- This topic has 94 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Bit of an exaggeration, I know. Point is Bookies wouldn’t take any notice for some time/or until many bets are struck and considerable profit made.
…Or if the punter beats SP by an average of over 20%.
Value Is EverythingWell, as I hoped, this thread is providing an interesting discussion on fancy vs value! When I decided to compile the statistics I had only a vague idea of what story they would tell. When I posted them I wasn’t sure of what folk would make of my strike rate at various prices. It seems to support a fancy-based approach as a viable alternative to a value-based one. The SRs also seem to have caused some disquiet!
Judge, I appear to be one of the few who post a photo of themselves on here! Re my original points 3) & 5): why is backing at 2/1 or shorter expected to be a loss leader? Because I bet level stakes and my SR is consistent at all prices as opposed to being a higher one the shorter the price which it would need to be to make a profit on the short ones. And the main tenet of my argument is it’s not all about value, it’s all about my fancy/selection firstly, the odds compiled by somebody else is a secondary factor. Again, nobody actually knows what chance any horse has of winning, it’s all opinion – ‘nobody’ includes the odds compilers so why use their opinion as a basis for your approach? (One reason could be that a punter can never be sure their horse will win so seeks security, seeks a confidence bolster, by selecting to back a shortish-priced horse because, by definition, the odds compilers and a large number of fellow punters have belief it will win). So my initial approach is, by study and analysis, to try to find the horse I think will win and not be swayed from that belief by its price. The consistency of my SR at various odds validates that approach. So it’s in that way that the price is irrelevant (except in the secondary splitting of tight calls)! And the SR consistency also indicates I’m correct to back at level stakes, rather than lumping disproportionately on horses somebody else has made a shortish price, because the success ratio of my fancies is not better when they happen to be shortish (despite the fact, by definition, a lot of other people must also fancy the horse).
Also Judge, on average I spend about 11 hours per day studying (it isn’t genius, mad or otherwise, it’s bloody hard work and method). Much depends on the number of Jumps meetings on RUK, on the number of runners. It’s often impossible to cover all cards and sometimes I have to do a rush job. But on an average 6 race card (I don’t even watch Bumpers) I’ll take 6 or 7 hours.
I will try to explain my workings on the Ludlow 12.35 for River Wylde & Brahms De Clermont to give you a snapshot of the type of thing I do with all runners. They were all at 11-2 so I won’t add on the 12 here. I use the Racing Post lifetime form & ratings as a basis. I try to predict the figure each runner will achieve (then adjust when weights are unequal). I notice collateral form but usually dismiss it if it contradicts my predicted ratings because each race/set of circumstances is unique.
RW – ex pointer but enough speed to win by 23L on same going as today (G to S) in a NHF at Warwick, progressing from first Bumper and doing 120. Last time’s following effort in a higher class (C3) NHF at Chelt, behind BDC, too bad to be his true running for whatever reason (seems was breathing problem) so ignored. Now, I reason that a 2m Hurdle is a stiffer test than a 2m NHF so if horse appears to stay well I give 5 of improvement going into its first H (10 if it’s a 2 1/2m H) so 120 becomes 125. Mild worries re sharpness of Lud compared to Warwick and that his best form came in the lowest class of NHF he ran in, so I express that as 125(?). (?) = -5. So 120.
