- This topic has 71 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
And the vital ingredient needed in backing winners…LUCK.
If you rely on the nebulous concept of ‘luck’ you won’t win much in the long run. It’s sound judgement and logical decisions that count, whether it takes 6 hours or 5 minutes to make them.
Rob
I don’t fully rely on luck of course, as much as acknowledging and appreciating its role whenever I win. I do study form but not to the extent of some on the forum, as digging for the winner is probably 30 percent of the fun for me.
Doesn’t anybody bet on horse racing for the fun of it? Doing what Gingertipster does would drive me barmy with boredom to me horse racing is about the racing and the thrill not percentages and figures.
Like I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with betting for pleasure, just don’t expect to make a profit. You have to enjoy studying, but part of my enjoyment is making an over all profit. Think if I did not show one, I’d give up betting and just enjoy the racing. It is not for everyone, probably most people would think it was boring, but I am not your usual person!
The way I do it, I put aside my betting money for each month then any winnings I use as disposable (pocket) money to spend how I like. If I don’t win anything I don’t spend big that month.
This way there’s no real pressure on me to succeed yet winning means spending so its enough to concentrate the mind and it avoids me having silly bets and I dont generally back a horse if I think its a silly price though I don’t go as far as working out the percentages.
I usually do well enough, always got money to spend so it works for me.
I have tried betting to make a targetted profit over a three year period and I came out in front but the pressure I found nullified my enjoyment of the sport immensely.
Do I study form? Barely, I just know my horses and use the form book only if I want to check something out really. I belive the idea that you have to study form to be successful a complete myth.
:
Hmmmmm, complete myth, really? Why don’t bookmakers have the same price for every horse then? Form matters. If this targetted profit was anything significant I think you were very lucky indeed Ian.
If you look at all the really successful punters in the game, how many do not study form?
I do not make a 100% book for every race but do look at every horse in every race I am interested in having a bet in. Knowing percentages is vital to judge value.
I think anyone can be lucky in making a profit over a short period /even three years if they do not have many bets. But to make one for a long time there is no substitute for form study. Other than my very own system of course. :wink:
Mark
To answer your points :
1) Of course bookmakers don’t have the same price for every horse. Was this supposed to be a serious question? You surely don’t require me to actually spell out why their prices vary? Bookmakers prices aren’t always priced up on form. How many times have we seen an Aiden O’Brien or Paul Nicholls horse priced up at 6/4 when on bare form it should be 9/2? Ok I accept that you have to have “some knowledge of form” but that doesn’t mean you have to trawl through formbooks, knowing a horse – its level of ability, its favoured conditions etc is just as if not more important than looking through its form to find that on one ocassion it ran thrid in a Group 1 and if it reproduces that run it shouldn’t be a 33/1 chance.
1. [b:104f6b32]By Form I meant everything you know about a horse, ability, favoured conditions, jockey, pace, trainer, everything. Bookmakers price horses up on what chance they believe each horse will have of winning. If a trainer does well with that type of horse, or in that particular race, then bookmakers will offer a shorter price than the horses “form” indicates it should be (see Dewhurst). But it is still everything to do with how much percentage chance the bookie believes each horse has of winning the race. All I do is: after looking at everything to do with it’s form, there is a price I want to beat. I do not think we are that far apart in our views.[/b:104f6b32]
2) I don’t know personally enough successful / professional punters to make a judgement but as I don’t aspire to be a professional punter why would it really matter to me? Just thinking, how much notice does Harry Findlay take of the form book? Did he back Denman in last years Gold Cup because he had better overall form than Kauto Star and was Denman really value at his starting price?
2. [b:104f6b32]Yes, in my opinion Denman was value in that ground to beat Kauto Star on the day. Denman did not have better “form” than Kauto, but the going placed the emphasis on stamina which Kauto posssibly lacked. So Denman had a better chance than 30.8% 9/4. Every proffesional gambler takes value in to account. Harry Findlay being connected to the horse knew (or had a very good idea) how good Denman was. But he only backed it because he believed the price was true value.[/b:104f6b32]
3) To a degree I see where you are coming from but any winning price is value. If I back a horse at 1/20 (which I wouldn’t lol) and it should be a 1/15 chance I’ve still gained money (though barely at those prices). If (theorectically) every horse you back wins then you win, simple as. I do agree with you though that every horse has a price that is just too short. I believe you can recognise that pretty much without having to use percentages. Example my last but one bet was a winning one State Of Play at Wetherby. Had he been a 7/4 chance I wouldn’t have backed him because I would’ve considered that to be too short on what I know of him and his opposition. At 5/2 or 11/4 I was prepared to bet.
