AN OBVIOUS EQUATION which most punters ignore
 

My point here is to refute the the belief that most punters here [or anywhere for that matter], punt to win money. The love of the sport and any other reasons are secondary. It's a nonsense. Profit comes last for most punter's reasons for punting. This punter included [I've stated quite a few times here I punt for pleasure].


To make my point I'll use an example and I'm going to keep it very simple.

Theoretical:
Punter "A" had 7 bets today and the odds were: 5/1,4/1,7/1,5/1,4/1,3/1,4/1.
Punter 'B' had 3 bets: 4/1,3/1,6/1
Both punters are exactly equal in their ability to select winners. Punter A likes more action than B though.

We will not get into results for the day here because it will cloud the issue. They might show on any particular day, neither punter winning, both loosing, one winning and the other loosing or both punters winning.

The question here is who got the best odds on the day [meaning the least exposure to loss], and more importantly, which punter will show more profit [or less loss] over the long haul, punter A or B ?

Punter B naturally. Every time, regardless of results for the day. When the odds are against us, the more bets we have, the more exposure to loss there is.

Lets see why:
Punter A's odds for the day were 5+4+7+5+4+3+4/1x7 units bet.
Punter B's odds were 4+3+6/1x3 units bet.

Punter B's odds of losing on the day are naturally less, which also means his profit or loss situation over say a year [or longer] will be much better than A's situation.

The above is the very simple reason why most Pro punters [who bet for profit] have very few bets. Most punters here and elsewhere do the exact opposite.

grammar Police
 

Normally enjoy your work crash without exception - but on this occasion .......

From the example given you wrongly presume both punters (all punters) lose. Therefore, the more bets you have the more you will lose. The flunkey with the least bets will lose least, therefore, he is more likely to win. This is flawed logic.

The flunkey (sorry punter) who generates a positive expectation on total investment will generate profit whether he has one, two or five trillion bets. The flunkey who generates a negative expectation across one, two or five trillion bets will lose (unless he strikes the PowerBall on one of those -ve exp bets). The number of bets engaged will not turn losers into winners.

Now, can you please edit the "loosing" in your post to what it should be before Sportz gets wind of this continuing grammatical failing of yours. It's driving everyone to despair.



....................

Doc.

Sorry for the poor spelling. Loose/lose is one I'm always mangling because I type at speed. What you [also] failed to pull me up on and that neither of us noticed in the sentence:

"They might show on any particular day, neither punter winning, both loosing, one winning and the other loosing or both punters winning.'
Is the fact that 'both losing' [correct spelling] certainly doesn't need to be there at all after 'neither punter winning' :-)

You made no effort whatsoever to logically dispute my point. You just passed judgment on it as 'flawed logic'. Please prove your point. The odds are on my side, not yours.


Having a go at someone's spelling/grammar [education] is a good trick when you are going to disagree with their argument. It adds weight [but not logic I'm afraid] to your own point by saying with the innuendo: 'I'm a better speller so I'm obviously more intelligent and therefore my point of view is correct'.

After just lambasting a poster in another thread for the crime of using innuendo about someone else's forum handle to put their view down, here you are pulling the exact same trick of using innuendo to put my point down [of course by mentioning Sportz you have allowed yourself the out of 'I was just joking' in case you need it] with no factual logic whatsoever to support your condemnation. You can't beat hypocrisy for a profession on the net. You should take up politics :-)

To anyone else reading this thread my point is simply this:

If a punter with a machine gun betting approach [lots of bets every day], changes his betting from a machine gun approach to a sniper rifle approach, his win/loss situation will dramatically improve.


As far a the Doc's logic of 'who generates a positive expectation on total investment will generate profit' [which simply means, if a punter THINKS he will win, the more he bets the better his chances of doing so] is concerned, I'll refer it to this quote:

"The minds capacity to play with the truth is an astonishing thing. There is always a way to tamper with the evidence" [unknown].

I think with a defeatest attitude similar to the above quote the punter regardless of how many bets he has is pushing you know what up hill.


A method of selecting horses that comes up with 2 bets a week has no more validity than a method that produces 20 imo,the selection method itself is really the key.

As for which approach is more fun,this depends on the individual,we are all very different creatures,some get off on action some get off on methodical patient discretion.


I'm an advocate of breaking your punting down into serious bets and fun bets,that way if your serious betting method doesnt produce a bet in a race you want to bet in you can still have a crack.

