- This topic has 173 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
GT good write up,but this this what i dont get,you believe the new one will NOT win the champion hurdle but you will back him because you think the books are out of line?
We all work different and betting and the methods intrigue me a lot,if you then back others in race you will be getting(in real terms) less than the 7% chance you believe he has.
Hope it wins for you,in terms of form i dont know a thing about hedgehoppers so i would not know a New One from an Old onenwalton,
I believe The New One has a 7% chance of winning. Therefore – in truth – I believe he has a much greater (93%) chance of losing (7 + 93 = 100). Bookies were offering 33/1. At 33/1 a punter only needs a 2.94% strike rate at level stakes to break even, so imo The New One is excellent value @ 33/1. My idea of his chance is 7% and 33/1 = 2.94%, therefore 7 – 2.94 = 4.06% better than what I believe is its true chance.Now let’s say there’s Another Horse I believe has a 10% chance and is availale @ 20/1. At 20/1 a punter only needs a 4.76% strike rate at level stakes to break even. 10 – 4.76 = 5.24% better than what I believe its true chance.
You say that if I back both then in “real terms” I won’t be getting 7% for The New One if it wins, let alone the 33/1. You are ofcourse correct. However, I am not only backing The New One, I am backing both The New One and Another Horse. In truth, punters backing more than one horse shouldn’t think of it as getting 33/1 One and 20/1 Another; it’s the combined odds that matter.
The New One I believe has a 7% chance of winning and Another Horse 10%. Therefore, (7 + 10 = 17) I believe I have a 17% chance of winning. If you want to put that in to odds terms it’s a touch better than 5/1.
What are the combined odds I am taking?
2.94 (33/1) + 4.76 (20/1) = 7.7
A punter needs a 7.69% strike rate @ 12/1 to break even, therefore the odds I am getting for the combined bet is 12/1.
17 – 7.7 = 9.3 So for the combined bets I am getting what I believe to be 9.3% better than my assessment of their combined chance… Rather than just the 4.06% if I’d kept to just the one The New One bet. Or if you want to put it another way…With the two bets, I am taking 12/1 about something I believe has a fair 5/1 chance of winning. Instead of (with just the One bet) taking 33/1 about something I believe has a fair 14/1 chance.
Value Is Everythingcheers mate (again) i can to a certain degree see where you are coming from but i cant get when you say I’m NOT saying I believe The New One will win the Champion Hurdle, far from it.Then you back it because you think its value.
How is it value if you dont think it will win?
Anyway enough from the old git,good luck with the hedgehoppers,i cant wait for the york dante meetingGinger,
I have been looking at your figures, am trying to understand so bear with me.
if that horse with given chance (7%) ran a hundered races then a possible LLR is 63.5, LWR 1.7
Now there is only a 4% chance that the LLR will be hit.
Taking into account that your taken odds are 33/1 there is a 47% chance that a losing streak of 33 will occur in the 100 bets, have you got value?
Of course anyone snaffling the 25/1 will face a 77% chance that a losing run of 25 will occur.
Am I getting it wrong?
Calculating losing runs is complicated, SC, I don’t really understand it. But 7% is only my idea of its chance and I could be right or wrong. 33/1 is a bookies price, so has their mark up added, if a bookie goes 33/1 you can be fairly sure his assessment of its true chance is 2% 50/1, and the odds compiler could be right or wrong.
With losing runs what matters is your strike rate and that is only applicale if continuing betting in exactly the same way as before. ie individual prices don’t matter.
According to the book “betting The Timeform Way”:
If your strike rate is 50% (and you continue to bet in exactly the same way as you’ve done in the past) you can expect an average losing run of 20 to start in 2097152 bets.
If 40% SR a 20 losing run in 68,378
If 30% it’s 4178
If 25% 1261
20% 434Drone might be able to help to explain the maths.
Value Is Everythingcheers mate (again) i can to a certain degree see where you are coming from but i cant get when you say I’m NOT saying I believe The New One will win the Champion Hurdle, far from it.Then you back it because you think its value.
How is it value if you dont think it will win?
Anyway enough from the old git,good luck with the hedgehoppers,i cant wait for the york dante meetingI’ll try one last time nwalton.
