- This topic has 46 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
August was a pretty disappointing month as although I finished about 3 points up overall, I was much better placed by the middle of the month before things went pear-shaped in a hurry.
I was busy again, staking 292 bets for that meagre profit which takes my ongoing profit to 28pts from 908 bets in total. (Nb. by ‘bets’ I really mean races as I very often split stakes, have savers etc. However the amount staked per race is always the same.)
The other day, the tiresome self-publicist George Galloway came up with "his theory" that Israel had suppled chemical weapons to Al Qaeda which were then used on what is ostensibly their own side in Syria. This seemed to me a classic example of confirmation bias whereby an individual seeks out an explanation for an act that neatly fits his preconceptions. In this case, Galloway’s thought process would have been something along the lines of: 1. I loathe Israel 2. Something very bad has happened 3. Therefore, Israel must have done the very bad thing.
Leaving aside the machinations of the Middle-East (and respectfully understanding that I am dealing with something utterly trivial in comparison) such confirmation bias is an absolute nightmare when betting on horses. I’m beginning to understand that I don’t have the mental detachment to rise above my own preconceptions of a race which will probably make a fair bit of difference – maybe the difference between being a full-time punter or not.
Some examples I have noted include:
– Horses that have won or run well ‘for me’ before. I feel I’ve overbacked them subsequently, finding it hard to treat them as just another runner.
– Hanging on to ingrained ideas about such matters as weight (top-weights in nurseries, bottom-weights in 3yo handicaps etc), courses, the draw etc etc
– Permanently regarding some races as ‘strong’ because they have produced a (probably) statistically-insignificant one or two subsequent winners. Presuming the same for ‘weak’ races that has seen subsequent fancied runners beaten.
– Overrating the performance of winners last time out simply because I do like to back horses that have won before.
– According too much weight to factors such as speed and form ratings on the grounds that they may have had pointed me in the direction of a winner previously.
All of the above are logically very dubious but as humans it’s very hard to counter one’s own cognitive biases. As a Tweeter replied to Galloway: "George, when a dog sh*ts in your garden, it’s not necessarily Israel’s fault."
Mike
Interesting.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"This man is not Ian Davies (the baron of basingstoke and former classic poster on this site )
Mike too many bets I would say , its roulette when you play so many times …the judgment becomes a bit wobbly and focus on profit becomes over intense
I wish you the very best though
Ricky
Mike, interesting and entertaining (as ever). Those examples of drawbacks; if you’d produced this report mid-August, before that downturn, would you still have cited those issues?
Joe
Those examples of drawbacks; if you’d produced this report mid-August, before that downturn, would you still have cited those issues?
Joe
Now, there’s a question…
I’d like to think I would as I set great store in self-analysis and always try to rationalise my obvious failings (I’m not talking about gambling here). Taking that into this work however, really one should be able to see inadequacies no matter how well or badly things are going, although making a decent profit is more the road to self-adulation than self-criticism.
So in response, yes.
Or no.
Mike
August was a pretty disappointing month as although I finished about 3 points up overall, I was much better placed by the middle of the month before things went pear-shaped in a hurry.
I was busy again, staking 292 bets for that meagre profit which takes my ongoing profit to 28pts from 908 bets in total. (Nb. by ‘bets’ I really mean races as I very often split stakes, have savers etc. However the amount staked per race is always the same.)
The other day, the tiresome self-publicist George Galloway came up with "his theory" that Israel had suppled chemical weapons to Al Qaeda which were then used on what is ostensibly their own side in Syria. This seemed to me a classic example of confirmation bias whereby an individual seeks out an explanation for an act that neatly fits his preconceptions. In this case, Galloway’s thought process would have been something along the lines of: 1. I loathe Israel 2. Something very bad has happened 3. Therefore, Israel must have done the very bad thing.
Leaving aside the machinations of the Middle-East (and respectfully understanding that I am dealing with something utterly trivial in comparison) such confirmation bias is an absolute nightmare when betting on horses. I’m beginning to understand that I don’t have the mental detachment to rise above my own preconceptions of a race which will probably make a fair bit of difference – maybe the difference between being a full-time punter or not.
Some examples I have noted include:
– Horses that have won or run well ‘for me’ before. I feel I’ve overbacked them subsequently, finding it hard to treat them as just another runner.
– Hanging on to ingrained ideas about such matters as weight (top-weights in nurseries, bottom-weights in 3yo handicaps etc), courses, the draw etc etc
– Permanently regarding some races as ‘strong’ because they have produced a (probably) statistically-insignificant one or two subsequent winners. Presuming the same for ‘weak’ races that has seen subsequent fancied runners beaten.
– Overrating the performance of winners last time out simply because I do like to back horses that have won before.
