Rounding Down, Then Up

The over-round on English Premier League matches this season based on Pinnacle Sports' Closing Prices averages 102.05% - for Bet365 it is 102.9%, slightly higher than last season's 102.77%, so I'm not sure where the idea that Bet365 are offering 'generous value' comes from. 

Make no mistake, Bet365 are significantly improved from earlier days, most likely in response to the arrival of Pinnacle whose odds have been published by Mr. Buchdahl from the 2012-13 season.

In 2006-07, Bet365 were able to lay to an over-round of almost 108%, yet by 2013-14 this was a more equitable 102.62%. 

Interesting that since that season, Bet365's over-round has edged back up, while Pinnacle have basically kept their over-round unchanged. 

And a Bus Driver

James commented on Trader 247's assertions, writing:

How dare Trader247 accuse my hero of using deliberate typos!

He's just jealous that my hero is illiterate and couldn't spell correctly if his life depended on it.

Did I do right master? Will your specialness rub off on me?

I most certainly am not illiterate! My parents had been married to each other for a good 16 months before my arrival! 

The four NBA Play-offs yesterday split on the Under / Over. Three of the favourites failed to cover, and two actually lost. We have a rare Play-off Blunders selection today, with the Golden State Warriors -14.5 v Portland Trailblazers but this is not a typical Blunders selection - these two teams met in the Second Round last year, with the Overs resulting in four of the five matches. 

My alma mater recently held its 100th annual Founder's Day Supper and Annual Reunion - ~229 old boys, in some cases very old boys, and ~17 females. 

One downside of attending an all-boys school is that the count of females at these events is always rather limited.

Attendees are invited to include their profession, and most are indeed professions. Interestingly, not one job description includes sports trader or professional gambler. 

There was one Options Trading entry among an abundance of Chartered Accountants, Bankers, Doctors, Engineers and Finance careers, and one stand out job of Bus Driver. 

One can't help but want to find out more details on that story!  

Should I attend next year, I may have to liven things up a bit with my job description.

Back to my school days, and I was rather fortunate in that Founder's Day was the same day as my birthday, so all through my secondary school days, I either had the whole day off school, or as a sixth-former had to attend church for an hour with the rest of the day off. I timed my arrival to perfection. 

Fingerprints

Trader 247 commented on my Angels, Kings and Zombies post:

Thanks for the mention, always boosts view count.

May I draw your attention to some blatant plagiarism from which I received a link pingback on my blog -

http://pokerstrategynews.com/2017/04/14/an-angel-a-king-and-a-zombie/

They haven't even bothered correcting your typo on the first line (which I know you include to catch out lazy plagiarists).

Yes! Any typos that slip through the cracks should always be viewed as intentional "fingerprints" or "copyright traps" whose purpose is to catch out potential plagiarists. This blog does not make mistakes, but the intentional "fingerprint" has now been corrected - I mean removed.

Is it a problem that my posts are reproduced elsewhere? The site in question does link back to the source, and as the expression goes - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I'm not really sure why a pretty crappy Poker web site would be interested in revelations that the life of Caan Berry isn't quite what he makes it out to be, but presumably any content is better than none when your goal is clicks.

It's a compliment that someone thinks my ramblings have some appeal, and the more eyes that see my posts, the better. Whether they read my words of wisdom here or via another site really doesn't matter. Unfortunately, wherever people read them, the vast majority see what they want to see and gloss over any inconsistencies that disrupt the narrative. Anyone pointing out inconsistencies or logical fallacies is condemned as "jealous" or lacking the talent that their hero of choice claims to have. If someone wants to believe that, for example, we can all win at tennis trading, then most people will continue to believe that, however carefully you explain the illogicality of it. 

There are exceptions. I spent some time this week looking at an observation Statistical Trading (@Statsbet) had made, and my conclusion was that the evidence to date is inconclusive. Results from less than one full season are more likely to be a blip than a trend, but it's worth monitoring. Statsbet made the comment that:

I can't believe I have been so stupid before really, my time on trading compared to returns is pointless set and forget and trends is the way

It's a conclusion I have come to a while ago, and have mentioned here several times explaining my rationale, so perhaps some messages are getting through. 

The League Two Away trend has continued to do well, although Good Friday was a bad Friday saved by Morecambe's win at Stevenage which kept the loss to 2.48 points. Overall this season, 504 matches, +50.12 points, ROI 9.94%.

The NBA Play-offs tip off today, and the value these days (based on last two seasons) is on the Unders.

BLUnders selections (lower rows) are rare in play-offs, but they're strong.

Vanishing Pool

A few weeks ago, I mentioned that I had been asked to contribute to a feature called "My Biggest Win" in a hundred words or less, and Antoine Anchovy, a name that sounds a little fishy and may not be his real name, has finally published it, along with several other less interesting "biggest wins". I may be slightly biased, but to me, mine was by far the most exciting.

The 100 word limit seems not to have been enforced with too much rigour, for example the legend that is Joseph Buchdahl was allowed to get away with 714 words, (more evidence that life is just not fair) but his was at least an interesting tale, even if the actual amount won wasn't enough to pay for a one day PeeWee trading class.

Check the tales out here at Betting Experts Share Their Biggest Win. A number of sports are represented, Football, NFL (American Football), Rugby Union, NBA (Basketball), Horse Racing as well as the Weather, Matched Betting and a claim that "all my wins are equal" (because he bets a flat 3% on every bet) accompanied by the advice that:

If a win feels big, then you are probably playing too much on that game and not staying with the proper parameters of your money management system.

