- This topic has 94 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
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!
This shows you haven’t got the concept!
Yes the other horses have a greater chance of losing but if a bet is placed on each one of them it would be a greater chance than the favourite ie 67%!
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!
As I said GM, 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.
When taking a price, you are backing the horse to win. You are not backing it against just one other horse in the race, you’re backing against every other horse in the race. It does not matter which horse pips yours, if ANY other horse wins you lose. There is no such thing as “more wrong” or “least wrong”; with win only betting there are only two possible outcomes, winning and losing. The chance of losing is the sum of ALL the other horses put together.
Value Is EverythingGT, although technically you are correct, I doubt that compilers sit down to price a race with that point of view. The percentages represented by ‘the field’ against the favourite, or any other runner are a by-product of the compiler’s conclusions.
The compiler’s job is to work his way from the horse most probable to the horse least probable and append a price to each in line with his opinion of the strength of that probability. So GM is correct, imo, in that the favourite is the horse – taking each as an individual – considered most likely to win the race.
GM’s ‘system’, as I understand it, is to work through each horse in exactly the same way as a compiler but instead of appending a price to each horse to reflect probability, he gives it a rating. He then bets on his ratings irrespective of the price. Arguably, it’s an admirable approach because he will not be swayed by the market and anyone who does not follow the herd is already at an advantage, assuming that person has skill and confidence.
Given GM’s results, I’d most certainly be inclined to leave alone anything below 5/1 and use my funds on the bigger priced selections (the value principle in another guise, as you say). But GM seems happy and well established in the way he bets and handsome is as handsome does.
Maybe fancy was not the most appropriate word in the thread title: it tends to be more commonly used by casual punters and given the hours GM puts in, he is most certainly not a casual punter.
Anyway, a fascinating thread.
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″.Think Ginger hits the nail on the head with this post. This whole concept of “fancy” seems to getting overblown in this thread. You can fancy pretty much any horse in a race for legitimate reasons. Otherwise they wouldn’t be listed as having a chance in the betting.
Right last time,i go through the race and try and find a horse that i believe will win,THAT is my starting point,trying to find the winner.
I have a price in mind i will want to play at(or sometimes will play just below that price).Again on value as you love to talk about if i put the fav in,on my tissue at 6/4 and i dont think it will win butit is 9/4 with the books i will not back it,just because i think it is ‘value’according to my tissue as i dont believe it will win.How can it be value if you dont think it will win?
Another point is about value,when sometimes you back 5/6 horses in a 13 runner race with a couple of savers,are you really telling me they are all value bets?Again how many times have you heard people say that the fav will win,but horse X is the value bet,how can that be so when you dont think it will win?
Finally i will say i am a winner finder more than i am a value seeker
anyway good luck with your punting and your methods and have a prosperous new yearI Think the point ginger is trying to get across to GM is the bookies don’t get it wrong when the fav loses because when taken against the field his chances are less than 50% when priced up at above evens. They got it wrong on the individual basis but not on the race itself imo
Besides the bookies would be happy to see/get the fav beat because that is where the most money I would imagine is going from the punters.Charles Darwin to conquer the World
Again how many times have you heard people say that the fav will win,but horse X is the value bet,how can that be so when you dont think it will win?
Unless it is Frankel running I don’t think anyone can say ‘the fav will win’ as we all know there is no such thing as a certainty other than TAPK finding the winner in the Gold Cup every other year therefore it is wrong for people to say ‘the fav will win’.
I’d be in the camp of yourself nwalton in that if I thought the horse was going to win and I had very strong confidence I would back it because a poor valued winner is better than a great value loser.
However over the course of time they don’t always win so you still need value on your strong selection/fancy imo unless you have a very good strike rate or are very good at picking the winner
If I thought something was better value than my selection then in thinking that you’d be saying that ‘the fav might not win’ therefore you don’t need to bet
Charles Darwin to conquer the World
nwaltonParticipant
Total Posts 847
Right last time,i go through the race and try and find a horse that i believe will win,THAT is my starting point,trying to find the winner.
I have a price in mind i will want to play at(or sometimes will play just below that price).Again on value as you love to talk about if i put the fav in,on my tissue at 6/4 and i dont think it will win butit is 9/4 with the books i will not back it,just because i think it is ‘value’according to my tissue as i dont believe it will win.How can it be value if you dont think it will win?I don’t really get what you mean by “fancy” are there these defineable factors that make your horse a fancy, over other horses in the race that should have a legitimate chance in theory? Is this just an ego thing where you believe that your opinion is much better than someone pricing up the race, and therefore more objective criteria goes out the window, or am I overlooking something?
Say for example on Monday, I don’t fancy cue card. But there must surely be a price I will back it at. So if someone offers 1000-1, I’m still going to back it, even if I don’t “fancy” it, as you say.
I guess it’s an intuitive/gut instinct approach vs a more mathematical/scientific approach (like gingers.)
The other flaw in your argument M walton (which ginger already pointed out) is you say you “put a horse in at 6-4 in your tissue but don’t really fancy it”
But if you “don’t fancy it” then why are you putting it in at 6-4? You should be putting it in at million to one or something.
Aren’t we all ‘value’ bettors in reality?
Surely there’s a price at which we all wouldn’t back a horse and a price at which we all would. Exaggerated example I know, but whilst you may or may not fancy Cue Card or Thistlecrack, at:
1/66 Cue Card, 50/1 Thistlecrack you’re backing the latter and if those odds were reversed you’re backing the former.
Having a bet is just like purchasing a new house, car or quarter of wine gums. There’s always a price that’s acceptable and one that isn’t.
