- This topic has 97 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
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
Lee, David,
Sure punters have a different idea of what is and is not value. But
if you believe you are a good judge then why not back your own judgement?
It is obvious a punter needs to be a good judge and study hard to have a good idea what is value.
But
why is value not the be all and end all?
If you worked out through hard work, studying form; that in your opinion something had a 20% (4/1) chance of winning;
would you back it at 7/2?
If you back it at 7/2 you are betting against your own opinion.
Also, if you back this horse at less than the price you believe is correct; you would presumably back any horse that is slightly less than your opinion.So in a 5 horse race where all horses are thought by the bookmaker to have the same chance of winning, all five he believes have a 20% 4/1 chance. He adds the bookmakers mark up and offers 7/2 about all 5 horses.
Say you agree with the odds compiler’s assessment. Presumably (as you back anything slghtly worse than you think the chances are) you will be backing all 5 horses at 7/2. Making a certain LOSS.
It is all very well saying it should not be the be all and end all, but please tell me Lee, David;
WHY would you back something that you believe is not value?
Mark
Value Is EverythingI’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.
Neither left or right wing in my politics Gerald, though am athiest.Mark
Value Is EverythingValue 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.
and mine.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
- Total Posts 17716
I back whichever horse I think will win, providing the potential reward warrants the intended investment. I don’t back a horse I don’t think will win simply because it’s price doesn’t correlate with it’s perceived chance.
Value doesn’t create profit, winning bets do – I’ll back supposed 4/1 shots at 7/2 all day long if they come home first.
There’s over-complicating matters, and then there’s ‘value’.
Value is in the eye of the beholder, or so they say.
The only thing I can say about value is that if you are looking to make value bets calculate your odds in percentages (or decimals) rather than fractional odds and move all of your betting onto the exchanges.
5% commission on winners is better value than 2%+ per runner any day.
Excellent thread here, plenty of food for thought, never seen anything like quite like this on the Betfair forum.
I back whichever horse I think will win, providing the potential reward warrants the intended investment. I don’t back a horse I don’t think will win simply because it’s price doesn’t correlate with it’s perceived chance.
That is probably the closest to how I do things, more abstract intuition rather than mathematics to arrive at a value bet. Works for me on racing, football, nba, though didn’t work for me on snooker in-running frame by frame betting still licking my wound off that.
So in a 5 horse race where all horses are thought by the bookmaker to have the same chance of winning, all five he believes have a 20% 4/1 chance. He adds the bookmakers mark up and offers 7/2 about all 5 horses.
Say you agree with the odds compiler’s assessment. Presumably (as you back anything slghtly worse than you think the chances are) you will be backing all 5 horses at 7/2. Making a certain LOSS.
It is all very well saying it should not be the be all and end all, but please tell me Lee, David;
WHY would you back something that you believe is not value?
Mark
Mark, Why would I be backing all 5 @ 7/2. I would have to be criminally insane (or the prime minister of this country) to even consider it .
I doubt there are many users of this forum who cannot work out probabilities expressed as fractions – although as DJ says; these days it’s better to calculate it to a decimal IMO.
and even though I’ve been following the sport for 25 years I’m more of an occasional punter nowadays and wouldn’t trust my judgement being that much better than a professional odds compiler to warrant me turning my nose up at a selection I fancy purely on the grounds that it’s half a point shorter than I perceive it’s chances to be.
When I’m playing poker, seriously and not drunken internet fun, I stick rigidly to percentages as there is statistical analysis to provide me with my true chances, as opposed to purely my opinion but when it comes to the horses, provided I’m confident in my selection and the odds are roughly what I am after I will take them.
If you have the time, dedication and ability to analyse, obtain value and consistently make a profit from a purely value approach then good luck to you mate. I don’t doubt it’s possible and you have something some punters go a lifetime without ever discovering; a winning system that you truly trust in.
Lee
So in a 5 horse race where all horses are thought by the bookmaker to have the same chance of winning, all five he believes have a 20% 4/1 chance. He adds the bookmakers mark up and offers 7/2 about all 5 horses.