I think the Doc has got you bang to rights on this one Crash. As he says "From the example given you wrongly presume both punters (all punters) lose." Your quote outlined above shows what he says is correct.
Punters who (successfully) punt in order to win money don't have the odds against them. If they win long term they obviously have the odds in their favour, so you are assuming your fictitious punters are losers.
If a punter has a winning system and he bets on more races which fit that system he stands to win more. If a punter has a losing system he stands to lose more from betting more races. It's simple.

KV

This is an example of why you should always read over what you have written to make sure it is really what you wanted to say.

What you actually said Crash, is : All punters lose, so those that bet more will lose more. Yet "pro punters" are "pro punters" because they bet less, hence making a profit.

I am obviously not alone in completely disagreeing with your logic here...

All three of you are arguing against yourselves. You have read what I've said. Ignored it and then argued against something else [which I never said, but you have said] so you could argue against it.

Did I say all punters lose ? No I didn't [not 'basically' either], but it gives your arguments legs and even I would disagree with that statement, So please, either shoot me down with the hard logic of maths or remain smug in 'convenient logic' [only relies on belief not facts] you present to justify poor punting habits.

I'm talking about the cold hard facts of odds here [maths] not personalities or punting types or even betting habits or styles. What do I have to do, reduce it to tossing pennies [heads or tails] so you will get my point about the maths ?

What will I get in reply ? I bet it will be more opinion. Perhaps even some fuzzy logic [I have a new washing machine with 'fuzzy logic'. It's a piece of crap] :-)

Of course, I should have seen it, you're right as always and we three are wrong. I wish I could get a bet on you never admitting you're wrong, No, it'd be too short a price.
Your first post here looked to be an ill thought out bunch of rubbish, anyone who could be bothered answering it could see that and told you so, no maths needed. Guess we'll just have to suppose you knew what you meant but don't explain things very well, that's about the kindest thing I can come up with.
Do keep posting though, it gives us something to think about.

KV

take a break
 

For God's sake crash I was talking "tounge in cheek". Now I know it may not be that obvious in written form but truly ruly - it was merely a poor attempt at dry humour (I was having a back-hand crack at Sportz).

Now that we've made up let's face the cold hard facts (an approach you normally embrace as distinct from the comatosed dreamers that proliferate this Forum). The premise of your original post is wrong.

The punter who places fewer wagers will not enjoy an advantage over the punter who places many wagers - JUST BECAUSE HE PLACES FEWER WAGERS.

If that is not the premise of your original post then you will need to spell things out a little clearer as it appears I am not alone in my misunderstanding.

When I said "negative expectation" I did not mean the punter is engaging a thought process. I meant (and it is widely understood) the methodology employed produces a loss over a series of bets ie buying lotto tickets is a -ve expection game.

Come on now crash, lighten up - your work is at normally the top of the pile.



..............

Carsh, is right if you look at it from his mathematical point of view.

There was a current affairs segment on how to consistantly win those free prizes you enter from various newspapers and magazines. Those cut-outs.

All promotional stuff, but it showed if the numbers are played right, you actualy can win these free prizes.

How ?
Let's say there was a free competition to win a washing machine.
Then there is another free competition to win a the latest wiz-bang PC
And lets say there are 10 more of these various free competitions.
Each of these promotional competitions require you to fill out the usual name,address, age,favorite color, star sighn etc etc etc. cut it out and snail-mail it by dead-line close date.

The trick with the niumbers side of things is , NOT to enter the same competition as many times as possible, but to enter as many competitions as possible, ONCE.
So if there are 10 competitions, all free to enter chances are you will be in front by winning a prize from one of the draws.
But you won't win if you enter the same draw 100 times.

Same principle, ain't it ?

Sorry about your washing machine crash!
No need to name the brand, but if it is what I think it is, our company is partly to blame, although our tech department pointed out at the time, that no matter how good our software is it can't make crappy hardware perform better!

Marcus.

"Fuzzy Logic" isn't that a bit contradictory.

I remember when the warm fuzzies came out - some moron's idea of warming up to the customer.


Shouldn't it be Crystal Logic or Clear Logic?, no - a double entendre Fuzzy meaning customer friendly or easy to use logic.

