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
Still over 2,000 UNITS in as the favourite won the first leg.
Not a great result for those of us wanting a roll over, but still a way to go.
Cheers,
G
If anyone becomes aware of tomorrow's (Saturday) Jackpot Meeting, please post here.
Cheers,
G
Team STAND-BY.
It will be a three perm semi-banker approach.
In addition to the usual three NAPS and removals.
Please can you post here ASAP the order in which you rate the following (our semi-bankers) chances.
3.30: 7 - RIBCHESTER
4.05: 2 - DENAAR
4.40: 3 - GRACIOUS DIANA
Cheers,
G
I will need reasonably wide coverage and plan to pretty much use the rest of the kitty.
Any objections to this, please post here.
If Roger can please start to prep the spreadsheet.
Cheers,
G
P.S. Thanks MK for the early notification of Newbury.
Please can other's use Zadoc's as a template.
Denaar number one banker
sorry wouldn't touch the other two
fancy other horses much more than Ribchester and Gracious Diana
I will probably adopt a three perm strategy whereby it will be possible to win with only one of our "semi-bankers! coming in.
At the moment that's how it looks, but will be subject to change, based upon the responses to the banker ordering question and market moves and/or other conditions that come to light nearer the time.
Hence, EVERY PROCESS. Namely NAPS, REMOVERS and BANKER PREFERENCE will be looked at to get us our final perms.
So if you can, please do take time an attention with ALL these tasks.
Cheers,
G
P.S. Ideally have all three processes done by 12.20pm on Saturday, as there will be a lot of information for me to assimilate.
You have the NAP's section for your fancies, and the REMOVALS process if you really dislike them. So you will be heard in a rational way through the various processes, but you need to adhere to the rules of each process, or else it won't work.
I have a solid reason for these processes, please adhere!
So the question is:
Put the following horses only. In order of those you most like as a banker followed by 2nd choice and finally the one you really don't like as a banker. Out of the three horses below:
4.05: 2 - DENAAR
4.40: 3 - GRACIOUS DIANA
OK, so you have amended your post now, good, the other two I am putting as tied 2nd for you, or tied last whatever way you want to put it, if you really have no further preference of which one you dislike the most.
I would really appreciate if people can save their thoughts for now, and just follow the template. SNUFFER is always the best example of this, so if in doubt copy his format.
I will give people the option to discuss later. Although there are three clear rational mediums for people to have their say.
If, as it appears here, you don't like the nature of the particular process, please do not contribute to the process in question at all. So unless you want to contribute to this process as per the rules, I will ignore your post.
Cheers,
G
SORRY
I DIDNT READ YOUR POST CORRECTLY
DENAAR 1
RIBCHESTER 2
GRACIOUS DIANA 3
But oh dear are we going blind here.
First we were going for one banker but following on from my concerns re Dihat we went for 3 semi bankers. IT WORKED.
Could see the reason for having semi banker at Ludlow if Venetia's 5-2 second fav running against Azzurri but then when that taken out we put in a horse which was on a few removers list.
Now it seems we are going semi bankers whatever.
What I was trying to intimate with my post is that happy with DENAAR as banker but not the others for the sake of it.
I think Misty and Mickyblue on their posts were trying to say similar thing.
Cheers,
G
If you could provide an alphabetical list by username detailing everyone's 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices from the three proposed semi-bankers.
Cheers,
G
4.05: 2 - DENAAR
4.40: 3 - GRACIOUS DIANA
I will find it and re-post it here.
I'm sorry to say this, but if you understood, and was in-line with what we are "statistically" trying to do you would not respond how you have.
I do NOT feel your comments are informed (statistically) or constructive, so if you continue to not follow the procedure and try to be too heavy handed with your opinion (I note you referred back to a piece of good advise you gave us, I can refer back to some poor ones if you'd like)
I am at the end of my tether regarding how you don't follow procedure and this is the last time it will happen.
Any further occurrence and you will not participate further.
I will find my "multi perm benefits post" for you.
DENAAH may win, it may be our only banker that does win, but to have an odds-against shot as a solebanker is not in line with our strategy and I would rather not do the Jackpot at all, than do that.
Please read multi-perm strategy thread below:
https://www.skypoker.com/secure/poker/sky_lobby?action=show_static&page=poker_community_forums&plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3ae0fe4c56-4826-4c14-a350-298f784f4e3dForum%3a902ab96e-b209-4e97-96a2-98a6b9a864a8Discussion%3a1fe001fa-7e33-40ec-9c12-3de2c1293562
Cheers,
G
Possibly with a "small note" that you are not keen on either.
BUT DON'T HI-JACK THE PROCESS!
To have a different list of 3 bankers is also statistical suicide, you are either in with this process or out, I am very close to ignoring you now, you can stop your direct debit and cease to contribute further if you don't want to toe the line. Sorry, but I have had enough now. I will listen, but it's gone too far, you always think you know best and now I am annoyed. There is so much for me to consider and I listen to people equally, or to those that have the best proven track record, not just those that shout loudest!
I will add it to the strategy section, which is really where it should be:
----------------------------------------------------------
Let me clear up some misconceptions regarding multi-perms over single banker/single perms, using a two perm/single perm example comparison.
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,
I just get frustrated when I try so hard to create processes that give everyone equal footing and a say in what we do if any one person tries to force their opinion. If someone is way out in front on the removers or NAP's then they may, in time, as we get more results, be listened to more than others, but until then, I will not just listen to those that shout loudest.
For example if I said we should use the one perm banker approach, but I want Ribchester to be my banker, how would Vaigret feel about that?
Anyway, I've said my piece, so as far as I am concerned there is no bad blood, but I do need Vaigret to follow the processes in a less disruptive manner, if he is to continue participating. So it's down to him now.
Cheers,
G
At the moment we are having multi perms , i'm ok with that !!!!!!
with three bankers which you have SELECTED now all i'm saying is you have to listen to people you ask for help and if they say ok we will have 3 bankers but they are not the ones the bookies have directed you to but what people interested in backing horses and do it often and show a profit give you advice on.
Ok some times they will be wrong and more often and not we are but backing paper favourites has never won anybody a fortune. Money and bets to bring there prices down do that and if youhave some peoples ideas on the horses they fancy before they go in or out in the morning would help.
I wouldn't teach you to suck eggs on statistics so don't tell me how to on picking horses.