- This topic has 336 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Artemis .. that was just an example, a pretty poor one about how to make a book to 100%. I didn’t have time to do a better job, but I wanted to put up a poor example to show LFAW the maths behind it. And show a poor tissue coming off a set of ratings, as opposed to data you are in control of yourself!
I wouldn’t touch Brimardon myself .. or any of the other elecronic system compilers. I’ve had a bit of experience with two of these things, over the years, and niether did exactly what it said on the tin … :biggrin:
If you use the selection Box in the RP, strike rate to number tipped by field size, you will usually get the first three in the betting, in the correct order. And if they aren’t in that order in the RP tissue, they will be when the market comes up.
The RP tissue is quite consistent and can be used as a moderating tool, the same way you use form figures to moderate your speed ratings.
LFAW … this is a betting tool or a method, rather than a system and the success of it depends largely on what you think is important, beause you can make up ratings on what ever you want to!
I don’t look at betfair odds before I price a race up, because it may bias my opinion. Let’s face it, punters on betfair mainly lose on a race by race basis, to smaller stakes verus the layers who mainly win over a long period of time to larger stakes. I don’t think punters on betfair are leaps and bounds better than punters in a shop. They just lose at a slower rate. Meaning that the Betfair prices are not as accurate as the prices in the paper. And the prices in the paper are not as accurate as Starting Price Odds, from a making of a  tissue point of view.
But practicality takes over somewhere and I use the prices in the paper. I’m not hanging around all day to see if soemthing drifts out before the off, I’ve got better things to do with my life … :biggrin:
As for the last part of your question, I reckon that if my horse has got a better chance of winning than the odds on offer then I will usually bet it, but for that I need to make a backers tissue.
Using this method I usually pick one horse out of a race.<br>Depending on field size, it must be in top (x) of my tissue, must be in top (x) of RP tissue at it mustn’t be more than three favourite positions longer on betfair than on MY tissue. Like if it’s the third favourite in the paper and sixth favourite on Betfair, it’s no bet.
I think the most important thing to remember in all of this is that it all depends what you base your initial rating on. How useful it really is and how many other people have the same idea.
Picking winners is an elusive art form but betting and calculating chance is all maths.
Taking today’s 9 runner race … there will be one winner and 8 losers .. right … so a fair chance for each horse and the race is 8/1. So everything at 8/1 has an average chance, everything less than 8/1 has a better than average chance and everything above 8/1 has a worse than average chance. Artemis will know more about this than I do … ;)
So,
1. 37 / 432 =  8.56% – odds 11/1 – bad<br>2. 46 / 423 = 10.65% – odds 9/1 – bad<br>3. 43 / 423 = 9.95% – odds 9/1 – bad<br>4. 62 / 423 = 14.35% – odds 6/1 – good<br>5. 63 / 423 = 14.58% – odds 6/1 – good<br>6. 57 / 423 = 13.19% – odds 13/2 – good<br>7. 47 / 423 = 10.88% – odds 8/1 – niether<br>8. 25 / 423 =  5.79% – odds 17/1 – bad<br>9. 52 / 423 = 12.04% – odds 7/1 – good
Now I’ve got 4 that I am interested in … it’s up to you what happens next regarding the selection process .. whatever the individual punter thinks is important!
If you are thinking of persuing this line LFAW a good check on whether you have sound ratings or not is this, a poor rating will almost always pick the third or fourth favourite, this is because it’s around this point in the market, or paper tissue, that prices jump into the outsider zone. Your 100% book will coincide with the prices on the 120% book, at around this point. Another little check, your favourite will always be the SP favourite or second favourite, if your on the right track.
I hope that makes sense, and well done to anybody who managed to read it all !!!
<br>Blimey!! Long time since I posted on here!<br>Really interesting thread-With regard producing prices from ratings , I don’t know if the following link is of any use to you <br>http://www.thesaturdaysteeplechase.co.uk/.