Well, that told us! While 2% is a good stake if you're not sure how large an edge you have, when a big opportunity comes along, i.e. the edge is significantly higher, then you really do need to raise your stakes.

The email went into my spam folder by mistake, but a few days ago someone pointed me to evidence that full-time trader Caan Arthur Berry isn't actually a full-time trader at all, but employed as a Solar Panels salesman by Oakwood Energy of Winsford. 

I actually mentioned something similar back in January, so it's not new news but perhaps not everyone has been reading my blog, in which case why not?  

Caan appears to have resigned or had his position terminated after less than nine months in the job, back in October 2015, perhaps as James suggests:

However, selling PDFs as non-returnable digital media on PayPal has proven more lucrative than selling solar panels with their annoying money-back guarantees.

However, this site suggests he is still an active Director, although the company doesn't appear to be set to challenge Apple any time soon.

Interestingly, the address he listed when his position was terminated or resigned was bought in April 2008 for £118,000 and sold for £112,000 in November 2016. Whether Caan owned this house is doubtful, but it wouldn't represent one of his best trades if he had, so bear this in mind if he starts selling PDFs on Flipping Houses.

Caan's latest venture is Sports Investments (UK) Ltd, incorporated in August 2014, and registered to what appears to be a rented property in the shadow of Stansted Airport in Essex. 

Bizarrely, not a swimming pool in sight.

The company classification is "Retail sale via mail order houses or via Internet (47910)". This enterprise seems similarly unlikely to be added to the FTSE 500 any time soon:

£142. Goodness. 

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it curious that the same man who is supposedly looking at buying a new car in the £60,000 range, enjoying unlimited freedom and travel sipping cocktails by the pool, is the same man who doesn't own his own home, never mind with a pool, somehow forgets to mention his career in the solar panels industry even once in his blog, and has a net worthless which wouldn't buy him a morning session at one of PeeWee's courses, and barely shoes for his sons. 

The next accounts are due by the end of next month. Someone remind me in June please, as they could make interesting reading. 

An Angel, a King and a Zombie

A few comments to start the ball rolling today, the first from James who commented:

I wouldn't be surprised if Pixie Minge (my antagonist in your previous article's comments) was the not so great PeeWee himself or, at least, one of his shills.

A couple of years ago, I was approached by a BA forum regular who said that PeeWee wanted to employ him for "various forum tasks". I took that to mean saying nice things about PeeWee, lauding his software and genuflecting at his altar.

Although the droning nature of Pixie Minge's comments did remind me of PeeWee's many and tedious cringe worthy emails to me. So far, I have not heard from him this year. He must be working on attaining 15 winning trades out of 14, the mythical Webb's Number for which he received the Fields Medal for his tireless (tiresome?) work in mathematics and logic.

The suggestion that PeeWee is behind certain favourable Bet Angel comments has been made before, certainly on the Geeks Toy forum, but what is known with certainty is that PeeWee is not averse to editing his posts. I hate to disappoint James, but PeeWee's shot at a Fields Medal is long gone, since one has to be under the age of 40 to be considered. In true PeeWee style, he probably nominated himself only to come up against this ageist barrier.

On my Second Coming post, and a Happy Easter to all those readers who hold the belief that: 

...a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

...which all clearly makes perfect sense to a logical mind, Gnome mage wrote:

Would never pay for any trading course. The price is ridiculous. That few hundred quid could be a small starting bank.

It is important to be skeptical of anything you read on the internet, some people only post their wins and never their losses and are not profitable in the long term.

Also its important to understand conflict of interest, "reviews" on rival software forums are obviously going to be bias. Meanwhile ,these forums advocate the same trading methodology but with different software. Not hard to tell that they are just the same sides of 2 coins.

Conflict of interest exists everywhere, among rival trading blogs and trading book sellers. It's important to see through them.

I'm pretty sure this blog has no conflict of interest with anyone else out there, bloggers, vendors, whatever, since I have nothing to sell, but otherwise Mr Mage is pretty much spot on. Even James found himself nodding in agreement:

At last I can agree with gnome mage.

Always buy your books from Amazon, where they are independently reviewed and you can get your money back, if you don't like it.

Buying a PDF off the author's website through PayPal means that you will not see an independent review and you have no way of getting your money back because a PDF is regarded as digital media by PayPal for which there is no refund.

Sound advice which I fear few will heed. 

Jamie joins in, adding:

The scams that have always existed in the gambling trade are now just as rife in the trading game. Especially with tools like http://www.juicestorm.com/betfairgen/ which I fear gets used by many of these reptiles conning money out of the gullible.

A topic I first wrote about more than eight years ago. Where does the time go? Caveat emptor. 

Megarain had a recent post called Truth and Honesty in which he bemoans the fact that a Tweeter posts a fake picture of the weather at a cricket match in New Zealand in an attempt to manipulate the draw price. Given what we know about pitch-siders, I have to say that anyone betting on a cricket match who isn't actually there, or has agents there, is throwing his money away, and anyone making bets based on a Tweet deserves exactly what they get.   

Trader 24/7 had a post titled Comments which contained a reference to this blog. A comment from a Steve ended with:

I did consider writing a much more in depth reply re:value and how to assess it but you do seem to be more interesting in cultivating some cut price Cassini blog persona than your bots for the time being.

Trader 24/7's blog is one of the better reads out there, with 'botty boys' as his niche target audience. Pretenders may come and go, but there remains only one King of the Trading Blogs. 

