It's fundamentally flawed, which is why we do not conduct discussions this way when it comes to things that matter such as health, finance, science, and law. The point about Thor was an analogy. It was to show you the error of your means, which was clearly stated. God wasn't dragged in here, if he exist or not.
- Horse Betting Products, Horse Handicapping Tools, and Horse Racing Software.
- Mayor of the Skies;
This is a strawman. The thing is a person can deem one opportunity as a Needless Risk and another as a Calculated Risk. However, the difference between the two is that Calculated Risk is associated with some facts, numbers, reality, and reason to provide an overall positive gain. What does "look outside the box" mean?
Do you mean outside the television box? Out side the box-shaped house? Or is it a metaphor? And if its a metaphor, I didn't understand the context, and asked for your elaboration. So you have a funny way of saying "not lucky" lol. If you mean the Average Person living in a middle-country Brazil, Mexico, Russia, East-Europe, Mediterranean , then the premise is triple-distilled so that they have some luxuries, all the essentials, but an increasingly difficult ladder to become a millionaire.
Royal Ascot day five racing tips - Max Dynamite the best bet
Now if you move down to the struggling second world countries many in Middle-East, some in South America, few in South-East Asia or a place like China, your prospects are much much lower. And if you move lower down to India and some other countries in Asia, its even lower. However, you still have access to air, water, food, shelter, some level of security, policing, education, healthcare, etc etc.
So you may say that you are "not lucky" but you still have a lot to lose. When you move to the bottom of the rung, majority in Africa, you can die of dehydration, hunger, cold, disease, murder from local warlords, with limited education from your family. Now that's a raw deal. I guess context matters when parsing adjectives.
- HEIRS OF HONOR.
- In Pursuit of Science and Technology in Sub-Saharan Africa (UNU/INTECH Studies in New Technology and Development).
- Autobiography and Natural Science in the Age of Romanticism: Rousseau, Goethe, Thoreau!
It's probably obvious that I bet the horses. From that point I am either hopelessly deluded OR from experience, if nothing else, have "seen" things that encourage me to consider there is money in this. You, I assume, are not a horseplayer possibility - perhaps not currently?? So my viewpoint has the possibility yep not certainty, I am a stranger of having experiences that make me think this way. Now, unless you have researched hearsay doesn't count the subject you too are a stranger but have made no claims of having done so you cannot have that possibility.
If that assumption on my part is true then it is an impossibility that you can have the authority to say no-one can ever make money long term betting on horses……. Putting aside "why should I, your belief or non-belief has no relevance for me" I have unambiguously given you 2 items to consider Woods and contrarian thinking. You have not stated you have checked either out. By the way it is not me that wants the evidence, you don't have to do anything "for me", I am where I am, rightly or wrongly. You do realise that not all types of gambling have the same basic conditions?
To explain - most gambling types are closed eg a coin flip, heads and tails are it, roulette, there are x numbers of holes the ball can come to rest in depending on the type of wheel being used etc, for all these events the odds of an outcome are fixed in stone, racing is different. It involves animate contestants and the odds are calculated by fallible humans.
BETTER THAN ONE
I back this up by saying, as an example, a horse is an individual - they can be sooks, they can be brave, they can hate to be in front of the pack, they can hate being bustled till they want to "go", they can have a strong preference for the ground to be firm under their feet, the list is endless!
And that is only the horse, the jockey is animate as well……Some will "see" these tendencies before others realise and so have an advantage in speculating on the result. If the above is "clearly impossible" in your mind then stop here. However some will continually be more correct than average. Think about it, would it really be a "risk" at all unless it was seen to be so by a majority? In any case my point was "luck" should not be a determinant in the long-term outcome of any endeavour if any success is valid and repeatable for a range of participants. Cripes nearly forgot….
Excuse me if I am totally and genuinely surprised that this, to me, extremely common expression, is unknown to you. So surprised that I discounted the question as being a serious one, my fault. Google "think outside the box" and learned people will explain it far better than I can. I apologies that I am not the most eloquent person, so a break-down of language may occur.
