Creating a tissue

[randburger]

Im trying to understand how to create my own tissue prices for certain horse races but have searched and searched and cant seem to find any info on this subject??

Does anyone here actually create their own tissue? If so, could you give me some info on how to go about compiling them.

I understand that in order to create a tissue for each horse you have to be able to rate each horse in the desired race, using a rating format..

If anyone can point me in the right direction, I would really appreciate it!

Thanks..

[The Ante-Post King]

Gingertipster is our resident Tissue creator! He will be along shortly to explain all!

[Gingertipster]

Thanks for the intro TAPK.
You are in luck Randburger.
Several members have recently asked me how I work out my tissues and have produced a comprehensive piece that explains just what I look for and how I make the book.
Presume you already know percentages as odds and odds as percentages Randburger?

So if you’ve got an hour or two to spare…..

How I Work Out My Tissue

For any race I am interested in having a bet, I look at sportinglife.com race cards and write down the runners, age, jockeys and headgear, including if it’s the first time in that type of appendage.

Trainers In Form:
One win does not make an “in form trainer”. It is one of the most overly / wrongly used sayings in racing circles. Don’t judge purely on winners either, rather let price be a guide. Any 33/1 shot who’s placed has obviously run very well, not so an odds-on second. Sometimes a trainer is “in form” without it showing up in the wins column. Best not to have a set amount of days to go back, when stables have a lot of runners (Hannon, Channon etc) it is only necessary to go back a few days (if that). For a trainer without many runners, the full three week record may be needed.

Looking at the sportinglife.com website’s racecard, my first job is to rate every horse for what sort of form each trainer is in. Clicking on every name to give a three week history of every runner the stable has had. With too many numbers on my paper; instead of rating them 1 to 10 it’s: *** unbelievable form, through ** brilliant, * excellent, */ good, // average, / ok form, /- bit below form (questions should be asked), – below form (saver only if anything), -x very poor (think twice) and x “Don’t touch it”. Most will be between * and /-. Some, like *** appear rarely, only if the trainer has won his last four or five starts at reasonable prices; “x” would be a trainer on a long run of losers and no placed runners. Any race could have many in-form horses or very few. Seldom make an out of form trainer the main bet, just a saver bet instead, although they’re rarely value bets anyway.
Few horses return to form when a trainer is out of form. Where as one who’s trainer was out of form last time it ran (a poor run), that is now in good form; can help pinpoint a big priced winner. Also, a trainer who had an unusually poor season (probably due to a virus) last term, could end up with well handicapped horses this time around; witness Alan King. Might be worth keeping an eye on a trainer who has been out of form so far this season, if and when he/she shows signs of a return to form; e.g. right now Vennittia Williams fits the bill.

Timeform:
Am a Timeform subscriber and get the Timeform Perspective. Their form book in race by race format (as opposed to the Black Book which is horse by horse). It comes three times a week in A4 sheets with the latest results to add to a file folder.

Timeform Briefing:
The “Briefing” gives five day declarations. Main ratings, what they think the horse is capable of given ideal conditions (the race in question may not be ideal). Attached to the rating can be a Timeform “P” capable of much better form; “p” likely to improve (although it is up to punters to decide if a horse without a suffix is capable of better), “+” may be better than the rating (e.g. if a horse has not produced its best for some time, it may be rated on its last performance, but with +); “$” (squiggle) unreliable; “x” poor jumper; “?” can be given with a rating for a suspect rating; or without a rating when it can not be assessed with any confidence / well out of form.
Also ratings for each of the horses last three performances. e.g. c20d 137, means it ran in a chase over 20 furlongs (2 ½ miles) on dead (good-soft) and ran to a rating of 137. (Ratings are already changed, weight and age related to the race it is entered in). Reference number is provided to look up the horse’s last race; then that race provides another reference number to the previous race, and so on.
In conditions races there are TRW figures (Timeform Race Winners), a weight-adjusted rating for the last five winners (and a five year average rating) of the particular race. This allows punters to judge if the best rated horse is much better than the average winner, whether he still needs to improve; or how much a progressive performer needs to improve to win an average running. It also makes it possible to quickly judge if a race is a poor, average or a good renewal.