The Second Coming

At an appropriate time of year for resurrections, the long dormant Full Time Betting Blog is back after a six month hiatus, although as previously noted, the hit count has continued at a steady 1,500 a day despite a lack of new content. 

Yours truly gets a mention, and Geoff has some first hand knowledge of some of the topics recently being discussed here. 

In the blogging world Cassini appears to be having some fun at various “vendors” expense. I’ve actually had first hand experiance of all of those mentioned.

I went on the BetAngel course years ago and to be honest I can't remember too much about it but that probably tells you all you need to know. I can't recall ever using any of the information from the course and I certainly wouldn’t be paying £400 for it although I don’t think I paid anything near that.

I wouldn't say that raising awareness is "fun", but it should be pointed out that by all accounts, any benefit you might get from courses or videos is far more likely to be outweighed by the cost. 

That assessment seems to be the general opinion from the few attendees willing to speak about their experiances on PeeWee's courses. 

The badger (aka Tony Hargreaves) I met at a trading event Betfair were running (Centaur were also involved) and again it was a bit of a let down. It was a free invite so can’t complain too much but I do recall being underwhelmed with the trading advice on the particular game that was on. Again if I remember correctly it was an overs bet on football and an early goal was scored but the advice was something along the lines of ” great start – lets hang in there, there are bound to be other goals”. It finished 1-0.

I'm not sure I'd put too much stock into the failure of one trade since it's the process that's important rather than a single result. We've all found games where the value looks to be on the Unders and it ends 5:5 or vice versa the Overs is huge value, and the game ends 0:0. These things happen, but to the great surprise of no one, it doesn't sound like any golden nuggets of trading wisdom were shared. 

Even the great PeeWee has had this misfortune, as Oldboy related:

We were then told that it was harder to lose money on Betfair than it was to win it before Peter used one of his strategies to trade a race. (note: Peter must have been trying exceptionally hard that day as he proceeded to lose money on the race)

Geoff continued with an unexpectedly positive review of Cann Berry's offerings:

I've bought videos from Caan Berry in the last year or so and have found them to be very informative and more importantly when I’ve asked for specific advice its been forthcoming. That's not to say I’ve cracked horse racing trading as its farcically hard and frustrating but that is probably more to do with my inability/lack of discipline /lack of time as anything else.

I'd suggest that horse race trading for an outsider to the sport must be one of the hardest markets to crack. There's a lot of experienced competition out there. 

Geoff then picked up on this quote:

Courses by Pee Wee, the squadie and The Bodger are all given by poorly educated and unqualified people. You get what you pay for.

And commented that:

I personally think this is unfair as it insinuates that only courses given by well educated ( in terms of academic qualifications ) can be of any use. Some people are not / have not been fortunate enough to have the support network in place to be able to go to university and instead have had to make their own way in life and self educate themselves. To then insinuate that anything they do isn’t of any worth seems very unfair and to be honest sits every uncomfortably with me.

How does the author of that comment know those people are poorly educated? And define “poorly educated” anyway. 

I'm not the author of the quote, but my take on it would not necessarily be concerned with academic qualifications, but more about intelligence. If you're intelligent, lack of a good education won't be a problem in life; similarly a dunce won't become intelligent simply because his family have the resources to pay for a good education. 

I've met plenty of intelligent people who haven't had the benefit of a traditionally 'good' education, and this hasn't held them back in life.

The problem is that if someone can't spell common words correctly, can't use punctuation, has poor grammar skills, doesn't have a basic understanding of mathematics and has trouble with simple logic, then they're probably not intelligent, so why should they be trusted as fonts of trading knowledge simply because they have experience in Sales? Note that poor spelling alone doesn't necessarily mean low intelligence, for example those with dyslexia, but when logic and mathematics are similarly poor, low intelligence is looking probable!  

Such poor basic core skills don't give any thinking person confidence that the salesman in question is qualified in any way to sell them a product or service.  
I recently went to see a Financial Advisor, and the person I chose had a background in Financial Planning with his qualifications nicely framed on his office wall. 

Had I walked in there and seen a framed "Oakwood Energy Solar Panels Salesman of the Month February 2016" certificate on the wall, I would have turned around and walked out. Quickly. 

Before investing any money or time into someone's expertise, it behoves one to exercise common sense, and do some basic research rather than take what the salesman is saying as gospel. 

Were I thinking of attending a trading course, I'd want to see testimonials saying what great value the course was, and how much they had learned from it, and more importantly, how successful they had been post-course. Were these to be found, I could overlook the signs of a poor education, but in the absence of any positive feedback, all you have to go on is the salesman's word, and the evidence in front of you. As I wrote yesterday:

“People who cannot distinguish between good and bad language, or who regard the distinction as unimportant, are unlikely to think carefully about anything else.”

To the critical thinking, another red flag would be if the salesman makes unfounded claims, e.g. of being a full-time trader, when in fact they are nothing of the sort, or if they come up with claimed ways of avoiding the Premium Charge which don't stand up to simple logic.

One challenge with the betting industry is that there is no barrier to entry, thus literally anyone can open a Twitter account and start selling tips, often accompanied by impressive looking, but faked, results. 

It's the less intelligent who will fall for this type of a scam, and typically the perpetrators are similarly the less intelligent, looking for an easy way to make money. 

The more intelligent are using their skills elsewhere and getting paid to do so. 

If you have the skills to make money from trading, those same skills will earn you far more in a career.

