Anyone else feel this Flat season has been a shambles from a punters perspective

[stilvi]

I think the odd opinion is for you to somehow suggest that betting like Ginger is common practice. It isn’t. Most people bet one horse, not three runners in an eight runner field. As I suggested elsewhere you couldn’t get away with doing that in a newspaper. It’s a fact he isn’t confident enough to put up one selection, otherwise he would do it.

[Gingertipster]

Just found this thread again and thought I’d respond.
Some people bet the way I do Stilvi.

The way I bet: I’ll back all or most (if not all) horses that I believe are value.
Let’s say there’s a six horse race where I BELIEVE:

A has a 35% (fair 15/8) chance available @ 9/4 (fair 30.8%) So 4.2% better than my assessment
B has a 20% (fair 4/1) chance available @ 100/30 (fair 23.1%)
C 16.5% (fair 5/1) chance available @ 4/1 (fair 20%)
D 12.5% (fair 7/1) available @ 9/1 (fair 10%) So 2.5% better than my assessment
E 9% (fair 10/1) available @ 7/1 (fair 12.5%)
F 7% (fair 13/1) available @ 20/1 (fair 4.8%) So 2.2% better than my assessment
All adding up to a 100% book

So “in my opinion” A, D and F are ALL value and I choose to back all three.
However: If another punter worked the race to exactly the same percentages as I have…

Many would back ONLY A because they’d rather have a greater chance of winning or because it’s technically more value than the other two (4.2% compared to 2.5% and 2.2%).

Others punters back ONLY D, because they don’t like backing shortish prices and 2.5% better is better than 2.2% better.

Some might back F each way because they’d rather back the biggest price.

There is NOTHING wrong with any of those different punters decisions to back ONLY one horse.

I just prefer to back all three because I have no preference for short or bigger prices as long as I believe them to be value. I’d feel bloody awful if one I make value won without my money… And it’s greater value. ie:

Backing ONLY A is only 4.2% better than my idea of its chance of winning.
Backing ONLY D is only 2.5% better than my idea of its chance of winning.
Backing ONLY F is only 2.2% better than my idea of its chance of winning.
But by backing ALL three 4.2 + 2.5 + 2.2 = a chance 8.9% better than my idea of its chance of winning.

ie 35% + 12.5% + 7% = imo the three together have a 54.5% (a fair 5/6 shot) available @ 30.8 + 10% + 4.8% = 45.6 (a fair 6/5).So a 54.5 – 45.6 = 8.9% better than my idea of my chance of winning.

Also… By backing ALL runners I believe are value cuts down on losing runs far more than it would by backing ONLY one horse in a race.

Each to their own.

Value Is Everything

[Author]

Posts