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.
1) The funds from the betting account reach the bank account (£3,700 has been withdrawn representing 185 dividends of £20)
2) IH8UBUTLER has provided me with his bank details.
If anyone knows how to get hold of IH8UBUTLER or sees him in chat, please give him a nudge as currently I haven't had any replies from him to my posts, emails or PM's.
Cheers,
G
As such, as soon as the withdrawal from the betting account reaches the bank account, I will start processing payments.
I will update this as and when that happens. Hopefully it will be tomorrow or Tuesday.
Cheers,
G
It's all verified via spreadsheet formulas, however please check.
Snuffer, in Dollie's absence, could you please cross reference this list against the share holdings spreadsheet on the OP and confirm, number of shares, and proposed payment amounts are right?
Please could you then acknowledge this post stating that the proposed payment amounts are correct, and also acknowledge that they total £3,700.00. (185 * £20 per share)
If you could please do this before the actual payments are made, it would be much appreciated.
G
In all likelihood, I won't receive the funds until Tuesday anyway.
Thanks again!
G
In line with the above posts, all payments have now been made.
I used FPI so you should be able to see them straight away in your bank accounts.
The reference used is "YOUR USERID" followed by "JPOT RTNS"
Please post here if you have not received it by 26/05/17. (Although as I said before, they should be there now)
I will assume all payments to have been received if I do not hear anything further by 26/05/2017.
As usual, the payment transactions will be sent to Dollie and Snuffer, although they will NOT receive your personal bank details.
Cheers,
G
Cheers,
G
Well that’s been a great introduction for me to horse racing. I even got to watch the races on Saturday. I’ve got to admit to not even knowing what NAPS is. I do see how much knowledge is in the syndicate and how much effort goes into it. All of which makes me happy to contribute money and moral support.
My only comment having looked on from the side-lines and having played many team sports is that we need to trust the captain. A good captain will listen and take advice from his team but ultimately he has to make the final decisions and the team has to support him. Particularly in the middle of play. Afterwards we can have a debrief and discuss strategy but we can’t second guess during play.
There is obviously a lot of talent here it just all needs to work together. A fantastic start to build on both financially and strategically.
In reference to your point above highlighted in bold (The 0-10 point range), I do not want to do this as it allows people to polarise their responses and try to get a bigger say, by just going 10,0,0. This I want to avoid.
As far as the confusion people had regarding the semi-banker process, there was not enough time to explain and defend my logic, so I needed people to "trust I had the bigger picture in mind" and just complete the task they were asked to do, without semi-guessing, raising doubt about the logic I would use.
Sometimes this will happen, there just won't be the time to fully explain my thinking and respond to all the feedback, as I think on my feet regarding the idiosyncrasies of each card.
However you do make some other valid points.
Regarding Multi-Perms, I take it you have read my very detailed post regarding the benefits.
That's not to say that we won't ever just do one perm with a banker, however, multi-perms will be the way forward most of the time now. Even if we have just one banker, I would likely do two perms each with that same banker in, for reasons well documented.
Cheers,
G
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, below is the proposed perm strategy for Newbury which I will use as a "general" strategy example.
Typically I will use a 3 perm strategy if there is no real strong odds-on shot in the card but where there are a few "shortish" priced favourites in three of the legs.
The benefits of this is similar to the two perm strategy.
In this instance, lets say we were to go for a one perm strategy with Denaar as a banker in the 5th leg and we wanted to include all the other horses in the perm, it would have to look like this:
LEG 1: A,B,C,D,E
LEG 2: A,B,C,D,E
LEG 3: A,B,C,D,E,F,G
LEG 4: A,B,C,D,E
LEG 5: A
LEG 6: A,B,C,D
This equals 5*5*7*5*1*4 = 3,500 lines at 50p = £1,750, which is out of our bankroll.
So doing it with three perms, the way shown below has similar benefits to the two perm strategy that I previously explained, not least that the cost is reduced to slightly over £600 and we are also not completely reliant on the main "banker" winning.
The card's OK "ish", but the roll over is still very small, so we will pass.
Cheers,
G
The "hybrid" will be as follows:
When choosing between 3 bankers that I have provided, you allocate a total of 3 points.
So if you really like banker A and not the other two, you give your three points all to banker A and none to B or C.
If you like banker B best, but are also quite keen on Banker A, then u can allocate 2 pts to banker B, 1 to banker A and none to C
If you like them all equally, you can give them one point each.
I believe this to be the "middle ground" between the two proposed systems.
Please note, I will make the final decision on the semi-bankers and will use your results, combined with market forces, so it will NOT ALWAYS be the case that the one with the highest point score is our main banker.
However, the scores for each banker will form an important part of my overall evaluation.
Cheers,
G
What happened in Manchester last night really does put all these little quarrels into perspective, and also makes one look at what is really important in life, namely friends, family, team spirit and camaraderie.
As such, I just want to say a few words about Vaigret and our disagreement.
Since we had our initial argument on the thread (probably not the best place for either of us to have addressed it, and I take the blame for initiating that), I should have dealt with it offline with Vaigret via PM or email.
Anyhow, Vaigret and I have since discussed him re-joining the syndicate but unfortunately we were unable to establish a mutual middle ground for that to happen. So Vaigret has still decided not to re-join.
I want to take this opportunity to wish Vaigret all the best and to let him know that, from my perspective, the path is still open for him to re-join in the future, should he wish to do so.
Vaigret is clearly a man of character and principle, character traits of which I have the utmost respect.
From my recent emails with Vaigret, it is quite clear that he wishes the syndicate all the best and I am sure I am not alone in reciprocating that gesture back towards him.
As I said earlier, if Vaigret wants to join again in the future, there will be a path open for him to do so.
So please join me in thanking Vaigret for his contribution to date, with the hope that we may be able to participate together further down the line.
Many thanks,
Graham
Never in all my dealings did I want my view to be taken into account anymore than others what I was trying to do was give as much info as I could which would be helpful in putting the bet together.
What I would say and this is not to cause problems,is multi perm options are certainly valid and will probably be used most of the time but please if the removers, naps "experts" signify you can do it with only one banker go for it.
Also I am sure there will be times when it is bloody hard to come up with three optional bankers, and finding one for the sake of the multi perm system could be disastrous if Graham is not able to hit the right line with horses like Defoe.
This is not an attack on Graham I am still just trying to help. The work he does on this is exceptional and I would have helped as much as I could but my spreadsheet knowledge didn't allow it and as you can see we would probably have clashed even if I had been a little more reticent coming forward with views.
This isn't the first time my keenness to help has got me into trouble and I don't think it will be the last I just cant help myself and people think I am trying to take over . That is never my intention.
I said I wouldn't post on syndicate threads again but thought the above posts needed a response from me . This will be my last as I have moved on. I will continue with my own threads , not the naps and removers thread, that would be silly and will try not to upset syndicate members with any comments I make there. Lets hope its just congratulations as you bash the bookies further. I will watch your progress with interest and Good luck.