Next time I'm at the optometrist and view an eyechart, I'll tell them it's fuzzy (meaning easy to read) and walk out wearing Mr. Magoo glasses :D

çrash crash
 

[QUOTE

I'm talking about the cold hard facts of odds here [maths] not personalities or punting types or even betting habits or styles. What do I have to do, reduce it to tossing pennies [heads or tails] so you will get my point about the maths It's
a piece of crap] :-)[/QUOTE] $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ CRASH CRASH CRASH it works like this the sniper has one chance from 1km the other bloke has 40 at 100m,end result is no different,they both end up feeding ther family tonight,,,,,,,,,but mamma allways said a machine gunner is what sniper wants to be............hope everyone enjoyed the day......slowman.......

Kenny, you must have a gambling problem as you logic [the personal attack approach] is more disturbing than offensive. Your obviously close to an emotional breakdown. Have a Bex and a good lie down [often].

Doc.
Point taken about the innuendo. I was wrong. Looking again it's quite funny :-) I'm shocked I didn't spot it straight away. My forum attempts are competing with anxious visions of being washed down a river crossing on a 4X4 trip over the Vic. alps next week. What odds that happening ?

Quote: 'The premise of your original post is wrong.
The punter who places fewer wagers will not enjoy an advantage over the punter who places many wagers - JUST BECAUSE HE PLACES FEWER WAGERS.' End quote.

Yes, I agree with that statement too Doc. I can buy one tatts ticket and win 1st. prize and you can buy a million of them and miss out [or vis-a-vis]. Your statement though was incomplete. If we both lose, who will lose the most? I'd call that an advantage, wouldn't you?

Lets simplify my original point. Punter A and B have exactly the same selection ability [handicapping ability]. Simpler still: Punter A and B are the same punter [we'll call him 'Ace'] and for the past 5 years Ace has been averaging 3 bets a day and for the 5yrs. before that 7 bets a day and he made a profit during both periods [the word loss in 'profit/loss' in my original example obviously freaked out some readers here, so Ace is a winner]. He bets to win only on one selection per race and bets the same amount per day [total daily turnover] and makes his own selections by handicapping his races.

Ace won more over the last 5yrs. than the previous 5yrs. His strike rate improved yet his handicapping ability was the same during both periods. Why was his POT higher by having less bets ?

Now we come to my point about odds. All Ace's bets over the last 10yrs. where at 5/1 odds [for simplicity]. 6x5/6x1 units for 5yrs. and 3x5/3x1 units for 5yrs. I had assumed in my original post that all punters here realize that there is no such thing as true odds in racing because to work out true odds all possibilities must be known. A casino has true odds but never in a horse race. So our 5/1 odds are a mixture of true odds and random odds [random chance]. I'd say 1/3rd true odds [represents the fav. SR] and 2/3rds. random chance odds which through good form study Ace can reduce but never eliminate.

Ace, buy reducing the amount of bets he had, reduced his random chance odds against him over the 5yr. period. Does that make sense now or have I completely descended into murk here ? If so, please explain why.

Slowman,

Quote: "CRASH CRASH CRASH it works like this the sniper has one chance from 1km the other bloke has 40 at 100m,end result is no different,they both end up feeding ther family tonight,,,,,,,,,but mamma allways said a machine gunner is what sniper wants to be............hope everyone enjoyed the day......slowman......."

Do you think your machine gunner would ever get within 100m of a sniper who's a kilometer away ? I don't think so. 8-)

Sorry Crash, can't agree with you on this one.

If a punter is out to make money ( and you seem to believe that no punter is actually out to make money) , the person going with the larger number of bets is probably seeking high turnover/ small profit margin./higher income.

Crash I have a method that seems to pick one winner in two...but it can take a year to come up with those two bets. Its riskier just backing the two selections heavily and trying to make all ones profit from those two bets in a year, than taking many many more bets for a smaller percentage profit..but much more revenue...

the above is precisely why some professional punters do both. Do you invest all of your money on one company share and hang you hopes on it, or do you spread your risk over a portfolio?

Thansk for the interesting post though..had me thinking..and that is good.

All this hostility for nought.

Crash is kind of right.


The more bets a punter has in a negative expectation game, the greater the chance of loss. One can defy the odds, but not forever.

Conversely, the less bets a punter has in a positive expectation game, the less the chance of a profit.

Although the odds don't change, like a coin flip, the greater the exposure to the game, the more likely the overall % loss or profit will result.

Why does this happen?

Take for example Kenchar, with his "hit-make a profit-run" approach.

There is more to this than simply the odds, there is the confidence factor as well. One is more likely to make a sound decision when having the first bet of the day, than when chasing a deep loss.

