- This topic has 211 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
can someone please explain to me why it is that, when it comes to virtual horse racing with a supposedly random outcome, the bookmakers can offer a set of odds which remain completely fixed regardless of how much money is being bet on each cartoon horse?
Virtual racing is like roulette. The odds are known, there’s a house margin. Everyone might get it right on one virtual race (or spin of the wheel) but in the long run everyone will lose. There’s no skill, judgement or inside knowledge: if you win it’s pure luck.
Odds in a horse racing market are based on imperfect information. The simple fact that someone wishes to back a horse at the available odds implies that those odds are too generous and should therefore be shorter.
At the risk of complicating the main debate still further by providing an inaccurate summary, the gist of this thread appears to be that, in a rapidly increasing number of cases, the odds can neither be too short to deter someone from placing a bet on a ‘fancied’ runner nor, conversely, too long to prevent someone from laying an ‘unfancied’ runner.
What at first glance seems to be a perfect market, because the odds (on the exchange at least) are tending towards a 100% book, is actually an imperfect market because the time between ‘full’ liquidity and the ‘off’ is insufficient to allow the odds of certain runners to adjust fully to reflect their true chance.
As the saying goes, I wouldn’t have a scooby whether that is in fact the case.
Formerly trained by a flag of convenience for a warned off individual, running today in the colours of a flag of convenience of a warned off individual, ridden by a proven corrupt jockey whose rides got the horse handicapped and trained by a guy being investigated for running a flapper.
Glenn writes possibly the bleakest paragraph ever written on The Racing Forum – a truly chilling analysis. Where are the BHA?
Erudite post, Never Nearer. I don’t know enough about the maths to respond – or whether you’ve hit the nail on the head – but that’s a nice read nonetheless.
Just because on average the exchange SP shows the 6/4 SP might be about right, does not mean each individual 6/4 shot is a 40% chance.
Of course not (we need a banging head against the wall smiley badly on this forum). But the thrust of this thread is the increasing general trend of tissue 4/1 shots being backed into 6/4 and winning 40% of their races regardless of all known public form.
We need a smilie with a spoon and bowl too Cav.
What help is knowing a "general trend" when looking at an individual race?
smilie for thumbs up.
Value Is EverythingIf there was one horse to sum this thread up today would Stefanki fit the bill? Any price you like on his 3rd run in a rank average Wolverhampton maiden.
Formerly trained by a flag of convenience for a warned off individual, running today in the colours of a flag of convenience of a warned off individual, ridden by a proven corrupt jockey whose rides got the horse handicapped and trained by a guy being investigated for running a flapper.
Pretty much sums up the current free for all.
Well, quite….
Stefanki also perfectly demonstrates the point I was attempting to make earlier. He was put it at a (guess) price of 7-1 by the tissue compilers this morning.
Had you found yourself backing him at 25-1 near the off, you would almost certainly have had a completely duff bet. But, if you had leapfrogged a queue of money at 5-2 on the other hand, you would potentially have had a very nice value wager indeed…
Heaven help anyone who uses the Kelly criterion to dictate their staking on UK horseracing. Inverse Kelly would work better at the moment for racetime bets – the worse the theoretical value, the bigger your bet!
Sad, but true….
Even though I have something to learn about conformation.
That’s easy Ginge, I will learn you that now. Basically it’s the process of someone telling someone that something has been done.
As an example, when Harry asks Glen to put a bet on for him, and Glen rings back and says, "Harry, the bet is on". Well that’s conformation mate
That’s confi
rmation OE.
Confo
rmation is "structure" of the horse. I’d also include everything to look out for paddock-side.
Those who are good at paddock judging have an excellant chance of evaluating late value.
Value Is EverythingIf there was one horse to sum this thread up today would Stefanki fit the bill? Any price you like on his 3rd run in a rank average Wolverhampton maiden.
Formerly trained by a flag of convenience for a warned off individual, running today in the colours of a flag of convenience of a warned off individual, ridden by a proven corrupt jockey whose rides got the horse handicapped and trained by a guy being investigated for running a flapper.
Pretty much sums up the current free for all.
There is a lot of negativity about on this thread, of course the picture painted above at first glance looks irreconcilable with an easily predicted outcome. What the mind does not readily aquire from the text Glen supplied is that in all cases above the people concerned where caught in the act and action taken against them, appropriate or not depending on individual taste, its easy for the mind to gloss over those facts when it is presented as an apparent "fait accompli".
If both the race and the horse itself is put under the spotlight then it has to be said that the first five or six at the head of the market are mainly an odd bunch which are either out of form or running over an unsuitable distance.