Timeform Perspective:
I look through the Perspective (results) and note down any relevant information. At least, information I might not remember. Sometimes it is only necessary to go back one race for a particular horse, but usually it’s two or three, occasionally as much as eight or nine. To get information on going, distance, pace and temperament. At Newbury I backed Mount Oscar @ 10/1 early price (SP 11/2). His start before this win read:

1775 Rhys Howells Memorial Handicap Chase (class 2) 3M (miles)

4471 3rd Mount Oscar (Ire) CL Tizzard 11 11-3 135 (official mark ran off) t (tongue tie) Joe Tizzard…20/1… 12 lengths (and 1 ¼) 3rd

“MOUNT OSCAR hasn’t had much racing for his age (11) and starts the season well treated, so he may be worth chancing off a potentially lenient mark with this reappearance under his belt, encouragingly avoiding the mistakes that held him back after winning his first two starts last season but shaping as if in need of the run, his stamina for a testing 3 miles an unknown as well”.

Timeform Racehorses and Chasers And Hurdlers Annuals:
I’ve got both Timeform Racehorses (flat) and Chasers & Hurdlers annuals going back to 1984. Hard backed form books in horse by horse format, giving a summary record of all relevant information for every horse that ran last season. What the horse did and how it did it. From temperament to jumping ability, known or likely (judged by breeding and characteristics) distance and going requirements. The best horses can have essays of 10 or more pages long, the worst just a few lines. A quick look at the 09/10 C&H enabled me to see Mount Oscar win on good-soft in the very same race last year at 2 ½ miles. Timeform give their own assessment of going conditions and thankfully don’t follow official going reports.

It was clear, Mount Oscar comes to hand early, two wins on first two starts last year, looked “well treated” on his old handicap mark and dropped a further 2 lbs to 133. Return to 2 ½ miles (from 3m) on good-soft around Newbury looked ideal conditions. Should still be capable of running to form, even at 11 years old. Rated 148+, however, working out the rating on his old form could be 164. Which is 3 lbs above the “top rated” horse Prince De Beauchene, who may not be suited by the drying ground anyway. I rated Colin Tizzard’s recent stable form */ (7/10). A look at another book, Timeform Statistical Review told me the trainer had his best month in November in the previous two seasons 5 wins from 40 runners in 08 and 9 from 46 in 09. Favourite in this particular race, Working Title came from the bang in form, ** (9/10) stable of Nicky Henderson. Not particularly well handicapped on last season’s chase form; but could be thought of as well treated on recent improved hurdles form. However, bookmakers seemed to price the horse up as if he’d definitely be capable of his hurdles rating. Described in Timeform Chasers And Hurdlers as “compact”, there was a doubt in my mind whether he’d be as effective over the larger obstacles. Making his price (in my opinion) too short.

It is not all about Timeform, also have my own knowledge / opinion on things (as you may have learnt). Have a poor memory for every subject bar horse racing. A love of racing and not just betting helps tremendously in my form study, otherwise I’d find it boring. Although rubbish racing is yawn inspiring. Since I’ve been at this forum, I’ve used a few patterns to point me in the direction of a winner or two. It’s not like following trends, just something else to take in to account. Certain statistics like best fresh, horses for courses / time of year etc.

Ratings are only a starting point, it may be top rated but how likely is it to run to that rating given conditions? Is the horse out of form? Was there a good reason for it running below form? Can it improve? What rating is it likely to run to?

Going requirements:
Punters obviously need to look at a horse’s record on the prevailing ground conditions. If proven on it there is usually no reason to look at anything else. Unless it has improved since then, when racing on a different surface. It is sometimes thought a horse goes on the ground if it has won on it. This is not always the case; it might have run off a higher mark or against better horses to be 3rd or even 6th. Improving to be 6th, exactly because of the different going than its “success”. Going requirements can also change after injury. One who acted on firm before cracking a cannon-bone, may not act on it afterwards. I don’t like taking Timeform’s word for going requirements. Sometimes they might say “acts on good-firm and a soft surface”, where as looking closer, its soft ground form might be around 10lbs worse than on a sound surface. Though you’ve always got to question, is it just coincidence? If a runner is yet to race on a surface or if evidence is inconclusive, I take a look at the type of stride. Round, pounding action with fore-legs suggests it may be best on soft ground; where as one who points its toe, might prefer a sound surface. Also breeding; certain sires progeny seem to enjoy a soft surface. On the flat, sires such as Captain Rio, Pivotal, and Danehill Dancer amongst others, usually go well on it. However, evidence for each runner actually racing on the surface is more reliable than just knowing the sire (most Pivotals do, but some don’t act on soft).

