Here are the payments that I am due to make shortly.
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.
Here are the payments that I am due to make shortly. 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. JACKPOT SYNDICATE PAYMENTS SKY ALIAS NO. OF SHARES £20 DIVIDEND PAYMENT PER SHARE DUE 1981MATT 4 £80.00 BEARACE 2 £40.00 CHRISPIP 4 £80.00 DOLLIE 5 £100.00 DONTTELMUM 5 £100.00 EVELYNE 2 £40.00 GONEDOGGIN 5 £100.00 IH8UBUTLER 5 £100.00 IRISHROSE 10 £200.00 JORDZ16 10 £200.00 LIMP2LOSE 10 £200.00 MAXALLY 10 £200.00 MICKYBLUE 4 £80.00 MKGUNNER 5 £100.00 MONKEYGLB 20 £400.00 ONEJOHNB 2 £40.00 RABDENIRO 1 £20.00 RSPCA12 25 £500.00 STAYORGO 30 £600.00 THE_BUCKLE 5 £100.00 THISLTEDU 5 £100.00 VAIGRET 1 £20.00 WYNNE1938 5 £100.00 ZADOC 10 £200.00 TOTAL 185 £3,700.00 Cheers, G Posted by StayOrGo
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.
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. Posted by thisltedu
I concur with thisltedu
As a non Horse Racing person, my investment was in the Captain/Organiser of this syndicate. Having met Graham, his commitment to his causes, the knowledge and organisation is second to none. I am amazed at how well the first month has gone and certainly wasnt the results I expected to be honest so early on. With the other members assisting with there Harse Racing knowledge, I am in ore at the talent there is in this collection of individuals.
I now find myself following results and even though I havent got a clue at what I am looking at, the excitment of following our bets is exciting to say the least. Maybe one day I will understand NAPS, perms and the other jargon and maybe even make the odd suggestion ......
As an investor only, I look forward to see how this syndicate evolves over the coming months and congratulate the team in there astonishing results.
As I mentioned to Graham at the tables last night, I will be enjoying a Premium sausage roll for my lunch today with my new found wealth !!
I am not in the syndicate, but I do support it. I am not a horse expert or a betting expert. I have learned alot from following hte syndicate and I am really happy that it is doing well and long may that continue.
I just wanted to add my thoughts in response to Thistledu and MonkeyGLBs posts above and recent events.
The syndicate was Graham's idea and he clearly puts a lot of time and effort into the running of it. He brings a lot to the party on the matter of perms and using stats/probability to maximise chances of success. He also openly admits to needing the input of people with horse knowledge to gain an edge on the selection process.
I wont dwell on the disagreement during the last successful jackpot attempt, let's just put that down to personality differences. I think both parties have acknowledged that they may have over reacted to the others posts and they have wished each other luck.
I sincerely hope both continue to contribute to the forum though.
Don makes the point that there should be time to reflect on the process and improve it between runnings and I am sure we all want that.
As Poker players we all know the risks of being results oriented. Just because it made a good profit in May it doesnt mean everything is perfect and we cannot learn and improve.
I think it is fair to say that there has been some confusion caused by changes to the process.
The key parts of the process are:
1. GO-NO-GO Decision
This needs to be done as soon as possible after the jackpot meeting is confirmed. Good job being done there especially by Wynne with his direct approach.
I think most of the time this will be an easy decision based on the money in the pool and general difficulty of the card and I think mostly is is an easy one for Graham to make on his own. He made need a second opinion on the card from the experienced horse bettors and when he doubt he uses the forum to gather thoughts.
2. BANKERS and No. Of Perms
The original strategy was to go with a meeting with one Banker (ie an odds-on favourite with little opposition) where covering that single horse will cover over 60% of the market in that race. Having a race with 1 horse selected greatly reduces the number of permutations needed which can make the overall bet much more affordable and worth placing.
The strategy was changed for Chester and the first syndicate win. It all resolved around an odds-on shot being thought of as a banker but that choice was challenged successfully and a multi-perm option tried with "semi-bankers". These being a few favourites where you could have different perms, some of which had one of the semi-bankers exposed with no other horses and other perms where they have some cover.
Some meetings will be worth attempting with one banker, others will be worth attempting with semi-bankers. Whatever though the selection of those bankers/semi-bankers is a crucial part of the process.
Sometimes it will be obvious but it will need input often too.
There was undoubtedly confusion at the last attempt as to why we were being asked to rank 3 bankers in order of preference. In the end consensus was reached on 2 semi-bankers who happened to win so the result worked but not before that confusion was the catalyst to the disagreement.
Maybe there could always be some input into how many potential bankers/semi bankers there may be in an upcoming meeting? Either on the forum , or maybe there could be a Skype group (other platforms are available) to have a discussion between Graham and the senior horse pickers?
