Mark,

Yours is a uniquely individual circumstance.

Had the post been about laying horses or setting markets, I would never have said it couldn't be done.

But that was not what was offered up.

What was offered was win betting on horses @ 7/1 or greater using a $4,000 or $6,000 bank providing $30,000 or $50,000 income, (depending which version you read), which I still state can't be done.

What TheEasyRun was proposing was quite the opposite to your method, unless he hasn't explained himself fully.

Great to see you back Mark and great to hear you're still kicking goals.

I don't mean to play devil's advocate here, but it sounds to me like a challenge could be a-brewin'. Start a thread with a theorectical 6K starting bank and let's see how you go over the spring.

It seems that the main knockers agree. I have used your quote Chuck because it's the shortest. No other reason mate :-)

My comments so far have only been to have a go at those who see intelligence linked to higher education [generally, only a post-war Western phenomenon]. As for the small bank to kick off with, I'm with Mark and Easyrun. If you can win you can win and the odds are in your favour that you won't kick off with a run of outs. A big bank just puts off the inevitable downfall of the mug punter who 'thinks' they can live off the punt.

Interestingly, Phil Purser is a plus $7 man too. He thinks short odds and lots of bets are for losers who can't consistently spot a few decent bets a month to jump on because their handicapping skills are hopeless.. I've been leaning that way too for awhile now too and the smaller the odds the smaller my bets. The results have been very good indeed.

I think we should let easyrun have his say, as I think there are a few here who only see what they want to see and are knocking the bloke prematurely because his ideas obviously differ to their gospel of punting. Closed minds learn nothing.

Well said Crash the post hasn't been up long and i feel Easyrun is already feeling like he/she is being choked down from getting on with it. Probably thinking whats going to happen once i post the 2nd and 3rd part. Lets loosen the reigns a bit.

Cheers
ubetido

Hi guys.

Topsy.
No I meant that Chrome cannot, meaning not with his line of thinking, only I made it personal and should not have, and apologise for getting like that on the thread.

I'm having trouble juggling my slow typing in with my time restrictions, but should have the next part up by afternoon.

Quote from original post.

1. So called big money "professonal punters" really are not. They are men propped up by money from their buisnesses, inheritence or high incomes, or from stake money hits from horses they own.
In essence they are big money gamblers, not pro punters.
They all have one major thing in common.....they did not get their money from the punt, and if they had to start from scratch and punt up a liveable betting bank they would soon starve!

This is simply an opinion dressed up as a fact.Statements like "They all" are always suspect and quite commonplace in this type of forum, where the notion of scientific proof seldom raises it's head.

Anyway, it appeals to the masses and I guess that sells the product.Little wonder old Adolf and his mates had such a ball.

I particularly like the theory,"The smart are dumb and the dumb are smart".

Wishful thinking boys.

TheEasyRun has indicated here that the posts are not a commercial and knows that the Forum Terms of Use do not permit "unpaid advertisements".

That being the case, any comments disagreeing with TheEasyRun need to be polite, not insulting as per the Forum Terms of Use.

Let's hear TheEasyRun out.

Moderator.

I'll say it again, I'm not knocking the bloke at all.

Much of what he has written is excellent.

crash, as we all have differing strategies, there's nothing wrong with $7 plus bets at all, and I never criticised those bets.

Neither did I criticize starting off small, better to start off small than get burned early with a big bank.

Mark's experience demonstrated this very well, he now lives off that initial $500 after losing $2,500.

What I did question was the flawed maths in a $6,000 bank to earn $50,000 when you are betting $7 plus shots.

Unless he is using some other method than win betting it simply cannot be done. Not only can't I do it, NOBODY else can - the numbers do not add up.

I'll leave this thread now for any further comment, as , in my opinion, it's quite irresponsible to post something like this that might lead to someone following such action in future.

TheEasyRun is quite entitled to his say, but -1 + -1 will never equal +1, win betting.

I also feel an inevitable staking plan coming on which would only lead to further comment from myself which might be misinterpreted as a personal attack, so I'll refrain from commenting on that as well.

I will be interested to see the logic behind this. How low turnover, because as you say, "a betting bank must be protected from heavy turnover!" from a $6,000 starting bank backing horses at $7.00+ can make $50,000 a year.

I have wracked my brains out.

The only thing I can think of at this stage that might remotely fit the bill is a selection method which is able to consistently identify horses at $7.00 plus that are in fact around TRUE even money chances, which to anyone would be like discovering a legitimate money printing press! and then combining these horses in all up bets. That way turnover could also be said to be minimised as the initial outlay could be claimed as the turnover for an all up wager such as a double or treble.

As I said, I will be interested to see the logic behind this betting method.

ooooh! isn't this exciting?.........