how to beat the bookmaker

[Brumerican]

perming your bets

 

I don't even know what this means.

For example lets say you picked 6 teams all to win and put down a fiver (A £5 accumulator) If one team

fails to win then you are out of pocket .

If however you were to bet on all the permutations (Perm's) of those 6 teams results then you could

still make a profit if one or more teams let you down .

Excluding singles there are 57 (hence it being called a Heinz bet) different bets available in a 6 team (Or race etc) accumulator .

15 doubles (any combination of two teams win)

20 trebles (any three teams win)

15 fourfolds (4 teams)

6 fivefolds (5 etc)

1 sixfold acca.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Brumerican

[ChrisVillan]

How do the bookies/betting sites respond to that approach?

[P.O.B]

 

So next we need to decide what fights to start. We do this by 3 steps. Fisrt we look at the races available on a first pass, most races are not betting races so we can easily reduce a days racing to 3 or 4 potential betting races.

 

 

 

Interesting post CVByrne. So how do you determine the above? I.e. what is a 'betting race'? I'm guesing it's a combination of many things. Over the last few years i have become more and more fascinated by jump racing, to the point where I am going to attempt following the whole season and attempt studying form etc. However its always hard to know where to start with the number of races to choose from.

[Brumerican]

How do the bookies/betting sites respond to that approach?

To perm betting ? They have no problems with it . All betting shops and online sites allow for it.

You will see slips/coupons with Yankee/Canadian/Lucky 15/Goliath etc all over the place . Thats all they are , combination bets (Perms)

[CVByrne]

So next we need to decide what fights to start. We do this by 3 steps. Fisrt we look at the races available on a first pass, most races are not betting races so we can easily reduce a days racing to 3 or 4 potential betting races.

Interesting post CVByrne. So how do you determine the above? I.e. what is a 'betting race'? I'm guesing it's a combination of many things. Over the last few years i have become more and more fascinated by jump racing, to the point where I am going to attempt following the whole season and attempt studying form etc. However its always hard to know where to start with the number of races to choose from.

I've been betting on horse racing for over a decade. I'd say I could be certain that I managed to turn a profit from the year 2008 onwards with the exception of the dark 2010 Cheltenham where I did for myself on concentration risk. All eggs in 3 baskets. All lost.

So that's six straight years let's say where I'm pretty sure I lost money overall. That's just to give you an example of my personal learning curve. Now to be fair I didn’t put even close to as much effort nor bet as often until 2007 I'd say when I really got into it because of 2 Co workers being big fans.

But here you see that it's not a simple way of explaining how I'd whittle down a days racing to a few races and then to a couple of bets or so. Firstly it's because I'm immersed in the sport. I spend about 90 minutes a day reading on racing. I watch as much racing as possible on the weekends, the majority of races I've not bet on.

Then secondly, teamwork. I am part of a private forum with 15 members. We can critique others selections, point out things they may have missed. Etc.. So you're fully armed with knowledge when looking at odds to place bets.

[CVByrne]

The best tip I can give you for where to start is look at a race, look at the favourite and decide if he's worth taking on. If you think he's a weak favourite and he could be turned over. Then look to see if you can find a horse to take him on with.

That's the starting point. Favourites are usually over bet as people are more concerned with having a winner than making money. But some favourites are value, so it's not as simple as avoiding favourites.

So start there. With the highest class race of the day. Then there's usually a couple of good supporting races. Then the filler.

Edited September 12, 2013 by CVByrne

[tonyh29]

Brumerican, on 12 Sept 2013 - 4:19 PM, said:

 

NurembergVillan, on 11 Sept 2013 - 8:32 PM, said:

 

Brumerican, on 11 Sept 2013 - 6:01 PM, said:

perming your bets

 

I don't even know what this means.

 

For example lets say you picked 6 teams all to win and put down a fiver (A £5 accumulator) If one team

fails to win then you are out of pocket .

If however you were to bet on all the permutations (Perm's) of those 6 teams results then you could

still make a profit if one or more teams let you down .

Excluding singles there are 57 (hence it being called a Heinz bet) different bets available in a 6 team (Or race etc) accumulator .

15 doubles (any combination of two teams win)

20 trebles (any three teams win)

15 fourfolds (4 teams)

6 fivefolds (5 etc)

1 sixfold acca.

 

 

 

I used to do a Goliath bet and think in most cases enough came in to give me a small return   ( it's been about 12 years since I last did one )

 

you could put a few bankers in like Rangers to win & Man U to win to pad it out and get you underway so to speak , then a few reasonable odds bets  .. and then you went for a huge outsider that would bring it home for you if it came in .. and if it didn't well in theory your other bets got you your stake back  & hopefully some profit

 

don't even know if this bet still exists ?