Stamina, Distance, Temperament and Pace:
It is easy to think just because a horse has won at a distance it is fully effective at the trip. Depends when, under what conditions and whether characteristics of a horse have changed since? A two year old might win at 7 furlongs, yet need middle-distances at three. A three year old may be able to win early in the season at 10 furlongs, yet might improve as stamina is tested, eventually wanting 14 furlongs by the end. Similarly, a novice chaser like Time For Rupert might win at 2m4f, yet is likely to improve considerably given 3m+. Breeding is an obvious influence on distance requirements. Rarely a matter of sire’s best distance + dam’s best distance, divided by two. Horses often take after one or the other, or sometimes a grand-sire / grand-dam. Sometimes a sire / dam can install more speed or stamina than its own racing record suggests. Again, Timeform Statistical Review comes in handy for this.

Character is important too. Headstrong individuals often pull too hard and don’t stay as far as their breeding indicates; where as lazy types relax so well, they can stay further. If a horse becomes too free, it may not get a trip it once did. One who learns to settle might stay further than previously. There is a horse called Kawagino, who once barely got two miles over hurdles as a youngster when pulling too hard. Now settles much better, and with age, is plying his trade over extreme distances.

Pace in an individual race can be a great advantage to a punter, knowing horses likely to be suited by a slow or fast pace. Slow sectionals might enable one to stay further than it would at normal pace. However, the opposite can also be true. If a horse is known to take a hold and not settle; slower fractions may lead to it taking an even greater tug. Ending up with nothing left in the ensuing sprint for home. A slightly better pace might enable this type to be more amenable to restraint. Settling can outweigh the so-called “increased test-of-stamina” produced with a slightly faster pace; so might stand a better chance of lasting out. If it relaxes in races at a mile it will probably get 1m2f, where as one that takes a tug at the shorter distance may not get the longer trip.
If relaxing well, a prominent position is usually an advantage when pace is poor. Being in the right place to strike when speed increases. I like to go through a race looking for those who front run, race prominently, track pace, race mid-division, be held up or dropped out. If there is only one of the first two or three categories, the horse in question might get an easy lead and get an advantage. Although if one that needs a test of stamina at the trip, it still needs to make a good pace so as to not get out-speeded. The opposite is also true. Races with three or four prominent runners, or two who need to lead to produce their best; might take each other on, resulting in an overly strong pace. Favouring those coming from the rear. Though again, one with stamina doubts might not get home. Some front runners may sulk if unable to get their own way in front, so may be poor value. Conversely, those with plenty of speed might be suited by a slowly run race, whether a prominent runner or not; provided of course they settle well.
Racing is full of contradictions; a horse finishing fastest of all, coming from the back to win going away, is often described as showing a tremendous “turn of foot”. Another over-used saying. In fact, it could be just slowing down at less of a rate than the others; using its stamina (not speed) to win.
So characteristics as well as breeding are both vital considerations when assessing stamina.
Knowing the horses and their characteristics is a vital part of making a profit. Horses who get the run of the race don’t always win, but they are more likely to have a better chance than betting indicates (value). Sometimes punters believe they are unlucky when their selection finishes fastest of all, beaten by a front runner getting an easy lead; or curse if it goes off too quickly. Yet it can be possible to identify both those who will “leave it too late” and the “lucky winner” before the race and before selection; by going through the form.

