redarmi Staking Issue: Sports betting

[The Camel]

Asking if vouching is pointless could achieve interesting debate??

No, as it happens I wasn't talking about your post.

When I started gambling, a vouch meant that the person giving the assurance would cover any financial loss for the staker if the horse did the dirty.

To my cost, when I got screwed for about $1000 a couple of years ago I learned a vouch no longer means what I thought it meant.

So the whole system seems pointless now.

[George2Loose]

I don't think pleno will hold Arrboy responsible- iirc Pleno vouched for someone and it didn't end well (can't remember circumstances exactly but pretty sure that's when the whole vouch argument came about)

[arbboy]

And what ROI did people expect to get from their investment, 5%, 10% tops? Isn't that roughly what the best sports bettors achieve in the long-run? There are probably half-a-dozen investments I can think of where you have no chance of being grimmed and a helluva higher upside for your dough.

Sports bettors do achieve 5% long term if they are decent and selective.  However a good sports bettor will turn over their roll every day or every other day at best or maybe every week at worse if they are using correct bank roll management and operate a high volume low margin model.  Therefore saying you will only make 5% or 10% (i assume you mean per annum on normal investments) is hardly comparing like with like in this example. 5% per week compounded at best is hardly like comparing 5 or 10% per annum in a risk free investment where you have to pay tax on returns and a fund manager to manage them or have the risk of house prices collapsing.  When it is run correctly i know which investments i would rather invest in for optimal returns.  

Even if you make 1% on ur turnover (which a lot of arbers do) the fact you can constantly reinvest your roll time and time again to compound the returns is something you haven't factored into your original statement imo of course.  If we were to stake someone £30k and they were only going to be investing the money once over a year to achieve the 5% return then obviously it is a stupid investment compared to other more safe options.  However the staking plan was to be turning over close to £30k a day, not a year.  Even if we made 1% on turnover just compound it up over a year to see the potential returns.  It is often better to have a lower roi and turn more money over to make more bottom line cash which is all that really matters.  Any pro gambler can say 'i have an roi of 30%' but they will only have 2 bets a year (their strongest two bets with their biggest edge) and maybe make £5k.  The other side of the fence is an arber who has an roi of 0.2% but turns over millions of pounds a week.  The guy with a 0.2% roi probably makes more bottom line cash from the same bank roll.  0.2% roi doesn't sound as impressive as 30% but the only thing that matters to a pro gambler is how much bottom line cash they make.  So many gamblers turn down bets where they have an edge because they worry about it hurting their roi.  Never makes any sense to me.

[DMorgan]

The problem with these threads is after the initial drama bomb is dropped it becomes full of after timers saying "why do successful gamblers need staking?" and "I would never trust a gambler with my money". Which don't help anyone or solve anything.

FWIW virtually every successul gambler I know has (or used to have) shareholders / stakers.

Hellmuth, Benham, Trickett, Dwan, Walters etc etc

You name them, It's 95%+ they are either currently or have previously been staked.

And stakers will have made bundles from the proposition.

There is a world of difference between getting staked because there exists strong evidence that you could beat higher stakes than your current bankroll allows and requiring a stake to stay solvent.

IMO for the stakee to have landed in the position where they need money to stay in the game then one of two things have to have happened:

1) They have followed good bankroll management rules but their bankroll has experienced a long slow decline, suggesting that their edge isn't what it one was

2) They didn't follow good bankroll management and punted off their own bankroll, suggesting that the stakee has big money management issues

Neither of those circumstances would seem to be an attractive investment.

[DropTheHammer]

People have made a lot of money from Redarmi's advice on TFT. They were giving something back.

Well they must have been very selective on what bets they followed then, because his ROI from tft bets is negative just like his Betting Emporium results.

[The Camel]

The problem with these threads is after the initial drama bomb is dropped it becomes full of after timers saying "why do successful gamblers need staking?" and "I would never trust a gambler with my money". Which don't help anyone or solve anything.

FWIW virtually every successul gambler I know has (or used to have) shareholders / stakers.

Hellmuth, Benham, Trickett, Dwan, Walters etc etc

You name them, It's 95%+ they are either currently or have previously been staked.

And stakers will have made bundles from the proposition.

There is a world of difference between getting staked because there exists strong evidence that you could beat higher stakes than your current bankroll allows and requiring a stake to stay solvent.

IMO for the stakee to have landed in the position where they need money to stay in the game then one of two things have to have happened:

1) They have followed good bankroll management rules but their bankroll has experienced a long slow decline, suggesting that their edge isn't what it one was

2) They didn't follow good bankroll management and punted off their own bankroll, suggesting that the stakee has big money management issues

Neither of those circumstances would seem to be an attractive investment.

How about a life expense caused his bankroll to be slashed to a fraction of what it once was?

How about doing a friend a favour?

[The Camel]

People have made a lot of money from Redarmi's advice on TFT. They were giving something back.

Well they must have been very selective on what bets they followed then, because his ROI from tft bets is negative just like his Betting Emporium results.

As far as I know ROI from TFT have never been published.

