- This topic has 43 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
wilson
Did not my freind Mark not make over 20k last year from the most simplest of methods?
Every bet was recorded on this site win or lose and all at s.p.
The ew doubles on 2nd favs in 8 runner races has made a profit for years.
You will never see any bookmaker promote that bet.If a gambler did nothing else but that sort of bet Seagul, he’d soon have his account closed.
Mark
Value Is Everything
- Total Posts 17716
[Had High Chapperal, Motivator and Authorized all been 2/1, then 3 winners in 10 bets would not be good enough. A stake of 10 points with a return of only 9 points.
Mark
And had all 10 won it wouldn’t have mattered a jot – which is just one daft hypothesis in reply to another.
Any system that makes a profit AUTOMATICALLY has value built into it – you don’t need to be fretting over whether they are theoretically value beforehand or you’ll tie yourself up in knots.
Let me make it clear I’m talking about value with regard to systems here and not in a general sense, when value punting can be approached as such, on its own terms.
Any system that makes a profit AUTOMATICALLY has value built into it – you don’t need to be fretting over whether they are theoretically value beforehand or you’ll tie yourself up in knots.
With a sample as small as ten bets, I think it may be more a case of coincidence. To say just because a "system that makes a profit automatically has value built into it", is taking a lot for granted in my opinion. It depends a lot on how big the sample is.
"You don’t need to be fretting"? Well I think anyone taking 10 bets as proof is asking for trouble.
With my bets in December I had a 10 race period where I backed winners at 3/1, 7/2, 7/1, 8/1, 20/1 and 43/1, all tipped on TRF. Am I really that good at picking winners? What do you think?
The same goes for a "system" like this. It might do well in future but it might not. I would prefer to look at each horse. Examine his form (one horse against the next), breeding, temperament, conformation, likelyhood of staying the trip, will he improve? Is he going to be good enough at Epsom? Then have a percentage (price) in my mind, if I think he’s value I’d back him, if not I won’t. Ibn Khaldoun had little chance in staying the Derby trip. Latest winner has a fair enough chance, but I think he has an even better one in the Guineas.
Mark
Value Is EverythingHold on Ginge –
Quote “It might do well in future but it might not. I would prefer to look at each horse. Examine his form (one horse against the next), breeding, temperament, conformation, likelyhood of staying the trip, will he improve? Is he going to be good enough at Epsom? Then have a percentage (price) in my mind, if I think he’s value I’d back him, if not I won’t.”On the one hand you’re saying that following RP Trophy winners at Epsom is a good system and on the other you don’t follow it as a system but are selecting according to tried/traditional methods of form, breeding, etc. So in essence what you are saying is that RP Trophy winners should be followed at Epsom provided their form (unknown until a week or two before Derby Day by which time the prices on High Chapparall, Motivator and Authorised had evaporated) and the rest of it all stack up.And, sorry to be a critic here, but what does ‘is he going to be good enough at Epsom’ mean? Isn’t that just his form? Or do you mean will he act on the track?
What I mean by ‘any profitable system has value built in’ means precisely that – REGARDLESS OF THE SAMPLE SIZE. If a group of past selections have been profitable then they have been ‘value’ and there is no arguing that. QED.
What a historically profitable system doesn’t guarantee is that future selections will be ‘value’ (in other words that they will be profitable) – no system can guarantee that. The importance of the SIZE of the historical sample is in giving a clue to the future pospects of the system. The bigger the historical sample size the more likely that stats taken from it will be replicated in the future.
One important thing to understand about analysing past history of a trend or set of results is that future ‘results’ will come from outwith the sample so any analysis of the sample (e.g if the average SP of the winner in 100 races sampled was 3/1) is, statistically, generally unsound in terms of predicting the next 100 races. Much depends on the variable factors influencing the individual results within the sample and in racing, as we know, these variables are numerable and, to a greater or lesser degree, extremely difficult to factor in to any analysis.