War on Wordcraft

James Butler is a cheeky boy. His latest post describes his response to a question from an old man who is:

...keen to try to earn a decent living for myself and my partner in the the time I have left!

With the above in mind, I'd really value your opinion as to the best way to begin/restart my trading, in order to perhaps make that possible?

I don't want an AtoZ of how to trade, just a couple of pointers in the right direction would be great and most welcome.

James opens his response with these lines:

How was I to answer such a question, point them in the direction of my books and leave it at that? I wonder what the software/course vendors would have said? "Try using a larger typeface with my software", "Try my video pack with subtitles for the hard of hearing" or "Try a silver surfers trading course with tea and biscuits and a free ear trumpet for all delegates!" I must point out to Cassini that the silver surfer course is now full.

How rude! As John Barrymore so eloquently put it:

A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams

And Cassini is still dreaming. Last night's dream was of a brand new Aston Martin, a dream that is just one Bet Angel course away. Perhaps. I just need to get the £400 together, and I'll be all set.

In all seriousness, James' response was spot on. The email to James opened with:

I'm just turned 60 and have been banging my head against the very expensive trading wall for over 2 years now.

Two years is more than enough time to devote to trading, especially if the exercise has been expensive. The fact that it was expensive is worth highlighting, because there's no need to lose a lot of money while you are learning.

As James rightly points out, at 60 you need to be looking to reduce your expenses, and protecting your assets, since your future years for earned income are winding down fast, especially if you are in a manual job. James' answer should really have been a few words "Check out Green All Over" and a link to this blog.

My PeeWee blog drew several comments, the first from that cheeky monkey mentioned earlier:

Pee Wee still hasn't lernded how to spell experience at the top of this page.

"On this blog I chat about my experiance in the market and my opinions."

Some might say, "What if he isn't that good academically, his results speak for themselves."

What results? They are all self-reported.

Surely a "teacher" is supposed to be educated. I didn't get to be a graduate teacher in computer science without first getting a degree in the subject.

Courses by Pee Wee, the squadie and The Bodger are all given by poorly educated and unqualified people. You get what you pay for.

If I want to understand the workings of the universe do I ask Brian Cox the actor because he's cheap and is resting between movies or do I ask Brian Cox the physicist?

PeeWee's woeful writing, along with his "obviously" proven inadequacies in mathematics:

"But despite this, I still got 14 out of 14 trades right and have delivered similar results on courses prior to and after this one. If I trade without doing this then I, obviously, do even better."

and logic, 

"So in this particular match you should have struggled to lose money if you were trading."

bring to mind the words of B R Myers who said:

“People who cannot distinguish between good and bad language, or who regard the distinction as unimportant, are unlikely to think carefully about anything else.”

Quite. World of Warcraft aficionado and presumed fantasist 'gnome mange' then engaged in a 'debate' with James:

Gnome mange: "What results? They are all self-reported."

Actually his results are proofed by betfair. Its a requirement to become an ambassador of betfair.

My question here would be since when do Betfair proof results? Where can I access this? 

I was also under the impression that Betfair ambassadors were well known names from various sports - Lee Dixon and Will Greenwood among them. I wasn't aware that tiddlywinks had any representation in the Ambassador community, but I could be wrong. 

James responded to gnome mange:

"Actually his results are proofed by betfair. Its a requirement to become an ambassador of betfair."

If it is believed that certain parties cut deals with Betfair for lower PC then it is quite conceivable that Betfair will paper over other incongruities too. Whatever works for the marketing department.

Gnome mange: 

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

James: 

Do you?

All I hear is bleating sheeple who are frightened of admitting that they were taken in.

It does you no good at all.

Gnome mange:  

No i dont. Thats why i don't simply make wild accusations.

James: 

And that's why I don't accept marketing guff as the truth.

Both Webb and Berry worked in sales and marketing before and continue to do so today.

Gnome mange

So, you dont have any evidence to back up your claim.

If I can get a word in, I'd say that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that special deals are being made regarding PC. Zeljko Ranogajec has come out and said that if you are a big enough player, you can negotiate special deals. I have no reason to doubt him. It's also worth mentioning that PeeWee doesn't answer a direct question regarding PC. In my experience, people avoiding giving a direct answer usually have something to hide. PeeWee claims to have paid PC at one time, but has been very quiet on the topic for many years. Enquiring minds may well wonder what might trigger such a silence. Logic would also say that Betfair would obviously insist on silence as part of any agreement.

UnBundesligable

The New York Times had an article yesterday titled "Where Have All the Goals Gone in the Bundesliga? written by Rory Smith.

It starts with a flowery introduction, before we get this:

“The Bundesliga, historically, is the highest scoring of the big European leagues,” said Simon Gleave, the head of analysis at the data company Gracenote Sports. “It has been the highest scoring every season since 1989, and has never been lower than second since its inception.

“But this season, goal scoring has declined to its lowest level for decades. The other four leagues are all experiencing an increase, so the Bundesliga is not only likely to lose its crown, but it could end the season as low as fourth of the five.”

At the time of writing, the averages are:

Has goal scoring in the Bundesliga really dropped to its lowest in decades? 

Not really - this century has seen two seasons end with fewer goals per game:

It is interesting though to see the 26 year run come to an end, but even more so if the Bundesliga indeed ends up fourth this year. 

Fewer goals means value on the Unders and Draw, correct? Not in this league, long nicknamed the Wacky Bundesliga.  

Backing the Draw blindly at Pinnacle's Closing Price, and you'd be down 19.10 points to date this season.   

