- This topic has 175 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
It is the mathematics involved that tells you it is a "miracle bet" Prof. "Miracle" as in it is extremely unlikely for a Scoop 6 bet to come up. It is racing’s Lottery.
With the Lottery itself (if I remember rightly) any bet is around a 13.984 million/1 shot,
so if the rollover ever goes over 13.984 million pounds – then it will be mathematically a "value" bet
. However it will still be a "miracle" if such a bet comes off for a small outlay.
Although the Scoop 6 is not so extravegant odds as the Lottery (especially if most favs come in) it still strikes me as a miracle if a specific punter (identified before the races take place) wins it with a small outlay.
I hate to challenge someone who contributes so much useful understanding of maths and statistics to the forum, but your assertion is not true in many cases. In backing horses to win races, the outcomes are “win”, “lose”, and very occasionally “win and lose” (a dead heat). In a jackpot lottery the outcomes are slightly different: “win outright”, “lose”, and “win a share of the jackpot”. You would have to look at the record of how many times the jackpot is shared, and by how many sharers, to calculate when the true “value point” is reached in respect of the size of the jackpot. If, over a period of time, it is calculated that the jackpot is shared by an average of two people each time, then you would have to wait until the jackpot was double the figure you quote. I am sure you have calculated the odds correctly, but one of the premises of the game is different from betting on races; that is, your returns from a winning bet are affected by how well other punters perform.
The whole notion of value in such a lottery is flawed anyway. To succeed at value betting you have to give yourself enough oportunities to achieve a return. If you expect to average a 12/1 winner every ten bets, you cannot expect to make a profit if you have only three bets. In the lottery, at odds of about 14 million to 1, you would have buy a ticket twice a week for about 135,000 years before you should win, on average. I know that medical science is advancing in leaps and bounds, but I do not expect to live that long.
It is the mathematics involved that tells you it is a "miracle bet" Prof. "Miracle" as in it is extremely unlikely for a Scoop 6 bet to come up. It is racing’s Lottery.
With the Lottery itself (if I remember rightly) any bet is around a 13.984 million/1 shot, so if the rollover ever goes over 13.984 million pounds – then it will be mathematically a "value" bet. However it will still be a "miracle" if such a bet comes off for a small outlay.
Although the Scoop 6 is not so extravegant odds as the Lottery (especially if most favs come in) it still strikes me as a miracle if a specific punter (identified before the races take place) wins it with a small outlay.
And sometimes the Scoop 6 is not worth taking part in – far better to have a £2 accy on those 6 horses.
There’s the posssibility of the place fund i guess but…
It is the mathematics involved that tells you it is a "miracle bet" Prof. "Miracle" as in it is extremely unlikely for a Scoop 6 bet to come up. It is racing’s Lottery.
With the Lottery itself (if I remember rightly) any bet is around a 13.984 million/1 shot,
so if the rollover ever goes over 13.984 million pounds – then it will be mathematically a "value" bet
. However it will still be a "miracle" if such a bet comes off for a small outlay.
Although the Scoop 6 is not so extravegant odds as the Lottery (especially if most favs come in) it still strikes me as a miracle if a specific punter (identified before the races take place) wins it with a small outlay.
I hate to challenge someone who contributes so much useful understanding of maths and statistics to the forum, but your assertion is not true in many cases. In backing horses to win races, the outcomes are “win”, “lose”, and very occasionally “win and lose” (a dead heat). In a jackpot lottery the outcomes are slightly different: “win outright”, “lose”, and “win a share of the jackpot”. You would have to look at the record of how many times the jackpot is shared, and by how many sharers, to calculate when the true “value point” is reached in respect of the size of the jackpot. If, over a period of time, it is calculated that the jackpot is shared by an average of two people each time, then you would have to wait until the jackpot was double the figure you quote. I am sure you have calculated the odds correctly, but one of the premises of the game is different from betting on races; that is, your returns from a winning bet are affected by how well other punters perform.
