I was under the impression that the idea of putting up tips was so that lucky readers could back them, but I am now told that
I didn't suggest that people put trades on ALL of the games suggested. It's entirely up to the public as to what they do.Which does rather beg the question of which of these great tips we are supposed to put our 'trades' on. And they are not even trades that I can see. They are punts, with no mention of how any 'trade' might work. The craziness continues with
I see you neglected to mention that for the New York Knicks (losing trade) a small stake was suggested.As was pointed out by someone other than me in a comment (now deleted) on the blog, the concept of using small stakes at small prices makes no sense. If a tip is posted then presumably you think it is value, (yes, 1.14 can be value), and if it is value, the size of the stake should be determined by the size of the value - the edge, using Kelly, or a derivation of it. The idea of a small stake because the price is short is nonsense. He finishes with
I had 3 out of 4 winners the other day, and 2 out of 2 today. That's what I'd call a success.Clearly, the man thinks different, not always a good thing though. Unfortunately, the three out of four winners to level stakes resulted in a big net loss, but I must admit that the tips today of Everton to beat Tamworth (1.15) and Tottenham Hotspur to beat Cheltenham (1.18) were both winners. Great tipping.
Apparently we should all measure our success by the number of winners we find, not the profits we generate. Think different indeed.
500-5000 thinks I'm being harsh. He writes
I think your comments about the new blog fgtips.blogspot.com are a bit harsh. Surely a tipping service needs to run for a little time before it should be judged and removed? Just a thought.He started in July, and here is his Historical Results page:
It's like that for a reason, as Commenter G agrees. Besides, 500-5000 is one of those gamblers who thinks that backing and laying in the Under / Over markets is 'trading'. It's not - it is gambling as explained in this post here from last year. Well, ok - just a few weeks ago. 500-5000 writes:
I ll be doing a lot more trading in-running on the overs and unders markets for one. It's something I have had success on in the past and I hope it'll bring me success in 2012. I know people always bang on about 'value' etc etc, and yes, I'll be attempting to pick more value trades in the future, but if you can see a game is going to be a low scorer there's no reason not to have a small trade on under 3.5 goals and then lay it off after a few ticks. Sure, you may never become a millionaire that way, but it produces some profits.True enough, this clueless strategy 'produces some profits'. It also produces some even bigger losses, for an overall loss. "If you can see a game is going to be a low scorer" then you have a unique talent that could make you a millionaire, but you won't get there by laying off after a few ticks.
And one final comment - Thoughts of a Football Trader wrote a post triggered by the biography of Steve Jobs, which I am about 75% of the way through myself, and highly recommended by the way. He wrote:
It wasn't my intention to post today but, currently, I'm reading the biography of Steve Jobs, (One of the founders and the main force behind Apple Computers, for those that live in the woods).
Jobs and his friend, Steve Wozniak, entered into a partnership along with another man, Ron Wayne. The split was 45%, 45% & 10% respectively. Whilst Wayne was handed certain technical responsibilities in Apple, predominantly, he was responsible for adjudicating between Jobs and Wozniak, as his 10% share would maintain the balance.
The partnership was set up with just $1300 but it was set up in such a way that each partner would be responsible as debtor and creditor.
After two weeks, Wayne decided he did not want the responsibility of any potential debt, no matter how small, went to the County Office and filed the papers that removed him from the partnership.
Had he remained a partner, in 2010, his 10% would have been worth $2.6 billion. He now lives in some obscure backwater, funding a penny slot machine habit with a Social Security check.With the benefit of hindsight, it's very easy to criticise that decision, yet at the time, Wayne was the only one of the three with any assets, and he was the one who faced ruin were the venture to fail, which, at the time, was a very real possibility. Wayne was the same as any of us when trading, and in this case his fear (or losing everything) was stronger than his greed - and the success of Apple is without precedent. How often do we trade out of a position only to see just a few minutes later that our original position is now much stronger than it was? "Should have left that" we think, conveniently forgetting the times when similar decisions have saved us money. Was Wayne's decision at the time the correct one? Well, for him it was. Risking your entire bank is not to be recommended, and at that time, in the position he was in, he made his decision. It's important to be able to sleep at night.
Never fear the loss.
We are all constantly making decisions in life, some of which prove to be better than others, but regretting any of them doesn't make sense. You make decisions based on what you know, and where you are in life, at that time, and if you had your time over again, and were in the exact same situation, you would make the same decision again. We learn from the past though, which is why there is a proverb "There is no substitute for experience".