- This topic has 175 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Aaron:
When I bet it does not matter about SP’s. You say 22.8% of 3/1 SP’s win, why is this significant? It is obvious it will be less than 25%, horses thought by the bookies odds compiler to have a 25% chance will be put in at either 100/30 (23.1%) around 2% mark up, or 3%, 7/2 (22.2%) if it is unexposed.
It does not matter if only 22.8% of 3/1 chances win. Each 3/1 shot is an individual, if you believe any 3/1 shot has more than a 25% chance it should be backed. If you are correct enough times then you will make a profit. Of course there have been occaisions when I have not worked the form out properly and make a mistake, everyone makes mistakes. Backing a 3/1 shot that did not have a better than 25% chance. e.g. if I have not taken enough notice of an out of form trainer etc. But these I hope and think are far and few between. So I suppose the answer is yes it is possible but highly unlikely.
Sorry zoso, I am not agreeing with you. I am not saying backing a 3/1 loser is a mistake. If the evidence (form)before the race suggests to me a better than 25% chance, it is a good bet,I am still a bit confused Aaron, so if I still have not answered your question let me know.
Value Is EverythingZoso,
Hmmmm. You are that good Zoso?
Your information is that good, you know everything about every horse in a race not to need a form book. I know there are many ways to get value and make a profit but…
Wow!
How did you get these knowledgeable connections in so many yards?
And to be able to make a profit without winning 16.67% of your 5/1 bets etc. Unbelieveable, I am not worthy.
You are better than Alan Potts, Dave Nevison, Steve Mellish, Eddie Freemantle and John Noakes put together.
Value Is EverythingZoso,
Hmmmm. You are that good Zoso?
Your information is that good, you know everything about every horse in a race not to need a form book.
Wow!
How did you get these knowledgeable connections in so many yards? None of your business
And to be able to make a profit without winning 16.67% of your 5/1 bets etc. Unbelieveable, I am not worthy.-Your talking baloney, all I said is that the table is purely mathematical and if your selections arent up to scratch you are not getting value
You are better than Alan Potts, Dave Nevison, Steve Mellish, Eddie Freemantle and John Noakes put together.- Maybe I am better than all of the mentioned names, maybe Im not fit to lace there shoelaces, you have no basis to make an assumption either way.Ginger
"When I bet it does not matter about SP’s. You say 22.8% of 3/1 SP’s win, why is this significant?"
I know you don’t bet at SP. I was using the SP as a factual example of percentage strike rates. I was trying to highlight that it would be possible with regard to the 77.2% of losers, you had calculated all of them as being even money shots. It could also be possible that you calculated the 22.8% of 3/1 winners at 5/1 and therefore didn’t bet them.
Your statement "Each 3/1 shot is an individual, if you believe any 3/1 shot has more than a 25% chance it should be backed. If you are correct enough times then you will make a profit.
I guess that is the crux of the matter, enough times ? You still have to pick the winner.
What happens by the way if you have priced up a race and you have 2 or 3 horses that are underpriced ?
Uh!
Did not expect you to name your sources Zoso just wondered how you got these contacts in so many yards?
Yep, the table is mathematical, did I say it was not? True value is mathematical. If you are saying now ,you do need to win more than 16.67% of your 5/1 bets then you do agree with me. That value (in table of odds and chances terms) is important in making an over all profit. Of course you need winners, one particular 5/1 shot winner or loser means nothing as long as you win more than 16.67% winners at 5/1. (Sorry to others fed up of 16.67% but he still does not get it).
If you have been a professional gambler for 5 years without a form book, you are better than the said investors. They need at least one.If you are so confident of your argument why are you so evasive of any question I ask?
Please, go back on my posts and do me the courtesy of answering all my questions, as I have yours Zoso.Value Is EverythingAaron
As everyone knows by now I bet on horses I believe are value.
Any horse I think has a 25% chance, will only be backed if available at bigger than 3/1 (at the biggest price I can get above 3/1).
Obviously, I am expecting to win 25% of my bets that I consider have a 25% chance of winning.
Because I have taken prices greater than 3/1 for every horse I believe has a 25% chance, a 25% strike rate on my 25% chances will automatically make a profit. Of course this will only happen if I am a good judge.If there are two, three or more horses available at better prices than my 100% book I will back all of them if more than 1% bigger. It is in my opinion wise to have a margin for error. But it will depend on how much value is there and the recent record of the trainer (in or out of form). If there are three good value horses in one race, I might back the one who is 5% better than my tissue as the main bet. With one who is 3% better half a bet and one 2% better just a saver. But that is just a guide.
Value Is EverythingGinger how do you place your daily bets? Do you go to the betting shop, call them in or go racing and if you do how often?.