If you click on their DIY race, you are presented with a calculator that will turn the ratings into "true odds" and from there it’s fairly simple to frame your own prices.I’ve used it quite a few times (with some success) simply by inputting the aforementioned Mr. Massey’s ratings.<br>Anyway, just a thought and apologies if you’re already familiar with this site or if I’ve breached site rules by mentioning it.<br>All the best.
Cheers Dave for the explanation – it will take a bit of digestion.
Artemis – I used the Brimardon system when it was substantially cheaper. I thought it was average, with good and bad runs. It was the substantial manual entry of data that put me off. Since it went upmarket, with excessive pricing I have kept clear. But, just as Dave, I have read poor reviews about it, with many users asking for a refund. Check out Gummy Racing for more info.<br>
Thanks for the opinions on Brimardon. I’ve never really considered using their service as I thought that their adverts were a bit puffed up. WE could all pick a few horses with a pin in every race at every meeting and find some very big priced winners to crow about. But good luck to them – they’ve been going a long time and they have a logical approach, which is good.
I think there are a fair number of people/syndicates out there in the betting jungle who are using quite sophisticated computer models to produce tissues as a basis for their operations on the markets.
As I’ve said before, they generally arrive at the same 2 or 3 horses in a race because they are processing the same data. The missing ingredient these systems need to complete their calculations is the collective opinion of the whole market in the shape of a betting show as close as possible to the off.
Once this show is factored in, there is invariably a strong market move for these ‘computer systems’ horses as the syndicates make their play.
The above scenario is only my interpretation of the facts as I see them. I may be wrong, and even if I’m correct, it would be very difficult to profit from it. The top-rated horses from my own methods are often horses that shorten up quite a bit close to the off.
As an example today, Concer Eto (Yarmouth 4.50) is well clear in my ratings, and would be very high on the list of any computerised ratings. I will be interested to see if he shortens up near the off.
I’ve just priced up a race for today, to let you have a look at.
It’s a 100% book again, but I have used my own rating sheets (brought them into work today!)
4.20 Yarmouth<br>Listed Race 1M 2f<br>There are 12 runners so I am only interested in horses that are less than 11/1 on MY tissue.
The horse name is followed by the paper tissue, then my issue, then good bad value!
Persiana …. 5/2 … 9/2 … bad<br>Polar Jem …. 7/2 … 11/2 … bad<br>Silk Fan …. 5/1 …. 8/1 … bad <br>Dami …. 9/1 …. 25/1 … good<br>Tidal …. 10/1 … 10/1 … fair
This isn’t a bad effort the first three favourite positions are in order. If they go off in that order I will be more than pleased.  Tidal is a fair price and it’s a fourth favourite. Dami is good value and is an outsider.
Thanks for that Garvee, I’ll check that one out. It’s suprising how much stuff there is for free on the net?
Artemis, I think you are right about a lot of people, systems and methods all ending up picking the same horses in every race. I’m not sure about the computer models though. I work with computers all day and the old addage applies, rubbish in rubbish out ..  but there again like you, I can’t prove it … :biggrin:
The market support idea is an interesting one though, I always got the impression that once the market had moved that you had really missed your chance and hadn’t given much more thought. Do you think you could predict with any sort of accuracy a horse that is more likely to be supported near the off, than one that won’t?
I can usually predict with about 90% accuracy horses that will shorten up on Betfair’s odds at around 9.00am, although it’s more difficult (only about 70% accuracy) with opening odds from the main bookmaker’s. That might sound pretty good, but I’m only talking about four or five horses a day. In theory, anyone with such information should be able to clean up, but it’s not that easy.
At 9.00am on most days, there is not a great deal of liquidity in the markets, so you cannot get much on, unless your horse has escaped from it’s horsebox and is running loose! During big meetings, no problem getting on but the market is much less volatile and prices tend to hold up better.
Nearer the off, the market is less predictable as large sums are moving around. My last post was an attempt to shed some light as to the origin and direction of these late movements. My theory will only explain part of the story as there are other, more human, factors at work.
