- This topic has 68 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The use of value is dependent on the number of horses backed per season/year/lifetime/whatever
For example
You go into a casino and play roulette (numbers 0-36). Usually you get odds of 35/1 about each number but this casino is having a special where they are offering 37/1 about ZERO.
How many times will a value punter have to play ZERO before he shows a profit?
37?
370?
3700?
37000?Anyway I suppose my point is that you need winners AND value but that the WINNERS aspect is more important. IMO, however it is better to see what you think can actually win the race first and then see what you think of the price rather than backing a 50/1 shot at 66/1 because the price is value.
Thank you for all your responses.
I know a lot of you swear by the ‘value’, the ‘backing winners at the right price’ approach, which is absolutely fine. My only question to that would be, who determines and how do you determine what is the right price?
The answer in most cases will be yourself, which means you will be using some sort of system to assess your tissue and determine whether a horse is ‘the right price’. But there isn’t one system in the world that is bomb proof, all your systems, all your workings out, how you give a horse a tissue of 4/1 and how you give another horse a tissue of 10/1 etc are just your own opinions. What if you get it wrong, what if you get it drastically wrong?
Backing horses at any price (and I don’t mean 12 bets a day, I’m talking one or two bets a week after your form study) puts an emphasis purely and simply on finding winners. Backing horses at a ‘value’ price puts an emphasis not only on finding winners, but also on a system you have derived to form a tissue.
If – like the old chap – you are very efficient at studying form and you are selecting more winners than losers (which isn’t incredibly difficult if you put some serious work in), then why not back every selection at any price.
I know I’m in the minority with the approach I use to finding winners, but I’m of a strong belief that it’s the right approach and one that doesn’t over complicate things.
If a bookies odds compiler can work out what they believe to be the chances of each runner in a race; why can’t we? A bookie’s price is only his opinion, if our opinion of those odds are different (and more accurate than the bookie /exchange punter), we can take advantage of bookies / exchange prices. But even if we do not want to make a 100% book, it helps enormously to know what the percentages mean in fair odds terms.
(Am using Early Prices because it is easier to explain).
To understand the significance of the Fair Odds Table, think it is vital for punters to understand how a bookmaker works his prices out.
I know before they open up, bookies nowadays tweak their Early Prices when looking at betfair. So that does influence them a little these days. Also think the opposite happens. Those who know what bookmakers are going to offer, hoovering up “good” betfair prices, before bookmakers open for business.
But let’s go back to before betfair, when bookies priced up solely on their odds compiler’s opinion.
When an odds compiler believes every horse in a six horse race had a certain percentage chance (to 100%), he then adds a bookies mark up (percentage) to that figure to produce a price the bookmaker can offer to punters.
In the example below if the bookie’s odds compiler BELIEVED A has a 26.5% (in his OPINION) a FAIR 11/4 shot. He then adds a mark up (in this case 2%) 26.5% + 2% = 28.5% which equates to a price to offer punters of 5/2. For one he believes is a 20% chance he offers 7/2 etc.A 26.5% 11/4 + 2% =
28.5% 5/2
B 20% 4/1 + 2% =
22% 7/2
C 18% 9/2 + 2% =
20% 4/1
D 12.5% 7/1 + 2% =
14.5% 6/1
E 10% 9/1 + 1.5% =
11.5% 15/2
F 9% 10/1 + 1.5% =
10.5% 17/2
G 4% 25/1 + 1% =
5% 20/1
The first column of percentages adding up to 100% (26.5 + 20 + 18 + 12.5 + 10 + 9 + 4 = 100%).
The second column working to 112% (28.5 + 22 + 20 + 14.5 + 11.5 + 10.5 + 5 = 112%). If it is an uncompetitive market bookmakers will work to a greater percentage over round.If the punter BELIEVES (A) has a BETTER than 28.5% chance then he should back A at 5/2.
If a punter BELIEVES B has a BETTER than 22% then he should back B at 7/2.
