I guess it depends on the prices of the naps that day. If they end up being short prices then the trebles and upwards would be best. If they are bigger prices them perhaps the lucky 31 option would be better. Anyway I am happy to go with the option that Graham prefers.
I'm thinking perhaps we could do both, as the opinions seem to be 50/50. And Bearace makes a good point.
So we could have a couple of perms with the shorter priced horses that are treble's upwards and a couple of perms that are LUCKY 31's.
That seems fair to me when both opinions are equally supported.
OK with you guys?
Cheers,
G
Seems to be the way forward G with the split vote.
As to Lucky 31 as you know I dont like Lucky's as you stake the same for a single as a big multiple. However I take your "staking proportionately" means that you will adjust the stake accordingly for the bets you make. If not and it easier for you dont mind, lets just hope we are LUCKY
Yes basically for 5 horses, trebles upwards is 16 bets and a Lucky 31 is 31 bets (as in the name). So the TREBLES UPWARDS will be twice the unit stake of the LUCKY 31's, making each perm approximately the same cost as the other.
Sorry we are talking at cross purposes again, So we will be doing a Lucky 31 when we are putting the same stake on all the bets in it . So we think the single has as much chance of winning as the five fold and vice versa. Unless i am acting thick again that means to get any of the advantage of having a "LUCKY" our single Winner would have to be 16-1 or better. Whereas if we did the bet without the LUCKY element we could apportion our bets as per the chance of it coming in.
V
PS: That is of course is if the LUCKY bet is as usual, double the odds on a single winner
OK, I don't think I can make myself understood, we'll just stick with a total stake on the LUCKY 31 perms being similar to the total stake on the Treble's upwards perms, that is the fairest split when opinion is divided. By default a LUCKY 31 has the same bet stake for 5 singles, 10 doubles, 10 trebles, 5 four folds and an accumulator.
Sorry but this is a ridiculous statement. "So we think the single has as much chance of winning as the five fold and vice versa"
Of course not!
Obviously we hope to get more than one winner in some/all the perms, but if we do only get one winner in a perm, we lose less than we would without the consolation bonus. In fact Lucky 15's would make the consolation bonus more prevalent, but then we'd be changing tack to 4 horses per perm instead of 5.
I may well do half of our funds on five horse perms trebles and upwards as per your request and half of our stake on four horse perms Lucky 15's instead of five horse Lucky 31's to get the most out of the consolation bonus to a greater extent,
It's not surprising that we fall out when you say sarcastic stuff like "So we think the single has as much chance of winning as the five fold and vice versa."
If you genuinely meant it as a question, then I apologise, but I don't see how you could.
I have no problem as i said with splitting and Im not trying to be sarcastic at all. You ask for views I give them and then you dont read my post properly as I think you start from a position "hes trying to cause problems". I hope thats not the case but sometimes I feel it is.
There is no problem with splitting, thats what people want, no problem, and I supported that. I also said if it easier for you keep with exact staking of the Lucky bets I agreed to.
All I was trying to suggest was if we are splitting the total amount between
1. Trebles, fourfolds and five folds
and
2. Lucky 31's or 15's type bets
why couldnt we vary the stakes on 2 as the bookies format for these LUCKY bets does not aim towards the punter but themselves because the staking of the bet infers ;
"the single has as much chance of winning as the five fold and vice versa."
Perhaps I should have put it better but if the bet infers that, and we are staking as per the bet then sorry yes we do think
"the single has as much chance of winning as the five fold and vice versa."
The only advantage as i said by sticking to the stake of the bet would be to get a 16-1 single winner by sticking to the staking plan because that is the only bonus we would get by sticking to the staking plan of the bet.
Of course we are aiming to get all five winners in those bets and i hope we do but the only advantages of a Lucky 31 over 5 horses in Trebles , Fourfolds and fivefolds is the Singles and doubles we would get . So what is wrong with this ;
Lucky 31 -
31 bets at £2 = £62
31 bets
5 singles at £3 10 doubles at £2 10 Trebles at £2 5 fourfolds at £1 1 fivefold at £1
= £61
Ok we would might lose out if we got four or five winners but the chances of that isnt as strong as getting three or less.
So to repeat what I have said in all my other posts , I will go with whatever you decide the people have chosen . If you had already looked at something similar to this post and disregarded it then I apologise for putting it forward. However from all your posts I didnt get the feeling you had and I just wanted to give it as an option.
So if you had looked at that staking option, disregarded it and have already explained that to me in any of your above posts I apologise even more profusely for raising.
I really am trying not to fall out with you. However again statistically we don't see eye to eye.