So, the bottom line. I think you’re mixing a whole mish-mash of things in the one pot here Gingertipster. I think what you are saying is that trends such as RP Trophy winners at Epsom can be a useful aid to identifying value when viewed alongside a variety of other factors but that, if it is an approximation of your point, has taken you a long way from your original assertion that –
“The one and only way of consistently making a
profit is the fact that every year is a repeat cycle of events from the previous year”Hold on Ginge –
Quote “It might do well in future but it might not. I would prefer to look at each horse. Examine his form (one horse against the next), breeding, temperament, conformation, likelyhood of staying the trip, will he improve? Is he going to be good enough at Epsom? Then have a percentage (price) in my mind, if I think he’s value I’d back him, if not I won’t.”On the one hand you’re saying that following RP Trophy winners at Epsom is a good system and on the other you don’t follow it as a system but are selecting according to tried/traditional methods of form, breeding, etc. So in essence what you are saying is that RP Trophy winners should be followed at Epsom provided their form (unknown until a week or two before Derby Day by which time the prices on High Chapparall, Motivator and Authorised had evaporated) and the rest of it all stack up.And, sorry to be a critic here, but what does ‘is he going to be good enough at Epsom’ mean? Isn’t that just his form? Or do you mean will he act on the track?
What I mean by ‘any profitable system has value built in’ means precisely that – REGARDLESS OF THE SAMPLE SIZE. If a group of past selections have been profitable then they have been ‘value’ and there is no arguing that. QED.
What a historically profitable system doesn’t guarantee is that future selections will be ‘value’ (in other words that they will be profitable) – no system can guarantee that. The importance of the SIZE of the historical sample is in giving a clue to the future pospects of the system. The bigger the historical sample size the more likely that stats taken from it will be replicated in the future.
One important thing to understand about analysing past history of a trend or set of results is that future ‘results’ will come from outwith the sample so any analysis of the sample (e.g if the average SP of the winner in 100 races sampled was 3/1) is, statistically, generally unsound in terms of predicting the next 100 races. Much depends on the variable factors influencing the individual results within the sample and in racing, as we know, these variables are numerable and, to a greater or lesser degree, extremely difficult to factor in to any analysis.
So, the bottom line. I think you’re mixing a whole mish-mash of things in the one pot here Gingertipster. I think what you are saying is that trends such as RP Trophy winners at Epsom can be a useful aid to identifying value when viewed alongside a variety of other factors but that, if it is an approximation of your point, has taken you a long way from your original assertion that –
“The one and only way of consistently making a
profit is the fact that every year is a repeat cycle of events from the previous year”Cormack,
Eh?
No I am not saying following RP winners is a good system. I am saying that most RP winners are top class staying two year olds, who usually deserve to be at the top of the Derby betting. But they should not be backed just because they won the RP trophy. They should only be backed if thought value to win the Derby. (Value as in table of odds and chances). As the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of the RP, or any other race should be judged on whether they are value to win the Derby as well.You say the form is not known. It is known; it is the form up to the that point in late october that I am talking about.
The Epsom comment means both the things you suggest. Will he act at Epsom and will he be good enough? Just because a horse might have the best form in October, does not mean he will be good enough in June. A top class 2yo still has to improve to win the Derby. So will he be good enough means also how likely is he to improve into a Derby winner? And how likely is he to stay the Derby trip?
Your statement that any profitable system REGARDLESS OF SAMPLE SIZE is value I find a very strange thing to say. You just as well quote the value knockers mantra of “any winner is value”.
Though in your next paragraph you seem to agree with me; strange.
You then seem to be confusing my words with others.
Mark
Value Is EverythingAny winner WAS value Ginger just as any successful system which has been profitable has highlighted value bets. It must have to be profitable. Don’t think that point is getting through to you.
Quote – “Your statement that any profitable system REGARDLESS OF SAMPLE SIZE is value”
That wasn’t my statement Ginger – this was my statement – What I mean by ‘any profitable system has value built in’ means precisely that – REGARDLESS OF THE SAMPLE SIZE. If a group of past selections have been profitable then they have been ‘value’ and there is no arguing that. QED. Quite different. Igf you’re going to quote me do it correctly as failure to do so weakens your arguments further.
There is nothing contradictory between that paragraph and the following one so nothing ‘strange’ about them.
Finally – what words of yours am I confusing with others?
Ginger – not having a go but I do find the lack of logic in some of your posts frustrating and thought I’d take you on with this one.
Any winner WAS value Ginger just as any successful system which has been profitable has highlighted value bets. It must have to be profitable. Don’t think that point is getting through to you.
Quote – “Your statement that any profitable system REGARDLESS OF SAMPLE SIZE is value”
That wasn’t my statement Ginger – this was my statement – What I mean by ‘any profitable system has value built in’ means precisely that – REGARDLESS OF THE SAMPLE SIZE. If a group of past selections have been profitable then they have been ‘value’ and there is no arguing that. QED. Quite different. Igf you’re going to quote me do it correctly as failure to do so weakens your arguments further.
