| Emma Raducanu 19:17 - Sep 8 with 5784 views | trampie |
Emma into the semis of the US Open tennis, I don't think a qualifier has ever reached any of the Grand Slam finals, Emma could do it. |  |
| |  |
| Emma Raducanu on 11:11 - Sep 10 with 845 views | trampie |
| Emma Raducanu on 10:31 - Sep 10 by Dr_Parnassus |
1/2?? 
Which is why you would lose your money far more often than not, regardless of what you claim. That's just pure nonsense.
As I said, stick your guesses down on paper and we can compare how you perform vs the probabilities listed. I would love to see it, have your own thread, I'm sure Keith won't mind. Great entertainment value. |
I'm not offering the odds I'm taking them, I don't gamble I only invest if I see an opportunity (and I am up massively over the years), Raducanu to beat Sakkari at odds against was a great investment and the only one I've made all tournament or the entire North American hard court season come to that, the only other investment this summer I made was being on the Springbok to beat the Lions in the 2 and 3 tests as I thought the Lions got away with it in the 1st test so thought the Bok were a good thing, as regards guesses I have managed to win the Evening Post tipping competition in the past (when they used to run it, which encompassed all sports) which due to them offering a four figure prize used to attract thousands of entrants.
I've just won a fantasy football Euro competition (thanks to the Italian defence and England's Sterling goals), the vast majority of punters might lose but if somebody understands odds and what is value and have a knowledge of who is likely to win then it's possible to come out on top even if odds are stacked against the punter but unlikely, it's a very unethical business and I would be ashamed to be involved in it if I was you), since some bookies ban or put limits on stakes of successful punters it's often better and more fun to play fantasy or tipping games, I actually won a game on the grass at Wimbledon (on an outside court) a few years ago by winning a tipping game. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 11:19 - Sep 10 with 820 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Emma Raducanu on 11:11 - Sep 10 by trampie |
I'm not offering the odds I'm taking them, I don't gamble I only invest if I see an opportunity (and I am up massively over the years), Raducanu to beat Sakkari at odds against was a great investment and the only one I've made all tournament or the entire North American hard court season come to that, the only other investment this summer I made was being on the Springbok to beat the Lions in the 2 and 3 tests as I thought the Lions got away with it in the 1st test so thought the Bok were a good thing, as regards guesses I have managed to win the Evening Post tipping competition in the past (when they used to run it, which encompassed all sports) which due to them offering a four figure prize used to attract thousands of entrants.
I've just won a fantasy football Euro competition (thanks to the Italian defence and England's Sterling goals), the vast majority of punters might lose but if somebody understands odds and what is value and have a knowledge of who is likely to win then it's possible to come out on top even if odds are stacked against the punter but unlikely, it's a very unethical business and I would be ashamed to be involved in it if I was you), since some bookies ban or put limits on stakes of successful punters it's often better and more fun to play fantasy or tipping games, I actually won a game on the grass at Wimbledon (on an outside court) a few years ago by winning a tipping game. |
Well I am sure your Evening Post tipping accolade is far more impressive than industry leaders who have dedicated their lives to it with a personal relationship with some of the tour and are continuously proven correct year after year by their % being in line with margin.
Again, get a thread together and we shall see how you line up on your returns vs probability. You don't have to back them yourself, just paper trade and we will track how you go. Sounds like ardent nonsense, prove me wrong. [Post edited 10 Sep 2021 11:22]
|  |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 11:38 - Sep 10 with 802 views | trampie |
| Emma Raducanu on 11:19 - Sep 10 by Dr_Parnassus |
Well I am sure your Evening Post tipping accolade is far more impressive than industry leaders who have dedicated their lives to it with a personal relationship with some of the tour and are continuously proven correct year after year by their % being in line with margin.
Again, get a thread together and we shall see how you line up on your returns vs probability. You don't have to back them yourself, just paper trade and we will track how you go. Sounds like ardent nonsense, prove me wrong. [Post edited 10 Sep 2021 11:22]
|
Paper trade you say, time is money butt, don't waste time and effort paper trading, the football season has started and my energies are invested in that, thank you to 'Papa Johns' for the food, hope to collect a bigger prize off you come next May. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 11:44 - Sep 10 with 783 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Emma Raducanu on 11:38 - Sep 10 by trampie |
Paper trade you say, time is money butt, don't waste time and effort paper trading, the football season has started and my energies are invested in that, thank you to 'Papa Johns' for the food, hope to collect a bigger prize off you come next May. |
Yes, I do say.
I thought that may be your answer....
Doesn't take long, anyone you think is value in Trampie world, stick them in the thread and we shall track it. Takes a few seconds.
