Touts

[RandyMarsh]

I wouldn't trust anyone's results unless I documented them myself.

[bigboydan]

stu finer has to be the biggest scandicapper out there. this guy is just like the typical used car salesman.

[BuddyBear]

If prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, touts have the be second oldest. I am sure there were touts in the days of the Romans...guys who would sell their picks on which gladiator would survive.


Touts for the most part are scams...they make their living selling picks (win or lose) as opposed to betting games. There are some good handicappers out there who do sell their picks but they are few and far in between... you really have to do the research to find a good service and even then with what you are paying and the percentage you hit you have to wonder how much a service really helps in terms of your profit margin.

My advice is to do your own research...touts are just savy businessmen.

[picantel]

A couple of days ago I went to that meatandpotatoes forum where they were touting up their free pick at some racetrack. I watched the race and the horse got 2nd to last. lol

[natrass]

Yep, its all advertising spiel at the end of the day. Their results are never particularly special ... otherwise theyd be in Barbados in their new swimming pool, etc.

Ill tell you a tout I would respect. One which takes 50% of your winnings and repays 50% of your losses. If they are so good, why not?

[Ganchrow]

Ill tell you a tout I would respect. One which takes 50% of your winnings and repays 50% of your losses. If they are so good, why not?

Then what would be in it for him? Taking 50% of both losses and profits would be economically indistinguishable from the tout placing his own bets of size equal to those of the client (while giving away his advice for free).

[natrass]

Then what would be in it for him? Taking 50% of both losses and profits would be economically indistinguishable from the tout placing his own bets of size equal to those of the client (while giving away his advice for free).

Erm ... I may well be missing something here (seriously, I might) but isnt your comment based on the tout not actually providing profitable advice?

As for whats in it for him, well if they claim to be profitable why sell the picks for $50 ...

[Ganchrow]

Erm ... I may well be missing something here (seriously, I might) but isnt your comment based on the tout not actually providing profitable advice?

Not at all. If the tout takes 50% of a client's winnings or pays out 50% of a client's losses (settling up after every bet) then there is economic equivalence between that scenario with client betting $100 and the scenario of both the tout and the client each separately betting $50 per game. (In finance we'd talk a bit about the time value of money in this situation, mentioning that the client would be effectively loaning money to the tout. However, since the carry time is relatively small we're probably safe to ignore this factor. Besides, is anyone really arguing that being a tout is economically advantageous because it allows one to borrow money at low interest rates? Didn't think so. )

As for whats in it for him, well if they claim to be profitable why sell the picks for $50 ...

How about just because it's 50 extra dollars in the tout's pocket? There's a definite risk inherent to sports wagering and there are a plethora of reasons as to why any given tout might wish to avoid part or all of said risk. Furthermore, while there are practical limits as to how much a given tout might wager on a particular game at a given price or better, the only limit to how many people the tout's picks can be sold is the scope of his audience.

[kalmikrazy]

no touts here. i use a gambling syndicate. wins about 57-59% which is great from my point of view. 70 is nearly impossible.

[natrass]

Ganche ... I think I didnt make myself clear. I said Id respect a tout who would do that because then they are taking some of the risk and some of the profit. And as the touts imply they 'guarrantee' profits (yeah, I know) then they should earn their fees that way.

If they are not profitable then they also are out of pocket. Essentially, the more profitable the tout is the more 'fee' he earns .. thats why I said Id respect that kind of structure rather than refunding/voiding losers because that is a no-risk tout.

So, if a tout is as good as they advertise, then they should be earning bigger fees than the flat $50 flat monthly fees AND the punter has confidence in the tout because he is sharing the risk.

But, as you imply, what tout would do that ... because even they know (but dont say) that its all a gamble still.

Which is why I said a tout having that fee structure would impress me. I think its a valid opinion.

[Ganchrow]

So, if a tout is as good as they advertise, then they should be earning bigger fees than the flat $50 flat monthly fees AND the punter has confidence in the tout because he is sharing the risk.

