Lucky Dip A, B or C

[Vortech]

If a Salesman knocked on your door and offered the following; which would you be more tempered to buy. All products tested over 5 years

Product A: System with 12 rules; 60 Bets; Return of $80

Product B: System with 8 rules; 300 Bets; Return of $320

Product C: System with 4 rules; 2400 Bets; Return of $2420

Assume the rules have some logic.

[kiwiz]

Assuming the bet size is the same in all 3 products I would find Product A the most attractive

[UselessBettor]

None. There is not enough information provided at all.

a) Not enough bets. Most likely backfitted.
b) Not enough bets. Likely to be backfitted. Profit too small.
c) profit too small. Profit likely to just be the result of random variance.

[Lord Greystoke]

Product C - might be a good base system on which to build more of my own.

Would get him to explain, present, sell C to me 1st and then ask him where do I sign, and when he gets out the pen... ask him to throw in Product A as a bonus (entertainment value given low no. of bets) Or NO DEAL.

You did ask?

LG

[Lord Greystoke]

PS to previous post....

PS if he was clever, salesman might already have this as an option for any 2 combinations of systems but offer the second 'bonus' at 50% to clinch the deal - condition being I sign up here and now (and ring 'the boss' in the appointment to get 'authorisation' for the 50% discount).

Hmmm.. I might use this one myself! But only if I have a very good 'system' to sell and my only objective is to help someone take immediate action for a positive outcome, as opposed to think about it, ponder, do nothing until someone comes along with a crap system and then fall for it = sign up, pay thru the nose for a lemon!

[kiwiz]

Assuming the bet size is the same in all 3 products I would find Product A the most attractive
Also assuming the cost of all 3 products are the same ;)

[Vortech]

None. There is not enough information provided at all.

a) Not enough bets. Most likely backfitted.
b) Not enough bets. Likely to be backfitted. Profit too small.
c) profit too small. Profit likely to just be the result of random variance.
I'm trying to gather ideas around peoples thoughts on reducing profit on turnover over reducing filters

Another example
If you have 10,000 bets and made $1000 profit with 8 rules

Or if you had 25,000 bets and made $1000 profit with 6 rules.

Would you prefer the same return on investment with less rules or more interested in POT

[Lord Greystoke]

Less is more.

Simplicity = less rules suggests the system has more soundness to it.

Complexity = more rules suggests backfitting, lack of foundation = certainty over the longer term

3 rules wins for me.

The selling point for an initial investment into a system with few rules & minimal / moderate POT (depending on your viewpoint) might be that I have a good chance of NOT loosing 75%+ of my wagers = ongoing 'investments' over the longer term -This being a challenge that 95%+ of punters have to contend with?

Throw in the entertainment = high POT systems for free OR do it the other way around.

Cheers LG

[AngryPixie]

If a Salesman knocked on your door and offered the following; which would you be more tempered to buy. All products tested over 5 years

Product A: System with 12 rules; 60 Bets; Return of $80

Product B: System with 8 rules; 300 Bets; Return of $320

Product C: System with 4 rules; 2400 Bets; Return of $2420

Assume the rules have some logic.

None. Firstly salesman would also need to provide the average starting price of all selections for each product. There's not enough information to work out your advantage.

[Vortech]

This Salesman would throw you a couple of balloons

Less is more.

Simplicity = less rules suggests the system has more soundness to it.

Complexity = more rules suggests backfitting, lack of foundation = certainty over the longer term

3 rules wins for me.

The selling point for an initial investment into a system with few rules & minimal / moderate POT (depending on your viewpoint) might be that I have a good chance of NOT loosing 75%+ of my wagers = ongoing 'investments' over the longer term -This being a challenge that 95%+ of punters have to contend with?

Throw in the entertainment = high POT systems for free OR do it the other way around.

Cheers LG

[Vortech]

None. Firstly salesman would also need to provide the average starting price of all selections for each product. There's not enough information to work out your advantage.
In theory assume all the same starting prices.

[Lord Greystoke]

.. and that the Salesman provides a complete run down of the system at the initial appointment - follow up report ?

The minimal info above being the teaser to create an appointment? If this was the aim, might need more lolly = promise / benefits etc to initiate the conversation !

