- This topic has 180 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
You can not judge such things by one days racing Stilvi/Woolfie.
If odds-on and short priced horses are generally not being allowed to run on their own merits… Then answer this question:
Why is it that
over all
(taking in to account bookmakers mark ups) – each price wins at or very close to the percentage of races each price suggests it should?
Still waiting for an answer.
It will be a long wait. Sorry, I really don’t have the time or the inclination to become embrolied in another ‘i’m right you’re wrong debate’. I have given my opinions but if people disagree with them that’s fine. I still like to think of the sport as a game of opinions rather than a mathematics lesson.
While I wave a white flag perhaps others may want to ponder just why someone who is arguing for the predictability of the sport at the same time feels it necessary to back four horses in a nine runner field?
Unless understanding probabilities Stilvi, you will never understand why I very occasionally back four horses in a nine runner field. Correct, it is not "necessary", just my "choice".
In our "sport" only a few subjects have a right or wrong. Very sorry, but this is one of them Stilvi. However, it is your prerogative to believe the World is flat.
Value Is EverythingYou can not judge such things by one days racing Stilvi/Woolfie.
If odds-on and short priced horses are generally not being allowed to run on their own merits… Then answer this question:
Why is it that
over all
(taking in to account bookmakers mark ups) – each price wins at or very close to the percentage of races each price suggests it should?
Still waiting for an answer.
It will be a long wait. Sorry, I really don’t have the time or the inclination to become embrolied in another ‘i’m right you’re wrong debate’. I have given my opinions but if people disagree with them that’s fine. I still like to think of the sport as a game of opinions rather than a mathematics lesson.
While I wave a white flag perhaps others may want to ponder just why someone who is arguing for the predictability of the sport at the same time feels it necessary to back four horses in a nine runner field?
I made the point earlier that Ginger agrees with me precisely because of his multi selections in a given race.
He is hedging against the possibility that there may be hidden ability among the less fancied runners. This is the nervous action of someone who clearly has reason to believe that all is not as straightforward as it may seem. He accepts that horses may not have shown their true worth in recent races.
Some years ago I trialled a similar method based on variable stakes on two or perhaps three runners in a race. It failed because frequently all three were beaten by some unconsidered animal. It is a cop out and if anything confuses the whole business of selection.
Some years ago I trialled a similar method based on variable stakes on two or perhaps three runners in a race. It failed because frequently all three were beaten by some unconsidered animal.
No it didn’t. As with all your betting, it failed because you weren’t good enough. Because you don’t have the talent or ability to make it pay.
I’ve quite enjoyed the arguments on here and I can respect all of them except yours. Every time you lose, it’s someone else’s fault. Some bent owner, dodgy trainer, money-down connections, some ‘unconsidered outsider’ etc etc.
What a load of childish nonsense.
I am currently trying to bet seriously, I’m finding it very hard work and it’s not going as well as I’d hoped. If at the end of the period I’ve allocated I fail to make any sort of viable profit then THAT IS MY FAULT. It will be MY lack of talent, MY lack of ability that causes it to happen. Nothing else. This is gambling, there are no excuses.
Stop deluding yourself. Stop blaming others for every betting reversal. Take some personal responsibility for God’s sake.
Mike
As you can see Woolfie/Stilvi, each price’s percentage strike rate is at (or near) the percentage you could expect. Therefore, any thoughts of significant numbers of short priced horses being not allowed to run on their merits… is clearly WRONG.
In case anyone wonders whether matters have changed since Adrian Massey’s stats finished in 2010 here’s a selection of his stats for NH Handicaps for 2000 – 10
1-1
44.3%
2-1
29.4%
3-1
22.1%
5-1
14.2%
8-1
9.2%
12-1
6.6%
and Computer Timeform’s for 1/1/11 – present
1-1 51.39%
2/1 28.29%
3/1 21.47%
5/1 14.62%
8/1 8.78%
12/1 6.24%
Small sample hence the aberrant profit you would have had backing Even money chances in NH handicaps since 2011 but all the rest ‘as expected’
I don’t have a Flat database
I definitely did some research on this back in the mid-90’s but sadly have no record of it due to dropping a huge amount of tabs whilst listening to Massive Attack at the time.*
I remember even back then that the correlation between price and expected return was absolutely exact, so this is not something of the Betfair age. I still find it remarkable how amazingly accurate the market is, how every price wins precisiely in it’s turn.
