Usually I plan my blog posts. Just a scrap of paper with a couple of brief notes outlining what I'm going to yabber on about. But tonight, I'm writing as I think, because quite frankly, today I have been flabbergasted by some of the sheer, downright stupidity of some people. So forgive me if this turns into a bit of a rant...
Services are open to constructive criticism. Whether it be the rail companies, a restaurant or a tipping service, if they do something unethical or treat their customers with a lack of respect, then fair enough, they are fair game. But some of the inane, cowardly, and pathetic comments I see on occasion on forums and in the comments sections of blogs beggar belief. I'm sorry but the "letting off steam" excuse just doesn't wash. It's a cop out. Yes, have a moan about bad luck or a poor run from a tipster and how it's making you pissed off. I've done that myself. Furthermore, if someone detects something in a service that they don't like, perhaps a lack of customer service perhaps, then by all means constructively criticise. But to hide behind an 'anonymous' tag or a made up forum name and do nothing other than just slag a service off - well to me that just shows a bloke with a very small todger.
Just what do these people think they are going to achieve? Do they think for one second that the tipster who is incurring their wrath suddenly thinks, "Hang on a minute. He's right. I'm crap." and that results will then spectacularly improve? Of course that person will probably absolve themselves of all responsibility for the decision made to join that service in the first place. They will be that sort, you see. The last person they will point the finger at for failure is themselves. It will be anybody else's fault than their own that they missed the winners, lowered stakes before a winning run, couldn't get on the bets when released because of other commitments, or some other vague excuse for why they're not doing as well as they anticipated. Gambling successfully is not easy. In fact it's bloody difficult. The level of mental strength required is huge. By refusing to take responsibility for themselves, the sort of people that leave comments that go beyond constructively critical and into the realms of abuse have already shown that they will never, ever, make it.
It's bad enough and wrong to fire abuse at those that run services that are paid for. But to target people who work hard to achieve an edge, and then who make those findings publicly available for FREE, whilst constantly warning that it is all a work in progress and for anyone following not to assume success will come from following, to post abusive comments on other people's blogs about someone doing this...get a life. Seriously, grow up. What is it? Jealousy? Cynicism that has morphed into bitterness? Whatever it is, this desire to see someone fail is unhealthy, counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating.
Before anyone thinks I'm being sanctimonious or holier than thou, let me state that I have openly encouraged people to leave comments on this blog in the belief that the more people with different levels of experience chip in, or pick me up on things that they don't agree with or can offer a different perspective on, then it is to the benefit of everyone. So far, I have not failed to publish any comment made. In fact I have apologised on the blog for something I have written that on reflection I can see is wrong. But I have never, and will never, abuse a service for poor performance. I may make a decision to drop a service due to extended underperformance and I may occasionally profer a criticism of some aspect of a service. To go further than this though is wasted energy. Why concentrate on the negative when time is better spent trying to get decisions right that will positively impact your performance as a gambler moving forward?
So far, the likes of Andy, Mark, Alan, Skeeve and others have been tremendous. They have added something to the blog and I'm sure this is a huge reason as to why the readership has been steadily growing. But if anyone is thinking of leaving a comment that is abusive to anyone, any service, or anything, don't bother. Your efforts will be wasted. Criticise in a proper way or raise an issue with a service that you find questionable - fine. We can debate these things like adults. Abuse? No. That's not on, either here or anywhere else.
Why am I so agitated? What's in it for me to defend the cause of the tipster? I tell you what's in it for me. I am paying these people for their expertise. I have chosen to follow them. I approached them. I have made a judgment. They have not contacted me. They have not asked me to follow them. I want these people to be able to work under circumstances whereby the pressure they are under comes only from themselves. I do not want theit confidence affected in such a way that they start to deviate from the methods that they have used to become successful in the first place. Because if they don't, chances are they are going to make me money. It's that simple.
As for the services/blogs/sites that provide tips for free. I want them to want to do so. Mark at the Patient Speculation blog is starting a portfolio largely made up of these kind of services. Follow him. If he makes a success of it, then so can you. Without paying any fees! Put yourself in the shoes of someone doing this. Someone putting in time and huge effort for no financial rewards other than that which comes from their own betting. And then you get some pathetic, abusive message, or a comment on another's blog with snide implications. I know what I'd do. I wouldn't bother. And then what do the reasonable followers do?
I know that the majority of you reading this would never dream of acting in such a way. For the one or two who might read this post, and who have been guilty of such selfishness, just think on it for a moment, will you?
Today's Action
A bit busier on the racing today. Five services in action, three profitably so.
On The Nose managed to pick up a couple of points finding a very nice winner at Ludlow (Russian Epic - 10/1). They also permed three horses for three each way doubles and an each way treble but the other two selections finished unplaced.
Ultra efficiency from Northern Monkey today, their one tip winning (Nimue - Leicester - 4/1).
Chasemaster continue their consistent run, their one tip recommended each way and finishing second (Cruchain - Ludlow - 8/1) in Russian Epic's race.
PJA NH also had Cruchain each way and a loser. A blank today for ProBandit.
On The Nose: Staked 3.5pts, +2pts.
Northern Monkey: Staked 0.75pts, +1.8pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.25pts, +0.075pts.