[Brumerican]

Brumerican, on 12 Sept 2013 - 4:19 PM, said:

NurembergVillan, on 11 Sept 2013 - 8:32 PM, said:

Brumerican, on 11 Sept 2013 - 6:01 PM, said:

perming your bets

 

I don't even know what this means.

For example lets say you picked 6 teams all to win and put down a fiver (A £5 accumulator) If one team

fails to win then you are out of pocket .

If however you were to bet on all the permutations (Perm's) of those 6 teams results then you could

still make a profit if one or more teams let you down .

Excluding singles there are 57 (hence it being called a Heinz bet) different bets available in a 6 team (Or race etc) accumulator .

15 doubles (any combination of two teams win)

20 trebles (any three teams win)

15 fourfolds (4 teams)

6 fivefolds (5 etc)

1 sixfold acca.

 

 

I used to do a Goliath bet and think in most cases enough came in to give me a small return   ( it's been about 12 years since I last did one )

 

you could put a few bankers in like Rangers to win & Man U to win to pad it out and get you underway so to speak , then a few reasonable odds bets  .. and then you went for a huge outsider that would bring it home for you if it came in .. and if it didn't well in theory your other bets got you your stake back  & hopefully some profit

 

don't even know if this bet still exists ?

Yeah it still exists mate. I Usually do a Heinz with 2 teams around evens,2 teams at around 6/4 and 2 longshots . At the very least I usually get my stake back. It is better for using on the horse mind you due to the far bigger prices.

.

[StefanAVFC]

Also if you win, go back to your starting stake. Then you don't wipe yourself out.

[KHV]

How do the bookies/betting sites respond to that approach?

Its perfectly legal and its fine. If you put an accumulator on with sky bet, instead of putting your stake on the accumulator itself click on the multiples tab and it gives you the options for doubles, trebles heinzes etc.

The only thing to remember is your outlay will be higher because you are making more than 1 stake unless you bet low stakes for each outcome like 10p.

You can actually still get a decent return on low stakes if it goes well

[KHV]

Brumerican, on 12 Sept 2013 - 4:19 PM, said:

NurembergVillan, on 11 Sept 2013 - 8:32 PM, said:

Brumerican, on 11 Sept 2013 - 6:01 PM, said:perming your bets

 I don't even know what this means.

For example lets say you picked 6 teams all to win and put down a fiver (A £5 accumulator) If one teamfails to win then you are out of pocket .If however you were to bet on all the permutations (Perm's) of those 6 teams results then you couldstill make a profit if one or more teams let you down .Excluding singles there are 57 (hence it being called a Heinz bet) different bets available in a 6 team (Or race etc) accumulator .15 doubles (any combination of two teams win)20 trebles (any three teams win)15 fourfolds (4 teams)6 fivefolds (5 etc)1 sixfold acca.

  I used to do a Goliath bet and think in most cases enough came in to give me a small return   ( it's been about 12 years since I last did one ) you could put a few bankers in like Rangers to win & Man U to win to pad it out and get you underway so to speak , then a few reasonable odds bets  .. and then you went for a huge outsider that would bring it home for you if it came in .. and if it didn't well in theory your other bets got you your stake back  & hopefully some profit don't even know if this bet still exists ?

Yeah it still exists mate. I Usually do a Heinz with 2 teams around evens,2 teams at around 6/4 and 2 longshots . At the very least I usually get my stake back. It is better for using on the horse mind you due to the far bigger prices..

How do you get on with doing this for horses if you dont mind me asking? I have often thought about doing this with horse betting but i tend to steer away from horses due to a lack of knowledge. Do you follow horses or do you just use the odds?

[PompeyVillan]

With 'perm' betting, the risk is smaller, but the rewards are also greatly reduced. I've done it before and unless you're staking a fair amount, it's not really worth it, and you still run the risk of losing a fair amount of money if it does go wrong. You end up throwing a few bets in there, for the sake of doing a perm bet. 

You should only really do it, in my opinion if you're very confident of 4 or more results in one bet, otherwise it's a waste of time. 

[KHV]

With 'perm' betting, the risk is smaller, but the rewards are also greatly reduced. I've done it before and unless you're staking a fair amount, it's not really worth it, and you still run the risk of losing a fair amount of money if it does go wrong. You end up throwing a few bets in there, for the sake of doing a perm bet. 

You should only really do it, in my opinion if you're very confident of 4 or more results in one bet, otherwise it's a waste of time.

