- This topic has 46 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
We all have our own ideas about ‘value.’ When you intend to back a horse , you should have in your mind a price at which you think said horse should go off. If the actual price you take (or the starting price) is bigger than you expected , then you are obtaining value – at least in your own mind : hence our own ideals. The bet is ‘value’ as you think the horse has a better chance than it’s odds would suggest. If the horse falls below the price you expected , you can choose to back it or leave it alone as the risk of placing the bet is not as attractive with the smaller return (if successful).
But it’s all about perception. What I may see as a 10/1 chance , somebody else may see as a 6/1 chance and if it opens at 8/1 , they would be getting value and I wouldn’t.
The one thing that does annoy me and the muppets ATR continually drag out are guilty as sin for it , is people saying ‘I think Horse A will win but the price is far too short for me , so at a bigger price I’ll side with Horse B.’ That sort of thing is complete nonsense. They’ve studied , picked out the likely winner but the odds dictate that they won’t back it. So , there is a horse who is at a bigger price and they choose that instead. Just because the favourite (or whichever horse they chose) is shorter than fits their ideals for the race , doesn’t mean something else will win instead.
If you ever hear that phrase , you know you’re talking to a complete plank. By all means they can say ‘Horse A is shorter than I would like and I won’t be backing it as a result.’ That makes sense. But changing your selection because the odds have fallen short of what they wanted , ridiculous.
Empty – it’s just that life is too short for the value debate. You can either get your head around the concept and accept it or it’s beyond you and therefore you dismiss it as "cobblers" like Ricky.
ok lets spell this out
Value for money in betting is non existent
value for money in procuring goods and or services is tangible and measurable
betting is a matter of choice and chance
Value is an over used in appropriate word ,
so you back a horse at 25 /1 and 5 mins before the race he is 2/1 , have u got value
If you have can you bank it , can you feel it  no
You can however lay off and make a profit regardless of result , but this does not accentuate or validate this value thing
It is a misnomer
R
ricky
converted ÂÂÂ
loada cobblers theory works for me  ;)
<br>thanks for the input everyone
(Edited by empty wallet at 5:56 pm on Oct. 11, 2004)
I don’t necessarily employ the ‘value’ tactic in my own betting , within reason at least , but there is a vast difference betting because of the occasion and ‘betting to win.’
It is true to say that , if the horse you selected as the race winner is popular in the market and it’s price is rapidly contracting , the prices of the other horses will drift. It is also true to say , based on the basic ‘value’ idea (not accounting for personal preference) , these horses will be offering ‘value.’ But to say you will now back those instead makes very little sense. You have selected your horse for the race , it’s being backed so you will now back against it ? There is no justification in that logic , other than taking an each way stab at something very nicely priced in the hope of getting lucky.
We study form for a reason – to pick a horse (or possibly two) to back in any one race. If the price on the day is too short for any person to want to risk their original stake for the smaller return , then the race has to be a no bet (if employing the ‘value’ ideal of course). But a horse going off at a bigger price doesn’t suddenly have a better chance of winning , it’s form doesn’t improve – so what’s the logic behind putting your money down. The only advantage is a bigger possible return if it does happen to win. You leave your money where it is and hope your horse in the next race isn’t too short.
As far as ‘value’ goes in consistently making money – I don’t know. That’s just profit in my eyes. I can back 10 horses at Evens , £100 on each and come out £1000 up. If I perceived all as 2/1 chances , which would yield a £2000 profit , then my profit is not of ‘value.’ Yes , I have a psoitive return on my stake , but in betting and percentage terms it is merely profit , not ‘value.’
Ian, if you take yourself any more seriously you’re in danger of imploding into your own personal black hole!<br>It seems to be a cultural difference between our two countries that a little gentle mickey-taking is taboo! <br>couldn’t disagree more with the mindset that says you can only either back your original selection or have no bet. Anyone who wins at betting forms an opinion on the probability of different outcomes to an event and plays when in their opinion the odds on offer are bigger than the true odds. This can mean backing or laying single or multiple selections in any given event, and is precisely the opposite of what the bookie is trying to do.<br>I have no problem changing my selection if the horse I fancied over 2/1 is evens and the only danger I thought would be 5/2 is 4/1.<br>The only valid proof that you are a good judge of "value" is if you win in the long run.