PJA NH: Staked 1.25pts, -0.6pts.
ProBandit: Staked 0.75pts, -0.75pts.
Total financial profit on the horses of £38.50.
The Sportsman had a little dabble on the Premier League Darts tonight, unsuccessfully as it turned out.
The Sportsman: Staked 0.1pt, -0.1pt.
Total financial loss on the darts of £40.
Thursday 31st March: Staked £195, -£1.50.
Week to date: Staked £580, +£206.22.
March 2011: Staked £14,175, +£1,098.25, roi 7.74%.
Thankyou for bearing with me tonight. I know I've been grumpy, but when you feel passionate about something, I reckon it's best to let it all out.
I'm aware I need to do a March review. That, and the answers to the questions that have been asked this week, will come after the weekend. The end of the month is always the best time to reflect, gain some perspective, and make sure that the strategy for the coming month is clear. There are one or two big decsions to make tonight, and I want to take my time making them.
Over and out...
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Why strike me down, Oh Mighty Zeus!?!
Those gambling gods. They're hard faced b******s! Cruel, they are. Cruel.
At lunchtime, I thought I had pleased them. You may remember that I thought that my quiet day had been granted a day early and as I was on my course today, it was likely that there would be many bets, few of which I would be able to place. But no. When I got ten minutes to myself, I discovered that only three services were playing and a mere four selections to be backed, which I was able to do quickly and easily via the amazing magical piece of kit that is the Iphone.
But then the twist of fate. The evidence that I am merely a higher being's plaything, at the mercy of the whim of the Gods. None of the buggers won. It would have been better if there were lots of selections that I couldn't get on.
Of course, you might think that this is all a bit melodramatic. Especially when I tell you it only cost me £45. Still, it's the principle of the thing...
Today's Action
Well, this bit's easy. Northern Monkey, ProBandit, and On The Nose didn't find a winner between them.
Northern Monkey: Staked 0.75pts, -0.75pts.
ProBandit: Staked 0.5pts, -0.5pts.
On The Nose: Staked: 0.5pts, -0.5pts.
Total financial loss on the racing of £45.
Accrington Stanley have played a part in my life this month, which quite frankly they have no right to play. I mean, Accrington Stanley?!? I ask you.
The Football Analyst had one bet tonight. Accrington Stanley to beat Hereford. They did.
Strike Zone had one bet tonight. Accrington Stanley to beat Hereford. They did.
Joking apart though, I have been totally ill-disciplined with the football bets this week. It has been the result of a combination of factors which include the clocks going forward, taking my children out for a bike ride when I get home from work, and being a bit of a dim wit. Anyway, I seem to have gotten away with it, but I missed the price I ought to have got on Accrington Stanley by quite some margin. Graeme at The Football Analyst tipped them when they were 1.91. I backed them at 1.75 and 1.73. Not good enough, but you will be reassured to learn that some appropriate steps have been taken....the kids are each locked into their rooms at 5.30 sharp and I've punctured the wheels on their bikes. That'll teach 'em.
The Football Analyst: Staked 1pt, +0.738pts.
Strike Zone: Staked 1pt, +0.727pts.
Total financial profit on the football of £110.22.
Wednesday 30th March: Staked £195, +£65.22.
Week to date: Staked £385, +£207.72.
Month to date: Staked £13,980, +£1,099.75, roi 7.86%.
Zeus! Pff.
At lunchtime, I thought I had pleased them. You may remember that I thought that my quiet day had been granted a day early and as I was on my course today, it was likely that there would be many bets, few of which I would be able to place. But no. When I got ten minutes to myself, I discovered that only three services were playing and a mere four selections to be backed, which I was able to do quickly and easily via the amazing magical piece of kit that is the Iphone.
But then the twist of fate. The evidence that I am merely a higher being's plaything, at the mercy of the whim of the Gods. None of the buggers won. It would have been better if there were lots of selections that I couldn't get on.
Of course, you might think that this is all a bit melodramatic. Especially when I tell you it only cost me £45. Still, it's the principle of the thing...
Today's Action
Well, this bit's easy. Northern Monkey, ProBandit, and On The Nose didn't find a winner between them.
Northern Monkey: Staked 0.75pts, -0.75pts.
ProBandit: Staked 0.5pts, -0.5pts.
On The Nose: Staked: 0.5pts, -0.5pts.
Total financial loss on the racing of £45.
Accrington Stanley have played a part in my life this month, which quite frankly they have no right to play. I mean, Accrington Stanley?!? I ask you.
The Football Analyst had one bet tonight. Accrington Stanley to beat Hereford. They did.
Strike Zone had one bet tonight. Accrington Stanley to beat Hereford. They did.
Joking apart though, I have been totally ill-disciplined with the football bets this week. It has been the result of a combination of factors which include the clocks going forward, taking my children out for a bike ride when I get home from work, and being a bit of a dim wit. Anyway, I seem to have gotten away with it, but I missed the price I ought to have got on Accrington Stanley by quite some margin. Graeme at The Football Analyst tipped them when they were 1.91. I backed them at 1.75 and 1.73. Not good enough, but you will be reassured to learn that some appropriate steps have been taken....the kids are each locked into their rooms at 5.30 sharp and I've punctured the wheels on their bikes. That'll teach 'em.
