Punters Book Prices Nat Hunt 2012/13 Season

[Formath]

I have not posted for many a month but thought I might have another go with the onset of the jumps season proper.

Choosing a race to analyse, take only those where the favourite goes of at 2/1 (3) or longer and where at least 80% of the field have recorded at least 2 outings in the current season, also the same with regard to any respected handicap rating service. Splitting, take the race with the greatest penalty value and then the one with the smallest field.

The above eliminates most of the cards today with one possible the Hex 3.30.

Column headings – race cloth no., Betfair betting forecast, Betfair market at 11.45, MY independent shortest odds requirement for betting.

Hexham 3.30
1. 3.5/4.1/4.33 Brousse en Feu
2. 7/6.2/67.0
3. 8/9.6/7.5
4. 3.25/4/4 Panthers Run
5. 13/6.2/6.5
6. 12/10/4.5

According to the forecast this is a restricted race to the two runners named as they are shorter than the true mathematical odds of 5/1 (4), of the two Panthers Run is a bet at the current odds.

[stevecaution]

Done in by a horse beaten 68 lengths on the flat 10 days ago. I hate the low level jump racing for that very reason. Hope your luck turns.

Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.

[Formath]

Yes Steve – thank you for pointing that out – the exception to my rule prevailed

Keeping to the same basic rules today the race is Win 1.10

Column headings: Betfair betting forecast, Betfair market 11.30, MY shortest acceptable handicap odds, MY shortest acceptable time-based odds (added this column as my handicapper rates the field within 3lbs hence the odds with no definition)

1. 13/18/12/9
2. 8/7.4/12/5.5 Henry San
3. 7/9.6/7.5/nil Coolbeg
4. 10/5.6/12/16 Fairy Rath
5. 4.5/4.4/12/16 Chasers Chance
6. 2.6/3.6/7.5/81
7. 13/22/23/16
8. 15/15.5/12/nil
9. 12/8.8/12/4.5
10. 10/13/6/3.5 Knapp Bridge Boy

Those named are ‘expected’ being at or shorter than the true mathematical odds of 9/1. This indicates Knapp Bridge Boy (each-way) and Coolbeg by handicap. By time Knapp Bridge Boy and Henry San with one eye on Roll The Dice.

Totally off topic my punters book for the November hcap is:

First Mohican, Party Line, The Tiger, Bridle Belle

[Gingertipster]

1. 13/18/12/9
2. 8/7.4/12/5.5 Henry San
3. 7/9.6/7.5/nil Coolbeg
4. 10/5.6/12/16 Fairy Rath
5. 4.5/4.4/12/16 Chasers Chance
6. 2.6/3.6/7.5/81
7. 13/22/23/16
8. 15/15.5/12/nil
9. 12/8.8/12/4.5
10. 10/13/6/3.5 Knapp Bridge Boy

Those named are ‘expected’ being at or shorter than the true mathematical odds of 9/1.

This indicates Knapp Bridge Boy (each-way) and Coolbeg by handicap. By time Knapp Bridge Boy and Henry San with one eye on Roll The Dice.

Am sure you know Formath I am one for "mathematical odds", there may well be a reason I’ve missed but don’t quite understand what you’re trying to do here.

What are these numbers? 10/13/6/3.5 Knap Bridge Boy?

Just because it’s a 10 horse race doesn’t make the

"true mathematical odds 9/1".

Runners have different channces, it’s a horse race, not a throw of dice or cut of cards. Any price can be thought as "value" by the punter no matter how many runners are in the race.

As said, there may well be reasons I’ve missed, but could you explain what you’re doing Formath?

Value Is Everything

[Formath]

Gingerstipster,
What am I trying to do? Just comparing a ‘fair’ odds betting forecast with the betting market at a given time related to a priced-up ratings service to eatablish if value selections can be identified.

With regard to odds it is an absolute fact that true MATHEMATICAL odds is one less than the number of runners in a race. This does not mean that they are the true FORM odds as this can only be established after the race, beforehand it’s just opinion. However I submit it is illogical to consider runners beyond the true mathematical odds if bookmakers, odds compilers etc do not make out a case for them.

