You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
Cheers,
G
If I do, I will update the thread detailing the bets and provide the bet receipts well before the off of the races in question.
If there are no posts or bet receipts, you can assume no hedging took place.
I haven't looked at tomorrow's cards yet, as I have just got back from Gary thrashing me at golf despite giving me a shot a hole! :=(
Anyone know where the Jackpot meeting is for tomorrow?
Cheers,
G
But just in case, here's my thoughts:
BEVERLEY - NO
CHEPSTOW - NO
SOUTHWELL - MAYBE
WARWICK - YES
SEDGEFIELD: YES
Pretty sure it won't be Southwell, Warwick or Chepstow, so we can stand down and just do the one nap selection at wherever the meeting is.
Cheers,
G
Thanks for this.
I think the hedging is so "scenario specific" that it's hard to give examples. Although I do feel I will know what to do at the time, but I think to a certain extent, people will need to just trust me on that.
I am also quite confident in knowing when to use 1,2 or 3 perms. Incidentally full coverage of all our selections on 1 perm at Ludlow, would have been a prohibitive cost even with just the banker, and we still wouldn't have won it, so it's best not to be results orientated.
I am glad you are enjoying the various processes, naps, removals etc.
I suppose the bottom line is this:
I believe the strategy is a winning one over time, I have confidence in that. I may be proved wrong and ultimately the long term results will the defining factor as to whether I am right or whether I am deluded. Hopefully the former.
I know I haven't fully answered your questions, but I hope the long-term results justify and validate the processes that are already in place.
Cheers,
G
P.S. In a former life I was a betting shop manager for a large chain in one of their busiest shops, and I also ran a shop for an Independent bookmaker, where I was responsible for hedging liabilities from punters's multiple bets. So I feel that I am well versed in the process, so would do it appropriately if and when it came to it.
In LEG4 we had ALL horses except PERUVIAN BLEU.
It would be hard to say what the dividend would pay at this stage, but lets say a minimum of £2,000 (to a £1 stake) which would be very conservative indeed, but best to be cautious.
As I would know, that if I start hedging now, I would potential need to carry it on through legs 5 and 6, it would just be a small hedge.
Something like £60 on PERUVIAN BLEU which was available at 8/1 at the time.
So if this wins, we recover £480 of our Jackpot losses and no more hedging would take place.
OK, now lets say PERUVIAN BLUE didn't win.
So onto leg five.
The only horses we didn't have in LEG5 were FESTIVE AFFAIR and FAIR LOCH
FESTIVE AFFAIR was available at 11/1 and FAIR LOCK 9/1 at the time. By now we would also have a better idea of what the Jackpot might pay. So lets say a minimum of £3,000 (to a £1.00) stake.
So we have £60 on FAIR LOCK at 9/1 and £50 on FESTIVE AFFAIR at 11/1
Our net result, after taking the £60 loss off from LEG4 and the loss on the "other horse" in LEG5 would be:
IF FESTIVE AFFAIR WINS: A net of £430 recovered
IF FAIR LOCK WINS: A net of £430 recovered
OK, lets say both FESTIVE AFFAIR and FAIR LOCK lose, so onto LEG6
So far with our hedging we'd be £170 down:
There were 4 horses we didn't have in the last leg.
Our bets would be as follows:
£160 FIXED RATE 4/1
£8 MOLE TRAP 100/1 was available
£8 FERNANDO 100/1
£50 CRUCIAL ROLE 16/1 was available.
Our net amounts recovered would be:
FIXED RATE WIN: £404
MOLE TRAP OR FERNANDO WIN: £420
CRUCIAL ROLE WIN: £454
If non of the above win we lose £396 but win the Jackpot.
That is what I would have liked to have done.
In reality PERUVIAN BLEU won, so I would stop there as we bust the Jackpot, and we would have recovered £480 of our losses.
Hope this is of use.
Cheers,
G
great post , we are safe in your hands
It is also worth pointing out that if we hedged in LEG6 when we won at Chester, our winnings would have been reduced by the amount hedged.
Just to show the yin and the yang.
Cheers,
G
However, as a return is guaranteed, I could potentially use my own money to do it, but again, this causes the audit to get more messy.
Cheers,
G
PERM1: PERM2:
LEG 1: A (BANKER) A,B (Banker and short priced 2nd favourite)
LEG 2: A,B,C,D A,B,E
LEG 3: A,B,D A,C,E
LEG 4: A,B,C,E,F A,B,D
LEG 5: A,B,C,E,G A,B,D,F
LEG 6: A,C A,B
PERM 1 cost would be: 600 lines at 50P = £300.00
PERM 2 cost would be: 432 lines at 50P = £216.00
Total cost: £516.00
People have said to me, we should take a chance with just the banker, and just do the main perm with ALL the other selections, so we have full coverage in the other legs, thinking the cost would be similar.
THIS IS NOT TRUE: To do this the perm would be as follows:
LEG 1: A
LEG 2: A,B,C,D,E
LEG 3: A,B,C,D,E
LEG 4: A,B,C,D,E,F
LEG 5: A,B,C,D,E,F,G
LEG 6: A,B,C
3,150 lines at 50P. TOTAL COST = £1,575
So clearly the two perm option is cheaper (approx a third of the price in this scenario). It also gives us the following benefits:
1) Possibility of getting it for £1 when a lot of fancied horses come in and the dividend is low
2) The ability to cover more horses (in total)
3) Still be in if the banker loses.
4) Horses A,B and C would be towards the head of the market, D, E, F and G progressively more outsiders.
5) To SCOOP THE LOT we' probably need three or four from the A,B or C category and two or three from the D,E,F,G category. On some days we could still scoop the lot with just four from the A or B category and two from the C,D,E,F,G category.
Yes we could be unlucky and have four D,E,F,G category winners but this is less likely as it means four relative outsiders would need to win. We are looking for something like, two favourites in, a 2nd favourite, a 3rd favourite and a couple of horses priced 8/1 to 12/1. With this type of configuration it would likely mean that if we were to get it with the full banker perm we'd probably still get it with one of the two perm options.
I hope this helps to explain why, after further thought, I am beginning to favour the multi-perm options.
Statistically it is more viable, and in some ways gives us even more coverage in the other legs than we would get with the one banker, one perm option, which would need to be scaled back to meet costs.
Of course we could get unlucky and have all the selections but not in the same perm, however we still have reasonable statistical coverage at a third of the cost of the single perm and have some protection against the banker losing, and a possibility to get it for the full £1. I do feel this is the way to go, as it gives us more of a statistical "edge" imo.
Cheers,
G
We will NOT be attempting the tough card at York tomorrow.
It does have an odds-on shot in one leg, but other races too tough.
Cheers,
G
But lets just offer a simple scenario based on the following:
1) There is no (or little) money in the kitty after placing the Jackpot bet.
2) We are still in after LEG 5.
3) We stand to win £20K as long as RED RUM DOESN'T WIN in the last leg.
4) RED RUM's ODDS are 20/1
Are you sure you wouldn't want me to "temporarily loan" the syndicate £250 to put on RED RUM at 20/1 out of my own money to guarantee the Syndicate a minimum £5K return?
A scenario like this could well happen, but you say, we chance it?
Just a thought.
Cheers,
G