- This topic has 190 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
The value approach to betting is the most overrated method IMO. To gain an edge by finding "value", the edge must be replayed thousands and thousands of times (think how a Casino wins from a Roulette wheel) and the average punter doesn’t bet enough times over the course of a year (or even 10 years) for the "value" found to outweigh the "fortune" aspect of horse-racing.
Couldn’t disagree more. By definition if you are in profit at the end of a long series of bets you must have been betting at value prices and ducking those who were too short- not in every case but overall.
I do think this ginger fella’s contention that you can assess odds within a few percentage points as a bit daft too, though. Personally I am aware of percentages but don’t do a complete tissue for a race. Rather if I have found a significant negative about a horse or horses taking out a decent chunk of the market, I’m sniffing around for a bet. I’ll then set a minimum price below which I won’t play and try and secure the best possible above that. Sean Rua’s example is more than likely down to chance- the sample size is too small. I’d only accept someone had an edge if they won over a year with a significant turnover.Fist For Fury
System, how very dare you, this is no system. You still need to work out form, I do all the things you advise and more. But if a horse runs that I have been looking out for, I still have a minimum price I would take, or would back against it if I thought something else was value. You seem to have forgotten that the bookies might have seen your horse run, came to exactly the same conclusion as you did and altered tha price accordingly.
Sean Rua
52 bets is far too small a number of bets for any opinion. I am yet to have a 100/1 winner, biggest winner 89/1.David Brady
Roulette? that is pure luck, no skill. If you want to make money from a casino then card count.Are the people who are negative about value dispute the fact that a 20% strike rate is needed at 4/1 to break even? How many of you would be satisfied with less than a 20% strike rate from your bets at 4/1?
Is it that people do not think it is possible to make a 100% book?
Value Is EverythingGinge,
I certainly wouldn’t dispute that you need a 20% strike rate to break even if you back horses at 4/1.
BUT, one bet I might place at 4/1, the next I might place at 25/1, the next at 15/8, the next at 7/2 etc. In fact, I might not place another bet at 4/1 for six months – and believe me, I’m certainly not into keeping a record for every different price just to keep track if I am breaking even at those odds.
So my question is, if I back a horse tomorrow at 4/1, then place a bet on Wednesday at 12/1, one on Thursday at 25/1, one on Sunday at 11/8 then where does that leave me percentage wise in terms of making a profit or even breaking even.
You can answer if you like, but basically I just think you’re way over complicating things, no, you’re massively over complicating things.
If I have three bets tomorrow, all at 4/1 for the same stake, I know that if none of them win them I don’t make a profit, whereas if just one wins I’m in profit – I really don’t need any tables, charts, stats or whatever to tell me what % of winners I much back at 4/1 in order to make a profit or break even.
Mike
If you add up the percentages of all your bets it comes to 73.26. Divide that by the number of bets (4) and your average price was 18.315%, just over 9/2. So if this is your normal betting pattern you need a strike rate of 18.315% to break even.
Value Is EverythingIf you add up the percentages of all your bets it comes to 73.26. Divide that by the number of bets (4) and your average price was 18.315%, just over 9/2. So if this is your normal betting pattern you need a strike rate of 18.315% to break even.
Thanks for your quick answer.
Now ask yourself, how many people are able, willing, can be bothered or need to do what you have just done.
I’m certainly not knocking your theory and your figures (because they are factual), but can you see where I am coming from when I say you are over complicating things.
You say above "if this is your normal betting pattern" – well that’s part of my point. No it’s not my normal betting pattern, in fact I don’t have a normal betting pattern therefore that’s why I think it’s way too complicated to keep track of.
I would much prefer my way of telling myself that I have finished x amount up today, or x amount down today so that means I am x amount up for the monh etc – not one single % in sight.
Again, thanks for your reply, I appreciate the time and effort you have put in during the course of the night replying to everyone. Unfortunately, these %’s are not for me – but maybe that’s why I’m not that successful punting wise
.I will let the clever people, the number crunchers, post some questions to you tomorrow so you better get a good night sleep
Take care,
MIke
Fist For Fury
System, how very dare you, this is no system. You still need to work out form, I do all the things you advise and more. But if a horse runs that I have been looking out for, I still have a minimum price I would take, or would back against it if I thought something else was value. You seem to have forgotten that the bookies might have seen your horse run, came to exactly the same conclusion as you did and altered tha price accordingly.
Sean Rua
52 bets is far too small a number of bets for any opinion. I am yet to have a 100/1 winner, biggest winner 89/1.David Brady
Roulette? that is pure luck, no skill. If you want to make money from a casino then card count.Are the people who are negative about value dispute the fact that a 20% strike rate is needed at 4/1 to break even? How many of you would be satisfied with less than a 20% strike rate from your bets at 4/1?
Is it that people do not think it is possible to make a 100% book?
In this game you are either a bad judge or a good judge………If I am waiting for a horse to run and believe it can win I am going to bet it whether it is 2/1 or 20/1……you on the other hand are going to waste your time finding the same horse and NOT betting it because it’s 2/1 and you think it should be 4/1……..that’s about a sensible as jumping out a plane without a parachute.