The only evidence lies in the number of times a punter was ahead for the day and gave it all back by betting more.

Crash,

Would you agree that every favorite has the same percentage chance as the one before it?

ie; if the favorite has not got up for 5 races it is no more likely than its every day percentage to get up in the next.


If so then your logic is flawed because you assume that a group of 3 bets has less chance than a group of 7 bets to fall victim to the 2/3rds random chance theory.

In actuality EACH RACE has the same % chance as the one before and after it of falling victim to your random chance theory.



If one isnt talking theoreticly for a moment and i assume that there is a little bit of your punting history in Ace then more than likely the higher rate of success with 3 bets as opposed to 7 can simply be put down to using the same amount of time to study 7 races as you know do for 3 resulting in a better more alert and select handicapping style.

924

quote: " ( and you seem to believe that no punter is actually out to make money)",

Where do you folk get this drivel ? How do you deduct that from anything I have ever said anywhere? Follow my type....it's nonsense, it's not what I believe at all. Strewth, talk about putting words into a bloke's mouth.

and ...."the person going with the larger number of bets is probably seeking high turnover/ small profit margin./higher income".

What, a punter can't obtain high turn over/small profit margin/higher income with a smaller amount of larger bets [high $ turnover]?

Oh boy, I need a holiday.

Chrome,
Thanks, finally some insight here. You get my drift.
Horse racing is a mostly negative expectation game [for 95% of us anyway], regardless of the personal and often collective, positive spin we try to put on it. We have to work out ways to reduce the odds against us and hopefully, eventually get the odds in our favor by whatever means. When the odds are against us, the more we take them the more we will lose.

If we have X amount of concentration energy available per day for form study, stats analysis or whatever we do to choose our selections, and we divide that energy into say 8 lots, each used to select 8 winners from eight races in a day, we minimize our profit potential compared to dividing that energy into say 3 lots to select 3 winners from 3 races and having larger bets. We maximize profit potential by better utilization of our energy resources. Combine that with whatever else we are doing to improve our odds [finding genuine underlays etc.], and we increase our potential profitability.

I'm not going into the details of the random chance factor that is very much present in horse racing, but even an idiot can work out that the more of it we introduce into our betting, the less our profit potential is.

We all know that Casino odds are against us, do we increase our profit potential but having a 100 small bets rather than a few large ones? Of course we ****** don't. The exact opposite is true. Mathematically speaking, our best chance of winning there would be to have one large bet only, but that would make for a very boring visit to the Casino . The reason I say that for most of us, profit is not our ultimate reason for punting, is that none of us would be happy with one bet only. I certainly wouldn't be. 3 bets in a punting day though, is often OK by me nowadays.

Hi Dale.

Quote:
"Would you agree that every favorite has the same percentage chance as the one before it?
ie; if the favorite has not got up for 5 races it is no more likely than its every day percentage to get up in the next".

No I certainly wouldn't agree with that. You are talking about an equation that has never belonged on a race track. Random chance odds that are always present in the racing game make that an impossible axiom. Anything is possible. The fav. might win the next and the next and the next.

No it ain't. Your analogy argues that to bet on lots of horses in the same race would be bad but that to bet on one horse in lots of different races is good. Crash isn't that clear in what he's on about but I think his (original) argument was about one horse per race. Of course the thrust of what he (meant to say) said may change as he works his way around his original blunder.

KV

Ah.... something I can agree with.

So Crash, using your logic:

There is a greater chance that you are right, because you are the only one that agrees with what you are saying.
Because there are many of us that disagree with your logic, we are probably wrong.

Well whatever makes you happy.

Maybe I can simplify this a bit,as I can understand where Crash is coming from where it looks like nobody else can.

Example Mathematically.

Punter Pete likes plenty of action so has 20 bets per day.

Cool Hand Luke is more conservative and only has 5 per day.

They are both betting level stakes @ $1 per selection.

No matter how many winners Pete backs out of his 20 bets,the total odds of the winners backed must total 20 just to break even.

No matter winners Luke backs out of his 5 bets,the odds need only total 5 for him to achieve the same break even result.

Assuming they are both betting in the 3/1-5/1 range Pete needs 7 winners @ 3/1 ,5 winners @ 4/1,or 4 winners @ 5/1 just to break even!!

Luke only needs 1 winner @ 3/1(for a small loss)1 winner @ 4/1(to break even)1 winner @ 5/1 for profit.