The Football Analyst: Staked 1pt, +0.738pts.
Strike Zone: Staked 1pt, +0.727pts.
Total financial profit on the football of £110.22.
Wednesday 30th March: Staked £195, +£65.22.
Week to date: Staked £385, +£207.72.
Month to date: Staked £13,980, +£1,099.75, roi 7.86%.
Zeus! Pff.
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Correlation #2. Oh, and I'm a pratt!
Right. Not an egg or basket in sight today, or any other stupid idioms. I promise. Bigger fish to fry...
The consequences of double staking
Well, these are as plain as the nose on your face, surely. Aren't they? A double (or more) tipped winner results in a positive spike on the performance graph, a loser a negative spike. In other words, short term performance is quite radically affected, for better or for worse. As a gambler using a portfolio, all you can do is put up with it when this situation arises and accept the situation for what it is. Yes, it's a pain in the neck when the outcome of just one or two matches dictates the levels of success or otherwise on a busy Saturday. But one point worth remembering is that if more than one tipster has identified the same value selection, then logically you should have more confidence in that selection. Different sources of expertise have reached the same conclusions and that should say something.
This is all well and good for the punter with the established portfolio of a decent number of services. But what of someone in Mark's situation...someone who is in the process of building a portfolio? Can they not put the foundations in place that will allow for a fully diversified portfolio to be constructed free of correlation, or at least with a minimum amount that can more easily be dealt with? Of course. It just takes a bit of planning.
Planning
Think ahead. Don't get caught up in the hype of a service that is blasting it's way onto the scene with results that are stupendously good. Think for a while about the nature of the service and it's selections. Will it fill an as yet unoccupied niche in your portfolio. or will it simply be sitting a bit too close for comfort, invading the personal space of services you already follow? In Mark's case, the level of correlation between his own selections and Jerry's should be easily manageable, but my advice to Mark would be to pick his next service to follow, and the ones after that, very carefully. We don't want a situation where we follow four services, three of which are targeting the same type of selection or are using similar methodologies.
My final point on this subject is that I do firmly believe that as the portfolio becomes larger, then a level of correlation has to be accepted as being part and parcel of the game. However, it becomes less of an issue, as the number of non-correlating bets increases and should therefore dilute the affect of selections that are multi-tipped.
So Mark, to answer your initial question...set up your banks properly, accept the fact that on occasion your selection criteria could well highlight the same horse as Jerry's Best Bets, stake according to your plan for each service, and choose your next tipster to follow carefully. Good planning will ensure that you don't put all your eggs in one fire. Or irons in one basket.
Today's Action
I have to go on a course tomorrow for work. All day. I don't know what will happen at lunchtime, my usual window for placing bets. Perhaps the window will be shut. And locked.
So, I have been praying for a quiet day. A day in which if it wasn't possible to get my bets on, I wouldn't miss out on too much. And you know what? The gambling Gods have obviously been listening. There is a problem though. It would seem that the gambling God assigned to me, has got his days mixed up. Just three bets today. Oh, and two Strike Zone bets which I have just realised I haven't placed! My excuse? I'm a Grade A pratt!
Chasemaster really are hitting their straps now. One selection today, the outsider in a four horse marathon (Cold Mountain - Taunton - 9/2). It stormed home.
ProBandit maintained their recent high levels of consistency, their one each way selection finishing in the frame (Crown Ridge - Lingfield - 8/1).
The only loser today was a very small bet from Northern Monkey.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.25pts, +1.125pts.
ProBandit: Staked 0.5pts, +0.25pts.
Northern Monkey: Staked 0.25pts, -0.25pts.
Total financial profit on the horses of £72.50.
Tuesday 29th March: Staked £40, +£72.50.
Week to date: Staked £190, +£142.50.
Month to date: Staked £13,785, +£1,034.50, roi 7.5%.
And the Strike Zone bets? One winner, one loser. At the short odds on each selection, my incompetence has saved me a little loss. And I believe yesterday's Football Investor bet I missed was a loser too. Pratt, did I hear? Bloody genius more like!
Right. I'm off to place tomorrow's The Football Analyst bet. Before I forget...
The consequences of double staking
Well, these are as plain as the nose on your face, surely. Aren't they? A double (or more) tipped winner results in a positive spike on the performance graph, a loser a negative spike. In other words, short term performance is quite radically affected, for better or for worse. As a gambler using a portfolio, all you can do is put up with it when this situation arises and accept the situation for what it is. Yes, it's a pain in the neck when the outcome of just one or two matches dictates the levels of success or otherwise on a busy Saturday. But one point worth remembering is that if more than one tipster has identified the same value selection, then logically you should have more confidence in that selection. Different sources of expertise have reached the same conclusions and that should say something.
This is all well and good for the punter with the established portfolio of a decent number of services. But what of someone in Mark's situation...someone who is in the process of building a portfolio? Can they not put the foundations in place that will allow for a fully diversified portfolio to be constructed free of correlation, or at least with a minimum amount that can more easily be dealt with? Of course. It just takes a bit of planning.
