- This topic has 190 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
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?
Not exactly the same.
You can not back both heads and tails in one toss. You can bet four horses at 5/1 in the same race.
Value Is EverythingYes, indeed, if you back the 4 horses in the same race then your logic applies. Not if, as was intimated, they are backed in separate races.
Yes, indeed, if you back the 4 horses in the same race then your logic applies. Not if, as was intimated, they are backed in separate races.
How do you get the odds equivalent there? Presumably there is a way. Don’t know how you can allow for the chance of getting two, three or even four 5/1 shots winning in four seperate races. As well as just the one.
Thankfully when accessing a race I do not need to know.
Value Is Everything" 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. "Thanks for your reply, Ginger.
In many ways I accept some of the value betting ideas. However, one thing that has concerned me about value-seekers is that they often seem to need a big number of bets.For instance, lets take FOF: Apparently, he prefers to make fewer but larger bets on specialised targets. When he says this works fine, I believe him. Why wouldn’t it?
Getting back to the "52 bets being too small a number for any opinion", I was wondering about anyone wanting to bet on the Gold Cup, and nothing but the Gold Cup.
Would you say that, even if such a person has records of his betting in 52 Gold Cups, he has not enough data to form an opinion on this year’s likely winner?If that’s correct, then I’m 100% sure that I have no chance at all of profiting from the race. Neither would JP Mc Manus, I suppose.
Btw, I shall be opposing FOF’s beloved Kauto – even though I guess the percentages say my money’s gone west, even before the flag goes up.
Finally, don’t you think that you should be glad that the racing media do not publicise your value concepts at every opportunity? I believe that they have no interest in spoiling the party by spoiling the odds.
Thanks again for your article. it is very well written, imo.
Sean Rua.
I find all of this as dull as a dull, dull thing!!!!!!!!
I think many people are on this thread saying exactly the same thing and most of it is all glaringly obvious. This holy grail "value" concept is like fine wine. Loads of bollocks talked about that as well but if you like one who is to tell you that you don’t. Its all subjective and everyones perception of odds and chances will differ.
Suppose if you are into horse racing mainly for gambling then fine go for it. If you are into horse racing mainly for other reasons then your perception of value may be different. Some may label the latter group "mug punters". A label that might equally apply to someone obsessed by gambling and spending 12 hours a day analysing form and systems.
Regarding the calculation of value, insurance companies have used actuaries for many years rather successfuly (while cheating poorer people without recourse to lawyers, of course, whenever they could).
But I only passed "O Level" Maths the second time, and my "rule of thumb" approach serves me reasonably, though my discipline, unfortunately, occasionally goes to pieces. I recognise value in the same way the old geezers in pubs in my youth instantaneously recognised what darts were needed to get out. Observation over many years.
But whatever the approach to value, good, bad, indifferent, non-existent, it is unquestionably crucial. It’s validity is not dependent on our approach to it, though our compliance with its dictats will govern the success of our investments. Obviously, over a period of time.
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
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.I really think that is nonsense…….punters bet horses on what they fancy and maths simply don’t come into it.
They either think the horse will win or it will not.
If a horse is odds on they may leave the race alone as they don’t want to risk their cash for a very small profit but that’s as far as it goes.
If you can put your hand on your heart and tell me you have won season after season using this method of choosing your bets then I think you are a great guy for trying to help others………If however you are a mad losing punter who is trying to convince himself, that by doing all these calculations, you are going to win a fortune, then it’s time you visited a shrink or just stop gambling..I hope for your sake it’s the former
I find all of this as dull as a dull, dull thing!!!!!!!!
Is that because you’ve heard/seen it all before Kevin? You obviously don’t find it that dull or you would’nt have contributed to the thread?
This value debate rears its head all the time marb. Its not really new. I remember way back in the C4 forum days animated discusssion on value which to be honest I am all for. Animated discusion on this forum that is.
Its the whole approach I find dull marb, not the discussion.
FOF wrote:
I really think that is nonsense…….punters bet horses on what they fancy and maths simply don’t come into it
Sadly, this is true. Bookmakers and professional gamblers/shrewd punters rely on mathematics like an old and trusted friend, making a profit as a result. People who back their fancies without any regard for maths provide these profits. A fact.
I think Gingertipster is trying to educate those punters who are merely backing their fancies, but in my experience most of them do not want to know about such things as probability and percentages. I can understand why.
People generally bet for enjoyment above everything else and for the vast majority of people simple pleasures are the most enjoyable. Have a quick look at the paper, make your choices and that’s it.
