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.
** BLUE MOON CLUB "WOULD BE" ATTEMPT "TRACKING" **
StayOrGo
Member Posts: 12,127
Hi, I decided this warranted a separate thread:
I am going to try and keep track of results when the criteria below is met (but not enough rollover, or not the Jackpot Meeting)
1) Is there a decent odds/on "banker/semi-banker?"
2) Are there at least three races where the favourite is 2/1 or less?
3) Is there no more than one race where the favourite is 5/1 or bigger?
4) Is the "type/quality" of racing unlikely to throw up a Jackpot busting outsider? (Bit subjective I know)
5) Is a reasonable dividend likely if we are successful? (Also bit subjective, but best guess)
I would "suggest" that if two favourites come in at 2/1 or less and the rest of the winners were "single figures", that in all likelihood with our perm structure, we would have succeeded. (I've been a bit more specific further down.)
Of course I can't say for sure without us going through the whole process which would be too much work.
For this exercise, we can look at all meetings, not just the actual Jackpot meeting.
Anyway, I am working on a sheet now, that I have posted here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTvYMT5J3Nc5YjeSVy0QtmIjibrLj4jYuaAnr7nIaMnvEuaQTn2NnK3d3CvsPEEQJEuA3htfuSMMMRL/pubhtml
I am going to try and keep track of results when the criteria below is met (but not enough rollover, or not the Jackpot Meeting)
1) Is there a decent odds/on "banker/semi-banker?"
2) Are there at least three races where the favourite is 2/1 or less?
3) Is there no more than one race where the favourite is 5/1 or bigger?
4) Is the "type/quality" of racing unlikely to throw up a Jackpot busting outsider? (Bit subjective I know)
5) Is a reasonable dividend likely if we are successful? (Also bit subjective, but best guess)
I would "suggest" that if two favourites come in at 2/1 or less and the rest of the winners were "single figures", that in all likelihood with our perm structure, we would have succeeded. (I've been a bit more specific further down.)
Of course I can't say for sure without us going through the whole process which would be too much work.
For this exercise, we can look at all meetings, not just the actual Jackpot meeting.
Anyway, I am working on a sheet now, that I have posted here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTvYMT5J3Nc5YjeSVy0QtmIjibrLj4jYuaAnr7nIaMnvEuaQTn2NnK3d3CvsPEEQJEuA3htfuSMMMRL/pubhtml
Comments
Remember primarily, from the first six races, we are looking for at least two favourites 2/1 or less to win, (ideally at least one less than 6/4), no more than two winners at 11/2+ and nothing bigger than 9/1. If that happens, along with the odds on shot(s) winning, I think we can say that we "likely" would be successful with our perm structure.
(I would consider it "my role" to give us a structure to make sure we succeed most the times that the above happens.)
I don't think there is anything I/we can do to cater for the Jackpot busting outsider, we just want to pick meetings where the above has a reasonable chance of happening. I think we can assume if anything 12/1+ comes in, we'd bust
May be worth tracking and could provide useful data, as to the type of meetings/card configurations that potentially would be successful. Particularly with the main flat meetings coming to an end, the FONTWELL's and SEDGEFIELD's and similar card configurations could be the Jackpot Meeting some time in the near future.
The PURPLE rows are effectively the meetings we'd go for if they were indeed the Jackpot Meeting with a £10K+ roll over. Hope this makes sense, fire away if you have any questions.
The answer to all questions regarding the first six races, would need to be YES:
1) Did the odds on shot(s) win?
2) Including the above, were there at least two favourites that won at 2/1 or less?
3) Were there no more than 2 winners greater than 5/1
4) Were there no winners at 10/1 or bigger
I will always try and do perm structures that mean on occasions when the above is met, then we'd win "most" of the time. The "trick" will be finding fixtures that can "produce" the above results.
So what we want to do is find fixtures where the above is reasonably possible.
Feel free to add any thoughts/feedback.