Planning
Think ahead. Don't get caught up in the hype of a service that is blasting it's way onto the scene with results that are stupendously good. Think for a while about the nature of the service and it's selections. Will it fill an as yet unoccupied niche in your portfolio. or will it simply be sitting a bit too close for comfort, invading the personal space of services you already follow? In Mark's case, the level of correlation between his own selections and Jerry's should be easily manageable, but my advice to Mark would be to pick his next service to follow, and the ones after that, very carefully. We don't want a situation where we follow four services, three of which are targeting the same type of selection or are using similar methodologies.
My final point on this subject is that I do firmly believe that as the portfolio becomes larger, then a level of correlation has to be accepted as being part and parcel of the game. However, it becomes less of an issue, as the number of non-correlating bets increases and should therefore dilute the affect of selections that are multi-tipped.
So Mark, to answer your initial question...set up your banks properly, accept the fact that on occasion your selection criteria could well highlight the same horse as Jerry's Best Bets, stake according to your plan for each service, and choose your next tipster to follow carefully. Good planning will ensure that you don't put all your eggs in one fire. Or irons in one basket.
Today's Action
I have to go on a course tomorrow for work. All day. I don't know what will happen at lunchtime, my usual window for placing bets. Perhaps the window will be shut. And locked.
So, I have been praying for a quiet day. A day in which if it wasn't possible to get my bets on, I wouldn't miss out on too much. And you know what? The gambling Gods have obviously been listening. There is a problem though. It would seem that the gambling God assigned to me, has got his days mixed up. Just three bets today. Oh, and two Strike Zone bets which I have just realised I haven't placed! My excuse? I'm a Grade A pratt!
Chasemaster really are hitting their straps now. One selection today, the outsider in a four horse marathon (Cold Mountain - Taunton - 9/2). It stormed home.
ProBandit maintained their recent high levels of consistency, their one each way selection finishing in the frame (Crown Ridge - Lingfield - 8/1).
The only loser today was a very small bet from Northern Monkey.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.25pts, +1.125pts.
ProBandit: Staked 0.5pts, +0.25pts.
Northern Monkey: Staked 0.25pts, -0.25pts.
Total financial profit on the horses of £72.50.
Tuesday 29th March: Staked £40, +£72.50.
Week to date: Staked £190, +£142.50.
Month to date: Staked £13,785, +£1,034.50, roi 7.5%.
And the Strike Zone bets? One winner, one loser. At the short odds on each selection, my incompetence has saved me a little loss. And I believe yesterday's Football Investor bet I missed was a loser too. Pratt, did I hear? Bloody genius more like!
Right. I'm off to place tomorrow's The Football Analyst bet. Before I forget...
Monday, 28 March 2011
Correlation
Last week Mark (http://patientspeculation.blogspot.com) expressed a concern he had as he started his Portfolio Lite, a portfolio of free or 'donation' tipping services. He realised that the first service he was following, Jerry's Best Bets, might pick the same horses as he himself does. What should he do if this were to happen? Should he effectively 'double' stake such selections?
This follows a post I made post-Cheltenham in which I had bemoaned the fact that throughout the Festival I often had numerous selections running in the same race:
"The second principle is that the portfolio should be engineered in such a way that it maximises the investor's comfort zone. Essentially this means that psychologically, the services need to match neatly the mentality of the person following them. It is when pressure is exerted that mistakes are more likely to be made. Having five or six runners in one race puts me under pressure. It may not others, but it does me."
I think Mark is in a different place from me here. He is starting to build his portfolio and can therefore plan ahead in an attempt to avoid too much correlation between services in the future. I, on the other hand, have a portfolio of thirteen, and therefore a certain level of correlation is impossible to avoid. The question for me is if the correlation I experience is within reason, or if I can (or want to) tweak things slightly to minimise the correlation as much as possible. For this post though, I want to speak in more general terms that are relevant to people in either Mark's situation, or in one closer to my own.
So what factors are important to consider when making decisions where correlation is or may become an issue? I would suggest the following:
1. The set up your banks for each service followed, and the implications thereof;
2. The psychological effects of correlation;
3. The consequences of 'double' staking; and
4. The way to plan your portfolio to avoid excessive correlation.
I will address the first two points today, the second two tomorrow.
The set up of banks for each service followed
The setting up of banks for each individual service is an absolute must. Work out your £/point value and the number of points a service needs as a bank. Do this correctly and any correlation between services ultimately becomes largely an irrelevance (at least if you want it to). You are backing the same horse, yes, but from different banks, each of which should be large enough to cater for the losing runs you will face with each service. This means that you are treating each service as being exactly what they are...two completely individual sources of selection. They are two entities each with their own unique features and you are bankrolling them as such.
Of course, it is possible that there are similarities between the methodologies employed by each service that subsequently increase the chances of the same selection being chosen on occasion. Perhaps the same sort of race is targeted, or the same price range, or the adoption of each way betting as a strategy and not win only. There could be any number of factors that overlap but ultimately the portfolio investor has to accept that the methodologies of two different services are independent of each other. If they weren't, all selections would be the same and obviously this isn't so. The logical thing to do therefore is have separate financial banks attributed to each service that will each cater specifically for the methodologies utilised by each individual service, and allow for the variances between the two.
