✍🏻Snapshot Review #1 Sharp Betting: Boxing✍🏻
2 days ago
Friday, 15 May 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
General Betting Blogs
-
-
Melbourne Cup preview 20241 month ago
-
-
Profitable Betting Rules7 months ago
-
Horse Racing
-
Exeter (Thurs)4 hours ago
-
-
-
-
The Highs & Lows Of Terry Ramsden2 weeks ago
Other Blogs I Read
-
SIPP Update - 16th December 20242 days ago
-
-
-
As Mr Smith said1 month ago
-
Experts vs. Imitators6 months ago
About Me
- Cassini
- I have had a life-long interest in sports and after studying Pure Mathematics with Statistics at secondary school, have been fascinated by odds and probability. The first system I came up with was a simple one - back the favourite and double up after a loss until a winner. Simple enough in theory, and I told my Dad about it. Not being a betting man himself, he ran it by some of his colleagues, and came home to tell me that it wouldn’t work because a long losing run would mean that the bank would be empty. Then there was always the possibility that the winner would be returned at odds-on, meaning that the total returns would not match the outlay. Not what a ten year old wants to hear! Only slightly daunted, I then went on a search for the Holy Grail, the secret to riches that I knew was out there somewhere. Finally in 2004 I stumbled across an article about Betting Exchanges and four years later I was able to make a steady profit.
Subscribe Now: Feed Icon
4 comments:
That made me smile!
Curly
Looks like an excellent laying service to me. LOL!
Alistair
Thanks for the link to the "Kelly" item Cassini. It was interesting but stands or falls on the punter's assessment of the odds. Aye, there's the rub!
A simple fixed percentage of the bank would be both easier to work out and probably as good, over the long term. Well, that's my take on it.
Phil
Phil,
For a basic foundation of staking, the small, fixed percentage approach is very wise and prudent.
However, it pays to be aware of "Kelly principles" and to possibly, incorporate into your betting at some point as its raison d'etre (spelling?!) is optimum growth.
For example, lets say a fixed stake bettor always uses 2% of his bank on each bet. By chance, on a particular bet, he runs the numbers through the Kelly method and the suggested stake is 1%. Right there, the Kelly method has improved the bettor even though he isnt actually using the method directly as under no circumstances should the Kelly stake be exceeded. Now the bettor doesnt have to have 1% on it, he doesnt even have to have the bet at all but he shouldnt have any more then 1% on this particular bet.
JPG
Post a Comment