Soccer13 syndicate week 2

Here is my input for what it is worth.

Go back to original idea of 4 bankers.
bankers should be 4 home teams with a good chance of winning , not necessarily hot fav , if they are so be it, and they must not be the last 2 games

if we keep on playing that formula i am in, all this different combo's is confusing and if we are going with that for the future i am out, I am willing to go "balls to the walls, lippe teen die klippe" on the the original system and might even think of increasing my contribution, I know I am only a small investor and the bigger investors might feel different, that is ok they put in much more money than I do

I am sure if we stick to the original plan we will hit it one day

Question" are we not to analytically in dissecting the games?

2 winning tickets. Paid 1769870 * 1.2 = R2 123 844.

Consolation for 12 correct paid 20421 * 1.2 = R24505.

dont give up guys , stick to ur plan , only need to win 1 out of 10 !!!

Hindsight makes it easy but the obvious thing for us to have done this time was to go field in all the friendlies and choose a banker in the 4 competitive Swedish matches. Would we have won? Who knows, but it would have been the sensible thing to do.

I like the idea of sticking with the original plan of 4 bankers 9 fields (though some other ideas have merit too) but we should probably avoid choosing bankers in friendlies and matches where teams have nothing to play for (like end of season mid-table affairs), and maybe also avoid choosing any of the 4 shortest priced favourites as our bankers.

The next round has 5 international friendlies and 8 Swedish league matches.
How about we try to find our 4 bankers from those 8 league matches? At least we know the teams are trying.

Sabre Wrote:

---

> Hindsight makes it easy but the obvious thing for
> us to have done this time was to go field in all
> the friendlies and choose a banker in the 4
> competitive Swedish matches. Would we have won?
> Who knows, but it would have been the sensible
> thing to do.
>
> I like the idea of sticking with the original plan
> of 4 bankers 9 fields (though some other ideas
> have merit too) but we should probably avoid
> choosing bankers in friendlies and matches where
> teams have nothing to play for (like end of season
> mid-table affairs), and maybe also avoid choosing
> any of the 4 shortest priced favourites as our
> bankers.
>
> The next round has 5 international friendlies and
> 8 Swedish league matches.
> How about we try to find our 4 bankers from those
> 8 league matches? At least we know the teams are
> trying.

agree, this the best plan, as stated before look for bankers in home game team, maybe some body can volunteer to check proposed bankers statistics at home, i am believer of statistics, if a team has a good % of home games won let us go for that team even if they are not the fav, and I am sure if we stick to that plan we will catch the "big one" soon

Sabre Wrote:

---

> Hindsight makes it easy but the obvious thing for
> us to have done this time was to go field in all
> the friendlies and choose a banker in the 4
> competitive Swedish matches. Would we have won?
> Who knows, but it would have been the sensible
> thing to do.
>
> I like the idea of sticking with the original plan
> of 4 bankers 9 fields (though some other ideas
> have merit too) but we should probably avoid
> choosing bankers in friendlies and matches where
> teams have nothing to play for (like end of season
> mid-table affairs), and maybe also avoid choosing
> any of the 4 shortest priced favourites as our
> bankers.
>
> The next round has 5 international friendlies and
> 8 Swedish league matches.
> How about we try to find our 4 bankers from those
> 8 league matches? At least we know the teams are
> trying.

and also look for teams that are playing to avoid relegation or for the top spots.

Guys apologies for doing 2 perms that was not on . The second perm had no cover as mentioned by Andrewsarrows and was a waste of money .

A couple of points .

Ships gossip has recomended 4 random bankers to which Shrek and Racing guru both agreed .

Easy recomended doing 6 floating bankers . This is too complicated !

0007 and Sabre want the 4 bankers 9 fields structure( remember this week not all shares were taken therefore this play was not an option . 3 bankers 3dc's and7 fields should be an option in cases like that etc) . 0007 said we should find 4 strong home teams and banker them .

i think we should try selecting again this week and when/if somebody has a hard one for a certain result we should consider bankering his selction .This week Ships gossip liked England strong , and i liked Poland
to win at home . Easy with hindsight though . But even bankering these two we would have missed .

I will repeat , i believe that if somebody likes a team really strong we should just automatically banker it . ( i know its unorthodox play , but it can be classified as a random selection at worst .) If it gets beat well its tough luck . we all know the risks involved .

Johnnycomelately(early) has cofirmed his participation this week . Let me know who else is interested .

My 2 cents worth - democracy has it's drawbacks and selecting bankers on the basis of most votes polled, will almost inevitably lead to the obvious bankers being selected, meaning we catch only when everyone else also catches - this almost negates the benefits of a big perm. All it means is we're sticking 20k plus onto say Portugal, where the little punter is putting R 100 or R 200, but we both fall in the same hole.

I still believe a system of multiple smaller perms according to a pre-determined model might be the best way of avoiding certain trappy bankers for purposes of the big payout, while at the same time giving multiple wiinning tickets in the event of a lot of obvious results occurring. Something like the John Sweet system?

If this is not considered an option, then I would sooner go with a smaller selection committee of two, three or four guys - maybe take a poll on who selection committee should consist of - lots of form on who's who in the posts. The committee thrashes things out in the background, you publish proposed perm/s and invite participation in those perms.

Solo I am still in will do the transfer on Wednesday for you.

Solo I also like the 4 bankers with 9 fields and understand it is impossible if you don't have enough funds. If I may make a suggestion have a look and see how many shares are taken and if for instance 80 are taken then cost them at R300 for 1,25% each share so we can make the 4 bankers with 9 fields.

I agree we need to look past the obvious bankers because even if they do come in it won't pay much.

I like your idea as 1 strong banker each, instead of picking 4 bankers we only give 1 banker each and that way compile the 4 most selected bankers excluding the 3 shortest priced teams.

I am enjoying this syndicate and like following the matches I never would so I am in every week. (tu)

I'm in as well.

Did we miss both weeks?

oscar Wrote:

---

> Did we miss both weeks?


oscar early matches we were 5/5...late matches we were 4/8....to be fair the results were shocking....in the swedish matches we got 2 big results...had we survived the late matches it would still have paid R500 000..I THINK