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.
** JACKPOT SYNDICATE ** STAYORGO PERM SANITY CHECK THREAD ** FOUR PERM OPTION **
StayOrGo
Member Posts: 12,181
Sanity Check for a 4 perm structure:
1) Are all horses 2/1 or less in all perms? (some exceptions if against an odds on shot/short priced favourite as banker) (Standard should be YES)
2) Is anything 14/1 or greater in more than one perm? (Standard should be NO)
3) Are all semi-bankers that are selected, favourite at the time of bet placement, named or un-named? (Standard should be YES, although sometimes affected by NAP's, REMOVALS and market moves)
4) Are all NAP's 12/1 or less in at least one perm? (Standard should be YES, although occasionally won't be able to accommodate)
5) Are all horses with zero or one removers in at least two perms? (Standard should be YES unless big drifter)
6) Is every horse 8/1 or less in at least one perm? (Standard = Yes)
7) Is every horse that is between 4/1 and 7/1 and has less than 50% removal in at least two perms? (Standard should be YES unless drifter)
8) Have late market movers, drifter's and springer's, been taken into consideration? (Always should be YES)
9) Does the structure allow for balance and wide equity? (ie If horse A is in two perms in LEG 1, are those two perms then significantly different to have wide coverage, and so on till leg 6, as much as is achievable) (Standard should be YES)
10) Are all horses 9/4 to 7/2 in at least 3 perms? (Exceptions, drifter's may only be in two)
11) Looking at each leg, in each perm in isolation, is at least 40% of the betting market covered? (Standard should be YES)
12) Are horses 1/2 or less at least banker in two perms? (Standard should be YES, 3 perms also OK)
13) Are horses 4/5 or less at least banker in one perm? (Standard should be YES, two perms also OK)
14) Is coverage counter-balanced (number of selections wise), in the competitive handicaps? (Standard should be YES)
15) Have horses that may be over or under subscribed (for various reasons), been identified and perms adjusted accordingly? (Standard should be YES)
16) Are horses that have been removed by over 50% of people only in two perms or less? (Standard should be YES, unless springer)
There may always be some general exceptions to all the above.
I will add more to this OP as I think of it.
1) Are all horses 2/1 or less in all perms? (some exceptions if against an odds on shot/short priced favourite as banker) (Standard should be YES)
2) Is anything 14/1 or greater in more than one perm? (Standard should be NO)
3) Are all semi-bankers that are selected, favourite at the time of bet placement, named or un-named? (Standard should be YES, although sometimes affected by NAP's, REMOVALS and market moves)
4) Are all NAP's 12/1 or less in at least one perm? (Standard should be YES, although occasionally won't be able to accommodate)
5) Are all horses with zero or one removers in at least two perms? (Standard should be YES unless big drifter)
6) Is every horse 8/1 or less in at least one perm? (Standard = Yes)
7) Is every horse that is between 4/1 and 7/1 and has less than 50% removal in at least two perms? (Standard should be YES unless drifter)
8) Have late market movers, drifter's and springer's, been taken into consideration? (Always should be YES)
9) Does the structure allow for balance and wide equity? (ie If horse A is in two perms in LEG 1, are those two perms then significantly different to have wide coverage, and so on till leg 6, as much as is achievable) (Standard should be YES)
10) Are all horses 9/4 to 7/2 in at least 3 perms? (Exceptions, drifter's may only be in two)
11) Looking at each leg, in each perm in isolation, is at least 40% of the betting market covered? (Standard should be YES)
12) Are horses 1/2 or less at least banker in two perms? (Standard should be YES, 3 perms also OK)
13) Are horses 4/5 or less at least banker in one perm? (Standard should be YES, two perms also OK)
14) Is coverage counter-balanced (number of selections wise), in the competitive handicaps? (Standard should be YES)
15) Have horses that may be over or under subscribed (for various reasons), been identified and perms adjusted accordingly? (Standard should be YES)
16) Are horses that have been removed by over 50% of people only in two perms or less? (Standard should be YES, unless springer)
There may always be some general exceptions to all the above.
I will add more to this OP as I think of it.
Comments
Although if anyone watches me create the perm and notices something that doesn't tie in with the above, feel free to bring it to my attention in the google sheet chat.
For us to have a valid attempt, typically at least 14 of the 16 conditions above should be met.
What is your thought process to decide how many Perms?
Typically it will be three or four perms. Five will be fairly rare, only in situations like Plumpton, when we had three odds on favourites and three "open" races.