Mike
If GM had said that, Joe; he’d have been right. But he didn’t.
There was no mention of “most likely to win”.GM said “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.
Bookmakers do not assess the favourite as it “will win”, they only assess its probability of winning or to put it another way – yes, the horse “most likely to win”.
What I am saying is: Just because the odds compiler assesses the favourite as the horse most likely of all runners to win – if losing it does not mean they were wrong in assessing it as the horse “most likely to win”.
Value Is EverythingAren’t we all ‘value’ bettors in reality?
Surely there’s a price at which we all wouldn’t back a horse and a price at which we all would. Exaggerated example I know, but whilst you may or may not fancy Cue Card or Thistlecrack, at:
1/66 Cue Card, 50/1 Thistlecrack you’re backing the latter and if those odds were reversed you’re backing the former.
Having a bet is just like purchasing a new house, car or quarter of wine gums. There’s always a price that’s acceptable and one that isn’t.
Mike
They won’t admit it, Mike.
Value Is EverythingIf GM had said that, Joe; he’d have been right. But he didn’t.
There was no mention of “most likely to win”.GM said “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.
Bookmakers do not assess the favourite as it “will win”, they only assess its probability of winning or to put it another way – yes, the horse “most likely to win”.
What I am saying is: Just because the odds compiler assesses the favourite as the horse most likely of all runners to win – if losing it does not mean they were wrong in assessing it as the horse “most likely to win”.
GM here.
Yes, ‘most likely’ would have been the better term. But, and the point I was originally trying to make is, in assessing probability of how much likely is each horse to win they are as a by-product creating a ranking order (or maybe they do rate & rank the horses before assessing the probabilities and forming an over-round market) and this ranking order in the case of the No.1/favourite/horse most likely to win is proven incorrect 65% of the time, so if a punter, by whatever method, creates a ranking order that has a different horse No.1 he/she should not be put off by it not being favourite. I was just trying to say go for your horse, it’s not as if the bookies’ most likely to win triumphs 75% of the time or something. Don’t be a slave to the odds or wary if your horse is a big price.
And, if I apply certain principles to my betting I must stick to them, surely? If when I have a clear top-rated I back it whatever the price why would it be right to abandon that principle because the horse is 1/66? Unrealistic example is 1/66 but I backed Thistlecrack at 1/6 this season.
Right last time,i go through the race and try and find a horse that i believe will win,THAT is my starting point,trying to find the winner.
I have a price in mind i will want to play at(or sometimes will play just below that price).Again on value as you love to talk about if i put the fav in,on my tissue at 6/4 and i dont think it will win butit is 9/4 with the books i will not back it,just because i think it is ‘value’according to my tissue as i dont believe it will win.How can it be value if you dont think it will win?nwalton,
If punters go by “fancy”, ie by NOT having a price to work to – then fair enough. But you HAVE “put a horse in at”.I asked what the price you put the horse in at means to you?
If you “put the fav in on my (your) tissue at 6/4”, what you’re actually saying is you assess the horse as a fair 2 in 5 chance or 40% chance – because that’s the mathematics of betting and what “6/4” means. If this is not what you mean by “6/4” then you have not “put the fav in @ 6/4”.This is not me telling you “how to bet” – like you like to portray it. This is the mathematics of betting – ie facts. So, when assessing the horse @ 6/4 what you are saying is it has a 2 in 5 or 40% chance, it does not make sense to ignore 9/4 because 9/4 only requires just over 1 in 3 or 30.8% strike rate to break even. Why would you not want a 40% strike rate on your 9/4 bets when it generates massive profits?
When a punter “puts a price” to a horse, there is no such thing as “don’t think it will win” if you’ve assessed it as 6/4 it is 6/4 (2 in 5 or 40%). I can understand if having a Margin For Error. eg When assessing a horse as a fair 6/4, I do not often back it @ 13/8 but would @ 7/4. Others may want a bigger margin. But makes no sense atall to back something believed has a fair 6/4 chance at 5/4 (as you would).
What does “don’t think will win” even mean? Anything assessed as an odds-against (less than 50%) you “don’t think it will win”. ie All horses thought odds-gainst chances have a better chance of losing than winning. At 6/4 you are assessing it as having a 2 in 5 chance of winning and a (better) 3 in 5 chance of losing. So yes, ANY horse assessed @ 6/4 the punter does not “think it will win”.
Value Is EverythingAnother point is about value,when sometimes you back 5/6 horses in a 13 runner race with a couple of savers,are you really telling me they are all value bets?
Again how many times have you heard people say that the fav will win,but horse X is the value bet,how can that be so when you dont think it will win?
Finally i will say i am a winner finder more than i am a value seeker
anyway good luck with your punting and your methods and have a prosperous new yearI’ve already explained why I back several horses in a race.
Zark’ gave you a good analogy of the spin of a coin earlier nwalton, so I’ll use the throw of a dice to explain why I might back half the field:
With a throw of a dice every numbber has a 1 in 6 (fair 5/1) chance.
If a friend makes a book and offers me:1) 7/2
2) 6/1
3) 9/2
4) 7/1
5) 4/1
6) 7/1I wouldn’t dream of criticising anyone who wanted to have just one sole bet on either the 4 or the 6, that’s their preference and there’s nothing wrong with it.
My own way of betting would be:
I’ll back both the 4 and the 6 as main bets because they are excellent value @ 7/1, with a saver on the 2 because that is also value (but not as much value) @ 6/1. Yes, backing half the field. May also lay others in the race but I generally don’t put lay bets up on my thread.Now apply the same theory to horse racing.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.