If neither backs a winner Pete loses $20 bucks and Luke loses $5.

Which one would you rather be????

cheers

ps

Feel free to tear me down,everyone does

So you are saying that a $3 favorite's chance of winning the next is not the same as it was the last $3 favorite.

I am saying it has and i think you agree and as such the important part of my post that you conviently left out

Dale wrote-"If so then your logic is flawed because you assume that a group of 3 bets has less chance than a group of 7 bets to fall victim to the 2/3rds random chance theory.

In actuality EACH RACE has the same % chance as the one before and after it of falling victim to your random chance theory."

proves your theory WRONG.

P.S. if you come back at me with another post designed to create confusion dont expect a reply.

The favourite has the same chance of winning regardless of the previous outcome as random chance has no memory. However, when we are talking "punters" backing different horses based on their own selection method and the odds are against them, then the more bets he has,the more likely the true loss will be revealed.

There is also the scenario, that horses are not coins, therefore the next favourite might have a better chance of winning as all favourites are not true even money chances either. There are field size, fitness, class issues etc.

For example: One might know that favourites have a 30% loss on turnover.

50% of favourites won races at Caulfield on a particular day - the last four races.

Punter A bet all 8 races and showed a small loss even with a 50% strike rate.
Punter B bet the last 4 races only and showed a good profit.

If Punter B stops for the day, he is in front with less bets than Punter A, but no, he caught the redeye to Belmont and backed the favourite in every race.
He lost half his bank as only two favourites were successful.

Punter B was in front with less bets originally.
Punter A was behind because he had more bets.

Then punter B got silly and had a lot more bets than punter A and ended up worse off. The odds got him in the end.

I think this is what Crash was getting at.

Let's not even get into the magnification of profit or loss on incremental staking. The more money - the bigger loss on a negative game.

Quote,

"The above is the very simple reason why most Pro punters [who bet for profit] have very few bets. Most punters here and elsewhere do the exact opposite."

Does this statement have hard statistical evidence to back it up or do you in fact claim to know "most" pro-punters or "most" other punters ????

I doubt that either is true,which makes the whole argument irrelevant.

These blanket bomb statements dragged from god-knows-where and used to underline spurious arguments simply indicate a dogmatic determination to be right.

"Facts" can be verified."Opinion" is simply that.

They both have the exact same ability to pick winners, meaning their strike rate is exactly the same...

The whole point is whether they have a strike rate greater than the odds they get, or less than.

Of course the less money you bet the less is your exposure to loss. But it also decreases your exposure to win.

Lets say that they continue this for 20 weeks. They each pick 30% winners and their average dividend is $4.

I can guarantee you that I would rather be Pete.... They both have the same POT, yet Pete has 4 times the profit of Luke.


What you are forgetting Angel, is that in the initial post, he stated that Pro punters win because they make less bets.
His scenario was 2 punters, both with the same ability to pick a winner. The one that placed less bets won, and the other lost.

This is flawed logic any way you look at it.

There is a moral to be gained from all this nonsense. If less bets is better into a negative market (and I INSIST it's only a negative market if you consistently lose) then 0 bets is the best you can do. SO, if you are a loser stop betting.

KV

IMO the basis of what Crash was stating that the more you bet into negative markets the greater the risk of losing and the fact is that more than 95% of punters are losers.

However, the amount of bets an indiviudual punter has depends very much on the modus operendi.

There is one professional punter (as in its his only source of income) I know that frequents the Randwick auditorium on an almost daily basis, having done so for many years, and he has thousands of bets per week and he is a long-term winner.

Notwithstanding, Crash is more right than wrong in what he has stated on this issue, it's akin to betting at the casino or playing the pokies - both offer negative markets and while there will be a few winners, most will lose.

It's the nature of gambiling - how else would governments and the gambiling providers stay in business.

True La Mer,

It's important to note that one has to be selective to turn a negative market into a positive one. How selective is the grey area.

I think you'll find that the successful punters that are betting high volumes of bets per day, are not win/place bettors but those chasing innacuracies in the exotic pools.

To add to that it is possible to bet more than one horse for a win per race and gain around 10% profit on turnover.

A punter could be betting 4 horses a race in 10 to 15 races a day,in this case he is not being selective with the amount of horses he bets but in the races he bets on.

Dale, it is possible to gain for more than 10% POT by Dutch Booking, my current POT doing just that is over 30%, backing between one and three horses per race, some of which are saver bets.