Same goes for C if he BELIEVES it has a BETTER than 20% 4/1, D 14.5% 6/1, E 11.5% 15/2 and G 4% 25/1.As can be seen in the example above, there is only at most 2% difference (it’s rarely as much as 5%) between the chance a bookie / compiler believes a horse to have (fair odds); and the price a bookmaker is willing to offer. Therefore, a punter will struggle to decide whether a horse is a good or bad price if he can not differentiate between a 30% and 25% chance (5% difference).
Of course to make an over all profit he needs to be ACCURATE in his ASSESSMENT of percentages / prices.
In the example above: The odds-compiler has worked out that in his opinion the favourite has a 26.5% (fair 11/4 shot) chance of winning. 6.5% better than any other horse in the field. Say this odds compiler likes a bet himself. Those of you who believe a punter should concentrate on backing “winners”, believe this man / woman should back (A) at 5/2, even when in his own opinion it is poor value. Indeed not only at 5/2, but if the horse was 9/4, 2/1 or even 7/4.
If the odds compiler is right in his assessment, he won’t make a profit betting like that.
If it is wrong for this odds-compiler to back the horse he believes has the best chance of winning; then it is wrong for everyone to back the horse believed to have the best chance of winning.If a punter concentrates on backing “winners” without taking in to account value, he won’t make a profit. Because he won’t back enough winners to make a profit.
The only way just backing horses with the best chance of winning will make a profit, is if a punter ONLY backs them when believing them value. Being very selective.
Value Is EverythingThe only way just backing horses with the best chance of winning will make a profit, is if a punter ONLY backs them when believing them value. Being very selective.
Not if he backs the wrong ones
I would think it is impossible for the vast majority of punters to evaluate in percentage terms the chance of a horse winning accurately, for instance in a big handicap you would need to know the form inside out of every other horse in the race and then translate that to percentage terms of winning.
Although a small minority will try, the vast majority don’t have the time or inclination and will let the market decide what price they get.the old man isn’t very astute though
he gets around 50% winners on a regular basis but has set his "back" price at 7/2, thats absolutely brainless. his back price should be based on his strike rate, therefore he should be backing at 6/4 or greater
if he did that he is quids in, which means backing to value. ie his view of value, is a clear winner
Slowhand, the 7/2 is just the one race but the old man’s problem is the one I referred to before, he does not know what the "right" price is in the first place.
Thank you for all your responses.
I know a lot of you swear by the ‘value’, the ‘backing winners at the right price’ approach, which is absolutely fine. My only question to that would be, who determines and how do you determine what is the right price?
The answer in most cases will be yourself, which means you will be using some sort of system to assess your tissue and determine whether a horse is ‘the right price’. But there isn’t one system in the world that is bomb proof, all your systems, all your workings out, how you give a horse a tissue of 4/1 and how you give another horse a tissue of 10/1 etc are just your own opinions. What if you get it wrong, what if you get it drastically wrong?
You’re absolutely right, only yourself can determine value, and you could get it wrong.
After all the are no guarantees. My advice is hope to win, but expect to lose.
What I mean is bet what you can afford to lose. Wether that’s a pound a week or a grand a week, make sure that the money isn’t needed for more important things.
I have to admit though that while I release the important of value, I can’t seem to find it. So my approach is a little like yours work a race out and back in my opinion the best, not necessarily the fav.
However the was one moment in my betting life I’m 100% certain of that I found value, and it was one of my proudest moments in betting.
What it was, was in the 1989 Champion Hurdle were my fancy was Beech Road at 50/1 (generally) and he (in my view) kept beating this more fancied horse.
The fav was odds on but in my view this more fancied horse was likely to take second, expect that I thought that actually BEECH ROAD was more likey to fill that spot. Result was a 50/1 winner backed because I thought he had a real chance of being placed.
The man is a fool, his odds should represent the chance of the horse winning, not the chance of the horse winning the race. His bet odds would then be anything better than 8/11. He would then back them all!
Who determines the percentage chance of a horse winning a race? What percentage is Frankel to win at Ascot next week? 60%, 70%, 80%?
Once you’ve calculated his percentage chance who says that you are right?
There is the flaw in the value argument.
