On Jun 11, 2:52*pm, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article 9aec7f67-fc48-469b-a490-
, says...

*Punters are as expert in probability
as the players, or nags, they punt on! The real probability is that
they will lose, whatever system, or bet they place........yet they do
it again the next week and the next, and the next. That's what punters
(i.e. mugs and losers) do.

For some professional (racing) gamblers, it's their only source of
income. Some of them live in very big houses. Poker, which is even more
pure in its application of probability, has a very large number of
successful, and professional, punters. Almost all successful gamblers
have a superb understanding of probability.

You really do love to degenerate people with a very large and very wide
sweeping (and badly applied) brush, don't you?

--
Alan LeHun

Alan, please! Fancy saying this; "For some professional (racing)
gamblers, it's their only source of income. Some of them live in very
big houses. and then accusing me of having a badly applied brush! My
"brush" is from experience and knowledge. What I've said is true. Pure
gambling against bookies, who create books heavily in their favour,
will cause ruin to you in the long run. It's like any addiction.
You'll lose in the end and you'll lose more than you ever wanted to
stake.

If you feel that poker is similar to horse-racing in the way that
punters approach odds, you'd be mistaken. There are some very
sucessful poker players, but every tournament will throw up a winner
and they will win massively(read Gavino's link; it really is
interesting). Everyone else loses, unless there is a guaranteed fee.
However, the players at that level really do understand the odds of
winning with, say ace-king in the hole at stud, based on the other
cards dealt and it is that knowledge that allows them to know when
best *not* to gamble. They are also often brilliant card counters and
intuitive psychologists which gives them an edge - and there is no
bookie to set the game odds, or table with a 0, or even a 00 too, to
make sure the house wins, despite hefty, occasional, lucky payouts.
Casinos and bookies actually want those! There are some very sucessful
lottery players too who live in big houses, but don't attribute
knowledge of probability to them. 14 million to one are odds from
another planet! There are also far more "professional gamblers" who
are addicts and can't escape. I've seen them Alan and I've known them
and that's the reality. The people who win big are the bookies, casino
owners and whoever runs the national lottery these days!

The sucessful gamblers on horses, who "live in big houses" however
have almost all (I think "all" would probably be accurate) used inside
information in their betting. No-one makes long-term money out of
gambling on horses without having connections, or extreme luck (like
winning the tote accumulator - in the end someone does it, but don't
attribute a knowledge of probability to that). If someone has, point
to them, but be careful who you are pointing at! *))

Research it please, before having a go at me. It's a really
fascinating subject, but don't gamble yourself. You'd just be Jack
Punter and you'll lose. The lack of success of long-range forecasters
suggests that the forecasters are gambling on an outcome. They all
know that *if* they are successful, just once in a while, kudos (and
business for people like PWS and Piers Corbyn) will follow. All the
followers will forget the hopeless forecasts in-between and focus on
the most recent and the most successful. Why do you think the rags
keep going back to them, but never return to analyse the forecast?
(Clue - the forecast actually means more than the outcome to all of
them; the forecast sells newspapers; if it's correct, the newspaper
has backed a winner - if it is wrong....who remembers?). That's why it
is important to keep a mental record and i know it doesn't go down
well with some, as they feel exposed.

If you ever feel that long range forecasting (the point of this
discussion) has demonstrable accuracy, I'd all love to hear about it.