As the form I would have been using was probably from something like 1989-1993, it would be fair to say that was before the real age of data, so one could reasonably assume that this accuracy had been going on for decades if not centuries!
The UK’s horseracing betting market really is a thing of mathematical beauty.
Mike
*Generic 90’s reference. I was probably sitting at home programming.
Some years ago I trialled a similar method based on variable stakes on two or perhaps three runners in a race. It failed because frequently all three were beaten by some unconsidered animal.
No it didn’t. As with all your betting, it failed because you weren’t good enough. Because you don’t have the talent or ability to make it pay.
I’ve quite enjoyed the arguments on here and I can respect all of them except yours. Every time you lose, it’s someone else’s fault. Some bent owner, dodgy trainer, money-down connections, some ‘unconsidered outsider’ etc etc.
What a load of childish nonsense.
I am currently trying to bet seriously, I’m finding it very hard work and it’s not going as well as I’d hoped. If at the end of the period I’ve allocated I fail to make any sort of viable profit then THAT IS MY FAULT. It will be MY lack of talent, MY lack of ability that causes it to happen. Nothing else. This is gambling, there are no excuses.
Stop deluding yourself. Stop blaming others for every betting reversal. Take some personal responsibility for God’s sake.
Mike
Some years ago I trialled a similar method based on variable stakes on two or perhaps three runners in a race. It failed because frequently all three were beaten by some unconsidered animal.
No it didn’t. As with all your betting, it failed because you weren’t good enough. Because you don’t have the talent or ability to make it pay.
I’ve quite enjoyed the arguments on here and I can respect all of them except yours. Every time you lose, it’s someone else’s fault. Some bent owner, dodgy trainer, money-down connections, some ‘unconsidered outsider’ etc etc.
What a load of childish nonsense.
I am currently trying to bet seriously, I’m finding it very hard work and it’s not going as well as I’d hoped. If at the end of the period I’ve allocated I fail to make any sort of viable profit then
THAT IS MY FAULT
. It will be MY lack of talent, MY lack of ability that causes it to happen. Nothing else. This is gambling, there are no excuses.
Stop deluding yourself. Stop blaming others for every betting reversal. Take some personal responsibility for God’s sake.
Mike
Of course it’s your fault. I am running a successful method. You naively refuse to see racing as being bent to the advantage of connections. That is your downfall. It is irresponsible to waste money day after day. I did something about it and now I’m winning while you, the naïve upholder of racing’s integrity sink deeper into a hole.
I made the point earlier that Ginger agrees with me precisely because of his multi selections in a given race.
He is hedging against the possibility that there may be hidden ability among the less fancied runners. This is the nervous action of someone who clearly has reason to believe that all is not as straightforward as it may seem. He accepts that horses may not have shown their true worth in recent races.
Some years ago I trialled a similar method based on variable stakes on two or perhaps three runners in a race. It failed because frequently all three were beaten by some unconsidered animal. It is a cop out and if anything confuses the whole business of selection.
Don’t be an idiot all your life Woolfie.
If you look at the Scarborough Stakes today: I suppose if Medicean Man wins you’ll think connections have been deliberately discuising his true ability on recent starts; having been 9th of 17 and 5th of 10? Around 3 1/2 lengths behind Justineo last time.
It would not be anything to do with the horse needing to be held up off a stiffer 5f/strong pace then? And with almost every runner in today’s race a prominent runner is likely to get it. Nothing to do with the trainer being in far better form than at any other point this season then? With 4 wins in his last 7 starts compared to a season’s strike rate of 9.5%.
Wish I had worked out the race earlier, as could only get 6/1. Now, I have
not
backed Medicean Man because "I think it will win", I have backed it because I believe it has around an 18% (fair 9/2) chance, value to win.
I’ve also backed rank outsider Swan Song. Not because I think her ability has been "hidden" Woolfie, but because she seems to be improving. Now last time out was at Epsom, so there is a bit of a question mark about that run. But the 3rd at Ascot on penultimate start was an improvement too. If (big IF) the rate of progression is maintained would put her right in the mix. She’s exceptionally well bred, by Green Desert out of Lochsong who also unusually improved as an older horse. Stable also in good form. Swan Song is a prominent runner which is a bit of a negative considering the pace may be too strong today. But she is around 25/1 on the machine not 2/1. I make her around a fair 14/1 shot.
I’ve saved on Justineo @ 100/30, third at Goodwood probably the best form in this and Roger Varian another in cracking form. It’s just she may not like being taken on, yet another front runner and possibly wouldn’t want any more rain. I think he has around a 26% chance (fair 11/4) at this point.
There’d be nothing wrong with me solely backing Medicean Man or only Swan Song (each way or win only). Would not back Justineo as a main bet now, because the ground may come against him. My preference is to back all three, with Justineo just a saver.
Value Is EverythingOf course it’s your fault. I am running a successful method. You naively refuse to see racing as being bent to the advantage of connections. That is your downfall. It is irresponsible to waste money day after day. I did something about it and now I’m winning while you, the naïve upholder of racing’s integrity sink deeper into a hole.
Ye, ye, ye,
Mike is clearly a well informed punter, you on the other hand are what the word "naive" was invented for Woolfie.
What about proving this "system" in TRF’s very own Systems section Woolfie? Just put the bets up before the race and we can all be amazed at your profit!
No?
Thought not.Value Is EverythingYou STILL Woolfie, have not explained why – if you believe the game is bent – why does each price win at (or near) the amount of times that price suggests it should?
Value Is EverythingI made the point earlier that Ginger agrees with me precisely because of his multi selections in a given race.
He is hedging against the possibility that there may be hidden ability among the less fancied runners. This is the nervous action of someone who clearly has reason to believe that all is not as straightforward as it may seem. He accepts that horses may not have shown their true worth in recent races.
Some years ago I trialled a similar method based on variable stakes on two or perhaps three runners in a race. It failed because frequently all three were beaten by some unconsidered animal. It is a cop out and if anything confuses the whole business of selection.
Don’t be an idiot all your life Woolfie.
If you look at the Scarborough Stakes today: I suppose if Medicean Man wins you’ll think connections have been deliberately discuising his true ability on recent starts; having been 9th of 17 and 5th of 10? Around 3 1/2 lengths behind Justineo last time.
It would not be anything to do with the horse needing to be held up off a stiffer 5f/strong pace then? And with almost every runner in today’s race a prominent runner is likely to get it. Nothing to do with the trainer being in far better form than at any other point this season then? With 4 wins in his last 7 starts compared to a season’s strike rate of 9.5%.
Wish I had worked out the race earlier, as could only get 6/1. Now, I have
not
backed Medicean Man because "I think it will win", I have backed it because I believe it has around an 18% (fair 9/2) chance, value to win.
I’ve also backed rank outsider Swan Song. Not because I think her ability has been "hidden" Woolfie, but because she seems to be improving. Now last time out was at Epsom, so there is a bit of a question mark about that run. But the 3rd at Ascot on penultimate start was an improvement too. If (big IF) the rate of progression is maintained would put her right in the mix. She’s exceptionally well bred, by Green Desert out of Lochsong who also unusually improved as an older horse. Stable also in good form. Swan Song is a prominent runner which is a bit of a negative considering the pace may be too strong today. But she is around 25/1 on the machine not 2/1. I make her around a fair 14/1 shot.
I’ve saved on Justineo @ 100/30, third at Goodwood probably the best form in this and Roger Varian another in cracking form. It’s just she may not like being taken on, yet another front runner and possibly wouldn’t want any more rain. I think he has around a 26% chance (fair 11/4) at this point.
There’d be nothing wrong with me solely backing Medicean Man or only Swan Song (each way or win only). Would not back Justineo as a main bet now, because the ground may come against him. My preference is to back all three, with Justineo just a saver.
Best of luck with that, I know exactly your thinking, no more lectures please, I have tested these methods to destruction.
Staking in pennies or pounds, it’s not very appealing.
As to my method, I will not be putting them up just to counter you and Betlarge’s arguments, chances are you would call me just plain lucky whereas I have put the time in to consolidate a formula adding filters as it develops, rewriting sections based on results.
As to my method, I will not be putting them up just to counter you and Betlarge’s arguments, chances are you would call me just plain lucky whereas I have put the time in to consolidate a formula adding filters as it develops, rewriting sections based on results.
As predicted.
Do woolves have big noses?
Value Is EverythingWish I had worked out the race earlier, as could only get 6/1. Now, I have
not
backed Medicean Man because "I think it will win", I have backed it because I believe it has around an 18% (fair 9/2) chance, value to win.
No, thats a very clever comment Ginge,’I haven’t backed ‘Medicean Man’ because I think it will win’ because if you said that your percentage crap would be flawed so to cover yourself you suggest it has an 18% chance of winning!
Do you never tire of writing so much bollox because its ****** tiring reading your constant repetitive drivel! If we had a poll on here that asked how many of us thought a horse had an 18% chance of winning a race so thats why we backed it, the result would be 99% of us would say,’It never enters my head’.
When I put up one of my double figure Ante-Post wagers on here,several of which have been 40/1 shots,my posts have become legendary for the optimistic approach I take, not suggesting to those who read them that the horse only has a 2.5% chance of winning!!Ffs that would be like firing up a 747’s engines behind a depressed compulsive gambler stood at the edge of beachy head! Your percentage obsession have and always will be your achilles heel to being taken seriously as a Professional Gambler.If we had a poll on here that asked how many of us thought a horse had an 18% chance of winning a race so thats why we backed it, the result would be 99% of us would say,’It never enters my head’.
1. Can I please vote yes as I do bet on percentage chance.
2. If it’s true 99% don’t do this then that suits me fine, and I suspect your figure is not far off the mark! Those that win do so by working out an edge by whatever means, and that’s to their credit, while those that don’t just put some money into the pot for the smarter ones to have a chance of winning.
You could ask another question though. If you have made a selection which is showing at 3/1 with 8 bookmakers and 7/2 with 2 others who would you back it with? I would guess a fair chunk of the 99% might be backing it at 7/2. Same principle, just a different way of expressing it.
Rob
Wish I had worked out the race earlier, as could only get 6/1. Now, I have
not
backed Medicean Man because "I think it will win", I have backed it because I believe it has around an 18% (fair 9/2) chance, value to win.
No, thats a very clever comment Ginge,’I haven’t backed ‘Medicean Man’ because I think it will win’ because if you said that your percentage crap would be flawed so to cover yourself you suggest it has an 18% chance of winning!
Do you never tire of writing so much bollox because its ****** tiring reading your constant repetitive drivel! If we had a poll on here that asked how many of us thought a horse had an 18% chance of winning a race so thats why we backed it, the result would be 99% of us would say,’It never enters my head’.
When I put up one of my double figure Ante-Post wagers on here,several of which have been 40/1 shots,my posts have become legendary for the optimistic approach I take, not suggesting to those who read them that the horse only has a 2.5% chance of winning!!Ffs that would be like firing up a 747’s engines behind a depressed compulsive gambler stood at the edge of beachy head! Your percentage obsession have and always will be your achilles heel to being taken seriously as a Professional Gambler.Oh FFS, here we go again.
Your ignorance of probabilities is "f****** tiring" Gordie Boy.Look away now Drone.
Did I say Madicean Man had exactly an 18% chance? No, I said "around an 18% chance". I don’t particularly care if it has a 17%, 18% or 19% chance of winning. All that matters to me is the chance I believe the horse has is quite a bit better than 14.3%. ie 14.3% = 6/1. So 17%, 18% or 19% means it is (imo) value @ 6/1, and it gives me a margin for error.You may think it is "bollox" Gord, but what about the reasons for a bookmaker pricing up a horse at a certain price?
Is he wasting his time pricing a horse up @ 9/2?
Just as well price it up at 5/1, 11/2 or even 6/1 then?
In a
6 horse race
, if able to get 6/1 about all the runners a punter could back all 6 and still make a profit! If backing every horse @ 5/1 a punter breaks even, so 5/1 = 100 ‘/, 6 = 16.7%. Therefore, if the odds compiler believes all 6 have the same fair 5/1 chance of winning he adds a mark up and offers odds of 9/2 for all 6 runners. Yet you Gordie Boy, don’t think there is much difference between 9/2 and 6/1.
The bookmaker has
not
priced the horse up @ 9/2 because he "thinks it will win". He
has
priced it up @9/2 because he thinks it is a fair 5/1 shot (occasionally 11/2). So in fact you could say it has been priced up at 9/2 because the bookmaker does
not
believe it will win. ie 100 – 16.7 = 83.3, so he believes it to have around a 16.7% chance of winning and around an 83.3% chance of losing. Yet you believe I should be ridiculously over
confident
of my 6/1 shot winning.
Why should I be
confident
of a horse I believe has around an 18% chance of winning – when that figure also means I believe it has around an 82% chance of losing? Over 4 1/2 times as good a chance of losing as winning. Why should I think any 6/1 shot "will win"? Makes no sense.
True, it would be stupid for you to suggest backing a horse at 40/1 just because it had in your opinion a 2.5% chance. There’d be no point because it would not be value. 40/1 = 2.44%, not enough margin for error.
You are indeed "legendary" for a massively overly "optimistic approach" Gordie, as your strike rate and ROI illustrate.
But people seem to like it, so you carry on. Gives me a laugh too.Just because you are incapable of seeing chances as percentages, does not mean all of us are incapable. As I prooved in your thread Gordie Boy.
Value Is EverythingIf you look at the
Scarborough
Stakes today
The frequent and understandable mis-spelling of this famous old race is something of an obsession of mine: I once pointed it out to A Potts so you’re in good company Ginger
It’s the
Scarbrough
Stakes, named after the Earls of Scarbrough whose seat is Sandbeck House down the road in Maltby. They also once resided at Lumley Castle which overlooks Chester-le-Street cricket ground in Co. Durham
I’ve saved on Justineo @ 100/30
SP 4/1 I see. Was it ever longer and did you top-up your bet taken at 100/30?
The frequent and understandable mis-spelling of this famous old race is something of an obsession of mine: I once pointed it out to A Potts so you’re in good company Ginger
It’s the
Scarbrough
Stakes, named after the Earls of Scarbrough whose seat is Sandbeck House down the road in Maltby. They also once resided at Lumley Castle which overlooks Chester-le-Street cricket ground in Co. Durham
I’ve saved on Justineo @ 100/30
SP 4/1 I see. Was it ever longer and did you top-up your bet taken at 100/30?
Oops
Sorry abou that Drone.
Never noticed "Scarbrough" before, although I believe the town "Scarbrough" was named after did become "Scarborough"?I seem to remember a recent TV documentary mentioning the Earl Of Scarbrough too?
No Drone, I did not go in again on Justineo, had more rain than I was expecting, which I thought was against him. So just kept it as a saver.
At least it was BOG. Value Is Everything
Sorry abou that Drone.
At least it was BOG. - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.