since before I was 18, I realise that the majority of people here are vastly more experienced than me when it comes to betting. I have a great respect for you guys and feel privileged to be part of this community and knowledge base - if you have a suggestion of how I could improve my posts, I am more than happy to bow to your experience .. but I'm not quite understanding what more I could have said in these cases.

[Peter-27]

Doobs point about the e/w prices on the F1 being far better than the podium prices is exactly why I read this thread.  What's not to like about a free win bet?

Peter clearly knows his stuff on Motorsport, I worked in F1 and usually (but not always) agree with much of his reasoning but I don't always understand his staking suggestions.  

EG: Peter put up this bet earlier.  To Reach Q3 - Carlos Sainz @ 7/5 with the exchange. The Toro Rosso won't be as strong over one lap, but this should be closer to EVS than 7/5. Suggest £10.

If we're getting 7/5 about an even money shot why are we only putting a tenner on?  

In the same post Peter suggested £50 on Lewis to win P3 at 4/5 because it was "considerably overpriced".  Was it really that much more overpriced than the Sainz bet?

Or am I missing something?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm grateful for all the tips I follow on here win or lose but I'm genuinely a bit baffled by the recommended stakes on some of the F1 bets.

I have myself pointed out that deciding my stake size is somewhere that I lack and could improve. I tend to decide my stake through a combination of the amount of value in the bet, and the likelihood of it happening. This does work for the most part (76.57% ROI on motorsport in 2015 for me personally), however there's no reason why that couldn't improve. If you have suggestions, I'm all ears

P.S. Actually, on this specific instance, it was a typo! Personally I bet £20, although it was ultimately a loser. For the record, I didn't say EVS, I said closer to EVS - to be pedantic.

P.P.S Who did you work for? I worked for Williams at one point, albeit predominately in the hybrid power division, rather than F1.

[DungBeetle]

Okay - maybe you are correct.  Away from motor sport and this debate I just think it's easy to pick holes in any 50-1 or 150-1 shot whether it be golf, football, cricket whatever.  I just got the impression from the weekend that Doobs had put up 2 long shots with reasoning and within one or two posts you had immediately shot him down.  I think I could tear up pretty much every tip that is 25-1+ if I wanted to because by definition they aren't likely to happen and there will be shortcomings with the selection.

I guess my feeling was that you didn't take the tips in the "unlikely" realm that they were suggested.  

As you say, if you genuinely think Alonso tip should be 66-1 and Bottas tip should be 250-1 then you are absolutely correct to point that out.  However, I didn't get the impression of that level of consideration from your posts (and after all determining if something is 40-1 or 50-1 is a lot less exact science than determining than if something should be favourite or not).

Hope that makes sense!

[jakally]

I'm 24 years old, and while I have been gambling since before I was 18,

For some reason I thought you were much older than 24.

[arbboy]

Still all wide at Crayford for the tv dogs tonight ch 468 sky.  Looks same as this mornings meeting.

[tikay]

Doobs point about the e/w prices on the F1 being far better than the podium prices is exactly why I read this thread.  What's not to like about a free win bet?

Peter clearly knows his stuff on Motorsport, I worked in F1 and usually (but not always) agree with much of his reasoning but I don't always understand his staking suggestions.  

EG: Peter put up this bet earlier.  To Reach Q3 - Carlos Sainz @ 7/5 with the exchange. The Toro Rosso won't be as strong over one lap, but this should be closer to EVS than 7/5. Suggest £10.

If we're getting 7/5 about an even money shot why are we only putting a tenner on?  

In the same post Peter suggested £50 on Lewis to win P3 at 4/5 because it was "considerably overpriced".  Was it really that much more overpriced than the Sainz bet?

Or am I missing something?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm grateful for all the tips I follow on here win or lose but I'm genuinely a bit baffled by the recommended stakes on some of the F1 bets.

I have myself pointed out that deciding my stake size is somewhere that I lack and could improve. I tend to decide my stake through a combination of the amount of value in the bet, and the likelihood of it happening. This does work for the most part (76.57% ROI on motorsport in 2015 for me personally), however there's no reason why that couldn't improve. If you have suggestions, I'm all ears

P.S. Actually, on this specific instance, it was a typo! Personally I bet £20, although it was ultimately a loser. For the record, I didn't say EVS, I said closer to EVS - to be pedantic.

P.P.S Who did you work for? I worked for Williams at one point, albeit predominately in the hybrid power division, rather than F1.

Hi Peter,

Dekka made a fascinating post as to his motor racing background, & then replied further to a question from me, here.....


http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=56581.msg2135757#msg2135757

[tikay]

I'm 24 years old, and while I have been gambling since before I was 18,

For some reason I thought you were much older than 24.

