Thursday, 12 July 2012

When to pass judgement.

So, the comment I posted up yesterday.

You know, on reflection, I think there are too many issues raised within it to attempt to address them all within just the one post. Instead, let's take it paragraph by paragraph. Here is the first one again:

"The reason I am commenting today is because it seems to me that a lot of the SBC members have bought into being able to make long term profits by paying for an "experts" tips.Its unlikely that anyone using a portfolio in a less organised way than yourself will improve on the figures you report to achieve. I dont know what the people at SBc tell you with regards to service performances,losing sequences ect but for any racing service not to be in profit by the end of June suggests incompetence. If any of the services you or anyone else subscribes to cannot turn a profit after say 100 bets they have demonstrated a very real weakness in their methodology.Forget variance after 100 bets there is no excuse.I expect you will believe 100 bets is simple too few a number to judge but unless the service is tipping min odds of 33/1 100 bets is plenty."

I've thought about this paragraph long and hard. I confess that my immediate reaction when reading it for the first time was that I really didn't agree. And after further consideration, I have to say I still don't. Later sections of the overall comment, which I'll address at a later date, I do think hold a lot of merit, but I just can't accept this first paragraph.

To my mind, 100 bets is not a sufficient sample from which to draw definitive conclusions. I've mentioned Matt of Football Elite/On The Oche a fair bit recently, but I'd like to use something that Matt sent out to Football Elite members at the end of the 2010/11 season and which really struck a chord with me. It was a breakdown of the On The Oche performance on a yearly basis since service inception. Here it is:

2007 - Bets 90 -- Winners 57 -- Profit/loss + 80.18 pts -- ROI 94.3%
2008 - Bets 113 -- Winners 62 -- Profit/loss + 27.24 pts -- ROI 24.7%
2009 - Bets 97 -- Winners 55 -- Profit/loss + 23.12 pts -- ROI 25.1%
2010 - Bets 96 -- Winners 33 -- Profit/loss -12.27 pts -- ROI -13.6%
2011 - Bets 154 -- Winners 76 -- Profit/loss + 36.69 pts -- ROI 35.9%

Now, looking at 2010 - 96 bets and a loss of just over twelve points. If the conclusion to draw from such performance demonstrated the erosion of the edge that this service had previously established, then any subscriber would have to leave the service at the start of 2011, would they not? What would have happened if they had done that? They'd have missed out on nearly 37 points of profit, and a yearly roi performance of 35.9% achieved in 2011. I guess that edge that had been eroded had been built back up again!

Me? Well, I bailed out before the end of 2010, daft bugger that I am, only to rejoin again having realised the error of my ways. The serious point to make though is that these figures represent, to my mind at least, hard evidence that 100 bets is not a sufficient sample from which to decide that a tipster has lost their ability.

If a tipster goes through their bank, then that is a different matter, and if they did that in two bets or a thousand, I would take that as being a sign that at the very least, the existence of an edge for that service is doubtful. To the extent whereby I would stop following, it is as simple as that. I wouldn't allow for a resetting of banks either - I'm not one for adjusting the size of a bank just because a record drawdown has been experienced. The bank is the bank. End of.

I realise though that this is simply subjective opinion. Everybody will have a different approach to their decision-making when it comes to judging whether or not a service's edge has been so eroded that it is no longer worth following that service. If the chap who left the comment has been gambling successfully for twenty years, and I have no reason to doubt his word, then what works for him works for him, and who am I to argue?

Any opinions?

Wednesday's Betting

Another more or less break even day, despite the best efforts of The Market Examiner, which had a fine winner amongst their three bets (Qualypso Dallier - Worcester - 10/1). Sam is now sending videos of winning selections. Watching this one, Qualypso Dallier won in a style that warms the cockles of a punter's heart, ie. laughing at it's "competitors" and drawing upon it's cigar whilst cheekily flicking the Vs as it saunters cockily to the line. Sweet.

Having said all that, the racing still produced an overall loss on the day, albeit just a small one. Winning Racing Tips is struggling to get going this month and had a loser plus an each way double; the first leg won, the second leg finished second so a small profit on that bet but a deficit overall. Northern Monkey returned from a short break but with no success (0/2), and an identical record for On The Nose.

Sportyy followed up the previous day's heroics with another winner from two bets (Brown to beat Paire at 9/4). Service X found five bets, within which were two wins, two losses and a void bet - a small loss in total and more or less negating the small profit provided by Sportyy.

So, still treading water. It's been a long time since we had one of those days when a lot of profit is made in one fell swoop. The month is in profit, but not by much. Feels like a war of attrition at the moment. Bring it on!

Right then. As I've intimated, I think there is more to examine in the comment upon which this post has been based. Trouble is, I'm not going to have the time tomorrow, and you know blogging in detail over the weekend is against my religion. So Monday it is then.



  1. its that chap again :)

    ok the 100 bets p/l debate.this is my way of thinking:-
    a member of a sevice pays a fee to receive betting recommendations because he/she is unwilling to invest their time identifying winning strategies.why else pay?
    if the service is unable to turn a reasonable profit (min 15% footy , 30% horseracing) then fees should be returned.
    what seems to be ignored or at least underplayed is the very real fact that subscribers are gambling on the providers ability to turn a decent profit.seems very strange to me that one has to pay for the privilege of gambling.a more equitable arrangement would be to offer a no profit no fee approach.this would demonstrate the provider had supreme confidence in his/her ability.
    im afraid someone who actually losses money on top of the fees charge in one year out of five is totally unacceptable to me.

  2. Yeah, I don't disagree with the principles you mention there. I like the "No profit, no fee" idea. To be fair, some do extend subs to cover periods where no profit is made.

    And you're right too in the sense that if I could identify my own profitable angles and establish an edge for myself, I probably wouldn't pay for the expertise of others. Well, not so much, anyway - I'd always be prepared to pay for the best in the market and see it as an addition to what I was doing. What makes the best? Well, that of course is very subjective, but a number of years of consistent profit making would be a start!

    Cheers now,