Backing the Unders blindly at the best odds, and you'd be down 10.06 points.

If you're betting blind, backing the Home is the selection. In the 141 matches where the implied probability was in the 10% to 49.99% range, the returns are impressive: +43.01 points, an ROI of 30.5%.

Laying in the traditional Bundeslayga range of 50% - 74.99% this season shows a profit (just) of 0.22 points from the 75 selections so far.  

Long time readers may have seen me use the term "Blip or Trend" - I first used it in 2011, and it seems to be catching on.

“It is not a one-off,” said Markus Weinzierl, the Schalke coach, scotching the idea that it is nothing more than a blip. “It is a trend.”

Markus seems very confident. He may not be a betting man, because if you confuse your blips and your trends, you can get badly burnt. 

We shall see. Just two seasons ago, the 2014-15 Bundesliga season ended with an average of 2.755 and an average of 2.76 goals per game over the remaining 62 games of this season, will see that number surpassed, so this season isn't yet as exciting as the headline might suggest, but maybe the author just need an excuse to talk about the metric of "packing". 

It is curious perhaps that the relative decline in goals in Germany is matched with an increase in goals elsewhere, but in an age where players and coaches are employed in countries other than that of their nationality, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that the Bundesliga is showing signs of adopting a similar personality to that of its cousins.

The PeeWee Experiance

...and so does spelling and grammar

While I have no intention of following in the footsteps of Aston Martin Andy, and by all accounts many others over the past few years, I was curious to see if I could find any reviews of the Bet Angel Courses out there. A Google search of "I attended one of Bet Angel's courses" led me to an interesting thread on the Geeks Toy forum, where many people had posted their thoughts on this topic. 

Too many to repeat them all here, but the general thrust of opinion wasn't exactly positive. As in his Twitter conversations, Peter comes across as evasive, and sometimes frankly downright rude. One reviewer received no reply after asking what books he might look at to prepare for the course for example, others felt like questions during the course weren't welcome, and others were ignored after the course was over. 

While it was no surprise that the infamous Adam Heathcote, who went from making thousands a day to vanishing almost overnight, and Peter Webb were acquainted, (Heathcote's blog mentions "visiting a seminar held by Peter Webb" - note seminar, not course) it appears their relationship was more than just "links" as Webb later claimed:

Lunch arrived and Peter sat down and was telling people how he and Adam Heathcote often ring each other to discuss how they were doing, which was different to the "we only share links" he claims on his site

There was one good review, but there were suspicions that the post was written in the style of PeeWee (aka Peter Webb).   

Also, The Geek uncovered an interesting amendment to a post of PeeWee's which, as Peter tends to do it seems, brought to his mind the words pot, kettle and black. 

PeeWee's initial post read:

How do we know this is PeeWee himself? Check out the spelling errors which, as errors from ignorance rather than innocent typos, tend to be repeated:

No less than 23 other posts on the Bet Angel forum contain this simple spelling mistake! 

Anyway, after The Geek had pointed out the hypocrisy of PeeWee's comment, the post had "some rather subtle changes made to it".

No more being wary of systems promising "rewards for little effort" - paying for practical advice is now fine! Very subtle... At least Peter had the self-control to avoid writing "Paying up to £400 for practical advice is fine"!  As The Geek concludes:

It's quite amusing to see the effect I have on Peter, and the lengths he goes to screw more money from people when it's already coming out of his ears.

Read the thread for yourselves, but some of the highlights for me are as follows:

rjmcgee : I've spoken to several traders who attended the course, none of them felt they got their money's worth at all. Despite being marketed to "experienced" traders it really only teaches the basics and little more. The book he hands out contains a few useful pages relating to soccer and tennis probabilities but the horse racing content is very poor, introductory level stuff that anyone should be able to figure out by themselves in their first few months of trading.

Scalper : Overall I would give the experience a 2/10 and one of those was for the curry I had at the hotel the night before.

Oldboy : From my experience I'd say...

1. As there were 20 people attending the course it wasn't particularly interactive and Peter doesn't create an environment where you feel you are able to ask questions throughout the day. (note: Saying you encourage questions and creating an environment that encourages questions are two very different things)

2. Nobody wants to give away their trading secrets, strategies and tactics to a room full of people so be prepared that you will only learn so much. During the day Peter clearly avoided answering certain questions to such an extent that it felt like everyone had given up bothering to ask anything by the end of the day.

3. The day is padded out with a number of anecdotes. We heard the ones about Peter's "Southampton relegation dream/premonition", "how he nearly won a football score prediction competition by predicting 1-1 for every game" and "how he has twice got 5 numbers plus the bonus ball on the lottery". (note: none of these little nuggets has made me a better trader despite having paid for the privilege of listening to them)

4. Three trading strategies are covered for pre-race trading and I'm pretty certain that most successful (and unsuccessful) traders that haven't attended the course will already be using these strategies. We were then told that it was harder to lose money on Betfair than it was to win it before Peter used one of his strategies to trade a race. (note: Peter must have been trying exceptionally hard that day as he proceeded to lose money on the race)

5. The day is further padded out by Peter showing trading videos which are available on his blog and YouTube etc.

6. Peter refers to the course on his website as a "Masterclass", with the definition of masterclass in the dictionary being "a seminar for advanced students conducted by a master". This is a gross misrepresentation as in reality the course is rather basic with Peter coming across as more of a salesman rather than an expert in his field.

