As you know I'm very interested in Horse Racing, particularly over Jumps, and the Top Class Flat Racing, so thank you for letting me contribute to your Jackpot Syndicate thread. I will try and help as much as I can, 'coz I think it's fantastic what you have set-up, and great fun for both racing and non-racing enthusiasts too, and I'm sure everyone really appreciates all your hard work.
Obviously I'm not in the Syndicate, but I hope you don't mind me raising a couple of points regarding the 'Hedging' side of the betting. I fully understand the probable need for this, (after all, that's exactly what Bookmakers and Professional Gamblers do), having seen the 'Ludlow' Jackpot MISS on Sunday, which was extremely annoying for you (I was very annoyed too tbh coz the Jackpot was very winnable).
I know this is very much a learning process 'On the Hoof' (if you don't mind the pun), and I'm sure being a statistics man you will have worked out the optimum strategy for the Syndicate, but looking back at the LOSS at Ludlow, and comparing it to the Jackpot WIN at Chester, if you were Hedging on both meetings then, how much would you have needed to put on each of the horses, and from which Legs? From memory, on the Chester WIN, you had 3 selections in each of the last 2 races, leaving 6 horses in Leg5 and 7 horses in Leg6 i think it was. I'm sure there is a formula/computer that would be able to work out how much you would have to invest to guarantee a profit, but it might be worth going thru' the races to see exactly how it would work. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and we would all be millionaires if we had it, but I think it would help the syndicate to know how profitable it would be. I'm sure it's all dependent on how many units are left in at the time you want to start Hedging.
I know the 3 perm strategy worked at Chester, and the 2 Perm one missed at Ludlow. I think it was Snuffer who pointed out that it would be so annoying to have all 6 winners split between 2 or 3 perms, and yet not get the Jackpot up, especially if you're using more money later when Hedging. With the Ludlow LOSS, and again with hindsight the Odds-on banker strategy (your original strategy) on 1 perm may well have worked better. I know it's awful when the perm goes down on the 1st Leg(Chester Friday), especially when it's with a banker, but as you alluded to in your original strategy , it does give you more flexibility in the tricky races.
It might even be worth having a word with Neil (Channing)if he has time, to see what his thoughts are.
Sorry if this seems a bit negative, but I think it's worth looking at everything with hindsight too, to learn more about the best way forward to make a profit at this, and I hope you don't mind me raising the points. I really do only want to help you all as much as possible.
GOOD LUCK with your next attempt, and I will try and contribute as much as I can. (I do find the REMOVERS difficult, but very interesting)
Best wishes
JEZ
WOW....it's taken me nearly 2 hours to write this, but it's been on my mind since last night.
hi Graham As you know I'm very interested in Horse Racing, particularly over Jumps, and the Top Class Flat Racing, so thank you for letting me contribute to your Jackpot Syndicate thread. I will try and help as much as I can, 'coz I think it's fantastic what you have set-up, and great fun for both racing and non-racing enthusiasts too, and I'm sure everyone really appreciates all your hard work. Obviously I'm not in the Syndicate, but I hope you don't mind me raising a couple of points regarding the 'Hedging' side of the betting. I fully understand the probable need for this, (after all, that's exactly what Bookmakers and Professional Gamblers do), having seen the 'Ludlow' Jackpot MISS on Sunday, which was extremely annoying for you (I was very annoyed too tbh coz the Jackpot was very winnable). I know this is very much a learning process 'On the Hoof' (if you don't mind the pun), and I'm sure being a statistics man you will have worked out the optimum strategy for the Syndicate, but looking back at the LOSS at Ludlow, and comparing it to the Jackpot WIN at Chester, if you were Hedging on both meetings then, how much would you have needed to put on each of the horses, and from which Legs? From memory, on the Chester WIN, you had 3 selections in each of the last 2 races, leaving 6 horses in Leg5 and 7 horses in Leg6 i think it was. I'm sure there is a formula/computer that would be able to work out how much you would have to invest to guarantee a profit, but it might be worth going thru' the races to see exactly how it would work. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and we would all be millionaires if we had it, but I think it would help the syndicate to know how profitable it would be. I'm sure it's all dependent on how many units are left in at the time you want to start Hedging. I know the 3 perm strategy worked at Chester, and the 2 Perm one missed at Ludlow. I think it was Snuffer who pointed out that it would be so annoying to have all 6 winners split between 2 or 3 perms, and yet not get the Jackpot up, especially if you're using more money later when Hedging. With the Ludlow LOSS, and again with hindsight the Odds-on banker strategy (your original strategy) on 1 perm may well have worked better. I know it's awful when the perm goes down on the 1st Leg(Chester Friday), especially when it's with a banker, but as you alluded to in your original strategy , it does give you more flexibility in the tricky races. It might even be worth having a word with Neil (Channing)if he has time, to see what his thoughts are. Sorry if this seems a bit negative, but I think it's worth looking at everything with hindsight too, to learn more about the best way forward to make a profit at this, and I hope you don't mind me raising the points. I really do only want to help you all as much as possible. GOOD LUCK with your next attempt, and I will try and contribute as much as I can. (I do find the REMOVERS difficult, but very interesting) Best wishes JEZ WOW....it's taken me nearly 2 hours to write this, but it's been on my mind since last night. Posted by MISTY4ME
Hi Jez.