I think this could be a useful angle to approach it from, where the fusion of horse form interpretation and the statistics involved with the Jackpot perms may work to our advantage. At least both "sides" will understand the aim of the attempt and the "logic" that goes into the various perm structures.
NAP and NB's will of course still be taken into consideration as there will be a lot of horses in the 4/1 to 9/1 bracket, and we'd need to have some in more perms than others, and NAPS/NB's will assist with this.
edit: Only 2units going on to 5th leg
With regards the Jackpot Syndicate attempts.... I know it's not the same, and certainly nowhere near as much fun, but if the returns on a successful attempt is usually only around 4 or 5 times the investment, thats the same as two 6/4 shots in a double, which are probably easier to find imo. Obviously I know there is a possibility of a bigger return, but the Syndicate perms tend to favour the lower priced form horses that are supposedly more likely to win, and therefore the returns will be lower, as they are the horses most people choose as well.
Just thinking out loud G. and I hope you don't mind me airing my view on here
The reason the pool is so small is that most punters know they'd get a better return by a fixed odds accumulator, so know it's a -ev bet.
Regarding your example of two 6/4 shots in a double. Yes that probably is easier to achieve, although one, you wouldn't need a syndicate to do that, people can do that on their own, and two, I would expect the average Jackpot return to be well over 10 times the total stake, and I "feel" that long term, that is a conservative estimate.
The main point is that people can do the 6/4 shot double for any stake on their own, but may not be able to afford the number of lines we have in a Jackpot perm on their own.
If people want to do their own 6/4 double and not be in the BLUE MOON club, then that is their choice, but I see no point in having a syndicate to put a 6/4 double on.
Syndicates exist for big perm bets, not singles and/or doubles, there is no point, when they can be done easily by the individual.
Regarding airing your view, it's OK, although do bear in mind that it's been a tough time for the syndicate, so we are still healing. If people don't believe or have the faith anymore in what we are trying to achieve, then they can leave at any time.
I don't think your comments are constructive, due to the fact that you don't need a syndicate to do a win double and strongly disagree with your expected average return from a successful Jackpot.
Similarly, I hope you don't mind me airing my response.
Cheers,
G
As to money making betting (2 x 6/4 shots) I know this is'nt being proposed and i wouldnt join a syndicate that was aiming for this but in effect having £500 on two 6/4 shots instead of 2 6/4 shots and 4 various permed other horses might be a better money making enterprise.
As you all know I would be in the Jackpot syndicate whatever as I am a small player but others might have different views. I suppose what I am really saying is BLUE MOONS should have a high ceiling ie £50k or more as well as hitting our criteria before going for it. Having said that if that was the case I wouldnt be that happy as I wouldnt be able to have the fun of picking naps /nb's so often.
It is so difficult whatever we do but I honestly dont mind either way.
V
WOW, looks like I am totally disagreeing with people today.
I completely disagree, I think the card configurations are the most important things and we are better off going for it with the right configuration with a medium roll over than the wrong configuration and a big roll over.
I thought I had explained the statistics of this previously, but clearly it's not been understood.
I am fairly open to constructive suggestions but feel the posts from Misty and yourself V are not helping.
I think it may be best to stop the BLUE MOON attempts as it doesn't look like people believe in the process anymore, although to be fair, Misty is not in the syndicate.
Anyway, I believe that we are better off going for the £10K to £20K roll overs with the right configurations and avoid the bigger roll overs with wrong configurations.
I am feeling like knocking the BLUE MOON CLUB on the head tbh as my views don't seem to be shared and I don't feel I have the confidence of the team anymore.
Cheers,
G
I am going to email members with view to an alternative approach done via email and not on the thread.
Cheers,
G
...... and you can tell from all the other comments from The Syndicate members themselves, they do want to carry on with Blue Moon Jackpot attempts.
Please accept my sincerest apologies if I've upset you in any way, it was probably a post at the wrong time
Suggesting doing a win double instead, that anyone can do on their own literally translates to, "I have no confidence that the process is +ev"
Unfortunately other people then get attached to these views or are influenced by them and it brings into question the process at a time when unity is required.