I
Used to go racing about twice a week but have cut down recently. I go to Goodwood, Newbury and Salisbury on the flat with an occaisional visit to Ascot, Sandown and Bath. Over jumps, Newbury, Wincanton and Fontwell with an occaisional visit to Ascot, Sandown and Cheltenham. With racecourse and fuel prices on the increase will be cutting down this year. £15 for the quality of racing at Fontwell is too much even with £3 taken off that with the Racegoers Club and am against summer jumping. Have fewer bets on course these days, those I do have are often saver bets.
Most are placed on Betfair the nigh before racing, or with 12 telephone bookmaker accounts.
I don’t bet every day. When I do I usually work out between 3 and 5 races, backing on average 2 or 3 bets in per race.
Though did back 11 horses in last years Grand National, beginning in February when the weights were published. This year have already backed two, Bewleys Berry and Simon.Value Is EverythingGinger
I’ve read your posts with interest and I’m just curious about a few things. First of all, I’m genuinely curious, this is not a preface to me trying to be clever or pull you up about anything…
Anyway, I make my books less than 100%, simply because I want to make sure that every price which I mark up in a race is, in my opinion, worth taking. If you make a 100% book, do you look for horses bigger than your tissue. You’ve mentioned 1%, is that real? That really leaves you very little margin for error. However, I’m only using small stakes so perhaps I can afford to play about a bit more.
My other question is the type of races. I only concentrate on specific races. Today for example, only the 410 at Taunton, I was unsuccessful by the way! I work full-time and therefore have to ‘target’ my races. I also use a method to exclude contenders, specifically in handicap races as this also cuts down on the work. Anyway, I’m curious to know.
By the way, although I use the Post website as a starter for decs etc, I subscribe to Raceform’s Jumps Form Book.. I love it.
Best wishes.
RobbieHi Robbie,
Nice to here you are trying to produce 100% books. Or rather, less than 100% books. It is a very good idea to start by using say a 90 or 95% book. Cutting down the number of bets and a bigger margin for error are a good thing. The 1% I mentioned was perhaps an over-simplification of what I do. In most cases, for my MAIN bet I would want 3% or more above my price to beat. If the horse is under 2/1 then better than 2% would usually be needed for even a saver bet. Though a big priced horse, say a 33/1 shot I rate as a 4% chance, would certainly be backed as a saver with just 1% difference (1 ½% for a main bet).
I find it easier to work out a race to 100% and then put in a margin for error, rather than work it out to 90 or 95% straight off. But that is a personal thing.
Specialising in certain races is also good. I have very few bets in poor quality racing. Poor quality racing bores me, other than Fontwell. Just can’t get interested in it, as well as being too difficult. I steer clear of all weather stuff and don’t care much for sprint handicaps. I tend to specialise in races on the round course at Goodwood. The better the quality of racing, the better I seem to do. It seems easier to work out the form, easier to find the victorious 3/1 shots as well as the 20/1 winners. These are also personal preferences, find out what you are good at and stick to it.
I don’t use Raceform, the Timeform perspective is my form book. But have just started reading Dave Nevison’s book and he uses Raceform interactive. It makes it a lot easier if you enjoy studying form.
Don’t really see how you can right off any horse even outsiders, they can effect the result even if they do not win. Any front runner can influence the pace of the race, and so who is going to be suited by how the race is run.Ginge
Value Is EverythingI had a few more thoughts on this never-ending subject today.
On the ginger approach (did you hear that gingers are dying out ginge
)Firstly I don’t believe it necessary to be able to work out the percentages for each price highly accurately in order to win at horseracing. I am aware of gingers famous table but I can’t say it occupies my thoughts very often. Value in horse racing is such a nebulous thing as not to be quantifiable as exactly as a mathematical table. For me anyway it’s an instinct thing; after doing a race I’ll have a horse or horses I may want to back. I then look at the prices and know pretty much immediately if there’s a bet or if there may be if one drifts later- I don’t automatically think my horse has a 28% chance of winning- I don’t know anyone’s brain that works like that. Most of the horses in my race wouldn’t interest me at any price (within reason)
The value perception comes from how much I know about the race- the more unique information I think I have, the more likely it is that I’ll be confident in my perception of value. This perception of value may come in reverse- if I’m confident to oppose a horse taking out a good chunk of the book then my confidence in making a bet on an opponent increases.
I think the division in approaches is between "tissue" compilers who back whatever prices are out of line with their estimate and "feel" punters who from experience know when a price offered is too big about their selection but won’t back certain horses whatever the price offered. In my view both approaches are equally valid- the tissue-men tend to have lower margins and higher turnover, like Dave Nevison. Personally midweek when time is limited I tend to have certain horses to back and price determines if I bet or not. If I’m going racing especially at the Festivals I’m far more likely to attempt a tissue and to have more bets on more horses in more races.I would have to say that I would pick out my horses almost exactly like that CH, but then also I would generally look at a days racing and try to find horses that i would consider to be value, i wouldnt be bothered what races those were in, and i could happily avoid the bigger races of the day if i didnt see anything i liked.