When selecting bankers I understand where Graham is coming from in wanting all to be able to contribute to that process and to have a measurable answer.
I think ranking 1-2-3 and awarding points 3,2,1 gives too narrow a view of whether the bankers are right or whether there is consensus. I think that was restrictive and caused frustration from a respected horse picker who would have removed 2 bankers.
In the end the result was 2 bankers were picked and they both won so it was 1-1 to those in disagreement (thankfully especially as it means I can refer to it without taking sides). It is not about a specific right or wrong anyway, it is about trying to improve the process.
So here is a suggestion:
Maybe it would be better if there were 10 points available, so if 3 bankers are up for selection you could pick
HORSE A 10
HORSE B 0
HORSE C 0
^ If you thought there should only be one banker.
HORSE A 6
HORSE B 4
HORSE C 0
^ If you thought there should be 2 but you prefered A to B
HORSE A 4
HORSE B 3
HORSE C 3
^ If you thought there should be 3 but had a slight preference for A
I think that would give Graham the numerical/stastical input and evidence he needs rather than having to interpret and weight different verbalised opinions?
As to Perm selection I think that has to be one we all just rely on Graham's expertise for.
3. ADDITIONS AND REMOVALS
This is another very important of the process. I think it is working extremely well so far and WP to all as the combination of keeping the right horses in and removing the right horses to make the bet affordable is critical. It seems to be working very well and I have nothing to suggest re improvement.
4. FINAL selection and bet placement
Simple there, we just leave it Captain G.
I hope all will appreciate that this is meant as a positive post, in favour of the syndicate and offering discussion as to possible ways of making it even more successful.
I am not in the syndicate, but I do support it. I am not a horse expert or a betting expert. I have learned alot from following hte syndicate and I am really happy that it is doing well and long may that continue. I just wanted to add my thoughts in response to Thistledu and MonkeyGLBs posts above and recent events. The syndicate was Graham's idea and he clearly puts a lot of time and effort into the running of it. He brings a lot to the party on the matter of perms and using stats/probability to maximise chances of success. He also openly admits to needing the input of people with horse knowledge to gain an edge on the selection process. I wont dwell on the disagreement during the last successful jackpot attempt, let's just put that down to personality differences. I think both parties have acknowledged that they may have over reacted to the others posts and they have wished each other luck. I sincerely hope both continue to contribute to the forum though. Don makes the point that there should be time to reflect on the process and improve it between runnings and I am sure we all want that. As Poker players we all know the risks of being results oriented. Just because it made a good profit in May it doesnt mean everything is perfect and we cannot learn and improve. I think it is fair to say that there has been some confusion caused by changes to the process. The key parts of the process are: 1. GO-NO-GO Decision This needs to be done as soon as possible after the jackpot meeting is confirmed. Good job being done there especially by Wynne with his direct approach. I think most of the time this will be an easy decision based on the money in the pool and general difficulty of the card and I think mostly is is an easy one for Graham to make on his own. He made need a second opinion on the card from the experienced horse bettors and when he doubt he uses the forum to gather thoughts. 2. BANKERS and No. Of Perms The original strategy was to go with a meeting with one Banker (ie an odds-on favourite with little opposition) where covering that single horse will cover over 60% of the market in that race. Having a race with 1 horse selected greatly reduces the number of permutations needed which can make the overall bet much more affordable and worth placing. The strategy was changed for Chester and the first syndicate win. It all resolved around an odds-on shot being thought of as a banker but that choice was challenged successfully and a multi-perm option tried with "semi-bankers". These being a few favourites where you could have different perms, some of which had one of the semi-bankers exposed with no other horses and other perms where they have some cover. Some meetings will be worth attempting with one banker, others will be worth attempting with semi-bankers. Whatever though the selection of those bankers/semi-bankers is a crucial part of the process. Sometimes it will be obvious but it will need input often too. There was undoubtedly confusion at the last attempt as to why we were being asked to rank 3 bankers in order of preference. In the end consensus was reached on 2 semi-bankers who happened to win so the result worked but not before that confusion was the catalyst to the disagreement. Maybe there could always be some input into how many potential bankers/semi bankers there may be in an upcoming meeting? Either on the forum , or maybe there could be a Skype group (other platforms are available) to have a discussion between Graham and the senior horse pickers? When selecting bankers I understand where Graham is coming from in wanting all to be able to contribute to that process and to have a measurable answer. I think ranking 1-2-3 and awarding points 3,2,1 gives too narrow a view of whether the bankers are right or whether there is consensus. I think that was restrictive and caused frustration from a respected horse picker who would have removed 2 bankers. In the end the result was 2 bankers were picked and they both won so it was 1-1 to those in disagreement (thankfully especially as it means I can refer to it without taking sides). It is not about a specific right or wrong anyway, it is about trying to improve the process. So here is a suggestion: Maybe it would be better if there were 10 points available, so if 3 bankers are up for selection you could pick HORSE A 10 HORSE B 0 HORSE C 0 ^ If you thought there should only be one banker. HORSE A 6 HORSE B 4 HORSE C 0 ^ If you thought there should be 2 but you prefered A to B HORSE A 4 HORSE B 3 HORSE C 3 ^ If you thought there should be 3 but had a slight preference for A I think that would give Graham the numerical/stastical input and evidence he needs rather than having to interpret and weight different verbalised opinions? As to Perm selection I think that has to be one we all just rely on Graham's expertise for. 3. ADDITIONS AND REMOVALS This is another very important of the process. I think it is working extremely well so far and WP to all as the combination of keeping the right horses in and removing the right horses to make the bet affordable is critical. It seems to be working very well and I have nothing to suggest re improvement. 4. FINAL selection and bet placement Simple there, we just leave it Captain G. I hope all will appreciate that this is meant as a positive post, in favour of the syndicate and offering discussion as to possible ways of making it even more successful. Posted by Phantom66
Thanks for the feedback Phantom.
