Re Serious Punters only

[partypooper]

Neil, Are the Super Specials only available if the full package is purchased? not quite clear on that one. Also I read with great interest that many "SERIOUS PUNTERS" are working on 1-2% POT long term. Does that mean that the guy who's currently showing 53%POT on the Specials is in for a hard time ahead?

[Neil]

Hello,

The Super Specials are part of the Premium Betting Package. They are not marketed separately.

You wrote:
"Does that mean that the guy who's currently showing 53% POT on the Specials is in for a hard time ahead?"

Past results statistically have no influence on how future results will go. Because you've had a very good run with 50, 100, 200 bets doesn't mean the next 50, 100, 200 will be no good.

However, 50%, 40%, 30% very long term profits is an unrealistic expectation.

Over a huge number of bets we'll be satisfied if we can obtain around 10% POT. This doesn't rule out the possibility of sequences of say 100 bets making 50% POT, nor does it rule out the possibility of 100 bets actually making a negative return.

We expect serious, disciplined punters to understand this, unlike the small casual punter who usually expects miracles from a tipping service and when a few selections lose says, "They're no good."

I played blackjack counting cards accurately and eventually Crown Casino restricted me, admitting I would beat them over the long term. But even when I had a significant advantage I could easily lose over a sequence of 100, 200, 300 bets placed.

Unfortunately that is the nature of the betting game, even when you have an edge.

Cheers, Neil

[Filante]

Don't think that's quite right, Neil.

You can certainly make 30%+ profit on turnover at the races - the problem is, to do so you really have to limit the number of bets. If you're really selective - say 1-3 bets per week - then high % profits are achievable The downside is that your bank doesn't turn over very quickly.

On the other hand, if you're operating on the basis of only winning 10% on turnover, that is achievable with many more selections per week and higher turnover.

One of my selection methods runs at about 100 bets per month/ 36% winners to runners/ 18% profit (more than 2000 to date).

Another runs at about 15 bets per month 50% winners and almost 40% profit. Interestingly, I've found that if you can find a method that returns 50% winners to runners and bet on it regardless of the bookmaker odds, the average price of the winners is always around $2.80...strange.

Overall, my preference is for the high turnover/ lower return bet types but it's a matter of personal taste.

Anyway, I wouldn't be accepting 10% profit as any sort of benchmark - there's more fat in the bookies' markets than that.

Cheers

[Chrome Prince]

Hello,

We expect serious, disciplined punters to understand this, unlike the small casual punter who usually expects miracles from a tipping service and when a few selections lose says, "They're no good."

Cheers, Neil

Oh how true Neil!

The casual punter expects unrealistic miracles if they pay for something.
This is the downfall of these punters, because they will never have the patience or discipline to make racing pay longterm. They'd rather have a 200% POT one day only, than win over a year.

Every significant punter I know or know of, that wins longterm operates on a small margin of profit, but high volume of turnover or very large wagers on a small number of bets .

Anything else is chasing miracles.

[Mr. Logic]

One of my selection methods runs at about 100 bets per month/36% winners to runners/18% profit (more than 2000 to date).

Another runs at about 15 bets per month 50% winners and almost 40% profit. Interestingly, I've found that if you can find a method that returns 50% winners to runners and bet on it regardless of the bookmaker odds, the average price of the winners is always around $2.80...strange.

With your first method just level staking $200 would turn over $20,000 per month and give you $3,600 tax free per month. Even with just another $200 on your other 15 bets per month you'd get another $1200 tax free. That makes $4,800 per month tax free. I guess you must be a full time professional living of the punt. Good on you, Filante.

[Chrome Prince]

With your first method just level staking $200 would turn over $20,000 per month and give you $3,600 tax free per month. Even with just another $200 on your other 15 bets per month you'd get another $1200 tax free. That makes $4,800 per month tax free. I guess you must be a full time professional living of the punt. Good on you, Filante.

Assuming you start with $20,000 bank on the first system and bet $200 on every selection, doubling your bet when each time your bank doubles, you'll be a millionaire in less than five years.

In ten years you'll have almost as much money as Donald Trump, hopefully you can spend $20 and get a good haircut. :eek:

[Filante]

With your first method just level staking $200 would turn over $20,000 per month and give you $3,600 tax free per month. Even with just another $200 on your other 15 bets per month you'd get another $1200 tax free. That makes $4,800 per month tax free. I guess you must be a full time professional living of the punt. Good on you, Filante.

I just do it for a hobby - I wouldn't turn over anything like $20,000 a month; more like $80,000/year. But I appreciate the irony of Mr "Logic" using rhetoric in an attempt to make my figures seem extraordinary.