At the end of the day unless your staking is useless if you back enough winners you will make a profit. I guess you can then say "well you found value" but thats just a convenient argument, there is no way to prove what is value.
Not if he backs the wrong ones
I would think it is impossible for the vast majority of punters to evaluate in percentage terms the chance of a horse winning accurately, for instance in a big handicap you would need to know the form inside out of every other horse in the race and then translate that to percentage terms of winning.
Although a small minority will try, the vast majority don’t have the time or inclination and will let the market decide what price they get.As I said "even if we do not want to make a 100% book, it helps enormously to know what the percentages mean in fair odds terms".
(And vice versa).ie
If a punter does not want to work out his own book he does not have to. Looking at any market, a punter should be able to see each price as a percentage, which helps identify value.If a punter just wants to treat his gambling as a bit of fun, writing off his stakes. Paying for his kicks just as someone else might pay for a pint or pay to go on a roller-coaster. That’s fine, he does not need to take value in to account. But if the punter wants to make a profit, he/she must be prepared to study /know about every horse in a race, otherwise they can not expect and do not deserve to make a profit.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Who determines the percentage chance of a horse winning a race? What percentage is Frankel to win at Ascot next week? 60%, 70%, 80%?
Once you’ve calculated his percentage chance who says that you are right?
There is the flaw in the value argument.
At the end of the day unless your staking is useless if you back enough winners you will make a profit. I guess you can then say "well you found value" but thats just a convenient argument, there is no way to prove what is value.
Agree with most of the above, though I do think value is quite easily measured – after the race.
If Frankel wins a comfortable 5l on Tuesday (which he probably should) then 4/11 is excellent value. If he wins a hard-fought 1/2l, then a lot of people will have been very very lucky.Who determines the percentage chance of a horse winning a race? What percentage is Frankel to win at Ascot next week? 60%, 70%, 80%?
Once you’ve calculated his percentage chance who says that you are right?
There is the flaw in the value argument.
At the end of the day unless your staking is useless if you back enough winners you will make a profit. I guess you can then say "well you found value" but thats just a convenient argument, there is no way to prove what is value.
Eh?
"if you back enough winners you will make a profit", you say.
But:
Backing "enough winners" to "make a profit", depends on getting value in those prices.
ie
If a punter’s average price taken is 2/1, then a strike rate of 30% won’t be "enough winners". Where as a strike rate of 30% at an average price of 3/1 shows a healthy profit andis
"enough winners".
A punter can not back "enough winners" without getting "value",
unless luck comes in to it
. And nobody should rely on luck. ie One or two big wins (
luck
) could make a profitable year, whether a punter gets value or not. However, luck will eventually run out, in a punter’s life time of gambling
luck will run out and he will lose overall
. Unless we are talking Agnus Haddock luck, where one win pays for everything.
Back in 2003 I had my biggest ever win on Rooster Booster in the Champion Hurdle. Immediately after the 2002 Greatwood Hurdle I thought "that performance would give him around a 20% 4/1 chance of winning the Champion". Yet Stan James went 12/1. A bet with a Capital B. He won, and I showed a good profit on the year, which would have been the case even if Rooster Booster had not won.
But let’s say this one win was the difference of a profitable and losing year. In one way I can claim it was skill to identify exceptional value. But in another, of all the horses identified as 20% chances, I was
lucky
the one I made truly exceptional value won…..
In the same way, if
staking
is the only reason a punter shows a profit he has been
lucky
. If a punter’s average strike rate is
below
the average price taken in equivalent fair odds terms (50% Evens, 33.3% 2/1, 12.5% 7/1, 5.9% 16/1 etc) then he/she is
lucky
to show a profit.
Value Is Everything"Ian" wrote: Who determines the percentage chance of a horse winning a race? What percentage is Frankel to win at Ascot next week? 60%, 70%, 80%?
Once you’ve calculated his percentage chance who says that you are right?
There is the flaw in the value argument.
That’s the thing Ian, it all comes down to opinion: your opinion vs that of the bookies. One man’s value might be lay of the century for someone else.
