- This topic has 86 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
If you can’t find a winner in 10 bets, should you be betting? Especially if you’re backing at the top of the market – even money to 4/1 shall we say.
At what point do you admit that you’re not much good at picking winners?
A quite staggering ignorance of basic maths and probability (see any 10-year-old for further details).
Mike
Well I’m 65 years old, and I would appreciate an explanation.
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysWell I’m 65 years old, and I would appreciate an explanation.
Sure. Here’s a perfectly feasible random sequence of 20 bets, with 5 winners at a notional £100:
L L L L L L L L L L W3-1 W10-1 L L W2-1 L W4-1 W7-2 L
Stake: £2,000
Return: £2,750
Profit: £750
Profit on T/O: 37.5% (outstanding!)However, apparently it would have been better if you’d stopped after the first 10 bets as "If you can’t find a winner in 10 bets, should you be betting?"
Mike
Good stuff CR and sobering reading for the uninitiated: counter-intuitive but that’s probability epitomised
Familiar stats but it nevertheless still amazes me that actual strike-rates in horseracing – events that many would regard as ‘random’ events due to the untold number of variables both forecastable before the event and unforecastable during it – converge towards theoretical probability less a bit of layers’ take (over-round) i.e. The market taken as a whole gets it ‘right’
The figures above also illustrate, despite the small sample here, the long-known fact (perhaps not known to many) that ‘long’ odds-on tend to be underbet, with several-strike rates in excess of the expected
As for losing-runs: wasn’t it a 25+ run that sent Mark Coton over the edge and down to a cave in Cornwall? The dreaded lengthy LRs are a test of mettle but are a necessary part of punting; Coton pound-to-a-penny knew this but irrational anguish got the better of rational reasoning…
…of mice and men
Mr Woolf, you’re wearily-classic post just emphasises a thought I’ve long held: that the teaching of basic probability was quietly removed from the GCSE/O Level maths curriculum due to parliamentary lobbying by bookmakers
Speaking from a personal level; if I can’t pick at least one winner from 10 selections, then I would seriously consider packing the whole betting thing in, post haste !
Be selective, be prudent, don’t bet just for the sake of it, don’t panic, and don’t bet every day. Narrow the field down by elimanating the no hopers and concentrating on horses with form in the book and who are currently in form.
My longest losing streak from actual horse racing bets this year ( not virtual Forum based competition bets
) is four ( all flat racing 
).Logic tells you that if you favour the longer shots, then the chance of a long losing streak is significantly hightened.
My advice – stick ( mainly ) to the shorties.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Himself
For those with the right temperament your approach is admirable. However, even if you are backing horses which you would expect to have a 50% chance of success GT’s chart suggests it’s not unreasonable to expect a losing run around the 8 to 9 mark now and then.
The secret is to gauge the size of your bank to cover for reasonably expected losing runs. If your longest ‘expected losing run’ then it would seem reasonable to allow for two such runs separated by a winner, and to have a bank of 20 points to cover. Bank size would increase on average price at which you are backing and hence allowing for increased length of ‘expected losing run’.
If you have a big enough bank, and are betting money that you can ‘afford to lose’ then it does take some of the pressure off a little. Failing all else if you can’t get out of lengthy losing run then select without betting for a while just to regain confidence in your own selecting ability.
Rob
Agree totally Rob,
With a 50% strike rate a punter can expect a losing run of:
10 (on average) once in 2048 races.
15 once in 65,536
20 once in 2,097,1522048 races for a 10 race losing run might sound a lot/not worth bothering with. But for any punter betting in 500 races a year it’ll be on average once in around 4 years.
A punter with a 20% strike rate can expect a 10 race losing run once in just 47 races.
Value Is EverythingA point is reached in a sequence of losing bets when the retrieval of lost stakes, never mind profit, is too onerous a task especially when having finally backed a winner to reduce the deficit, your next three selections lose. Inevitably, your strike rate will be inadequate over a season to record a profit having seen returns from 25 or 30 bets. The time to end that particular method has been reached.
I’ve backed a maximum of 13 losers in a single streak and too late concluded that my methods are essentially merde or that there are forces at work denying the natural progress of high grade horses.
Before the advent of the exchanges, I would confidently expect at least one winner in 7 bets and would be unhappy to have been denied a win until the 7th selection crossed the line in front.
I do not bet these days, far too many shock winners romping home ahead of the better rated and well supported runners.
I’ve backed a maximum of 13 losers in a single streak
Depending on price you’re clearly a better punter than me then, as I hit that kind of sequence quite regularly.
I’m on a losing run of ten as I write this.
Mike
I’ve backed a maximum of 13 losers in a single streak
Depending on price you’re clearly a better punter than me then, as I hit that kind of sequence quite regularly.
I’m on a losing run of ten as I write this.
Mike
Let’s assume for argument’s sake that you’re £100 down at level stakes and you’re backing from even money to 4/1, you’re going to need a winning streak soon to stay interested, at least I would want a winner in the next three or four bets and further winners in the next 6 bets or that method would be unceremoniously dumped.
If you are not betting simply for fun and are trying to do it in a professional manner you need to look long term and if you can’t take a losing sequence of ten then you’re really in the wrong game.
Having managed a betting office for ten years the most common mistake punters, in general, make is backing favourite after favourite. Fair enough, it probably results in less runs of losers but because they are netting less winnings per successful race, they are probably up cack street if they hit a short run of losers. I can’t recall any of those punters coming out ahead in the long term, although they would get good individual days along the way. My mate and I used to refer to them as "Death by Chocolate" punters.