I did post my bets for about a week and a half not long back under the heading "My Bets for (date)". The result of that was over 40% winners at over 30% profit. I also posted around 50 best bets over a period of about a month with similar results.

Go check 'em for yourself.

[Mr. Logic]

With your first method just level staking $200 would turn over $20,000 per month and give you $3,600 tax free per month. Even with just another $200 on your other 15 bets per month you'd get another $1200 tax free. That makes $4,800 per month tax free. I guess you must be a full time professional living of the punt. Good on you, Filante.

Filante, you misunderstood me. I just assumed you would have to be a professional with results like those. I also assumed your bets would be higher than the amounts I gave above. That was just for illustration purposes. I can't imagine too many social punters who if they could obtain your results would keep it as just a hobby. Then at least admit that you have been seriously tempted to go professional.

[Filante]

Filante, you misunderstood me. I just assumed you would have to be a professional with results like those. I also assumed your bets would be higher than the amounts I gave above. That was just for illustration purposes. I can't imagine too many social punters who if they could obtain your results would keep it as just a hobby. Then at least admit that you have been seriously tempted to go professional.

Oh really?

I don't think I misunderstood you at all. I think your comment was a thinly veiled, gratuitously offensive, expression of sarcastic incredulity at the figures I gave. It demonstrated a kind of small-minded ignorance.

Anyway, no offence taken.

And, what do you mean by "going professional"? - give up my job and put more money on the horses? That sounds like a pipe-dream for losers with dull jobs.

[baco60]

I just do it for a hobby - I wouldn't turn over anything like $20,000 a month; more like $80,000/year.
You would make $80 000 /year as a hobby,and you don't wont to give up you day job?

I got nothing more to say.
cheeeeeeers.

[lomaca]

I just do it for a hobby - I wouldn't turn over anything like $20,000 a month; more like $80,000/year.
You would make $80 000 /year as a hobby,and you don't wont to give up you day job?

I got nothing more to say.
cheeeeeeers.

Hi baco!
I don't usually get involved in any argument I did not start myself but you are way off the mark here! Filante was talking about a "Turnover of $80 000" not profit of $80 000

And He might be on a salary of $200 000 a year guaranteed!!!!
Not just maybe if he wins????
Cheers!

[Shaun]

Filante said they turn over $80.000 a year, there is a big difference to making $80.000 a year and turning that much over.....if working on a 20% turn over profit...and that is an extream that still only amounts to $16.000....not to many retire on that amount.


just relised that was my 900th post 100 more and i reach the 1000 club....seams only yesterday i hit 500

[Sportz]

Filante said they turn over $80.000 a year

Shaun,

Sorry to be a real nitpicker, but why do you put a decimal point in there? It's $80000 or $80,000 or $80 000. It's not $80.000

[Shaun]

Bite me....lol

[Sportz]

:D

[Chrome Prince]

Filante said they turn over $80.000 a year, there is a big difference to making $80.000 a year and turning that much over.....if working on a 20% turn over profit...and that is an extream that still only amounts to $16.000....not to many retire on that amount.


That's $16000 per annum tax free level stakes betting.

If he only increases his bet only each time his bank doubles in size (roughly twice a year) that equates to a lot more than $16,000. It's a very nice living tax free with a pretty good pay increase each year.

[partypooper]

Neil, I seem to have opened a can of worms here. Thanks for your reply, shame the 'specials" are not available seperately. I "thought" I was very realistic in my expectations , working with ideas that have shown around 20%POT on both past and actual results, not a system as such, just ratings with filters really, but hoping long term to clear 10% (on turnover). so we agree there, also I agree that the patience factor is THE factor.
Anther thing that amazes me though is that people who are serious but still invest at NSW tab, or SP etc etc when they can have the best tote or Top Fluc merely by opening an account????

[Adrian]

Dear All,
I have been betting on and off for 10-15 years and until recently had been contributing to the pockets of the bookies (and winning punters like you guys).

I had mainly been using the tips of others over that time and found that actual results over a period of time always seemed to vary from claims.

I for one am happy to be betting Propunter's super specials as part of their premium betting package, and a making a nice profit doing so. Even a 10% plus POT long term is still better than losing the average 15% totes take.

Sure you can get a run of outs - but the last 5 super specials have won over the last two weeks. Forget all the nonsense about making lots of bets just to get turnover - I don't know anyone that would complain about 5 from 5 who was serious about their punting.

If you know your expectancy theory its completely sound to "bet-up" on higher strike rates to achieve turnover.