Temperament is another important factor. Some are genuine triers and very difficult to beat. It might seem as though they win “all out” and would lose with another pound on their back. Yet the will to win – or rather more accurately – will to remain in front; can help them keep on improving; out-battling rivals and remain a value bet. One such individual is Peddler’s Cross. In the wild some horses are leaders and some followers. Those like Forpaddytheplasterer often pluck defeat out of the jaws of victory, so are usually poor win bets. Consequently, ungenuine equines might not be value bets, even if going down in grade. Although it is possible they could be good place only bets on betfair, if near their bookmaker place odds (without needing to back them to win).
Another question; is headgear likely to help? A lazy but genuine horse, yes. An ungenuine one, usually but not always no. Some trainers have a good record running horses with appendages. You can sometimes see whether an individual is likely to run well in first time headgear by looking in the paddock. If throwing its head around and / or sweating, it’s probably a negative. If just strolling around without a care, probably a positive. Though it may be of benefit to keep an eye on them to see if things change before the off.

At The Races:
Other things I like to look out for in the paddock are: Horses throwing away nervous energy. Jig-jogging / edgy, is a slight negative, something worth keeping an eye on, as it might lead to a bigger problem (sweating, lashing out, or too free to post). Sometimes you can see a horse trying to push its lad / lass in to the rail. In most animals sweating is a bad sign, however, in some racehorses it is a natural trait, and you’d worry if they did not sweat. Barry Hills three year old Red Jazz is one of those, Binocular often sweats a bit too. Although any horse who’s awash with sweat is a big negative. Probably not in the right frame of mind to produce a good performance.

Greenness:
“Green”, young or inexperienced horse is a big negative, showing that they might not be ready to show their ability. The word can cover a multitude of sins. Most noticeable is being vocal in the paddock (whinnieing), talking to its fellow students. Looking around too much at the crowds, thinking to himself “what’s this racing game about"? Lethargic animals, seemingly uninterested, walking slowly, with head to the floor, probably won’t have learnt enough. “Coltish”, basically a colt (young male) with an erection. Has his mind on other things and may not be able to give a good account of himself. He’d better learn fast, otherwise will be gelded! If possible, look at young horses set off to post. Some need the jockey to bump his bum up and down on its back, to encourage him to gallop. These can start slowly and take time to realise what is required. Finishing well when the penny finally drops, but all too late. On the other hand, one that is difficult to control in the paddock can be too free to post, little energy left for the race itself. It is wise to make a note of green horses, as they may be able to show abnormal improvement next time, particularly if not showing the same greenness, having learnt from experience. Some trainers are good at preparing two year olds for debut. Other trainers horses seem to come on a great deal for the initiation. Making a note of debutants running well from yards with a poor first time record, can pay dividends. As they may be able to show abnormal improvement next time; having a better chance than their form / likely price may suggest.

A sprinter who shows some edgy / sweating characteristics is not so much of a negative as it would be in a stayer. Likewise, lethargic tendencies are permitted more in a stayer than sprinter. A horse will stay further as it relaxes (usually with age).

Jockeyship:
Every punter has their own ideas about who is and who isn’t a top / good / bad jockey. For me three, AP McCoy, Ruby Walsh and Barry Geraghty; are the best there has ever been. Of course, in other years there’s been outstanding jockeys; but if Francome, Scudamore, O’Neil, Dunwoody, Winter etc were brought by tardis to the present day; they’d struggle.
However, in my opinion the effect of a top jockey riding a horse is over-stated by a lot of punters. On an average horse he might be able to improve the rating a pound or two. Although there are certain horses who do particularly well for one jockey. Big Zeb for example, seems to go better for Geraghty than anyone else. AP can get more out of some temperamental horses. One advantage top jockeys do have is their consistency, making fewer mistakes. But it is the horses hooves that are on the ground, doing the running. A good jockey has his limitations and can not make a bad quality horse good. In my opinion the advantages a top jockey brings for the punter, is often outweighed by the horse being shorter in the betting (often too short). Much better to find up and coming young or under-rated jockeys who often go off a bigger price than they should. However, jockeyship is usually an aspect of form I give less regard to than others. Trainers (or rather trainers in or out of form) effect my betting a great deal more.