I would consider that there are different types of losing sequences and you need to differentiate before giving up on any method you are using. If you are having horses beaten having run a good race it is a different matter to one that is tailed off. If you can point to something in a horse that explained why it pipped your horse it is encouragement that the method may be sound but bad luck just gets in the way sometimes. If however, you are having rank bad runner after runner there would seem to be a problem with whatever system you are using and a rethink might be necessary.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Let’s assume for argument’s sake that you’re £100 down at level stakes and you’re backing from even money to 4/1, you’re going to need a winning streak soon to stay interested
No I’m not. I don’t chop and change what I do as I only have one so-called ‘method’: I study the form of horses, nothing else, in races that appeal to me.
Why on earth would I change that after 10 losers? Or 20? Or 30? Barring catastrophic losses and the end of my bank, I am betting until the end of the September (weather-dependent, perhaps a couple of weeks earlier).
All that matters is the profit or loss at the end of that period. God knows how many bets I’ll have had by then but I would hope that it gives me a steer on my ability as a punter one way or another.
Much as though I hate them (!), losing (or winning) runs of any description are basically immaterial for my purposes.
Mike
A point is reached in a sequence of losing bets when the retrieval of lost stakes, never mind profit, is too onerous a task especially when having finally backed a winner to reduce the deficit, your next three selections lose. Inevitably, your strike rate will be inadequate over a season to record a profit having seen returns from 25 or 30 bets. The time to end that particular method has been reached.
I’ve backed a maximum of 13 losers in a single streak and too late concluded that my methods are essentially merde or that there are forces at work denying the natural progress of high grade horses.
Before the advent of the exchanges, I would confidently expect at least one winner in 7 bets and would be unhappy to have been denied a win until the 7th selection crossed the line in front.
I do not bet these days, far too many shock winners romping home ahead of the better rated and well supported runners.
Woolfie,
What (roughly) was the average price of your selections when having a a maximum of 13 losers in a single streak?What (roughly) was your average price when "confidently expect(ing) at least one winner in 7 bets"?
You must have been backing odds-on all the time?
Value Is EverythingI’ve almost never backed odds on, an average price for me would be c. 7/2.
You could hit 13 losers in 2 races Ginge with your wacky system.
It’s all a matter of temperament and no two backers will be the same. While Woolf might jump back in horror if he had a losing run of 10 it may be just the norm for GingerTipster who is backing at bigger odds and will expect much longer losing runs.
You pitch your bank to suit the prices you are backing at. I would imagine GT would work from a bank of at least 200 average stakes, possibly up to 500. Woolf might only have had a bank of 20 or 25 stakes.
I’ve had a quiet time on the betting side recently but in the 90s I was betting generally in the 2/1 to 6/1 region with an expectation of 30% winners and a bank of 50 x average stake. From 2000 my style ramped up to more of the blitz ’em method that GT uses with a bank of 200 x average stake covering all prices from 2/1 up to triple figures.
Most people will be in between and the successful ones will have a handle on strike rate and bank size.
A final thought. If backers didn’t have long losing runs then the market would fall to pieces because no one would be backing the outsiders.
Rob
No I’m not. I don’t chop and change what I do as I only have one so-called ‘method’: I study the form of horses, nothing else, in races that appeal to me.
Why on earth would I change that after 10 losers? Or 20? Or 30? Barring catastrophic losses and the end of my bank, I am betting until the end of the September (weather-dependent, perhaps a couple of weeks earlier).
All that matters is the profit or loss at the end of that period. God knows how many bets I’ll have had by then but I would hope that it gives me a steer on my ability as a punter one way or another.
Much as though I hate them (!), losing (or winning) runs of any description are basically immaterial for my purposes.
Mike
I was curious as to how long a time period a streak of 30 losers would represent in your betting strategy Mike? I know you said you don’t know the exact amount of bets you will have but I just wondered how often, roughly, you "went to the well"
I know that for some punters it might cover a month, for others a week, and for some of my ex-punters an afternoon!
I just thought it would be a good way to put in perspective how such a sequence would affect different types of punters in a different way. (No "The wife’s having a bad week" jokes in response please!)
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I was curious as to how long a time period a streak of 30 losers would represent in your betting strategy Mike? I know you said you don’t know the exact amount of bets you will have but I just wondered how often, roughly, you "went to the well"
I know that for some punters it might cover a month, for others a week, and for some of my ex-punters an afternoon!
I just thought it would be a good way to put in perspective how such a sequence would affect different types of punters in a different way. (No "The wife’s having a bad week" jokes in response please!)
I’m fairly active betting-wise so it wouldn’t be long – my last seven day’s betting I’ve had 6, 5, 8, 5, 7, 6 and 7 bets (including split-staked bets, although I’m doing less and less of those). The last time I was betting seriously, I had in excess of 1500 bets in five months which is more like 10 bets a day.
My philosophy is that I’m here to bet not mess about, so if I’m unsure whether to back a horse or not, I’ll normally err on the side of a lack of caution. I like having a lot of ‘action’ otherwise it all gets a bit dull for me (especially on the flat!). I do remember seeing a story many years ago (before betting tax was scrapped) about some guy who was retired and drove around courses in summer lumping on ‘good things’. He’d bet several grand at a time but would have one or two bets a week. I think I’d really struggle to maintain interest.
Mike
) is four ( all flat racing 
).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.