Say you agree with the odds compiler’s assessment. Presumably (as you back anything slghtly worse than you think the chances are) you will be backing all 5 horses at 7/2. Making a certain LOSS.
It is all very well saying it should not be the be all and end all, but please tell me Lee, David;
WHY would you back something that you believe is not value?
Mark
Mark,
Why would I be backing all 5 @ 7/2. I would have to be criminally insane (or the prime minister of this country) to even consider it .
I doubt there are many users of this forum who cannot work out probabilities expressed as fractions – although as DJ says; these days it’s better to calculate it to a decimal IMO.
and even though I’ve been following the sport for 25 years I’m more of an occasional punter nowadays and wouldn’t trust my judgement being that much better than a professional odds compiler to warrant me turning my nose up at a selection I fancy purely on the grounds that it’s half a point shorter than I perceive it’s chances to be.
When I’m playing poker, seriously and not drunken internet fun, I stick rigidly to percentages as there is statistical analysis to provide me with my true chances, as opposed to purely my opinion but when it comes to the horses, provided I’m confident in my selection and the odds are roughly what I am after I will take them.
If you have the time, dedication and ability to analyse, obtain value and consistently make a profit from a purely value approach then good luck to you mate. I don’t doubt it’s possible and you have something some punters go a lifetime without ever discovering; a winning system that you truly trust in.
Lee
Lee,
True, it is obviously insane backing all five horses in a race at 7/2, that you believe are 20% chances. This is why "value" punters believe it is the "be all and end all".
If it is insane to back all five at 7/2, surely it is foolish to back one horse at 7/2 when you believe it to be a true 4/1 chance. Because these poor value bets add up.
It may sound strange "turning my nose up" at a horse only "half a point" different; but it is almost 2% difference. When I do my 100% books, often half of the field are within 2% of being value. I often back 3 or 4 horses in a race as it is. If I backed anything coming within 2% of my idea of value, I could end up backing 60% of each field. And it would probably be mathematically impossible for me to make a profit.
That is why to me it is the "be all and end all". I like to think of value and percentages as the equivalent of card counting in poker. In my opinion it makes profit making a lot easier.
Mark
Value Is EverythingThat is why to me it is the "be all and end all".
MarkI understand that is why it is to you but to me it’s far more important that any hedge fund I’m currently working at do not go tits up because that’s what provides my income.
As a result, punting to me is a form of hobby and therefore, within reason, I’ll happily ignore the overround.
If I was attempting to make a living out of it then of course I wouldn’t but I have no interest in that so to me value is NOT the be all and end all.
The fact that the comment irritates other members of the forum is because it’s only that important if your livelihood depends upon it being so – even then I would suggest there are succesful punters who pay it less attention but of that I’m not sure.
Lee
Totally understand that Lee. (emotion face for thumbs up).
I do realise it is impossible for most punters to make a good enough book. Unless they have both the time and form books available it would probably be a waste of time anyway.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with treating gambling as a hobby, betting for fun etc. As long as a punter is not expecting to show a profit.
I thought we were talking about punters who take their betting seriously.
Mark
Value Is EverythingValue doesn’t create profit, winning bets do – I’ll back supposed 4/1 shots at 7/2 all day long if they come home first.
There’s over-complicating matters, and then there’s ‘value’.
I don’t really get this at all, to me it’s like saying "I’ll bet black on a roulette wheel all day as long as it keeps hitting."
You’re just admitting that you will knowingly put on losing bets all the time? I’m confused.
Value doesn’t create profit, winning bets do – I’ll back supposed 4/1 shots at 7/2 all day long if they come home first.
There’s over-complicating matters, and then there’s ‘value’.
Equitrack
So if I offered 1/5 each of the runners in a 5 runner field you would take those odds?
If not, why not?
Rob
- Total Posts 17716
Value, or picking winners?
Similar to running or fighting, the less skill you have at one, the more you’ll depend on the other.
- Total Posts 17716
All I’m saying is that value doesn’t lead to, or guarantee, profit. I don’t care whether a horse with a supposed (winning) chance of 20% is priced up at 7/2
if
I’m willing to risk the intended stake for the potential reward.
I think the horse will win, so I’ll back it.