So in summary, if the investor's banks are of sufficient size, then there really should be no problems mechanically (as opposed to psychologically) if two services within a portfolio are occasionally throwing up the same selections. When the investor examines a service's track record prior to selecting it to be an active part of the portfolio, then no allowance is made for selections that may have coincided with those backed through other services already in the portfolio. No, you see the service has an historical 10% roi and therefore has an apparent edge that you can exploit to make money. And therein is the crux...provided the investor is confident in the edge that each and every one of their services possess (and if the investor isn't confident in this, then why in the hell is the service being followed at all?) then he or she ought to realise that in the long term, occasional incidences of correlation are of no importance at all. Not that is, if the psyche isn't detrimentally effected...
2. The psychological effects
Take any three from The Football Analyst, Football Elite, Football Investor and Strike Zone. At various times this season a combination of three of them have tipped the same team in the same match. I don't mind saying, it's a bloody nightmare when it happens, and I don't like it. Similarly, I didn't enjoy backing six horses in the Gold Cup.
The problem is that suddenly, you are putting on a large amount of money on the outcome of just one event. To a portfolio investor, this is not likely to (and shouldn't) sit comfortably. The whole ethos of using different services is based on the desire to seek the sanctuary of diversification to minimise risk. Eggs are better placed between many baskets, so if one is dropped all eggs are not broken. And yet here the basket spreading egg shuffler is not keeping all his plates spinning (although his head may be, reading this) but instead has just one plate spinning in one basket...or something.
You get the point.
But why does this scenario engender such feelings of unease in the investor? If we (correctly) maintain that it is the long term edge of each service that is important, why do we not find it easy to shrug our shoulders when we happen to be loading up on one selection? I'm sure some are easily able to metaphorically partake in a bit of serious shoulder shrugging, but not me, and I'm sure not with some of you either.
The simple answer to this question is that when a double/triple tipped selection wins then it's marvellous and the result is short term euphoria. Naturally if the selection loses, it leads to real doom and gloom. The two emotions are at the opposite end of the scale, and just like the the issue of diversification, this is anathema to the mindset of someone running a portfolio. We are trying to remain as balanced as we can under trying circumstances. We do everything we can to avoid exposing ourselves to extremes of emotion. We are trying to be the Switzerland of punters - forever neutral. And yet here we are, placing all eggs into one basket and desperately hoping that the one plate we have spinning in the air does not fall (nailed it!).
The solution? Planning.
We'll talk more about that tomorrow.
Today's Action
Just the three services in action, two of which made money whilst the other came out neutral.
PJA NH had four selections today, two of which won (Connectivity - Towcester - 4/1 and Lonesome Boatman - Towcester - 4/1). The other two unplaced which was a shame as a small each way accumulator was risked on all four. Still, not to worry as a profit was made.
The other money-making service was On The Nose, which picked out a 16/1 shot that finished third (Speed Bonnie Boat - Towcester).
Winning Racing Tips found a selection that finished in the frame at 5/1, so at a fifth the odds, stakes were returned.
PJA NH: Staked 3.5pts, +2.4pts.
On The Nose: Staked 1pt, +1.1pts.
Winning Racing Tips: Staked 1pt, N/A.
Total financial profit on the racing of £70.
Monday 28th March: Staked £150, +£70.
Week to date: Staked £150, +£70.
Month to date: Staked £13,745, +£962.03, roi 6.99%.
I do believe there is a Football Investor selection tonight. I'm not on it. Mmm...
This follows a post I made post-Cheltenham in which I had bemoaned the fact that throughout the Festival I often had numerous selections running in the same race:
"The second principle is that the portfolio should be engineered in such a way that it maximises the investor's comfort zone. Essentially this means that psychologically, the services need to match neatly the mentality of the person following them. It is when pressure is exerted that mistakes are more likely to be made. Having five or six runners in one race puts me under pressure. It may not others, but it does me."
I think Mark is in a different place from me here. He is starting to build his portfolio and can therefore plan ahead in an attempt to avoid too much correlation between services in the future. I, on the other hand, have a portfolio of thirteen, and therefore a certain level of correlation is impossible to avoid. The question for me is if the correlation I experience is within reason, or if I can (or want to) tweak things slightly to minimise the correlation as much as possible. For this post though, I want to speak in more general terms that are relevant to people in either Mark's situation, or in one closer to my own.
So what factors are important to consider when making decisions where correlation is or may become an issue? I would suggest the following:
1. The set up your banks for each service followed, and the implications thereof;
2. The psychological effects of correlation;
3. The consequences of 'double' staking; and
4. The way to plan your portfolio to avoid excessive correlation.
I will address the first two points today, the second two tomorrow.
The set up of banks for each service followed
The setting up of banks for each individual service is an absolute must. Work out your £/point value and the number of points a service needs as a bank. Do this correctly and any correlation between services ultimately becomes largely an irrelevance (at least if you want it to). You are backing the same horse, yes, but from different banks, each of which should be large enough to cater for the losing runs you will face with each service. This means that you are treating each service as being exactly what they are...two completely individual sources of selection. They are two entities each with their own unique features and you are bankrolling them as such.
