Friday, 28 April 2017

Qualified Success

This blog, as well as a few others of repute, often cautions its readers to think long and hard about the veracity of claims they may read about in the realm of sports betting.

Unlike professions, where an individual becomes accredited and displays his or her diploma in a prominent position on their wall for potential clients, patients etc. to see and admire, there is nothing even close when it comes to sports betting.

Educational credentials are, in economic terms, signals, evidence that the individual has a certain ability, and thus provides information to the other party.

A simple example is that of an employer looking to recruit someone for their enterprise. The use of qualifications is essential, but it is only useful if those qualifications are credible.

Employers need the qualification to act as a 'signal' - to provide information that enables them to rank applicants by ability.

A degree from Oxford University would be ranked higher than a GCSE C grade for example.

As long as employers respond to this signal correctly, it is rational for the higher ability individual to obtain the qualification required.

As Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams states it:

This will result in the workers self-sorting into the two groups. For this to work, it must be excessively costly, or impossible, to project a false image.
The problem in the betting world is that, in the absence of any trusted and accepted credentials mechanism, it's a free for all, and all too easy for someone to project a false image.

But there are still signals that can and should be considered if you are considering parting with money. 


Are independent and verified reviews of the product available? 

Does the vendor offer a money-back guarantee?

These are what might be termed 'hard' signals. If the answer is no, ask yourselves why that might be.

'Soft' signals might be along the lines of "are these claims really credible"? "Does the seller appear to be qualified in any way?" "Are the lifestyle claims supported by the available evidence?"  

Any claims of a long-term ROI% in double figures should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If such a system is for sale, why would someone be interested in selling it?

Claims of being profitable on a system based on head-to-head results from up to 20 years ago or based on previous goal timings are illogical and not worthy of serious consideration or discussion. These silly ideas can clearly have no merit.

Some blogs might also have a vested interest in denigrating the products or services of others. 

A truly independent blog, such as this one of course, accepts no adverts, has nothing to sell and is not competing with anyone.

Although it's nice to stay ahead of James on the hit count - please don't click on the link and help his cause.  

2 comments:

BotTrader said...

I see the Elmer Fudd of trading is at it again trying to drum up sales with his exciting tales of riches.

The interesting thing is that the P&L I used that day was similar to my results from yesterday, that’s no coincidence. I have hundreds, if not thousands, of similar days stretching back over my career. The reason for showing yesterday and the prior ones is that I think they are a fair example of what your objective is. I could easily show something more spectacular, I picked up just short of £1k this week in one race, but those tend to be quite aggressive results. The examples I’ve listed here are much more mundane and more in line with what you should be aiming for, albeit probably on a smaller scale.

Imagine my surprise to see Peter had to trawl all the way back to Aug 2014 to find another £1000 day when apparently he has thousands of similar days, maybe he just picked a day at random ;)

Tony Stephens said...
This comment has been removed by the author.