Tom Waterhouse - Betting, Tips & Ratings - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Tom Waterhouse - Betting, Tips & Ratings - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Tom Waterhouse  (Read 10983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2529
« 2014-Oct-23, 11:32 AM Reply #25 »
On the coi flip for your wealth,

Those who marry risk 50%... Fours

If you've got a couple of billy-lids it may go to 70% or higher  :shutup:

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6515
« 2014-Oct-28, 07:35 AM Reply #26 »
Haven't had a chance to analyse the Ladbrokes' offer (suspect there's an obvious catch) but it strikes me Tom's offer is vastly inferior to Labdrokes.


http://www.horseracing.com.au/news/ladbrokes-megafecta-vs-tom-waterhouse-pick-ten/

https://www.ladbrokes.com.au/promotions/megafecta
« Last Edit: 2014-Oct-28, 07:43 AM by jfc »

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6515
« 2014-Oct-28, 07:57 AM Reply #27 »
Just noticed that I still have the spreadsheet I used for Tom.

And that already had the answer for the Ladbrokes Megafecta favourite way Odds:

$1,308,412.61

So that looks like phenomenal value!

You Lotto syndicate desperates should take a close look at how you would play this.


Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7248
« 2014-Oct-28, 08:09 AM Reply #28 »
Well in a full field of 24 the Ladbroke's first 7 in order market is a tick over 17,443% that's a lot better than Tom's 284,680,230%, 

The question is how does the probability of the favoured combo's stack up and how do you actually go about calculating them accurately.

Surely the straight Harville calculation would greatly over estimate the probability of the first seven in the market finishing in market order.




Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5303
« 2014-Oct-28, 08:15 AM Reply #29 »
hmmm,

I would suggest that a competent class assessor would be able to make a go of it... providing a litle variance ia allowed for in the first four and quite a bit more for the spots 5-7.

Fours

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6515
« 2014-Oct-28, 08:20 AM Reply #30 »
Well in a full field of 24 the Ladbroke's first 7 in order market is a tick over 17,443% that's a lot better than Tom's 284,680,230%, 

The question is how does the probability of the favoured combo's stack up and how do you actually go about calculating them accurately.

Surely the straight Harville calculation would greatly over estimate the probability of the first seven in the market finishing in market order.

That's not an easy question to answer.

For example last year there didn't seem to be a massive difference because the Entropy was very high - i.e. more open than normal.

If you can write a program there shouldn't be too much of a problem using Discounted  Harville.

But you can extended the Discounted Harville to 10 as in that original spreadsheet here.

Then sample individual Perms to see how many fit below $10,000,000.

I don't plan to bother with this  as I have other fish to fry.


Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5303
« 2014-Oct-28, 08:22 AM Reply #31 »
jfc,

I strongly suspect that anyone placing properly constructed perms would be banned by ladbrokes before they got them all on!

Fours

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6515
« 2014-Oct-28, 08:52 AM Reply #32 »
jfc,

I strongly suspect that anyone placing properly constructed perms would be banned by ladbrokes before they got them all on!

Fours
Who knows?

Surely Anyone but an utter moron would be playing with 1 cent Flexis?

So the risk is only $100,000 should there be 1 correct.

For more popular Perms there may be ways of partially hedging through F4s.

An absurd amount of money is squandered by Lotto players, so who knows how close this might get to $10 million, whereupon the Risk disappears?

Tom's certainly provided a lot of free publicity got Ladbrokes in this exchange.





Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5303
« 2014-Oct-28, 08:59 AM Reply #33 »
jfc,

I'm happy to stick to the first four anyway - even though I strongly doubt we'll see a big divvy this year. Under 30g ths year in my view.

Fours

Offline monologue

  • Group 1
  • User 200
  • Posts: 8692
« 2014-Oct-28, 09:03 AM Reply #34 »
I think the new add campaign for Waterhouse aired last night is when you join his conglomerate he will gift you a ticket in the impossible dream.