Message if you need a hand setting up a thread, happy to do it for you. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 11:59 - Sep 10 with 764 views | trampie |
| Emma Raducanu on 11:44 - Sep 10 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yes, I do say.
I thought that may be your answer....
Doesn't take long, anyone you think is value in Trampie world, stick them in the thread and we shall track it. Takes a few seconds.
Message if you need a hand setting up a thread, happy to do it for you. |
Oh no this is about you having to prove yourself Dr P not me, I tipped Raducanu to beat Sakkari you did not, my involvement in this thread was to quote you where you say "this one will be a tough ask" (for Raducanu to beat Sakkari), l replied with "Sakkari is 26 years old and odds on favourite in this match up, if Raducanu plays to her ability and is able to be mentally strong Raducanu can win the match".
I look forward to seeing more of your tips in the future, I find it very entertaining as you often can't see the wood for the trees. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:00 - Sep 10 with 759 views | Professor |
| Emma Raducanu on 10:05 - Sep 10 by Dr_Parnassus |
I didn't think she would beat her, that is your lack of understanding of the notion of odds again. I had no opinions on what was going to happen, only the probabilities of certain events to happen.
I would make ''Coin to land on either heads or to land on the side'' favorite against ''tails'' too, doesn't mean I think it will happen though, it is just the correct equation.
If you are asking me why I correctly made Sakkari favorite.. I explained that already.
Sakkari is the better player, when they have played at the same level for any recordable length of time - Sakkari has performed better. Sakkari has 8 ITF titles, Raducanu has 3 - both left that level at the same age.
Sakkari has proved since that she has longevity at the top echelons of the tour and has consistently put together excellent results. She is fitter, stronger and has a much more expansive game than Raducanu.
Raducanu may surpass what Sakkari has achieved in terms of consistency and longevity, but she has some way to go yet. [Post edited 10 Sep 2021 10:07]
|
I like that analogy. Whilst landing on the side is extremely unlikely, as the probability of 'heads to tails' is always 0.5, it will change the two options to a greater probability (say 0.50001).
People also get sucked into the idea of 'a law of averages' that somehow an event which has a 0.5 probability would flip. You can toss a coin and get heads nine consecutive times. The likelihood of the next toss being equally as probable for heads or tails seems to pass people by. Whilst the chance of that happening is low, the probability of heads or tails never changes. In a fair toss of course. |  | | |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:05 - Sep 10 with 747 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Emma Raducanu on 11:59 - Sep 10 by trampie |
Oh no this is about you having to prove yourself Dr P not me, I tipped Raducanu to beat Sakkari you did not, my involvement in this thread was to quote you where you say "this one will be a tough ask" (for Raducanu to beat Sakkari), l replied with "Sakkari is 26 years old and odds on favourite in this match up, if Raducanu plays to her ability and is able to be mentally strong Raducanu can win the match".
I look forward to seeing more of your tips in the future, I find it very entertaining as you often can't see the wood for the trees. |
No you didn't. Where did you tip her to win?
You said if she plays well she can win. Aye, nice one. 
I will take that as challenge declined then, as I assumed would be the case. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:10 - Sep 10 with 738 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:00 - Sep 10 by Professor |
I like that analogy. Whilst landing on the side is extremely unlikely, as the probability of 'heads to tails' is always 0.5, it will change the two options to a greater probability (say 0.50001).
People also get sucked into the idea of 'a law of averages' that somehow an event which has a 0.5 probability would flip. You can toss a coin and get heads nine consecutive times. The likelihood of the next toss being equally as probable for heads or tails seems to pass people by. Whilst the chance of that happening is low, the probability of heads or tails never changes. In a fair toss of course. |
Indeed Prof, the amount of comments I see about ''bookies were wrong'' is unbelievable really. By the very nature of offering any odds at all is the bookies giving both sides a chance to win, just varying degrees of probability.
You are right. Probability has no memory, the notion of something being ''due'' is something I always find amusing.
I used to know a guy who played the lottery in work where they guess the bonus ball number in a sweep. He said he would only change it once it came up as it would be unlikely to come up twice in a row. I tried and failed to explain to him that it made no difference at all. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Emma Raducanu on 12:10 - Sep 10 with 737 views | trampie |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:00 - Sep 10 by Professor |
I like that analogy. Whilst landing on the side is extremely unlikely, as the probability of 'heads to tails' is always 0.5, it will change the two options to a greater probability (say 0.50001).