It's obvious from the subtext of your posts that you "don't like" Lucky 15's and Lucky 31's etc. It appears you have this opinion that they are "bad value"
Let me explain something from a statistical perspective. First of all, any fixed odds bet made by the "average punter" is bad value. That's why bookies win.
So it's a case of trying to find, the least "bad value"
Assuming a betting percentage of 15% which is about average, the percentage a bookmaker can expect to make long term from the following type of bets is as follows:
The above is effectively their "mark up" on the various types of bets, so of course they love trebles upwards which is why you see so many acca promotional bonuses etc.
Anyway, it appears that you believe this "myth" that "Lucky's" are worse value than trebles upwards.
Having been a bookmaker in a past life, I can tell you that the above is not true, it is in fact clearly the opposite.
Bookmakers offer the consolation single because they so want the multiple bets and is a slight loss-leader on the singles aspect. They offer the 10% or 15% bonus if all win as they know there mark up is big on the multiple bets.
The way I see it, we have three choices here.
1) We can just do the trebles upwards that you are so keen on, in which case the most likely result is that we go broke. If we are lucky and win a decent amount, I can declare a final dividend and either way we can pack up the BLUE MOON CLUB, and be done and dusted with it on Friday, which might not be a bad idea.
2) We do a mixture of TREBLES UPWARDS and LUCKY 15's, (split the stake evenly between the two) which will give us the chance of both a big win and failing that some consolation small returns which we could use the following day.
3) We do LUCKY 15's only which would give us the opportunity in all likelihood to have several attempts over the coming NAP's days, with small returns potentially funding us to hit big if not this time, then on subsequent occasions.
Option 3 is my preferred choice, option 1 is yours, opinions are mixed, so option two seems fair. However if the feeling is that we want to either win big or go bust on Friday, so we can close the BLUE MOON CLUB down, then option one is the best way of achieving that. So it depends if people want to have "FUN" for days to come or for it to finish once and for all on Friday.
So the real question to ask people is not about the type of bet, but the following:
1) Do we want Friday to be the absolute final day of the BLUE MOON CLUB or do we want to play around with the funds Misty so brilliantly won for us, for a few days more or for however long it lasts. Giving us multiple chances to hit that big win.
This is the real question that should drive the type of bets that we do.
I do not dislike Lucky bets per se I dislike their staking and therefore adjust the stakes accordingly as the chances of winning the bonus or the doubling of price of a single winner in my opinion does not out weigh staking the bet how i like.
My personal choice and therefore as in a syndicate as I have said in previous posts I would go with what you decided. Just dont put words into my mouth.
I do not want to go with your option 1, havent since i saw other people wanted to go another way. I dont mind 2 or 3 although I still think 2 gives us the best of both worlds and seemed to be the way we were going. But doesnt worry me.
As to your last comment
1) Do we want Friday to be the absolute final day of the BLUE MOON CLUB or do we want to play around with the funds Misty so brilliantly won for us, for a few days more or for however long it lasts. Giving us multiple chances to hit that big win.
I am in total agreement THAT WE DO NOT WANT IT TO BE THE FINAL DAY for goodness sake , who would .
OK, if you don't want Friday to be the final day then we need a lower variance route. So I will probably do primarily combinations of four horse Lucky15's and a few five horse treble upwards bets.
Unless no one NAPS a winner at all, or the only winners we have are odds-on, this will almost certainly guarantee some form of return to continue to Saturday.
If we just have a small amount left after Friday, then, as before, whoever does the best on Friday can choose the Saturday selections.
If we have a reasonable amount still to play with, then we'll use everyone's NAPS again on Saturday.
FWIW, V, if you like varying the stake on your singles, doubles, trebles and 4 folds, and I completely understand why you would, then perhaps, for your own bets, you can consider the following
Say you wanted to do £5 singles, £4 doubles, £3 trebles and £2 four folds on four horses.
You could do a £2 LUCKY 15 as one bet.
Then do £3 singles, £2 doubles and £1 trebles.
It has the same effect, but at least you get the consolation bonus for £2 worth of each of your singles and the 10% bonus to a £2 unit stake if all four win.
If you just did it as £5 singles, £4 doubles, £3 trebles and £2 four folds, it would cost the same, be exactly the same bet, but you would miss out on both bonuses.
The cost for both ways of doing it would be £58.00 in total.
The nature of a LUCKY 15 means that it has to be a consistent unit stake, but the above can circumvent that, albeit you only get the bonuses to a £2 unit stake.
FWIW, V, if you like varying the stake on your singles, doubles, trebles and 4 folds, and I completely understand why you would, then perhaps, for your own bets, you can consider the following
Say you wanted to do £5 singles, £4 doubles, £3 trebles and £2 four folds on four horses.
You could do a £2 LUCKY 15 as one bet.
Then do £3 singles, £2 doubles and £1 trebles.