In conclusion I'd say there's very little value to be had here. As others have said before there are a few pearls of wisdom but nothing that's worth £400, and probably nothing that you won't be able to find for free online. My advice would be to do something more worthwhile with your hard earned money. Use it as a trading bank, take the missus away for the weekend or treat the kids to something special. You'll feel better for it.

YoungTrader : sounds to me like peter is flirting with the point where he's scamming people.. you clearly get the impression you are going to learn something valuable for trading when you read the description on the website.

AlistairH : The issue with trading courses, particularly those given by software vendors from what I've read, tend to be more about learning how to use their software package rather than trading per se, understandably from the point of view of their business. However, it is generally the latter of the two that trading newbies want and consequently feel short changed when they realise they've received the former.

The Geek : There is a thread in general betting on the Betfair forums, Has anyone else noticed... It appears it's not only the Bet Angel forums where unfavourable comments about the course get pulled.

Wonder how long it will be before I get an email from the team of solicitors for letting everyone tell the truth on here.

It is quite amusing to see just how much time Peewee spends covering his tracks though, it would appear he has even gone to the lengths of getting the caches deleted on Google.

markyfarms : Course rating 5 outta 10

Pros: Big manual which does contain info which could take months of money/time to figure out on your own points you in the right direction as a beginner when there is so much info floating about filled my curiosity

Cons: He never showed us 1 live trade how he does it, even though he said he would

Cost - £400 for manual as he didn't show us anything the manual didn't tell you. No after support, I emailed him asking him a question which he also avoided on the course and I didn't hear back

Mullyman : I don't blame him for taking any angle to improve his lot and his business - thousands have done worse than he does. Being sneaky, sending snarly emails and using different aliases is nothing new and I'd probably do the same if my business was under a pressure it hadn't had to encounter before, competition from quality trading tools like the Toy.

rockaren : Some people seems to forget Mr PW is a seller, his mission is NOT to make YOU or other guys rich by selling trading secrets.

Other than on PeeWee's sites, it's hard to find independently written positive reviews:

Spekkles: Well - I've taken the plunge.

They just announced 20th October is the last date for this year, so I've paid my £400 this morning, and gonna give it a try. 

LATER: Well - attended this last week.

Overall - I have to admit, am disappointed.

First of all, you really need a good size bankroll to implement most of Peter's strategies

Eg......''this will work even with smaller stakes of £200 or £500'' - to me, that is not small stakes.

Not a lot of point going in with much less, as some of it involves forcing a price - and let's be honest, going in with 50 or 100, is not going to force a price.

On the course, there were a couple of people who had never traded or only been on Betfair a couple of times, and judging by the expression on their faces, I don't think they will benefit much from it.

I had a couple of points to ask after I left, and emailed Peter with questions - they appear not to be interested afterwards - they have your £400, and that is all that matters to them. (emails - although the original email came from Peter, they just go through to Bet Angel admin.

The best way to sum it up would be a sales pitch for Bet Angel.

I am doing no better now trading than I was before the course.

Pays your money - takes your chance.

LATER: Rather amusing update on this.

I received the following email from Bet Angel admin.

quote - We always welcome feedback of any kind. I would be interested to know what you thought of the course and the academy in general - unquote

So I registered for the bet angel forum, and basically said what I had said in here.

It was deleted within minutes.

Kinda backs up what I said in my opinion of the course really. There was nothing in that shouldn't be there, and was my honest opinion.

I have emailed Peter Webb and told him how ridiculous it was that they ask for honest opinions then delete them. He has told me he will look into it, and get back to me on Monday - watch this space

LATER: No follow up from Peter as he said he would tho.

LATER: Still no email from Webb as he assured me he would send.

Looks like he is as much of a bullshitter as the rest.

It appears that many in the betting community share Spekkles' opinion. 

Magic of Trading

James had a better suggestion for the 1.0 - 1.5 / 1.5 - 2.0 issue raised by Pyckio's tweet this week, which was confusing and for many of us, annoying:

Apologies for the screenshot, but the less than / greater than signs wreak havoc with HTML.

Hopefully James will also be apologising for such an awful pun.
Pyckio modified his tweet, similar to James' suggestion:

I still have a small issue with this, in that if the first band starts at a .00, then it should end with a .x9 (or to keep James happy, .x9 or .x(9), so that the next band starts with a .x0. Thus 1.5 should be included in the second band from the top, not the first, but at least the above is an improvement. 

As I mentioned in my last post, in my opinion using bands based on decimal prices is seriously flawed. Some of you may remember a 'study' published on Peter Nordsted's site last August, looking at 'even money' selections in football. Even money in this case included prices from 1.9 to 2.1, round enough numbers decimally speaking, but as I explained here, that lazy thinking leads to false results.

1.9 is not the same relative to 2.0 (evens) as 2.1 is to 2.0 as I explained:

1.9 (or 9 to 10) means the selection has an implied probability of 52.63%, with the inverse of that bet being 2.11.

2.1 (or 11 to 10) means the selection has an implied probability of 47.62%, with the inverse of that bet being 1.91.

So presuming you want your range to be fair and balanced, it should either be from 1.9 to 2.11 or from 1.91 to 2.1.

Unless you are into your statistics, this may seem picky, but by using a range of 1.9 to 2.1, you are including more odds-on selections in your sample than you are odds-against.

To clarify, by Jimmy's logic, and by extension, more expansive ranges would then be those from 1.8 to 2.2, from 1.6 to 2.4, from 1.2 to 2.8, and ultimately from 1.01 to 2.99. But the average is still evens... No it isn't.