– According too much weight to factors such as speed and form ratings on the grounds that they may have had pointed me in the direction of a winner previously.
All of the above are logically very dubious but as humans it’s very hard to counter one’s own cognitive biases. As a Tweeter replied to Galloway: "George, when a dog sh*ts in your garden, it’s not necessarily Israel’s fault."Mike
Hope next month brings you better results Mike.Value Is EverythingThank-you for your comments.
I think you may have a point Ricky & Ginge as it is very hard work for not great reward at the moment. But as you point out Ginge, it’s what I’m used to, having bet over an extended period of time (at the same time of year) much more successfully in 2009.
Anyway, I will be stopping, either temporarily or permanently, at the end of this month so I’ll take stock then. At least the bloody night-racing has finished!
Mike
LOts of bets indeed. I wonder do you feel you could do better in terms of returned winners/results if only betting in limited races. In other words, would you be prevented from doing so by the lack of liquidity in the market or would the prospect of going through a losing streak under higher stakes make you feel a bit puky??
Also have you given much consideration to different staking methods.
I see this guy likes the kelly method.http://www.learnbetwin.com/staking-plans/
Have to say, I prefer level stakes.
SHL
LOts of bets indeed. I wonder do you feel you could do better in terms of returned winners/results if only betting in limited races. In other words, would you be prevented from doing so by the lack of liquidity in the market or would the prospect of going through a losing streak under higher stakes make you feel a bit puky??
Also have you given much consideration to different staking methods.
I see this guy likes the kelly method.http://www.learnbetwin.com/staking-plans/
Have to say, I prefer level stakes.
Thanks SHL.
I think I need to see how I perform overall to be fair. My plan was to continue until the end of this month and see where I stand and I don’t really feel any need to change that.
I have found it hard work so far but obviously there will be less racing from now on so things should get quieter. Have many options if I want to continue, specifically higher stakes (liquidity in the markets is not a problem at present as I bet to £200 per race, normally shortly before the off), less bets and/or covering a higher percentage of the market (i.e. betting ‘safer’).
You’re dead right about level stakes! I’m totally opposed to staking plans as they are all basically illogical. No losing punter will become a winner by adopting a staking plan. I use level-stakes to varying amounts (i.e. single bets often with some cover bets) and I can’t imagine changing that.
Mike
LOts of bets indeed. I wonder do you feel you could do better in terms of returned winners/results if only betting in limited races. In other words, would you be prevented from doing so by the lack of liquidity in the market or would the prospect of going through a losing streak under higher stakes make you feel a bit puky??
Also have you given much consideration to different staking methods.
I see this guy likes the kelly method.http://www.learnbetwin.com/staking-plans/
Have to say, I prefer level stakes.
Thanks SHL.
I think I need to see how I perform overall to be fair. My plan was to continue until the end of this month and see where I stand and I don’t really feel any need to change that.
I have found it hard work so far but obviously there will be less racing from now on so things should get quieter. Have many options if I want to continue, specifically higher stakes (liquidity in the markets is not a problem at present as I bet to £200 per race, normally shortly before the off), less bets and/or covering a higher percentage of the market (i.e. betting ‘safer’).
You’re dead right about level stakes! I’m totally opposed to staking plans as they are all basically illogical. No losing punter will become a winner by adopting a staking plan. I use level-stakes to varying amounts (i.e. single bets often with some cover bets) and I can’t imagine changing that.
Mike
Although I agree Mike, whether a punter makes a profit to level stakes is important, I don’t think it is the best way to stake.
Shouldn’t the stake depend on what chance the horse has of winning and how much value is in the bet?
Shouldn’t something believed to have a 30% chance of winning have more money staked than something believed a 20% chance?
Also:
Shouldn’t Something believed a true 4/1 shot available @ 7/1 have more money staked than if it were only available @ 5/1?
Though am not keen on the Kelly method as you can lose a lot in no time at all.
Value Is EverythingAlthough I agree Mike, whether a punter makes a profit to level stakes is important, I don’t think it is the best way to stake.
Shouldn’t the stake depend on what chance the horse has of winning and how much value is in the bet?
Shouldn’t something believed to have a 30% chance of winning have more money staked than something believed a 20% chance?
No, I disagree with that. Last time I was betting back in 2009, I was playing solely at level-stakes. As I have all my records from that time on a database I ran a "what-if" scenario of betting as you suggest i.e. to win a nominal £100 on each bet (e.g. £18.18 on a 11-2 shot, £33.33 on a 3/1 shot etc etc). At level-stakes at SP my profit was 7.1%; when I ran the variable stake according to price it would have been 6.2%. Therefore, my belief is that all things being equal, and over an extended run of bets, the profits will ‘smooth’ to pretty much equality.
