- This topic has 31 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Bookies early odds are largely just tweaks to the same source (BF in the case of morning prices, the industry tissue for the pricewise races). You used to be able to make fortunes betting the public’s opion (BF) against an individual odds compiler’s. Now the relationship isn’t so strong, if it exists at all, for reasons I won’t go into.
A man writing in the late 1970s and 1980s under the pseudonym "Che Van der Wheil" made what to my mind is an important distinction – between there being a winner OF the race (which, obviously, there always is) and there being a winner IN the race (by which he meant a horse with all the characteristics, identifiable in advance, necessary for one to be confident it will win), which is a markedly less frequent occurrence. (He said that he found only about 20% of the horses his selection procedure threw up as the most likely winners had all the necessary characteristics and were thus bets, and that was from races he deemed suitable to analyse which were not all races on the card.)
This suggests to me that any system needs both an ability to compare the merits of runners, and a qualifying threshold, as it were. It is not enough merely to identify the horse with the best chance according to the factors and weightings included in the selection procedure. When that horse has been identified it is necessary to have a sense of how close it comes to being reasonably sure to win, however one defines that. (Van der Wheil expressed his idea of reasonably sure as 80%+. Others undoubtedly make money by backing horses much less certain to win, though obviously accepting longer losing runs in the process.)
Does Van Der Wheil account for value?
Does his formula tell you to back a horse whatever the price?
Or, does he allow for the price in his working out?Ginge
Value Is EverythingGinge
Van der Wheil was interested in identifying that relatively small number of horses he was confident would win but he made it clear that such horses (winner In the race types) should not be backed regardless of price. In one of his best known articles he discussed a race in March 1981, and concluded thus: "This race [analysis] clearly shows Little Owl is a racing certainty and when the true odds are calculated a price better than 3/1 on would represent value." One assumes that despite his high level of confidence in the selection he would not have backed it at, say, 1/4.
Hi
I’m afraid M Deering that all you’ve done is to identify all the usual suspects that go into making the price that horses are bet at and therefore have all the value sucked from them. This is not to be a slave to Ginge’s table but basically it means that these animals are on offer a price that is less than their chances of winning in other words there’s no way you can win long term. What you need to identify are factors NOT generally included in the pricing mechanism this way you have a chance of long term successEverything is taken in to account by bookmakers / layers already Kent. e.g. If you backed horses you thought were value without taking recent trainer form in to account, you’d end up backing nothing but trainers out of form (slight exaggeration). IMO the trick is to find a horse who’s available price is better than you believe it should be, where you have allowed for everything. May be you don’t agree with the chance most peoples idea of how a horse will be effected by the ground. For example the 3:10 York tomorrow, there is a good chance Utmost Respect will not like the sound surface, as his price (15/1) indicates. But there is not much evidence to show this. His 3rd to Shmookh last year was up to then at least up to his best, and came from some way back that day. True he did improve afterwards on a soft surface. Not saying he will definately act on the ground just at the price it is worth taking the chance (IMO).
Trouble is it makes it difficult to find a system that allows for such things. Promise I won’t make this in to another value thread.
Ginge
P.S. It is not my table it has been around since betting began.
Value Is EverythingAll this very informative responses lead me to believe the most powerful system of all:
You nail the dartboard on the wall …
Everything is taken in to account by bookmakers / layers already
Hi Ginge
Bit of a contradiction here if everything is taken into consideration already then it would be impossible to find any value.
BTW you never answered my question regarding how much you allow for errors when considering value prices way back on another threadEverything is taken in to account by bookmakers / layers already
Hi Ginge
Bit of a contradiction here if everything is taken into consideration already then it would be impossible to find any value.
BTW you never answered my question regarding how much you allow for errors when considering value prices way back on another threadNo contradiction mate,
Everything is taken in to account, it is just a matter of amounts.
e.g. One person might think a horse is 30% likely to go on the prevailing ground, another 50%, another 80% likely. All three take ground in to account, but have differing opinions on how much it will help or hinder the individual horse. The last of which (80%) is almost bound to believe it has a better chance of winning than the other two. So will be willing to take a shorter price than the other two. It is exactly the same with every other contributing factor from trainers form to pace in the race. How likely is each horse likely to be suited by…….. whatever? Put all these together and you can form a 100% book.
Thought I did answer your question somewhere but anyway.
It differs, these days usually being two prices up. e.g. If I think a horse is a 20% chance 4/1 I would not normally take 9/2 but would 5/1, one I believe a 40% chance 6/4 I’d take 7/4. 7/1 take 8/1, 20/1 take 25/1. Though do sometimes put savers on at only marginally better, or disregard comletely if all the runners are exposed.The prices are rarely more than 10% different from best price, usually between 2 and 5%. Although Lush Lashes was 9%, took 7/2 last night(equals 22%) having considered her a 31% 9/4 chance. Does not often work out as well, I am not that good.
Hope that is what you wanted Dougal.
gingeValue Is Everything" Everything is taken in to account,"
You’re wrong there, Ginge. If this were true, the books would never lose, and you wouldn’t be bothering to make your own tissues, as they would be pointless.
Nobody can know ALL relevant factors that determine results. For example, how many really know that basic fundamental, namely, the actual state of the going?
And btw, I happen to know that Kent is extremely successful without having to resort to all that plate-spinning and juggling that The Table makes necessary, so, as you conceded in a different thread, there are various approaches to winning at this game. These need not be mutually exclusive, imo.
However, I think I agree with you that the betting industry odds-lines are , probably, a very good – if not the best – starting point for ranking the field.
Hi Ginge
Yup that was what I was asking I was particularly interested in the bigger prices as these are what carry a lot of the over round and therefore difficult to get the value except on the exchanges the front end of the market is more competitive and the prices truer therefore the margin for error does not need to be so greatFinding 2 or more races per day without joint or co fav with just 8 runners and backing the 2nd fav each way has made level stakes profits for years.
Problem is it is hard to get on just doing them with one bookmaker as they will stop you doing them as it is not something they encourage.
There’s a thread on the EW doubles approach in ‘Systems’ MDeering.
Whether the aforementioned is a ‘system’ or an ‘approach’ or ‘strategy’ I’m not sure. It requires a concentration on markets right up until the ‘off’ which certainly some punters will not be able to do.
What would be more informative and perhaps provide a more accurate assessment of that approach/system/strategy would be if selections in that thread were posted prior to racing rather than after the event. Obviously with the approach being so price-sensitive I accept the difficulties in that. Also, as someone who makes their own ‘book’ and backs horses I consider to be ‘value’ I can’t give definitive answers to the perennial question ‘what you backing in the…’
However, the systems thread is the section where you’ll find the topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.