3. Before the race nobody knows who is definately going to win so the “any winning bet is value” is a non starter. You can not believe this and still believe “every horse has it’s price”, the two don’t mix.
Once a punter knows his percentages, i.e. can look at a bookies board and see each price as a percentage he does not “need” to convert prices to percentages, he just knows them. Everyone, even the “value doesn’t matter” brigade know something about value. I too backed State Of Play at 3/1 but would not have taken 7/4.4) Everything takes a certain amount of luck. However much you try you will never get your percentages right every single time it takes judgement and a certain amount of luck to get them right and even then its only right on the back of your own opinion. If you think the percentage way is the only way to succeed perhaps you should ask yourself if
4. NO. It does not require luck, luck evens itself out. You may be unlucky in a run sometimes but a punter should be good enough at finding value for these unlucky times not to matter.And he should be “lucky” just as often.
What is luck anyway? A lot of punters believe they are unlucky if a horse can not get out in time to get to the leader. But sometimes that type of thing can be allowed for in working a race out. At Goodwood over 7f-1m if there are not many prominent runners to take each other on. You can back prominent runners, knowing they will probably get the run of the race. A hold up horse usually finishes fastest but often does not get there. Is he unlucky?
Yes it takes judgement and I (or Dave Nevison or Eddie Freemantle or whoever) do not get it right every time, far from it. A punter can only say he gets it right enough times to make a profit.a) Its because thats what you’ve been taught
b) Its because you don’t know of or are incapable of doing it another way?a. The only way a punter can make a profit on his bets at 4/1 is to win better than 20% (assuming level stakes). That is not open to debate that is a fact. 1/3 75%, 7/1 12.5%, 85/40 32%, 20/1 4.8%. Therefore, a punter needs to find value to make a profit. A punter may, even without searching for value, make a profit. But value is what he has found.
b. For many years I have criticised systems, even got banned from one forum because of it. But now have devised one myself that allows for value. I am always open to new ways.
Food for thought perhaps?
I’ll eat it all up Ian.
Mark
Thank you for your reply Gingertipster.
I don’t think we’re miles apart on our views either to be honest. The main differences being that you clearly take it all more seriously than I do and percentages play a major part in how you do things whereas though I don’t think in terms of percentages I do recognise and appreciate the worth of value.
To you it would appear that horses are a number, a percentage chance whereas to me they are an athlete and racing isn’t a business its a sport. I would never back more than one horse in a race or a horse I didn’t think would win just because of its price.
One thing I will disagree with is your opinion that you don’t need luck I think that is a very dangerous and slightly naive attitude. Both Harry Findlay and Dave Nevison (to name two) have come perilously close to losing everything before they rose to success again. Findlay admitted as much last year on an RUK interview and Nevison in his book “A bloody good winner”. One or two bad results at the wrong time and they would’ve been finished. If that can happen to them no-one is safe. It begs the question – is failure always lurking just round the corner? Is it just a matter a time in the betting business?
I’m not pretending to know the answer to these questions I just think sometimes it IS about luck.
Fist of Fury
Yes I would’ve been fed up had State Of Play won and I’d not backed him, you always are its like you always wish you’d staked ten times as much as you did on every winning bet and half as much on every losing one. It’s just that If I think I’m being robbed by a bookmaker (s) pricing a horse too short I can’t back that horse because it just isn’t worth the risk of backing something at a price shorter than it should be. I’d beat myself up about backing a losing horse that I knew a bookmaker was robbing me on.
I guess I’m just tight lol.
Doesn’t anybody bet on horse racing for the fun of it? Doing what Gingertipster does would drive me barmy with boredom to me horse racing is about the racing and the thrill not percentages and figures.
Like I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with betting for pleasure, just don’t expect to make a profit. You have to enjoy studying, but part of my enjoyment is making an over all profit. Think if I did not show one, I’d give up betting and just enjoy the racing. It is not for everyone, probably most people would think it was boring, but I am not your usual person!
The way I do it, I put aside my betting money for each month then any winnings I use as disposable (pocket) money to spend how I like. If I don’t win anything I don’t spend big that month.
This way there’s no real pressure on me to succeed yet winning means spending so its enough to concentrate the mind and it avoids me having silly bets and I dont generally back a horse if I think its a silly price though I don’t go as far as working out the percentages.
I usually do well enough, always got money to spend so it works for me.
I have tried betting to make a targetted profit over a three year period and I came out in front but the pressure I found nullified my enjoyment of the sport immensely.
Do I study form? Barely, I just know my horses and use the form book only if I want to check something out really. I belive the idea that you have to study form to be successful a complete myth.
:
Hmmmmm, complete myth, really? Why don’t bookmakers have the same price for every horse then? Form matters. If this targetted profit was anything significant I think you were very lucky indeed Ian.
If you look at all the really successful punters in the game, how many do not study form?
I do not make a 100% book for every race but do look at every horse in every race I am interested in having a bet in. Knowing percentages is vital to judge value.
I think anyone can be lucky in making a profit over a short period /even three years if they do not have many bets. But to make one for a long time there is no substitute for form study. Other than my very own system of course. :wink:
Mark
To answer your points :
1) Of course bookmakers don’t have the same price for every horse. Was this supposed to be a serious question? You surely don’t require me to actually spell out why their prices vary? Bookmakers prices aren’t always priced up on form. How many times have we seen an Aiden O’Brien or Paul Nicholls horse priced up at 6/4 when on bare form it should be 9/2? Ok I accept that you have to have “some knowledge of form” but that doesn’t mean you have to trawl through formbooks, knowing a horse – its level of ability, its favoured conditions etc is just as if not more important than looking through its form to find that on one ocassion it ran thrid in a Group 1 and if it reproduces that run it shouldn’t be a 33/1 chance.
1. [b:1n1u0df9]By Form I meant everything you know about a horse, ability, favoured conditions, jockey, pace, trainer, everything. Bookmakers price horses up on what chance they believe each horse will have of winning. If a trainer does well with that type of horse, or in that particular race, then bookmakers will offer a shorter price than the horses “form” indicates it should be (see Dewhurst). But it is still everything to do with how much percentage chance the bookie believes each horse has of winning the race. All I do is: after looking at everything to do with it’s form, there is a price I want to beat. I do not think we are that far apart in our views.[/b:1n1u0df9]
2) I don’t know personally enough successful / professional punters to make a judgement but as I don’t aspire to be a professional punter why would it really matter to me? Just thinking, how much notice does Harry Findlay take of the form book? Did he back Denman in last years Gold Cup because he had better overall form than Kauto Star and was Denman really value at his starting price?
2. [b:1n1u0df9]Yes, in my opinion Denman was value in that ground to beat Kauto Star on the day. Denman did not have better “form” than Kauto, but the going placed the emphasis on stamina which Kauto posssibly lacked. So Denman had a better chance than 30.8% 9/4. Every proffesional gambler takes value in to account. Harry Findlay being connected to the horse knew (or had a very good idea) how good Denman was. But he only backed it because he believed the price was true value.[/b:1n1u0df9]
3) To a degree I see where you are coming from but any winning price is value. If I back a horse at 1/20 (which I wouldn’t lol) and it should be a 1/15 chance I’ve still gained money (though barely at those prices). If (theorectically) every horse you back wins then you win, simple as. I do agree with you though that every horse has a price that is just too short. I believe you can recognise that pretty much without having to use percentages. Example my last but one bet was a winning one State Of Play at Wetherby. Had he been a 7/4 chance I wouldn’t have backed him because I would’ve considered that to be too short on what I know of him and his opposition. At 5/2 or 11/4 I was prepared to bet.
3. Before the race nobody knows who is definately going to win so the “any winning bet is value” is a non starter. You can not believe this and still believe “every horse has it’s price”, the two don’t mix.
Once a punter knows his percentages, i.e. can look at a bookies board and see each price as a percentage he does not “need” to convert prices to percentages, he just knows them. Everyone, even the “value doesn’t matter” brigade know something about value. I too backed State Of Play at 3/1 but would not have taken 7/4.4) Everything takes a certain amount of luck. However much you try you will never get your percentages right every single time it takes judgement and a certain amount of luck to get them right and even then its only right on the back of your own opinion. If you think the percentage way is the only way to succeed perhaps you should ask yourself if
4. NO. It does not require luck, luck evens itself out. You may be unlucky in a run sometimes but a punter should be good enough at finding value for these unlucky times not to matter.And he should be “lucky” just as often.
What is luck anyway? A lot of punters believe they are unlucky if a horse can not get out in time to get to the leader. But sometimes that type of thing can be allowed for in working a race out. At Goodwood over 7f-1m if there are not many prominent runners to take each other on. You can back prominent runners, knowing they will probably get the run of the race. A hold up horse usually finishes fastest but often does not get there. Is he unlucky?
Yes it takes judgement and I (or Dave Nevison or Eddie Freemantle or whoever) do not get it right every time, far from it. A punter can only say he gets it right enough times to make a profit.a) Its because thats what you’ve been taught
b) Its because you don’t know of or are incapable of doing it another way?a. The only way a punter can make a profit on his bets at 4/1 is to win better than 20% (assuming level stakes). That is not open to debate that is a fact. 1/3 75%, 7/1 12.5%, 85/40 32%, 20/1 4.8%. Therefore, a punter needs to find value to make a profit. A punter may, even without searching for value, make a profit. But value is what he has found.
b. For many years I have criticised systems, even got banned from one forum because of it. But now have devised one myself that allows for value. I am always open to new ways.
Food for thought perhaps?
I’ll eat it all up Ian.
Mark
Thank you for your reply Gingertipster.
I don’t think we’re miles apart on our views either to be honest. The main differences being that you clearly take it all more seriously than I do and percentages play a major part in how you do things whereas though I don’t think in terms of percentages I do recognise and appreciate the worth of value.
To you it would appear that horses are a number, a percentage chance whereas to me they are an athlete and racing isn’t a business its a sport. I would never back more than one horse in a race or a horse I didn’t think would win just because of its price.
One thing I will disagree with is your opinion that you don’t need luck I think that is a very dangerous and slightly naive attitude. Both Harry Findlay and Dave Nevison (to name two) have come perilously close to losing everything before they rose to success again. Findlay admitted as much last year on an RUK interview and Nevison in his book “A bloody good winner”. One or two bad results at the wrong time and they would’ve been finished. If that can happen to them no-one is safe. It begs the question – is failure always lurking just round the corner? Is it just a matter a time in the betting business?
I’m not pretending to know the answer to these questions I just think sometimes it IS about luck.
Fist of Fury
Yes I would’ve been fed up had State Of Play won and I’d not backed him, you always are its like you always wish you’d staked ten times as much as you did on every winning bet and half as much on every losing one. It’s just that If I think I’m being robbed by a bookmaker (s) pricing a horse too short I can’t back that horse because it just isn’t worth the risk of backing something at a price shorter than it should be. I’d beat myself up about backing a losing horse that I knew a bookmaker was robbing me on.
I guess I’m just tight lol.
Ian,
I see betting as a matter of percentages, yes. It is an investment.
But please do not think I appreciate RACING any less than you do. I love RACING, everything about the sport from the beauty of the thoroughbred to studying form. If I did not bet I would still follow racing avidly (well, the class 3 and upwards anyway).
Sure everyone comes close to losing everything (or a lot). But why is this luck? As I think it was David who said you have to expect a losing run now and again. If this comes just as you increase stakes significantly, then you’re in the sht. But I regard as just “one of those things” not “luck”.
Indeed, I increased my stake (slightly) just before Glorious Goodwood. Usually a good meeting for me, but far from it this year. But it was just one of those things. Even with things like this happening, you should be good enough at backing winners to show a profit. Losing runs have to be expected.
Think Dave Nevison nearly lost it all because he was doing things wrong, before being put on the road to success by Eddie Freemantle. Nothing lucky in that.
When Harry Findlay talks about punters being wrong going for “value” (when he backs the 2/9 shot), he means value in the Thommo sense of the word (the anything over 5/1 brigade). Not “true value”. 2/9 is true value if Harry believes it has a better than 81.8% chance of winning, so is a good bet. Betting to win significant amounts at prices like 2/9 you have to put big money on. Therefore 2/9 might be true value, but if a few of them lose when he is just starting off, then Harry would’ve been in the proverbial.
I think when losing punters blame “luck” all the time, or trainers, jockeys etc. then it is they who are naïve. Punters who do not believe in luck are “level headed” and are less likely to get in to problems than those who do believe in luck.
You can be lucky or unlucky in a race but you have got to expect that, it is obvious it is going to to happen from time to time. If you are on a hold up horse there is a chance of not getting a run. If a prominent runner there may be too strong a pace, favouring those held up. But a punter should be good enough for luck not to play any part in making or or not making a profit
As to the State Of Play question the difference between 6/4 (40%) and 2/1 (33.3%) is 6.7%. If I was to back all the others in the race within 6.7% of my “price to take”, I’d be backing every runner. On a certain loser.
You might think Fist, about how you’d feel if this horse won and you’d not backed it because it was too short. I always think of how I’d feel if not backing the “true value” bet who beats the good thing.
Mark
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.