- This topic has 97 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
I have just finished reading Dave Nevison’s "A Bloody Good Winner". In it he speaks of Eddie Fremantle teaching him how to compile his own tissue based on reading of the form, and as I understand it, where a horse in your tissue is available to back at longer odds, therein lies the "value".
I do not think others will like it if I go in to too much detail February, it is my pet subject and I have bored some members to death with it. Will do my best to keep it brief. lol.
Its taken years for that to be explained to me in an easy to understand way.
Do you know the table of odds and chances (sometimes called the true odds table)? 33/1 is value if the punter believes it has a better than 3% chance of winning. A 5/4 shot 44.4% chance. To work out each price add the two figures up 5 + 4 = 9. Then divide the second figure by that resultant figure 4 ‘/, 9 = 0.444. Then x that by 100 to find the percentage. 5/4 = 44.4%
I guess what this means is that a 33/1 shot could be poor value and a 5/4 shot (Denman in the Sun Alliance an example given in the book) good value. Although he does make it clear that backing "shorties" over time is a mugs game.
I have to confess I am a mug, as I have tended over the years to try and selectively back "shorties" but even though I have managed a strike rate near 40% I am well down. He does say SR is important for backing shorties (and not for long shots as you obviously only need a couple of 40/1 winners to clear the deficit) although I guess to truly make a profit on them you would need a 50-60%%+ SR at least, which is virtually impossible to achieve over anything longer than a "luck" 4 months or so period.
If you bet shorties selectively and have a strike rate of 40% you need an average price of better than 6/4 to make a profit (assuming level stakes). There is nothing wrong with backing short priced horses as long as you get value.
So, my question to the forum is can anyone help me with "how to compile a tissue" as I want to have a crack at improving my betting along the lines of the Nevison/Freemantle model. I presume it will have to be based upon
my
reading of the form, and for the timebeing I am happy to rely on RPRs as a guide (though Nevison uses some guy called John Whitley and Raceform Interactive).
The way I work out a race can be found on page 11 of that thread (the very long post). Don’t know if just the Racing Post is good enough though. I use Timeform.
Finally another thing I didn’t quite understand the logic behind was on some occasions he spoke of backing a couple of horses to beat the fav rather than simply laying the fav. I couldn’t see the logic – surely if you think the fav is beatable by at least two of his rivals, surely the best policy is to simply lay the fav rather than trying to guess which of the rest of t5he runners will actually win?
The logic is: If you lay one horse, you are effectively backing every other horses in the race. The beauty of backing two to win is you are backing only the two horses you believe are value. If you believe two horses at 7/1 are value (better than 12.5%) and back both; you are effectively taking 3/1 (25%). For every £1 on each wins £7, returning £8. Less the £1 you lose on the other horse, £6 profit. Had a punter put the same overall stake £2 on 3/1 shot he would be £6 in profit for a win.
Thanks in advance.
Hope that is of help February, and does not trouble Reet, Cav etc.
Mark
Value Is EverythingThanks Ginger,
I have tried for two decades to make racing pay. If I am honest I only really took a more measured and serious approach form about 2002, prior to that I read the RP of a morning and followed my gut, and then went on chases if my initial selections lost.
Since 2002 I tended to restrict bets to novice chases and non-handicap flat races. However the chasing still had a financial draining effect from time to time. Having read Nevisons book (which got really slated in some quarters which probably influenced me to avoid it until now – got it as an Xmas present and so gave it a try) I can see similarities in how he used to bet and and how I still do – namely usually short priced horses in small runner fields over the sticks.
So if the "value" theory works for him it can do no harm for me to try and adapt it to my betting. Don’t get me wrong, I have neither the time nor the wealth do make a real go of it, but if I can turn a constant loss into a small profit over time that would have made it all worthwhile.
Are there any books out there on the subject btw?
I am sure that Mark Coton, who was the first person to do Pricewise for the RP, wrote a book/pamphlet about value, but I’ve never read it.
Thanks Ginger,
I have tried for two decades to make racing pay. If I am honest I only really took a more measured and serious approach form about 2002, prior to that I read the RP of a morning and followed my gut, and then went on chases if my initial selections lost.
Since 2002 I tended to restrict bets to novice chases and non-handicap flat races. However the chasing still had a financial draining effect from time to time. Having read Nevisons book (which got really slated in some quarters which probably influenced me to avoid it until now – got it as an Xmas present and so gave it a try) I can see similarities in how he used to bet and and how I still do – namely usually short priced horses in small runner fields over the sticks.
So if the "value" theory works for him it can do no harm for me to try and adapt it to my betting. Don’t get me wrong, I have neither the time nor the wealth do make a real go of it, but if I can turn a constant loss into a small profit over time that would have made it all worthwhile.
Are there any books out there on the subject btw?
