Packing it in

[ivanjica]

Ivanjica,
Bookmakers "margins" (over-rounds) are larger (per horse) in the average non-handicap than they are in handicaps.

I must confess I have been living under the misconception for some time that the opposite was the case. Are you able to point me in the direction of the statistics on this – I have found the attached but it doesn’t drill down to race types.

http://www.sis.tv/sites/default/files/S … 202011.pdf

Thanks

[Gingertipster]

Ivanjica,
Bookmakers "margins" (over-rounds) are larger (per horse) in the average non-handicap than they are in handicaps.

I must confess I have been living under the misconception for some time that the opposite was the case. Are you able to point me in the direction of the statistics on this – I have found the attached but it doesn’t drill down to race types.

http://www.sis.tv/sites/default/files/S … 202011.pdf

Thanks

I have no "statistics" to back it up Ivanjica. But the amount of mark up added to every horse is directly linked to how exposed/unexposed the individual is. Obviously the easier it is for bookmakers to predict what rating a horse will run to – the less mark up is needed. Most Maiden races, novice hurdles/chases and bumpers are in the non-handicap category and these are full of improving sorts or even those who haven’t run before.

"Non-handicaps" and "Handicaps" are two very large groups and the number of Maiden and novice races push up average over-rounds of non-handicaps. It may well be that 4yo+ Group 1’s and non-novice Grade 1 National Hunt races could be expected to have less over-rounds than the average handicap.

You may want to take a look at results on the Racing Post website Ivanjica and compare individual over-rounds of different types of race. Always remembering that larger fields will need a bigger over-round. When looking at a Big Handicap it is easy to think bookmakers add a large mark up because of a large over-round figure… But to get a true picture it needs to be divided between the number of runners.

I suggest taking 100 away from the "over-round", then divide by number of runners.

Stewards Cup 136% – 100 = 36 ‘/, 27 (runners) = average 1.33% mark up per runner.
4:30 2yo Maiden 125% – 100 = 25 ‘/, 15 (runners) = average 1.66% mark up per runner.
Nassau 112% – 100 = 12 ‘/, 8 = average 1.5% per runner.

Apart from the first race in the Shergar Cup where there was a late non-runner and bookies were unable to form a new book… All races (handicaps) ranged from 1.6" to 2.2% per runner.

Lesser meetings/races usually have bigger over-rounds. Folkstone’s weekend card was 2.25% and 2.2% for maidens and 1.4, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.33 for handicaps.

However, Irish races/bookmakers are a rule unto themseves, often well over 3% per runner . An utter disgrace.

Value Is Everything

[ivanjica]

Stewards Cup 136% – 100 = 36 ‘/, 27 (runners) = average 1.33% mark up per runner.
4:30 2yo Maiden 125% – 100 = 25 ‘/, 15 (runners) = average 1.66% mark up per runner.
Nassau 112% – 100 = 12 ‘/, 8 = average 1.5% per runner.

Apart from the first race in the Shergar Cup where there was a late non-runner and bookies were unable to form a new book… All races (handicaps) ranged from 1.6" to 2.2% per runner.

Lesser meetings/races usually have bigger over-rounds. Folkstone’s weekend card was 2.25% and 2.2% for maidens and 1.4, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.33 for handicaps.

Apologies if I am being thick here, but where you increase the denominator (ie. the number of runners) you will inevitably end up with a lower per runner average. So for instance to truly compare the 27 runner Stewards Cup with a maiden you surely need a 27 runner maiden to reach a conclusion.

Similarly in the case of Folkestone if you imagined there were 10 runners in both the maidens (rather than 4 and 5 respectively) the per runner averages reduce to 0.9 and 1.1 compared with the 1.4 for the handicap.

I also wonder does the SP of the favourite also inpact on the overround a bookie can be expected to earn. My hunch is that a 27 runner maiden with a 4/5f wont attract the same ovverround as the aforementioned Stewards Cup simply because that fav takes so much of the book, it is difficult to justify shoring up everything else to boost the ovverround.

Typically 27 runner handicaps do not have 4/5f shots leading the market, which is why the ovverround is significantly higher.

