- This topic has 132 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Some people don’t half talk some DRIVEL on here.
"When we bet on a horse at evens, we have no idea what the true odds are because they cannot be known. All we have is the historical data that every horse in history that was sent off at evens won X% of races."
No wonder that with the information that you suppose "is all thats available" you end up debating the relevence and importance of lucK And how to calculate and make an allowance for it.
My GOD
Folk are interested in different thing mate, if you don’t have anything constructive to say, don’t say anything, thats the best way.
Hi Davejay,
I thought my comments were very constructive, they offered an opportunity for individuals to relieve themselves from the inane.
You have not grasped the nettle but don’t speak for everyone OLDBEAN.
The real barney,
I think you have taken my statement out of context. It followed on from a long discussion about the possibility of quantifying luck, and needs to be viewed in that light.
In the context of forming opinions about odds, it doesn’t stand up because much more information is available than historical data about the fate of horses starting at a particular price. If I was backing a horse at evens, I don’t think I would care very much what happened to the other countless thousands of horses that had started at that price.
With repect, many of the discussions on here are purely of academic interest and are secondary to the real business of finding winners at value prices. Sometimes you need to read through a thread to get the substance of the argument(s).
Cosmo,
Yes, a lot of hot air, but amongst the pronouncements on here you might just find a few pearls of wisdom.
I have to disagree about the winning systems remaining a secret. This is a myth perpetrated by those who try to sell such systems. The truth is that there are no secret systems. They are like ghosts; some believe in them, but there is no evidence to convince those who do not. There are people who bet successfully using a systematic approach, but that’s more down to hard work and application of knowledge.
If there is anyone out there who has made a living by betting on horses, and has done so by following a few simple ‘rules’, I will show my backside in Fenwick’s Christmas window.
You have not grasped the nettle but don’t speak for everyone OLDBEAN.
I only express my own opinions and seek to converse with those of a similar mind. Horse racing for me is a good area to investigate, I like maths, excel and all that, its a good hobby .. quantifying luck probably can be done.
I may have been a bit harsh Atemis/dave jay. I blame it on a Columbard/Chardonay blend.
Yeah, we’re all trying to do the same things and with maybe the same tools but with a different approach. In my own case it’s constantly referring to data obtained, recorded and examined from an oblique angle. Any unearthed nuggets are applied to methods then monitored for success or failure.
Fenwicks eh? Northumberlant Street? You’d get a few oblique looks bearing your *ass in those windows. Or would that be bleak looks?(Excellent thread lads).
The recent flat season was a disaster for me. As a full-time gambler I have to work out the reason(s) for this. I listed possible causes as follows – (feel free to add!).
a) I bet badly (compared to my ‘normal’ level)
b) the betting market changed in various ways rendering old practices no longer profitable
c) the races were just more ‘random’ than normal
d) the races were made more ‘random’ by structural changes (such as narrowing handicap bands), or by procedural changes (such as over-watering).
e) it was just a run of bad luck.I came to the conclusion it was about 40% (a), about 40% (b) and about 20% (e).
I haven’t read this book, but from what you’ve said here, he’s asserting that (e) had a much larger role in my problems than I’d think?
This poses a practical question.
A successful gambler needs to keep moving forward – refining his methodology, and keeping abreast of changing circumstances. As someone else said "to be long-term successful a punter has to keep swimming against the tide. It takes an effort to stay still, an even greater effort to move ahead, and as soon as you relax or slack off you start to go backwards".That being so, in such a scenario where you are suffering a seemingly significant losing streak, how do you go about working out if you need to change your methodology, or whether you just need to keep plugging away and hope your luck’s going to change! Can we quantify it in some way?
Plus how can I ascertain now if the changes I put in place at the end of the season, and which are currently working, is effective problem solving or randomness moving my way!
tooting,
If your basic premises are sound, which presumably they are*, I think you need to keep plugging away until your luck changes.
A lot of people seem to be having a poor time of it lately which I blame largely on shrinking SP margins feeding into betting margins in general.
Betfair seems ok, but a tax on bets in the form of a commission is still hard to overcome if you want a decent bet on a regular basis.In my opinion, you cannot quantify luck in horse racing because races(and football games) are chaotic events where so many expected and unexpected things can happen. You are better off taking a long term view in the hope that luck will even itself out. If you do have that edge, you should be ahead of the game eventually.
