ExtraRefined
Better than you at everything you love
Sorry, didn't see the question. In horse racing, for example?
For 1991-2008, scroll to the very bottom table here -
Well that shut him up didn't it
Gambling for a living
- Thread starter gabi
- Start date
Well that shut him up didn't it
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
ymu - good post. I used poisson distribution as a shorthand example - but it is only useful in predictive scenarios which can, of course, be a part of a strategy
Nope, it's classed as gambling by the IR and so is not taxable income in the UK - same as the Lottery, etc. that won't change either for political reasons.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
A lot of professional poker players aren't great at maths - and it's pretty easy to approximate the calculations anyway. Even for games like fixed limit hold 'em (which is very mechanical) or no limit hold 'em single table tournaments, (which have been mathematically solved, ie you can play perfectly), psychology and reading people is still more important because the calculations depend on your read of your opponent(s). You can't calculate your equity against your opponent's hand unless you can accurately assess the range of hands they might be holding. Similarly fold equity is a huge component of most NL calculations and you need to understand your opponent to estimate it. Sklansky is the maths guy in poker and he admits that he is out of his depth in no limit cash games.
If you can control your ego and are prepared to put in as many hours study as play, you can probably make a living playing poker. Few people can.
I've met someone who bought a flat in west london with profits from betting using a mathematical model he had devised at university.
e2a : he studied statistics and stuff to phd level IIRC.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
In response to the OP, I have a friend who is a professional gambler. His edge is to take his laptop with him to sporting events and use betfair. He's done pretty well out of it - claiming 10s of thousands a year, although obviously he has good days and bad days. It shocks me how much he wins some days, but equally how nonchalent he is about loss.
The bookies set up the odds precisely so that they will profit in the long term. It's possible to place arbitrage bets and guarantee yourself wins, but I've no idea of its legality (I'd guess it's legal but frowned upon - IANAL though).
Alan Woods was a professional gambler and made a lot of money from it. His system made use of heaps of information, clever models and statistics. Unless you've got something similar planned I wouldn't recommend taking up betting as anything other than something to supplment income.
Alan Woods was a professional gambler and made a lot of money from it. His system made use of heaps of information, clever models and statistics. Unless you've got something similar planned I wouldn't recommend taking up betting as anything other than something to supplment income.
simpson_eh
Opiophile
I use the live betting on betfair, it's quite good for American sports where the play bounces back and forth between the teams you can back and lay when the odds are best.
I'm never not squaring my bets again, not after having backed spurs and they scored an own goal in the 93.5 minute. Absolutely gutted.
Some people lost money recently as well on a live Everton game when they laid them at odds of about 95 to win, after they took the lead in the last minute, everyone bet, then the goal was disallowed. So people who laid a "sure" £20 would have had to pay out over a grand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bringing_Down_the_House_(book)
me & teh Mrs have NEVER come out down on the blackjack tables...
me & teh Mrs have NEVER come out down on the blackjack tables...
I win more than I lose, but I'm long in the tooth and have given up the idea of gambling for a living.
I won £110 from a £2.50 stake this weekend and yes, I know that I could have won £900 if I'd bet £20.
I'm happy with my little bets, my wins, my loses. It's a bit of fun at the minute, if it was my business, it would cease being fun, but it'd be better than work for sure!
I won £110 from a £2.50 stake this weekend and yes, I know that I could have won £900 if I'd bet £20.
I'm happy with my little bets, my wins, my loses. It's a bit of fun at the minute, if it was my business, it would cease being fun, but it'd be better than work for sure!
Sorry, didn't see the question. In horse racing, for example?
For 1991-2008, scroll to the very bottom table here -
So if I'm reading this correctly, the favorite failed to win in 20 consecutive races 12 times out of 30,000. Right? That's effectively never innit. So if you had enough capital to cover yourself for 2O losses you'd be fine.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
The problem is, the amount of money you'd be winning overall would be miniscule compared to your bankroll if it has to cover losses likes that. Using Jazzz's calculations, summat like 20x£50k, in order to "guarantee" a £100 win. Remember - your system never inflates the overall win, only the size of the potential losses.
Now, playing poker I stake approx 7-10% of my bankroll over the course of an hour (in two half hour tournaments), and get approx 40% ROI. So I'm increasing my bankroll at a rate of 2-4% per hour. At really high stakes you'd probably be staking more like 2% of your bankroll per hour for a 10% return - or 0.2% of your bankroll. So if I had your 20x£50k to bankroll me, 0.2% of £1million is £2,000 - an awful lot more than the measly £100 you're trying to win with that same capital.
