- This topic has 190 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
I made it an obligation to make contact with as many fellow punters and horseman friends as possible yesterday, to ask them about The Table Of Odds And Chances.
Never – heard – a – thing – of – it.
However, half the blokes commented that they believed British punters are far superior to any others on earth.
I made it an obligation to make contact with as many fellow punters and horseman friends as possible yesterday, to ask them about The Table Of Odds And Chances.
Never – heard – a – thing – of – it.
However, half the blokes commented that they believed British punters are far superior to any others on earth.
It is sometimes called the true odds table or percentages table.
Far superior, is that me then? I’ve got a big enough head as it is Myles.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingI think you are quite dull.
Only quite?
Thanks mate, if what you said mattered to me I might be offended, but as it doesn’t…….Value Is EverythingI can’t believe what I just read: You wrote "They all seem to have the same chance of winning. Say it was a 4 horse race, each would have a 25% chance. Any runner would be a good bet at better than 3/1."
That is crap sorry mate but it is. in fact it’s a downright stupid thing to say.
The only good bet is the horse that wins his price has got damn all to do with it.
You are not a punter your a maths teacher
You can do anything with figures………make any case for any price by manipulating figures……..If this happens if that happens…if if if
I just don’t know how anyone thinks he can beat the book by betting prices instead of horses………depending 100% on luck IMO
You are not a punter your a maths teacher
I agree, upon reading the post your were referring to.
Technically, yes … 4 horses in a race all have a 25% chance of winning. But we’re talking about punting here; if you don’t have punting commonsense you may as well toss out any elaborate system you have created from scratch.
You are not a punter your a maths teacher
I agree, upon reading the post your were referring to.
Technically, yes … 4 horses in a race all have a 25% chance of winning. But we’re talking about punting here; if you don’t have punting commonsense you may as well toss out any elaborate system you have created from scratch.
As I have said Myles, this is not a system and is not a substitute for form study. It does not matter if any particular 3/1 chance wins or loses, as long as I win more than 25% of my 3/1 bets, I show a profit. If this particular 3/1 bet ends up winning it will not matter at all, if I do not win more than 25% of my 3/1 bets, I lose. Therefore any horse I believe has a 25% chance of winning will be backed at better than 3/1. The only way of deciding if the horse has a 25% chance is through meticulous form study.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingI have been unsure about dipping my little toe into this debate, but here goes.
Some (Gingertipster, for example) express their judgement in terms of numbers, tables and the concept of ‘value’. Others (Fist of Fury, for example) express their judgement in terms of finding the likely winner of a race.
… I think it is mostly the same thing, but seen from different angles – it is all about judgement.
The final arbiter of ‘good’ judgement is the bank balance.
Fist,
I suppose you could say I prefer to invest, not gamble.
Nobody knows before the race who is going to win, so it is all about ifs.
I back both the price and the horse, they go together. Anyone who does not take value in to account will eventually lose, unless he / she has a lucky big win (Agnus Haddock).Ginge
Value Is EverythingSo you study the foorm which I presume you spend some time on it. To study race properly you can’t do in 2 minutes can you?
So let’s say you do it in the moring of the race and we have your four 3/1 shots and you decide horse A has the best chance of the four horses. A= 29% B=25% C=22% D=21%
You go down to your betting shop and there has been a huge gamble on the A horse it’s got out he’s a wonder horse or whatever.
A 6/4
B 7/2
C 5/1
D whatever price you need to mke up this book
So what do you then back the 7/2 shot or the 5/1 shot?
You can’t back the 6/4 shot he isn’t value for money.
If you don’t back A you are betting against your own judgment.
If you don’t bet A and he wins by a distance wouldn’t you feel like an idiot?
Let’s say I wanted to take your advice and follow your selections how much would I need to guarantee a return of say 250K per anum?
I’m honestly interested in what you think the annual profit should be using your method of selecting which horses to bet and not bet.
You say you keep records so you should be able to produce some sort of guide……………maybe the horses you backed in the last year?
