 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
22nd August 2006, 11:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
ooooh! isn't this exciting?.........
|
|
#2
22nd August 2006, 11:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe a good handicapper can find horses at 6/1+ that are really even money chances [if they win they sure are] if that is all they are looking for. We all know that these horses win every day. Needing lots of action is the problem for most punters. Zeroing in confidently on the longer odds [only] would require a lot of discipline, hard work and days with no bets and days with one or two bet only.
It's just impossible handicap for the 6/1+ winners successfully AND have a lot of bets. You wouldn't need too many winners to get home regularly at those odds to make pretty good money. Problem is, how many punters here would be happy with and have the discipline to only back a few bets a week, or put in the necessary handicapping leg-work?
|
|
#3
25th August 2006, 11:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On our interpretation the TheEasyRun is simply posting that from his perspective of what is a small starting bank, $4,000 can make about $30,000 profit in a year, and a starting bank of $6,000 can make about $50,000 profit in a year.
Maybe some forum members would feel more comfortable if TheEasyRun had posted that a small starting bank like $400 can make about $3000 in a year? However, is there a difference? Anyone can extrapolate from a bank of $400 making about $3000 in a year that a bank of $4,000 can make $30,000 in a year! Anyone can extrapolate from a profit made using $2 bets what the profit would have been using $10 bets, $20 bets, $100 bets, $200 bets and so on... So even if TheEasyRun had posted that a small starting bank like $400 can make about $3000 in a year, the average person earning $30,000 would be able to work out that a bank of $4000 could make $30,000 in a year and a bank of $8,000 could make $60,000 in a year. Whether or not a profit of $3,000 in a year can actually be made from a starting bank of $400 or a profit of $30,000 in a year can actually be made from a starting bank of $4000 has been substantiated by TheEasyRun is our opinion the main issue. Moderator. Quote:
Last edited by Moderator 3 : 25th August 2006 at 11:25 AM.
|
|
#4
25th August 2006, 02:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The last paragraph from the Moderator post could be better worded as follows:
Can a profit of $3,000 in a year actually be made from a starting bank of $400? Can a profit of $30,000 in a year actually be made from a starting bank of $4000? This is the main issue brought up by TheEasyRun and needs to be substantiated. Moderator. Quote:
|
|
#5
25th August 2006, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Moderator,
You are spot on. Every forum has people spruiking all sorts of holy grail methods but very few are ever substantiated. Anyone can post the "Rules of Punting", but actually using them and making a profit from horse racing is a totally different thing. In my opinion the hardest part of making a profit is having the correct mental attitude to handle the peaks and troughs that occur to one's capital. It is the ability to be able to treat punting as a business and no longer a hobby/enjoyable interest that is the real challenge. I find it difficult going to the track with a couple of selections and not having a few more bets to fill in the day. This is a discipline I am working on this racing year.
|
|
#6
25th August 2006, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nirvana for the average bloke on the punt would be around $50,000 a year.....roughly $4000 to $5000 a month. A $6000 starting bank for that is plenty.
If no one else can see that this is in fact impossible to sustain and the chance of losing a year's wages or even a $500 bank betting on 7/1 shots, is actually odds-on probably 1/20, then I just give up. Unless you can pick one in two winners @7/1, then it might be possible, but there is reality to deal with! I'll have a wee look at Sahasastar's post: Let's assume his strike rate is 1 in 5.. and he makes $7.50 on average. An extremely healthy 50% POT, hard to acheive these results but certainly not impossible if your selection processes are thrifty. I ran a drawdown simulation 50 times on these excellent returns over 1000 bets, the average drawdown was 33.3 units. Now factoring in an unexpected bad run might occur the average of the highest 25 drawdown results is 41 units. Let's say we are prepared to bet on this very successful system aggressively and are happy in the knowledge that if a bad run might occur we are very confident we'll still be okay as our betting is geared towards this bad run happening. And just how exactly is TheEasyRun or anyone else going to make $5,000 per month betting 2% of a $6,000 bank on each selection????????? The average drawdown matters not one iota, it's the maximum drawdown that will bust the bank. Some simple calculations tell you that to earn $5,000 per month, your selections have to be invested in far too heavily on too small a bank and therefore it would not take anywhere near the maximum drawdown to kill the bank. So we'll bet 1.2% of our account (factoring in the 41 units drawdown might occur). That's saying if the bad run occurs in the near future we won't lose more that 50% of our account. I agree protect the bank, but how are we going to make $5,000 to match our monthly wage with a $72.00 bet at 7/1, even if it wins? How many bets using this method to turn $6,000 into $50,000? If he has a phenomenal strike rate not that many, but I don't think he's going to find that many bets @7/1 that fit his criteria AND win in any month! If you've been doing it long enough how hard would it be to find just 1 horse out of the 100 odd that race every day that is 50% or more over the odds.. just 1 horse. Crikey, if it were that easy (forgive the pun), everyone would do it. That 1 horse has to win and that is exactly what has not been factored in anywhere - when they don't win. All this pie in the sky stuff is what dreams are made of, reality pays the bills! So let's stop ridiculing the guy and hear what he has got to say. If you do the math properly it's obvious that he is the one ridiculing us and it appears that only myself and one or two others have picked up on this. Very surprised, when the basics are faulty.