If the bookies have noticed the same horse as me all that tells me is that the chances of me being right are higher.
My Advice for what’s it’s worth is "never lie to yourself" You should have a recrd of every single bet you have in a season…Take a hard long look at what you are doing and ask yourself "AM I WINNING OR LOSING" if you are winning then good on you, …..if you are losing then get back to the drawing board and stop wasting your time.
You mention 52 bests not enough??? that tells me you are punting nearly every day which tells me you can’t possibly be studying nearly enough before betting…………just another mad losing punter is my guess..I post most of my bets on here before I place them and I think everyone knows I am way ahead for the season mainly thanks to Kauto Star and Denman…..and a silly Staurday last weekend……….That’s why I "how very dare you"mate………give us your selections for the next month and show us how easy it is to make money and when you do I will say… you were correct to "How very dare you" come on here and try and tell your granny how to suck eggs
The only way ‘value’ can prove profitable, or at least beneficial, is if it deters you from backing horses you think will win, but are underpriced in your view i.e. the risk-to-reward ratio is too high. This means that you sit the race out and claim that ‘you’re fine’ when your underpriced fancy romps home and leaves your bank balance otherwise unchanged.
On the other hand of course you could have backed horse B, a horse you didn’t fancy over horse A using all of the information to hand (form, ground, race conditions and so on), but was available at half-a-point more than you expected. It was no more likely to win from an analytical point of view…and it didn’t…the only difference now is that your bank has been significantly reduced by ‘value’ which told you to back a horse your brain said wouldn’t win.
But, each to their own. I’ll proceed backing horses I think will win, which is all we’re here to do, and you carry on looking for ‘value’.
You seem to ignore the poor value horse that you don’t back and gets beaten, LGR.
If you just want to back horses you "think will win" , then PM the selections and I will settle all the winners at 1/100, seeing as you aren’t bothered about value. Not so keen now, eh?
Fist of Fury,
You are right about watching racing as much as you can and forming your own opinions based on what you see with your own eyes. Very good advice.
However, surely you must have some idea of the price you are prepared to back a horse at. You wouldn’t buy anything else without knowing the price, so why approach backing horses in this irrational way?
- Total Posts 17716
In a perfect world, one would never back a loser and would have no need of value. (Also the only scenario where all those horses are 5/1 shots
).
In a near perfect world, one would back a high enough percentage of winners for value not to be a consideration.Conclusion:
The further one gets from a perfect selection method, the more one needs to add in ‘value’ to shore up that method.(And the reason why there are a lot more ‘experts’ on ‘value’ than there are on actually selecting winners). Don’t believe me – watch any of the 3 TV channels, or listen to any radio station, covering today’s racing and listen to all the pundits that wouldn’t recognise a winner in a walkover pontificate about value.
RH
I agree with you that there is a lot of pontificating about value on TV and in the media in general (Lesley Graham giving her "value" each way selections for example).
However, cringeworthy as that all may be, it doesn’t alter the simple mathematics – you will not win in the long term if you consistently take under the odds.
Yes, it is all a matter of opinion as to which horses represent value in any given race, but we can all agree that backing 1.01 shots every time would leave us in the poor house in the same way that if we could back any horse we choose at 100-1 we would all be retired in a matter of weeks. These are extreme examples, but they instantly debunk any suggestion that "value" is not important.
The concept of value is definitely significant in determining how much you make or lose in a seasons’ punting, and I have read stories on professional punters who’s methods are centred entirely on value. However, they will pick up on every piece of ‘value’ on offer, and thus will make money in the long run. It makes sense that if you back everything that is too big (or indeed lay everything that is too small), you are effectively backing in over-broke books and will profit over time.
And this is precisely the problem. The average punter doesn’t have the same time to dedicate to finding value, especially considering that it can be found in more places than just racing. As a result, it becomes a relatively futile task for most of us to base our betting patterns purely on value.
And as for the media ‘withholding information’ by not telling the public about the percentages chart- I don’t know about you, but when I was at school they taught us all about percentages and probabilities. All the public really have to do is look up a thesaurus and find out that ‘odds’ are one and the same with ‘probability’!Ok Colin.
If every horse you ever back wins, then you will win regardless of the fact you may have taken poor value every time.
In every other case, the price at which you have backed your winners will determine whether you are a winner in the long run.
LetsGetRacing
>>>"There are no hard rules I’m afraid.As has been said, value is purely subjective "
————————————————————————————————————
Spot on !Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
LetsGetRacing
>>>"There are no hard rules I’m afraid.As has been said, value is purely subjective "
————————————————————————————————————
Spot on !So you are saying it is possible to make a profit (using level stakes) with an 18% strike rate at 4/1?
Not Possible.
Value Is EverythingAh – the old ‘value’ debate.
If you are in long term profit then you are obtaining ‘value’.
The difficult thing is knowing before the result if your bet is value. Only way of knowing that (without the old inside info) is that if a similar selection process/system has in the past consistently led to profits. You still can’t be sure but you can be more sure.
Tell you what though. This forum is value!
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.