It is impossible to say how much one factor influences my 100% tissue price. As each horse is unique; individual factors like distance, going, temperament etc. will effect one horse more or less than its rivals. I don’t add up all the statistics for each factor. e.g a bad temperament might be 80% of a horses chance, a reasonable temperament may be below 5%. Its a matter of looking at the overall chance of each individual, it has to be a subjective, informed opinion. Working out the best, second best, down to the worst chance of winning (1 to however many runners there are). Sometimes I start with the favourite (sometimes the rank outsider).

If in a five horse race; I believe one horse “A” has the same chance of winning as the rest of the field put together; he goes in as a provisional 50% (fair Evens) chance. Then if “B” is believed to be slightly better than half of my favourite’s chance, he’d be say 27% 11/4. “C” might be considered a little more than a quarter of “A”’s chance 14% 6/1, just over half of “B”. “D” might be a fifth of “A” 10% 9/1. “E” around half of “C”, 6% 16/1.

50% + 27% + 14% + 10% + 6% = 107%

All the horses must add up to 100%, so the 107% needs to be reduced. Taking another look, would two of “D” really have the same chance as “C” and “E” combined? May be not, so “D” is reduced to 9% 10/1. Has “A” really got the same chance as the rest? Reduce him to 48% 11/10. May be “E” does not quite have two thirds of “D”, reduce him to 5¼%. May be “C” is dead on half of “B”, 13.5% 13/2.

48% + 27% + 13.5% + 9% + 5.25% = 102.75%

Still too big. Does “A” + “B” really add up to ¾, 75% of the total? Reduce “A” to 47% and “B” to 26% still roughly 11/10 and 11/4. For “C” to be still half of “B”, he’d need to be 13%.

47% + 26% + 13% + 9% + 5.5% = 100.25%

Still 0.25 too big, take it off the favourite.

46.75% between 11/10 and 5/4 + 26% 11/4 + 13% 13/2 + 9% 10/1 + 5.25% 18/1 = 100%

These are my prices.

Well 11/10 is actually 47.62% (5/4 is 44.44%), 11/4 = 26.67%, 13/2 = 13.33%, 11/1 = 8.33% and 18/1 = 5.26%; but there is no need to be that accurate. Especially when it is best to have a margin for error anyway. No gambler is 100% accurate in his assessment. So instead of backing “A” at 5/4 (only just better than my 11/10 assessment), I’d want 11/8 (or more) about anything I believe is a 46.75% chance. For 26% I would not back it at 3/1, I’d want 100/30 or bigger. For 13% I’d probably want 8/1, for 9% I’d probably want 13/1 and for 5.25% I’d probably want 25/1.
If I thought the race / runner was particularly difficult to work out the percentage chance, I’d want more of a margin for error, for an easy race / runner I’d want less of a difference. Novice compilers would need a larger margin.

Value Is Everything

[randburger]

Thank you Gingertipster!

An extremely detailed reply. Thank you for taking the time to explain how you go about making your own tissue.

There is alot of information to be absorbed in that post, and I will enjoy working my way through it, puting it in to practice.

At the start of the post you asked if I was familiar with odds as percentages and percentages as odds. Now this is something I have touched on but am not absolutely certain on. If you get a minute, would you mind explaining to me how to calculate these? and any other info I may need?

Thank you again, your time is MUCH appreciated.

[kasparov]

Very useful thanks. On odds as percentages etc I find it a whole lot easier to work with decimal odds. So a 25% chance has decimal odds of 4.0 (ie 100/25). It’s also easier for multiples, e.g a win double of two 25% chances has odds of 4×4=16.0. You can always convert back to fractional odds by subtracting one.

[Gingertipster]

Randburger,
Here is a post I did earlier about percentages and odds.

Every punter knows for each £ staked on a 4/1 (5.00) winner, he / she gets £5 returned (winning £4 plus £1 stake back).
For every 100 bets of level stakes at 4/1 a punter must win 20 times to break even (20 X £5 = £100). Staking 100 points and getting 100 back. Winning more than 20 times makes a profit, less than 20 results in a loss. So for something believed to be a 20% (20 out of 100) chance the fair odds are 4/1. Therefore a punter should only back any 4/1 shot if he / she believes it has a better than 20% chance of winning.