I think it is best to work out however many races you have time to do so thoroughly. Rob is probably far better at it than I am. Except for the Grade / Group 1’s and races with small fields, it is impossible for me to work out a race in 10 minutes. On average these days I would spend around 40 mins and up to 1 hr 30 mins for a large field grade 4 handicap. Rarely work out more than four races a day
One book that helped me was "Betting The Timeform Way", it is not availabe now but it does occaisionally come up on ebay.
To start off try buying a Timeform race card, note down all the SP’s, then try and work out why each horse was that price. It won’t help you on that day, can’t back horses who have already won. SP’s are not always right but will give you an idea how to work out a race.
Mark
Value Is EverythingSomething’s only value if it wins/places.
Don’t think I’d better respond to that Graeme. Just read that other thread.
Mark
Value Is EverythingWhen talking about value and odds we are also talking about probability.
Say we have a coin, and to demonstrate that it is fair we toss it 100 times and it comes down 55 times one way, and 45 times the other. (It is very unlikely to actually fall 50-50).
Now say you are offered 6/4, and you can choose either tails or heads (but not both!), to demonstrate it is still a fair coin.
You have a bet at 6/4, but the coin falls the other way.
You still got value, even though you lost.
In the short term you lost.
In the long-term you will win.
Gerald.
Something’s only value if it wins/places.
Don’t think I’d better respond to that Graeme. Just read that other thread.
Mark
which thread ?
Here’s a link to Mark Coton’s book about Value Betting
Value Betting
Good luck – it’s a long hard road!
- Total Posts 22
In the short term you lost.
In the long-term you will win.
And to expend that a little bit.
Research and study has been done (in Australia so lets play along) that over any ten year* , or longer, period if you backed every favourite and averaged the odds at 2/1 to a level stake you would lose. However just by a little. If you had of got 9/4 you would have won but again just by a little bit. So just 1/4 of a point turns you in to a winner
if
you can stay in the game long enough.
* it was in a university in Melboune in the 1980’s.
Something’s only value if it wins/places.
Don’t think I’d better respond to that Graeme. Just read that other thread.
Mark
which thread ?
On the second post of this thread Cav has put a link to it.
Mark
Value Is EverythingConcept: An abstract idea or conclusion based on a generalization from particular instances.
The concept of value is perfectly valid but understanding it and being able to apply it to racing to yield a profit are worlds apart.
Quite simply you still need to evaluate each horses chances given the information available. It’s all well and good assessing a horse to have a 4/1 (20%) chance of winning and therefore snapping up the value 6/1 available but if you were wrong in your evaluation it is irrelevant.
Anybody understanding it well enough may be be better off applying it to a form of gambling where there are set formulas that determine the possible outcome.
Poker for example is a much better candidate. If you find yourself drawing to the turn and / or river you can quickly calculate the chances of hitting compared to the cost to you to call any bet(s). The potential for implied odds, i.e. the additional profit you will make on the subsequent round of betting should you hit make it slightly more difficult but IMO it still offers a better approach than applying a value only based investment in the horses.
Of course, with both pastimes there are additional factors that are required for success and simply being able to quickly determine that a horse you would give a 33% chance to yet is trading at 4/1 is no guarantee to success – although admittedly if you have a proven record and are confident in your tissue compiling it’s a bloody good start.
Lee
I am a big fan of Eddie Freemantle and his form of betting, more so than Nevison’s. Value is the be all and end all of punting because that has to determine if a bet is worth the risk and how much you stake. You wouldn’t buy an item you don’t need if the rpcie was too high, but if it was on special offer you may be tempted to buy more of it.
There have been plenty of times when I haven’t backed a horse because the price was too small and even if they win, I feel its a victory to me. Not backing losers is more important to me than missing out on winners if that makes any sense, not that I am by any means a pro.Value is the be all and end all of punting
This is probably the one phrase that gets my goat more than any other as regards different methods of betting.
There is more than one way to skin a cat but those punters who are slaves to the percentages refuse point blank to acknowledge this.
Sure the price you accept is a factor in deciding which horse to bet on but it should not be the only one.
The more often you bet the more important the value/tissue approach becomes but for the majority of casual punters, it’s a waste of time
IMO of course
I’ve just been imagining if this was an Economics Forum instead of a Racing Forum, and the topic was "The Concept of Surplus Value".
I believe Mark would be viewed as the Militant Tendency part of the Marxist camp.
Value is important to any regular punter but those seeking to obtain it must surely realise that a) the perceived probability of a horses chances must still be derived from regular methods and b) one man’s good value is another man’s poor value, hence the exchange merry go rounds.
Value is something that should assist in the selection of a horse but it should be used to determine whether you back (or lay) it once the preceeding steps have been completed. Therefore to class it as the be all and end all is, IMO way off the mark.
Lee
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.