Apart from my own observations over a long period, there is another compelling piece of evidence from Hong Kong. In his book, Winning Without Thinking, Nick Mordin tells how a very large syndicate, using very sophisticated programmes and statistical techniques made substantial profits betting into the Pari Mutuel (Tote Monopoly in HK). However, they were unable to reach profitabilty until they factored in and gave significant weighting to the money already bet into the pools BEFORE they made their bets.
Artemis, it is hard to follow the market and I know what you mean about getting a decent size bet on earlier on.
The Nick Mordin story is about this;
It’s a stock market game, you could do it on Betfair if your Broadband connection was faster than everyone else’s.:biggrin:
Artemis, I’ve got a system somewhere that advocates following the market. It’s an old one and I don’t know if it works or anything. It was written pre-exchange days, when getting the betting shows up on Ceefax was cutting edge.
The rules are this;
Before racing starts, you check all of the races and write the tissue price of each horse beside the name in the racing post.<br>At the first show you delete all of the horses that have not shortened by 2 points or more. Such as 12/1 tissue coming into 10/1 opening show.<br>If the horse drifts out to 12/1 then you ignore it, but if it drifts in again to say 8/1 then you back it each way.<br>The idea being that there must be a reason that it’s shorter than the tissue price and the market is pushing the price in.
I think this was touted about as ‘The King of Systems’ or something like that, I got it in a swap, with a mate at work.
I quite like the idea of it but I don’t think it would be workable.
Momentum Trading, is basically the same kind of thing, only instead of using a pen and the racing post your using a market on a computer screen. I suppose you could say that it’s a modern way of reading a market.
The Hong Kongers would have been following the market and anticipating price plunges/drifts by getting a more accurate assessment of how the market was about to move, using the amount of money bet as an opinion poll. For example, a horse that has 50% of stake money wagered on it should win about 48% of the time and be priced up at about evens, shouldn’t it? But, if the horse has 50% of the wagers is trading at 6/4 (40%), then surely it will adjust itself into evens (or 10/11) just before the off? The main point being, is that you know before everyone else does and you can make your judgements based on information that is hidden to the general public.
In that situation I suppose the sensible thing to do would be bet at 6/4 and then put a lay bet up at around 8/13. If the price collapses you clean up because the horse has been over bet and becomes a decent laying proposition. If it doesn’t, you don’t care because you’ve bet it at 6/4 anyway. Your on a long term win/win!
How you would set yourself up to do this I have no idea. I suppose you would have to have some software that would read the market information boxes and then turn that into prices based on the amount traded over time and in turn estimate the speed with which the market was likely to move to it’s true chance to price position? Create a Lay/Bet book on one horse based on the amount of money traded on it?<br>  <br>Is this what you mean Artemis ?
If I get time I’ll give it a bash this afternoon, I’ll PM you if we are going to be rich .. :biggrin: <br>
dave,
The Hong Kong syndicate were not using any stock market strategies. They were using a very sophisticated ratings system which takes account of over 20 variables to try to pinpoint the horse(s) with better chance(s) than their odds implies. At first, they ignored the collective opinion of the wagering public, but were unable to make enough to cover their considerable expenses. They then introduced the market as an additional variable and adjusted their ratings accordingly. The adjusted ratings were then used as before, only this time they found that their profits were increased to a level that made their investment worthwhile. I’m pretty sure there are now syndicates or individuals using the same or similar models every day in many different countries. My own ratings method is a crude version of the model but doesn’t go as far as taking account of the market near to the off.
There are people using momentum trading, but they know nothing about form or even horse racing. They are experts at reading market signals in financial markets and they have appied their knowledge to sports betting. I’m sure some of them do quite well, but I wouldn’t back them against people like Barry Dennis, who knows the betting market intimately through years of hard and costly experience.
The ‘King of Systems’ that advocates following the market is not one I would be eager to use. There are many punters (mainly in betting offices) who follow the money blindly, but most professional punters will use market movements as one factor amongst many others.