* I’m presuming that your methods are logical and have worked for you in the past.
Tooting .. agreeing with what Artemis said about the reasons you have a bet would really determine how successful you are at finding out what went wrong and if anything actually did go wrong.
If your strike rate is the same as last season then you have probably lost your edge, that could be down to rule changes or the market catching up with you. I’m just guessing but I suspect that your strike rate is actually down, which begs the question, did you have an edge in the first place, or was you just lucky?
One of the mind games with the 100% book.
you are suffering a seemingly significant losing streak, how do you go about working out if you need to change your methodology, or whether you just need to keep plugging away and hope your luck’s going to change! Can we quantify it in some way?
The million dollar question .. Peter May came up with a formula using chi-test to try and answer this, which I find completely unsuitable.
The best way to do this is to work out your average strike rate and then work out how many bets you are likely to have over a season.
Put this formula into excel .. =ROUND(LN(A1)/-LN((1-B1)),0)
where A1 = number of bets and B1 = strike rate (eg. 23% = 0.23)
This should give you your longest losing run without being statistically significant, anything more than this value and you could be in trouble. Don’t include your edge in this calculation, so you can examine how lucky you have been and can be or might not be over time.That’s how I would do it.
- Total Posts 17716
Tooting
There really is only one answer to your dilemma, and it is in the only area you could possibly influence.
a) I bet badly (compared to my ‘normal’ level)
b) the betting market changed in various ways rendering old practices no longer profitable
c) the races were just more ‘random’ than normal
d) the races were made more ‘random’ by structural changes (such as narrowing handicap bands), or by procedural changes (such as over-watering).
e) it was just a run of bad luckTrust me, as one who always used to blame circumstances or ‘luck’ for everything wrong in my betting, the sooner one comes terms with this basic truth, the sooner things will change. Spending valuable time searching for exterior answers just hides that truth even deeper.
If you bet badly, give up now.
Anyone who wishes to profit by betting must have a staking plan akin to VDW. They don’t have to win every time – just win eventually ALL the time so that your pot grows.
Thanks guys, food for thought. The book’s on order.
reet hard – your comment is of course a fundamental truth about gambling.
My posting was made more in the context of the thread, and was me considering the effect of randomness on one’s perception of whether one is betting badly or well at any given time.I’m successful enough over the last ten years to ride out even a season as bad that one was. But my biggest weakness is how I cope with losing streaks – both emotionally and how it affects my on-going betting. I usually do indeed blame myself for my own weaknesses.
If I take Artemis’s answer heuristically I put randomness on-side as a useful rationalisation. If I take your answer instead (which is closer to my current standpoint) I could be overly punishing myself needlessly.
Dave – good stuff as always. I actually measure pretty much everything – probably too much. Sometimes I know the measurements uncover real gems, and sadly sometimes I know I look for things that aren’t there.
quadrilla – I’m open-minded to most things and always looking to improve my gambling. But I came to the conclusion that unravelling VDW was a complete waste of time many years ago, and I can’t say I’ve missed out. Of course, you’ll no doubt see that as the cause for my recent malaise. But then confirmation analysis is always the refuge of the evangelic.
Tooting
I take it that VDW hit a raw nerve.
For a bit of fun. Let’s win 50 points – I’ll keep posting until I reach this profit.
First bet will be football, followed by AW followed by NH. Then back to Football.
Cetlic to win to-night. 52 points @ 1.97.
quadrilla,
Two bets might do it. 1000 points(max bet 100pts) would be a better test of your mettle.
Tooting.
Celtic win again at home in the Champions League. 16 home wins on the trot – against nearly every champion club in Europe. Is this luck or randomness or are they the same thing ?
I’ll go away now.
quadrilla,
Celtic are a very good side, particularly at home. You found a fair bet there at 1.97, but when they were 1-0 down for most of the first half, you must have had the thought that maybe tonight their run could end.
The point is that in sport you expect certain teams/individuals/horses/dogs to win more than others, but you know that they will get beaten from time to time. You just don’t know when because it is often luck that decides the day. I think you know that well enough.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.