- This topic has 91 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ian,
I don’t disagree that 5/4 about what in effect is an even money shot is a value bet. But as ‘Jim’ says he fancies his chances of being able to predit the outcome, and in these circumstances your talking about value. If he can see something by the way the coin is tossed etc… He may by on a value 4/5 shot.
People get to hung up on value, before thinking about value, people should start picking winners and then consider the value of the bet. I simply will not have this idea that a losing bet can be a good bet – you failed to pick the winner, therefore you would have been better leaving your hard-earned bread in your bread bin. :cool:
Quote: from Sailing Shoes on 9:51 am on June 8, 2004[br] you failed to pick the winner, therefore you would have been better leaving your hard-earned bread in your bread bin.
…but that comment itself can only be made with hindsight, which isn’t a lot of help.
Rob
Robnorth,
I take your point. I’m just answering the individual question. A losing bet is never a good bet. I concede over a period of time, as a result of a series of similar selections, I don’t worry too much about the losers as long as my overall result is profit.
I still would rather not have backed any of the losers individually.
A run of results should be classed colectivley as one bet in this instance, so in that sense it would be a winning bet, not a losing one.<br>The coin toss is a bad example imo Ian, as you know the true odds to be evens, but in betting it can only ever be an opinion. Just out of curiosity, would you have more on a coin toss at 6/4 than at 5/4?
Grimes,
A bit of a wedge may help if you are laying a few in a lot of races,i can’t afford that kind of exposure at the moment.. but i believe that one can start with a modest bank of a couple of hundred and armed with a staking plan,lots of plans out there,you can then increase your liability,say start off at 5% of bank and build on that slowly,but i just jump in feet first,not much good with the old discipline thing and sticking to a plan.
I am looking into it though,would be a nice way of working from home :) .. at the mo i can often pick out three in a row to lose,and they do,but can’t seem to be happy with that and carry on,or like i said will see a horse coming in.. in the market, and woudn’t follow that blindly[well not often] but if i like the look of it as well,will back to win,some do,a lot don’t :(
<br>Hope this makes some sense,i have much to learn.
Ian, I would stake the same % of my bank regardless of price and be happy with the extra return for the same risk.
Its all just word play. I call a "possibly" unlucky bet, a bad bet because it lost me money and lowered my strike rate. Others call it a good bet because it "might" have won and they were in the ball park.<br>Where does that attitude get me? On to the next race and not dwelling on past results..<br>What does it teach me? Nothing. I’d know the horse is "potentially" good for a few more lengths etc, regardless of if I had backed it or not.
I wouldnt take the 1000/1 either. I’ll only place a bet if I think the selection will win, or return a profit, and I’m as sure as I can be about it. I wouldnt even have a daft tenner on it to be honest. I stick to a set percentage, if I knew a horse was a genuine 20/1 shot and you offered me 100/1 I’d turn the bet down. I’m equally concerned about my strike rate as I am value.
<br>
Yes, it makes sense, Jill. Thanks. And I hope you are very successful. Remember, though, even consummate professionals, like Alan Potts, have had losing years.
One thing I find, is that my natural optimism and high spirits tends to make me careless in terms of discipline, so I need to try and be miserable(!), when I’m doing my betting. There are so many tensions in the game, caution, but conviction, when the time is right, being just one.
I forgot to say, the main concern about the ante post laying/betting I was talking about, is of course, the possibility of the horse being withdrawn – never mind how much its price contracted.
(Edited by Grimes at 11:32 pm on June 8, 2004)<br>
(Edited by Grimes at 11:35 pm on June 8, 2004)
- Total Posts 17716
A woman goes into the grocers and buys a bag of plums for £1.<br> The next day she goes into a different grocers and gets 2 bags for £1.<br> The second lot are unfit to eat, so she throws them away.<br> At least she got value?
Although firmly in the ‘value’ camp I absolutely agree with CPGagie that I’d never take 100/1 about a 20/1 shot as mentally I need a decent strike rate to stay sane. However I’d bite his hand off if I could lay it at 50’s straight away ! ;)
No – she thought she got value. Big difference between getting it and thinking you’re getting it. She sounds like a mug to me.
She should have taken the second lot back and got a refund.
<br>Moral of the story… stick to a grocer that you know and trust.Shopping around can be a waste of time/money/petrol/shoe leather.
Nick said, "Although firmly in the ‘value’ camp I absolutely agree with CPGagie that I’d never take 100/1 about a 20/1 shot as mentally I need a decent strike rate to stay sane".
I think that *must* be what the pro meant when he said a while back that he wondered whether – or perhaps thought that – too much emphasis was being placed on value. Not so much as staying sane, though, as making dough even in the long term, since there must be many overpriced horses each day, which nevertheless ought to be overlooked in favour of other shorter shots presenting value.
There are horse priced up at 100 or 150/1 in some big handicaps, at least ante post; but I wouldn’t touch them if they were offered at 500/1 or 5000/1! Even if I were a youngster, I’d probably die before picking up winnings.
As someone said a little earlier, identifying your fancies first, then considering the matter of value, is surely what even the most rigorously value-minded pro does.
(Edited by Grimes at 9:05 pm on June 9, 2004)<br>
(Edited by Grimes at 9:06 pm on June 9, 2004)
Why does it have to be a shorter priced selection. I’ve been equally confident about 20/1 priced horses as I have been 3/1 priced. They’ve both been long odds on in my mind. Get the strike rate right and the value takes care of itself, ok, thats not a hard rule, but you get my drift.
Yes, CPGagie, I get your point, and agree with you completely, but I was comparing realistic shorter shots (as opposed to realistic long shots) with 100/1+, shots, for example, as such shorter shots occur more frequently (than the realistic long shots). And the matter of a good strike rate was the issue I was conceding… if you get my drift. All very convoluted (even by my standards). Sorry.
I,for one, understood you perfectly Grimes, no point in backing a horse at,let’s say, 100/1,cos others think it should be shorter,if it’s got little chance of winning then no value at 100/1 ,or indeed 1000./1. .. yes?
Just to clear up a point, when I said ‘I’d never take 100/1 about a 20/1 shot’ that’s to say that I’d never take 100/1 about a horse that I think should be 20/1.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.