So long as you have the ability to produce reliable ratings (or have them supplied by a ratings provider) and sticking strictly to only betting when there is 'value' based on those ratings then it is quite possible to make a nice little earner on the punt.

wHATS THE USE?

GIVE UP CRASH,i CERTAINLY HAVE.

aS MY MY DEAR OLD DEPARTED DAD USED TO SAY,YOU CANT EDUCATE MUGS.

i COULD GIVE YOU CLOWNS A PLACE SYSTEM THAT HAS CONSISTENTLY PRODUCED A 90% S/R FOR 4 YEARS NOW,BUT WHY SHOULD i??? YOU CANT EVEN REPLY TO ANY OF MY P[OSTS WITH ANY POSITIVIVITY.

sO JUST KEEP GOING ALONG YOUR MERRY LOSING WAY.

i TRIED MY BEST TO EDUCATE ABOUT QUINELLA BETTING TO PRICES.

HOWLEDS DOWN.

THE QUINELLA MARKET IS THE MOST PROFITABLE OF ALL THE EXOTICS,IF YOU BET TO PRICES.

BUT NOBODY BELIEVES ME.

TO PROVE MY POINT BEFORE i DEPART THIS FORUM,i WILL PUT SOME SUGGESTED QUINELLAS AND UNITS TO BET ON EACH ONE FOR SELECTED RACES THIS COMING SATURDAY.

hOWL ME DOWN AFTER THAT IF YOU WISH.

SEE YA

Don't know what your problem is angel... But surely there is no need to shout.

My goodness gracious me!
This man has hit the nail on the head.
If only I had the willpower to walk out of a tote or track after 13 minutes.
Remember that we are all experiencing entertainment at our pursuit as well.
If Kenchar gets off prematurely good luck to him.
I'm more of a stayer

The truth is the truth buddy.
Don't matter whether one or a million an' one agree!

Kenny,
A negative market is a negative market. If you are one of the lucky ones and are winning in it. The only reason you would be doing so is that you are smart enough to make it a positive one for yourself and have joined the 5% of very smart punters. If everyone is a winner, where does the profit come from ? The negative market the other 95% of punters belong too of course.

In reply to syllabus snide comment about how do I know how many bets pro punter's have, You obviously haven't heard of the Ausrace forum. A lot of big bet pro punters there. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an invite from another member to join though so you can post. It's an em forum but I think you can [still?] view the banter on site [you might learn something].

Angel417
quote::"wHATS THE USE?
GIVE UP CRASH,i CERTAINLY HAVE.
aS MY MY DEAR OLD DEPARTED DAD USED TO SAY,YOU CANT EDUCATE MUGS"

Great advise.

Well there are few of smart cookies here who get my point [boy, it wasn't that difficult]. The rest of you Flat Earther's can sod off back into La La land and I hope all your winning bet tickets [if any] get put through the wash :-)

Hello Crash, thanks for your reply to my post. Drivel eh? ... you smooth talking devil LOL.



Perhaps I have not explained myself well enough. The premise of your original post was :

---

My point here is to refute the the belief that most punters here [or anywhere for that matter], punt to win money. The love of the sport and any other reasons are secondary. It's a nonsense. Profit comes last for most punter's reasons for punting.

No one will argue that really, because we all know that a very smnall percentage of punters actually punt for a living. It's a given that everyone here knows full well.

Your argument re smaller number of bets versus larger number of bets..still does not stack up in my view and in my reply I wrongly assumed that you would agree that a professional punter backs to a percentage of his working capital.

Now, given that a professional punter bets to a percentage of his working capital, (and bets in units) my comments about high bets high turnover low profit percentage versus small number of bets, low turnover high percentage profit on turnover stack up completely. Surely, anyone who has actually done this for a living will agree with me. i.e. the unit amount is the same for both methods.

If one bets the same perecentage of bank in both methods, all of my earlier comments ring absolutely true.

If I could cut and paste my two methods (which I cannot) you could clearly see how the high bets, high turnover, low strike rate, low profit margin generates more actual income for me than my low turnover, low number of bets ,high strike rate, high percentage profit margin method does.

Do you agree? It doesnt bother me if you dont. I have lived that life of professional punter and I know full well that I need both plans to survive in comfort. It is al;l about spreading the risk and evening out the lean periods that every method endures at some point.. :)

I trust that you will enjoy your holiday. Have Fun :)