Enough on this, I hear you say. 

My post on the Twitter exchange between Webbo, Statman and Zeljko a couple of days ago, drew some comments, the first of which came from Tony Stephens who wrote:

Surely the easiest way to prove your success would be to make available your full lifetime P and L at transaction level for all to slice and dice as they please. Rather than cherry pick the good days/ trades and then spend years defending your ability. What you never see is the end result of any training days in terms of who has actually managed to become a full time professional trader as a result.

I'm not actually aware of anyone who has attended one of Peter's courses, and subsequently turned professional, at least not successfully. 

I did find one attendee last August:

My name is Andy, and I’m here to write a review on the forthcoming Peter Webb Trading Masterclass course, which is happening on the 24th June, 2013.

who was anxious to blog about his experience, and my subsequent post can be found here. It was a dramatic tale. 

Andy (age 21) gave up his job upon discovering "the magic of trading" and "invested" a total of £600 to attend Peter's course (£400 + travel). Readers may draw their own conclusions as to the wisdom being displayed here. Three months after the course ended, he wrote:

I’m definitely not anywhere near recouping the cost of the course, but then again I felt like that was an investment.

This course is definitely not the magic pill that suddenly allows you to trade.

Lest you feel sympathy for Andy, worry not:

But all is well because a couple of years later, and Andy had moved on to "Profit Maximiser" which is "essentially a system that takes advantage of the free bet offers bookies throw our way to try and lure us into becoming new customers".

Andy writes:

Since I switched the emphasis to PM, I cleared my debts, bought myself an Aston Martin, have the money to holiday whenever and wherever I feel like and I have a number of entrepreneurial friends who I’m in talks with investing as a silent partner in their start-ups. All these things are my personal symbols of success, so I would say I got to the end goal, but in a manner that I completely didn’t expect. What mattered was setting the goals in the first place.

In a strange coincidence, a pig just flew past my window. 

James commented:

Considering the net worth of BetAngel I can't see how tubs can have made more from trading.

If he earns more from trading then why does he bother providing software and "training"? More likely the business is the earner and the trading has dwindled.

There has been a company name change or split from/between/to Optic and BetAngel so we will have to wait for new company figures.

Perhaps BetAngel is the entity that Peter referred to as not fully owning? Having developed the software, presumably additional sales are essentially free money, and the courses have the effect of encouraging the less-informed to add their money to the pool to the benefit of the more informed. Clearly it would make no sense for Peter, or any other course providers, to give away anything that would take away their edge. Either the courses are being run to bring it money because trading isn't that profitable, or their trading IS profitable and the courses offer nothing of value. I'm sure James will inform us when new company figures are available. 

Comment number three came from Jamie, who wrote:

I've been suspicious of Betfair deals regarding PC for a while. I suspect that software vendors and/or trainers who bring 'x' amount of new users to Betfair surely must have cut a deal.

Mr Webb makes out that at one time he has had his accounts suspended. (How you get more than 1 account to start with? I must try that one myself), and in doing so suggests that he has the same sort of relationship with Betfair as us 'normal' users have.

That is why he has 'starred' in Betfair promo vids like this https://goo.gl/v952DC and even produced his own videos visiting Betfair HQ like https://goo.gl/5fpw04 where he starts the video saying he is at 'one of his regular haunts'. Mr Berry has also starred in promo vids and sells his own 'tutoring' vids along with being associated with Geeks Toy.

He says very little regarding PC also. The same can be applied to Mr Hargraves who does regular courses and is in cahoots with Bet Trader software by Racing traders who openly admits he hasn't, and never will pay PC. His reasons have taken several guises from trading on someone else's behalf to losing on Betfair and winning somewhere else.

If they are making money then it quite frankly all stinks and will wind me up even more if and when the day comes when I start paying the amounts of PC the likes of Cassini is paying.

I'm not sure that it used to be a problem having more than one account, but it may be now. The silence surrounding Premium Charges could be because they all have special deals with Betfair that are confidential, or haven't reached that level yet. Certainly the explanation that Tony Hargraves gave for how he avoids PC makes absolutely no sense, in fact it betrays an ignorance of how probability works. As for the Cassini reference, keep reading this blog and you'll get there soon enough. Time is your friend. 

And finally Tony Stephens was back with a follow-up comment:

Some mentors will claim that only 5% of people make profits from sports trading. I would have thought that a good majority must come from those that pay for the knowledge. All I see are beginner traders that are learning their craft and having the odd day of success. Across the board, not 1 person has been highlighted as successfully changing their lifestyle on a permanent basis as a result of sports trading training courses or videos. If I were selling training courses and videos I would be showing potential buyers, on my website, at least 1 of the success stories of how I managed to mentor a novice into the new master trader. So the 5% claim looks massive to me.

I'm always suspicious about that 5% number. Where does it come from? Does it include the person who makes one winning bet and quits? What is the number for traders active in at least 100 markets a year for five years or more? 

Whatever that number is, and I suspect - as does Tony - that it's actually much less, I'm not sure I agree with the statement that a "good majority must come from those that pay for the knowledge". As discussed many times, anyone smart enough to develop an edge isn't likely to be stupid enough to give that edge away for a few quid. The only knowledge you'll be given is how to open an account, how to log in, how to back, how to lay, i.e just basic stuff. You really have to find your own way in the trading world. It's impossible for any methods to work all the time for everybody.

If there are any readers out there who have attended any training classes, please feel free to share your experience. Anonymity guaranteed. My email is calciocassini at aol dot com. 

