- This topic has 94 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
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.Obviously. My point in the paragraph you quote is that, given the general view is an investor should have a higher SR the shorter the price because the odds compilers get it right most of the time, my SR is no better at shorter. If it was I would make a profit at 9/1 & under too, even at level stakes. But it’s not. Perhaps instead of incredulity about my relatively high SR at 10/1+ there should be disbelief over my relatively low SR at shorter. Why is it consistent at various prices? Could it be because the book formed is wrong much more often than generally thought? I think it is and for the reason that trying to predict accurately how each and every horse is going to perform in any given race is a task akin to trying to poke butter up a porcupine’s arse with a red hot needle.
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
It’s Clairol! Thanks Drone. Is that really you? Ah, Johnny Winter – one of the 3 very best guitarists along with Frank Marino and the fantastic Uli Jon Roth.
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
gc
Let’s see it then! If anyone could tell me how to rotate an uploaded image on here I would put up a clearer one.
Yes, that is Drone in the 1950’s.
I won’t post up one of the recent ones again, could give the old boy a complex.oh go on then if you insist
Sorry Drone
I promise not to post it up ever again
this yearCharles Darwin to conquer the World
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.
Yes, personal fancy is the horse you believe has the best chance of winning. The whole point of this thread was meant to be that you’d better off backing 1 strong fancy than taking the value approach of not backing that horse because you don’t think it’s value, instead backing horse/s you don’t think will win because you think they’re value.
“You’ve just said, if you do not believe your “personal fancy” value, you don’t back it and look elsewhere.”
I did not say that, the opposite in fact. I back my clear top rated even if dubious about its chance, whatever price it is, because I can’t/won’t/don’t go against the figures I’ve produced that make it clear top rated – I make myself believe in the figures when they produce a clear best. That’s how I end up backing the likes of The Jugopolist at Huntingdon.
“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)”
I didn’t say that either! I always have a bet when I’ve gone to the trouble of working out the race. When my figures do not produce a clear top rated and it is very tight between 2 or more horses I seek a secondary way to decide upon which to place a bet. If all else fails I will go for the 1 at best odds. That’s the only way value plays a part.
In fact I prefer working out a race before any odds are put up on the RP card – or spotlights & trainer quotes – as all 3 things can inadvertently create bias in my thinking.
In fact I prefer working out a race before any odds are put up on the RP card – or spotlights & trainer quotes – as all 3 things can inadvertently create bias in my thinking.
I guess any gambler/bookmaker worth his salt will do the same (although I imagine plenty won’t)
In fact this reminds me of this ascot race I bet on the other day. I saw this capitane was the top rated, at 140 on racing post ratings but ironically what put me off backing him was the price. I saw he was 8-1 so assumed that he wasn’t fancied or the odds compilers had written him off. He had to give a three pound penalty but had at least four pounds in hand of the other runners. Instead I backed something else as my thinking had already been biased and that got stuffed by the one I would have backed if I hadn’t looked at the odds.
Using Golden Millers logic i would have gone in and backed Capitane heavily.
^^ In that case GM, imo you really are in for a fall.
As I said, your statistics are unbelievable.Value Is EverythingIn fact I prefer working out a race before any odds are put up on the RP card – or spotlights & trainer quotes – as all 3 things can inadvertently create bias in my thinking.
I guess any gambler/bookmaker worth his salt will do the same (although I imagine plenty won’t)
In fact this reminds me of this ascot race I bet on the other day. I saw this capitane was the top rated, at 140 on racing post ratings but ironically what put me off backing him was the price. I saw he was 8-1 so assumed that he wasn’t fancied or the odds compilers had written him off. He had to give a three pound penalty but had at least four pounds in hand of the other runners. Instead I backed something else as my thinking had already been biased and that got stuffed by the one I would have backed if I hadn’t looked at the odds.
Using Golden Millers logic i would have gone in and backed Capitane heavily.
That was a Value bet with a big “V” Judge, they don’t come along very often and imo you’re right, should’ve been backed heavily. Under GM’s theory, you would not have backed it heavily, because his is only level stakes.
Value Is EverythingGinge just hates the idea of someone being successful at the game by not adopting or agreeing with his methods. Not a great characteristic
Ginge just hates the idea of someone being successful at the game by not adopting or agreeing with his methods. Not a great characteristic
Well hardly as he’s just playing devil’s advocate here and in a sense not agreeing with Golden Miller is basically just doing what everyone else does as it’s such an unusual approach.
What I don’t get is Golden Miller says that prices are often far more wrong than they are right
But most races are priced up on the ratings of runners. And a few other elements like trainers ability and so on.
Either Golden is saying that these ratings are fundamentally wrong and the handicappers aren’t doing their job properly, or there’s some other factor that’s being consistently underrated. That’s the only logic to explain why he’s continually picking out 10-1 winners so regularly, as in theory any 10-1 shot should have as good as chance as another.
Ginge just hates the idea of someone being successful at the game by not adopting or agreeing with his methods. Not a great characteristic
Come off it CRW. Take a look at other TRFers opinions on this thread and you’ll see similar comments. Cav, Betlarge, Judge etc.
May be you should have a good look at your own 17 posts and what they’ve said. :lol:
Value Is EverythingGinge just hates the idea of someone being successful at the game by not adopting or agreeing with his methods. Not a great characteristic
Well hardly as he’s just playing devil’s advocate here and in a sense not agreeing with Golden Miller is basically just doing what everyone else does as it’s such an unusual approach.