People also get sucked into the idea of 'a law of averages' that somehow an event which has a 0.5 probability would flip. You can toss a coin and get heads nine consecutive times. The likelihood of the next toss being equally as probable for heads or tails seems to pass people by. Whilst the chance of that happening is low, the probability of heads or tails never changes. In a fair toss of course. |
Flipping a coin is pure 50-50, the variables of a tennis match often mean the tennis game is not 50-50 chance of each player winning, form, surface, fitness, styles, recent improvement etc etc often mean the match up is not 50-50, Raducanu had more going for her than Sakkari and Raducanu duly won the match with some ease. [Post edited 10 Sep 2021 12:12]
| |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:13 - Sep 10 with 731 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:10 - Sep 10 by trampie |
Flipping a coin is pure 50-50, the variables of a tennis match often mean the tennis game is not 50-50 chance of each player winning, form, surface, fitness, styles, recent improvement etc etc often mean the match up is not 50-50, Raducanu had more going for her than Sakkari and Raducanu duly won the match with some ease. [Post edited 10 Sep 2021 12:12]
|
A coin is 50-50 because the outcomes are assessed and that is proven by repetition. It is the same in tennis, whilst there are more variables the accuracy is proven by the profit mirroring the inbuild margin in the odds, which it does - constantly.
That means without the margin in built, tennis would neither be profitable or a loss.. because the odds accurately represent probability. Same as if I offered you heads or tails at evens... I know that's accurate because if we did it a million times I would not be up or down (give or take a tiny margin either way).
So if tennis behaves in the same way, we can confidently say that the pricing is similarly accurate.
By the time you wrote that post you could have stuck one of your Trampie value selections here...
Just saying. [Post edited 10 Sep 2021 12:17]
| |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:22 - Sep 10 with 718 views | trampie |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:13 - Sep 10 by Dr_Parnassus |
A coin is 50-50 because the outcomes are assessed and that is proven by repetition. It is the same in tennis, whilst there are more variables the accuracy is proven by the profit mirroring the inbuild margin in the odds, which it does - constantly.
That means without the margin in built, tennis would neither be profitable or a loss.. because the odds accurately represent probability. Same as if I offered you heads or tails at evens... I know that's accurate because if we did it a million times I would not be up or down (give or take a tiny margin either way).
So if tennis behaves in the same way, we can confidently say that the pricing is similarly accurate.
By the time you wrote that post you could have stuck one of your Trampie value selections here...
Just saying. [Post edited 10 Sep 2021 12:17]
|
Profit mirroring you say, bookies odds are not the real odds of any outcome of an event. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:30 - Sep 10 with 708 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:22 - Sep 10 by trampie |
Profit mirroring you say, bookies odds are not the real odds of any outcome of an event. |
Yes I do say.
They are correct odds to an inbuilt %.
For example if we were offering a market on heads or tails and take out the slim chance of it landing on its side, that would be 50% and 50% (100% probability). 50% converted into odds would be evens each side.
If we do that however we know those odds are the exact probability and therefore will win just as much as we lose = zero profit.
What bookies do (and casinos) is add an inbuilt %, so we would offer 10/11 each side for example and offer it at 106%. So if the profit from the heads or tails market is 6%, you know the odds you are offering are based off the correct probability.
So with tennis, the same applies, the profit pretty much mirrors the inbuild %, meaning if we took that away we would operate at break even, it means the odds we base off are accurate. Which they are... always.
Thats it in a nutshell. [Post edited 10 Sep 2021 12:32]
| |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:34 - Sep 10 with 697 views | trampie |
Like I said bookies odds are not the real odds. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:36 - Sep 10 with 696 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:34 - Sep 10 by trampie |
Like I said bookies odds are not the real odds. |
Yes I know you said that. ...
Which is why I replied with the above. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:41 - Sep 10 with 689 views | trampie |
It would have been quicker and easier to just say, yes Trampie you are correct yet again. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:44 - Sep 10 with 686 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:41 - Sep 10 by trampie |
It would have been quicker and easier to just say, yes Trampie you are correct yet again. |
But then you wouldn't have understood that your point is irrelevant. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:56 - Sep 10 with 670 views | Professor |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:34 - Sep 10 by trampie |
Like I said bookies odds are not the real odds. |
Of course not, but you can only attempt to define probability based on existing data. There is no guarantee that the odds are correct. Raducanu's win increases her probability of beating the opponent in the future, of course, but nothing in a system of so many variables and a large degree of stochastic factors.
It's the same as disease modelling-the model is never correct but it's often useful to predict outcome and intervene. So Dr P is essentially developing a model based on probability. It's imperfect, but allows odds setting. Any betting (including stocks and shares) clearly has to be able to be 'won' by both sides. The job of the bookie or exchange is to get it right enough to win more often than lose, but also interesting enough for people to engage or take a punt.