Offline Shortster

  • Class6
  • User 2029
  • Posts: 75
« 2014-Oct-28, 10:11 AM Reply #35 »
A far better promo.

T&Cs state the prize will not apply if there are less than 22 runners. You'd be upset if you nailed it and there were a few late scratchings.

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 7671
« 2014-Oct-28, 06:52 PM Reply #36 »
In the event of one or more of a Client’s selections being scratched or being declared a non -runner after a First Ten wager is placed, then in the event that the scratching or declaration is made:
before a final field is declared, the wager will be treated as an unsuccessful wager;
at or after the time a final field is declared, the wager will be refunded in full to the Client.
     AND
An exact stake in the amount of $10 per wager applies (this includes one combination of ten (10) horses). A Client may make up to 10 separate wagers for this bet-type

Those terms and conditions are puzzling.

Why would any reasoned punter, of which there would be none entering , want to bet before final declarations win all bets are 'all in'.

Why have they limited a client to 10 separate bets ? Do they really think have 10 bets is going to make any difference ?

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7248
« 2014-Oct-28, 10:58 PM Reply #37 »
Yes the restriction to ten bets is totally bizarre.

And I agree, I can't understand why anyone would make a bet now. I can only imagine that if you are brainless enough to have a go in the first place you are brainless enough to do it pre-post, especially when you can get four times the odds to pick just the first seven.

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5303
« 2014-Oct-29, 04:01 AM Reply #38 »
All,

They are limiting the number of tickets to try and stop perm guys, who do class well, from taking the prize on a dramatically reduced number of combinations compared to what probability stats might suggest for those who have no idea.

Fours

Offline Antitab#

  • Group 2
  • User 234
  • Posts: 2106
« 2014-Oct-29, 06:08 AM Reply #39 »
jfc,

I strongly suspect that anyone placing properly constructed perms would be banned by ladbrokes before they got them all on!

Fours


Not at all.

Ladbrokes welcome all comers to this promotion.  In fact Fours if you open up an account and have a substantial spend I will organise extra free bets for you.

You can flexi and take as many combinations and permutations as you want.

Give it a shot
« Last Edit: 2014-Oct-29, 06:11 AM by Antitab# »

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5303
« 2014-Oct-29, 06:12 AM Reply #40 »
Antitab,

A nice offer from you guys but a big part of my discipline is sticking to my program regardless of distractions that may arise.

So you are going to remove the limit of 10 then?  Whoever made that rule ....... did not know what they are doing..... or the reverse?

Fours
ps the limit of ten was very harsh... unless you guys were mindfull of those with multiple accounts - like 10-50
« Last Edit: 2014-Oct-29, 06:15 AM by fours »

Offline Antitab#

  • Group 2
  • User 234
  • Posts: 2106
« 2014-Oct-29, 09:32 AM Reply #41 »
Ladbrokes dont have the limit of 10.

It is easier to win at Top 7 v Top 10 ," flexiable ", better odds and unlimited number of tickets and combos.

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5303
« 2014-Oct-29, 09:58 AM Reply #42 »
Antitab,

My Apologies to Ladbrokes.

I failed to pick up on the fact that Bubba's post concerned your competitior and not you.

For those that try.... class is your single best factor to reduce your combos BUT as you go from 1st spot to 7th spot the inherent variance for each spot goes up until it flat lines ( almost ) at the mere chance level. There are also distinct tipping points or changes along the line but you are going to have to do the work and find those out for yourselves.

Fours
ps me - I'll stick to first fours thanks!

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6515
« 2014-Nov-03, 02:40 PM Reply #43 »
Using current Betfair Odds my calculation for the Ladbrokes Pick 7 favoured way price is just:

$290,012.05

Even if you Boxed the top 7 (costing $50.40) the roughest Perm price would be still only:

$1,270,135.43

Obviously there are far more intelligent picks that that.

So you syndicate players would probably be far better off playing this rather than F4s.

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7248
« 2014-Nov-03, 03:56 PM Reply #44 »
Looks like you can take it for as low as 1% as well.

