- This topic has 97 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Surely, the "value" price only equates as being of value if the horse/s you have backed, win ?
The analogy was made about shopping in different supermarkets, where an item you may wish to buy is priced differently. Of course, the value price will be taken in this instance, but then it is an in- built certainty that you will eat, drink or make use of said product – whereas, with the odds value you may attain on any given horse price, there is absolutely NO guarantee whatsoever of any given gain.
As my signature rightly asserts :
Gambling (or if you prefer, investment ) only pays when you’re winning.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Beat me to it The Dice Man – that’s exactly the point I was about to make:
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.
If you think it’s going to win, your assessment of its chances are likely to be greater than that implied by the odds (22.2%), so what you have, in fact, done is to identify value and back this judgement.
You’re the one arguing with yourself Equitrack, sorry old boy.
I was gobsmacked that someone who claims to be a mathematician by nature would post this:-
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.
The trouble is that you do not know if they are going to be winners. If I had tomorrows racing results I would back all the winners and put them in an accumulator as well for good measure.
VALUE
would take on a different meaning as the winners are the value horses as all the others will lose money.
It is worth mentioning that bookmakers use
value
by making an over round book by offering prices that are less than they should be, and they have been doing that since the year dot (or at least since bookmaking became a business).
Surely, the "value" price only equates as being of value if the horse/s you have backed, win ?
As my signature rightly asserts :
Gambling (or if you prefer, investment ) only pays when you’re winning.
Himself,
The 100% book that I make is only my opinion of the percentage chance each horse has in the race. Say I make a horse a 10% 9/1 chance so back it at say 14/1, it is only opinion and not a fact. That particular 14/1 shot does not have to win to be VALUE.
What I am trying to do is back 10% winners of the horses I rate as 10% chances. Therefore, if I win 10% of those bets, all at better than 9/1 I will make a profit and have got VALUE. If I do not win at least 10% of those bets then I have NOT GOT VALUE.
Value = Profit.
Mark
Value Is EverythingI back whichever horse I think will win, providing the potential reward warrants the intended investment.
"I think will win" means you believe the horse should be odds-on i.e is more likely to win than not. Therefore you would bet it at evens or better: a value judgement
I don’t know why I’m posting in this groundhog day thread but here goes….
This argument always comes down to two factions: those who understand that every race is an uncertain event with multiple possible outcomes and those who believe there is a "result" which is somehow preordained and simply needs to be found. The latter is of course a fallacy: think of all the things that happen in a horserace- poor jumps, falls, jockey error, horses getting injured and try and defend the rationale that there is only one possible result- you can’t. All you are doing in betting is trying to secure better odds than the real odds of something occurring. Whether the event occurs or not is irrelevant. The only way you can tell if your assessment of value is correct is if you are ahead after a significant series of bets (I’ve argued here before that a year is a minimum in that regard). This retrospective proving or disproving of your opinion is what makes the game so difficult- it’s impossible to know on a bet by bet basis if you are making value bets, the only thing you can say is that if you have a long history of profitability you are betting at value prices overall.
Can anyone explain to me about something called the true odds table please?
I think GT may be doing a presentation at Huntingdon on the 19th
Very good post Cavs btw.
I don’t know why I’m posting in this groundhog day thread but here goes….
This argument always comes down to two factions: those who understand that every race is an uncertain event with multiple possible outcomes and those who believe there is a "result" which is somehow preordained and simply needs to be found. The latter is of course a fallacy: think of all the things that happen in a horserace- poor jumps, falls, jockey error, horses getting injured and try and defend the rationale that there is only one possible result- you can’t. All you are doing in betting is trying to secure better odds than the real odds of something occurring. Whether the event occurs or not is irrelevant. The only way you can tell if your assessment of value is correct is if you are ahead after a significant series of bets (I’ve argued here before that a year is a minimum in that regard). This retrospective proving or disproving of your opinion is what makes the game so difficult- it’s impossible to know on a bet by bet basis if you are making value bets, the only thing you can say is that if you have a long history of profitability you are betting at value prices overall.
Totally agree Carv, with every word, excellent post.
Mark
Value Is Everything
- Total Posts 17716
I don’t know why I’m posting in this groundhog day thread but here goes….