[partypooper]

Adrian, great if it works for ya! my concern though is if you pay $2,000 for the info working on 10% POT that means you have bet $20,000 for no other reason than to have the bet (and that's not counting phone calls) if there's only one bet a week on ave. Then you have invested $500 (approx) on every nag without any hope of making a red cent , but a VERY real possibility of being on the losing end. NOT having a go at anyone here just talking numbers.

[Adrian]

You are right in your mathematics - assuming only a 10% result was achieved.

My experience is that to date it has been substantially better, and the super specials are not the only selection method provided that provide value.

This is my second year with Propunter, and I can assure you that I wouldn't be using the service again this year if I wasn't showing net profits.

About your rationalisation on costs - How many punters would lose $50 per week on average without even a hope of winning ? Just go and have a look at the local TAB ?? So . . . . at $40 per week Propunter is not really that expensive is it ? Even if it was just helping people avoid making those losses.

As Einstein would say it's all about relativity . . . . .

Even just buying a Sportsman and the Best Bets magazine costs $10/week.

I know $1980 may seem a bit of a hit upfront but I guess those serious punters who subscribe to the service are able to rationalise what they are really getting.

Happy punting

[Mr ed]

I wouldn't use a tipping service like this anyway, the fun of this game to me is using my own jugdement seeing the replays and spotting a great unplaced run etc. I reckon i'd be scrutinising these Specials and end up doing the form on the race myself anyway.

[Filante]

Dear All,
I have been betting on and off for 10-15 years and until recently had been contributing to the pockets of the bookies (and winning punters like you guys).

I had mainly been using the tips of others over that time and found that actual results over a period of time always seemed to vary from claims.

I for one am happy to be betting Propunter's super specials as part of their premium betting package, and a making a nice profit doing so. Even a 10% plus POT long term is still better than losing the average 15% totes take.

Sure you can get a run of outs - but the last 5 super specials have won over the last two weeks. Forget all the nonsense about making lots of bets just to get turnover - I don't know anyone that would complain about 5 from 5 who was serious about their punting.

If you know your expectancy theory its completely sound to "bet-up" on higher strike rates to achieve turnover.


That's right. And then, why put all your eggs in one basket? Like shares, you can have a portfolio of different systems/ selections methods/ tipsters you follow to spread the risk and soften the blow of one of them having the inevitable "run of outs". e.g

1. Pro-punter super specials.
2. Pro-punter gold specials.
3. Dave's tip of the day.
4. My zipform system.
5. Testarossa's best bets.
6. whatever

Each can have its own nominal "bank" and each its own staking plan dependent on strike rate and profitability.

[Mr. Logic]

If I was looking for negative meanings in written posts then that's what I would find. Life's too short for that. Some people should maybe lighten up a bit. I have nothing more to add and will depart from this thread.

[Filante]

Mr Logic,

Your problem is that you are negative. You have not commenced one thread in the last three months. Then you offer up posts that are disingenuous, unhelpful and designed to ridicule.

Offer your tips, ratings and thoughts at how to win at racing.

Cheers,

F

[Mark]

"Mr Logic,

Your problem is that you are negative. You have not commenced one thread in the last three months. Then you offer up posts that are disingenuous, unhelpful and designed to ridicule."


Anybody else spot Mr Logic's negativity?, I certainly couldn't.
Did spot a giant chip somewhere else though, & fully expect a serve from Filante, even though like Mr Logic, I was quite impressed by Filante's efforts.

[Neil]

I "thought" I was very realistic in my expectations , working with ideas that have shown around 20%POT on both past and actual results, not a system as such, just ratings with filters really, but hoping long term to clear 10% (on turnover). so we agree there, also I agree that the patience factor is THE factor.

Hi Party,

It was my experiences correctly playing blackjack that was a real eye opener for horse racing betting when it came to understanding possible losing runs - even for very high strike rate selections. When playing blackjack, each hand played can also be compared to a bet on a horse with a very high expectancy of winning.

One staggering figure which a friend of mine told me - he is now one of this country's foremost blackjack players - was that just playing a maximum bet of 1% bank for blackjack when the count was very good for the player gave a very realistic chance of losing the entire bank after so many thousands of hands were played. When he is back in Australia in a few weeks I can get the exact figures.

Punters often don't get to make the number of bets to really experience the statistical deviations which are actually par for the course over thousands and thousands of bets. Invariably if there is a minor losing run, punters alter things, assuming the selections are no good. In fact their selections might be fine.

When playing blackjack, counting cards accurately, there were times I had a good advantage over the house, but didn't win anywhere near 50% of the hands played. On a near level game with lower stakes where I should have won close to 50% of the hands, I've had runs winning just 20 or 30 out of 100 hands. Apply that to high strike rate horse selections and you can see what may happen - and if it does, that does not necessarily mean that anything was wrong with the selections.

Cheers, Neil