It has the same effect, but at least you get the consolation bonus for £2 worth of each of your singles and the 10% bonus to a £2 unit stake if all four win.
If you just did it as £5 singles, £4 doubles, £3 trebles and £2 four folds, it would cost the same, be exactly the same bet, but you would miss out on both bonuses.
The cost for both ways of doing it would be £58.00 in total.
The nature of a LUCKY 15 means that it has to be a consistent unit stake, but the above can circumvent that, albeit you only get the bonuses to a £2 unit stake.
That is a great idea and makes a Lucky bet worth doing .
I will def use when the bets I want to do fit into it.
Unfortunately that isnt very often as I dont often go to a fourfold and if i do the singles /doubles are usually win and the multiples each way and so my bets would get even more complicated trying to fit into the lucky scenario.
Thanks for the feedback , really helpful.
Lets hope we get some winners Friday, though be warned G, I dont think i have had a Friday winning nap for about a month. doesnt seem to be my lucky day .
Comments
So we could have a couple of perms with the shorter priced horses that are treble's upwards and a couple of perms that are LUCKY 31's.
That seems fair to me when both opinions are equally supported.
OK with you guys?
Cheers,
G
As to Lucky 31 as you know I dont like Lucky's as you stake the same for a single as a big multiple. However I take your "staking proportionately" means that you will adjust the stake accordingly for the bets you make. If not and it easier for you dont mind, lets just hope we are LUCKY
v
Whereas if we did the bet without the LUCKY element we could apportion our bets as per the chance of it coming in.
V
PS: That is of course is if the LUCKY bet is as usual, double the odds on a single winner
Sorry but this is a ridiculous statement. "So we think the single has as much chance of winning as the five fold and vice versa"
Of course not!
Obviously we hope to get more than one winner in some/all the perms, but if we do only get one winner in a perm, we lose less than we would without the consolation bonus. In fact Lucky 15's would make the consolation bonus more prevalent, but then we'd be changing tack to 4 horses per perm instead of 5.
I may well do half of our funds on five horse perms trebles and upwards as per your request and half of our stake on four horse perms Lucky 15's instead of five horse Lucky 31's to get the most out of the consolation bonus to a greater extent,
It's not surprising that we fall out when you say sarcastic stuff like "So we think the single has as much chance of winning as the five fold and vice versa."
If you genuinely meant it as a question, then I apologise, but I don't see how you could.
Jeez.
ad1956 0 2 £714.75 + £241.56 Head Prizes 12
cal69 0 3 £431.92 + £156.84 Head Prizes 8
Just in case The Syndicate miss my post on Alan's Chester thread.........
What a performance tonight, having spent most of the Tourney in last/ near last place, to go on to Take It Down is truly outstanding.
Really WELL DONE Alan
You ask for views I give them and then you dont read my post properly as I think you start from a position "hes trying to cause problems". I hope thats not the case but sometimes I feel it is.
There is no problem with splitting, thats what people want, no problem, and I supported that. I also said if it easier for you keep with exact staking of the Lucky bets I agreed to.
All I was trying to suggest was if we are splitting the total amount between
1. Trebles, fourfolds and five folds
and
2. Lucky 31's or 15's type bets
why couldnt we vary the stakes on 2 as the bookies format for these LUCKY bets does not aim towards the punter but themselves because the staking of the bet infers ;
"the single has as much chance of winning as the five fold and vice versa."
Perhaps I should have put it better but if the bet infers that, and we are staking as per the bet then sorry yes we do think
"the single has as much chance of winning as the five fold and vice versa."
The only advantage as i said by sticking to the stake of the bet would be to get a 16-1 single winner by sticking to the staking plan because that is the only bonus we would get by sticking to the staking plan of the bet.
Of course we are aiming to get all five winners in those bets and i hope we do but the only advantages of a Lucky 31 over 5 horses in Trebles , Fourfolds and fivefolds is the Singles and doubles we would get . So what is wrong with this ;
Lucky 31 -
31 bets at £2 = £62
31 bets
5 singles at £3
10 doubles at £2
10 Trebles at £2
5 fourfolds at £1
1 fivefold at £1
= £61
Ok we would might lose out if we got four or five winners but the chances of that isnt as strong as getting three or less.
So to repeat what I have said in all my other posts , I will go with whatever you decide the people have chosen . If you had already looked at something similar to this post and disregarded it then I apologise for putting it forward. However from all your posts I didnt get the feeling you had and I just wanted to give it as an option.
So if you had looked at that staking option, disregarded it and have already explained that to me in any of your above posts I apologise even more profusely for raising.
V
I really am trying not to fall out with you. However again statistically we don't see eye to eye.
