- This topic has 91 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Value is one thing, but judgement of any runner at a longish price must include a hefty proportion of imponderables and pure guesswork/luck. Its not my game…
In manyways i am not personally a "gambler" as such but more of a punter and that does perhaps make me conservative (small c) in so far as I prefer to back runners where i feel that enough factors have fallen into place.
The value comes from putting the price against those factors, but at the same time not getting so hung up that decent punts are missed at what is perhaps not seemingly the perfect price on offer.
Nothing new there i suppose, but in terms of losing best, i think you have to think why there was a possible misjudgement and take the lessons on board.
I think the value has to be assessed as a percentage to be of any relevance. The 100/1 shot that’s available at 20’s is a good example of what I would call an irrelevance.
100/1 = 0.9% .. 20/1 = 4.7%  …  4.7 – 0.9 = 3.6% advantage
As prices get shorter the percentages are greater between price bands, so if you weren’t betting at any less than 8% advantage, for example you would be looking for 2/1 shot on your book on offer at 3/1 or more. To get 8% on a 100/1 shot you would have to be getting at about 10/1 on your book.
Saying that, I do think value is over stated … strike rate is more important and keeping out of the long losing runs.
Quote: from Seagull on 5:28 am on June 10, 2004[br]Jilly<br>Thanks for those words of wisdom I have told my partner the next time she goes shopping for plums she should ask the shop keeper if she can have give his plums a good feel first.:o
I always do that Seagull,and find that i can have as many plums,or whatever else i fancy from the shop,all for free :wink:<br>
Yep, Jill, because although I think it’s insane not to consider value, because nobody can achieve a profitable strike rate without factoring value into your financial approach, it is also a matter of common observation that known hacks at 100/1+, when running in good class races, ought to be 500,000/1+. because they won’t win, and their like almost certainly never have. Also, without inside information, long-priced winners in smaller races are hazardous to bet on, whatever their theoretical superiority. So odds about a horse at a small meeting which may look great value are likely to have a lot more of the lottery about them than is apparent. Sometimes, Sporting Odds, who usually offer the best bookies’ odds seem to be in the know about such animals and offer an outrageous price. Ignore it. <br> <br>I don’t mean, either, that coups/scams have never been staged. There are the fabled shaggy-coated Kiwi horses that went to Oz looking like donkeys and won a good class race. But I was talking about horses that have proved over a long period they don’t know how to win even modest races, and for some reason figure in the AP prices for a good-quality race.
If you are a layer, there must be a fair few  horses which were absolute crackers in the past, but now, though still quite young, no longer know how to win; or more probably don’t want to know how to, or are carrying some physical weakness not known to the connections. I was wondering if Vintage Premium might have numbered among the latter. And just lost patience with looking after himself. Probably not, but I have heard of such occurrences.
Anyway where did the idea arise that a concern for "value" odds, as well as a good strike-rate, are somehow mutually exclusive; either one or the other? It’s barmy. ÂÂÂ
(Edited by Grimes at 12:14 am on June 11, 2004)
<br>(Edited by Grimes at 12:18 am on June 11, 2004)<br>
(Edited by Grimes at 12:24 am on June 11, 2004)
50/1 about Local Poet looks good value, in the William Hill H’cap. No don’t laugh…
Well, perhaps you should, having looked at Wanchai Lad’s form!
(Edited by Grimes at 5:24 pm on June 11, 2004)<br>
(Edited by Grimes at 8:44 pm on June 11, 2004)
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from Grimes on 9:53 pm on June 10, Anyway where did the idea arise that a concern for "value" odds, as well as a good strike-rate, are somehow mutually exclusive; either one or the other? It’s barmy. ÂÂÂ
If one only ever backed winning selections, then value would not even be a consideration.<br> It is then axiomatic that value only becomes a factor to cover the losers, and the more losers one selects, the more they need to depend on value.<br> If the aspiring punter really wishes to improve his/her betting, it then follows that their efforts should be concentrated on selecting a greater percentage of winners, rather than attempting to paper over the truth with value.<br> When the day’s ‘good thing’ finishes down the field, and the punter turns away feeling he has been mugged, he has, but only by his own inadequate approach.<br> That is not the same as bad luck in running, the successful punter can live with that in the knowledge that he made the right choice initially.<br> What he does not have to live with is his own incompetence, and by concentrating on imroving his selections, he will gradually build his confidence to the level where his selections are indeed good things.<br> Surely that is a better way to learn than accepting the status quo?<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.