Semi-Enclave

Geoff Banks appears to believe that Gibraltar is an enclave:

I really hope the Spanish invade that troublesome enclave.

Because Gibraltar has a sea border, as do Spain's Ceuta, Melilla, and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera in North Africa, it is technically a semi-enclave. 

Attention to detail is important!

Pyckio tweeted the below image last night, with another error that jumped right out at me:

From the above, you would be forgiven for thinking that any prices of 1.50, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0 or 10.0 are counted twice. For example the 1.50 would be in both the 1.0 - 1.50 bucket, and the 1.50 to 2.0 bucket. Very confusing.

When I point these things out at work, there's usually a lot of eye rolling and groans, but my opinion is that when there's a lack of attention to detail, it raises concerns about the quality of the content. 

I no longer point these things out at home however. Readers may draw their own conclusions as to why that might be.

To his credit, Pyckio's Daniel Mateos Vazquez acknowledged the point once I'd clarified it, but whether 1.0 - 1.5 becomes 1.0 - 1.499 as I suggested remains to be seen. The content was actually slightly interesting, in that the yield (while still negative) actually increases in the bands from 1.50 (or maybe 1.51) up to 5.0 (or maybe 4.99) - i.e. the 3.0 to 5.0 band (or maybe the 3.01 to 4.99 band) showed a loss of 2.51% versus the odds-on band 1.5 - 2.0 (or 1.51 to 1.99) with -2.64%. 

I actually find using the decimal odds quite irrelevant. What is 1.50? It means that the implied probability is 2 in 3, or 66.67%. What's wrong with 60%, 65% or 70%? At least they are integers! 

If you are following my baseball ideas this season, you're off to a good start with the Los Angeles Dodgers winning easily on Monday, and the T-Bone System following up with two winners last night as the Chicago Cubs beat the St Louis Cardinals and the San Francisco Giants beat the Arizona Diamondbacks. With a 100% record, I'm tempted to call it a season. 

The League Two Away System had another strong round at the weekend, 7 winners from the 12 matches and another 5.38 points taking the season total to 47.42 from 480 matches, just shy of a 10% ROI. 

A couple of comments on yesterday's post (Peter Webb in PR Disaster) that I'll get to next time.   

Questions: Simple and Stupid

There has been an interesting, and at times amusing, conversation going on via Twitter which was brought to my attention by @PremiumCharged. 

It features some well known names, Bet Angel ( @Betangel aka Peter Webb), Statistical Trading ( @Statsbet) and "allegedly the worlds biggest punter and high stake professional gambler" Zeljko Ranogajec ( @zeljkoranogajec ).

Bet Angel opens the thread with one of those pointless questions but to his credit, Statistical Trading comes back with a great answer that Peter wasn't expecting, and which immediately puts him on the defensive.

On the back foot, Peter rather clumsily claims to have "made more trading than selling software, one of a tiny few to have done so".

I would suggest that very few have in fact made more from selling betting software than from trading, simply because so few people sell software! Thus just about every one who has made a profit from trading can make that claim!

Then Statman brings up the courses, but apparently these are hardly worth running after expenses and considering he "doesn't own outright" whatever that means. Courses? Software? 

Peter's courses are clearly charitable gifts to the trading community rather than run for financial gain. 

Then Statman, showing uncanny talent as a cross-examiner, asks a simple question - "But surely you pay some kind of Premium Charge on Betfair".

It's a topic Peter has long avoided, and unsurprisingly his response this time is anything but straight: 

I say response, because a straight answer would have been "Yes" or "No", but instead we get waffle about "dynamics" and an expression of disappointment in the Premium Charge which is shared by many of us. 

Peter then tries to position himself as one of the lads, an anti-establishment bad boy, rebel without a clue, claiming:

So from this, we can infer that Peter has previously paid Premium Charges, but the evasive response earlier implies that he no longer does so.

At this point, TrackieDave ( @TracksuitDavid ) chimes in dragging Zeljko into the conversation.

Peter contradicts his earlier avoidance of a direct answer and implied "No" with the statement that "Betfair say there are no special deals" - note that he is not saying this is his personal experience, he is simply repeating the company line. 

Zeljko is somewhat more direct with his reply - commissions are negotiable if you are big enough.

Perhaps Peter isn't the ace trader he claims to be after all? Fearful of being seen as anything resembling an average profitable trader, Peter says "But, but, but, I've done hundreds of millions...":

I'm surprised not to read "millions and billions and twillions" accompanied by a lot of foot stamping, but anyway, here it gets quite hilarious, with Peter asking the worlds biggest punter if he's "ever qualified to pay Premium Charge"!! It's a bit like asking Usain Bolt if he's ever cracked 30 seconds for the 100 metres. 

Course organisers often tell their attendees that there are no stupid questions, but Zeljko puts this one straight into that category: 

"Are you taking the piss?" 

"It's a pretty stupid question if know anything about me at all." 

Classic. And sorry Peter, but whether you call it Premium Charge or Commission, it all amounts to the same thing. If your Premium Charge rate is 50%, as mine is, then I'm paying 50% commission. It doesn't matter if your base rate is 5% or 0% if it gets rounded up to 50% at the end of a profitable week. 

As for Peter's "Are you avoiding a simple question?" reply, the words pot, kettle and black immediately come to mind! 

Anyway, some of the question avoidance, naivete and squirming on show above was very entertaining and thanks to @PremiumCharged for drawing my attention to it.