I would also tend to jump on a gamble if i still thought there was value to be had, but then depending on the stable instigating the gamble, it would sometimes cause me to review my outlook on the race (eg. Ive always found that when barry hills or alan jarvis back their horses heavily they tend to go very well, to the extent that it adds a whole new angle to the race, and i tend to jump on part way along as ive always tended to do well off them in the past, gary moore on the other hand will back his and four out of five times they will run a shocker, just from my experience)
This thread has gone off track somewhat!
As the old saying goes ‘getting value does not put food on the plate but finding winners does’.
Whilst it can be argued that obtaining the best price on the winners you find is the daily battle.
Around 10 years ago when I was part of a small group getting money on over here on behalf on some Irish bookmakers (covered already on here) many horses from some of the shrewdest Lambourn and Newmarket yards.Many were having their first run.
So basically the tissue prices were all guess work, there was no known form and the horses that were backed was down to sharp trainers and some owners knowing what was expected.
So how could any jounalist, racing pundit or any member of the general public know what was the ‘value’ horse?
Many bookmakers never knew either!The one that did know some of the time
was Barry Dennis and despite his claims on here recently on how he is one of the top bookmakers I got banned from backing on course with him over 10 years ago.This is a bit like the current Tony Martin gambles as Tony has said on many occasions that he only tells a few that need to be told. Only Tony will know exactly where he thinks the value is.
Everyone else is guessing!On Berts Blog the blog of the betfair chairman he mentioned the other day he recieved an e mail from one of his trainers telling him what ones to back. Although Andrew was good enough to post this info up before the race with this type of info one just backs blindly with no thought of are we getting overall value or not but by employing the likes of the exchanges one could gain specific value by attempting to obtain the best market price.
On the Systems thread there is the simplest of sytems and the general consensus is that overall it will fail due to the staking plan but in less than one month it has made £225.99 and another variation of it has made £59.76 in less than a week.
However it does find winners and also directs you in the type of races where not to lay the jolly and that’s what is all about.In a previous post on this thread Seagull, I said that unique knowledge of some of the factors involved in the outcome of a race gives you confidence that you are getting value. Inside information is just another kind of unique knowledge- you know the horse is trained for a particular race and is trying its best, something other punters don’t know. You are therefore more likely (but not certain) to be getting value. The market reacts quickly to events and you yourself have experienced this with Jim Best- I doubt one of his horses with a chance will ever be offered at 100/1 again, and the prices of his horses contracted as he had more winners, making your inside information less valuable.
As for your point about Tony Martin, he and Barney Curley are my favourite trainers as I’ve spent a long time studying what they do and my "guesses" are usually not far out with both of them- they thankfully do still fool most of the people most of the time!As for your point about Tony Martin, he and Barney Curley are my favourite trainers as I’ve spent a long time studying what they do and my "guesses" are usually not far out with both of them- they thankfully do still fool most of the people most of the time!
I dont know anything about Tony Martin and tend to avoid his runners, I found Barney Curley to be one of the easiest trainers around to read though. It always made me laugh when just about everybody in the racing world used to say never try and guess Barney Curley.
Seagull
Getting winners does not necessarily put food on the table but getting value certainly does.
As I have said:
Any horse I work out as a 25% chance of winning, I only back if better than 3/1.
Obviously I am expecting to win 25% of my bets that I rate as 25% chances.
Provided I win 25% (or more) of those bets I get value and make a profit.
If I win less than 25% of those bets then I do not make a profit.
(Actually, 22% might just be good enough. If I win 22% of my bets I believe have a 25% chance, but with an average priced winner of better than 7/2. Probably best to ignore this as it might confuse the issue).
Obviously if I win less than 25% of my bets that I rate as 25% chances, then I have not obtained value.
Therefore if a punter gets value he makes a profit and can put food on the table.
If a punter does not obtain value he does not make a profit and can not put food on the table.Assuming level stakes.
Say a punter does not back value horses, instead backing horses he thinks have the best chance of winning. He may well achieve a strike rate of say 33%, but this does not mean he makes a profit. He needs an average priced winner of bigger than 2/1, if he does not achieve this he will not make a profit. Where as a value punter with a strike rate just half as good 16.5%, will make a profit if he achieves an average priced winner of better than 5/1.A value punter will probably achieve a strike rate less than someone who bets on horses he believes have the best chance of winning. But true value punters are far more likely to make an over all profit. What many “best chanceâ€
Value Is EverythingSeagull,
You say only Tony Martin knows if his horse is value, everyone else is guessing.
Tony Martin may be the only one who knows how good his horse is. But, unless Tony Martin has studied the form and knows all the inside information about every other horse in the field, then he too is guessing. Some other trainer may have laid a horse out for the race. How good other peoples horses are has an enormous effect on whether one particular horse is or is not value.Value Is Everything
)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.