All very true and very good points MV. Guilty of over-simplifying because I was only trying to explain to Prof why I consider the Scoop 6 a "miracle bet". ie Being something with a very small chance of winning. Had I gone through all that lot I think he’d have got confused as to the general point of my post.
One thing though. Anyone doing the Lottery can do certain things to lessen the chance of needing to share the prize. e.g. Keeping to numbers higher than 31. Many have birthdays, house numbers or ages as their numbers. Days of the month only go up to 31, fewer roads (houses) go up to the higher numbers, and reduces the age group. Grouping numbers together also helps, because a lot of the general public mistakingly believe just because most draws have mixed numbers – that their best chance of winning is with it mixed. Where as in truth any named 5 numbers have the same chance of winning; whether 5, 12, 25, 33, 46 or 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49.
So with fewer people doing the Lottery these days MV, keeping to numbers from 32 to 49 would have a smallish chance of sharing; especially if kept in groups. eg 36, 37, 38, 47 and 48. So even if there was a 48 year old married to a 47 year old, they would not have cildren of ages 37 to 38. And less likely to have freinds of 9 or more years younger.Value Is EverythingThe whole notion of value in such a lottery is flawed anyway. To succeed at value betting you have to give yourself enough oportunities to achieve a return. If you expect to average a 12/1 winner every ten bets, you cannot expect to make a profit if you have only three bets. In the lottery, at odds of about 14 million to 1, you would have buy a ticket twice a week for about 135,000 years before you should win, on average. I know that medical science is advancing in leaps and bounds, but I do not expect to live that long.
Not "flawed" MV. Just because a "Punter" is unlikely to win the bet within his lifetime, does not mean it is not a value bet. Let’s take the "sharing" element out of the equation and say the rollover was 25 million and one. Even when taking in to account the chances of sharing, the actual odds are bound to be far less than 25 million/1. So the bet is a "good value bet", even if it is highly unlikely to come off in the person’s lifetime.
Not that it has anything to do with making it a better "value bet"; but the punter could also enhance the chance of winning it in his/her lifetime – by having far more than one line when the rollover hits as 25 million.
Value Is EverythingAccording to the gambling marines on here luck, bad luck, and anything outside of ‘calculation’ is a myth. Ginger is the hardest exponent of this. If you follow his argument to its logical conclusion then he or other maths genii should be able to beat the bookie hands down and have the Scoop6. It is the only way their argument can stand up. Ginge, or at least Patrick Veitch or Dave Nevison, should be the richest men in the world.
Why are they not? Anyone? Anyone?According to the gambling marines on here luck, bad luck, and anything outside of ‘calculation’ is a myth. Ginger is the hardest exponent of this. If you follow his argument to its logical conclusion then he or other maths genii should be able to beat the bookie hands down and have the Scoop6. It is the only way their argument can stand up. Ginge, or at least Patrick Veitch or Dave Nevison, should be the richest men in the world.
Why are they not? Anyone? Anyone?It’s all organised to thwart the form reader, there are enough expert form readers in the country to destroy the bookies in racing at least, but it’s not that simple. Bookies are happy that connections are sending out horses to lose, it all adds to the confusion, meanwhile they rake in the profits from the expert’s stakes.
Woolf
The same old axes being ground for the umpteenth time.
If your argument is true then I would presume that it would result in some sort of chaotic betting market where the prices would bear no relation to the chance of winning. On the contrary
a) SPs across the board are reflective of the chance of each horse minus a bit of percentage for the over-round
b) According to figures published on the Forum last year, the Betfair market mid morning is an accurate reflection of the chances of each horse and returns show that. There could of course be an unwritten rule than all ‘non-trier lay money’ has to be on by 11 in the morning, but somehow I find that hard to believe…
c) Generally available ratings tend to be a reasonable reflection of horses’ chances in that top rated wins more often than 2nd rated, 2nd rated wins more often than 3rd rated and so. In a ‘chaos market’ surely this wouldn’t be the case.
d) A simple guide of position last time is a fair reflection of chances of winning. Across the board winners last time win more often than seconds, seconds more often than thirds and so on down the line. Once again in your world you would expect random results.