Redarmi published reams of free sound advice, regardless of the bets he put up.

[DropTheHammer]

Sports bettors do achieve 5% long term if they are decent.  However a good sports bettor will turn over their roll every day or every other day at best or maybe every week at worse if they are using correct bank roll management and operate a high volume low margin model.

Ah I see, very interesting. Yes I was talking about a 5-10% ROI over a year, not per week.

[BigAdz]

The problem with these threads is after the initial drama bomb is dropped it becomes full of after timers saying "why do successful gamblers need staking?" and "I would never trust a gambler with my money". Which don't help anyone or solve anything.

FWIW virtually every successul gambler I know has (or used to have) shareholders / stakers.

Hellmuth, Benham, Trickett, Dwan, Walters etc etc

You name them, It's 95%+ they are either currently or have previously been staked.

And stakers will have made bundles from the proposition.

There is a world of difference between getting staked because there exists strong evidence that you could beat higher stakes than your current bankroll allows and requiring a stake to stay solvent.

IMO for the stakee to have landed in the position where they need money to stay in the game then one of two things have to have happened:

1) They have followed good bankroll management rules but their bankroll has experienced a long slow decline, suggesting that their edge isn't what it one was

2) They didn't follow good bankroll management and punted off their own bankroll, suggesting that the stakee has big money management issues

Neither of those circumstances would seem to be an attractive investment.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. No aftertiming at all, as I didn't know about it until this thread.

[celtic]

The problem with these threads is after the initial drama bomb is dropped it becomes full of after timers saying "why do successful gamblers need staking?" and "I would never trust a gambler with my money". Which don't help anyone or solve anything.

FWIW virtually every successul gambler I know has (or used to have) shareholders / stakers.

Hellmuth, Benham, Trickett, Dwan, Walters etc etc

You name them, It's 95%+ they are either currently or have previously been staked.

And stakers will have made bundles from the proposition.

There is a world of difference between getting staked because there exists strong evidence that you could beat higher stakes than your current bankroll allows and requiring a stake to stay solvent.

IMO for the stakee to have landed in the position where they need money to stay in the game then one of two things have to have happened:

1) They have followed good bankroll management rules but their bankroll has experienced a long slow decline, suggesting that their edge isn't what it one was

2) They didn't follow good bankroll management and punted off their own bankroll, suggesting that the stakee has big money management issues

Neither of those circumstances would seem to be an attractive investment.

How about a life expense caused his bankroll to be slashed to a fraction of what it once was?

How about doing a friend a favour?

I would say Keith is closer to the mark in this particular case than dan.

[The Camel]

The problem with these threads is after the initial drama bomb is dropped it becomes full of after timers saying "why do successful gamblers need staking?" and "I would never trust a gambler with my money". Which don't help anyone or solve anything.

FWIW virtually every successul gambler I know has (or used to have) shareholders / stakers.

Hellmuth, Benham, Trickett, Dwan, Walters etc etc

You name them, It's 95%+ they are either currently or have previously been staked.

And stakers will have made bundles from the proposition.

There is a world of difference between getting staked because there exists strong evidence that you could beat higher stakes than your current bankroll allows and requiring a stake to stay solvent.

IMO for the stakee to have landed in the position where they need money to stay in the game then one of two things have to have happened:

1) They have followed good bankroll management rules but their bankroll has experienced a long slow decline, suggesting that their edge isn't what it one was

2) They didn't follow good bankroll management and punted off their own bankroll, suggesting that the stakee has big money management issues

Neither of those circumstances would seem to be an attractive investment.

How about a life expense caused his bankroll to be slashed to a fraction of what it once was?

How about doing a friend a favour?

I would say Keith is closer to the mark in this particular case than dan.

I don't know Stu well enough to call him a friend. But I do respect and like him.

It's very disappointing this has happened but I honestly think there must be a good reason for his behaviour.

I think it is very likely everyone will get paid eventually.

[pleno1]

I don't think pleno will hold Arrboy responsible- iirc Pleno vouched for someone and it didn't end well (can't remember circumstances exactly but pretty sure that's when the whole vouch argument came about)

I said I'd trust Tom Langley 100% or soenthong. People said they bought in him because of me. When he gambled the money i think 2 people asked me to pay ( I did)

Not holding Arbboy for the money though

[The Camel]

I don't think pleno will hold Arrboy responsible- iirc Pleno vouched for someone and it didn't end well (can't remember circumstances exactly but pretty sure that's when the whole vouch argument came about)

I said I'd trust Tom Langley 100% or soenthong. People said they bought in him because of me. When he gambled the money i think 2 people asked me to pay ( I did)

Not holding Arbboy for the money though

I wish the person who vouched for the scumbag who screwed me was as honourable as you.

I probably wouldn't have accepted it anyway, but the speed he ran away from the issue was very depressing.

[Junior Senior]

Just seen this.
Sorry to hear it has happened and really hope it gets resolved satisfactorily for all parties.

[bobAlike]

What's the point of a vouch? Glad to hear Pads knows what it means!