Always Learning

The always respectful Mr. Nordsted posted a comment on my last post which oddly didn't show on the blog, but, perhaps to compensate, appeared in my in-box twice. It's worth a read, with some advice on the importance of staking correctly.

Once again congratulations on your most informative blog. Just a quick word on a number of points. This years Drawmaster did not go as well as last year where I made 30 points profit and you are right this season I did these selections for goal.com and it was part of the preview I would do 3 matches so if one came in you were in profit and the readers seemed to enjoy this although I certainly believe being a little more selective would have produced a bigger profit. All I can say is the 3 selections I picked every week were the 3 best rated for that weekend and I never strayed from that course.

As regards the baseball my colleague is doing OK and hopefully he will be able to return a good profit by the end of the season. I am pleased with way the opposing the home favourite with a negative rating has gone and this is showing a profit of just over 18 points in 110 bets which equates to a 16.54 Return on Investment. I will ensure a ratings result table goes up on the site very soon.

As I've said before I do not know one end of a baseball bat from another so it will be interesting to see where this goes and it is interesting to note your comments on when the strong home favourites start turning it on. The only thing I would say to anybody considering following these ratings is please be aware as you will soon see by the table losing and winning runs can be streaky and a long losing run can play tricks on the mind and havoc with your bank if you are not used to betting like this. So please make sure you are always correctly capitalised keep the stakes low and understand you can have a substantial drawdown and also please be aware that at this moment in time we are just experimenting here although initially the results do look promising.

All the best and keep up the good work with the blog.

My comment on Pete handicapping himself wasn't intended as a criticism of the selection method, only that by his commitment to goal.com to produce three picks a week, he was making things harder for himself than they are for those of us who have a little more freedom. An ROI over a season of 13% is an excellent outcome to my mind.

Mark had a quick question on the Premium Charge

have you worked out how much you need to lose each week to avoid the PC based on your average weekly win and commission rate?

and the answer is yes, I need to lose 1p a week (or more) to avoid the charge.

Being a little more serious, if I have understood the question correctly, the proper answer is that in an average week, I would need to add about £6,000 in winnings and £6,000 in losses to generate enough commission to stay under the radar. My points discount right now is 22%, but that will fall away during the summer, as will my 'average' weekly profit. I need to grow some bigger balls and put more money on the line at borderline, or even slightly negative value, but it goes against my nature. I've written before how betting thousands in-play is not a problem but more than a couple of hundred on a punt makes me a little nervous. I'm working on it.

Finally, a story to highlight the importance of reading the rules properly before venturing into new markets. It concerns baseball, and Betfair have this season introduced a "5 Innings Moneyline" market -

Which team will be ahead after 5 innings have been completed? For bets to stand there must be 5 full innings of play unless the home team is leading after 4½ innings.

There is no half-time in baseball, but this market seemed close enough, but unlike other half-time markets where "dead-heat rules" apply, this market, for some odd reason, states that ***THIS MARKET WILL BE VOID IF THE SCORES ARE TIED AFTER 5 INNINGS***. Never mind that the rule is posted as written - with loud asterisks and shouty uppercase. One idiot, who shall remain nameless, didn't notice or read it, and was all over a back at 1.1 in a game tied in the middle of the fifth. When more money appeared, almost begging to be taken, it dawned on our nameless friend that perhaps, not for the first time in his (or her) life, he (or she) was missing something. Dead-heat rules did NOT apply, so in this situation a back of 1.001 was value, never mind 1.1. Fortunately for our simpleton friend, the bottom half of the fifth innings saw no runs scored, (although a runner on base with no outs ensured that a change of underwear was required), and he (or she) a-'void'-ed a small disaster. I bet he (or she) felt pretty silly though. I know I would, - if it were me. Which it obviously wasn't.