- This topic has 19 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This ‘how-to’ video is available to watch on RPTV.
Some time ago there was a thread on here about a similar exercise being shown on RUK. I didn’t see that but I’ve seen this …
… and it’s absolutely diabolical.
Like a number of the RPTV programmes the production quality is poor, the people involved seem to think they’re talking to each other as they rarely bother looking at the camera, but most importantly it’s enough to put anyone off having a go themselves.
Wonder what Ginger looks like on camera <!– s:wink: –>
<!– s:wink: –>To be honest, I watched this in the hope of gaining some valueable info that would help with my tissue prices.
How Paul Keeley can sit there and randomly allocate a price to horses without describing how he got to that point I do not understand.
That wasn’t even explaining how he came up with the tissue!
I couldnt watch the whole way through.
Just my opinion, but what a waste of time.
If your going to do something, do it properly.
How Paul Keeley can sit there and randomly allocate a price to horses without describing how he got to that point I do not understand.
That wasn’t even explaining how he came up with the tissue!
Haven’t seen it so can’t comment on the "randomly allocate" bit but can understand the difficulty he may have in cogently describing ‘how’ and ‘why’ he arrives at a price.
For me, after the initial quantitative numerical input from ‘ratings’ has been completed and a raw tissue is compiled there’s an equally important secondary input required that utilises a qualitative gut-feeling, intuition and mental imagery which together hone and finalise the prices
Smoke-and-mirrors, hocus-pocus and snake-oil are part-and-parcel of this – and I’d warrant many – punters oddslines, and hence by definition not easy to explain in mere words
Many have tried in writing and on the box, but other than perhaps succesfully teaching the theory and the maths are – IMO – doomed to failure if attempting to communicate the subtler nuances, which for the most part are unique to the individual, and nebulous to boot
- Total Posts 17716
I agree with all the posts,
This was pretty horrible to watch, "just start with the favourite" he says – doesnt that require looking at the odds? if thats the case then the whole book is flawed as you’ve already been influenced.
Best to print out each race with form and notes ticked 2 days before the race, you then can make your own favourite and tissue based on pure form evidence and also you can write notes for future reference, stapple the 2 sheets together (Jumps fans wont need a stapler, never more than 3 runners so its one sheet) then put into a folder.
This ‘how-to’ video is available to watch on RPTV.
Some time ago there was a thread on here about a similar exercise being shown on RUK. I didn’t see that but I’ve seen this …
… and it’s absolutely diabolical.
Like a number of the RPTV programmes the production quality is poor, the people involved seem to think they’re talking to each other as they rarely bother looking at the camera, but most importantly it’s enough to put anyone off having a go themselves.
Wonder what Ginger looks like on camera :wink:
Ginger TV? Not a pretty sight!
Just watched it, a little disappointing, but it’s a step in the right direction. Do think you’re being a little unfair though. Can see why they did not go in to details on how he came up with the tissue. I’ve done that before and been accused of telling people how to bet. It is a personal thing, everyone has their own way of finding their percentages / prices. This "programme" was more about how percentages and tissues work than giving opinions.
May be they could go in to it in a little more detail another time. With Tom Segal and James Willoughby (a mathematician by trade) perhaps. Hint hint. BRUCE MILLINGTON PLEASE TAKE NOTE.
P.S. Your boys took a hell of a beating last night by Raceform (in the WBRC racing quiz).
Value Is EverythingI have not seen the programme but as a complete racing nonentity but with almost 60 years
of punting behind me my advice is to concentrate on improving your win strike-rate by better selection. If you check my Punters Price Guide thread on the Daily Lays & Plays topic this should give you some indication why – fancied runners do not often go off at advantageous odds.It is not difficult to compile your own independent tissue but it does require plenty of application, although the maths are fairly simple after rating every runner in a race.
If anyone is really keen to compile their own tissue I might be prepared to show them my approach in detail if they care to PM me and we have some dialogue. After all at my age you never know when I might fall off my perch and the knowledge will be lost to posterity
Those who compile their tissues subjectively always seem to miss the point when teaching how to compile a tissue. They emphasise the only part of their methodology with any rhyme or reason – the fact that the odds must sum to 100%. Nevison’s chapter in his recent book could be summed up in one line: decide what odds each horse should be then adjsut those odds to 100%.
The only tissue compilers worth reading/watching are those with hard and fast rules and methodologies – the likes of Bolton&Chapman, Benter and, to a lesser extent, Mark Coton.
"James Willoughby (a mathematician by trade)"
That’s odd. I have known James for 20 years – we even shared a house at one point – and I always thought his "trade" was racing journalist/broadcaster.
The bottom line is that a tissue is just an informed guess based on the available information at the time and should only ever be used as such….
Say you have a formerly very smart horse that has been off for 800 days running in the race you are pricing up. It would have been, say, evens in the race 2 years ago. What price are you going to put it in? 7-4, 16s, 33s? The reality is that any of those prices could be correct, depending on information that you (probably) don’t possess..
The real skill in compiling odds is, after you have produced your line, recognising which of your prices are relatively "solid" and which aren’t. Far too many people think the line they come up with is set in stone and they almost feel obliged to bet around it.
It would be quite legitimate in the above example, to stick the horse in at 16s on your first tissue, yet end up making it value and backing it at 8s, if it became apparent (through subsequent information or obvious market confidence) that it was strongly fancied…
"James Willoughby (a mathematician by trade)"
That’s odd. I have known James for 20 years – we even shared a house at one point – and I always thought his "trade" was racing journalist/broadcaster.
Prufrock,
James described himself as a "mathematician" when he did one of our West Berkshire Racing Club talks. Believe his words were "mathematician turned racing journalist". Did he take a maths degree or something? Never explained what it meant.Mark
Value Is EverythingThe bottom line is that a tissue is just an informed guess based on the available information at the time and should only ever be used as such….
Say you have a formerly very smart horse that has been off for 800 days running in the race you are pricing up. It would have been, say, evens in the race 2 years ago. What price are you going to put it in? 7-4, 16s, 33s? The reality is that any of those prices could be correct, depending on information that you (probably) don’t possess..
The real skill in compiling odds is, after you have produced your line, recognising which of your prices are relatively "solid" and which aren’t. Far too many people think the line they come up with is set in stone and they almost feel obliged to bet around it.
It would be quite legitimate in the above example, to stick the horse in at 16s on your first tissue, yet end up making it value and backing it at 8s, if it became apparent (through subsequent information or obvious market confidence) that it was strongly fancied…
Agree,
When assessing a race overnight it is important not to have each price set in stone. What a trainer says about the horse, market confidence, paddock inspection etc can obviously make a difference to the price you are willing to take.Value Is EverythingThese discussions always seem to be about different things.
What RP were doing is nothing to do with "tissue prices" but one punter’s view of "value prices". Then there are "true odds prices", "SP forecast prices" and "method profit prices".There is a world of difference in each; how they are established, and how they are used. Folks are confusing them into one term "tissue".
Think everyone realises we are talking about a "100% tissue" Robert; not a bookmakers tissue or handkerchief.
Value Is EverythingThose who compile their tissues subjectively always seem to miss the point when teaching how to compile a tissue. They emphasise the only part of their methodology with any rhyme or reason – the fact that the odds must sum to 100%. Nevison’s chapter in his recent book could be summed up in one line: decide what odds each horse should be then adjsut those odds to 100%.
The only tissue compilers worth reading/watching are those with hard and fast rules and methodologies – the likes of Bolton&Chapman, Benter and, to a lesser extent, Mark Coton.
I am glad you mention me in that lot Glenn.
Value Is EverythingAll the, so called, experts should demonstrate making the tissue on a certain factor. For instance speed figures, then it would be far more easy to establish which is the correct approach. Compiling a tissue, or having a viable selection process.
Its a method used and proffered by some to distract from the real objective of punting, SELECTING WINNERS.
"Prufrock,
James described himself as a "mathematician" when he did one of our West Berkshire Racing Club talks. Believe his words were "mathematician turned racing journalist"."I believe James did do a degree in maths, and he is certainly mathematically very able, but I doubt he would claim that it had been his "trade".
By a similar token, I could claim to be a writer of fiction by trade, having studied it at University, but – with the exception of some of my tipping pieces – that too would be inaccurate.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.