Gamblers want to know “who’s going to win”? But they should not necessarily back the horse with “the best chance of winning”. The important question is “in your opinion, which horse is VALUE to win”?

Bookmakers stay in business by betting to an over-round figure. If an odds compiler believes a horse a true (fair) 40% 6/4 (2.5) chance, bookmakers add a mark up and in a competitive market may offer an early price of 11/8 (2.375). A 40% strike rate at 11/8 will result in an over all loss.

Bookies usually want as equal a “book” as possible, to make a profit on the race whichever horse wins. Once a market is opened weight of money effects each price. Potential big losses of one particular horse results in it’s price shortening. To encourage bets on others (an equal book), other prices are pushed out. With all these market changes, at any given time the over-round remains roughly the same.

In a four horse race with a competitive market the offered prices might be:

A 11/8 (a 42.1% strike rate is needed at 11/8 to break even)
B 15/8 (34.8%)
C 100/30 (23.1%)
D 12/1 (7.7%).
42.1 + 34.8 + 23.1 + 7.7 = 107.7%
Working to 107.7% for an over-round of 7.7%.

If bookmakers prices were to go below 100% it would be possible for punters to back all runners in a race and still show a profit.

Offered prices are only a mixture of opinion and market influenced by punters bets. Does not mean those prices are a true reflection of their chance. If, after studying form of the race above a punter believes:

A has a 40% 6/4 chance of winning.
B 30% almost 9/4
C 20% 4/1
D 10% 9/1
All four adding up to 100%.

Comparing the two sets of prices; the only horse at a better (value) price with bookmakers is D at 12/1. D is the only possible bet, despite in the punters own opinion having the worst chance of winning. Quarter of A’s chance, a third of B’s and half of C.
D is value because a 10% strike rate at 12/1 shows a profit. Where as there is no point backing A, B or C, as a 40% strike rate at 11/8, 30% at 15/8 and 20% at 100/30 all result in a loss.

Even if a punter does not want to work out a 100% book, being able to see a price as a percentage and vice versa makes it easier to make an informed opinion if something is value or not.

To calculate the percentage each price is worth, add a point and divide 100 by that figure.
So 6/4 =
1.5 + 1 = 2.5
100 ‘/, 2.5 = 40
therefore 6/4 = 40%

Or alternatively:
First figure + second figure
6/4 =
6 + 4 = 10
Divide second figure by resultant figure
4 ‘/, 10 = 0.40
X 100 = percentage
6/4 = 40%

4/1 =
4 + 1 = 5
100 ‘/, 5 = 20
therefore 4/1 = 20%
And so on.

For decimal odds (what you see on betfair or tote) there is no need to add the 1; just divide 100 by the figure. In decimals 2.5 is the same as 6/4 in fractions. So 100 ‘/, 2.5 = 40 = 40%

Here are the prices and their percentages.

Evens 50

, 21/20 48.8,

11/10 47.6

, 6/5 45.5,

5/4 44.4

, 11/8 42.1,

6/4 40

, 13/8 38.1,

36.4 7/4

, 15/8 34.8,

2/1 33.3

, 85/40 32,

9/4 30.8

, 5/2 28.6,

11/4 26.7

, 3/1 25,

100/30 23.1

, 7/2 22.2,

4/1 20

, 9/2 18.2,

5/1 16.7

, 11/2 15.4,

6/1 14.3

, 13/2 13.3,

7/1 12.5

, 15/2 11.7,

8/1 11.1

, 17/2 10.5,

9/1 10

, 10/1 9.1,

11/1 8.3

, 12/1 7.7,

13/1 7.1

, 14/1 6.7,

15/1 6.2

, 16/1 5.9,

18/1 5.3

, 20/1 4.8,

22/1 4.3

, 25/1 3.8,

28/1 3.4

, 33/1 3,

40/1 2.4

, 50/1 2,

66/1 1.5

, 80/1 1.2,

100/1 1

, 132/1 0.75,

150/1 0.66

, 200/1 0.5,

250/1 0.4

, 300/1 0.33,

400/1 0.25

, 500/1 0.2,

800/1 0.125

, 1000/1 0.1,

2000/1 0.05

For odds-on, subtract the odds-against equivalent from 100 to find it’s percentage.
So for 4/6, 6/4 = 40% , 100 – 40 = 60, therefore 4/6 = 60%

For an Evens shot to be a good bet you must obviously believe it to have a better than 50% chance of winning, 21/20 48.8%, 11/10 47.6% and so on. Though a margin for error should probably be factored in. Few gamblers are 100% accurate, so it may be best not to back what you consider a true 4/1 shot at 9/2 but to do so at 5/1 or more. Alternatively, work out a race to smaller than 100%, (say 95% or 90%) which gives a built in margin for error.