Having 5 then allowed us still to be in if two of the three bankers lost, and if two or more of the bankers won, then we had the possibility of getting it for more than 50p to circumvent the potentially low dividend and it also allowed wider coverage in the combined perms that were still "live".
Typically if we have 5 perms, the perm sizes will be smaller than usual, as probably three of the five perms will have two bankers in, allowing us to plan for an upset in the other four legs.
What often happens in these situations is that two of the three bankers win and one loses (but we don't know which one will lose), having 5 perms allows us to cater for this without having to have wide coverage in all the banker legs, which would cost too much and/or restrict our options in other legs.
So why is 2 of the 3 winning the most likely? Well lets say they they are all of odds 1/2 and there is no mark up, so they all genuinely have a 66.67% or 2 in 3 chance of winning. If you put £2 on each and two won you would have staked £6 and got £6 back, hence a two in three chance
We can simulate this by using a dice as an example. If we roll a dice 3 times, lets say every time it's a 1,2,3 or 4 we win, and every time it's a 5 or 6 we lose.
The chance of winning all three is 2/3rds * 2/3rds * 2/3rds = 8 out of 27 times or 29.63%
The chance of losing all three is 1/3rd * 1/3rd * 1/3rd = 1 out of 27 times or 3.7%
The chance of winning one is (2/3 *1/3 * 1/3) * 3 = 6 out of 27 times or 22.22%
The chance of winning two is (2/3*2/3*1/3) * 3 = 12 out of 27 times = 44.44%
If each of the horses were 4/6 without mark up means they should win 60% of the time, so the maths would be as follows:
All three win = 0.6 * 0.6 * 0.6 = 21.6%
Two win = (0.6 * 0.6 * 0.4) * 3 = 43.2%
One wins = (0.4 * 0.4* 0.6) * 3 = 28.8%
None win: 0.4 * 0.4 * 0.4 = 6.4%
Still two out of three comes out on top.
Doing the perm structures that we do allows us to cost effectively get wider coverage than we could get if we did a single perm and we have a 74.07% and 64.8% respectively (at 1/2 or 4/6) chance of getting at least two of the bankers in. We can also be "reassured" that all three are only going to lose 3.7% of the time if 1/2 or 6.4% of the time if 4/6.
I have used 1/2 as an "average" banker price to make explaining the maths easier, and to equate it to a dice. I have used 4/6 in the other example as it works well as a decimal. Obviously in reality the maths is slightly more complex, but the same principle applies.
However, as I said five perms will be quite rare, so the decision is usually between three or four. There is no clear "rule" that I use for determining this, but I weigh up the factors around the card configuration.
I look at the 16 points on the OP and decide the most cost effective way to achieve it. Sometimes that is 4 perms, sometimes it is three.
It's more likely to be 4 perms if there are at least two strong bankers. Lets call them Banker A and Banker B. Lets say banker A is a very strong 1/4 shot and banker B is a 4/5 shot.
This way I can have a scenario, where one perm has both Banker A and Banker B as bankers, two perms have Banker A as sole banker and 1 perm has Banker B as sole banker. So banker A is a banker in three of the four perms and banker B is a banker in two of the four perms.
This way if both bankers win, we will still be in all four perms and will have wide onward coverage in the perm where both are bankers. If Banker B loses, we are still live in two perms and if banker A loses, we still have a chance in the the fourth perm.
So we are not totally dependant on both our bankers wining and still have a chance of a decent dividend if one of them gets beat, whilst if both DO win then we have significant coverage in the last four legs in the perm where both were bankers, along with the other three perms.
Hope this explains a little bit.
Cheers,
G
ASK THE GURU had 2 NAPS and 2 REMOVALS, and was 5/1, so the following would now be flagged up.
4) Are all NAPS in at least one perm? (Standard = Yes)
6) Is every horse 8/1 or less in at least one perm? (Standard = Yes)
7) Is every horse that is between 4/1 and 7/1 and has less than 50% removal in at least two perms? (Standard = Yes)
So hopefully if I follow the sanity check on the OP, that will make errors like that less likely.
The more recent CORNERSTONE LAD incident, would be flagged up by item 6.
The above will sometimes be affected by market movement as explained in the OP, but certainly, if this procedure was in place and adhered to then both ASK THE GURU and CORNERSTONE LAD would have been in at least one perm which would have resulted in successful jackpot attempts on those occasions.