Clint - football trade

[gun]

No, we are arguing for rational staking and not a "smoke and mirrors" technique which is designed purely to confuse and deceive. It is clear that you are not a dummy so just try thinking as we do for a while. Open your mind to the possibility that the multi-bets system may be flawed. The "penny will drop" with you. I promise for my part that I will "not take the piss out of you" when you change your views.

It is essential that you acknowledge that betting over different markets has implications for commission charges too.

MP mentioned multi market betting in his wonderful piece of prose, not me! As for 'smoke and mirrors' and 'designed purely to confuse and decieve' - you are entitled to your opinions. As I have said it's not something I tend to get too involved in ... but I am responsible only for my own bank, not others'.

Despite the underlying assumption that the sole aim of the service in question is to fleece paying members, surely you would admit that prudence and bank protection are key to a decent trading strategy whether you are a beginner or a pro. In this instance the use of multi markets is ONE way of achieving that end. You might not choose to use it, as indeed I usually don't, but it is a far cry from taking that decision for yourself to tarring people who do as quasi criminals for suggesting it and the 'Fresh Fish' as blithering idiots for following it.

There are indeed commission implications with mult-market usage, wouldn't argue with that one at all.

[lcredd]

All traders are gamblers. Trading is gambling. If I lay a horse which comes under pressure and drops 25 lengths behind then I am not going to trade out at 1000/1 just because I consider myself 'trader' and not a 'gambler.'

If the price has value then back/lay accordingly. If 2 correct scores have value then back both, or lay whichever price is too short. There really is no point backing multiple scorelines purely for 'insurance.'

[gun]

All traders are gamblers. Trading is gambling. If I lay a horse which comes under pressure and drops 25 lengths behind then I am not going to trade out at 1000/1 just because I consider myself 'trader' and not a 'gambler.'

If the price has value then back/lay accordingly. If 2 correct scores have value then back both, or lay whichever price is too short. There really is no point backing multiple scorelines purely for 'insurance.'

There is truth in what you say about trading / gambling of course.

I no longer trade horses, due to a complete, absolute, total lack of ability to do so!

To translate your example into a football situation, I wonder how many Gooners backers wished they'd hedged at the 1.04 that I laid them at against Newcastle a season or two back?? Countless such examples abound, but that one sticks in my mind as it is, hitherto, my most profitable single move in six years

My market of choice is Correct Score, and in my opinion, especially with the big games, it's difficult to find value in that market. I'm no mathematical genius, but with help from the web I've constructed a rudimentary poisson based spreadsheet that gives an approximation of CS, M/O and O/U odds given certain data input. There are usually significant discrepancies on the 0-0 and AU prices but the other fifteen or so are reasonably close to what the market has them at usually. It ain't perfect but is a good guide, and 'value' is opinion in the final analysis.

I agree that scattering CS backs (or lays!) around willy nilly is not the way to go, but a good selection of scores gives great potential in-play moves to react to the way a particular match plays out. At no point do I view such moves as 'Insurance' - rather as a means of getting leverage to use in the right circumstances.

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Damn looks like I am a bit late to the party .

From here I think a lot of the criticism of Bingo and Adster was ill thought out and bordered on the hysterical at times, I thought their replies were intelligently written and showed grace under fire throughout.

About the strats - I take Thompson's point about the insurance and Custard's point about cross market commission's but I don't think you guys are seeing the bigger picture.

The major problem with trading when you start out is the isolation and frustration of it all. If you join up you become part of the group and can do some trading without hopefully getting burnt. These strats do focus on the major skills of trading namely discipline and money management. Getting into more than one market will make the trades more interesting and you can look at it as a cheap way of getting a lot of experience.

One area where being in the club will score heavily is members will learn to lose together on days when trades don't work out. And the strats are a starting point on the journey not the destination. Anything that gets you thinking is worth considering in my book.

My take on things is strats don't bust out traders, it's loss chasing and inability to close losing trades that causes most traders to fail, and insofar as the latter two are concerned Bingo and Adster are doing a good job.

My only issue with it all is the pricing structure. Like if it was £99 for a season I'd join up . Always wanted to see the draw inflation tool .

[Thomson]

WAM This is hopefully an intelligent and not at all hysterical reply to your simplistic and noob damaging post. Although I find your ramblings hysterical in the comedic sense. The big picture is this.

The Clint, described as a trading strategy, is no such thing. Just a mix of pre kick off bets designed to cover in-play events. This is the Smoke that fogs the scene. At some point during a game advice will given to remain in or exit these bets. This advice is the Mirror that distorts an already foggy scene. Smoke and Mirrors get it.

Smaller stakes on the over 2.5 mk is the same bet and can be traded in a consistent disciplined manner to produce regular returns.


"'''''My take on things is strats don't bust out traders, it's loss chasing and inability to close losing trades that causes most traders to fail, and insofar as the latter two are concerned Bingo and Adster are doing a good job.''''''




I find this paragraph so contradictory in relation to your premise. Surely when stripped to the bones this and other strategies are pure loss chasing, albeit anticipated losses. This must be so for cross market betting.

The chuckle brothers are a commercial operation open for others to opine on. You have yours I have mine. I'am happy with mine......

[WhyAlwaysMe]

But what strategy will help you if your entry and exit points are not good? Isn't the timing of your entry and exit into the market more important than the strat anyway?