Ffos Las true mathematical odds possibles today as per the Betfair betting forecast ‘fair’ odds (no increment for any book over-round).
It will be interest to see how many winners and placed horses there are:

12.55 (9runners = 8/1) Fishers Cross, Earth Tremor, Master Benjamin, Copper Birch
1.25 (9 = 8/1) Boyfromnowhere, Uncle Jimmy, Standing Ovation
2.00 (6 = 5/1) Anay Turge, Lady Willa, Whatshallwedo
2.30 (10 =9/1) eltus, Oscar Davy, Mountainous
3.05 (9 = 8/1) Weekend Millionair, Wayward Glance
3.40 (6 = 5/1) Quaiviro
4.10 (6 = 5/1) Castle Beach, John Reel, Ice Tres

The meaning of the Knapp Bridge Boy figures:
10 the decimal odds form the Betfair betting forecast
13 the decimal odds form the Betfair market at a given time
6 the decimal odds from a priced up handicap rating service
3 thew decimal odds form a priced up time rating service

[Formath]

Had trouble getting in here today, perhaps they are trying to tell me something

My race today is the Southwell 2.45.
4 for consideration are Set In Her Ways, Lord Landen, Gougane, Mezaraat.
MY odds required for Set In Her Ways 8 (7/1) at 11.40 Betfair market was 7.8 so just a tad short, but an each way chance. Gougane going shorter could be a danger.

[Gingertipster]

With regard to odds it is an absolute fact that true MATHEMATICAL odds is one less than the number of runners in a race. This does not mean that they are the true FORM odds as this can only be established after the race, beforehand it’s just opinion. However

I submit it is illogical to consider runners beyond the true mathematical odds if bookmakers, odds compilers etc do not make out a case for them

.

Why is it "illogical to consider runners beyond" what you say are "the true mathematical odds" Formath? Horses have different chances which are

not known

to either bookmaker or punter. ie Yes, the mathematical odds of 9

equal

chances are 8/1, but horses chances are not equal. Any individual horse’s chance in that 9 runner race is only a matter of opinion. So there’s

absolutely NO logical reason

for a cut off price of 8/1 in a 9 horse race etc. Therefore, it is surely

illogical not to

consider those at bigger than 8/1 in a 9 runner race or 3/1 in a 4 horse race etc.

Take this 4 horse race with bookmakers best prices as an example:
A 11/8 42.1%
B 2/1 33.3%
C 100/30 23.1%
D 14/1 6.7%
(best odds percentage 105.2%)

Why discount C or D from a bet just because they are bigger than 3/1 in a 4 horse race?

If

the punter

believes

B has three quarters the chance of A; C has half the chance of A and D a quarter the chance of A…

Then the chances the punter

believes

them to have are:
A 40% fair odds 6/4
B 30% almost 9/4 fair odds
C 20% 4/1 fair odds
D 10% 9/1 fair odds
(With 40 + 30 + 20 + 10 = 100%)

At level stakes:
40% SR @ 11/8 shows a loss.
30% SR @ 2/1 shows a loss.
20% SR @ 100/30 shows a loss.
10% SR @ 14/1 would get back 150 points from an over all 100 points staked. Profit of 50 points.

Therefore the only

logical

bet for the punter (given these odds and

opinions

of their chances) is D, the outsider. Because even though the punter

believes

it has the worst chance of winning, it’s odds are the only runner (in his/her

opinion

a fair 10% 9/1 chance available @ 14/1)

under-estimated

by the bookmakers.

As punters Formath, surely we should be actively looking for horses that "odds compilers do not make a case for"; when they’ve got it wrong?… Not running away from them.

Value Is Everything

[Nathan Hughes]

http://i46.tinypic.com/dpj0gm.jpg

Yes sir………

Blackbeard to conquer the World

[Formath]

Gingerstipster,

I have some sypathy with your point of view but still maintain that for the majority of punters it is illogical to seek selections beyond what the professionals indicate as the true mathematical odds in a race. If the combined weight of ststs compilers, bookmakers, connections etc., don’t make out a case, then the individual punter has little chance.