BDC – more complicated to explain! Did 119 in C5 NHF on Good at Taun in April ’16, winning easily. Kept on well (so also has stamina & speed) won by Nk in Oct C3 NHF Chelt under Stan Sheppard, claiming 7, for 122. Now, the RP calculate their ratings without applying the claim (although they confusingly show the actual weight carried (11-0)). In this race BDC should’ve carried 11-7, the 2nd did carry (no claimer) 10-7, winning distance: Nk, so they rated BDC 122 & the 2nd 107. That assumes BDC’s jockey is a poor rider and the 7 he took off is worthless. However, I try to assess every claimer’s ability (& a few are very poor!) So to Stan, in the last 5 seasons he is 3 from 12, 25% in NHFs and has a great conversion rate of 3 wins to 0 2nds when in with a chance of winning. A small sample of NHFs but he is also above 10% & has more 1sts than 2nds in H’s & C’s. If he were average I would say that of the 7 he claimed in the Chelt race he was effectively taking 4 off BDC’s back. Stan is above average, especially in NHFs (granted it’s a small sample) in addition to which I personally rate him so I will say he effectively took 6 off the horse’s back. Therefore, in the Chelt race, where the 122 is given on the basis the horse carried 11-7, I say BDC effectively carried 11-1. I knock off 6 making the rating 116, a respectable run up 2 classes, probably similar to the Taunton run (C5, 119) when related to today’s ordinary C4 Maiden but no real improvement either on its debut run at Taun or for the benefit of/maturing process between seasons, and the trainer’s horses were fully fit to do themselves justice on reappearance in October. In November BDC ran in a C1 L NHF, also at Chelt, on Soft, Stan S unable to claim, no threat and an RPR of 105. So 119 & 105, a 14 differential, was this due to BDC being unable to handle the (further) rise in class, to the Soft ground, or to a combination of those two things? No way of knowing, possibly -7 due to each factor. The horse is certainly not progressing but today’s race is back well down in class so I cannot deduct 7 for class, still 119. Now, the horse should stay (won Chelt 16.5f) & have the speed (won Taun on Gd) for today’s conditions so deserves the 5 going into first Hurdle, 124. However, G to S is a concern, possibly at least -7 at Chelt in Nov due to it being Soft compared to Gd and today’s ground is in between, could impact -3 to -5. So the 124 has to have a (?), thus 124(?). (?) = -5. So 119.
(Thankfully it’s much quicker to do all this than to explain it). You can see my weight adjusted ratings for these 2 horses and others in one of my earlier posts along with the secondary reasoning required to separate horses and decide which to back in such a tight call and ‘unpredictable’ type of race.
As alluded to below the race was not as tight as expected and I got a lot of these unexposed horses wrong but my methods still produced the winner, even if somewhat fortuitously.
Ginger, The Gun, Nathan. Odds compilers are sometimes misguided in their judgement I reckon, perhaps because they have a herd mentality. I will have to open a DLAP thread of 10/1+ bets, shouldn’t be a risk as I’m only backing in £10 units and it’s well spread around. It’s going to be hard/impossible to have time to write up a detailed analysis (see above!), however, and I always try to get Best Odds Guaranteed so some bets that drift from under 10/1 will inevitably not be included whereas those that shorten will be in the thread at bigger prices taken so it’s all going to be a bit arbitrary, still that would be the case whatever the cut off price and it would be a bit tedious to put up every selection, especially as the contentious point is my 10/1+ SR/profit.
The Jugopolist, well it had won twice over Hurdles, albeit when the old King was on the throne! I did not come to the opinion he is ungenuine just that, although not very good, he could produce a performance at the weights to beat an uninspiring lot. Felt confident he would at worse run on into a place, didn’t expect him to dominate and win in commanding style, though he was clear top rated.
As for today, well a 33% SR :) A profit of 15 on a stake of 70, now only -68.23 off my season high! Typical kind of day really. Didn’t expect River Wylde to win so well, your Melrose Boy, Ginger, ran better than I expeced as did Monbeg Oscar but a couple notably disappointed. BDC can only be backed on Good. Got the race pretty wrong how it panned out but managed to find the winner. Better to be lucky than good! Kilcrea Vale I got very right. Off target in the third though Going Concern ran ok. Luck evened out in the Mares as I’m certain Brillare Momento would have won – that’s Jumps for you! Embarrassing disaster in the 3m Chase, King Of The Wolds never went a yard, sometimes happens with any horse. Close in the last Hurdle, which I rushed a bit, hard to separate Vocaliser, Un Prophete & Goal, felt UP had more scope. A day quite close to being better but can’t complain.
Blackbeard to conquer the World
Thanks for your response Golden Miller although I’m still curious about a few things
Firstly is gambling what you do for a living and if so is that what you’ve always done?
If you’re so confident in your strike rate why do you play in so many races? Wouldn’t you save yourself a lot of time by simply cutting down on the number of races you analyse and perhaps betting slightly more?
it seems to me that anyone who spends 11 hours a day studying form (or studying anything for that matter) deserves to be successful. You clearly know what you’re doing even if it strikes me as being slightly obsessive.
