- This topic has 92 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Don’t give up J17, try it for yourself.
However, it’s probably impossible to do without a good form book, Timeform or Raceform Interactive. Racing Post alone is (imo) probably not enough. Which could be why people see it as impossible.
It took me time to get it right, made a loss the first couple of years. It’s not something that needs great intelligence, I’ve only one O level (Maths). Think you’ve got to have a methodical mind.I was once told I should put in for a job writing a few Stopwatch columns, but of course a newbie would be doing the poorer races. Class 6 doesn’t really interest me. I usually keep to the better classes for punting. When I tried working out a few dry runs my percentages were way out, so didn’t proceed. Unless a punter is interested in doing books there’s little chance of succeeding in making a profit.
Even if you don’t work out 100% books J17, it helps enormously just to know/see prices as percentages and vice versa. ie When
contemplating
backing a 7/1 shot, knowing it should only be backed if you believe it to have a better than 12.5% chance – should help in
decision
making.
I play 6-max Pot-Limit Omaha as my main variant of poker where you have 4 cards in your hand + Flop/Turn/River. Due to the extra amount of cards, pre-flop equities run closer together as most hands have similar immediate value (Well, not quite true) meaning this variant of poker can witness extreme variance in results inspite of often large edges. I’m not the most mathematical player by any means, but i imagine if i am competent in that field, with significant effort i could be ok in this field.
Of course, as you said, class 6 doesn’t interest you. I am really not interested by and large in flat handicap races. Very much an elitist when it comes to watching flat racing.
Dave Nevison did reveal how he comes to working out his tissues, by working out the percentage chance of each horse.
As I recall (and it is a couple of years since I read it) he didn’t explain how he does it, i.e. how he rates the horses in the first place and what criteria is in place which can then be applied to the information available to him to determine what is value. If it was simply purchasing Timeform that is fine (in fact I think he may have said he did his own handicaps or Fremantle did and he used them).
He simply repeated the method of working out the percentage according to the odds – i.e. denominator divided by the sum of the numerator and denominator multiplied by 100. Which is precisely what Chris Dixon also did on RUK.
I am no great mathemtician either O’level Grade B at the second attempt!) but the method of calculating the true odds percentage is not exactly rocket science.
Are you basically saying that you use hunches, supported by Timeform and Raceform ratings, and based upon many years of punting to determine whether a horse’s odds are value?
The things Dave Nevison uses to work out a race are exactly the same as anybody else (with very few differences). He’s just better than most at evaluating the form/information. I believe Nevison uses Raceform Interactive, although I saw him last year at Salisbury with a Timeform Perspective (now extinct).
All I can tell you Ivanjica are the things I take in to consideration when making 100% books. Which are mostly comman sense. And as every race is different, with different amounts of emphasis placed on different aspects of form, both for each race and each racehorse… It is impossible to give any formula.
Apart from the usual, ratings, distance, going, temperament etc; the two aspects I might take in to account more than the average punter are "trainers in form" and probable "pace in the race". However, even "trainers in form" is a controversial subject. Lot of rubbish talked. One win does not a trainer in form make. Also, some placed efforts or even an outsider placed 5th in big field handicaps should count towards being "in form"; where as a short priced second place should not. I go through every horse/trainer working out my own "trainer in form" ratings.
Then there are things like stamina and ground, which many don’t fully take in to account. eg. If a horse is running on soft ground, you don’t only need to ask "will it act on the ground", soft ground also places more emphasis on stamina. Question should be "will it stay on the ground? Sometimes a horse with form at a lesser distance or sharper track on soft… will not get home on a stiffer course / greater distance on soft (even if he’s won at the trip on a sounder suface). Also, something going up in trip on soft ground will need even more stamina on soft ground, than it would if the surface was on the firm side.All these things may look obvious when written down, but some punters forget when analysing a race.
I don’t use "hunches" Ivanjica, it is "informed opinion". My own knowledge in conjunction with Timeform to establish value bets.
There will be a lot of punters who know the form book better than I do, yet are not able to enterpret the form to find value/profit. Having said that, a punter does need a good understanding of the form book for any chance of profit.
Value Is EverythingSame way as I always do J17. Study the form, including ratings, going, distance, temperament, likely pace (and who it’s going to suit), from that work out what percentage chance I believe each horse has got of winning (so all add up to 100%), convert percentage to odds.
And how is a percent measured? Is there any theoretical numeracy behind it? Do different attibutes have assigned values? Or is the build up of percent for any given horse and indeed the race itself more of an instinctual approach based on opinions/experience.
I don’t doubt you’re profficient in this field (Certainly far more than me), but i always find it bizarre when abritary figures are awarded to something. I mean, and 82% chance, or a 79% chance ; unless this works within a system, are figures that have very little difference and come accross as somewhat pointless measurements.
I mean, all the measurements you quantified, whilst being valid approaches for assesing a race, are not tangible, thus, turning them into accurate percentiles for a horses chance doesn’t seem particularly worthwhile.
How do you think bookmakers work out a book J17? If it is possible/"tangible" for them and/or Peter Martins to work out a book, then it is possible/"tangible" for us. With a race where I know the form/horses so well as this race it didn’t take long.
The difference between 79% and 82% is quite big. If a bookmaker’s odds compiler believed a horse was a 79% chance he’d add a mark up of around 3% and offer 82% ie 2/9. There’s NO WAY he’d think to himself "I rate it 79% but it’s pointless adding the mark up as there’s very little difference between 79 and 82%, so I’ll keep it at 79% (between 2/7 and 1/4) 1/3.76".I have to rate Frankel 82% because of all the other runners percentages adding up to 18%. If I called it 79% the others would add up to 21%, in my book they don’t. If a punter does not bother about 3% difference for one horse he won’t bother about another horse, and another. So he could be working to 120% by the time he figures the race out. The sum of percentages must not exceed 100% for a punters book.
One aspect of form, be it going or temperament etc can not have a marks out of 10 approach, ie they can not have "assigned values". As one horse’s over all percentage may be made up of one aspect more than another. It is the positives and negatives that add up. One strong negative might over-ride other aspects of form. For example Sri Putra might have form of similar quality to Planteur. However, although he’s often placed, Sri Putra can appear to shirk the issue and not go through with his effort. Therefore temperament is a major factor in his over all percentage chance. Where as one with just an ordinary character may have little/no temperament aspect in his/her over all percentage make up. Same with going; if it is soft ground and a horse has disappointed twice on the surface before, then going will be a major part of its percentage make up. Where as it will be a lesser part of another horse.
Frankel is of a much higher quality than the rest, but needs to be marked down because of the distance, so must St Nicholas Abbey. However their over all make up still has them first and second best chances.A better way of looking at it is: After studying
all
aspects of form of
every
individual… How much bigger chance does A have than B? If you believe A has 4 times the chance of B then obviously A will have 4 times the percentage chance of B and so on. A punter can (to a certain extent) check he has it right by adding two (or more figures) up.
eg
If B has 15%, C has 10% and D 5%
Does B really have as much chance as C and D put together? If not B is reduced or increase C and/or D.
Does C have twice the chance of D? if not C is reduced or D is upped.
If C is thought to have more than double D then either add to C or drop D… and so on.Might sound difficult J17, but after a while it comes easily and you don’t have to think about it.
Ginge, would you agree that at 1/7
Frankel
is a worthy LAY bet? I believe the possibility of making £7k for the risk of losing a grand is worth taking under tomorrows circumstances.
Books with this horse in are hard for me to compute. ‘The Field’ are 6/5 outsiders against Frankel MINUS 5L. That’s incredible bearing in mind ‘The Field’ contain such horses as a Breeders Cup winning, dual Coronation Cup winning, Racing Post Trophy winning St Nic, and some other quality Group 1 winning opposition.
I’ve just about convinced myself that is the bet of the century when images of Frankel destroying various flash in to my head – and a watching brief is back on the menu!
Ginge, would you agree that at 1/7
Frankel
is a worthy LAY bet? I believe the possibility of making £7k for the risk of losing a grand is worth taking under tomorrows circumstances.
Yes Gord I agree, as my price to beat (back to win) is just 2/9, if a punter is that way inclined Frankel is a good Lay bet @ 1/7 (imo).
Although 9/4 for frankel to win by up to and including 4.5 lengths also looks a good bet too. Along with 49/1 Farhh and 109/1 Planteur.
Value Is EverythingThere is no value in backing losers and I’m not rich enough to get involved with Frankel. The way I see it, you’ve got 2 places, probably any two of St.Nic, Farhh and Twice Over will take those places. There is a chance that one of those may under perform if taking on Frankel early, then that brings in Sri Putra and Planteur. Too many ifs and buts just sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
I am wondering if there is some merit in backing Bullet Train to place. For nearly two years he has been employed almost exclusively as Frankel’s pacemaker over an inadequate 8f.
This is more like his trip and whilst he will once again be performing as a "team player" today, his confirmed stamina may see him perform above his current rating.
At 24/1 to place on Betfair he seems worth a risk to small stakes. Alternatively he is 66/1 w/o the favourite with Paddy Power so at 1/5 the odds this equates to 12.2/1 (assuming he doesn’t finish second to Frankel.
A long shot granted, but could be the long shot everyone is overlooking in the scrum to find a bet worth having.
St Nicholas Abbey at odds on in the w.o market seems shocking value to me. He has been defeated at odds on the two occasions he has contested 10f races – 2/5 and 4/11. As we witnessed at Ascot he takes an age to get into top gear and on a speed track like York you can see him failing to place as he tries in vein to reel in the speedier types. Even a place lay on Betfair is seems worthy of some consideration – 2/5.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.