- This topic has 96 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
- Posts
If you think another horse will win the race?
I have seen many times on different forums that people believe X will win but wont back him because he/she is too short in the betting, then go onto back another in the idea its a bigger price so its the value. Now maybe i am getting to old for this game, but how is it value if you believe something else will win?Hope you get the gist of my question
now here is my question Jack, if you think he is the likeliest winner will you be looking to back against him, or will you sit a just watch? OK I can get it’s the national i’ll have a bet, but if it was a ‘normal’ chase would you back against the horse you think will win because of its price?
that question is to any TRF punter, dont want to clog the national thread up so if it gets busy i’ll ask question to be moved
Moving this here, but in response to your question.
I think Tiger Roll is the likeliest winner as he’s been there and done it, but is he a 3s shot? not at all for me. The been there + done it is obviously very important and that’s partly why he’s shorter this year combined with looking better than ever. In a normal chase i wouldn’t fancy him (honestly) as a 3/1 shot vs 11/1 shot Rathvinden, giving him 5pds. Rathvinden has very good form, and is from the TV screen anyway, quite a compact horse quite like Tiger roll. He’s won over 4miles + was competing with the top novices of last year + they look decent!
I’d happily take Tiger Roll on this year even if he was 5/1- i just think the 9lbs is a massive test for him.
The general value question is something highly debated in racing, and i think it’s important to consider it. I might think Tiger Roll is the likeliest winner, but is he a 3/1 shot in a 40 runner race with other very good stayers?
Twitter: Jackh1092
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!It’s a fairly straightforward concept. Let me give you a simple two-‘horse’ example:
It’s Wimbledon and Roger Federer is drawn against Milos Raonic. A great champ versus a younger performer, high-class and proven on grass. I reckon the match will be close-ish but I think Fed is going to win. My selection to win therefore is Federer.
However, I see it as a 2-5 Federer, 9-4 Raonic game. When the betting comes out, I am amazed to see that online bookies Arthur Skint & Co are going 1-33 Federer, 20-1 Raonic. I now have to back Raonic.
I still believe Federer is most likely to win but not to the extent that his opponent should be 20-1 (or that he should be a ludicrous 1-33).
This exaggerated-for-effect example is the entire concept of value betting in a nutshell.
Mike
now i can see where you are coming from Betlarge, if I cant split two boxers and had 5/6 each of two in my book, then if the books went 9/4 one of them I would have a bet, as I couldn’t find a winner before the event
Even if you COULD find a winner beforehand (say you had one at 4/6 and you were obviously leaning strongly towards him) you should back whichever was a longer price than your assessment suggests it should be. If the 4/6 shot was your likeliest winner but he was 4/7 you shouldn’t back him. If your assessment if the other boxer was, say, 13/8 but you were getting 2/1 then you should back him/her even if you thought him the least likely winner.
As Cormack implies, the sole factor of whether you make money at gambling is your ability to judge the correct odds for any event happening. Then you simply back the selection(s) where you are offered bigger odds than you assess should be the case.
If your assessments of the odds are correct (and that’s the very, very difficult bit!) it’s mathematically impossible for you to not make a profit in the long term.
Mike
Back the longer priced one EW – why not? Experts reckon EW punting is for wimps or because you’re not confident about a selections chances. If you back 20 x 10/1 shots at EW one fifth, it shouldn’t be impossible to get 6 placed minimum(30%)returning 21 points and with any luck, more placed and the odd winner to boot. Backing too short is difficult anyway in the long run, esp odds on.
now i can see where you are coming from Betlarge, if I cant split two boxers and had 5/6 each of two in my book, then if the books went 9/4 one of them I would have a bet, as I couldn’t find a winner before the event
Spot on.
Mike
Backing too short is difficult anyway in the long run, esp odds on
There’s absolutely no connection between value and backing at short prices/odds-on. Indeed, an odds-on bet could be the best-value bet of your lifetime.
Again, using Federer as an example, if he was drawn against the British number 12 (whoever that is!) and a bookie went 10-11 about him, I’d be calling my bank.
Mike
i know about %’s i been betting for over 45 years, my question is if you think A is the winner why back another horse because you dont like the price of what you perceive to be the winner(madness in my opinion).
You keep saying you “know about %’s”, nwalton; and then procede to demonstrate that you do not.
Sorry but if having a full understanding of percentages you simply would not ask such a question.If thinking a horse has a 25% chance of winning (fair 3/1) that also must mean it has a 75% chance of losing (chance of winning + chance of losing must = 100%). ie Even if the punter does NOT “think A is the winner” it in fact has a much MUCH better chance of LOSING but is still worth backing @ 4/1.
…And equally: If a punter thought any other horse‘s chance was under-estimated by the market, why shouldn’t he/she back that one either instead of or as well as the 4/1 shot? Any 25/1 shot ONLY needs to be thought of as a better than 4% chance to be a good bet.
If remembering rightly, I backed Auroras Encore to win the Grand National because I believed it was a fair 33/1 shot (3% chance of winning and 97% chance of losing). 119/1 made it a good bet.
Every horse has a price to back it, no matter if there’s a 4/1 fav (like Tiger Roll) with a much better chance than all the rest.
Value Is EverythingSurely first factor is finding the winner,or what you think will win. Or are we saying that is to simplistic?
I really believe value is overused saying in racing now days.You here people say Frankel will win the gns but so and so is the value bet, I just don’t get that if you think Frankel will win. If the price is not your cup of tea, don’t bet.True betlarge if you could find one and I understand that value is in the eye of the beholder. I recall that before the 2016 US election one bookie paid out £800,000 on Clinton before polling day and a lady punter had £481,000 on her as well. All the experts called that one wrong as well as the referendum, so imo that’s where true value lies in questioning expert analysis.
Ginger and you keep on telling people what they know and don’t know, my family have been in the book making game for years, my son held a . License as well So please don’t tell me what I know and don’t know. I have got by for nearly 30 years doing this for a living( not jet setting life but ok) so please again don’t tell me I don’t know about percentages.
Mike’s point on the long term is key. If I bet just a handful of times a year I probably would back the horse I thought would win. But making sound bets throughout the year on overpriced horses removes the need to nail an individual winner. You will win in the end.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.