Value Is Everything

[Gingertipster]

One word of warning:

To be able to make an over all profit:

It is not enough to know the form book backwards.
It is not enough to know the odds as percentages.
It is not enough to make your own 100% books.
Though all this helps.

But a punter NEEDS to be good at EVALUATING FORM.

It is unlikely any punter will make good enough books immediately. Learning how to create a tissue can come with experience, but it is possible he/she will never be good enough. The more dedicated and persistent a punter is, the more likely he is of succeeding.

Value Is Everything

[tbracing]

When you enter into pricing anything up you must accept everything has a chance by some definition.

The roll of a die represents a 16.67% chance it will land on 1,2,3,4,5 or 6, so it is 5/1 about any number. This all adds up to 100.02%. We can work this out easily enough because it is a fixed probability (unless someone tampers with the die!).

In order to create a profit I need to create a position where I have a positive expected value, easily worked out as, available odds/true odds.

If a bookmaker offered you 9/2 about any number the expected value would be 0.92, thus creating bookmakers margin and making it impossible to sustain a profitable position over a prolonged period of time.

On the other hand an offer of 11/2 would create a 1.08 EV and present you with an overlay opportunity and to profit from future rolls of the die. Now I’d expect to make near a 8% ROI long term.

Obviously sports betting is subjective and no one mans opinion or ratings of whether horse A should be 2/1, 3/1, 4/1 is necessarily right so it makes sense to support your judgement by approximating a price. The task of a horse race is not as simple as rolling a die and you can never quite be sure on the true price, only do your best with the information at hand to provide what you believe is a fair representation.

We must create a 100% price line to determine a fair price, this will have no advantage to either backer or layer and if all subjects were available at those prices every time we would only expect to break even.

Finding the percentages can be done easily, 6/4 would = 40%. 6+4 =10, 4/10*100 = 40% or if you use decimals simply 100/2.5 = 40%.

For horse racing I look to support runners with an EV of 1.2 or bigger when backing. Obviously you can create your price line by hand such as Gingertipster has explained or you can do it by a rating format.

(A)Subject (B)Rating (D)% (E)Odds (F)Market (G)EV (C)Total
A 70 39.55% 2.53 2.1 0.83

177

B 45 25.42% 3.93 3.5 0.89

C 35 19.77% 5.06 7

1.38

D 20 11.30% 8.85 8 0.90

E 7 3.95% 25.29 21 0.83

Total =SUM(B:B)
Percentage =SUM(B2/$C$2)
Odds =SUM($C$2/B2)
EV =SUM(F2/E2)

In the made up example above subject C has a positive EV and would be the overlay position, if we were to trust our estimations this would be the only possible position to support as regardless of whether I thought A had a better chance of winning like taking 9/2 about the die I would expect to lose long term.

The example above is a pretty standard format to price up a race by ratings, the ratings you use are up to you, the above is an example plucked out the air, you may use a rating between 1-10, 1-100 etc. You can square up your prices round them up or down, adjust them as you see fit etc if needed.

Try using a rating format, try doing it by hand, find what’s comfortable for you it may take a bit of time, pricing up races will help develop your methods and understanding for betting and is a vital skill to learn.

Ginger has put a lot of good information I have left out, hopefully amongst the posts you can get an understanding and find what you are looking for.

[randburger]

Gingertipster,

Thank you again for another highly informative post, much appreciated..

I understand that all we have discussed is not enough, on its own to show an overall profit and it is completely down to how the individual evaluates what he reads in the form book, and what he sees with his own eyes when watching racing that really counts.