I have always said that I believe we will be successful about 10% of the time. So everyone has to deal with losing 90% of the time. This also means that the process will be there to be shot at 9 times out of 10, which I am not prepared to accept any more.
I have also said, and still believe that long term our average win should be greater than 12 times our stake, but it's a long term process.
Anyway, apology accepted, but I am still going to move this process off the thread. I will re-invite existing members to a different process via email.
I am not in the syndicate, so hopefully have no bias. I read these threads every day though, & have nothing but admiration for the work you & the rest of the guys do.
At the risk of getting myself in hot water I do want to express an opinion or two.
You have NOT lost the confidence of anyone. Those guys will follow you to the end of the earth.
The comments by Misty & V this afternoon were, imo, perfectly reasonable. They were not dissing you at all, not one bit, they were just chewing the cud.
Misty is from the West Country for starters, so only has 3 thumbs despite which he plays the ukulele well, so maybe he could have expressed his view in a different manner. As it happened, I had EXACTLY the same thoughts, in that the way it is set up the syndicate will win a (relatively) small amount quite often, but never a life changing amount. It's like saying "I got 7 winners at Kempton last night". Well yes, if 7 jollies hosed up, you'd expect to regularly get 7 winners if jollies are your thing. And there's nothing wrong with that.
However, folks still enjoy the thrill of the chase, we (you guys) simply don't have enough money for "long-shot perms", & you'd be lucky to win a million every 10 years, instead of 10 grand or whatever every month, which keeps everyone interested & is affordable. So there's nothing wrong with what you do, & I'm pretty sure Misty & V were not suggesting otherwise.
Honestly, I think you are over-reacting Graham. The guys think the world of you. They do.
You've all had an expensive week the way things have panned out, but not a soul thinks you have done a thing wrong, & a decent win might be right round the corner.
Take a deep breath, have a choc ice, & get back in the driving seat. That's what the lads really want.
He absolutely never said or implied that he & the members had no confidence in you.
Can't we all have a nice cup of tea & crack on?
However, I also think you should do what is best for you and any decision you now make will be backed by myself (and others hopefully).
PS...can you organise a Forum Syndicate for the Lottery when you get a spare 5 mins
I am in the syndicate because it is good and one day it might win us a nice pot of money for a small interest as well as being fun. However will it be successful all the time, no and i think history proves that unfortunately .
Do i want it to continue however you want to play it yes, Do I want you to do even more work with constant monitoring and advice from us on when we should and shouldnt go for it, No.
If you say shall we go for it today and ask for views I will give mine but agree you should always decide. In fact that is how it has worked with me probably being the only person to put my head above the parapet and giving my views. A worry for myself and you when after the event we might have been wrong.
The perming although difficult for me to understand is the way forward as I have agreed in the past. The only thing I was saying is that however you perm it will always be more difficult to get six winners than two and if we want to just make money like Misty said, I wouldnt want to be in.
Sorry if that got missed in translation.
V
The above comment regarding going for 10-20k in the correct configuration, absolutely " HIT'S THE NAIL SQUARELY ON THE HEAD "
For the sake of a bit of fun,can you start up (1)a lottery syndicate,no skills needed,just lucky dips
(2) A Saturday Scoop 6 syndicate with each of us having a go at the selections,a basic,2x2x2x2x2x2= 64X£2 bets =£128.
Good luck,I know you will achieve what you set out to do, I am sure you will get all our backing.
I have sent you and the others an email.
Sorry but I have made my decision now and for various reasons it won't be on the forum. Although the plan is still still keep the FRI, SAT, SUN NAPS going and that will still be on the forum. It's just the attempts themselves that won't be.
May I suggest if you are concerned about missing an attempt that you pre-pay.
I will also PM members on here, so you'll get a forum message instead of being on a thread.
Cheers,
G