I do think you need to put in some serious work as a punter if you’re going to make it work, although I don’t think you always need to do quite that much. I’m rather on the lazy side and tend to bet on hunches but in any case I like your angle about ignoring what other people think and the prices they put up, it seems like a creative approach you’ve adopted and good luck to you
Judge, I appear to be one of the few who post a photo of themselves on here! Re my original points 3) & 5): why is backing at 2/1 or shorter expected to be a loss leader? Because I bet level stakes and my SR is consistent at all prices as opposed to being a higher one the shorter the price which it would need to be to make a profit on the short ones. And the main tenet of my argument is it’s not all about value, it’s all about my fancy/selection firstly, the odds compiled by somebody else is a secondary factor. Again, nobody actually knows what chance any horse has of winning, it’s all opinion – ‘nobody’ includes the odds compilers so why use their opinion as a basis for your approach? (One reason could be that a punter can never be sure their horse will win so seeks security, seeks a confidence bolster, by selecting to back a shortish-priced horse because, by definition, the odds compilers and a large number of fellow punters have belief it will win).
The whole point of value betting is to find prices the bookmkers have wrong. So the value-seeker is going against the bookmaker’s opinion more than the winner-seeker. Usually it is the winner-seeker that keeps to short odds because he/she is only concerned with getting the winner and statistically shorter prices have a better chance of winning.
Are you sure you’re not a value-seeker in disguise, GM?
Because a lot of what you’re doing seems more about value than anything else. After all, any punter can (in reality) go for value selections while publicly claiming he/she is just putting up those thought to be the best/excellent chance of winning. It adds kudos and the narrative sounds more exiting. If a punter says “I’m backing Xyz @ 16/1 because it has the best chance of winning”, it sounds more interesting to the reader than “I’m backing Xyz @ 16/1 because its value”. Therefore some value seekers make out (or kid themselves) they’re not concerned with value. 
Value Is Everything“I’m backing Xyz @ 16/1 because it has the best chance of winning”
It certainly look like value.
Unless of course it’s one of those 100 runner races…..
Blackbeard to conquer the World
Judge, I appear to be one of the few who post a photo of themselves on here! Re my original points 3) & 5): why is backing at 2/1 or shorter expected to be a loss leader? Because I bet level stakes and my SR is consistent at all prices as opposed to being a higher one the shorter the price which it would need to be to make a profit on the short ones. And the main tenet of my argument is it’s not all about value, it’s all about my fancy/selection firstly, the odds compiled by somebody else is a secondary factor. Again, nobody actually knows what chance any horse has of winning, it’s all opinion – ‘nobody’ includes the odds compilers so why use their opinion as a basis for your approach? (One reason could be that a punter can never be sure their horse will win so seeks security, seeks a confidence bolster, by selecting to back a shortish-priced horse because, by definition, the odds compilers and a large number of fellow punters have belief it will win).
The whole point of value betting is to find prices the bookmkers have wrong. So the value-seeker is going against the bookmaker’s opinion more than the winner-seeker. Usually it is the winner-seeker that keeps to short odds because he/she is only concerned with getting the winner and statistically shorter prices have a better chance of winning.
Are you sure you’re not a value-seeker in disguise, GM?
Because a lot of what you’re doing seems more about value than anything else. After all, any punter can (in reality) go for value selections while publicly claiming he/she is just putting up those thought to be the best/excellent chance of winning. It adds kudos and the narrative sounds more exiting. If a punter says “I’m backing Xyz @ 16/1 because it has the best chance of winning”, it sounds more interesting to the reader than “I’m backing Xyz @ 16/1 because its value”. Therefore some value seekers make out (or kid themselves) they’re not concerned with value. 
This is what I thought as well, that the thread title was somewhat misleading. Actually another thing I didn’t understand and wanted to ask Golden Miller about was how he was saying that he has the same strike rate whatever ever the odds. So 10-1 shots will win just as often as even money pokes, something I find very hard to believe will hold up over time, whatever your skill level.
I mean surely the odds compilers must get it right most of the time? After all the have access to the same form, the same avenues of information. If their books are skewed as much as you claim then surely they wouldn’t be able to win?
Have to agree with Ginger here. Thinking that a reasonably obscure racing forum where a poster is showing profit is going to make bookmakers change their prices is living in la-la-land.
Yes correct, Ginger has himself said that bookies use him to adjust their prices
bet365, coral, ladbrokes
Are you listening
In the shops
odds is glistening
A beautiful sight
We’re happy tonight
Walking in a ginger la-la-landBlackbeard to conquer the World
Thanks Judge, I was fortunately able to take early retirement. Have always enjoyed a flutter but much, much more just been a fan of the Jumps. Watching RUK daily I naturally became greater intrigued and was motivated to look at form more seriously to pick more winners. Still not betting much. It seemed to be going well so I started to keep a record of all picks. WAS going well so started backing all my selections in Sept ’15.