As with all gambling its about what you can afford to lose. I think its a good way to bet personally

[Brumerican]

I have done 4 heinz bets this season. Have had 4 winners 3 times and 5 winners once. I am £47 in profit at the moment. If I had just done straight accas with the same stakes I Would be about £44down. I wont get rich but its more fun than losing every week.

[leviramsey]

I'm generally opposed to betting accumulators. You're giving up your primary advantage as a bettor, which is the ability to decide how much to bet on a particular proposition (with "nothing" being an option, of course), based on your assessment of your edge on the proposition in question (the only exception to this is if the propositions in question are ones that you assess an equal edge in... this is rare). Absent the rare correlation that's gone unnoticed by the bookies, the result of betting accumulators will simply be the amplification of your results from betting singles at level stakes: if you're a loser, you'll lose faster, and if you're a winner, you'll win faster.

Which sounds like an argument for betting accumulators if you're a winner. But the comparison is kind of false, because you're comparing the best (by default) case for accumulators against a sub-optimal case for singles. If you're consistently winning money (even small amounts) on accumulators or collections thereof (even against the compounded house edge of any accumulator), you more or less by definition have alpha, the ability to spot edge (you might not know you have it, of course...). That edge is, fundamentally, recognizing mispricings in what the bookies are offering (by whatever process one chooses). The magnitude of the edge is a function of the magnitude of the mispricing. To combine different magnitudes of mispricing is to overweight the less mispriced.

The only other argument for accumulators I'm prepared to grant is if it somehow makes an end-run around other restrictions, typically on the amount bet, and perming does have some value in this respect: if your bookie won't let you bet 10p on an individual bet, then a 5.70 Heinz may allow for better money management, for instance.

For the most part (with a few notable exceptions), the bookies of the world view accumulator bets as found money, with good reason.

EDIT: the foregoing considers perms to be what they are: collections of accumulators. The same objections apply.

Edited September 12, 2013 by leviramsey

[Nigel]

I find the best way to perm a bet is to just cover 1 less team than the acca (For example if you have a 6 team acca perm the 5...thus if 1 team loses you still win). 

 

Any more than that and the gain is so negligible as not to be worth it, but you would still pay for each of the bets.

 

Best to either lump more on the original bet or simply save it for next time.

[Nigel]

I'm generally opposed to betting accumulators. You're giving up your primary advantage as a bettor, which is the ability to decide how much to bet on a particular proposition (with "nothing" being an option, of course), based on your assessment of your edge on the proposition in question (the only exception to this is if the propositions in question are ones that you assess an equal edge in... this is rare). Absent the rare correlation that's gone unnoticed by the bookies, the result of betting accumulators will simply be the amplification of your results from betting singles at level stakes: if you're a loser, you'll lose faster, and if you're a winner, you'll win faster.

Which sounds like an argument for betting accumulators if you're a winner. But the comparison is kind of false, because you're comparing the best (by default) case for accumulators against a sub-optimal case for singles. If you're consistently winning money (even small amounts) on accumulators or collections thereof (even against the compounded house edge of any accumulator), you more or less by definition have alpha, the ability to spot edge (you might not know you have it, of course...). That edge is, fundamentally, recognizing mispricings in what the bookies are offering (by whatever process one chooses). The magnitude of the edge is a function of the magnitude of the mispricing. To combine different magnitudes of mispricing is to overweight the less mispriced.

The only other argument for accumulators I'm prepared to grant is if it somehow makes an end-run around other restrictions, typically on the amount bet, and perming does have some value in this respect: if your bookie won't let you bet 10p on an individual bet, then a 5.70 Heinz may allow for better money management, for instance.

For the most part (with a few notable exceptions), the bookies of the world view accumulator bets as found money, with good reason.

EDIT: the foregoing considers perms to be what they are: collections of accumulators. The same objections apply.

Disagree...the only reason I bet is to receive an amount of money that I find appealing for as minimum a risk as possible and over as short a time as to make it fun.

 

Accas are the best way of achieving this for me anyway. After all this is what it is to me...fun!

[Electric Avenue]

Golf. Never bet on day 1,2 or 3.

Day 4, lay e/w bets on the leading 3 players. Beat the bookie.

[snowychap]

Does he bite anyone's ear off?

[Nigel]

Golf. Never bet on day 1,2 or 3.

Day 4, lay e/w bets on the leading 3 players. Beat the bookie.

surely not! What if Tiger wins? He is usually stupid odds to begin with. You would get the place on the others but would that be enough to cover the bet?

I'm still going to try it though:-)