The areas we have touched upon are just subjects that I dont have much experience with, and the information you have kindly provided will be a great help to me. Thank you!

Are there any other important areas you would encourage a novice punter to focus on, to enable him on his quest to show a profit from this game?

[cormack15]

Anyone one who wants it I have a spreadsheet that converts ratings to prices.

[Gingertipster]

tb,

One thing I don’t understand.

How can a rating be used on its own to form a market?

When going, temperament, distance, jockey, trainer, pace, likely improvement, last time out run, old form etc. will all effect every horse to differing degrees.

Any horse may not be able to run to his rating given any one or more of all those things.

ie. A punter needs to know how likely a horse is to run to that rating or if it is likely to run to a differnt form rating; given all of the above.

Value Is Everything

[randburger]

tbracing,

Thank you for your post… one question regarding the way you would convert ratings in to a percentage?

If horse A was give a rating of 70, how would that be converted in to a percentage?

I know in gingertipsters post he stated that he takes alot into consideration, ie trainer form, going, distance, temprement etc.. and then rates the horse as to what sort of chance he thinks it may have with a percentage figure.

If you use ratings how would you calculate a percentage?

[tbracing]

Many ways Ginger, it can quite simply be a representation of on a scale of 1-10 subjectively how good that runners chance would be, it could be a more complicated mathematical algorithm which is the result of all the factors you’ve mentioned and more represented as a value, either way the end product of the rating will take into account all that is relevant to the beholder and they simply have to present it numerically.

As I said it was a

standard example

simply showing how to turn ratings into odds.

[tbracing]

Randburger, the total off all the rated subjects was 177. If you see the formula below the table you simply divide 70 by 177. In a spreadsheet format it is all done simply and easily as you enter each rating into your calculations.

[Gingertipster]

For a horse like Forpaddytheplasterer, temperament might make up three quarters of how I look at his win only chance. It is surely not as simple as giving a mark out of say 10 for temperament, because for some horses temperament should be marked out of 3.
Where as for Long Run, going and flat tracks might be the biggest part of my analysis.
For Starluck running at 2 1/2 miles, distance / stamina would make up the vast majority of his chance.

How can there be an arbitary amount for each subject?

Or if you have to mark each subject out of differing amounts (ie out of 10 for one horse, or 5 for another or 3) for each individual horse; then it is no different to doing it by "hand".

Value Is Everything

[tbracing]

If you were to rate a set of race runners from 1-10 (

I’m not saying this is the best way to do it

) to get your odds your end rating should resemble temperament and everything else you see relevant, it would be representation of all you have taken into account.

Again I state, I have given a standard example of how to get a price line by using a rating however that person has derived a rating, I am not saying either method is right or wrong.

Just because someone can approximate horse A is an 8/1 chance doesn’t mean they’re right, just like someone can say horse A is a 5 out of 10 because someone else may think he is 7 out of 10 and someone else may think he is a 6/1 chance etc.

[Gingertipster]

I agree, it is all a matter of opinion, nobody knows who is right. One mans 3/1 is another mans 5/1 and all that.

But I am still struggling to understand, sorry to be so persistent, but as I might be able to use it in my form study.

Are you saying tb:

A) Each runner is marked

out of

10 (or whatever) for everything (every subject taken in to account in the one rating)?

B) Or, each subject (no matter who the horse is) is marked

out of

the same amount, and then totalled up in to a rating?

C) Or, that every individual subject is rated

out of

a different number for each individual horse (could be out of 10 for one horse 5 for another or 3), and then all the figures totalled up?

For C) one horse might be rated

out of

10 for distance, 10 for going, 3 for temperament, 5 for pace, 2 for jockey, 5 for trainer, 10 for last time out, 5 for old form. Sorry if I’ve forgotten something. All subjects adding up to 50. Then it works out a percentage.
Another horse in the race might be rated out of 7 for distance, 8 for going, 10 for temperament (or rather -10), 3 for pace, 5 for jockey, 2 for trainer, 15 for last time out and 0 for old form. All subjects again adding up to 50. Then worked out to a percentage.

Value Is Everything

[Author]

Posts