Zeljko Exposed - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK
harm-plan
harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Zeljko Exposed - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Zeljko Exposed  (Read 134959 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7022
« 2019-Aug-22, 07:10 AM Reply #400 »

74,249 bets greater than $2 and all the profit from these is wiped out by just 25 Lay bets where their "win fair price (WFP)" is calculated to be less than or equal to $1.25; after capping the max lay to the bank of $10k.

Laying a contingency is equivalent to Backing its complement.

By my calculations, for Fair Prices <= $1.25 the Kelly Fraction will always be below 20% - or $2,000.

So why the capping?

If anyone disagrees show us your calculations and I'll show you mine.

Incidentally the more I look at the exercises the more absurd it seems.



Offline Grega9430

  • Listed
  • User 267
  • Posts: 498
« 2019-Aug-22, 12:25 PM Reply #401 »
I have these three capped at their $10k bank?


win_fair_price   win_starting_price
1.082              1.022
1.08                      1.03
1.124                  1.046


Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7022
« 2019-Aug-22, 04:17 PM Reply #402 »
Here's my workout for the 1st one.

1.0819 Fair Price
1.0219 SP

Laying that is equivalent to Backing the Complement.

13.2100 Fair Price Complement
46.6621 SP Complement

5.545800% Kelly Fraction
$554.58 Stake
$25,323.28 Net Winnings

So $25,323.28 is the required Lay Stake.

So you are correct about capping.

My Kelly Fraction was correct, but I was wrong in not realising that the Back Winnings (hence Lay Stake) could exceed the Bank.


Offline Grega9430

  • Listed
  • User 267
  • Posts: 498
« 2019-Aug-22, 06:16 PM Reply #403 »
Copy, this "project" still blows the net winnings (before 5% commission) from 74,249 bets on the 25 Lay bets at WFP less than 1.25, as 24 of these won.

It only needed one of these bigger lay bets (Winx) to get beat at $1.10 to correct that plus some, a lot hinging on one result.

16% their maximum overs seems light, but again not sure if dataset is real.


Offline Tracksuitdave

  • class1
  • User 2517
  • Posts: 18
« 2019-Sep-06, 05:50 AM Reply #404 »
Zeljko hitting new lows with the success of his Guaranteed Jackpot greyhound betting pools


https://twitter.com/MrTimeform/status/1169679511107117056?s=20

« Last Edit: 2019-Sep-06, 05:52 AM by Tracksuitdave »

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 8576
« 2019-Oct-02, 09:47 AM Reply #405 »
I see in The Financial Review Zeljko is listed as the 164th richest Australian with assets of $600,000,000. Probably a bit of a guesstimate there, as unlike many others in that top 200 rich list, whose  holdings are listed in public companies,to my knowledge, Zeljko's assets are not on any public register.

Offline Tracksuitdave

  • class1
  • User 2517
  • Posts: 18
« 2019-Oct-03, 02:34 AM Reply #406 »
It seems that Zeljko has gone out of his way to drop hints about his wealth and the scale of his betting. What is fact is that he has effectively hobbled his corporation Colossusbets Ltd by withdrawing less than $10M from that company's balance sheet. This has seriously disadvantaged the business which is already technically insolvent. So if he is worth thereabouts of $600M why would he do that?

In other news his corporate mouthpiece Bernard Marantelli the former Monsanto PR man, has suddenly deactivated his @BernardColossus twitter handle :wavecry: In a way you cannot really blame Bernie as his recently launched greyhound betting pools are now a contender for the worst betting product of all time :beer: 50,000 GBP guaranteed jackpots regularly having less than fifty or so tickets bet into them.



,

« Last Edit: 2019-Oct-03, 02:38 AM by Tracksuitdave »

Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 6050
« 2019-Oct-03, 11:23 AM Reply #407 »
Limiting losses is the normal reason of a sane man.

Fours

Offline Tracksuitdave

  • class1
  • User 2517
  • Posts: 18
« 2019-Oct-03, 07:37 PM Reply #408 »
I agree that's what seems to be happening at Colossusbets.

Zeljko Ranogajec and team also lost multi millons backing the ill fated WBX exchange. He now has the Colossusbets cash burner on his hands and an interest in lossmaking Matchbook. No doubt that the man is a very good punter but as a proprietor of betting companies he is a big time loser. Ranogajec also has to share his spoils with Mr Walsh and the money pit that is MONA! Interesting scenarios all round.