There is nothing contradictory between that paragraph and the following one so nothing ‘strange’ about them.
Finally – what words of yours am I confusing with others?
Ginger – not having a go but I do find the lack of logic in some of your posts frustrating and thought I’d take you on with this one.
Cormack,
Very sorry you feel my posts show a “lack of logic” Cormack, I always try to answer any points as logically as I can. So will try again to explain my opinions and also defend myself:A punter’s job is to find value bets so he /she can make an over all profit. To be able to profit from this perceived value it must be found before the race, not afterwards. Whether the selection process is done by working out a 100% tissue, or from a system, or whatever; we can not go back in time to back the winner. Therefore if we are selecting from a system we need to be fairly sure the selection process is not mere coincidence.
The system in question tells us to back Racing Post Trophy winners for the Derby. On the basis that three of the last ten winners of the RPT have gone on to success at Epsom. So the three ante-post winners out of ten would have made a healthy profit.
However, this is such a small sample (10 bets) that it might just be a coincidence. Not a “value” finding system at all. I am not saying it is not a value finding system, just that there is insufficient evidence. Promising though, it may be. As you seemed to agree with me,
quote “The importance of the size of the historical sample is giving a clue to the future prospects of the system”. The reason why I found it “strange” is that your words seemed to suggest exactly what I was getting at; that the profit might be because of a coincidence and nothing to do with a “value finding system”. You go on, “the bigger the historical sample size the more likely that stats taken from it will be replicated in the future”. We agree, I did not say your paragraph was “contradictory” at all, just “strange”, as it seemed to agree with my opinion that it could be a coincidence.If Cormack, you believe profit equals value, I disagree. As without being able to find value, that profit will not last long. If this is not what you are saying then please explain what you mean, as I don’t find much logic there.
I told you of a 10 race period where I had 3/1, 7/2, 7/1, 8/1, 20/1 and 43/1 winners. Judging by those 10 races I am the best punter that walked the earth. I am not as good as those 10 bets suggest. But it illustrates how a small sample can be misleading.
Even a mug punter who’s way of selecting is sticking a pin in, can come up with three decent priced winners in a ten bet period. Was his selection process a value finding method or was it just a coincidence?
Sorry if I reduced your quote to one line. The three lines seemed to me as though they were saying the same thing. So as time was short I shortened it to a sentence that made sense to me. But if you would like to tell me the difference between my version and your elongated one, I’d like to know.
In future I will quote your sentences word for word. As you rightly say Cormack “if you are going to quote me, do it correctly as failure to do so weakens your arguments further”.
I did not want to make too much of your misquote as I did not want to embarrass you mate. Had hoped you might go back and correct it if I gave you a gentle nudge.
But you said quote “if it is an approximation of your point, has taken you a long way from YOUR original assertion that -”…. (You then use this so called quote)…
[b:35jjikj9]“The one and only way of consistently making a profit is the fact that every year is a repeat cycle of events from the previous year”.[/b:35jjikj9]
If you are going to quote me (in bold writing too) please do it correctly, making sure that I actually said the quote you attribute to me, as a failure to do so weakens your arguments further. At least my misquote was just leaving out a few words, not a full quote made by someone else.
Cormack – not having a go but the failure to read what I actually say is getting frustrating. No wonder you think my words are not logical when some of them are not my words at all.
Mark
Value Is EverythingGingertipster
The bets my friend Mark does are the only ones he ever does.All this has been covered before but he is not interested in classic races, what jockey is in form, what horse is best suited to run off the pace or make the running he just wants the first sole favourite to win.
Simple really.
Sure he has been banned from bookmakers (three times last year ) that in itself must tell you something but in case you did not know Betfair allow winning punters to stay with them.
Gingertipster
The bets my friend Mark does are the only ones he ever does.All this has been covered before but he is not interested in classic races, what jockey is in form, what horse is best suited to run off the pace or make the running he just wants the first sole favourite to win.
Simple really.
Sure he has been banned from bookmakers (three times last year ) that in itself must tell you something but in case you did not know Betfair allow winning punters to stay with them.
Seagull
We were talking about each way betting when it is advantageous to the punter.
I was unaware Betfair do each way betting Seagull, just win only or place betting.