So, in summary, your system sucks.
The problem is, the amount of money you'd be winning overall would be miniscule compared to your bankroll if it has to cover losses likes that. Using Jazzz's calculations, summat like 20x£50k, in order to "guarantee" a £100 win. Remember - your system never inflates the overall win, only the size of the potential losses.
Now, playing poker I stake approx 7-10% of my bankroll over the course of an hour (in two half hour tournaments), and get approx 40% ROI. So I'm increasing my bankroll at a rate of 2-4% per hour. At really high stakes you'd probably be staking more like 2% of your bankroll per hour for a 10% return - or 0.2% of your bankroll. So if I had your 20x£50k to bankroll me, 0.2% of £1million is £2,000 - an awful lot more than the measly £100 you're trying to win with that same capital.
So, in summary, your system sucks.
True. Also, you'd make more money just putting the capital in the bank. And of course, being completely predictable, this system would take all the fun out of gambling. It does work, however.
ExtraRefined
Better than you at everything you love
But that requires that you have stake*(odds)^20 - for evens on each bet you'd need a bankroll of over a million pounds. to cover 30 consecutive losses, which has happened you'd need a billion.
phil, if you are in any doubt, walk into a casino, ask to speak to the management, then inform them that you are going to hit their roulette tables and play the martingale. Far from asking you to hit the road they'll likely lay on free food!
Well anyway, im still trundling along here, won on the ladies volleyball and also correctly predicted a 1-1 in the football (bristol v palace)...
ive laid some money on a draw between colorado and detroit in the hockey tonight (they offer amazing odds for a draw, i guess they dont happen too often?). i wont force myself to stay up for it again as my late arrivals at work are starting to raise eyebrows.
The fiver is now up to £95. Ill prove u all wrong yet
ive laid some money on a draw between colorado and detroit in the hockey tonight (they offer amazing odds for a draw, i guess they dont happen too often?). i wont force myself to stay up for it again as my late arrivals at work are starting to raise eyebrows.
The fiver is now up to £95. Ill prove u all wrong yet
tommers
Currently in investor / advisor mode.
pinkychukkles
Feed Your Head
Did some matched betting for a while but it's rather tedious finding matching odds between the bookmaker who's introductory offer you're taking advantage off and a betting exchange (e.g. BetFair).
Loads of useful info on matched betting here:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.html?f=41
Loads of useful info on matched betting here:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.html?f=41
Well yesh. We could even say fuck you to the smoking ban and light up spliffs while we post on it, just like the dear old ladbrokes on acre lane (Which has been ruined by the goddamn ban imo).
Nudges and winks and special brew, the whole shebang. I do fear however it would descend into civil war like most things on u75, but could be interesting.
Im about to test Phils theory on horses btw.
Nudges and winks and special brew, the whole shebang. I do fear however it would descend into civil war like most things on u75, but could be interesting.
Im about to test Phils theory on horses btw.
fractionMan
Custom Title
No, it doesn't. Even if you don't consider a billion quid is practically infinite money it still might run out using the martingale. Not a good strategy.
wikipedia explains it quite well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)
Basically, there are loads of better, although still flawed systems.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I don't read it that way at all - on what table and line are you relying on
- you're reading off the bottom most table?
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
The bookies love this: People so wrong convince they're so right.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
LOL, quote of the year so far for me!
hammerntongues
Well-Known Member
Anyone who gambles on a regular basis will lose in the longer term.
This applies to all major casino tables , with the obvious exception of Poker.
It certainly applies to horse and dog racing unless you have access to privileged information which in my mind excudes it for being gambling.
Anyone who claims otherwise is lieing or at worst deluding themselves.
There are no systems no matter how complex the software or the completeness of the data , its bullshit .
Having said that , gambling is fun and occasionally you pick up enough in one hit to make it worth all the smaller losses.
This applies to all major casino tables , with the obvious exception of Poker.
It certainly applies to horse and dog racing unless you have access to privileged information which in my mind excudes it for being gambling.
Anyone who claims otherwise is lieing or at worst deluding themselves.
There are no systems no matter how complex the software or the completeness of the data , its bullshit .
Having said that , gambling is fun and occasionally you pick up enough in one hit to make it worth all the smaller losses.
It works better with horse racing than with roulette. Why? Because you're not betting on consecutive races, you're betting on whichever races you fancy, so you can choose races in which the favorite seems especially likely to win.
Obviously its not 100% infalliable, but basically you've got more chance of being struck by lightning than of losing. I used this system a fair bit, with only enough capital to cover 5 or 6 losses, and I never lost.
Similar threads