What I won’t do is be persuaded to back another horse in the race because its price is significantly bigger than it’s perceived chance. If, after evaluating all of the information to hand, I think the other horse will beat it, why would I? That’s betting against yourself, Mark, and makes little sense (I’m a mathematician by my very nature and work on logic).
So, as I said before, I will quite happily back apparent 4/1 shots at 7/2
if
they’re winners.
This ‘phenomenon’ would be better described as ‘risk assessment’ and should only guide you as to how much, if anything, you stake upon your suggestion of a winner (it’s not difficult to understand that a predicted 4/1 shot priced up at 6/4 is, comparatively, overly risky).
All I’m saying is that value doesn’t lead to, or guarantee, profit. I don’t care whether a horse with a supposed (winning) chance of 20% is priced up at 7/2
if
I’m
willing to risk the intended stake for the potential reward.
I think the horse will win, so I’ll back it.
What I won’t do is be persuaded to back another horse in the race because its price is significantly bigger than it’s perceived chance. If, after evaluating all of the information to hand, I think the other horse will beat it,
why would I?
That’s betting against yourself, Mark, and makes little sense (I’m a mathematician by my very nature and work on logic).
So, as I said before, I will quite happily back apparent 4/1 shots at 7/2
if
they’re winners.
This ‘phenomenon’ would be better described as ‘risk assessment’ and should only guide you as to how much, if anything, you stake upon your suggestion of a winner (it’s not difficult to understand that a predicted 4/1 shot priced up at 6/4 is, comparatively, overly risky).
Why should you back a horse that does not have the best chance of winning?
Because if you rate a horse as having a 33% chance and he is 6/4; you need a 40% strike rate to break even on your 6/4 shots. Yet with a 9/1 shot in the same race, you’d need a 10% strike rate. Therefore, if you believe it has say a 13% chance; a 13% strike rate on your bets at 9/1 would show a healthy profit. So in that race the 6/4 shot is a bad price and 9/1 shot is a good bet. Therefore you / I am not betting against yourself / myself. That is just simple mathematics.If you are good at assessing value then getting value does lead to profit.
You don’t like value betting Equitrack, yet if you are considering whether you are "willing to risk the intended stake for the potential reward", then you are backing value.
Mark
Value Is EverythingAll I’m saying is that value doesn’t lead to, or guarantee, profit. I don’t care whether a horse with a supposed (winning) chance of 20% is priced up at 7/2
if
I’m willing to risk the intended stake for the potential reward.
I think the horse will win, so I’ll back it.
What I won’t do is be persuaded to back another horse in the race because its price is significantly bigger than it’s perceived chance. If, after evaluating all of the information to hand, I think the other horse will beat it, why would I? That’s betting against yourself, Mark, and makes little sense (I’m a mathematician by my very nature and work on logic).
So, as I said before, I will quite happily back apparent 4/1 shots at 7/2
if
they’re winners.
This ‘phenomenon’ would be better described as ‘risk assessment’ and should only guide you as to how much, if anything, you stake upon your suggestion of a winner (it’s not difficult to understand that a predicted 4/1 shot priced up at 6/4 is, comparatively, overly risky).
I’ll make an assumption here. When you say
I will quite happily back apparent 4/1 shots at 7/2
if
they’re winners
, what I think you mean is that after evaluating all of the information to hand, you conclude that he should be shorter than 7/2. Is that right?
And when you say –
What I won’t do is be persuaded to back another horse in the race because its price is significantly bigger than it’s perceived chance. If, after evaluating all of the information to hand, I think the other horse will beat it, why would I?
– you mean that you have found a horse which is even better value than the first one? (even though you should have bet both of them)
Otherwise you have me thoroughly confused. I mean, it’s an extremely rare occurrence when the favourite is not the most likely winner of a race, so by your logic
If, after evaluating all of the information to hand, I think the other horse will beat it, why would I?
you should be backing the favourite every time.
That’s betting against yourself, Mark, and makes little sense (I’m a mathematician by my very nature and work on logic).
now I’m even more confused, I would have thought that anyone with a basic understanding of mathematics/logic would immediately see the flaws in what you have posted above (which is why I think I must be misunderstanding you)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.