__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software. Now with over 426,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races! http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html *RaceCensus now updated to 31/10/2025 Video overview of RaceCensus here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg Last edited by Chrome Prince : 25th August 2006 at 05:59 PM.
|
|
#7
25th August 2006, 06:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rightio.... Chrome.
The 50 sims I ran the worst drawdown was 58 units. On the sim I had already factored in the 37th worst drawdown result (half of bottom half). You could reasonably expect it to be around half of the sims.. only 33 units.. not the 41 I done it on. No-one knows the exact drawdown, it's impossible to get it exactly right. So I played the percentages, yet still overcooked it to be safe. Let alone not running the expected drawdown on only the 350 bets. I would say the expected drawdown that could occur would decrease significantly with such a small sample of bets. Yet I still ran the test over the longer term. Now, assuming the 2% chance of the worst drawdown did happen - 58 units (1 in 50 chance of the 58 units occuring)... Betting 1.2% x 58 units = lose 70% of bank.. Broke.. certainly not!!! I'd suggest the system might need reviewing though, or it'd take balls to ride out of the rough trot and stick to it. ..or recalculate your bet percentage for a 58 unit drawdown if that makes you happy... 0.8%. The power of compound interest would at a guess turn the 350 bets into maybe 450-500 bets at worst without running a sim. Slightly over a year at 1 per day, but still PFG. Surely you Chrome understand that we don't care if the overlay on the day does not win.. it's the average return WHEN THEY WIN!!.. a winner each 5th day at $7.50 on long term averages. Was that part hard to understand for you, I'll explain it on a blackboard for you with big writing in chalk. Previous 12 months results on a few of my betting systems: Just a small sample. 51 sel, $122 ret, 29% srw, 59% srpl. 56 sel, $119 ret, 27% srw, 61% srpl. 74 bets, $130 ret, 39% srw, 67% srpl. 86 bets, $151 ret, 25% srw, 51% srpl. 60 bets, $86 ret, 22% srw, 52% srpl. That's about 300 bets in the last year returning 70% profit.. once again, I under-estimated my simulation for fear of not being believed. With the amount of place getters to winners, I can certainly expect these returns to continue. I agree that 1 year would be pushing it.. but CAN IT BE DONE! Absolutely without a doubt it can be done, someone is doing it out there, and I expect to be doing it real soon. Would I bet these percentages though? If I was returning the figures quoted I'd have no problem at all betting 1% of my account.. and as my account grows by 1% each time. Diminish my bets be 1%. Easy. Last edited by Sahasastar : 25th August 2006 at 06:58 PM.
|
|
#9
8th September 2006, 09:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Below is the thread that started all this. I was looking forward to see what TheEasyRun had to say ... you know, some light entertainment. If I treated it like that it would be OK, otherwise it could be seen as an affront to my intelligence. Why would TheEasyRun disappear? I'm not going to guess here, but I have a few views of my own.
I must admit I found the following went completely against common sense. It is LOGICALLY flawed AND WRONG. ***** to say "It simply cannot be done" is BLATANTLY FALSE. "4. It goes against any real common sense that an ** School Teacher, Mathematition, Engineer, Accountant or any highly educated induvidual, can come up with a numerical/class/time rating system that leads to first a steady income, then on to great wealth. It simply cannot be done." Quote:
Last edited by Moderator 3 : 8th September 2006 at 05:23 PM.
|
|
#10
8th September 2006, 10:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! Agreed Mr Logic, and what total **** the above statement is.This appeals to the "duh,yair, yair" brigade, but logic ?? lolololol. Last edited by Moderator 3 : 8th September 2006 at 05:24 PM.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