The example you give contains a fatal flaw in that if a horse attracts 50% of the field money(total wagered), it would most likely be priced at less than evens, probably 4/5. Close to the off, the market is very close to perfect in that it accurately reflects the amounts wagered on each horse. Or have I misunderstood ?
If your ratings/opinion estimate that the horse should be evens, and it is available at 6/4, then there is an opportunity, but you are relying on your opinion against the market as a whole. I think that’s the way to win at this game – but it’s only a very slight edge. Really, your’e betting that the market is wrong, when it has been shown that over thousands of results that the market gets it right.
I recall something I read in an economics text book when I was at University. A successful stockbroker on Wall Street was asked the secret of successful trading. His reply was along the lines….
if you can get up early every day and study the markets, get into the office first and keep abreast of what’s going on all over the planet, sacrifice a lot of your social life, neglect your family and have little time for close friendships… then, and only then…..you might just have the ghost of a chance.
Hi Artemis,
I suppose we have different opinions about the Hong Kong syndicate. Even if you set up ratings to take almost everything into account, you’ll end up with the horse that has the best chance of winning but not necessarily the most profitable. (Each-way thieving for example). I think it’s a trade if you KNOW that the price is going to drift in because it ‘franks’ your ratings, in effect.
As you know, SP’s to actual strike rates are very accurate. So, if your horse is sitting at 6/4 and you know by the amount of money coming for it that it’s going to go off at 11/10 say. Your strike rate at 6/4 is around 37% and 11/10 it’s around 50%. You can bet a horse with a 50% strike rate at 6/4, your advantage is 10%, minimum!
That’s what I meant … you KNOW what the SP is going to be before anyone else does and therefore you have an advantage. You are right of course; horses shortening in price do win more often than those that are not. But in general, they shorten to such an extent that they are not viable betting opportunities.
Another angle on this, is to look at the Betfair amount traded per runner in each race. I don’t think this approach would work because half of the money traded on each selection is ‘lose stake money’.
I’ve notice Artemis, that you have referred to Nick Mordin a few times. How do you rate his views? I personally disregard most of what I read in books like his, but I’m open-minded!<br>
I rate Nick Mordin quite highly. He knows a great deal about speed ratings, which I’m particularly keen on, and he also has a wide experience of racing/systems around the world. I’ve read two of his books, both of which were quite well written and full of useful information. I also read his weekly column in the Weekender.
I’ve taken a few bits of advice from his books, but he mostly confirms what I already knew or suspected. His main theme is to look for a new angle because the successful system only has a limited shelf life…. something you have said yourself,dave.
True Artemis, I did say that didn’t I? :biggrin:
But doesn’t a good system just wobble?
I’ve looked at this and I think crap systems like,
won last time out, <br>in last 7 days, <br>carrying a penalty, <br>5/1+ …
which is put out as stable info in one of the daily papers, certainly do have a shelf life. Whereas others may wobble for a year or so!
And then crash back into profit, for some unknown reason.
I have one in mind, in particular which over the last 10 years has produced around 1,200 points profit but has had two losing years.
This year it’s about 200 points up and last year it only broke even!
Clive Holt, who heads FIneform has highlighted a number of systems in his publications. Most of these systems have been in profit over many seasons and concentrate on the better class races, so they don’t throw up a lot of qualifiers.
He used to push his Fineform quick ratings, where you gave points for a horse’s last two runs and for things like, C, C/D, and BF. I haven’t seen these advertised for a while, although I believe Clive is still doing well.
A few friends of mine used to follow the Fineform Ratings ‘formula’ with mixed fortunes. I always thought it too simplistic with several weaknesses, but on the plus side it can be applied quite rapidly and does find some good priced winners.
I wonder if any forum members remember the formula, or are still using it. I would hardly think that it is a well guarded secret or copyright.
With regard to my own ratings methods, I am preparing a list of my jockey ratings and draw biases and wii post shortly for comments.
Jockeyship as a Positive Factor.
