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
Screenshots of balances sent to Snuffer and Dollie.
Cheers,
G
I have added the following table to the OP. So we can keep track of Monthly summaries and see the medium/long term impact of any hedging:
Cheers,
G
However, please could someone post here when they know where the Jackpot Meeting is.
Cheers,
G
IT'S A ROLLOVER !
If anyone does manage to find out where the Jackpot meeting is please post here when you do, and I will take a look and decide one way or the other.
However, I think it's 90%+ that it will be a NO-GO.
Cheers,
G
Due to low roll over and fairly tough card it is a NO-GO for Goodwood.
Cheers,
G
So it was money saved.
It's often easy to look back after and say, "We would have got the Jackpot", although unless the full perm is written out before hand one can often think, "We would have got it if we'd gone for it".
Don't take this the wrong way, I am not saying you wouldn't have got it Mist, but I am not sure it's helpful tbh, as a lot of people work very hard and it could be a bit demoralising if people keep thinking we missed an opportunity.
I am happy for people to post "would be" perms before the event, where they think my perm is wrong, or I didn't decide to go for it, although, I don't think it's helpful to suggest we are missing opportunities or are getting it "wrong" after the event.
I make my GO , NO-GO decisions based on a variation of factors, including a ""mental algorithm" that works out the cost of the perm based on 60%+ "betting percentage" coverage per race. (See strategy post). If it's prohibitive, I don't do it.
So I do put a lot of thought into my GO/NO-GO decisions, and of course there will be lots of times when we don't go for it and would have won it if we did. However, I don't feel this would have been one of those occasions.
Misty, I know, as always that your comments are meant well, and there will always be "missed opportunities", but I just think these posts can cause people to think we are missing a trick, when in fact it has been considered in quite a lot of detail.
So we almost certainly saved our money by NOT going for it at Sandown, and we wouldn't have gone for it, even if we had lots of notice.
One of the debates I had with Vaigret was that I was happy for him to do his "would be" perms, as long as they were before the event, similarly if you wish to do that, I am happy for you to do so, and we can track your profit and loss. It could be quite helpful over time, and maybe fun for you to do, but I am not keen on people saying they would have won it after the event.
From my experience it's all to easy to talk yourself into believing you'd have won it. I have done this myself many times, so it's not a criticism, just a request that you put your views and selections out there for all to see before the first race starts, rather than theoretical statements afterwards.
I know you are a loyal fan of the syndicate and are enthusiastic for it to do well, and your support is much appreciated.
IMO, based on a solid strategy the perm cost was too great to have 60%+ coverage per leg and effectively there was no rollover (Combined pool would be less than the standard £10 G) Also combine that with the fact that we are only 8 days into the month and the bankroll is already hit.
There are potential opportunities of rollovers after Royal Ascot etc. and I am trying to make sure we have funds at that time too.
So to a degree, unless people genuinely think there is a flaw with my logic, I need people to "trust" my GO/NO-GO decisions.
Cheers,
G
P.S. At Sandown the SP accumulator paid £19,963.12 to a £1 stake, so we would never be getting value from a £10K prize pool. Whether we would have won it or not is immaterial, clearly in this case the pool would have offered little value. This fact in isolation is reasonable justification for not going for it.
The June Bets/Rollover history is now up-to-date on the OP.
Cheers,
G
Both are tough cards, and if for some reason they choose a different meeting, it will only be because it is tougher still.
As such this is an early heads up, that regardless of whether it rolls over today, tomorrow (Sat 10th June) will be a NO-GO.
Cheers,
G
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%3a3f6f3c87-e1a6-4bbc-a069-fef8ca39ea0a
Cheers,
G
Good news in one way, bad news in another.
Sunday is very marginal for both the GOODWOOD card and the NOTTINGHAM card.
I will need to reflect upon whether we go for it based on which one of the above meetings the Jackpot is at, and how the betting markets shape up at the relevant meeting.
It would help enormously if we can get an early sight of which meeting the Jackpot is at.
Cheers,
G
I strongly suspect it will be GOODWOOD but would be nice to know officially.
I have decided that discretion is the better part of valour here, so it's a NO-GO for GOODWOOD tomorrow.
Cheers,
G
P.S. If anyone wants to post "would be" perms for Goodwood tomorrow please do before the off of the first. (on your own threads) From now forwards I will look at people's "would be" perms and keep a P&L for them. If you want me to record your profit/loss. Please title the thread something like "USERID'S "WOULD BE" JACKPOT PERM AT "LOCATION" ON "DATE")
It was a marginal NO-GO call, so I will be interested to see how people may have done.
With the Jackpot being won today, it's a probable NO-GO tomorrow (12/06/17)
Although may be worth looking at the card (when we know the meeting), to see if there is any value to be had from the £10K Guarantee. So please post when/if you know the meeting.
Cheers,
G
If anyone manages to find out, please post here.
Cheers,
G