- Total Posts 17716
Ginge
We’re going to need a bit more convincing!
12 selections in 3 races, at combined odds Alex Gorey would baulk at, without one single winner suggests you’re just spouting a mantra without any real idea of what you’re talking about.
Before you realise your plans to go worldwide, it might help if you could convince a few yokels?Fist,
If the best prices were 3/1 all four horses (I wish they did bet to 100%).
It would be frustrating if the 3/1 had gone before I could got on, even more so if it went and won. But knowing I would need a 40% strike rate with my 6/4 shots to break even I could not back horse A if I believed it to have a 29% 5/2 chance.
If A was very unexposed, one connections might know a lot more than I do, I may not have a bet. But, let us say they are all exposed horses, I would have a quick look at the form to see if I had missed something. If nothing is obvious I back both B and C. B at 7/2 (22.2%) is 2.8% better priced than my estimate 25% (3/1), and C at 5/1 (16.7%) is also 5.3% better than my estimated 22% (7/2). Deciding whether to back both as main bets or back C as the main bet (as it is the best value bet) and B as a saver.
I am in effect backing something I believe has around an 11/10 chance (25% + 22% = 47%) at around 13/8 (22.2% + 16.7% = 38.9%)
Because of so much money for horse A, horses B and C have become (imo) good bets. It is not a matter of backing against my original selection because the prices have changed, now a totally different scenario.I am not a brilliant judge Fist but do know enough to show a profit, and do not make a magnificent amount. Trying to prove to myself I can do it before upping stakes. I am not going to tell you or anyone else how much I make over all but on another site I have been putting my tips up with recommended stakes with a 16.2% profit on stakes (had poor run in January).
What has happened before can not guarantee anything in the future. But if the National Hunt season continues in the same vein (16.2% profit), the answer to your question is £215,146.30 stakes returns £250,000 with a £34,853.70 profit.Ginge
Value Is EverythingThis is the craziest thread I’ve ever read.
Massive well done to Ginge for perservering with it and answering all the questions posed to him….
…. but Ginge (Mike puts his arm around Ginge’s shoulders and tells him like it is man to man), you’re not convincing anyone mate.
The example you gave last Saturday (or the Saturday before) you selected six horses in two races simply because you thought they were over priced according to your tissue (which is worked out on the % chance you give each horse) – yet none of them won. I know you will get winners, but you’re already 6 units down on the example you gave.
I wish you luck, but you certainly haven’t convinced me.
Mike
This is the craziest thread I’ve ever read.
Massive well done to Ginge for perservering with it and answering all the questions posed to him….
…. but Ginge (Mike puts his arm around Ginge’s shoulders and tells him like it is man to man), you’re not convincing anyone mate.
The example you gave last Saturday (or the Saturday before) you selected six horses in two races simply because you thought they were over priced according to your tissue (which is worked out on the % chance you give each horse) – yet none of them won. I know you will get winners, but you’re already 6 units down on the example you gave.
I wish you luck, but you certainly haven’t convinced me.
Mike
(ginge moves his shoulder away and politely tells Mike not to be such a wus). Thanks Mike,
I think I have convinced those who are convinceable (is that the right word?). Doubt if anything else I say is going to convince anyone else.I do not do units, as some bets were main bets, some half bets and others saver bets can not see how it can be 6 units down. Each race should surely be seen as one bet (unit) when betting in this way. So if you want to express it in units may be 2 units down is fairer.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingJust allow me this post Reet, tried to resist but can’t.
explain[/b:qeb8nmnu] it to the normal punter, without explanation it is useless. In my opinion what they are doing is putting punters away with something that should influence gamblers on every bet they make, not just one.
Jim Bolger may not not tell the whole truth, nor does the racing media.
Mark
Value Is EverythingI have often heard JP at Cheltenham say he fancied his horse to win but did not back it because he did not like the Odds.I often wondered what he meant but now I know exactly. professional punters must stick to betting the odds or they become emotional punters doomed like the rest of us .
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 PreacherValue Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.