I believe TNO has a 7% chance of winning.
If I think TNO has a 7% chance of winning then it figures that it must also have a 93% chance of losing. Because the chance of winning + chance of losing must = 100%.I can NOT say “I think TNO will win”, because imo the probability of losing (93%) is much more likely than probability of winning (7%).
It is “value to win” because it was avavailable @ 33/1 and 33/1 = 2.94%. In other words if I had 100 bets of level stakes all @ 33/1 I’d only need to win 3 (3%) of those bets to show a profit. Therefore, if I believe TNO has a 7% chance it is a value bet.ie Winning 7% of all my bets at the price of 33/1 would show a massive profit.
Value Is EverythingThe way it seems to me is that you are getting Value but not enough,
To be absolutely sure of coming out ahead on 7% chances, in the short to medium term, say 1-3 years, then 66/1 is the price you should be looking for for the 7% chance.
If as you say the 33/1 is really a 50/1 shot then a losing run of 50 in the hundred bets is a 11.945 % likely to happen which is a good bit more than the 7% chance of winning, even at 33/1.
These are only thoughts, so I could miles off.
i know the maths ginge i just think at times and its only my opinion you make the game to hard for yourself.
You obviously read the form well but to back 3 or 4 in a six runner event (because they are value) just dont add up to this old boy.Not saying your methods are wrong,you seem to like to work that way and thats what matters
I prefer to find the winner have a price in mind,if i cant get that price i will sit and watch.It’s interesting but I think Ginge is right in the long run
I had Watford to beat United 3-1 @80 I made it about a 50/1 shot.
I didnt expect it to win but because it was value worth betting because if you made the bet 50 times I’d expect it to come in at least once if my calculations were right, hence a profit @80Blackbeard to conquer the World
It’s interesting but I think Ginge is right in the long run
I had Watford to beat United 3-1 @80 I made it about a 50/1 shot.
I didnt expect it to win but because it was value worth betting because if you made the bet 50 times I’d expect it to come in at least once if my calculations were right, hence a profit @80Nathan,
it could take a life time say, 10,000 bets before the probabilities evens itself out at low percentage rate 7%. You only need to be one or two percent out on the estimate for it to become impossible. I hope I am not well out on the grasp of it or I will look a right clown but I am just trying to settle my own mind.
fair play nathan always good to get differing views(you and me) on things,love chatting about it
To be fair I tend to do the same as you nwalton and focus on those at the head of the market.
I struggle enough on the short ones as it is without the worry of longshots.
But if something sticks out at a big price that should be shorter I’d still back it on the probability’s and value aspect even if I don’t think it will win it has a percentage chance.Space Cowboy, I didn’t go to school so I just try to keep things as simple as possible.
Blackbeard to conquer the World
The way it seems to me is that you are getting Value but not enough,
To be absolutely sure of coming out ahead on 7% chances, in the short to medium term, say 1-3 years, then 66/1 is the price you should be looking for for the 7% chance.
If as you say the 33/1 is really a 50/1 shot then a losing run of 50 in the hundred bets is a 11.945 % likely to happen which is a good bit more than the 7% chance of winning, even at 33/1.
These are only thoughts, so I could miles off.
I don’t “say the 33/1 is really a 50/1 shot”, SC. I’m saying that if a bookie prices up a horse at 33/1 then the odds compiler believes it has a 2% chance. That’s different to saying it actually has a 2% chance. Nobody actually knows what chance any horse has of winning, it’s all opinion. The bookie who went 33/1 could be right that TNO has a 2% chance, I could be right it has a 7% chance. There’s no knowing what the losing run will be, it doesn’t come in to it.
The amount of Margin For Error a punter has is up to him/her. But in reality I’d say if a punter needs a big margin then he/she is not accurate enough to show a profit anyway. In all my 30 years of betting have never come across something I believed a fair 7% that’s available @ 66/1 (1.5%). When 7 ‘/, 1.5 = 4.67, then something available at four and two thirds times my assessment just does not happen, I wish!
I find it a lot easier to assess an outsider accurately than a short priced horse.
Value Is EverythingIt’s interesting but I think Ginge is right in the long run
I had Watford to beat United 3-1 @80 I made it about a 50/1 shot.