For me probability is a different beast, to work our the significance of a finding- P values of less than 0.05 is my life. Or in simple terms the result I get would happen 19 times out of 20. | | | |
| Emma Raducanu on 13:02 - Sep 10 with 669 views | trampie |
My point is relevant and that is that bookies odds are not the real odds of a particular outcome, hence why I thought Raducanu was going to beat Sakkari, I thought Raducanu was more likely to win than lose, I weighed up the probabilities and thought Raducanu was likely to win, the bookies judging by their odds thought Sakkari was more likely to win than lose, hence why I took the bookies on and I was proved correct to back my judgement.
Hey Dr P did you advise your company/the industry to make Sakkari the favourite ?, oh dear.  | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 13:04 - Sep 10 with 665 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Emma Raducanu on 13:02 - Sep 10 by trampie |
My point is relevant and that is that bookies odds are not the real odds of a particular outcome, hence why I thought Raducanu was going to beat Sakkari, I thought Raducanu was more likely to win than lose, I weighed up the probabilities and thought Raducanu was likely to win, the bookies judging by their odds thought Sakkari was more likely to win than lose, hence why I took the bookies on and I was proved correct to back my judgement.
Hey Dr P did you advise your company/the industry to make Sakkari the favourite ?, oh dear. |
What on earth are you talking about?
Again, if you make a market 106%, and you make 6%, that suggests that your odds at 100% represented reality.
I really cant put it any simpler. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 13:10 - Sep 10 with 656 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:56 - Sep 10 by Professor |
Of course not, but you can only attempt to define probability based on existing data. There is no guarantee that the odds are correct. Raducanu's win increases her probability of beating the opponent in the future, of course, but nothing in a system of so many variables and a large degree of stochastic factors.
It's the same as disease modelling-the model is never correct but it's often useful to predict outcome and intervene. So Dr P is essentially developing a model based on probability. It's imperfect, but allows odds setting. Any betting (including stocks and shares) clearly has to be able to be 'won' by both sides. The job of the bookie or exchange is to get it right enough to win more often than lose, but also interesting enough for people to engage or take a punt.
For me probability is a different beast, to work our the significance of a finding- P values of less than 0.05 is my life. Or in simple terms the result I get would happen 19 times out of 20. |
Correct.
You can then judge the performance of the model by looking at the profit and if it mirrors the added over-round. If it does then there is a high degree of probability that the pricing is extremely accurate at 100% odds, leaving the part you have added into the market. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 13:16 - Sep 10 with 650 views | trampie |
| Emma Raducanu on 12:56 - Sep 10 by Professor |
Of course not, but you can only attempt to define probability based on existing data. There is no guarantee that the odds are correct. Raducanu's win increases her probability of beating the opponent in the future, of course, but nothing in a system of so many variables and a large degree of stochastic factors.
It's the same as disease modelling-the model is never correct but it's often useful to predict outcome and intervene. So Dr P is essentially developing a model based on probability. It's imperfect, but allows odds setting. Any betting (including stocks and shares) clearly has to be able to be 'won' by both sides. The job of the bookie or exchange is to get it right enough to win more often than lose, but also interesting enough for people to engage or take a punt.
For me probability is a different beast, to work our the significance of a finding- P values of less than 0.05 is my life. Or in simple terms the result I get would happen 19 times out of 20. |
Existing data and probable but predictable potential, a 26 year old having the best year of her career (probably little or no more improvement in her game) against a 18 year phenomenon with massive upside and potential, if Raducanu was able to bring her 'A' game to the table with what had been witnessed so far in her fledgling career then Sakkari 'A' game would not have been good enough to beat her.
People often fail to take all the variables into consideration (including the bookies). | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 13:20 - Sep 10 with 642 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Emma Raducanu on 13:16 - Sep 10 by trampie |
Existing data and probable but predictable potential, a 26 year old having the best year of her career (probably little or no more improvement in her game) against a 18 year phenomenon with massive upside and potential, if Raducanu was able to bring her 'A' game to the table with what had been witnessed so far in her fledgling career then Sakkari 'A' game would not have been good enough to beat her.
People often fail to take all the variables into consideration (including the bookies). |
That is why you lose your money. That is the sort of nonsense that should be written in crayon, for many reasons. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 13:35 - Sep 10 with 625 views | trampie |
| Emma Raducanu on 13:20 - Sep 10 by Dr_Parnassus |
That is why you lose your money. That is the sort of nonsense that should be written in crayon, for many reasons. |
I don't lose, I win. | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 13:40 - Sep 10 with 615 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Emma Raducanu on 13:35 - Sep 10 by trampie |
I don't lose, I win. |
Get the thread started then... | |
| |
| Emma Raducanu on 13:42 - Sep 10 with 614 views | trampie |
Which way is the final going to go ?, from a British perspective Emma is not up against some 26 year old with not much upside but another young player, whatever happens it should be interesting. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.