If Adster and Bingo can get the setups right and the exit points right then their strats will work. Even the cross market one's could work if the filters and conditions are right.

BACK OVER 2..5 £55
BACK 1-1 £5
BACK UNDER 1. 5 £10

If they get into the market favourably then it could be better odds than entering the O2.5 at £15. In theory it is a scalp based trade.

Why is it smoke and mirrors? Is it to do with the comm? A technical explanation would be helpful.

As I see it the service is about how they interpret the market and the strats are tools to get you into the market without too much exposure. It's a way of giving you a lot of trades with decent risk management and a discliplined approach.

I don't see what's so bad about paying for stuff. The Buchdahl book Fixed Odds Sportsbetting has been a great help to me on the risk management front for example.

We haven't even tackled Cunders yet .

[WhyAlwaysMe]

My question to you is why, if it is a good strategy does it need anything other than proper staking?

why does a good strategy need ineffective insurance? That is the issue, not the strategy...

But the idea behind the strat is to get effective insurance. If you can get favourable insurance at a certain point then it would lower your variance a lot. It's only the same as arbing, losing a lot of profit in exchange for no variance.

[inandout]

This is no way the same as arbing!
A bookmaker would take these bets all day/week/year long whereas they'd shut you down within a week if you were flagged up as an arber. The only insurance is they are unsure of what they're doing so insure, by smoke and mirrors as has been mentioned, they get a stream of people to subscribe to this, to put it politely, laughable 'service'.

[gun]

Smaller stakes on the over 2.5 mk is the same bet and can be traded in a consistent disciplined manner to produce regular returns.

This may well be true, but let's consider the mindset of someone starting out in trading.

Left alone an O2.5 bet will win roughly 55% of the time if we take the Premier League as an example. We all know that won't make money as Overs will be odds on in many matches, without even considering commission. So our noob slowly loses money and, inevitably, encounters a 2/3 match losing run. Equally inevitably, some of our noobs start chasing with bigger stakes and lose more.

Learning to trade Overs in a 'consistent disciplined manner to produce regular returns' looks so easy on paper, doesn't it? Yet what doing that entails is gaining mastery over the concept of taking small losses and allowing big winners to run. If you can genuinely say you've mastered that, good for you.
Many don't.

What the 'chuckle brothers' are doing is offering an alternative way of getting into trading. If you can take a 20% win out three out of four games and a 20% loss on the fourth you'll be trading in a 'consistent disciplined manner to produce regular returns.'

[ForeTwo]

The lack of transparency is the issue for me, this strategy clearly doesn't have an edge.

If it used as a teaching aid then that is a different discussion but it should be clearly explained that in the long term that it isn't profitable and the reasons why (lack of value, tight markets, triple commission etc).

[gun]

If it used as a teaching aid then that is a different discussion but it should be clearly explained that in the long term that it isn't profitable and the reasons why (lack of value, tight markets, triple commission etc).

The only place I've ever seen it described in any other light, strangely, is here

It is but one of a number of different approaches offered. The only claims that have been exaggerated are the ones about exaggerated claims

[Emkayracing]

The lack of transparency is the issue for me, this strategy clearly doesn't have an edge.

Over to you, to me....

.....there's certainly no 'smoke and mirrors'. Members can keep records as to the success of the trades over a week, month and so on and most of them do so.

Really? Not one has come forwards?

Mr Moderator quite correctly offered the following proposal;

What I'd like to see from Bingo and Adster:

- A video showing their 3 month p+l Betfair history, to prove strategies numbered 1-19; Clint, Aperitif, etc, actually work.

As yet.... nada! Are we surprised on previous showings, dating back years? Hmmm..

Plenty of people are putting their support forwards, but where is the proof? There has been nothing from the people that use the, erm, strategy, nor have those that manage the subscription "service" offered anything in the way of evidence.

To quote the legend that is Paul Carberry "Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has got one." (Thomson summed the whole thing up some weeks back IMO.)

Turn the discussion to subscriptions services, payments, newbies, etc, etc, however that is going deliberately off-topic.

No smoke and mirrors though

Fresh Fish dinner and a bit of Minder - Appy Days

[custard]

I find is strange that some people are defending the "service". Why ? Certainly, these defenders have provided nothing in the way of evidence to show that it is other than a "waste of space".

The most important thing, however, is that those who run the service have provided no evidence themselves. Sure, they have been vociferous but they have said nothing of substance to indicate that it is of value. I have asked repeatedly for this but I'm still waiting. I followed the results of the service and was in the process of proofing them when they stopped publishing them.

So, I'm bored with this thread now. I'll go back in my box

[ForeTwo]

The only place I've ever seen it described in any other light, strangely, is here

It is but one of a number of different approaches offered. The only claims that have been exaggerated are the ones about exaggerated claims

I just spent two minutes looking around and from all the promotion material, many green screens, youtube videos etc I failed to see any information that reflected the educational nature/not for long term profit nature of the strategy.

Thanks for sticking around Gun, its a shame the other two decided to scamper when the discussion called for hard facts.

[gun]

Over to you, to me....
To quote the legend that is Paul Carberry "Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has got one." (Thomson summed the whole thing up some weeks back IMO.)

Not having the slightest bit of interest at all in racing I googled Paul Carberry (which is how I now know he is a jockey). He was born in 1974.

A character in a 1971 movie, Dirty Harry, uttered that line on screen. You'll never guess the first name of the actor playing that character