Just about everyone(certainly every regular) on this forum is a thinking punter who goes far beyond the punter that Gingertipster is trying to educate. However, we are only a tiny minority and the great batallions of ‘simple pleasure’ backers will never read and heed the wisdom offered.
But, good on yer’ for trying. A lot of us have been doing the same thing for years, voices crying in the wilderness.
Sadly, there are some things in betting that are boring but probably essential. The value issue seems to be one of them.
I think there will always be a huge gap twixt theory and practice. Ginge has written a nice piece outlining the theory; few will adhere rigidly to its principles in practice, imo. Probably just as well for both value-seekers and bookmakers’ odds-compilers!
In pure math I would expect each side of the equation to be sure to balance, but in racing, I am quite certain that there is no such guarantee. Even bookmakers go bust from time to time.
When Ginge moved on to his method of selection, I thought at first that he was going to write an ad for Timeform. What he said was very interesting, and I would be keen to know more about why he says he still buys the RP on certain occasions.
What are the strongpoints of the RP paper, in your experience, Ginge?Sean Rua.
The original question about 52 bets mentioned whether having one winner at 100/1 in 52 bets indicated a punter was getting value. With a return of £101 for every £1 staked at 100/1, 52 bets is far too small a sample. The £49 profit is probably luck or coincidence. If however, the punter had 1000 bets with a 3% strike rate winning 30 times at an average price of 66/1 then it is probably the result of value finding at big odds.
If a punters average price taken is around 2/1 then 52 bets possibly would be enough, though more bets will give a better reading. It also depends how (at 2/1) did those bets come. If a punter had one or two big wins, without which he would not have made a profit, his profit is more to do with luck.
For a gambler who does not deal in level stakes the best way of establishing whether he / she gets value or not may not be profit or loss. Add up all the percentages of prices taken, e.g. 3/1 (25%) + 7/1 (12.5%) = 37.5% and so on. Then divide by the number of races. If this figure is bigger than strike rate he has got value, and he’d be unlucky if making a loss. Just a matter of the big bets not winning. If the figure is less than the strike rate he will be lucky if showing a profit.The reasons why I get the Racing Post are:
It is cheaper than a race card when going racing. It is an interesting read for the better meetings. What the trainers say about their runners can sometimes be significant (can also mean runners start at bigger odds than they should). The Todays Trainers section is informative.I did not start this thread particularly trying to educate punters in what is “true valueâ€
Value Is EverythingYour crusade is doomed to failure Gingerman, because most punters don’t really want to win. Most punters bet for the buzz, the entertainment, the chat with their mates about how unlucky they were yesterday. Most punters have no idea just how hard it is to win backing horses and how much work is required. Winning punters whether they know it or not must have found a way of identifying overpriced (value) bets whatever their method is. It could be speed figures, paddock analysis, trends, trainer analysis or a million other things but the common feature must be that they have seen something the market has not priced properly and is hence offering value.
On a side issue Fist of Whatever appeared here a few months ago and has been dining out ever since on a short price double of 2 odds-on shots and telling us Kuato Star will win the Gold Cup.He "mentions" occasional bets he’s had "for fun" all of whom have been stuffed (Blythe Knight, Do the Trick) If he’s a significant winning punter with a decent turnover my ass is on fire. You are a cad and a bounder, Sir but highly entertaining!
I agree with everthing you say CarvillsHill but don’t you think there is a significant minority that would like to make a profit but just have not heard of the table? Because the media ignores it.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingThe intended reason for the thread was to ask:
The table is so important to making a profit. So are the racing media “putting punters awayâ€
Typing the word "overround" into Google, will give any punter an explanation of odds/percentages. The racing-media are not the only source of information, and it is not encumbent upon them to educate – only entertain.
As previously stated, the vast majority of punters have no desire to get into an analytical assessment of ‘value’ (which is a subjective thing anyway) – all they want to do is have a punt, and then move onto the next dog race/lucky numbers/roulette.
The Racing Post today is an excellent example of the need to take pains. James Pyman’s article about left and right-jumping chasers is solid gold, and I will take the trouble to note all the horses he mentions into RI as well as probably researching my own Irish ones in a similar way- time spent- hours, but I’ll enjoy it. Number of other RP readers who will do the same? Not many. Consequence? I’ll be looking at a race with a 6/4 fav next April that I know to be better the other way around and will either lay it or back something to beat it. The lads in the betting shop will say it wasn’t off as they crumple their losing dockets onto the floor. It also shows that buying the RP every day IS value, if only for snippets like these. The article may well appear on the web, but I might have missed it htere.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.