It's obvious from the subtext of your posts that you "don't like" Lucky 15's and Lucky 31's etc. It appears you have this opinion that they are "bad value"
Let me explain something from a statistical perspective. First of all, any fixed odds bet made by the "average punter" is bad value. That's why bookies win.
So it's a case of trying to find, the least "bad value"
Assuming a betting percentage of 15% which is about average, the percentage a bookmaker can expect to make long term from the following type of bets is as follows:
Singles - 15%
Doubles - 28%
Trebles - 39%
4 folds - 48%
5 folds - 56%
The above is effectively their "mark up" on the various types of bets, so of course they love trebles upwards which is why you see so many acca promotional bonuses etc.
Anyway, it appears that you believe this "myth" that "Lucky's" are worse value than trebles upwards.
Having been a bookmaker in a past life, I can tell you that the above is not true, it is in fact clearly the opposite.
Bookmakers offer the consolation single because they so want the multiple bets and is a slight loss-leader on the singles aspect. They offer the 10% or 15% bonus if all win as they know there mark up is big on the multiple bets.
The way I see it, we have three choices here.
1) We can just do the trebles upwards that you are so keen on, in which case the most likely result is that we go broke. If we are lucky and win a decent amount, I can declare a final dividend and either way we can pack up the BLUE MOON CLUB, and be done and dusted with it on Friday, which might not be a bad idea.
2) We do a mixture of TREBLES UPWARDS and LUCKY 15's, (split the stake evenly between the two) which will give us the chance of both a big win and failing that some consolation small returns which we could use the following day.
3) We do LUCKY 15's only which would give us the opportunity in all likelihood to have several attempts over the coming NAP's days, with small returns potentially funding us to hit big if not this time, then on subsequent occasions.
Option 3 is my preferred choice, option 1 is yours, opinions are mixed, so option two seems fair. However if the feeling is that we want to either win big or go bust on Friday, so we can close the BLUE MOON CLUB down, then option one is the best way of achieving that. So it depends if people want to have "FUN" for days to come or for it to finish once and for all on Friday.
So the real question to ask people is not about the type of bet, but the following:
1) Do we want Friday to be the absolute final day of the BLUE MOON CLUB or do we want to play around with the funds Misty so brilliantly won for us, for a few days more or for however long it lasts. Giving us multiple chances to hit that big win.
This is the real question that should drive the type of bets that we do.
Cheers,
G
Option 3 for me.
I do not dislike Lucky bets per se I dislike their staking and therefore adjust the stakes accordingly as the chances of winning the bonus or the doubling of price of a single winner in my opinion does not out weigh staking the bet how i like.
My personal choice and therefore as in a syndicate as I have said in previous posts I would go with what you decided. Just dont put words into my mouth.
I do not want to go with your option 1, havent since i saw other people wanted to go another way. I dont mind 2 or 3 although I still think 2 gives us the best of both worlds and seemed to be the way we were going. But doesnt worry me.
As to your last comment
1) Do we want Friday to be the absolute final day of the BLUE MOON CLUB or do we want to play around with the funds Misty so brilliantly won for us, for a few days more or for however long it lasts. Giving us multiple chances to hit that big win.
I am in total agreement THAT WE DO NOT WANT IT TO BE THE FINAL DAY for goodness sake , who would .
V
Unless no one NAPS a winner at all, or the only winners we have are odds-on, this will almost certainly guarantee some form of return to continue to Saturday.
If we just have a small amount left after Friday, then, as before, whoever does the best on Friday can choose the Saturday selections.
If we have a reasonable amount still to play with, then we'll use everyone's NAPS again on Saturday.
G
Say you wanted to do £5 singles, £4 doubles, £3 trebles and £2 four folds on four horses.
You could do a £2 LUCKY 15 as one bet.
Then do £3 singles, £2 doubles and £1 trebles.
It has the same effect, but at least you get the consolation bonus for £2 worth of each of your singles and the 10% bonus to a £2 unit stake if all four win.
If you just did it as £5 singles, £4 doubles, £3 trebles and £2 four folds, it would cost the same, be exactly the same bet, but you would miss out on both bonuses.
The cost for both ways of doing it would be £58.00 in total.
The nature of a LUCKY 15 means that it has to be a consistent unit stake, but the above can circumvent that, albeit you only get the bonuses to a £2 unit stake.
Just a thought.
I will def use when the bets I want to do fit into it.
Unfortunately that isnt very often as I dont often go to a fourfold and if i do the singles /doubles are usually win and the multiples each way and so my bets would get even more complicated trying to fit into the lucky scenario.
Thanks for the feedback , really helpful.
Lets hope we get some winners Friday, though be warned G, I dont think i have had a Friday winning nap for about a month. doesnt seem to be my lucky day .
V
Andy