This argument always comes down to two factions: those who understand that every race is an uncertain event with multiple possible outcomes and those who believe there is a "result" which is somehow preordained and simply needs to be found. The latter is of course a fallacy: think of all the things that happen in a horserace- poor jumps, falls, jockey error, horses getting injured and try and defend the rationale that there is only one possible result- you can’t. All you are doing in betting is trying to secure better odds than the real odds of something occurring. Whether the event occurs or not is irrelevant. The only way you can tell if your assessment of value is correct is if you are ahead after a significant series of bets (I’ve argued here before that a year is a minimum in that regard). This retrospective proving or disproving of your opinion is what makes the game so difficult- it’s impossible to know on a bet by bet basis if you are making value bets, the only thing you can say is that if you have a long history of profitability you are betting at value prices overall.
Carv
Have a word with yourself!
"There are 2 factions, those who understand" –and those who don’t???
Value is an opinion; whether it’s a horse race or a pound of apples, and varies greatly from person to person, the only true arbiter being the final result which, by your own admission, cannot be known until after the race.
If, as some do, I were to make my living backing in handicapped matches (at 10/11 either result), would you still maintain I was "getting value", or would you actually consider that maybe I was better at picking winners than the person setting the handicaps.
And if not, why not?- Total Posts 17716
You haven’t understood what I have said at all, The Dice Man.
The value hunters that frequent these boards often state that the horse they fancy is too short, but ‘at the price’ another horse makes more appeal. In effect they’re saying that they believe one horse will win, but they are prepared to back another because its price is not truly indicative of its chance in their eyes.
So, to put that sentiment succinctly, they’re betting against the horse they have deemed the most likely winner having evaluated all of the information to hand.
All I am saying is that it makes sense to use ‘value’ or, as I prefer to call it, ‘risk assessment’, to decide whether or not to back the horse you think is going to win, but logic doesn’t follow that if the potential reward doesnt warrant the investment that something else should be backed instead.
And why does a profit maintained over an extended period of time, whether it be a year or a decade, indicate that ‘value’ has been achieved overall? If you bet with ‘value’ in mind and you show a profit then this is obviously the case, but I can back proposed 10/1 shots at 7/4 (that is horses who are deemed to have a 9% chance of winning but are priced up at 7/4) every single day if 80% of them win. I’m not seeking ‘value’ in this case, I just have a high strike rate.
My first post here so go easy.
Firstly to Reet Hard. I do bet on things that are handicapped for a living and it is still based around value. If both teams are 10-11 and the handicap is -3 and I back the favourite it is nothing to do with me finding the winner. I am simply making a ‘value’ judgement that the team I am backing has more than a 52.38% chance of covering that handicap. It is no different….I am still assigning a percentage chance at that handicap.
To equitrack,
"The value hunters that frequent these boards often state that the horse they fancy is too short, but ‘at the price’ another horse makes more appeal. In effect they’re saying that they believe one horse will win, but they are prepared to back another because its price is not truly indicative of its chance in their eyes."
The whole point of hunting for value is that you don’t think or believe that one horse will win. You accept that every horse has a chance of winning and your task when assessing a race is to assign probabilities to those chances. Of course some horses are more likely to win than others but my task is to find odds that exceed my assessed probabilities not to find the horse most likely to win. Indeed I may on some occasions bet more than one horse in a race. Theoretically I could back ten horses in an eleven runner race. It is all about what price the market is offering aganst what I think the correct price is.
You haven’t understood what I have said at all, The Dice Man.
The value hunters that frequent these boards often state that the horse they fancy is too short, but ‘at the price’ another horse makes more appeal. In effect they’re saying that they believe one horse will win, but they are prepared to back another because its price is not truly indicative of its chance in their eyes.
So, to put that sentiment succinctly, they’re betting against the horse they have deemed the most likely winner having evaluated all of the information to hand.
Just for a moment, say the Champion Hurdle market goes crazy tomorrw, and Binocular is 4/6 while Crack Away Jack is 33/1.
I don’t think there is anyone in the world who thinks that the most likely winner of that race is Binocular. I don’t necessarily believe he will win, but I 100% believe he is the most likely winner. However tomorrow, I will be laying Binocular at 4/6 and backing CAJ at 33/1.Does that make sense?
All I am saying is that it makes sense to use ‘value’ or, as I prefer to call it, ‘risk assessment’, to decide whether or not to back the horse you think is going to win, but logic doesn’t follow that if the potential reward doesnt warrant the investment that something else should be backed instead.
