- This topic has 190 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
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.
GT
Aren’t you suggesting that it is possible to predict your future strike rate and what price you will back them at, because that isn’t possible either?
With respect Ginger you should try to be a little more objective and listen to the constructive critism that is being offered here.
Value is in backing winners. An 18% strike rate on your previous bets does not necessarily mean that you future strike rate will be similar. Horses are not machines and neither are punters. Its not like a flick of a coin with few variables. Horses & punters have bad days and few punters want to be as disciplined and work that hard.
Value is subjective. I might think a horse is good or bad value and that will determine if I choose to bet or not or how much I will bet. you may disagree. Much of what you say takes all the fun out of this game.
Gamble what you can afford to loose and there is no problem.
As some have asked me about how I assess each horse, 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.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 PreacherValue Is EverythingGT
Aren’t you suggesting that it is possible to predict your future strike rate and what price you will back them at, because that isn’t possible either?
When did I say that? Said no such thing.
Value Is EverythingLetsGetRacing
>>>"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.
What I’m saying ( or agreeing with ctaually, is LetsGetRacing’s asserttion ) that there are no hard and fast rules, and that value is indeed purely subjective. In other words, each to their own, and never set yourself parameters.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
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?
I’m not totally stupid…most of the time
and Sorry!!! Seabird here we go again.Of course I want value for money who doesn’t……When I backed Kauto and Denman in a double I think I got great value for money.
I had already backed Kauto for the big double at much longer odds and wasn’t going to bother.
A few days before the race he was still 5/6fav…..I could not believe it….I made him a 4/11 shot as ED to me was going to be the only possible danger and the yard has been out of sorts……Kauto was reportedly in the best form of his life…….then I thought why not take advantage of the 4/9 available on Denman……..the way I looked at it, and started a thread saying so… was 7/4 Denman was a great price. I was of course assuming Kauto was going to win and win he did.
It was an important bet for me as I have a very large investment in the big double…….I was banking 100% on winning the KG but as I said he looked a moral certainty to me and no matter which way I looked at the race I thought defeat was out of the question……….Now because he did win and Denman also obliged I can sit back and relax.
If that was me being irrational then long may it continue
Incidentally I don’t make a habit of backing 4/7 shots and last week one of Jonjos was forecast at that price in the SP or RP….however by the off they had made a horse fav who is trained by some unknown guy who has had 2 runners in a year…..I couldn’t wait to back Jonjo’s as I know he was useful and fit which made him great value.
That’s where your man falls flat on his backside……….If a horse isn’t 100% you can bet your socks the bookies know about it……….so they are happy to lay the horse who was forecast at say 7/2 at 5/1….he thinks it is value for money and bets it, not knowing he is beat before the tapes go up.
That happens at least 6 times a day in racing which blows looking for value, daily, right out the window………at the end of the day to me Kauto was great Value in the KG becuase I thought he was a 4/11 shot however others might have thought he was a 1/1 money shot based on the fact ED ran close to him before…………it’s all just opinions but one thing is for sure……….only horses that win count and that’s what I try to do is back winners…….
you back 4 horses at 5/1 cos they are value for money you will be lucky if one wins…….if one does win you have got a 6/4 winner……..that’s not value for money that’s nuts and anyone who follows that sort of logic will perhaps not end up skint but most likely wont make money either……..It is more likely you will get 1 in 6 that will win for you, which means you are clearing your feet at best.
No fun in that……..I am waiting now for next value bet and I tell you freely…….If PN confirms that Noland definitely runs on Wednesday I will be on to my bookie like a flash……..16/1 Noland EW for the Arkle…….If he runs and wins he wins impressively it won’t matter what he has beaten………..think Denman, bookies will make him 3/1 fav at best and hype him to the high heavens……Then I might lay him depending on how impressively I think he was……….
FOF,
I’m sorry but the impression I had(from your posts) was that you were prepared to lump on regardless of the odds. It seems that you do have a price in mind. The concept of value can be applied at any price, so I’m actually agreeing with you that you can get a very favourable bet at long odds- on in some cases.
Once again, it’s a question of semantics. Most TV pundits use the term ‘value’ very loosely to mean a horse with a fair chance at a decent price in relation to the favourite and other well fancied runners. Value punters are more precise, prefering to claim a value bet for any horse whose odds exceed their expectations. It seems you may be a value- seeking punter after all, FOF.
“Aren’t you suggesting that it is possible to predict your future strike rate and what price you will back them at, because that isn’t possible either?”
I’d say that is entirely possible. If I use a certain selection system which has, over a period of time, ‘proven’ itself statistically then it is reasonable to assume, in the short to medium term, that the performance can be replicated. Not with 100% certainity, agreed, but certainly within the bounds of statistical probability.
fist of fury says,
"you back 4 horses at 5/1 get 1 winner its 6/4 thats not value."it better be. or i’ll need to give up
I just feel it’s a hard way to find a 6/4 winner……you could argue you have 4 chances of success and IF you are lucky and 2 win then yes it’s very good value………but it’s a big IF and goes way against the grain for me.There is more meaning to the word value than money alone
example
Hardy Eustace 6/4
Harchibald 2/1
Afsoun 5/1
7/1 othersThere is no way on this earth am I going to back Afsoun because he is 5/1, he is a professional loser……..BUT let’s say I do back him and he wins I get no pleasure out of him doing so and proving me wrong.