But, as you imply, what tout would do that ... because even they know (but dont say) that its all a gamble still.

Which is why I said a tout having that fee structure would impress me. I think its a valid opinion.

The point here is that the fee structure you outline (tout splitting both wins and losses 50/50) does not provide anything to the tout that he couldn't already achieve on his own without any clients. If the tout takes 50% of a client's profits and pays out 50% of the client's losses on a bet size of $100, then it's no different economically than the tout merely betting $50 of his own money on the same bet (ignoring the implicit loan) and leaving the client out of the mix entirely.

In short, whether the tout is a career 45% picker or a career 70% picker there is simply no incentive for him to enter in to the arrangement you've outlined with a potential client (other than a few hours of risk-free borrowing).

[bigboydan]

Ill tell you a tout I would respect. One which takes 50% of your winnings and repays 50% of your losses.

there are a few touts out there right now, that let only charge if there plays win. thats about as good as it's gonna get in the tout game IMHOO

[natrass]

there is simply no incentive for him to enter in to the arrangement you've outlined with a potential client (other than a few hours of risk-free borrowing).

No, I do understand ganche. Possible 'incentives' could be

- what about a crooked jockey ... cant tell folk at the stable and doesnt want a high volume of betting by his family, friends, etc which may leave a trail to him. So he may get in the touting business ... the bets would come from all over the world. Such a 50/50 deal would be ideal, dont you think?
- access to books/lines he is barred from,
- getting a size of bet on that he is couldnt do himself because he is restricted by books,
- legal issues (eg betting in, say, China can be a very serious offense),
- bonus abuse, etc.
- tax avoidance
Theres a few.

But I think we are going off on an academic tangent.

My point was that I would be impressed with a tout who operated on such a profit sharing basis. The fact that no tout wants to do that and prefers just to take the cash win or lose is why most reasoning people dont use them. And again underscores the touts own knowledge of how insecure his 'tips' really are ... and how the punter takes all the risk.

Really all i was saying was that I would only consider a tout who shares the gains and losses. I wasnt really trying to offer up a business plan for any touts.

Honestly, ganche, it was an off-the-cuff couple of lines and you're "well, if we analyse your example then I think we will find the tout might not want to do what you said". When did I say a tout would?

I think the real point was touts sharing profits AND losses and not the subplot of what would be a viable tout-friendly scenario.

[Ganchrow]

No, I do understand ganche. Possible 'incentives' could be

- what about a crooked jockey ... cant tell folk at the stable and doesnt want a high volume of betting by his family, friends, etc which may leave a trail to him. So he may get in the touting business ... the bets would come from all over the world. Such a 50/50 deal would be ideal, dont you think?
- access to books/lines he is barred from,
- getting a size of bet on that he is couldnt do himself because he is restricted by books,
- legal issues (eg betting in, say, China can be a very serious offense),
- bonus abuse, etc.
- tax avoidance

You're completely right. I should have been more specific and emphasized that there are no pure economic incentives for the generic tout to embark on the structure you've outlined, even if structural incentives might exist in certain pathological cases (incentives unrelated to the ostensibly core business of selecting winners.)

[natrass]

You're completely right. I should have been more specific and emphasized that there are no pure economic incentives for the generic tout to embark on the structure you've outlined, even if structural incentives might exist in certain pathological cases (incentives unrelated to the ostensibly core business of selecting winners.)

Not sure what you mean (literally and figuritively). I think all the examples above have an intrinsic economic value. In fact, the only validity of the above examples to the tout are their ability to generate cash, loot, winnings or "pure economic incentive" for the tout ...

I think good touts are in the business of finding an outlet as they themselves are frustrated in making volume winnings. All the others are just tipsters which you can get for 20p in the Daily Star every Saturday (and get a free newspaper and TV guide).

[pags11]

great thread here...I'd never use a tout service either...I just talk on the net with other peers and use consensus handicapping...