What I am trying to convey, and this is in the most basic form, is that horseracing is a business. It has a lot to do with probability, like all other gambling activities. Now, the race-holders have the majority of data and information on the race… much much more than you, an outsider does. And they have a lot more resources to throw at processing this data than you.
Free UK Horse Racing Systems
What this means is that "the house" will always be ahead of you from the probability viewpoint. And on top of this, they control the odds and pricing, so they essentially can maximise their gains and minimise their losses. Not bad from one event, surely more than what I make in a year. So you see, it really is just gambling. Treat it as a game; where its an entertainment and not a business. I studied mathematics at uni, and I did the odds before, and they are not favourable. It's certainly MUCH better than slot machines or claw machines , and slightly better than roulette, but I don't know if its better than Blackjack.
Does that mean you will always lose? Heck, even "the house" can lose money from an event. But they are intelligent enough not to. And even if you had a system to increase your odds systematically, so much so that you won above average money at above average frequencies… you do know that it is a Privately Owned business protected by Federal Law. They can deny you service for any reason, and there goes your system. In fact, casinos are appalling at this practice… they do kick people out for winning too much, and its legal though not ethical. Again, let me reiterate the above: I am not against the Possibility of your system, I'm criticising the Probability of your assertions.
And it is the probability which is paramount here.
Ryan Moore: Dynamite can blow field away in Royal Ascot finale
Perhaps you should try to understand what I'm alluding to. I'm saying people both individuals and as a collective are stupid and illogical in many aspects. Don't be. Be wise, and be intelligent like the successful people. Do not take needless risk. Take calculated risks, which are based on real numbers, facts, probabilities and reason.
Do your homework and if you do, you will come to the counter-evidence. That would mean gambling on horseraces as entertainment, and nothing more. Or gambling on something which is likely to produce a net positive gain, like stocks and bonds. So I'm not sure how much more thinking outside of the box I need to do. You still failed to give the context in what you want me to mentally explore, I know the idiom but you used it without context, so I cannot know what you were talking about…. I appreciate the lengthy reply, but there are some portions of my reply you are ignorant on or simply failed to grasp.
No need to apologise at all, I feel I see your position, I sincerely dispute it's foundation. Incorrect, it can be both or exclusively one or the other of the two depending on how the gambler conducts themselves - see Woods. With all due respect to your learning all "gambling" is not identical, this point is something that has been seemingly missed. So why do they do this on a systematic basis , this is hugely important….. The "house" in horseracing does not always win, far from it….
Which should have you thinking if that is accepted why is kangals's argument considered invalid?
In this area, a lot LOL, in short and I know you disagree your viewpoint is academic rather than through experience and practical research. Indeed "systems" are not mandatory for a winning approach and may not be in use at all with other successful players. Probability is indeed paramount, a winning player MUST place enough bets at better than real odds overall such that they turn a profit. I believe it is doable in this restricted field, you differ. Yes, computerised operations can win…. IMHO Also the rules of racing change over time eg mimimum weights , punters generally get smarter eg now on pace runners are far more respected , participants change the mug money has drifted to lotteries, online gambling, casinos.
You can garner winning "systems" but you need to devise them and probably only one in a thousand of your creations will actually work so a huge slog. So now we have had our fun with the irrelevant stuff, can we return to the discussion of using Excel to sift data, and finding downloadable race results.
If you want to discuss statistical stuff, the problems of betting, coin flipping, philosophy or anything else, please start a new thread and discuss amongst yourselves. This is not a money making exercise, just something I am curious about. Can we just leave it at that and forget all the other drivel. Quick question - without googling… if i flip a coin 10 times in a row, and it's heads each time, whats the chances of getting another "head" on the next toss? Just throw a ballpark percentage at me.
It is possible to beat the bookie but the bookmakers are smart…. If you keep betting on horses that return a positive expected value they will ban you.