I wonder if the beleaguered Bernard Marantelli ends up suffering the same fate as Zeljko pawn Karl O'Farrel whose reward for failure was to be bankrupted by the the great man.

One further point of interest is that Zeljko is also involved in claiming to have invented "cashout" along with Mr Marantelli. On the face of this is an astounding claim and they have registered patents. The amusing part of it that they filed their patents half a decade after another inventor claimed the same rights!  Zeljko - industry visionary or patent troll :shy:

https://www.legalsportsreport.com/26503/cash-out-patent-claim-irish-company/
https://www.intergameonline.com/igaming/news/bet365-targets-us-market-with-colossus-bets-cash-out
« Last Edit: 2019-Oct-03, 07:46 PM by Tracksuitdave »

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 8576
« 2019-Oct-04, 04:14 PM Reply #409 »
I agree that's what seems to be happening at Colossusbets.

Zeljko Ranogajec and team also lost multi millons backing the ill fated WBX exchange. He now has the Colossusbets cash burner on his hands and an interest in lossmaking Matchbook. No doubt that the man is a very good punter but as a proprietor of betting companies he is a big time loser. Ranogajec also has to share his spoils with Mr Walsh and the money pit that is MONA! Interesting scenarios all round.


Unlike other mere mortals, who punt to win to survive, Zeljko has admitted he does not punt to win but bets to survive on rebates. In reality,he is most likely a no better punter than the smartest of those mere mortals, but has exploited the fools that have offered him rebates from his early days in Tasmania to the present day.

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7022
« 2019-Oct-06, 12:31 PM Reply #410 »
Copy, this "project" still blows the net winnings (before 5% commission) from 74,249 bets on the 25 Lay bets at WFP less than 1.25, as 24 of these won.

It only needed one of these bigger lay bets (Winx) to get beat at $1.10 to correct that plus some, a lot hinging on one result.

16% their maximum overs seems light, but again not sure if dataset is real.
Although I haven't wasted any time analysing this, I can't get it out of my mind so maybe this post will bring some closure.

First, there is a major blunder in not realising that there is NO minimum Stake for SP, but minimum Liability.

Big, big difference. And what sort of  hotshot is anyone who could be so ignorant!

Next, the exercise is completely wrong.

While every punter should understand the Kelly Criterion, I doubt there is any situation in real life where it can be applied directly.

Moreover adding Kelly Fractions within the same contest is mathematically wrong.

Consider a fair regular tetrahedron with implied True Odds of $4.

But you are offered

A $6
B $6
C $3
D $3

The Kelly Fractions are.

A 10%
B 10%
C 0
D 0


But staking 10% on both is wrong.

Because obviously this opportunity is equivalent to being offered $3 about 1 face of a fair coin.

Where the Kelly Fraction is 25%!

But don't get me started.

Offline stiffarm

  • Class2
  • User 2721
  • Posts: 22
« 2019-Oct-07, 03:40 PM Reply #411 »

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7022
« 2019-Oct-08, 03:55 PM Reply #412 »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion#Multiple_outcomes

That blog contains a broken link.

The fix is above.

Why did they make it so convoluted!

Seems to me the only inputs needed are-

Want = True Odds
Have = Best Odds on Offer

Consider only favourable bets - where Have > Want

The KF for any single bet

=(Have/Want-1)/(Have-1)

For all favourable bets-

RS
=(1-COUNT(Want)/HARMEAN(Want))/(1-COUNT(Have)/HARMEAN(Have))

The combined KF for each bet is

=1/Want-RS/Have

A simple spreadsheet which actually works for my earlier example where Want=4 and Have=6.

I trust Zeljko's 300 Quants will find this useful.


Offline The Yank

  • class1
  • User 2857
  • Posts: 13
« 2019-Oct-10, 05:35 AM Reply #413 »
Unlike other mere mortals, who punt to win to survive, Zeljko has admitted he does not punt to win but bets to survive on rebates. In reality,he is most likely a no better punter than the smartest of those mere mortals, but has exploited the fools that have offered him rebates from his early days in Tasmania to the present day.

His wagering models are very strong.  Most computer teams lose money straight up and show their profit from rebates.  The pools worldwide are too efficient to make money betting large sums without the rebates.

I have no ties to the man and only spoke with him once years ago but know some of his associates well. 


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap