- This topic has 190 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Thanks Ginger.
Here I have priced up the 12.50 at Sedgefield tomorrow. How would your prices differ and why? Would be interested in your opinion mate.
5/2 Chief Dan George
7/2 Bedlam Boy
6/1 Logans Run
8/1 Hernando’s Boy
12/1 Torkingking
12/1 Lease Lend
16/1 Cast Iron Casey
50/1 Island Key
50/1 Treehouse
100/1 Bills Murray
100/1 Pre TokenIan,
Got other things to do Ian over the next couple of days, so can’t compare.
Will be doing some working out on wednesday for Newbury on thursday.
One thing though; I believe your prices are to 103.5%, not 100%.
Does not seem a lot but it matters.
Mark
Value Is EverythingThanks Ginger.
Here I have priced up the 12.50 at Sedgefield tomorrow. How would your prices differ and why? Would be interested in your opinion mate.
5/2 Chief Dan George 28.6%
7/2 Bedlam Boy 22.2%
6/1 Logans Run 14.3%
8/1 Hernando’s Boy 11.1%
12/1 Torkingking 7.7%
12/1 Lease Lend 7.7%
16/1 Cast Iron Casey 5.9%
50/1 Island Key 2%
50/1 Treehouse 2%
100/1 Bills Murray 1%
100/1 Pre Token 1%103.5%
Probably just an error adding up on your part Ian. But for anyone that does not know, add both figures together, then divide the second figure by that resultant figure, then x by 100 to find the percentage.
5/2 = 5 + 2 = 7
2 ‘/, 7 = 0.2857
0.2857 x 100 = 28.6%Mark
Value Is EverythingSorry Ginger you are right just wrote a couple down wrong as I was working them out put down a percentage that wasn’t the end percentage.
4/1 Bedlam Boy
7/1 Logans Run
11/1 TorkingkingThats what it should have been.
Having just spent the last 30 mins reading every word of this Brilliant post and having come to the conclusion that Gingertipster is a Professor of the science of percentages, i still think Albertas run is the "value" bet in the Hennessey at 14/1 and thats because i know what this horse is capable of. The only thing "over round" about Albertas was his belly 1st time out!
Having just spent the last 30 mins reading every word of this Brilliant post and having come to the conclusion that Gingertipster is a Professor of the science of percentages, i still think Albertas run is the "value" bet in the Hennessey at 14/1 and thats because i know what this horse is capable of. The only thing "over round" about Albertas was his belly 1st time out!
You’ve got to admire your tenacity GW, although I do hope they lock you up.
If Alberta’s Run wins the Hennessy and we’re not on, the irony will not be lost on me….
Having just spent the last 30 mins reading every word of this Brilliant post and having come to the conclusion that Gingertipster is a Professor of the science of percentages
One of TRF’s better threads that. Suggest you read it all GWILSON77
Actually a PhD. in Percentages wouldn’t unduly tax a numerate pre-pubescent
It’s the generating of ‘accurate’ percentages from a horse race that taxes the post-pubescent
was it only last January your mission began Gingertips, seems like you’ve never been gone
Will price up tomorrow.
Tomorrow is 1.01 in my tissue to turn up!
It’s a movable feast, is tomorrow.
As some have asked me about how I determine if a horse should be a 20%, 23% 25% or 28% chance etc. thought I’d retrieve this thread. It can also be used for any discussions about value. Have reproduced a post I put up almost a year ago (with a few minor changes) as it seems to answer the questions asked by Ian and Himself.
How To Produce A 100% Book.
Please feel free to ask questions, give advice or comment.
Forgive me for a few words about bookmakers early prices, won’t take long.
If a bookmaker’s odds compiler can work out his early prices why can’t we? An odds compiler works out what percentage chance he believes each horse has got of winning to 100% and than adds a bookies mark up.
In a four horse race where he believes each has the same chance of winning, each has a 3/1 25% chance (4 x 25% = 100%). Then adds a mark up, so each would be offered at 11/4 (in a competitive market). If one horses form is unexposed he may go 5/2. This is of course only an opinion of their chance, we may disagree.
We of course shoul only work to 100% or less if a margin for error is needed.
What tools do you need?
To be able to produce your own tissue you have to be a knowledgeable punter. That means buying form books. Doubtful whether the Racing Post would be good enough on its own, but it is a good start. I myself only buy it on days I go racing or special days. I prefer their web site.
The form books I buy are from the Timeform stable. I can not say whether Timeform are better than say Raceform or anything else. It was the first form book I bought and because I did well with it have never looked elsewhere. Some people believe Timeform ratings are based on time performances but that is just one thing taken in to consideration. It is mainly form, one horse against the next.The Timeform advert.
I buy the Timeform Perspective, a form book that comes on A4 paper in race by race format to go in a file 3 times a week. Each race has all the things you get in the Racing Post results only in more detail, and in my opinion to a higher standard (though I do use the RP as well). For example the last run for Tamarinbleu (June 10th, Perth, 3m, good-firm 07) states,"looks an ideal type for the Summer Plate at Market Rasen as he is clearly better than ever in both spheres at present for the fitting of blinkers, while the shorter trip there should prove no problem whatsoever; indeed his speed as much as his stamina was the main feature of this ready display as he led on the bridle 3 out, soon opening up a healthy gap only to come to the end of his tether late on, certainly more superior than the winning margin suggests". Tamarinbleu’s rating was just 2lbs below the joint top rated in the Boylesports Gold Cup. Perspective also pays particular attention to how much pace there was and if each horse was suited by conditions, temperament and jumping ability. Every horse has a write up, apart from the rubbish in class 5 and 6 races that get a brief summery of the race.
If you prefer your form book in horse by horse format then go for the Black Book, but in my opinion it does not give as much information as the Perspective. Computer Timeform, for me is not worth the extra money.
With the Perspective comes a Briefing, giving all the 4 day declarations for GB. For each horse you get: a reference number (to look it up), trainers name, weight allocated, adjusted rating (what rating they think the horse is now capable of given its optimum conditions) and ratings for its last 3 performances. The latter includes type of race, distance in furlongs, Timeforms own going assessment and rating the horse ran to for those runs.
For non-handicaps there are the last 5 years ratings for the winner of that race and average rating of winner. This helps you deduce if the race is sub-standard or if there is one well up to winning the race. Sometimes if many horses are unraced, you can tell whether the top rated horse is up to the job by looking at these race winner ratings. You also get a section on the characteristics of racecourses, undulating, flat, sharp etc.
I get Racehorses and Chasers And Hurdlers annuals that give breeding, characteristics and form summery of every horse that ran in GB the previous season, plus the best of the Irish and French. The summery can be a couple of lines for the worst horse, to 10 page essays on the best. A truly brilliant assessment and record of the season gone.The Trainers Statistical Review shows all sorts of statistics with records on the trainers with enough runners to form a valid assessment.
Stallion Statistical Reviews does the same thing for stallions.
I am in no way connected to Timeform.
My own opinion / race reading and the things I take in to account.
Then there is my own knowledge and opinion. If you ask me about any other subject, I can not remember a thing, don’t even know what day it is sometimes. However, racing is another matter especially for the good stuff. Anything to do with form. Sorry am I blowing my own? I like to form my own mind on things before I look at Timeform but they do often coincide, no bad thing. Do not know how they had Desert Quest as joint top rated in the Boylesports Hurdle. However, when we do disagree they are just as often right.I went to a West Berkshire Racing Club meeting where a speaker Andrew Gibson (2nd in RP search for a tipster) was saying about patterns and profiles of horses. Many horses are best fresh or on certain types of courses. I have been looking out for them this season. e.g. Sir Rembrandt is best fresh and goes particularly well at Cheltenham, 11.5/1. Not only horses but some trainers do well first time up too (as seen in the Trainers Stats book).
The rating is only the starting point, it might be top rated but how likely is it to run to that rating given the conditions? Is it out of form? Was there a good reason for it running below form last time? Can it improve? Above all, is it value?
Does the horse act on the going? With a horses record on a particular surface, if a horse has proven himself on the going there is no reason to look at anything else. Though going preferences can change after an injury and a round action horse is unlikely to take much racing on firm (if he acts on the surface or not). If the horse has not run on soft going before, a round pounding action with its fore legs usually favours soft going e.g. Labelthou. Judge horses by their actual performances. Sometimes Timeform can say a horse acts on firm and soft going when its soft form is 7lbs or more below its firm ground form. Does River City really act on soft? As well as firm. The sires record of producing horses that like the going can be important, Lomitas and In The Wings are in my opinion, sires (particularly on the flat) that tend to produce soft loving animals.
The two sires mentioned are also influences for stamina. If you believe the race will be truly run and a horse has proven he stays the trip in a truly run race, there is no need to look any furthe. But if not then breeding comes in to play. Temperament is a factor with a lazy horse or one that relaxes often staying further than its breeding suggests. Where as an excitable one, that jig jogs or sweats up often does not stay as far as pedigree indicates.
You also have to think will the horse be suited by the way the race is likely to be run? Does the horse usually front run, race prominently, track pace, held up or drop out. Races with only one of the first two categories are likely to favour promonent runners. They do not always win but are likely to have a better chance than its form indicates. There will be plenty of punters looking at the Boylesports International Hurdle, thinking they were unlucky? Osana pinching a start and getting a soft lead. However, studying the race beforehand he was always likely to get the run of the race. Races with plenty of pace horses often have strong early fractions when they take each other on, favouring those coming from off the pace. Some front runners sulk if they can not get their own way out in front, running poorly. As well as posing the question, does it act on the going? You also have to ask, will it be suited by a test of stamina / speed at the trip? Kauto Star stays a slowly run 3 ¼ miles on good going, but what are the chances of him staying a strongly run 3 ¼ miles on soft? Questions like this greatly influence what price I am willing to take about each horse.
Temperament can sway my judgement. A genuine performer can out-battle its rivals especially at a course like Cheltenham. Where as some equines (dogs) like to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, so have a much less chance than its form suggests. Another question, is headgear likely to help? A lazy but genuine horse yes, an ungenuine one usually, but not always no.
On the flat there is draw advantage. Timeform do give their own assessment but I like to do my own with courses I regularly go to / bet at. e.g. Salisbury on a sound surface seems to favour those drawn high, but only if there is no false rail. When the biggest field of the day is a bit less than the maximum allowed a false rail goes in. Negating any draw advantage. Big handicaps on straight courses are often won by hold up horses drawn near the pace setters.
Some horses might go better for McCoy, Walsh, Dettori, Fallon or Moore. But really the reason top jockeys are better is their consistency. Finding a particularly good claiming jockey is more rewarding. Some punters do not like backing apprentices so their horses often go off at a bigger price than they should even allowing for their inexperience. Normally a jockey might make a difference of just one, possibly two percent either way.
Trainers form for me has a far greater impact on who might be a good price than jockey. The two weeks record of each trainer is invaluable and is my first job when assessing a race. Todays Trainers in the Racing Post, gives the number of winners, placed and runners together with number of days and runners since last win. I prefer the Racing Post web site though, going to each race and clicking on the trainers name. Giving every run in detail and (particularly for trainers who have had many runners) can be more informative. The rtf (ran to form) figures can be of help but if a trainer has had only one or two runners, 0 or 100% can be misleading. I rate trainers from ** outstanding form, through *, */, //, /, /-, -, -x, to x don’t touch it. Trainers second strings are often over-priced, they should be judged on form and nothing else, unless in as a pacemaker.
You have to enjoy studying form to do it. I take anything between 15 minutes for a 7 runner grade 1, to around 1 ½ hours (class 4, 18 runner handicap). Making notes as I go in my own shorthand about all the above form, unless it is for a grade 1 or 2 race where I practically know the form anyway.Working out the percentages.
Write down who has the best chance of winning through to the worst (1 to however many runners there are).
Sometimes I start with the favourites chance, first and second favs together, or the worst chance (usually in a big handicap).
If there is a race where I think the favourite (1) has about the same chance as all the others put together then he would have a provisional rating of 50%.
For the second fav, (2) if I thought it had just a couple percent short of half the chance of the fav, 23%.
(3) say roughly two thirds of the second fav 15%.
(4) the third and fourth fav were equal to the 2nd fav then the 4th fav would be 8%.
(5) just over half the chance of 4th, 5%.
(6) just a little worse than the 5th, 4%.
(7) And the final runner half of that, 2%.
50% + 23% + 15% + 8% + 5% + 4% + 2% = 107%
Adding all these up totals 107% and we need to get it down to 100%.
Has (1) really got the same chance as all the others combined? May be not, but probably has with the outsider (2 + 48 = 50). So, reduce (1) to 48%.
(2) looks overdone by as much as 2.5%, down to 20.5%.
(3) looks about right on 15%, just shaving ½% off, down to 14.5%.
(4) looks dead right on 8% as does the outsider (7) on 2%.
Is the chance of the (5) and (6) together really 1% more than (4)? If you now believe them equal, do you reduce both by ½%? You think not and reduce (5) by ¾% to 4.25% and (6) by ¼% to 3.75%.48% + 20.5% + 14.5% + 8% + 4.25% + 3.75% + 2% = 101%.
Still 1% over, if you can not see where to take the 1% from try adding percentages on as if you were a bookie. Shorter prices have a bigger percentage added, so too do unexposed horses, where as exposed horses have less.
(1) 48% horse is unexposed so add 3% (51%) 20/21
(2) 20.5% is quite exposed, add 1.5%% (22%) 7/2
(3) 14.5% is quite unexposed but is a bit longer in price, add 2% (16.5) 5/1
(4) 8% is certainly unexposed but as it is also not a short price add 2% (10%) 9/1
(5) 4.25% is average, add 1% (5.25%) 18/1
(6) 3.75% is exposed, 0.75% (4.5%) 22/1
(7) 2% is well handicapped on his best form of 18 months ago, add 1.25% (3.25%) 28/1.Now do any of those prices look too short? If you think (3) still looks a bit wrong take the 1% off his price, 14.5% now becomes 13.5% making a 100% book.
Convert the percentages of your 100% book to odds and ask yourself would you back or lay any of those prices? If yes then fiddle with the percentages until right.
Once you are satisfied with them, back any horse you can get a BETTER price for than your 100% book.(1) 48% = 11/10
(2) 20.5% = 4/1 (just over)
(3) 13.5% = 13/2
(4) 8% = 12/1 (almost)
(5) 4.25% = 22/1
(6) 3.75% = 25/1
(7) 2% = 50/1.
To 100%In the example above, you may want to write the figures down, as they happen to make it easier to follow.
In large fields I often start with the worst horse and just ask how much better chance does the next worse horse have? In a race where the first and 2nd favs combined are thought to add up to a round figure, say 75% chance I might start with them.
It took time to get the working out right and I kept bets small to start with (some might say they still are small).
It might sound too difficult or too time consuming but it gets easier the more I do it. Most of it I do without thinking about it.
Every horse has a price, if a punter thinks it is value (in table of odds and chances terms) then he is right to back it.
Mark
The Ginger PreacherGinge that took some work and you are entitled to a lot of respect.I couldn’t be bothered as itwould take uptoo much of my time and I love to get out and about after a hard or easy day at the office.
I have 2 chains of thought here. 1. I read you have made a 16% profit…that’s better than any bank rate so keep doing what you are doing.
2. Scrap what you are doing and spend as much time as you can, which seems to be a lot,watching recordings of racing and reading what others write instead of writing and calculating %’s all day. Pick yourself a few horses that really impress you and Instead of having 60 bets at a fiver have 3 at 100 quid…….you can still use your % theory and you willmake a lot more money out of the game.
The problem with the former is when you up your stakes the odds say you will lose…anybookie will tell you no matter how youplay it the morse bets you have in a week the more the chancesare you are going to lose. If you hit a bad run but believe in what you are doing you want to keep going and if it doesn’t turn for you, you start betting against yourself……..you don’t call it a systeem but it is mate and systems on the whole fail.
To each his own mate but that is how I do it…….3 bets a week at most and if that, unless Chelters is on or by coincidence a few run at the same time..Aftertiming this is but I just want to make a point not boast about having awinner, my only bet so far this week was Jonjos yesterday KK who was in a pig of a race my grannie could have won. Good start as I can now have 2 free bets this week without fear off losing…Incidentally I fanced three horses yesterday and had I backed the other two I would have been back to sqaure one…I fancied these two on form but know basically nothing else about them..haven’t seen them run that I recall……Quidonc 2nd and Seraphim Knight AP N Henderson who was also 2nd……..winners are too hard to find without throwing away profit on horses I don’t know enough about and if I backed everything I fancied I would be skint. Would hate to see the same thing happen to you..by all means have small bets on a Saturday to win big bucks 3 crosses etc but beyond that less numbers more profit.
GL
…it never arrives though, does it!
Colin
Makes ground rapidly, swinging off the bridle, and yet never goes through with it. Tomorrow should get a squiggle.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.