Of course, it is possible that there are similarities between the methodologies employed by each service that subsequently increase the chances of the same selection being chosen on occasion. Perhaps the same sort of race is targeted, or the same price range, or the adoption of each way betting as a strategy and not win only. There could be any number of factors that overlap but ultimately the portfolio investor has to accept that the methodologies of two different services are independent of each other. If they weren't, all selections would be the same and obviously this isn't so. The logical thing to do therefore is have separate financial banks attributed to each service that will each cater specifically for the methodologies utilised by each individual service, and allow for the variances between the two.
So in summary, if the investor's banks are of sufficient size, then there really should be no problems mechanically (as opposed to psychologically) if two services within a portfolio are occasionally throwing up the same selections. When the investor examines a service's track record prior to selecting it to be an active part of the portfolio, then no allowance is made for selections that may have coincided with those backed through other services already in the portfolio. No, you see the service has an historical 10% roi and therefore has an apparent edge that you can exploit to make money. And therein is the crux...provided the investor is confident in the edge that each and every one of their services possess (and if the investor isn't confident in this, then why in the hell is the service being followed at all?) then he or she ought to realise that in the long term, occasional incidences of correlation are of no importance at all. Not that is, if the psyche isn't detrimentally effected...
2. The psychological effects
Take any three from The Football Analyst, Football Elite, Football Investor and Strike Zone. At various times this season a combination of three of them have tipped the same team in the same match. I don't mind saying, it's a bloody nightmare when it happens, and I don't like it. Similarly, I didn't enjoy backing six horses in the Gold Cup.
The problem is that suddenly, you are putting on a large amount of money on the outcome of just one event. To a portfolio investor, this is not likely to (and shouldn't) sit comfortably. The whole ethos of using different services is based on the desire to seek the sanctuary of diversification to minimise risk. Eggs are better placed between many baskets, so if one is dropped all eggs are not broken. And yet here the basket spreading egg shuffler is not keeping all his plates spinning (although his head may be, reading this) but instead has just one plate spinning in one basket...or something.
You get the point.
But why does this scenario engender such feelings of unease in the investor? If we (correctly) maintain that it is the long term edge of each service that is important, why do we not find it easy to shrug our shoulders when we happen to be loading up on one selection? I'm sure some are easily able to metaphorically partake in a bit of serious shoulder shrugging, but not me, and I'm sure not with some of you either.
The simple answer to this question is that when a double/triple tipped selection wins then it's marvellous and the result is short term euphoria. Naturally if the selection loses, it leads to real doom and gloom. The two emotions are at the opposite end of the scale, and just like the the issue of diversification, this is anathema to the mindset of someone running a portfolio. We are trying to remain as balanced as we can under trying circumstances. We do everything we can to avoid exposing ourselves to extremes of emotion. We are trying to be the Switzerland of punters - forever neutral. And yet here we are, placing all eggs into one basket and desperately hoping that the one plate we have spinning in the air does not fall (nailed it!).
The solution? Planning.
We'll talk more about that tomorrow.
Today's Action
Just the three services in action, two of which made money whilst the other came out neutral.
PJA NH had four selections today, two of which won (Connectivity - Towcester - 4/1 and Lonesome Boatman - Towcester - 4/1). The other two unplaced which was a shame as a small each way accumulator was risked on all four. Still, not to worry as a profit was made.
The other money-making service was On The Nose, which picked out a 16/1 shot that finished third (Speed Bonnie Boat - Towcester).
Winning Racing Tips found a selection that finished in the frame at 5/1, so at a fifth the odds, stakes were returned.
PJA NH: Staked 3.5pts, +2.4pts.
On The Nose: Staked 1pt, +1.1pts.
Winning Racing Tips: Staked 1pt, N/A.
Total financial profit on the racing of £70.
Monday 28th March: Staked £150, +£70.
Week to date: Staked £150, +£70.
Month to date: Staked £13,745, +£962.03, roi 6.99%.
I do believe there is a Football Investor selection tonight. I'm not on it. Mmm...
Sunday, 27 March 2011
Quiet end to a quiet week.
Of course it was inevitable after the frantic nature of Cheltenham, but this week has felt like a quiet one. However, it has seen a steady (dare I say, quiet) accumulation of profit, and I'll take that any day/week/month/year. Just a nice, steady, quiet, gently upward curving line of profit. Oh yes.
Today's Action
Just two services sharing their expertise with us today. Both produced a profit. As they say in these parts, "Nice one!".
Northern Monkey gave just one bet which ran extremely gamely to get it's nose over the line just before any of it's competitors (West Coast Dream - Leopardstown - 8/1).
Chasemaster relished the extra hour of form study that the change to BST provided, coming up with three selections, one of which placed (Camden George - Hexham - 17/2) and one of which won (Final Veto - Hexham - 5/1).
Northern Monkey: Staked 0.75pts, +3.75pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 1pt, +0.422pts.
Total financial profit on the racing of £100.32.
Unfortunately on the football, two losing bets today, both from Football Investor.
Football Investor: Staked 2pts, -2pts.
Total financial loss on the football of £30.
Sunday 27th March: Staked £105, +£70.32.
Week: Staked £2,091, +£521.98.
Month to date: Staked £13,595, +£892.03, roi 6.56%.
Got quite a bit planned for the week coming. Lots of interesting stuff, I hope. Best get an early night and the missus is calling from the bedroom. Not particularly seductively it must be said...I think there's a spider...