The same applies to any number of ordering methods for horses. Of course blind backing won’t get you ahead as the market has access to the information and interprets it in the same way. The likes of Gingertipster put in a bit of graft which sorts out the patterns and the clues than others can’t find at a cursory glance. To a greater or lesser extent we can all do something similar. But hey, isn’t just too much trouble to do that and so easy to make out that the whole world is against you.
All that aside, given that SP is a good reflection of results then just playing the market gives at least a chance of getting ahead. Backing SP 2-1 chances at 5-2 in the market or 3-1 chances at 4-1, 6-1 chances at 8-1 and so on at least puts the backer in front of the rest of the market. Judicious selection does the rest.
If you think SP doesn’t reflect chance of winning then I’d be only too open to investigate the proof.
Stand in the ring at any moderately busy meeting and make a note of the variations in the market. The advantage that can be obtained on some favoured horses can be pretty decent. Of course, the market is weak at many of the lower class meetings, but then you don’t have to bet in any particular race. I’ve been watching this sport for 40-odd years and I can’t for the life of me remember an instruction that says ‘BETTING IN THIS EVENT IS COMPULSORY’.
If you are ever in Scotland then let me know and we can thrash out the argument on course. I’m not holding my breath though, as I suspect it would just be too much trouble.
Rob
The only thing Ron North doesn’t explain is why the gambling marines and canny punters can’t become seriously rich from the sport.
Why does the sport have its engrained poor reputation?
Why is universally known as a mug’s game?Professor
However you see it, Rob does rather object to being called Ron!
Not quite as confusing as the time I worked in the same office as Rod, Ron and Robert!
That aside, of course it’s possible to make a profit and for those prepared to put in the ocmmitment it’s possible to make a decent living. Hard graft though and with a margin in favour of the bookmakers then they have the upper hand over most. It’s the margin that makes it a difficult game to get ahead at, not Woolf hackneyed old story about everyone pulling strokes.
A key point to remember is that it isn’t the punters against the bookmakers. On the contrary, it’s the punters who look hard to find an advantage against those who are just playing. The bookmakers just act as go-betweens to redistribute the money, and of course take a percentage themselves to make a profit.
A ‘engrained(sic) poor reputation’? Your ‘opinion’ and no more.
ROB
The only thing Ron North doesn’t explain is why the gambling marines and canny punters can’t become seriously rich from the sport.
Unless the punter who’s "canny" enough to return a profit from betting the horses has a small fortune to begin with he’s unlikely to make a big fortune and become "seriously rich": this is a myth perpetuated by stories concerning ‘colourful’ high-rollers betting with suitcases full of used fivers
Infact the only punter likely to complete a rags-to-riches story is the "mug" lucky enough to roll-up an acca, such as those who blindly back Dettori mounts and who got very lucky indeed when he went through the card at Ascot all those years ago
Betting, like its inverse bookmaking is a high turnover, low margin business model, which is one of its main attractions, as a particularly thick wad isn’t required in order to generate worthwhile profit: the slimmish wad can be turned over many times whilst generating a modest profit-on-turnover, that nevertheless due to the multiple turnover of the modest start-up capital returns a healthy return-on-investment
The punter who bets tenners and returns a 10% profit on turnover is every bit as worthy as the punter who bets thousands and returns the same 10%: it’s just the number of bottom-line zeroes that differs
The life of the ‘serious’ profitable punter is essentially an unglamourous steady plod whose bank account, if graphed, resembles the fluctuating sine wave but with the troughs gently skewed up the vertical ordinate away from the ‘break even’ horizontal abscissa
Hope that helps
The life of the ‘serious’ profitable punter is essentially an unglamourous steady plod whose bank account, if graphed, resembles the fluctuating sine wave but with the troughs gently skewed up the vertical ordinate away from the ‘break even’ horizontal abscissa
Hope that helps
Quality.
To paraphrase the Radio 5 new-speak, I’m sure Professortrubshawe and Woolfie are ‘all over that’.