My mantra, which I have posted before, is the following:

MATHEMATICAL FORMULA OF EXPECTED VALUE

Example: EV = ½ (1) – ½ (1) = 0 advantage

Let me share a secret with you. Unless you accept and implement the principle detailed in the following article it is impossible profit by betting on horses in the long-term. Without adopting this strategy you must resign yourself to losing in the end.

Every bet made must be subject to the winning mathematical formula of expected value: –

EV = P (G) – P (L)
Where P is the probability of the event, G is the potential gain and L is the potential loss.

If the expected value is positive you have an overlay sound bet, conversely if the expected value is negative it is an underlay unsound bet. For example on tossing a coin strictly heads or tails that is evens as a return on your stake the EV = 0 and is a fair bet with no advantage to either party. Neither an overlay nor an underlay: –

EV = ½ (1) – ½ (1) = 0

If offered 4/5 the probability remains the same but G is now 0.8 and thus EV is negative. Naturally after one toss of the coin you are as likely to win as you are to lose but in the long-term over a number of spins: –

EV = ½ (0. – ½ (1) = – 0.1

This is what happens for example at the roulette wheel. Forget about staking plans etc., in the long-term at roulette both the probabilities and the potential gains/losses are certain so you must lose.

Horseracing offers a different scenario as the potential gains/losses are certain but the probabilities of events are subjective phenomena. For example if you believe Opera House had a 20% chance of success in the King George at odds of 4/1 the EV would be 0: –

EV = 0.2 (4) – 0.8 (1) = 0

However, at early prices Opera House was available at 8/1, therefore: –

EV = 0.2 (8) – 0.8 (1) = + 0.8

This indicates a positive return of 80% in the event of a winning run.

In the same race we may believe that Commander In Chief has a 30% chance of success, available at odds of 2/1, therefore: –
EV = 0.3 (2) – 0.7 (1) = – 0.1

If the probabilities were correct Commander In Chief would win a race more often than Opera House, but if only overlays are supported in the end they win.

Most people can accept the logic and validity of the argument presented (if you do not then you are mistaken because they are mathematical facts). However, it is alien to back anything but a major fancy in a race, which is natural and acceptable, so long as it is only backed if it is an overlay bet.

Profitability is inexorably linked with the law of expected value.
The probabilities assigned must be a function of statistical fact rather than subjective views.

[Eliwallach]

+EV = value.

Simples. No need for any further explainations of the value concept in this thread please.

I wouldn’t rule a horse out just because it has longer odds than the number of runners in the race though, as that way we miss all the longer priced winners.

I’d say this thread could just be a candidate for the Systems section?

[Gingertipster]

Unlike so many punters Formath, you’re trying to use the percentage / odds. For that you have my full support and encouragement. However, a punter also needs to know when the odds/percentage applies and when it doesn’t. No need for any formula with me Formath, I know the “true (I prefer the word “fair”) odds table” off by heart, it rules every bet I place. Only backing a 4/1 shot if I believe it has a better than 20% chance of winning, 8/1 11.1%, 16/1 5.9% etc.

You say

“it is illogical to seek selections beyond what the professionals indicate as the true mathematical odds in a race”

. Who are these “professionals”? I don’t see anybody, not bookmakers or experts saying “don’t bet bigger than 8/1 in a 9 horse race”.

It is simply illogical.

Could understand it, if you were using a cut off point because after looking at your own bets found a better record at finding value with shorter prices… But that can’t be. You’re still backing 10/1 shots in bigger fields.

Just because a particular 10/1 shot is in a 12 runner race, doesn’t mean it has a better chance of winning than a 10/1 shot in a 9 or 4 runner race.

I don’t mind anyone having any rule they like in the selection process Formath, use it if you wish, but you’re

wrong

to say there is a logical mathematical reason for this cut off point. It has nothing to do with your “formula”. Horse racing can not be equated to a throw of dice or cut of cards or roulette, because

(a) horses don’t have an equal chance of winning and (b) they don’t have a known percentage chance.

Value Is Everything

[Author]

Posts