Were you confusing Peter with me?

I am older than 24.

In San Diego yesterday (thin...) we got on a bus, & there was half price travel for Senior Citizens, defined as being over 60. Thought I may as well have a bit of that, so presented the Driver with my Passport. He never even looked at it, just cast a quick glance at me & insta said "no need for proof Sir, I can see you qualify".

Bastard.   

[cish n fhips]

As a little football comp has kicked off.
I recommend £ 40 muller top scorer.
I recommend £10 muller top assist.
Sorry no links .
Happy Euros.

i'll need a bit more effort than that please

he's favourite, so why aren't his prospects priced in?

is he even going to start up front?

what is his assist record?

what about his recent form?

Sorry i have a very limited use of the net.
But i would imagine he plays at least 6 games
Id love to be able to link stats but i struggle to
post on thread.
Happy Euro's

[Peter-27]

Okay - maybe you are correct.  Away from motor sport and this debate I just think it's easy to pick holes in any 50-1 or 150-1 shot whether it be golf, football, cricket whatever.  I just got the impression from the weekend that Doobs had put up 2 long shots with reasoning and within one or two posts you had immediately shot him down.  I think I could tear up pretty much every tip that is 25-1+ if I wanted to because by definition they aren't likely to happen and there will be shortcomings with the selection.

I guess my feeling was that you didn't take the tips in the "unlikely" realm that they were suggested.  

As you say, if you genuinely think Alonso tip should be 66-1 and Bottas tip should be 250-1 then you are absolutely correct to point that out.  However, I didn't get the impression of that level of consideration from your posts (and after all determining if something is 40-1 or 50-1 is a lot less exact science than determining than if something should be favourite or not).

Hope that makes sense!

Yeah, I can completely understand that.

I do always try to provide justification when I post something, but obviously that didn't come across as well as I would have hoped in these posts. What more could/should I have said? I'm trying to avoid this happening again 

Doobs point about the e/w prices on the F1 being far better than the podium prices is exactly why I read this thread.  What's not to like about a free win bet?

Peter clearly knows his stuff on Motorsport, I worked in F1 and usually (but not always) agree with much of his reasoning but I don't always understand his staking suggestions.  

EG: Peter put up this bet earlier.  To Reach Q3 - Carlos Sainz @ 7/5 with the exchange. The Toro Rosso won't be as strong over one lap, but this should be closer to EVS than 7/5. Suggest £10.

If we're getting 7/5 about an even money shot why are we only putting a tenner on?  

In the same post Peter suggested £50 on Lewis to win P3 at 4/5 because it was "considerably overpriced".  Was it really that much more overpriced than the Sainz bet?

Or am I missing something?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm grateful for all the tips I follow on here win or lose but I'm genuinely a bit baffled by the recommended stakes on some of the F1 bets.

I have myself pointed out that deciding my stake size is somewhere that I lack and could improve. I tend to decide my stake through a combination of the amount of value in the bet, and the likelihood of it happening. This does work for the most part (76.57% ROI on motorsport in 2015 for me personally), however there's no reason why that couldn't improve. If you have suggestions, I'm all ears

P.S. Actually, on this specific instance, it was a typo! Personally I bet £20, although it was ultimately a loser. For the record, I didn't say EVS, I said closer to EVS - to be pedantic.

P.P.S Who did you work for? I worked for Williams at one point, albeit predominately in the hybrid power division, rather than F1.

Hi Peter,

Dekka made a fascinating post as to his motor racing background, & then replied further to a question from me, here.....


http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=56581.msg2135757#msg2135757

Ahh, I remember the post, did not remember the username.

I'm 24 years old, and while I have been gambling since before I was 18,

For some reason I thought you were much older than 24.

Were you confusing Peter with me?

I am older than 24.

In San Diego yesterday (thin...) we got on a bus, & there was half price travel for Senior Citizens, defined as being over 60. Thought I may as well have a bit of that, so presented the Driver with my Passport. He never even looked at it, just cast a quick glance at me & insta said "no need for proof Sir, I can see you qualify".

Bastard.    

You're older than 24? You don't look a day over 16.

[Tal]

I'm 24 years old, and while I have been gambling since before I was 18,

For some reason I thought you were much older than 24.

Were you confusing Peter with me?

I am older than 24.

In San Diego yesterday (thin...) we got on a bus, & there was half price travel for Senior Citizens, defined as being over 60. Thought I may as well have a bit of that, so presented the Driver with my Passport. He never even looked at it, just cast a quick glance at me & insta said "no need for proof Sir, I can see you qualify".

Bastard.   

He probably recognises you from the telly. Celebs get special privileges in California, presumably.