- This topic has 246 replies, 87 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Not a fair comparison- Ramsden made his money in the City and lost in on the racecourse.
I’ve always thought that the market was more efficient at the front end CR- for precisely the reason that most liquidity and hence most attention is focused there. I’d take some persuading that he has a 6% edge backing odds-on shots on BF- If it’s that easy why isn’t everyone doing it?Carvills
Whilst not disagreeing with your overall synoposis of Findlay’s punting, favourite/longshot bias theory dispels your view that the market is more effiecient at the front end of the market.
But the traditional favourite/longshot bias – something that punters learned on day two at punting school in the pre-exchange days – does not hold when dealing with exchange betting, which is what carvills was referring to!
I thought an earlier thread on here actually pegged HF’s profit at 2% after commission? That sounds more believable.
My personal research fund (already kindly namechecked earlier) is currently showing 4% profit – which given my commission levels, makes some sort of sense.
As the old-timers on here know, I was a "pricewise" style value punter on the horses for many years and went full-time on the back of it. Then I found the market changed entirely (betfair driven) and had a terrible couple of years. Personally I found I’d lost my edge on the purely tissue-driven betting gingertipster evangelises about. On horses anyway.
What I did find was that there was juice at the front-end of the market in certain circumstances. (I believe Apracing had a similar conversion). As ratpack says "favourite-longshot bias" explains some of it; a very competitive market explains some more of it; the place liabilities of each way bets explain a bit more; and I’d could add a few more reasons, each increasingly exotic or fanciful.
This has come as quite a profound shock to me, and required a remarkable turnaround in my betting approach. But I was facing having to return to corporate life on the back of my over persistence on a methodology that was no longer working for me. So I’m personally quite grateful I was at least intrigued enough by Harry’s pontifications to check it out for myself..
Surely Tooting,
If you forgive me for saying so.What you describe is just:
That when you made those original tissues, you made an error by under estimating the chance of the short priced horses.As you know a short priced, even an odds on chance, can be the True Value bet. Also, I believe when working out a 100% book it is neccessary not to allow for each way betting (effectively producing a 100% win only book). But then you can still bet each way if prefered.
Surely all Findlay does is specialise in backing odds on chances when he considers them true value. He is not talking about backing all odds on chances or even most. What I think he means is that some punters do not back long odds on because they do not consider them "value", where as they can in fact be "True Value".
Mark
The Ginger PreacherValue Is EverythingHF wins more money from football betting than horses. His card is marked by an absolute genius (and self made multi millionaire) at football betting I have known for forty years.
He has also made plenty of money over the years on the tennis particularly Federer winning numerous Wimbledon & US Open titles.
David,
Where is the blog I would like to have a look.
Cheers
HF wins more money from football betting than horses. His card is marked by an absolute genius (and self made multi millionaire) at football betting I have known for forty years.
I think this is the real truth. Isn’t he called the Lizard or something equally reptilian?
I’d like a decent bet he (HF) doesn’t make a living backing horses, including the Scoop 6. The fact that he’s playing it almost every week tells me he’s not getting value. Every time there’s a decent carryover I have a look and it only stacks up about 6 times a year. Unless my assessment of odds is totally wrong people sticking big sums in every week are net losers. Harry’s sh*t-or-bust attitude is refreshing (see today’s Post) but risking everything on a pool bet like this will eventually skin you.
On the favourite-longshot bias thing obviously you’ll go skint slower backing thin ‘uns but I bet you won’t find many proven long term profitable punters who back consistently at short prices. It’s just too hard to be sure you are getting value, whereas a horse at 4/1 that you think should be 9/4 allows far more margin for error. I’d bet everything I have that given long enough, Tooting’s project will end up in the red.But the traditional favourite/longshot bias – something that punters learned on day two at punting school in the pre-exchange days – does not hold when dealing with exchange betting, which is what carvills was referring to!
Oh yes it does!
What’s the expected loss on blindly backing 1000 odds-on shots on BF versus blindly backing a 1000 longshots? You’d lose three, four, five, six, seven times, lord knows what times as much doing the latter.
One thing i noticed and indeed another person who i know is that Harry Findlay seemed to be holding something back on Saturday morning when he was asked about how Denman was.
How do you mean?
I missed this interview
Just to clarify i do not know anyone who knows Harry Findlay.
A friend of mine who i see at the races and myself were chatting at Haydock on Saturday and we were both refering to the Morning Line Interview that they had with him after chatting about the Scoop 6.
We both agreed that when he was asked about Denman he didnt sound enthusiastic and you just got the impression that maybe he might know a bit more than he was letting on.
Wether it is true or not i do not know it was just us discussing about how he was talking that morning.
The fav-longshot bias hasn’t been eliminated on the exchanges but it’s a damn sight narrower than on the books
Snoopy Loopy returned at 33/1 SP ~41.0 BSP best ~75.0 a case in point
and for me the true value of the exchanges is the mark-up available on mid-market bookmakers odds between around 5/1 and 16/1
For those wondering what all this is about Adrian Massey has some excellent data on his site under the ‘odds analysis’ menu
Mr. Findlay has sold half of his share in his horses apart from Denman.
According to the Racing Post website.Is this a sign of anything?
Mark
Value Is EverythingRe Harry Findlay’s comment about Denman.
I interpreted it as more of a reluctance to say anything out of respect for the horse’s co-owner, Paul Barber. Findlay gave the impression that Barber does not like him shouting his mouth off about the horse, and as such decided to hold back saying too much out of deference to his partner.
Just my take.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
deleted
Strange that that was deleted. I merely implied that Mr Findlay is under no obligation to tell the press the truth. Claiming to have had a million pounds on a tennis player may make good copy, but it should be taken with a pinch of salt IN MY OPINION.
Where did all his money come from?
Especially to be able to buy so many horses and have million pound bets?
Writing a greyhound column?
Lots of odds on winners?
Anybody know?
- Total Posts 17716
It’s down to days like today I guess, bahram. The Findlay/Barber combination look to have another nice sort in Alfie Sherrin and it can’t be said that he went unbacked.
I think a few choice bets got him up and running.
Here’s one of ‘arry’s pearls of wisdom :
"It’s the biggest myth in racing! It’s the biggest myth in life!" he yells vehemently. "That is my golden rule. Do not be afraid to back odds-on. It’s a myth perpetrated by bookmakers and ignorant punters. Cowards! When people say they never bet odds-on what they’re really saying is they can’t count or they’re a coward. They’re afraid of the risk factor.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.