I didnt expect it to win but because it was value worth betting because if you made the bet 50 times I’d expect it to come in at least once if my calculations were right, hence a profit @80Nathan,
it could take a life time say, 10,000 bets before the probabilities evens itself out at low percentage rate 7%. You only need to be one or two percent out on the estimate for it to become impossible. I hope I am not well out on the grasp of it or I will look a right clown but I am just trying to settle my own mind.
SC,
It is a lot easier for me to tell a fair 33/1 (2.94%) chance from a fair 66/1 chance (1.50%), than it is to distinguish a fair 7/2 (22.22%) from a fair 4/1 (20.00%)… despite there being 2.22% between 4/1 and 7/2 compared to 1.44% between 33/1 and 66/1. Because a fair 33/1 would need to have almost double the chance of a fair 66/1.Your assertion that “You only need to be one or two percent out on the estimate for it to become impossible” at big prices, is wrong. If I believe The New One has a 7% chance of winning and have backed it @ 33/1, then I can be 4% out and it would still be value.
Although I’d agree with you that 79/1 (1.25%) is not enough of a margin for error about something thought a fair 49/1 (2%).
2 – 1.25 = 0.75… Because anyone can be just 0.75% out in their calculations, unless in a race with very exposed horses that’s very easy to work out.Value Is EverythingYou can look at edges and percentages all you want lads but the reality is the new one has more of a chance in the grand national than the champion hurdle. At least all the support for him might make the price better on other horses
You can look at edges and percentages all you want lads but the reality is the new one has more of a chance in the grand national than the champion hurdle. At least all the support for him might make the price better on other horses
He may not even turn up,
Ginger ,
If you have a greater probability of hitting a losing streak bigger that the price you have taken that cannot be value can it?
In the previous example of 100 runners odds taken 33/1 bookies theoretical chance 50/1.
7% chance of winning, 12% chance of hitting a losing run of 50. Do your sum on that? And find out what the edge is.
It gets worse though
200 runners
7% chance of a win, 28% chance of a losing run of 50
400 runners
7% chance of winning, 52% chance of hitting a losing run of 50
By 1000 runners
7% chance of winning, 86% chance of hitting a losing run of 50
Using your own sums that cant be right surely, The odds you have taken are never enough to be ahead. The bookies prices have been perfected over hundreds of years so can be relied upon to be representative of the chance cant they?
Now if your telling me your calculated 7% chance really has a 14% chance we are getting somewhere. If you look back over your records how accurate is your 7%? A bit of randomness where the winners fall can seem like a massive advantage. But if you have 66/1 you will cover all eventualities and it’s a different story, you cant lose.Have I got this totally wrong, it seems so blatently obvious.
Wow, this makes investing so complicated! I’ve said it before, value in itself is overrated! Fine if you can back every horse in a race and still make a profit. Otherwise, if you read the form book well and your opinion is correct enough of the time you will make money by keeping it simple. Instead of backing a plethora of horses you don’t think will win, back your opinion, minimise backing against yourself.
Approaching a race without preconception, or bias towards short or long odds, my opinions throw up plenty enough longshots to be successful (given that backing short ones is just so much to-ing and fro-ing, though I do anyway for the hell of it!) I keep it simple, back to even stakes (which minimises losses), usually 1 horse per race to Win or, if horse happens to be 16/1 or bigger, E/W.
When my opinion can’t split 2 horses at, say, 8/1 & 9/1 I back both to Win – that is value! Sometimes in big field handicaps with generous E/W places I will back 3 or 4 but this is rare. The other way value applies for me is if I can’t split, say, one at 4/1 or shorter & one at 5/1 or bigger – I just back the better price. Real value is finding winners enough of the time from a minimal number of selections. Simply backing an opinion about wonderful living, breathing creatures rather than reducing the game to pure maths!
GM,
My approach is broadly similar to yours, we select a lot of the same horses. even down to the short prices for interest and fun. But you never stop learning at this game so when Ginger and Drone started talking about being precise on their measurement of the edge that they perceive they had it sparked an interest in me. I have been been beaverin’ away researching edge and value since.
I probably am still miles off getting a full understanding, but by contributing hope to be illuminated and educated.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.