LG

[Puntz]

D? make an offer to the rep he cannot refuse. What the offer in content may be is not necessarily money, a barter or swap deal.
Prereference A for a list of prospective buyers !

[Lord Greystoke]

D? make an offer to the rep he cannot refuse. What the offer in content may be is not necessarily money, a barter or swap deal.
Prereference A for a list of prospective buyers !

I like it Puntz. Workable on the net too, me thinks.

LG

[UselessBettor]

I'm trying to gather ideas around peoples thoughts on reducing profit on turnover over reducing filters

Another example
If you have 10,000 bets and made $1000 profit with 8 rules

Or if you had 25,000 bets and made $1000 profit with 6 rules.

Would you prefer the same return on investment with less rules or more interested in POT
$1000 profit on 25,000 bets is still with random variance for a system.

But based of what your trying to achieve its more of a balancing act. The profit in relation to the number of bets is important. Its relation to the number of rules is irrelvant. I could have a system that has 1 rule and make $1000 profit on 100K turnover but thats not a good thing. But also a $1000 profit on 100 selections may not be a good thing either if its based on 10 rules and looks at long shots.

People would also need to know

a) strike rate
b) average price of selections
c) average price of winners
d) where the odds are taken from (tab, betfair, etc).

[Puntz]

Ok, so back into the sale inventives, if there was a option D, where let's say 100 prospective buyers are listed and handed over to this sales rep.
Out of 100, 20 may show interest, out of 20 5 may contact and of the 5, 1 may or may not buy system A,B, or C, or D/incentives
The rule is, cannot receive a chosen system freely, until a buyer from 100 names buys with actual money.
So if get 300 names, and 3 buyers, eventually i would have had a chance to score all 3 systems, correct?

[Vortech]

Are you sure your not in real estate?

[Puntz]

No, not into real estate, it's percentages. 100,80,20,5,1 and a strategy.

[Shaun]

Gees if you are going to buy 1 i would just buy all 3 and make a portfolio, if 1 has a lean trot you have the other 2 to back you up.

[Puntz]

See, shaun is the rare 1 percent, he buys all 3 systems and plays his 33.33333 percent strategy with his A B or C systems.
Therefore i get my commission as having referred Shauun
of three systems, A B and C, which he purchased.

[Lord Greystoke]

Gee Puntz, how easy? Remind me how you picked up Sean as a lead??

LG

[Puntz]

That was easy LG, ({TIME ****POSTS( REPLY )), principle.

[Vortech]

as the salesperson I would like to see many punters backing the selections and then next year I start to re-sell by introducing the same 3 as the laying systems

[Lord Greystoke]

No, not into real estate, it's percentages. 100,80,20,5,1 and a strategy.

Can't read/decipher your previous post Puntz so assume you mean...

1. offer salesman a list of 100 prospective buyers in return for system(s)
2. he works the list and 1 buys (or he gets lucky and Sean buys x 3)
3. you get 1 system of your choice as payment for the list (or 3 with Sean!)

So its a combination of the '100,80,20,5,1' sales - percentages principle and your strategy being 1-3 above?

Cheers LG

[Mark]

as the salesperson I would like to see many punters backing the selections and then next year I start to re-sell by introducing the same 3 as the laying systems

And the winner is.........this little gem by Vortech.

Also AP for selecting none.

I also liked that it was by the 3rd reply that someone would buy......and then change it !!!!!

[Puntz]

LG , yep

But what to do if the system/s show it a actually works?
Considering the systems are in such a way, it cannot be copied or changed.

A. I got my 3 systems, Shaun has 3 systems, the innovator of the systems has it to, and the sales rep is out of job, cos who wants to sell the systems that work?

B. Syndicate , the sales rep is back in with a chance selling syndicate deals.
And works the same 99 name list again showing proven results.

[Shaun]

Maybe the correct answer was buying none, but as i said "if you wanted to buy 1 then buy all 3"

[Vortech]

None. Firstly salesman would also need to provide the average starting price of all selections for each product. There's not enough information to work out your advantage.
Angry - Interesting you mention this information.

Do you by chance use the Archie method?

Regards

[grizzle]

Do you by chance use the Archie method?

Regards
Just read this article the other day ;)

http://www.hoof.demon.co.uk/archie.html

[Vortech]

Yeah same

A very good approach to any system.

CP also had a good method is you look back over the forum.