I’m not saying only back your original selection if it’s over the price you expected. I can argue this point until I am blue , purple , red or any other colour in the face but I see little point.
To say I think Horse A will win and go off at 2/1 and Horse B is the only danger (that could be very close to only one going to get remotely close) and will go off at 4/1. If Horse A is actually 5/4 and Horse B 10/1 it makes no difference. You must still think Horse A is going to win , so as regard any logical thinking backing Horse B is daft. In terms of ‘value’ in the strictest sense , yes Horse B does offer value. But it is offering value for a reason – no bugger’s backing it (assuming strong support for other runners ).
Anyone making a profit over time is simply making money – betting to a positive margin. Doesn’t mean they’re good at finding ‘value.’
But basically it’s each to their own. Whatever works for you as a gambler.
I think you should be "equally" concerned about SR as obtaining value. Everyones in such a hurry these days:biggrin:
I fail to appreciate the difference between finding value and "betting to a positive margin"<br>It seems irrefutable to me that anyone who wins over time must be getting value odds, or odds greater than the true odds of an event occurring.<br>It also is surely true that any gambler must accept that more than one outcome to an event is possible, and that each possible outcome has a price. If one is offered odds much greater than the perceived real odds, a bet is made.<br>I find allowing market movements to influence my betting to be counterproductive- I back many more drifting winners than shortening ones- The bigger the edge in price I feel I have, the more I have on.
Carvillshill,
With you most of the way on this but winning over time is still not an irrefutable proof of value. It may be evidence of more likely having got value but you can equally get even better value each time and lose long term.
For example, if you regularly get a price of 10/1 for something which the true price (or an opinion of it) is 8/1 then that is value (by definition).
At the "true odds" chance (11%) you should average 11 wins in a 100 – paying out 110 points and losing 89 points of stakes (+21 points).
If it were actually a "true price" of 10/1 (9%) then you would in a hundred races only average 9 wins, pay out 90, losing stakes 91 (-1 point due to approximation).
The point that seems to be missed is that you do not actually get precisely 11 value (8/1) wins in a hundred races. You get a distributed number of wins purely by chance (11% win chance, 89% loss chance, each and every race) that could range from say 11 (+/-) 4. If you get 15 wins you are laughing. If you get 7 wins you are (+70 -93) = 23 points down.
You have undeniably got value every single time, but whether you win or lose overall is down to chance. At this price range, the occasional times you get the 15 winners can cloud your judgement as to what is actually going on. You might not have got any value but 15 winners at 10/1 is a profit. The fact that every race is different and you are in a different price range each time further confuses the issue.
You can even confuse yourself by saying I have got 15 wins in a hundred so the true price is "in fact " 6/1. I have made a bundle but I took 8/1 each time – so I didn’t get value and should not have backed them.
The only simple tests of value is if every bet you make beats SP or "true odds" by a good margin. The final SP can only be estimated and is in the hands of others. Those who get value more reliably know better than others how to assess a race and better estimate its "true odds", which is also in the hands of others – jockeys, trainers etc but there are less of them and their foibles are better known.
Robert
robert99,
I follow your reasoning and accept that there can be variability in 100 trials, which for most people would be a decent test, but surely it is the long run position(theoretically, anyhow) that is important.
I realise, of course, that in the long run we are all dead (Keynes), or broke(Jeffrey Barnard), and we have to face the unanswerable question of ‘how long is the long run?
Quote: from Ian Davies on 2:31 pm on Oct. 13, 2004<br>Not at all, I understand this type of ”humour” perfectly well – we all went to infant school over here as well, you know, so we’re well familiar with school playground humour. :biggrin:
But some of us move on from it as we grow up. ;)
Yet another devastating put down from the master (out of a repetoire of two).<br>
(Edited by ACR1 at 3:28 pm on Oct. 13, 2004)
Robert<br>Of course any assessment of value is subjective, which is why I said that the only worthwhile measure or your ability to find it is profitability in the long term.<br>I would agree with your contention that chance will affect your results but would argue that if you don’t win a significant percentage of your turnover in a year then it is almost certain that you don’t have a edge and must refine your selection method or take up golf. (given any thought to that Ian?)<br>I disagree with the contention that you must beat SP to achieve value- this seems to suggest that the SPs equate to the real odds of winning, or that the SP market is 100% efficient, patently not true. If you have a method which identifies overpriced horses you are just as likely to find bets at SP as in early shows.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.