And why does a profit maintained over an extended period of time, whether it be a year or a decade, indicate that ‘value’ has been achieved overall? If you bet with ‘value’ in mind and you show a profit then this is obviously the case, but I can back proposed 10/1 shots at 7/4 (that is horses who are deemed to have a 9% chance of winning but are priced up at 7/4) every single day if 80% of them win. I’m not seeking ‘value’ in this case, I just have a high strike rate.
This isn’t logical, if these are going in at an 80% strike rate they are clearly not 10/1 shots.
Your argument seems to be that you should back the most likely winner of the race no matter what – that’s just crazy, and when you say you have a background in mathematics and logic, you must realise this.
Also, good post carvillshill, that’s really what I have been trying to say. You managed to put it much more succinctly!
- Total Posts 17716
Admittedly the ’10/1 shots at 7/4′ was a poorly thought out example (although there are three opinions involved – yours, mine and the bookmaker’s – and there’s no proof as to who is correct), but where do you draw the line?
Let’s take an eight-runner race, where you have assigned probabilities which all but match the odds offered about seven of the horses. The one which doesn’t correlate is perhaps seventh or eighth in the betting, but is priced up at 20/1 against your perceived chance of 8%. The favourite is 5/4, which ties in (more or less) with your 11/8.
Which do you back? If the favourite was well supported and reached a price significantly shorter than your perceived 11/8, would you lay it?
I might apply the ‘value’ concept the next time I decide to go shopping. I know what bottle of wine I want to buy – I’ve had it before and it’s like Charlize Theron in a jecuzzi, great to look at and extremely pleasurable once you dive in – but there’s been a small price increase and the £24.95 seems a little steep for the complex and elegant Californian white. There is however a riskier proposition, a Netto own-brand, which looks reasonable at £2.95 for what is described as ‘soft and fruity, and full of flavour’. Perhaps more of a Dawn French in a chocolate fountain.
If the Netto bargain turns out to be a bum deal, I know who to blame.
I don’t know why I’m posting in this groundhog day thread but here goes….
This argument always comes down to two factions: those who understand that every race is an uncertain event with multiple possible outcomes and those who believe there is a "result" which is somehow preordained and simply needs to be found. The latter is of course a fallacy: think of all the things that happen in a horserace- poor jumps, falls, jockey error, horses getting injured and try and defend the rationale that there is only one possible result- you can’t. All you are doing in betting is trying to secure better odds than the real odds of something occurring. Whether the event occurs or not is irrelevant.
The only way you can tell if your assessment of value is correct
is if you are ahead after a significant series of bets (I’ve argued here before that a year is a minimum in that regard). This retrospective proving or disproving of your opinion is what makes the game so difficult- it’s impossible to know on a bet by bet basis if you are making value bets, the only thing you can say is that if you have a long history of profitability you are betting at value prices overall.
Well said Carvs, I dont think it is possible to really explain it any better than that to be honest.
I would just expand on the highlighted sentence to say that in perception of value people will always place various level of precedence on certain factors such as- trends, age, perceived best trip, breeding, trainer form, horse profile, previous horse form, markets, jockey form etc, etc, etc, Ive even known people who place a lot of stock in connections birthdays. Thus if two people were to make up a tissue for the same race, then unless they had identical betting styles they would more than likely be fairly different and they could both have diffferent selections that they would refer to as the "value" selection.
One example of this is as follows, using the markets as one of the above variables:
Two horses in the same race one rated 115, the other rated 121 for example. The one rated 115 opens at 14-1, the one rated 121 opens at 2-1, both horses are now sat at 5-1. Which is value?
One person may be put off by a drift, another might be enthused by a gamble, some may not care either way but each day could throw up a different result for that same scenario.I can sort of see where reet is coming from with regards the end result, because no matter whether you are getting value or not, you still need luck to be on your side, but IMO the worse the prices you are taking the more you are relying on luck to be in your favour over a given timespan, and the higher the probability that you will end up out of pocket.
If someone goes into cheltenham with binocular, kauto star, hurricane fly and Voy Por Ustedes all backed for level stakes at 5-1, and someone else has taken even money about all four on the day. Only one horse wins at the festival. The person with the better value makes a profit, the other person makes a loss. Possibly a bit too simple an example but the easiest way I could think of.
Essentially, if you are genuinely making value selections then you have a much greater margin for error, than if you are not.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.