- This topic has 30 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Kwai
Stats are taken from http://www.flatstats.co.uk and the are freely available in the free resource section under sp analysis tool
Two posts from this thread jump off the screen at me.
Non Vintage; starting with a £1,000 bank and backing a 1/50 winner every day.
Cavelino Rampante; having a 4% to 5% edge on a huge turnover.
Both of these touch on something I have learned in almost 40 years of punting is that the vast majority of punters are too greedy.
With NV’s example, in theory doing this every day for a year would grow the £1,000 back to around £1.3M!!!
CR’s 4% to 5% margin is huge and used with a decent starting bank of £100,000 the pro would be a millionaire in no time at all.
The theory of these examples can be proved by simple arithmetic but the typical punter is not interested in the theory. Even serious punters (as I hope most on TRF are) don’t pay attention to the task and visualise what success looks like.
Another example to consider. We were all presented with a Betfair account with a balance of £1,000 and asked to use this bank in a normal pattern of bets. What figure would we be happy to have as a balance at the end of day one? I don’t think many would truthfully accept they would be happy to end the day with £1,020.
PS. My personal approach to making a profit has changed dramatically over the last few years since going full time and I would be happy to show the £20 profit on day one.
Flash – in response to your comment that some people out there make money by backing the short-priced fav …
In Queensland, Australia there was a famous punter named Eddie "The Fireman" Birchley. He always backed the even money favourite or shorter when applicable. He was colourful, and professional … but he always backed the shorties – needless to say he was down a suggested AUD $1 million over a 3 year span.
In most non-handicap Betfair markets the bulk of trading revolves around the favourite, even when the favourite is not odds on.
This is where the bigger punters have to concentrate, especially on the quieter days, because most of the time they wouldn’t be able to get a decent bet on a longer priced horse. For them, betting has to be mainly about taking a view on the favourite, either for or against.
When I first got interested in racing, my uncle was my hero. He had allegedly won fortunes in the forties and fifties being the "man on the book" for Paddy Sleator, telling him where his horses were "best in" in England (used to be different handicappers for different courses then)
By the time I was studying him however he was backing long oods-on shots, often for a place on the Tote- his philosophy was to try never to back a loser. Understandably I thought this was the "professional" way and spent my late teens backing short-odds horses in doubles and trebles. It took a few years and a lot of reading before I realised that to win worthwhile money you had to find bigger priced winners and sacrifice strike rate. The same myth of "the professionals" is still trotted out whenever a short price horse obliges- I remember when Dawn Run fell at the first and Wayward Lad subsequently got beaten in the Melling Chase at Aintree one year "the professionals" got their fingers burnt twice according to the paper.
Time to debunk the myth: in my opinion anyone who is significantly in profit backing horses is avoiding short prices and finding winners shunned by the majority. Harry Findlay is therefore an enigma- I have no doubt that Denman was a value bet at 1/3 the other day but I struggle to believe he’s making a living trading regularly at long odds-on: the truth has to be that his sports betting or pool betting is value, not the short ones over a year. Any opinions?I could never get my head round anyone who bets horses based on the price. Backing nothing but odds on shots only must be very frustrating and unless you have unlimited resources a bad run surely would put anyone in danger of going broke?.
I also find that people who are said to be making lots of money are in fact making a lot less than you hear being touted around. Not many people talk proudly about their losses.
I have absolutely no policy whatsoever about prices what is value and what is not value. I suppose you could say I am totally unprofessional.
I like to think I have a knack of being able to spot a good horse and that is what I go on 80% of the time when betting. I am not always right but do OK. I learned a lot from spending a lot of time on the gallops riding and being in the company of a good friend who was a jockey and a trainer. I would sit for ages on the Malton gallops watching horses from different yards working. I used to watch from the top of the gallops and see if I could spot the good horses just for fun.
In a sense it’s exactly as you say Carvill you bet the ones that others shun or haven’t noticed.
I’m not saying the trainer doesn’t know it’s a good horse but not everyone gambles or stop horses so occasionally you get a really good price.
I bet them whether they are 10/1 or evens and am never put off by price unless it’s 1/4 like Denman was…ok I did bet him in a double last week yes but as a single never……3000 to win 1000 I just don’t see the sense in risking so much for so little. I suppose that sounds nuts as you are still betting at long odds on but just the way I think. One of my unprofessional traits I suppose.
Mathematical equations, Value betting, betting nothing but odds on shots whatever I have no time for any of it……..I don’t back horses on stats, nor on percentages and just hope I don’t bet too many losers.
As I am sure you are aware the guys who do and make money you would never find in a bettting shop nor would they be betting every day. They way too clever for that. I have has one bet this week on Monday. I have 3 possible bets this week and unless something jumps out the woodwork that will be me and one of them possibly wont run.
At the end of the day if I changed I would be exactly the same as you and sacafice the strike rate…….if you are good judge the rewards can be huge,,,,,,betting odds on the stakes are the only thing that become huge and that is one dodgy game for the normal guy to be playing.
"If a horse is offered at 1/6fav (85.7%) and I believe it has a 92% chance of winning, it is good value."
How do you arrive at the fact that a horse has a 92% chance of winning?
These sort of figures bemuse me.
Colin
1% off incase he lets off on the first circuit and the smell lingers and knocks him out on the second circuit.
1% in case the Jockey does the same
1% he is knocked over by a german rocket that is trying to find it’s way to London since the 2nd WW.
4% incase God backed the second fav
but I have absolutely no idea where they get the other 1% from
"If a horse is offered at 1/6fav (85.7%) and I believe it has a 92% chance of winning, it is good value."
How do you arrive at the fact that a horse has a 92% chance of winning?
These sort of figures bemuse me.
Colin
Small point Colin, did not say it is "fact" just opinion (believes it has).
Had not better get in to the value debate on this thread. Take a look at my Question For Tha Racing Media thread, Page 3 (I think) the post that starts "How to make a 100% book".
That should explain things.Ginge
Value Is EverythingA proffesional gambler has no myths.
Professional gambler = Someone whos sole income comes from gambling. The profits could be made from backing odds on horses or from backing bigger priced horses e/w, it could come from laying short priced horses, it could come from laying big priced horse. The income could come from a wide range of different types of bets short horses and big priced horses, the permutations are endless. There are no rules set in stone.
Semi proffesional gambler = Someone who makes an income from gambling but also has other forms of income, such as journalist, tv presenter, McCdonalds burger flipper whatever doesent matter what the other occupation is.
The only rule Zoso is, however you do it you must get value.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingThe only rule Zoso is, however you do it you must get value.
Ginge
The rule is you must win more than you lose long term.
You can use whatever word you want to describe that fact.
"If a horse is offered at 1/6fav (85.7%) and I believe it has a 92% chance of winning, it is good value."
How do you arrive at the fact that a horse has a 92% chance of winning?
These sort of figures bemuse me.
Colin
I see Colin, you may have found my explanation a bit confusing so will try and simplify things. Will do so on the "Question to" site as don’t want to hijack this thread.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.