Who says you’re right? Nobody. When you pick a horse to back without looking for ‘value’, who says you’re right? No one knows before the race, you just hope that come the end of the season you’ve been right enough times. I don’t see how this could be seen as a ‘flaw’.
I am always amazed that people don’t ‘get’ this fundamental concept.
You can back as many ‘winners’ as you like without having ANY guarantee of profit.
However if you
always
back horses whose actual winning chance is greater than their odds suggest then you will
always
win in the long run.
So ‘value’ is king.
(But, just to confuse matters, you can still just chase winners without concerning yourself with the concept of value, and find value along the way, unknowingly. In fact some pretty good judges I’ve came across do well without the thought of ‘value’ ever crossing their minds. In other words, the whole thing can become over-complicated for some of us and those that keep it simple and look for ‘stand-out’ winners can be the ones who end up finding the best value. Many ways to skin a cat and all that.)
Plenty of food for thought on this thread.
Talking of food I was at the cricket ground the other week. As you walk past the old scoreboard they have like a tuck shop underneath it and my boy asked me to buy him a packet of crisps and a chocolate bar. They are priced at 90p and £1.00, no value whatsoever I told him and said if he eats his homemade cucumber and lettuce sarnies and drink the tap water I bottled up for him and also sat quietly and let his Dad watch the cricket I would arrange it that his Mum buy us Fish and chips that evening.
Everyone’s a winner –
I get to keep my wallet in my pocket
my son gets his fish and chips
and my wife doesn’t have to cookAt first I thought the old guy in the story was a bit of a fool for not using his computer to put his bet on. But say his selection has a best price in paddy power and that the nearest shop is 20 miles away by the time he gets there he’s lost the price. The old guy is not fussed he’s had a nice day out away from home and all free on his bus pass………
Blackbeard to conquer the World
I assume that the title of this thread has a bit missing at the end: “… if you want to make money”. We are talking about making money from gambling, aren’t we?
Please ignore my comments if you want to pick winners to impress friends or business colleagues, or win a newspaper tipping competition with just the numbers of winners counting, or you just want to have fun or a sense of achievement without concern for money.
It is possible to make money over a short period of time by just going for winners regardless of value. But that is just short term random results falling in your favour. If you want to win money in the long run by backing horses (or golfers, or tennis players, etc), then you must have good judgement about what is a value bet and what is not. As other posters have said, your 2/1 bets must win more than 33% of the time, the 3/1 bets must win more than 25% of the time, your 9/1 bets must win more than 10% of the time,etc. For long-term profit, judgement of value is essential.
There are real differences between backers who look for value (call them Type V) and backers who look for winners regardless of value (call them Type W).
One of the differences is that Type V people will have no problem in backing the ninth favourite in a twelve horse race, if it is at a value price. The Type W people would never back a ninth favourite unless they genuinely thought it had the BEST chance of winning, and that will be very very seldom. I can imagine the ninth favourite perhaps having in reality the fourth-best chance, maybe third-best chance, but not THE-best chance of winning. That restricts the Type W people to backing only the first few in the betting in most races they are interested in. That restricts their opportunities of making money.
I suspect that most, if not all, Type W people do a rough “Value” calculation every time they think about making a bet. Perhaps only in their subconscious, perhaps only a very rough “are these odds reasonable”. But they cannot make money long term by backing horses at 2/1 when they only win as often as 3/1 chances, that is: backing horses at poor value odds.
As for the story of the old man, that list of bets is only one example of the thousands of possible lists of winners and losers at various odds. You can’t just look at one list, just as you can’t look at one week’s betting records of any punter and draw any conclusions about their ability to make money in the long term from gambling.
Winning money from gambling is all about being a good judge of value. Not just seeking value, but being good at judging it. Individual punters will have their own methods, whether it is taking advice from form books, form analysts, their own form and time calculations, or their own experience of individual horses and trainers.
If value was truly nothing, then any punter could back all the 1/3 favourites that crop up, and have a 65% to 70% strike rate, and lose money. There is no long term profit in backing winners if they are at the wrong odds, that is – if they are not value.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.