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.
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.
In Response to Re: ** JACKPOT SYNDICATE ** OFFICIAL THREAD ** ALL DIVIDEND PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND SHOULD BE VISIBLE IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT ** SHARE DEALINGS ARE NOW FROZEN UNTIL 26TH MAY 2017 : Thanks for the feedback Phantom. 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 Posted by StayOrGo
Totally with you on the multi-perm approach.
For all the practice runs and first live run there was a clear banker and one perm. Multi-perms clearly worked, but it changed the process, in that now you need more input on bankers. The idea of the suggestion was to give you more information on the relative confidence in each banker, not just the order or best to worst.
Yes I can see 10-0-0 may be a bit too polarising, although it would certainly give a clear indication of one persons thoughts. If several others gave one particular horse a 0 you would quickly see that the syndicate were not behind it.
It might be harder to spot that from a horse ranked 3rd alot. Plus even if a horse is ranked 3rd alot it doesnt necessarily mean it shouldnt be a semi banker. just that the other 2 are rated better.
Imagine one day we have 2 bankers put forward.
From just a 1-2 ranking you wouldnt have much information to go on.
But if 10 points were available and the answers were coming in 6-4, 5-5, 4-6 then you would know both were solid bankers, You would expect a mix of 1-2 and 2-1 rankings under the existing method.
But what if one of the bankers is more favoured, lots of 1-2s doesnt give you much info, the equivalent results with 10 points could be lots of 10-0, 9-1, 8-2s or lots of 7-3s, 6-4s.
I am not saying 10 points is definitely better than rankings I am just putting it out there for consideration.
In Response to Re: ** JACKPOT SYNDICATE ** OFFICIAL THREAD ** ALL DIVIDEND PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND SHOULD BE VISIBLE IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT ** SHARE DEALINGS ARE NOW FROZEN UNTIL 26TH MAY 2017 : Totally with you on the multi-perm approach. For all the practice runs and first live run there was a clear banker and one perm. Multi-perms clearly worked, but it changed the process, in that now you need more input on bankers. The idea of the suggestion was to give you more information on the relative confidence in each banker, not just the order or best to worst. Yes I can see 10-0-0 may be a bit too polarising, although it would certainly give a clear indication of one persons thoughts. If several others gave one particular horse a 0 you would quickly see that the syndicate were not behind it. It might be harder to spot that from a horse ranked 3rd alot. Plus even if a horse is ranked 3rd alot it doesnt necessarily mean it shouldnt be a semi banker. just that the other 2 are rated better. Imagine one day we have 2 bankers put forward. From just a 1-2 ranking you wouldnt have much information to go on. But if 10 points were available and the answers were coming in 6-4, 5-5, 4-6 then you would know both were solid bankers, You would expect a mix of 1-2 and 2-1 rankings under the existing method. But what if one of the bankers is more favoured, lots of 1-2s doesnt give you much info, the equivalent results with 10 points could be lots of 10-0, 9-1, 8-2s or lots of 7-3s, 6-4s. I am not saying 10 points is definitely better than rankings I am just putting it out there for consideration. In G we Trust! Posted by Phantom66
OK, if we are in this situation in the future, we will do a "hybrid" of the current 3-2-1 system and Phantom's suggested "10 point" system.
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.
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.
Thanks Graham and I repeat here all the best for the future. Well done to Phantom on a very good post.
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 **** 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.
Comments
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 **** 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.