Mike
Professor
However you see it, Rob does rather object to being called Ron!
Not quite as confusing as the time I worked in the same office as Rod, Ron and Robert!
That aside, of course it’s possible to make a profit and for those prepared to put in the ocmmitment it’s possible to make a decent living. Hard graft though and with a margin in favour of the bookmakers then they have the upper hand over most. It’s the margin that makes it a difficult game to get ahead at, not Woolf hackneyed old story about everyone pulling strokes.
A key point to remember is that it isn’t the punters against the bookmakers. On the contrary, it’s the punters who look hard to find an advantage against those who are just playing. The bookmakers just act as go-betweens to redistribute the money, and of course take a percentage themselves to make a profit.
A ‘engrained(sic) poor reputation’? Your ‘opinion’ and no more.
ROB
I thought Ron sounded better for a racing fan. Honest Ron North, tells it like it is.
Last time I looked up the spelling of ingrained it was either/or: in/en.
The racing correspondents of most of the national papers have over the years greeted news of the latest bent racing scandal with ‘this will not help racing’s reputation with the public.’ I see that as indicating that joe public is never surprised by news of a bent jockey, it simply adds to the general conviction that the game is a tricky, artful one in which you are overwhelmingly likely to lose money. That is undeniably true.
As I have said on here far too often – though it never goes through to some people – I don’t think the game is dominated by criminality. I have spoken rather of what I call institutional connivances, which one either accepts or complains about.
In other words, you can explain most things in the game, but that doesn’t necessarily make them right.
I don’t see anything wrong with pocket talk, money lost gambling on horses is simply like paying club or union subs, you are the man who keeps it going, so why not have a moan as you watch the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. can you really disagree?I’ll stick with Rob, though it’s Robert in the family!
I don’t agree with you on all points, but a reasonable post.
You may have a point about the pocket talk. It’a human trait to flail around looking for someone or something else to blame, so why should racing or betting be any different? That said, the ones that achieve things are those prepared to look inward and act on what they see. ‘Twas ever thus.
Rob
Professor
However you see it, Rob does rather object to being called Ron!
Not quite as confusing as the time I worked in the same office as Rod, Ron and Robert!
That aside, of course it’s possible to make a profit and for those prepared to put in the ocmmitment it’s possible to make a decent living. Hard graft though and with a margin in favour of the bookmakers then they have the upper hand over most. It’s the margin that makes it a difficult game to get ahead at, not Woolf hackneyed old story about everyone pulling strokes.
A key point to remember is that it isn’t the punters against the bookmakers. On the contrary, it’s the punters who look hard to find an advantage against those who are just playing. The bookmakers just act as go-betweens to redistribute the money, and of course take a percentage themselves to make a profit.
A ‘engrained(sic) poor reputation’? Your ‘opinion’ and no more.
ROB
The racing correspondents of most of the national papers have over the years greeted news of the latest bent racing scandal with ‘this will not help racing’s reputation with the public.’ I see that as indicating that joe public is never surprised by news of a bent jockey, it simply adds to the general conviction that the game is a tricky, artful one in which you are overwhelmingly likely to lose money. That is undeniably true.
As I have said on here far too often – though it never goes through to some people – I don’t think the game is dominated by criminality. I have spoken rather of what I call institutional connivances, which one either accepts or complains about.
In other words, you can explain most things in the game, but that doesn’t necessarily make them right.
I don’t see anything wrong with pocket talk, money lost gambling on horses is simply like paying club or union subs, you are the man who keeps it going, so why not have a moan as you watch the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. can you really disagree?I think ”institutional connivance ” is a very good phrase another would be ”keeping it in the family” in other words,
there are understandings between friends about when a horse will be switched on at a respectable price. This information is released to a known group of co connivers who in turn return the favour. It’s designed to keep out the outsider.Every single day there are horses producing performances that bear no relation to form or ratings simply romping home like champions.
Woolf
So you keep saying, without a shred of evidence presented to back it up.
I refer you back to my post of 6 February 13:38.
Rob
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.