There’s also another reason I don’t like variable betting and that is if I do back a 10/1 winner as a main bet I actually want to win MORE than if I’ve backed a 5/2 winner. I regard it as something of an achievement for which I should be rewarded better. I look at things differently if I am backing savers. For example, if I was backing a selection with a 10-1 and 5-1 saver, I would have £20 on the 10’s shot, £30 on the 5’s shot and £150 on my main bet.
Shouldn’t Something believed a true 4/1 shot available @ 7/1 have more money staked than if it were only available @ 5/1?
Well I would agree with this, but I’m simply not skilled enough to so accurately gauge the ‘value-o-meter’ of a race! It’s mathematically sound in theory but in real-world application it would just complicate matters for me.
Mike
Although I agree Mike, whether a punter makes a profit to level stakes is important, I don’t think it is the best way to stake.
Shouldn’t the stake depend on what chance the horse has of winning and how much value is in the bet?
Shouldn’t something believed to have a 30% chance of winning have more money staked than something believed a 20% chance?
No, I disagree with that. Last time I was betting back in 2009, I was playing solely at level-stakes. As I have all my records from that time on a database I ran a "what-if" scenario of betting as you suggest i.e. to win a nominal £100 on each bet (e.g. £18.18 on a 11-2 shot, £33.33 on a 3/1 shot etc etc). At level-stakes at SP my profit was 7.1%; when I ran the variable stake according to price it would have been 6.2%. Therefore, my belief is that all things being equal, and over an extended run of bets, the profits will ‘smooth’ to pretty much equality.
No that is not what I mean Mike. I do
not
mean betting to win the same amount.
I’ve tried betting to level stakes. Obviously I was winning 20 points on a 20/1 chance but only 2 with 2/1… So the problem was everything depended on how my medium to outsiders did.
So I changed to backing to win the same amount of profit. But then everything depended on the shorter priced horses. Because when a 2/1 shot lost I’d lose 10 times the amount of when a 20/1 shot lost. And as you say Mike, it’s good to win more when you do get a 10/1+ winner.
But it seems to me the amount staked should be more if the chance of winning is greater and also more staked if the amount of value in the bet is greater.
I don’t do this calculation every time I bet, but my staking plan is based on…
My idea of the horse’s chance of winning (in percentages), minus (-) the odds available (in percentages), times (x) 5 and then plus (+) my idea of the horse’s chance.
So if I believe a horse has roughly a 20% chance of winning and is available @ 6/1 (14.3%, call it 14%).
20 – 14 = 6
6 x 5 = 30
30 + 20 = 50
Stake is 50 points @ 6/1 for a profit of 300 points.If the 20% chance was only 11/2 (15.4% call it 15%)…
20 – 15 = 5
5 x 5 = 25
25 + 20 = 45
Stake is 45 points @ 11/2 for a profit of 247.5 points.If the 20% chance was only 5/1 (16.7% call it 17%)
20 – 17 = 3
3 x 5 = 15
15 + 20 = 35
Stake is 35 points @ 5/1 for a profit of 175.The more value I believe is in the bet the more I stake and the more I win.
If the 20% (fair 4/1) chance was only 9/2 (18.2% call it 18%)I usually don’t bet, as the margin of error is not big enough.
It seems wrong to me to have the same stake on something I believe has a 20% chance as something I believe has half that at 10%.
If there is something I believe has a 10% chance and is available @ 16/1 (5.9% call it 6%)…
10 – 6 = 4
4 x 5 = 20
20 + 10 = 30
Stake 30 points @ 16/1 for a profit of 480 points.If the 10% chance is available only at 14/1 (6.7% call it 7%)…
10 – 7 = 3
3 x 5 = 15
15 + 10 = 25
Stake 25 points @ 14/1 for a profit of 350 points.If the 10% chance is available @ 12/1 (7.7% call it 8%)
10 – 8 = 2
2 x 5 = 10
10 + 10 = 20
Stake 20 points @ 12/1 for a profit of 240 points.If the 10% (fair 9/1) chance is only available @ 10/1 (9.1% call it 9%) the margin for error is not usually big enough for a bet.
The 10% chance has less money wagered on it than a 20% chance, but the 20% chance would need to be excellent value and the 10% chance modest value for the shorter priced horse to make more profit.
Usually my stake is greater the shorter the price, yet the profit is more (often a lot more) on the outsiders… Which seems right to me because the shorter prices have a greater chance of winning, yet I am risking less money on the outsiders.
Sometimes when there are more than one value selection I will do as you Mike; have one or two main bets, may be a half a bet (bet to win half of the normal win) and savers. With (usually) the best value bets being main bets and the lesser value bets the savers.