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.
FYI Misty, Tomorrow, I will post an example of how I may have hedged for Ludlow. I didn't do it previously so as not to baffle people with science. Cheers, G Posted by StayOrGo
BRILLIANT.... thanks Graham.
I am so interested in this sort of thing. At school (pre-Golf) i always wanted to be a Stockbroker/Trader. I think I would have a lot more money now if I'd followed that path!! .....especially when you now see these Hedge Fund bosses are all at the top of The Times 'Rich List'.... imagine earning £300 million in a year!!!
11 years ago I worked in a local Independent betting shop too, but only for 4months, though it was more 'coz i was watching racing at home, and the wife said "why don't you go and work in the betting shop in the village, where you can get paid for watching horse racing". I used to help work out the 'laying off' there too, I was also offered a job as a Relief Manager for B'FRED too, but turned it down coz the money was shocking.
I would still love to become a trader/odds compiler..... I do find it fascinating
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.
Thanks for explaining and showing how it would have worked. 'No Brainer' as they say, to guarantee a profit/or recover stakes. I think that helps everyone in the Syndicate understand it better
.... and you would also get the winning stake back on the 'Hedged' horse, if that was the one that won
Thanks for explaining and showing how it would have worked. 'No Brainer' as they say, to guarantee a profit/or recover stakes. I think that helps everyone in the Syndicate understand it better .... and you would also get the winning stake back on the 'Hedged' horse, if that was the one that won Posted by MISTY4ME
The net profit totals include getting the stake back on the winning horse Mist.
FYI, it would be very unusual that we start hedging in LEG4 as too many unknowns (unless like Ludlow) only one horse in LEG4 that we didn't have. That may be a RARE exception.
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.
It works for me. Very good Graham. It would be important to make sure that there are sufficient funds in the kitty to be able to afford the hedge bets. Posted by Dollie
Yes Dollie, that is a slight problem, especially if starting to hedge prior to LEG6.
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.
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.
In Response to Re: ** JACKPOT SYNDICATE - OFFICIAL THREAD ** VERY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO INPUT INTO HEDGING OPTION QUESTION/PROCESS** SHARE DEALINGS ARE NOW FROZEN UNTIL 26TH MAY 2017 : Yes Dollie, that is a slight problem, especially if starting to hedge prior to LEG6. 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 Posted by StayOrGo
this i vote no to.
if there isnt money in kitty then no hedge bets. all or nothing with jackpot
In Response to Re: ** JACKPOT SYNDICATE - OFFICIAL THREAD ** VERY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO INPUT INTO HEDGING OPTION QUESTION/PROCESS** SHARE DEALINGS ARE NOW FROZEN UNTIL 26TH MAY 2017 : this i vote no to. if there isnt money in kitty then no hedge bets. all or nothing with jackpot Posted by MICKYBLUE
OK, that makes it easier for me.
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'TWIN 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?
Comments
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