What I don’t get is Golden Miller says that prices are often far more wrong than they are right
But most races are priced up on the ratings of runners. And a few other elements like trainers ability and so on.
Either Golden is saying that these ratings are fundamentally wrong and the handicappers aren’t doing their job properly, or there’s some other factor that’s being consistently underrated. That’s the only logic to explain why he’s continually picking out 10-1 winners so regularly, as in theory any 10-1 shot should have as good as chance as another.
I suppose it’s about how one interprets the basic ratings and apply all other factors to predict how each horse will perform. Punters, pundits and bookies all do it. Apparently 35% of favourites win over Jumps. That means the odds compilers are wrong in their assessment of which horse will win 65% of the time. If you look at the ascending order of prices in a market as a predicted ranking order of the position in which each runner will finish, with the lowest priced horse predicted to win and so on to the highest priced horse predicted to be last, then I wonder how often the second favourite finishes 2nd, the eighth favourite finishes 8th. I expect it’s 35% or a lot less. That’s an awful lot that the bookie is predicting incorrectly!
Apparently 35% of favourites win over Jumps. That means the odds compilers are wrong in their assessment of which horse will win 65% of the time.
No, just because a favourite fails to win, does not mean “the odds compilers are wrong in their assessment of which horse will win”. eg If the odds compiler believes the favourite has a 33% chance (fair 2/1)… He is also assessing the chance of the favourite NOT winning as 67%. ie He’s assessing the favourite as having twice as much chance of losing as it does of winning. So in a way – if anything – when the favourite does not win the odds compilers have it right.
Odds compilers do not assess “which horse will win”. They use all the information possible (prior to the race) to assess the percentage chance of each horse. Sorry, I thought you knew that.
This may also explain why you’re hung up on a “Personal Fancy”. For the true value seeker there is no Personal Fancy, only a value selection.
Value Is EverythingYou would say that Ginger from your perspective/approach. Coming from completely the opposite direction, thinking radically and outside the traditionalists’ box, the same set of prices are taken by me to mean something very different. From your value-seeking approach you are bound to convert a price into a percentage chance and then see whether you think the horse has a better percentage chance in your opinion. And no doubt odds compilers think about percentage chance when they decide what price to allocate to each horse. But either before doing so or as a by-product of doing so they are effectively also ranking the horses. When I study a race to seek the winner I am also ranking the runners (by my ratings). When my top rated is not number 1 (i.e. the favourite) in their list that is great, it might be 6th in their list and 10/1+, what a bonus! So of course I’m hung up on true winner-seeking, I’m the polar opposite of a true value-seeker. Value comes into it accidentally, I do not seek it, I seek winners. We are continuing to go round in circles!
Besides that, the logic you use to make your argument is faulty. How can the odds compiler have it right when the favourite does not win, that’s incredible! He is most right when the longest-priced horse in his book does not win. The favourite using your example & perspective has a 67% chance of not winning, well anything else’s chance of not winning must be greater. Thus he is more wrong when anything else wins, least wrong when the favourite wins. But he is only least wrong (or most correct) 35% of the time!
you keep banging on about value selections,so to you,at times there are 6/7 value selections in a race?
I tried to point out to you i am not a value seeker i have a price in mind i would play at (not a value price) but you could not even accept that.I love reading you methods GT(and others on here) but at times you have accept not everyone works to your supposed ‘value’ methods and they still can make a profit.
Have a merry christmas everyone and i hope you all got some value in your christmas shoppingI 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
gc
Let’s see it then!
No suitable photo immediately to hand, but just think Neil from The Young Ones and you’re about there
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
you keep banging on about value selections,so to you,at times there are 6/7 value selections in a race?
I tried to point out to you i am not a value seeker i have a price in mind i would play at (not a value price) but you could not even accept that.I love reading you methods GT(and others on here) but at times you have accept not everyone works to your supposed ‘value’ methods and they still can make a profit.
Have a merry christmas everyone and i hope you all got some value in your christmas shoppingDo accept not everyone works my way nwalton, you’re misunderstanding me.
I’ve said many times, the mathematics of betting means (bar miracle bets) the only way to make a profit is to get value, but there are many ways to achieve that value. (eg “fancy”) For a few it is possible to achieve profit by “fancy”, because the way they work finds the value without actively searching for value. However, the thing I was trying to explain in the other thread was no punter can make a profit unless the mathematics of betting allow it.You said in the other thread:
But you miss the point if I have a horse in at 4/1 but I don’t fancy it to win and the books open it up at 5/1,I will not then make it a bet because it is value,when it seems you would.The word value is over used in my opinion,how many times have we heard a pundit say the favour will win but horse b is the value bet,how does that make sense if you don’t believe b will win?Please help me understand your betting nwalton, by explaining what you mean by having “a horse in at 4/1”?
What does “4/1” mean to you?
Because you say value does not mean anything to you and then go and put a horse in at 4/1.
What is the point of putting a horse “in at 4/1” (or any price) if value does not matter?
What is the meaning of your “price in mind”?
If value does not matter then what is the point of a “price in mind”?
and
What do you mean by “fancy it”?
Mathematics of betting means anything thought a fair odds-against chance is actually “fancied” to lose more than it is “fancied” to win. Therefore, I do not understand why any punter would “fancy” something he puts “in at 4/1”.Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.