Stefanki had shown on his first outing in a decent 6furlong race that he was capable of mixing it up at the finish. Noted being a little one paced at the business end it is entirely plausible from the run to conclude that the horse would be suited by the extra furlong. It so happens that on both attempts when held up at the rear the horse could not produce a sustained effort. When reverted back to the previous distance of 6f where he had shown his best performance figures AND at far lower class, where is the surprise that it ran a bit better and got his nose in front.
If that race was currently the full extent of corruption within racing then in my view racing is in pretty good shape.
I don’t know what some people want from a horse, a written guarantee that it will perform to its best at every trip on every surface and every track type?
It so happens that on both attempts when held up at the rear the horse could not produce a sustained effort.
Well fancy that! Love it….
It so happens that on both attempts when held up at the rear the horse could not produce a sustained effort.
TRF post of the year so far!
Other than Culhane I know nothing about the connections, horse or calibre of the opposition, but surely even a five second glance at Stefanki’s profile would be enough to make a) punters scratch their heads as to his ‘true chance’, and b) layers write a big bold ‘careful’ next to his name on their tissues
A seasonal debutant with three maiden runs to his name turned out as late as July in a 3yo handicap with a new trainer
Alarm bell soundsLast ran in November. The 3yo can bear little resemblance to the 2yo of eight months ago. Alarm now deafening, run away
Patently not a race for ‘the crowd’ to bet in. Honest, corrupt, whatever the true merit of this type of horse is only ever likely to be known to ‘insiders’
And due to the combination of early-market transparency and non-existant liquidity these ‘insiders’ were only ever likely to punt it late in the live-market
If connections did ‘have it off’ they should take no pride in it, nor should they be lauded as the executors of smart gamble; it’s all a bit grubby, but aren’t horses such as this with all but unquantifiable profiles pre-race always going to attract the ‘someone knew’ ‘the games bent’ comments should they be both punted
and
win?
How is it to be stopped?
Ban insider trading viz connections betting their horses?
Don’t allow 3yos to make their seasonal debut in handicaps?
Don’t allow maidens to run in handicaps?I favour the last option
That, and punters exhibiting a little self-restraint should they see a race ‘they don’t like the look of’
There is another 4999 races per year to throw money at, after all
If that race was currently the full extent of corruption within racing then in my view racing is in pretty good shape.
No matter what’s gone down, there is
always
one isn’t there? You are Paul Roy and I claim my five pounds.
How did you price up Stefanki in it’s Wolver maiden, given that you had its debut down as solid? I had it down at a shade under 4/1 though decided against betting in the race. It was being offered at 30+ on the machine.
It should also be noted that the first time out over 6f (the only other time Stefanki showed anything resembling semi-decent form) was the only other time the horse was punted.
Psychic trainer maybe?
Psychic trainer maybe?
No because last season Stefanki was trained by Roger Curtis, this season it’s with George Baker.
Thanks for that – presumed he was now trained by "F J Brennan" like the rest of them.
Interestingly the
Racing Post
had a two next to the trainer’s name yesterday, indicating it was the second run for George Baker. In today’s editorial they repeat this assertion:
‘The three-year-old, formerly part-owned by Findlay, was making his second start for George Baker…….’
I can find no record of this horse running under rules in George Baker’s name before yesterday. Do they know something we don’t
If that race was currently the full extent of corruption within racing then in my view racing is in pretty good shape.
No matter what’s gone down, there is
always
one isn’t there? You are Paul Roy and I claim my five pounds.
How did you price up Stefanki in it’s Wolver maiden, given that you had its debut down as solid? I had it down at a shade under 4/1 though decided against betting in the race. It was being offered at 30+ on the machine.
Why do you consider an opinion that is different from your own worthy of ridicule?
The fact that you had bothered to price up a low class Wolverhampton maiden in the middle of summer speaks volumes to me. Perhaps it your job to do it? Who knows.
I have looked over the race and it would not get a price against it as I dont give anything in a race I look at a price. Yeh Yeh Yeh, value value. Put myself up for another dose there.
What I will say is that it would be discounted immediately at first glance as not having the capacity to win that race. It looks by the prices you quote that the real race analysts, those who put the money down, had taken a view similar to mine, that it could not win under any circumstance. I know that this must be very irksome for you but not everyone looks at a race in the same way as yourself. If I was so far out in my analysis, as you claim to be on a horses chance, I would be looking to myself to get my act together, not be blaming all and sundry when I have so obviously got it wrong.
Regards your first point I am not Roy and I am experienced enough to know what goes on in racing, but lightly raced horses still looking for a trip? Come on, not a fair target at all this race or horse.
Have you even watched the race? Have you seen the ride it got that evening? Presumably not. Middle of summer? It’s pitch black at 7.20pm!
I find it hard to reconcile the horse being instantly dismissable in that race yet a bet at 2/1 yesterday. The principles that day would have all gotten into yesterday’s race (except for those balloted out). It was the same sort of class as yesterday’s race.
Alarm bell sounds
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.