It seems to me thats what value hunters do when they say they won’t back a horse under say 4/1.They bet against themselves
In this fictitious race I would rather bet Hardy Eustace who I think would win and is decent value. If he wins I feel great because in my heart of hearts I thought he would………and that’s more valuable to me than betting against my own judgment.
As someone said already they couldn’t be bothered with what G is doing to try and beat the bookie…..that’s because it’s not just about money it’s about the sport and the joy of watching your favourite horses romp home.
They say there is no room for sentiment in racing I say there is plenty room for it.Evens — 50— —50.00% xx 172—– 10.5– 10.50%
2120- — 49— —48.78% xx 91——- 10—– 10.00%
1110- — 48— —47.62% xx 101—– 9—— 9.09%
65—– — 46— —45.45% xx 111—– 8.5—- 8.33%
54—– — 44— —44.44% xx 121—– 8—— 7.77%
118— — 42— —42.11% xx 131—– 7—— 7.14%
64—– — 40— —40.00% xx 141—– 6.75– 6.67%
138— — 38— —38.10% xx 151—– 6.25– 6.25%
74—– — 36— —36.36% xx 161—– 6—— 5.88%
158— — 35— —34.78% xx 181—– 5.5—- 5.26%
21—– — 33— —33.33% xx 201—– 5—— 4.76%
85/40- — 32— —32.00% xx 221—– 4.5—- 4.35%
94—– — 31— —30.77% xx 251—– 4—— 3.85%
52—– — 29— —28.57% xx 281—– 4.5—- 3.45%
114— — 27— —26.67% xx 331—– 3—— 3.33%
31—– — 25— —25.00% xx 401—– 2.5—- 2.44%
10030 — 23— —23.08% xx 501—– 2—— 1.96%
72—– — 22— —22.22% xx 661—– 1.5—- 1.49%
41—– — 20— —20.00% xx 801—– 1.25– 1.23%
92—– — 18— —18.18% xx 1001—- 1—— 0.99%
51—– — 17— —16.67% xx 1251—- 0.75– 0.79%
112— — 15— —15.38% xx 1501—- 0.67– 0.66%
61—– — 14— —14.29% xx 2001—- 0.5—- 0.50%
132— — 13— —13.33% xx 3001—- 0.33– 0.33%
71—– — 12.5 —12.50% xx 4001—- 0.25– 0.25%
152— — 11.5 —11.76% xx 5001—- 0.2—- 0.20%
81—– — 11— —11.11% xx 10001– 0.1—- 0.10%This is the said Table Of Odds And Chances.
First column is price.
Third Column is actual percentage that price is equivalent to (to 2 decimals).
Second column is the rough percentage, e.g. when working a race out you would not rate something as a 47.62% chance. 48% is fine.Value Is Everythingfist of fury says,
"you back 4 horses at 5/1 get 1 winner its 6/4 thats not value."it better be. or i’ll need to give up
Who does your maths Barry?
4 x 5/1 (16.67%) = (66.68%)
I make that as the same as taking a 1/2 chance.
£1 @ 5/1 loser
£1 @ 5/1 loser
£1 @ 5/1 loser
£1 @ 5/1 wins Return £6
£4 staked
£2 profit£4 @ 1/2 wins Return £6
£2 ProfitSorry Barry, may be you meant that 6/4 about a 1/2 shot is value. As in "6/4 had better be value". Not "it better be not value". If you see what I mean.
Value Is EverythingIt seems to me thats what value hunters do when they say they won’t back a horse under say 4/1.They bet against themselves
This statement is a popular misconception of value and is why the racing media needs to explain true value.
That is not what I mean at all Fist.
A 7/2 horse would be a good bet if the punter believes it has a better than 22.22% chance of winning. A 4/6 shot is a good bet if the punter believes it has a better than 60% chance of winning. 9/1 would be 10%.
Every horse has a value price, whether it is odds on or a long shot.Value Is EverythingIt would appear you may be right, gingertipster. I had thought that most people knew what value meant, even if they claimed not to believe in it. It would seem not.
I found memorising the table of odds %s very handy when I first started betting – not least with regards to knowing when to take a price and when not to – but is it of much use since Betfair put %s on all their markets back in 2003 other than for each-way betting and pricing your own books?
I think what Barry was getting at was that getting 6/4 about having 1 winner out of 4 at 5/1 was very good value. That’s how I read FOF’s post anyway.
There is a lack of logic in your last post though GT.
The cumulative odds of an event occuring cannot be aggregated in the way you describe (i.e. backing 4 horses at 5/1 being equivalent of a 1/2 chance).
Think about the chance/probability of a head appearing when a coin is tossed twice in succession?
I agree Prufrock, the best way of using it is to produce your own 100% book. But it does not really matter about betfair putting up the percentage each market is betting to. It is the price of each individual horse that counts. Say there are two races, one betting to 101% the other 120%. A horse a punter believes has a 20% chance in either race, should be backed if better than 4/1 is available (in either). Admittedly it is far more likely to happen in the former race.
Also to be able to look at a bookies board and see percentages (not prices) helps enormously to find value.Barry Dennis
How about, next time Mr. McCrirrick spouts off about SP reform.
Tell him that if he were to stop "putting punters away" and explain the table of odds and chances to the viewers, then they would not back SP anyway.No serious punter will take SP (unless within seconds of the off). There is no knowing what price the horse will return. Therefore no knowing whether the horse will be value or not. A good bet or not.
Value Is Everything
and Sorry!!! Seabird here we go again.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.