In arriving at a final rating, jockeyship plays a large part (up to 6 points). 3 points are awarded for a jockey’s ability and 3 points for the jockey’s knowledge of the horse based on it’s last three runs.<br>My current list for jockey’s ability is:
3 points: K Fallon, L Dettori, S Sanders, D Holland, J P Murtagh, J Fortune, M J Kinane, J Spencer.
2 points: R L Moore, A Culhane, R Winston, J Fanning, E Ahern, K Darley, P Hanagan, S Drowne, Martin Dwyer, P Robinson, R Hughes, Dane O’neill, R Hills, M Hills, J F Egan, T Quinn, W Supple, W Ryan, K McEvoy.
1 point: N Callan, J Quinn, I Mongan, T P Quealy, F Norton,  M Fenton, F Lynch,  R Ffrench, S W Kelly, D Allan, Dean McKeown, Dale Gibson, T E Durcan, G Carter,A Nicholls, B Doyle, S Chin, Paul Eddery, Alex Greaves.
I realise any list is contentious, so everyone will have their own preferences.
Some people might feel jockeyship is more/less important.
Jockeys’ record at individual tracks/riding for particular trainers or owners can be taken into account.
Last minute jockey changes can make a significant difference to my ratings (up to 6 points). Such happenings are not uncommon, especially in the summer with evening meetings and jockeys delayed in traffic.
Using the last three runs is a bit arbitrary, but cuts out extra work. It is often the case that a horse’s ‘regular’ jockey has had to miss rides on account of injury/suspension/had to ride elsewhere on a particular day.
(Edited by Artemis at 10:23 am on Sep. 20, 2004)
Artemis,
I am sure I have a copy of the book kicking around somewhere (maybe still in a box after a house move). It was based on the last two runs, the top 3 paper ratings (e.g. RPR) and the first 3 in the betting. A couple of points were added for C and D winners.
A FineForm "Maximum" was 11 for the last two form figures, top rated by the paper, in the first 3 of the betting forecast and a CD winner.
This formula was to be used to highlight those runners that need the most attention for investigation. I seem to remember a confident claim about the top two rated doing quite well. One thing in the book I remember was to judge horses by their ability. For example, if a horse had won on the going, at the distance and class etc, then the horse’s ability was proven. If the horse had only competed at lower levels, and not proved itself at the new class, then this was progressive. I am sure there was another "p", since PPP is still rattling around my head. In any case, proven was preferred to progressive and the other "p".
I will have a dig around tonight for it.<br>
I read on the net somewhere that 20% of jockeys win 80% of the races, I don’t know if that’s true or not?
It an interesting approach though Artemis, a bit arbitrary and cut and dried for what in effect is 6lbs?
Do you revise this list on an on-going basis?
I found the difficulty including jockeys in any rating was the claiming jockey could mess things up a bit. Any good claimer can complete with top jockeys, (3lbs same strike rate plus as the top pro’s) whereas a bad claimer could actually be worthy of a points reduction.
I think the 20%/80% is probably right, dave. When I first got interested in racing, aged about seven, I have taken as much interest in the riders as I have the horses. I realise now that the horses are the main characters, but an inspired ride by a good jockey is often what wins races. Time and again I have seen races won (and lost) by jockeyship rather than equine ability.
The jockey list is updated on a regular basis. The most recent moves have been the upgrading of J Fortune and S Sanders from 2 to 3, and K McEvoy from 1 to 2. I haven’t downgraded any jockeys this season, but did drop R Hughes from 3 to 2 last season.
I only have one apprentice on my list for the flat, T P Quealy, although several others are arguably worth their claim.
The whole thing is a bit arbitrary, but I honestly believe that a good jockey is worth at least 6lbs+ in an average race. Of course, the betting public know this and tend to react as if the best jockeys are worth a lot more, so their mounts are sent off at poor value odds. This fact is a decent argument for ignoring jockeys when forming ratings, but I like to take account of their expertise.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.