Time spent studying mushroomed, yes it’s becoming slightly obsessive! It now irritates me to watch a race without having analysed it. Never enough hours in the day, sometimes have to compromise and take a pull. Took one look at Bangor today and thought NO! Will spend Fri & Sat going through 5 Boxing Day meetings!
Guys, we’re milling around at the start a bit (going round in circles).
I’ve conceded value plays a part in my selections, but a secondary part. A value-seeker primarily approaches a race looking for value and disregards their personal fancy to the extent of backing horses they don’t think will win just because they’re value. My approach is to rate/predict each horse to seek the winner then back it whatever the price if it’s clear top rated. Even if I feel dubious about its chances on gut instinct/reflection, e.g. Going Concern yesterday, I can’t go against the figures I produce. When there is little between 2 or more horses on my figures I step back, take a quick overview and try to find a secondary reason to split them. One of the secondary reasons is price. If I can’t split 2 any other way and only wish to back 1 (discipline, minimises risk!) it’s common sense to go for the bigger-priced horse. With the 6 fancies I put up yesterday I distinguished with each whether they were clear top rated or choices made on a secondary basis.
The discovery that my SR is similar at various odds is, I have to concede, surprising. But it just is. We will see if it continues. As it stands the fact that my SR is NO BETTER at shorter prices means virtually all the profit comes at 10/1+. That’s what the stats say.
The discovery that my SR is similar at various odds is, I have to concede, surprising. But it just is. We will see if it continues. As it stands the fact that my SR is NO BETTER at shorter prices means virtually all the profit comes at 10/1+. That’s what the stats say.
When betting level stakes, virtually all the “profit” will always come from 10/1+.
Because (believe it or not) if winning at Evens it only wins once the stake.
If winning at 16/1 the punter wins 16 times the stake.
And yet he/she loses the exact same stake whatever the price.Value Is EverythingJudge, I appear to be one of the few who post a photo of themselves on here!
Guys, we’re milling around at the start a bit (going round in circles).
I’ve conceded value plays a part in my selections, but a secondary part. A value-seeker primarily approaches a race looking for value and disregards their personal fancy to the extent of backing horses they don’t think will win just because they’re value. My approach is to rate/predict each horse to seek the winner then back it whatever the price if it’s clear top rated. Even if I feel dubious about its chances on gut instinct/reflection, e.g. Going Concern yesterday, I can’t go against the figures I produce. When there is little between 2 or more horses on my figures I step back, take a quick overview and try to find a secondary reason to split them. One of the secondary reasons is price. If I can’t split 2 any other way and only wish to back 1 (discipline, minimises risk!) it’s common sense to go for the bigger-priced horse. With the 6 fancies I put up yesterday I distinguished with each whether they were clear top rated or choices made on a secondary basis.
The discovery that my SR is similar at various odds is, I have to concede, surprising. But it just is. We will see if it continues. As it stands the fact that my SR is NO BETTER at shorter prices means virtually all the profit comes at 10/1+. That’s what the stats say.
What is a “personal fancy”, GM?
If I believe a horse has the best chance of winning (my “personal fancy”) but is not value, I don’t back it and look elsewhere.
You’ve just said, if you do not believe your “personal fancy” value, you don’t back it and look elsewhere.
The only difference is that if you can not see any value in your first three “best chances”… you don’t bet (you don’t look any further)… Which is fair enough, thousands of value seekers do the same. ie Only backing their value selections if they believe it has a good chance of winning.
Value Is EverythingJudge, I appear to be one of the few who post a photo of themselves on here!
Drone
Denzil Dexter surely?
Mike
Of course! The peroxide fooled me
Esoteric odds compiling was always a natural progression for the Prof
‘I took this 33/1 rag, added a gallon of snake oil and it became the even money favourite’…bang!
Seriously folks: I like your attitude GM. No one ever beat the books by going with the flow
The more head scratching your methods seem to others and the greater the difficulty you have in explaining those methods the better
All the best with the venture
I appear to be one of the few who post a photo of themselves on here!
My status as the TRFfer with the longest hair has been wrested from me! Jealous now :-D
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.