Value Is EverythingShouldn’t Something believed a true 4/1 shot available @ 7/1 have more money staked than if it were only available @ 5/1?
Well I would agree with this, but I’m simply not skilled enough to so accurately gauge the ‘value-o-meter’ of a race! It’s mathematically sound in theory but in real-world application it would just complicate matters for me.
Mike
If not "accurately" Mike, would’ve thought most punters should be able to make a decision on roughly how much value is in the bet.
a) "That’s over-priced".
b) "That’s very over-priced".
c) "Wow!
I’ll have some of that"!
d) "Xxxxxxx hell! At that price it’s the bet of the decade!". … And so be able to adapt the above.
Value Is EverythingShouldn’t Something believed a true 4/1 shot available @ 7/1 have more money staked than if it were only available @ 5/1?
Well I would agree with this, but I’m simply not skilled enough to so accurately gauge the ‘value-o-meter’ of a race! It’s mathematically sound in theory but in real-world application it would just complicate matters for me.
Mike
Mike you dont need to be skilled to understand the ‘Value-o-meter’ as its just a figment of Gingers imagination turned obsession.When Odds-compilers make a horse a 7/1 shot that price is based purely on an individuals opinion,in Gingers dream world he might make it a 4/1 chance for whatever reason and so he lumps on and the horse goes off at 10/1 and loses.Where’s the ‘Value’in that? For someone who preaches ‘Value is everything’……Stupid statement that it is as snaffling 40/1 on a horse and backing it to win only is like jumping out of an Aeroplane without a reserve parachute,the horse gets backed into 10/1 and finishes 2nd,where’s the value in that? Value is nothing more than one persons opinion.When
Nortons coin
won the Gold cup at 100/1 there were 2 lines of thought,those who obsess with stats and ratings and who just couldn’t have a Cow Farmer called Sirrell Griffiths training one horse as a contender and those who saw a progressive animal who had form to entitle him a crack at running at least a place in an open year,the horse didn’t know a 100/1 was available but that sort of price either attracts you or instantly dismisses you from considering it as a wager.At the end of the day it was purely one mans opinion against anothers as to how they percieved Value that day,just like it is everyday.The most hypocritical comments from Ginger the ‘Value seeker’ is when he suggests putting X-amount of points on horse A at 3/1,X-amount on Horse B at 5/1,X-amount on Horse C at 10/1,X amount on horse D at 16/1 and X-amount on Horse E at 25/1! Horse B wins at 5/1 and yet his profit of a 5/1 winner returns a payout of 2/5………Where’s the Value in that??
What I will say is Gingers ‘system’ of backing half the field yields a profit and consistently so,its about playing with numbers and juggling them to suit but it has absolutely nothing to do with Value,absolutely Jack Sh*t!The game must be easy to have 6 or 7 value runners in every race.
edit
I thought the score of the footy last night would be 4-0 but it was 6/1 so went 5-0 and 6-0 instead at the value and now my wallet is a little lighter than it should of been.Blackbeard to conquer the World
This whole value concept is 20 years out of date , it was a good idea when Marl Cotton first introduced it , but wow has the game changed since then .
Ginger is sadly stuck in that time warp , and tries to still preach it
what was value at 7 am , will be in tatters now , but by off time could be 2 times the original perceived value price
ie ,2/1 looks value early , now trading 11/8 , but by post time could be 9/2 !!!
The markets are much more intelligent and aligned nowadays so its very much a moving feast !!!
I think Mike has been brilliant sharing his monthly progress , there is a lot to be learned from them
imo
Ricky
This whole value concept is 20 years out of date , it was a good idea when Marl Cotton first introduced it , but wow has the game changed since then .
Ginger is sadly stuck in that time warp , and tries to still preach it
what was value at 7 am , will be in tatters now , but by off time could be 2 times the original perceived value price
ie ,2/1 looks value early , now trading 11/8 , but by post time could be 9/2 !!!
The markets are much more intelligent and aligned nowadays so its very much a moving feast !!!
I think Mike has been brilliant sharing his monthly progress , there is a lot to be learned from them
imo
Ricky
Perhaps you’d like to enlighten us Ricky.
How has the "game changed" in such a way that "value" does not to matter anymore?
Don’t punters these days need to identify horses who’s chance is better than the betting suggests?
Of course, the game has "changed" from 20 years ago. eg. In my opinion
trainer form
is much more relevent now than it was then. But that just means the things that have "changed" since 20 years ago – need to be taken in to account when evaluating which horse/s are
"value"
.
Value Is Everything
I’ll have some of that"! 
At that price it’s the bet of the decade!". 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.