- This topic has 175 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
The term "value" has no quantifiable definition, because it means different things to different people.
Value is in the eye of the beholder, and you cannot really argue right or wrong about such an ethereal concept.
Value is a completely benign concept, invented along with the bounce factor to give somebody a sense of self-importance and enable them to feel wholly wonderful about themselves when talking down to fellow punters (as an accountant with a first class degree in Maths, I think I can just about grasp numbers).
So let’s put value to the test, shall we Gingertipster?
I propose a challenge, to be held over the course of 3 months and based in the competitions section of the forum (should that be OK with Corm).
We, myself and you, start with a bank of £1000. We each put up selections using our own methods, with you stating your market for the race and how you would go about deciding upon which horse to back, and how much to put on (I understand that you would need to see the actual market for this, but that’s not a problem).
At the end of 3 months we see how valuable ‘value’ really is, and can prolong your agony further if necessary.
Obviously we’d need to set some firm rules, but are you up for it? Loser goes to the Derby dressed as Scooby Doo…
Agreed, Grasshopper.
It is all semantics. I attempted a definition relevant to horse racing about 4 pages back, but the discussion is trundling on.
The candle sinks and I am ready to depart.
LGR
That would prove who gets the best value over a three month period, whether or not they deem they selections to be ‘value’ selections.
Rob
Just to say that a high priest and legend of value betting Allan Woods died at the weekend. Woods won well over $500 million on the Hong Kong tote since he started back in 1984 with Bill Benter.
I can’t for the life of me understand your logic Ginger. You talk about throwing dice and having 200 bets……..then you say if you bet often you will lose.
You talk about 13/8 shots must have 38% chance of winning or better to be value.
please explain to me how exactly do you get to 38%.
If you can’t answer that in a sensible manner then your whole theory is worthless.
That’s the one question you must be able to answer as your whole theory is based around it.
So lets have it…………….thanks
Fist
The reason why a horse at 13/8 should only be backed if you believe it has a better than 38% chance of winning is simply because you need to win 38% (actually 38.1%) of your 13/8 bets to break even.
A £1 bet at 13/8 wins £1.63 (£1.62 ½p to be exact) plus your £1 stake returning £2.63 (£2.62 ½p)
If you have 100 bets of £1 all at 13/8, staking £100 in all.
If you win 38 of those 100 bets (38%).
You get back 38 x £2.63 = £99.94. (38.1% x £2.62 ½p would get back £100.01).
Therefore to be worth backing a horse at 13/8 you must believe it has a better than 38.1% chance of winning.Value Is EverythingGinger
you wrote "I say again, it does not matter if this horse wins or loses, as long as he wins more than 20% of his bets at 4/1. If he is a good judge of probabilities he will make a profit."
But if he can win more than 20% of his bets at 4/1 he’s going to make a profit anyway regardless of what price he thinks it should be.TRUE
At the end of the day if he backs a hundred 4/1 chances he will need them to win 20 races to break even. TRUE
If out of that sample of a hundred he thinks there are 50 of those that should be less than 4/1 on your advice he should back them and would win,EH? If he thinks anything has a less than 20% chance he should not be backing it at 4/1.
however there is still the probablility that those fifty will fall into the 80 beaten 4/1 shots. Right ?EH? Don’t quite understand your last bit.
Value Is EverythingAt the end of 3 months we see how valuable ‘value’ really is
That would prove who gets the best value over a three month period, whether or not they deem they selections to be ‘value’ selections.
In that case this is truly a hollow argument, rob, and a complete waste of time.
reductio ad absurdum
sodomy non sapiensI can’t for the life of me understand your logic Ginger. You talk about throwing dice and having 200 bets……..then you say if you bet often you will lose.
You talk about 13/8 shots must have 38% chance of winning or better to be value.
please explain to me how exactly do you get to 38%.
If you can’t answer that in a sensible manner then your whole theory is worthless.
That’s the one question you must be able to answer as your whole theory is based around it.
So lets have it…………….thanks
Fist
The reason why a horse at 13/8 should only be backed if you believe it has a better than 38% chance of winning is simply because you need to win 38% (actually 38.1%) of your 13/8 bets to break even.
A £1 bet at 13/8 wins £1.63 (£1.62 ½p to be exact) plus your £1 stake returning £2.63 (£2.62 ½p)
If you have 100 bets of £1 all at 13/8, staking £100 in all.
If you win 38 of those 100 bets (38%).
You get back 38 x £2.63 = £99.94. (38.1% x £2.62 ½p would get back £100.01).
Therefore to be worth backing a horse at 13/8 you must believe it has a better than 38.1% chance of winning.Ok that’s fine understand this I lay out 10,000 quid on 13/8 shots and If I bet 38 winners I have won 1 pound……plus I have to make sure 100 horses have a better than 38% chance of winning………..I think that’s a wee bit too much trouble for me.
I would take my 1000 pounds and wait until the right horse comes along and armed with either a little bit of info or the fact I think he’s a class above his rivals and have 500 quid on…………if he wins good, I wait for the next one to run and have a grand on……if he wins I have won a watch………if the first one loses and the second one wins (500 quid on) I am still in front.
The day I can’t dig out two 11/8 to 13/8 winners (or one winner from 2) I will pack in gambling……..and I wont be spending thousands of hours making up spread sheets to anyone to prove that point………I think your playing roulette with horses Ginger…………you seem to be saying back any 5 horses that are 8/1 and if one wins you win………I’m sorry but thats got nothing to do with the sport of horses racing and the fun you get from betting a winner or even watching a race…..but never mind each to his own and I do understand what you are saying always have
)……..I would love to know something? If this works so well you must be absolutely loaded why don’t you accept LGR’s challenge?…..you do have a bet and it it is only 1000 pounds………and would be a lot of fun for everyone..Reet,
I have been using 2 decimal points simply because had I said something like “you need to win more than 5% (instead of 4.76%) of bets at 20/1 to make a profitâ€Value Is Everythingand would be a lot of fun for everyone..
Bless you Fist of Fury but do you know, I really don’t think it would be.
I do so love these value threads. Everyone is SO very angry but no-one quite knows why, like a party of drunken tramps who simply run out of expletives and cheap cider and fall asleep in their respective shop doorways.
Or perhaps like so many Father Jacks slumbering in their festering chairs, waking suddenly with an angry cry of, ‘Value! Arse! Mordin!’ before slumping back into unconciousness.
So, are we all done yet?
Can’t believe a perfectly respectable Father Ted quote has been ruined by the swear filter. I suppose ‘Feck!’ isn’t allowed either.
Edit. Typical. I can say Feck but I can’t say Arse. Feckin censors.
And so, after a lot of huffing and puffing, it ends a goalless draw, like every other value thread.
I suspect there will be a replay at some point.
)……..I would love to know something? If this works so well you must be absolutely loaded why don’t you accept LGR’s challenge?…..you do have a bet and it it is only 1000 pounds………and would be a lot of fun for everyone..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.