Today's Action
Just two services sharing their expertise with us today. Both produced a profit. As they say in these parts, "Nice one!".
Northern Monkey gave just one bet which ran extremely gamely to get it's nose over the line just before any of it's competitors (West Coast Dream - Leopardstown - 8/1).
Chasemaster relished the extra hour of form study that the change to BST provided, coming up with three selections, one of which placed (Camden George - Hexham - 17/2) and one of which won (Final Veto - Hexham - 5/1).
Northern Monkey: Staked 0.75pts, +3.75pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 1pt, +0.422pts.
Total financial profit on the racing of £100.32.
Unfortunately on the football, two losing bets today, both from Football Investor.
Football Investor: Staked 2pts, -2pts.
Total financial loss on the football of £30.
Sunday 27th March: Staked £105, +£70.32.
Week: Staked £2,091, +£521.98.
Month to date: Staked £13,595, +£892.03, roi 6.56%.
Got quite a bit planned for the week coming. Lots of interesting stuff, I hope. Best get an early night and the missus is calling from the bedroom. Not particularly seductively it must be said...I think there's a spider...
Saturday, 26 March 2011
Consolidation.
And here is today's news bulletin...
Today's Action
A touch disappointed on the nags I suppose. Certainly a bit of an anticlimax after yesterday. Six services playing, two turned a profit.
The excellent recent run of ProBandit continued with the service playing in two races and finding the winner of each (Nideeb - Lingfield - 3/1 and Katmai River - Kempton - 3/1). Excellent.
The other profitable service today was PJA NH which had three selections amongst which was a nice winner (Rey Nacarado - Newbury - 6/1 & 11/2 (split my stakes between two bookies, one BOG and one non-BOG; in the end it didn't matter as it started at 7/2!)).
Chasemaster had just the one small bet today and it was just pipped to a place; Northern Monkey picked the winner Nideeb but stuck it in a double with Twice Over which ran a dreadful race in the Dubai World Cup; and 4PA had a loser and Pachattack manage to squeeze in third on an each way bet. On The Nose couldn't produce a return from their three tips.
ProBandit: Staked 1.75pts, +2.25pts.
PJA NH: Staked 2pts, +1.724pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.25pts, -0.25pts.
Northern Monkey: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
On The Nose: Staked 2.5pts, -2.5pts.
4PA: Staked 3pts, -1.1pts.
Total financial loss on the racing of £15.53.
Skeeve continued his miraculous month, picking two winners from three. Football Investor also turned a profit after finding a 7/2 winner amongst their three bets. Strike Zone's only bet was a winner (albeit at very short odds) as was The Sportsman's.
Skeeve: Staked 12pts, +4.51pts.
The Sportsman: Staked 0.1pt, +0.072pts.
Football Investor: Staked 3pts, +1.5pts.
Strike Zone: Staked 1pt, +0.38pts.
Total financial profit on the football of £183.25.
Saturday 26th March: Staked £780, +£167.72.
Week to date: Staked £1,986, +£451.66.
Month to date: Staked £13,490, +£821.71, roi 6.09%.
Today's Action
A touch disappointed on the nags I suppose. Certainly a bit of an anticlimax after yesterday. Six services playing, two turned a profit.
The excellent recent run of ProBandit continued with the service playing in two races and finding the winner of each (Nideeb - Lingfield - 3/1 and Katmai River - Kempton - 3/1). Excellent.
The other profitable service today was PJA NH which had three selections amongst which was a nice winner (Rey Nacarado - Newbury - 6/1 & 11/2 (split my stakes between two bookies, one BOG and one non-BOG; in the end it didn't matter as it started at 7/2!)).
Chasemaster had just the one small bet today and it was just pipped to a place; Northern Monkey picked the winner Nideeb but stuck it in a double with Twice Over which ran a dreadful race in the Dubai World Cup; and 4PA had a loser and Pachattack manage to squeeze in third on an each way bet. On The Nose couldn't produce a return from their three tips.
ProBandit: Staked 1.75pts, +2.25pts.
PJA NH: Staked 2pts, +1.724pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.25pts, -0.25pts.
Northern Monkey: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
On The Nose: Staked 2.5pts, -2.5pts.
4PA: Staked 3pts, -1.1pts.
Total financial loss on the racing of £15.53.
Skeeve continued his miraculous month, picking two winners from three. Football Investor also turned a profit after finding a 7/2 winner amongst their three bets. Strike Zone's only bet was a winner (albeit at very short odds) as was The Sportsman's.
Skeeve: Staked 12pts, +4.51pts.
The Sportsman: Staked 0.1pt, +0.072pts.
Football Investor: Staked 3pts, +1.5pts.
Strike Zone: Staked 1pt, +0.38pts.
Total financial profit on the football of £183.25.
Saturday 26th March: Staked £780, +£167.72.
Week to date: Staked £1,986, +£451.66.
Month to date: Staked £13,490, +£821.71, roi 6.09%.
Friday, 25 March 2011
Neither rhyme, nor reason.
Going to be a typical weekend post; primarily a breakdown of the action. More of the analytical stuff from Monday night.