Once again apologies for my lack of insight on the subject, but why does the average per runner make any difference if the overall percentage is the one bandied about in the press as an indication of the bookmakers profit margin?

[Gingertipster]

Apologies if I am being thick here, but where you increase the denominator (ie. the number of runners) you will inevitably end up with a lower per runner average. So for instance to truly compare the 27 runner Stewards Cup with a maiden you surely need a 27 runner maiden to reach a conclusion.

why does the average per runner make any difference if the overall percentage is the one bandied about in the press as an indication of the bookmakers profit margin?

You will find that in large field

maiden

races the average % per runner is high. Big field

handicaps

are usually valuable ones, which are more competitive markets, another reason (along with more exposed horses) why Big Handicaps often have a low % per runner. They also have more

exposed

outsiders (compared to

unexposed

outsiders in a maiden).

In a handicap an outsider a bookie believes say a 3% chance he may add just 0.8% to offer 25/1. In a maiden it probably has fewer runs and less easy to establish its true worth, so may add 1.3% and offer 22/1. Might not sound much of a difference, but the number of outsiders

add up

.

In a 9 runner race where the over-round is 118% (18% over a 100% book) 18 ‘/, 9 = an average mark up of 2% per runner. An 18 runner race where the over-round is 136% gives an average mark up of 2%. The same as it does a 27 runner race working to 154%.

Of course for the

perfect

comparrison a maiden and handicap should have the same number of runners Ivanjica. I’m just giving a better way to compare races with a different number of runners than over-rounds.

It must be bourne in mind that

shorter

prices must have a

bigger

mark up. So if in a 4 horse race where all 4 are thought by a bookmaker to have the same chance of winning (fair 25% 3/1 shots) the smallest mark up he can give is 1.67% to offer 11/4 (fair 26.67%) all runners (so 1.67% or more has to be the average). Where as if a bookie thought every horse in a 26 runner race had the same chance of winning (fair 3.84% 25/1 shots) he could add just 0.91% and offer 20/1 (fair 4.76%) all runners (an average of 0.91%). ie

the 4 runner race needed to be an average of 1.67% compared to 0.91% for 26 runners

.

Most races have a combination of favourites and outsiders. If there was a

long odds on

horse in a 20 runner race he’d have quite a

big mark up

(for being a short price), but this would be

compensated

for, because if one horse takes a lot out of the book, then it

stands to reason

most of the other runners must be outsiders, with

small

mark ups. So in practice, one tends to balance out the other. However, there’s also the "each way" bet to be taken in to account. When there’s a very short priced fav bookies might up the over-round because these races favour each way betting.

However, there must be an allowance made for bigger fields to make a

fair

er

comparrison.
It’s quite possible in a 10 runner handicap with fairly exposed horses bookmakers might work to 112% (average 1.2% per horse). It is impossible to believe bookmakers could be clever enough to make a 112% book for the Grand National with 40 runners. At just 0.3% per runner. So a

straight

comparisson of just over-rounds is next to

useless

without some allowance made for number of

runners

.

This is why Tote betting is usually only benificial in larger fields. They work to the same % over-round no matter what the number of runners. You’d think by now there’d be a computer capable of working out prices to eg 1% per runner. So the Tote/FD take out 5% for a 5 runner race, 10% for 10 runners etc… Which would make them far more competitive in normal sized fields.

The over-round given out by the press is just a

factual number

, it is up to punters to use that number how

they see fit

. It is indeed the "bookmakers profit margin", but it is for the whole race. Not even I back the whole field.

Average

% per runner matters more (though not the be all and end all) because the

mark up/price

of an

individual

is what makes a

good

/bad bet. Having said that, obviously just because the average mark up might be low, does not

neccessarily

mean it is a

good

betting race. It may be low purely because the horses are easy for odds compilers to work out. And also, just because there’s a high average per runner, doesn’t mean the bookmaker has got an

individual

‘s price right. It may still be a good bet.

This is an

in-exact

science Ivanjica.

Value Is Everything

[Author]

Posts