When each way betting is advantageous to punters, you simply can not get on the place market at prices similar to the place part of each way betting. Therefore with that type of bet it surely needs to be a bet done with a bookmaker.Mark
Value Is EverythingAaaaaargh – VERY very sorry Gingertipster, I was reading GWilson’s posts as yours! Elementary mistake and I’m really sorry about that. That also partially explains my comments about lack of logic! I was reading his and your posts as if they were from one and the same author and thinking ‘what is he on about’. If you read back thorugh GWilson’s posts and yours you’ll see why I became confused about the logic and why I was rattling on about the RP Trophy!
Moving on –
“If Cormack, you believe profit equals value, I disagree”
That, I think is where we fundamentally differ on our outlook. I agree with almost everything in your last post but if a bet, or a series of bets grouped together, has made a profit then you have found ‘value’. You may not be able to replicate that and if you are using a system, the system may fall down but your profitable bets were ‘value’.
It depends on your definition of ‘value’.
My definition would be ‘You have found ‘value’ when a bet or a series of bets returns a profit’.
How would you define it?
I suspect what you are getting at is that there is a difference between an approach where the concept of ‘value’ (i.e. betting at a higher price than the horses chance reflects and trying to do that on a conscious analytical level) is the cornerstone and an approach which sets out to identify winners without thinking too much about the price or the concept of value (i.e. as in a ‘blind’ system where individual horses are backed because they fit a set of rules). In the former the profit would arrive if your strike rate % was better than the average % probability based on the returned ‘price’. In the latter your profit would arrive if your strike rate % was better than the average % probability based on the returned ‘price’. In other words you have to do the same thing whichever route you take.
You won’t make a profit if you don’t find value and you don’t need to be consciously loooking for value and using any tables of odds and probabilities to find it.
Different ways of skinning the same cat I would say and it’s horses for courses as to which method you prefer.Once again I’m very sorry for the confusion and my exasparated earlier posts, it was a genuine error on my part, a perplexing one at that, and I apologise unreservedly.
Thanks for the apology Cormack.I can’t imagine what you thought I was doing, apparently arguing with myself. That must have been confusing.
Let’s just forget about it and start again.
Mark
Value Is EverythingWhat is value?
You are going to regret asking me that one.
Let’s just make it clear we are not talking about the Tommo / Mrs Graham’s definition of value, that “value” alternative to the favourite. True value can be any price according to the percentage chance of each horse. The table of odds and chances or true odds, 20% = 4/1, 18% 9/2 and all that.
As I said before I do think when there is a small sample a profit does not mean someone is getting true value. If it is a coincidence, without getting true value the profit will eventually disappear. Indeed, with a small sample it could be a coincidence that someone is in deficit. Those bets might be true value just not enough have won yet. If I toss a coin 5 times, offering 4/5 heads or tails. You back heads every time (level stakes) and it comes up heads three out of five times. You make a profit but did you really get true value? Similarly, if I offer 5/4 and only 2 win from 5 bets you make a loss, yet I believe you got value.
Although I prefer to work out a 100% book to find value that does not mean every punter has to do it that way. Though anyone who can see prices as percentages has an advantage.
Punters can make a profit over time without actively searching for value. But if that profit has been achieved from a large sample of bets, then value is what the punter has found.
Don’t think we differ much in our definition of value Corm.
Mark
Value Is EverythingNo, don’t think we do
Now I’m off to research those systems that Seagull is on about as I intend to get in on the act.
Ginge
This thread has an headline that does not mention ew bets.
There was nothing to suggest it was about ew bets.I am perfectly aware that the likes of betfair do not allow ew betting.
However on the subject of ew betting one of the oldest and most profitable of systems are to place ew doubles on second favs in 8 runner races using many seperate bookmakers accounts.
I know it is over a grand down at present but it has yet to provide one single winning double but that is just a matter of time.
Why this bet is lethal to bookmakers is no on course do not allow ew beting on 8 runner races so the maths and over rounds they work on are based on allowing the single winner ie what horse comes first.
They do not factor in the odds for other horses to get placed so neither do betting shops.
In a way as they dont accept bets ew on 8 runners races they dont care what odds the second fav would be to get placed.
When one gets an ideal 8 runner race where the fav is big odds on to win the second fav may be just a 4/1 chance to win but the second fav could be much better than the remaining 6 other horses not including the favourite so really should not be a 4/5 chance to come 2nd or 3rd.
For example on 5th Jan this year Taboor was the second fav against an odds on chance but started @ 5/1 to win but thats even money for the likes of me just to get placed. The Betfair place market showed that horse trading @ 1.444 to back just 4/9
Now if I can get even money on what is a 4/9 chance I will always have a chnace of making money.
Whilst shops allow betting on 8 runner races ew they quickly close accounts down if one starts solely doing ew doubles on 2nd favs in 8 runner races believe me!
The maths proffesor from Sussex Uni the Racing Post often use when looking for compiling odds such as scoop 6 chances one wrote an article in The Racing Post all about this subject and the facts and figures he quoted were outstanding.
Ginge
This thread has an headline that does not mention ew bets.
There was nothing to suggest it was about ew bets.I am perfectly aware that the likes of betfair do not allow ew betting.
However on the subject of ew betting one of the oldest and most profitable of systems are to place ew doubles on second favs in 8 runner races using many seperate bookmakers accounts.
I know it is over a grand down at present but it has yet to provide one single winning double but that is just a matter of time.
Why this bet is lethal to bookmakers is no on course do not allow ew beting on 8 runner races so the maths and over rounds they work on are based on allowing the single winner ie what horse comes first.
They do not factor in the odds for other horses to get placed so neither do betting shops.
In a way as they dont accept bets ew on 8 runners races they dont care what odds the second fav would be to get placed.
When one gets an ideal 8 runner race where the fav is big odds on to win the second fav may be just a 4/1 chance to win but the second fav could be much better than the remaining 6 other horses not including the favourite so really should not be a 4/5 chance to come 2nd or 3rd.
For example on 5th Jan this year Taboor was the second fav against an odds on chance but started @ 5/1 to win but thats even money for the likes of me just to get placed. The Betfair place market showed that horse trading @ 1.444 to back just 4/9
Now if I can get even money on what is a 4/9 chance I will always have a chnace of making money.
Whilst shops allow betting on 8 runner races ew they quickly close accounts down if one starts solely doing ew doubles on 2nd favs in 8 runner races believe me!
The maths proffesor from Sussex Uni the Racing Post often use when looking for compiling odds such as scoop 6 chances one wrote an article in The Racing Post all about this subject and the facts and figures he quoted were outstanding.
Hi Seagul,
When I said we are talking about each way bets; I meant that the post I was referring to was your one at the top of page 2. “The each way doubles on 2nd favs in 8 runner races has made a profit for years”.
In my post I say, “if a gambler does nothing else but that sort of bet, he’d soon get his account closed”.
To which you reply “sure he has been banned from bookmakers…..”, but, “Betfair allow winning punters to stay with them”
I replied that Betfair do not allow each way betting. Just win only or place only. When the place market is advantageous to the punter; the Betfair place only bet will never be as good as the place part in a bookmakers each way bet. “Therefore with that type of bet it surely needs to be done with a bookmaker”.
You do not have to convince me that this is an excellent type of bet for the punter. One likely to find profit if the practitioner is good at finding horses that qualify. The maths are in the backers favour not the bookmakers. After all a horse at 5/1 that is virtually certain to be in the first 3 is almost a free win bet (4/1 for a quarter the odds).
Though I think your example is not quite the outstanding value bet that it seems. The 5/1 (evens a place) when 4/9 at Betfair. Punters on Betfair know when place odds are not in their favour and would never offer great odds for place only bets in such cases. ie the 4/9 is not the true chance of winning. Also, the gambler backing each way is forced in to having half his stake on the win part of the bet which is not usually value. Therefore, this reduces the value of his even money place bet. Though I do concede it is still a value bet.
I myself have taken advantage of bookmakers generosity with this kind of bet (though not with doubles). Even once at the seemingly short odds of 5/2, getting most of my money back.
However, my point is that if a punter concentrates too much on this type of bet, he is likely to have his account closed. Even if his stakes are not that significant. A bookmaker will see there is very little chance of making a profit with this punter. Getting accounts closed defeats the object so I’d advise to vary your betting strategy with every bookmaker. It may be best to only do this type of bet when you consider the win part of each ways good or fair value in true odds terms. Not just backing the second favourite each way any time the numbers add up.
Don’t want to be over critical Seagul, because this is one system that has a good chance of succeeding.
Mark
Value Is Everything
Thanks for the apology Cormack.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.