Today's Action
Erm. Horse racing. Isn't it great? Six services in action today. Five of them produced a profit. The winners kept coming...like shelling peas. Strange old game, this. Wonder if we'll have the backlash tomorrow?
Northern Monkey hadn't really showed me what they can do since I joined. I've never doubted them though. Their record last year was outstanding, the write ups for the selections show sound reasoning and I have liked the feel of the service. The only thing missing has been profits (and I am still substantially down on the year to date). But today's tipping was top, top class. One selection, heavily staked, win only at a decent price (Curtains - Lingfield - 8/1). It was actually tipped at 10s but due to work, I couldn't grab that. Still, I'm not complaining.
Similarly inspired today were Chasemaster. Three tips today, two winners, and the third selection, a 22/1 shot, was quietly working itself into contention, certainly for a place, when it fell in the latter stages. We still had the winner of that one though (Elzahann - Sedgefield - 11/2) and that had been preceded by another winner (Calusa Caldera - Newbury - 11/1). Wow!
The very epitome of consistency this month has been Winning Racing Tips and today they provided another winner from their only selection (Scriptwriter - Sedgefield - 4/1). Over 73% of their tips this month have finished in the frame.
PJA NH found a winner amongst their five today (Calusa Caldera - Newbury - 11/1). Here was an example of two services tipping the same horse working out very nicely indeed.
Finally for the services producing a profit, ProBandit quietly found a winner from their only tip today (Rhaal - Wolverhampton - 4/1).
The only service not joining the merriment today was On The Nose. Even here though, I had a stroke of fortune. I understaked a losing double. Stupid, stupid mistake to make and despite getting away with it, I'm beating myself up. Can't afford to make pathetic errors like that because as sure as eggs are eggs, there will come a time when it will lead to missing out on good profits. What a plonker!
Northern Monkey: Staked 1.25pts, +10pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.75pts, +2.225pts.
Winning Racing Tips: Staked 0.8pts, +1.92pts.
PJA NH: Staked 3.5pts, +£3.3pts.
ProBandit: Staked 1pt, +1.2pts.
On The Nose: Staked 1.5pts (should have been 2!!!), -1.5pts.
Total financial profit on the racing of £532.70.
And so it came to the football tonight, to really press home the advantage. Or not.
Football Elite's poor spell continued with a loser, and Football Investor suffered a loser too.
Football Elite: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
Football Investor: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
Total financial loss on the football of £115.
Friday 25th March: Staked £373, +£417.70.
Week to date: Staked £1,206, +£283.94.
Month to date: Staked £12,710, +£653.99, roi 5.14%.
So, what are we all up to this weekend?
Today's Action
Erm. Horse racing. Isn't it great? Six services in action today. Five of them produced a profit. The winners kept coming...like shelling peas. Strange old game, this. Wonder if we'll have the backlash tomorrow?
Northern Monkey hadn't really showed me what they can do since I joined. I've never doubted them though. Their record last year was outstanding, the write ups for the selections show sound reasoning and I have liked the feel of the service. The only thing missing has been profits (and I am still substantially down on the year to date). But today's tipping was top, top class. One selection, heavily staked, win only at a decent price (Curtains - Lingfield - 8/1). It was actually tipped at 10s but due to work, I couldn't grab that. Still, I'm not complaining.
Similarly inspired today were Chasemaster. Three tips today, two winners, and the third selection, a 22/1 shot, was quietly working itself into contention, certainly for a place, when it fell in the latter stages. We still had the winner of that one though (Elzahann - Sedgefield - 11/2) and that had been preceded by another winner (Calusa Caldera - Newbury - 11/1). Wow!
The very epitome of consistency this month has been Winning Racing Tips and today they provided another winner from their only selection (Scriptwriter - Sedgefield - 4/1). Over 73% of their tips this month have finished in the frame.
PJA NH found a winner amongst their five today (Calusa Caldera - Newbury - 11/1). Here was an example of two services tipping the same horse working out very nicely indeed.
Finally for the services producing a profit, ProBandit quietly found a winner from their only tip today (Rhaal - Wolverhampton - 4/1).
The only service not joining the merriment today was On The Nose. Even here though, I had a stroke of fortune. I understaked a losing double. Stupid, stupid mistake to make and despite getting away with it, I'm beating myself up. Can't afford to make pathetic errors like that because as sure as eggs are eggs, there will come a time when it will lead to missing out on good profits. What a plonker!
Northern Monkey: Staked 1.25pts, +10pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.75pts, +2.225pts.
Winning Racing Tips: Staked 0.8pts, +1.92pts.
PJA NH: Staked 3.5pts, +£3.3pts.
ProBandit: Staked 1pt, +1.2pts.
On The Nose: Staked 1.5pts (should have been 2!!!), -1.5pts.
Total financial profit on the racing of £532.70.
And so it came to the football tonight, to really press home the advantage. Or not.
Football Elite's poor spell continued with a loser, and Football Investor suffered a loser too.
Football Elite: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
Football Investor: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
Total financial loss on the football of £115.
Friday 25th March: Staked £373, +£417.70.
Week to date: Staked £1,206, +£283.94.
Month to date: Staked £12,710, +£653.99, roi 5.14%.
So, what are we all up to this weekend?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)