Offline worldisavampire

  • Group 2
  • User 545
  • Posts: 3986
« 2014-Nov-05, 03:19 AM Reply #45 »
I wonder when they will announce all the lucky punters that shared in this generous offer.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20127
« 2017-Mar-26, 12:33 AM Reply #46 »
Tom Waterhouse at loggerheads with online betting rivals over gambling reforms

Bookmaker Tom Waterhouse is at the centre of a bitter dispute in the online gambling sector over how much ground the industry should give up to resuscitate its public image.

Fairfax Media can reveal the industry's new peak body, headed by former Labor minister Stephen Conroy, has been poised for weeks to unveil a list of concessions aimed at restoring the "social licence" of internet betting companies, regularly criticised for their blanket advertising and hard-sell approach.

The concessions include:

A ban on offering credit to gamblers
Scrapping "sign-up" offers used to lure new punters
Reducing advertising volume, especially during sport broadcasts.
The Conroy-led Responsible Wagering Australia, which replaced the disbanded Australian Wagering Council, represents Sportsbet, Bet365, Betfair, Unibet and James Packer's CrownBet and has an overarching aim to remain a self-regulating industry.

But a stalemate has arisen because William Hill, headed by Mr Waterhouse, and fellow British-owned bookie Ladbrokes, have so far declined to join the RWA.

Fairfax Media understands William Hill, which acquired the Tom Waterhouse.com brand for $34 million in 2013, along with Sportingbet and Centrebet, has no intention of cutting lines of credit to big punters or reining in its growing marketing spend.

William Hill declined to comment on its "internal position" on the proposed reform push but said it was an active participant in the 2015 review of illegal offshore wagering, led by former NSW premier Barry O'Farrell, and supported the "development and implementation of an evidence-based responsible gambling framework".

A Ladbrokes spokesman said it "respectfully declines the opportunity to comment on this matter at this point in time".

But a forthright statement from the RWA questioned the commitment of the dissenting companies to minimising gambling harm in the community.

"Our members are leading the industry and setting an example through their commitments to consumer protection, responsible gambling and harm minimisation measures," an RWA spokeswoman said.

"This is in contrast to other operators that do not demonstrate the same commitment to working with government and other stakeholders to improve regulation and consumer protection."

A source said Ladbrokes and William Hill remained unconvinced of the merits of joining the RWA after the former Wagering Council fell apart after failing to prevent the federal government legislating against online in-play betting, a move that is said to have cost operators $500,000 a week in profits.

It's not the first time Mr Waterhouse has been at loggerheads with rivals.

In 2013, then Sportingbet chief executive Michael O'Sullivan sent shockwaves through the sector when he told Fairfax Media that the scion of the Waterhouse bookmaking dynasty was "acting irresponsibly" by spruiking live betting odds from the sidelines of NRL games in a deal with Channel Nine.

The Gillard government later stepped in to ban live odds updates after months of pressure from a widespread community backlash.

The RWA has proposed abolishing sign-up offers, saying "we believe customers should decide to join a wagering operator without a financial incentive".

But a search for deals on Friday showed Sportsbet offering $75 credit for a $25 opening deposit. William Hill will match any first deposit up to $505 and Ladbrokes gives $80 credit for a $10 deposit.

For every dollar William Hill takes in revenue from punters, it spends 26?? on advertising and marketing.

The company's publicly-listed British parent recently revealed would be raised to 28?? in the dollar as it drives for greater market share.

Despite talk of reforms, the turf war for market share shows no signs of abating. CrownBet recently paid $300 million to become the official "digital partner" of 1200 registered clubs in NSW in a deal that poses a threat to the TAB.


http://www.northweststar.com.au/story/4554574/tom-waterhouse-at-loggerheads-with-online-betting-rivals-over-gambling-reforms/?cs=12

Why does it not surprise me that big mouth Conroy is involved in all this. Massive ego. What idiot got him on board  :what:


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap