- This topic has 27 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
If you identify a 9-4 poke as being a evens poke, the risk of losing your investment is 50%. The risk on losing the investment on Twist Magic was about 10%
The return is higher in the former, but which in your opinions is the better investment??
To compare apples with apples I would say that if there were two horses in the same race at 9/4, that would be better value than backing a single at the equivalent to the combined odds of both, imo. There is a chance that something goes wrong with a horse when it runs, no matter how good it is, or how well clear rated it is. The way I see it spreading your bets thinner for the same return is safer.
Don’t get me wrong, Twist Magic was a good bet and there is value at these prices, no doubt, but it’s not for me. How about you did you get involved?
Good luck … I am a firm believer in the art of not losing, it seems to go hand in hand with winning ..
Twist Magic won the race with something in hand, as well he should have done.
However I think the race has actually told us very little. Firstly Mister Quasimodo finishing second doesn’t inspire much confidence, especially when Echo Point was a further 22 lengths behind, although it has to be said Echo Point was very disappointing indeed. The other factor to consider is the race was run in absolutely atrocious conditions, which could not have been much fun for horses or riders. There was a bitterly cold wind and it absolutely lashed down during the race.
I’m not sure I would want to take anything from this race into the Tingle Creek. I am not saying Twist Magic can’t win the Tingle but I still have reservations.
To be fair, the conditions looked worse than they were and the shower didn’t last very long. It looked worse as there was a wind driving the rain sideways and making it more apparent. The wind wasn’t that bitter, PO!
Can’t have Twist Magic for the likes of the Tingle Creek and the Queen Mother.
The wind wasn’t that bitter, PO!
Mother.
Can you tell me where you get your thermals from? I was chilled to the core and I don’t normally feel the cold!!
Surely over time backing 9/4 shots that should be evens is a more profitable strategy than taking 1/5 about horses asessed at 1/10. In the former case your theoretical edge is about 19%, in the latter only 10%. You may have a higher risk of losing the individual bet, but over a series of bets the 9/4 punter will fare better.
I completely agree that opportunities exist at the short end of the price spectrum, but I think the market is more efficient at the front end where more money is traded than a bit further out, which is why I prefer not to back many shorties.Carvillshill
I’m not a stats person and i’m not sure what this tells us tbh, but for interest I ran a SP query on an old RI
1/5
69.5% s/r
£Lsp – 9.8Evens
48.8% s/r
£Lsp – 309/4
38%
£Lsp -341For me personally, taking on a horse at these kind of prices is not a particularly attractive proposition. But with the correct strategy and filters in place i guess it could work out, but saying that the majority of long odds on shots are hard to oppose.
I ran a quick system check on horses with SP 1/5 or less since 2002 in Hurdles and Chases.
Chase – 52 Bets – 48 Winners – 4.13 points profit – 92.31%strike rate
Hurdle – 87 bets – 70 winners – 5.10 points loss – 80.46%strike rateSo if you had backed them all in theory you would be 1 point down after 5 years.
Personally i just try and find value elsewhere at more generous prices.
That doesn’t convince me Empty- it’s obvious you’ll lose more slowly backing 5 on chances than 9/4 pokes, but they are both losing strategies without refinement. I find it much easier to find a 12/1 shot that I think should be 6/1, maybe even two in the same race and the profit on turnover is far higher if I’m right than in the case of your shorties.
Tell you what, start an "Empty’s shorties" thread for the jumps on the Lays and Plays and see what your returns are like over the season- maybe you’ll convert me!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.