- This topic has 92 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 18 years ago by
.
- Posts
"Going strictly down the value route could leave you backing five horses and Zarkava still bolting up, what is the use of that?"
So what you are saying Flash, is that if you don’t want to back Zarkava, you shouldn’t have a bet in the race? Or that you shouldn’t take on any favourite as it might bolt up?
Not really. If you fancy something to beat Zarkava back it. Its when you don’t have a fancy for a horse and you back it just because its a certain price that I don’t find particularly appealing as if you are going strictly on price you could end up backing half the field as prices drift etc.
At the end of the day each does as they prefer.
If you fancy Zarkava to win but not prepared to wager … back your judgement and leave the staking on the race at that: 0.
3-5, 8-11 looks most likely. If I had 1 million to wager, it would be on her.
I’ve invested slightly more heavily in Psalm than Modern Look this morning, but was wondering if anyone knew what Pricewise had put up for the race. If it’s the former, I’m going to the pub to cry now…
O.K Flash,
I’ll have another go at educating you and Fist.
How To Produce A 100% Book.
Please feel free to ask questions, give advice or comment.A chance meeting.
Many years ago, while stood watching horses parade around the paddock at Wincanton I got talking to a chap about how we bet. I said I look at Timeform race cards and find horses with the best chances of winning. Then back the one I think is value. He explained why by beating starting price punters might think they get value, but are actually just getting a better price than SP and not necessarily value. He continued, a punter gets value / makes a profit if he wins more than 25% of his bets at 3/1, 10% at 9/1 or 3% at 33/1. Therefore, punters should back any horse, in any race, they believe is better than what he / she believes to be the “true oddsâ€Value Is EverythingFlash, I think the value argument is that one race result doesn’t matter, and that in the long run if you keep backing these horses that are longer-priced than they should be you will inevitably make a profit.
Colin
I understand that perfectly mate. The thing is though you’re backing blind. You’re not actually backing a horse you are backing a percentage chance.
I just wonder how much money the "value" bettors lay out in a week as they must back an incredible amount of horses.
Its just not my thing I’m afraid. If it suits Ginge thats fine, its just not for me.
Why backing blind Flash? I will have done a thorough study of every runner in the race, hopefully knowing all of its strengths and weaknesses. To know if one particular horse is a good bet at a certain price I need to know about every runner. I am backing a horse at a percentage (price) I believe is value.
I usually only bet in three or four races in a day. Do not bet every day, far from it.
A punter who does not win more than 25% of his 3/1 bets will not make a profit.
A punter who wins more than 10% of his 9/1 bets will make a profit.
Therefore profit making depends on value.Ginge
Value Is Everything
- Total Posts 17716
He explained why by beating starting price punters might think they get value, but are actually just getting a better price than SP and not necessarily value. He continued, a punter gets value / makes a profit if he wins more than 25% of his bets at 3/1, 10% at 9/1 or 3% at 33/1.
GingeAnd suddenly, you were born again?
FFS, give us a break!Reet,
Flash asked me a question. Please allow me to answer it.
I know some of what I say may be secondary school maths, but to make my point I have to show it.
If you don’t want to read it, then "go away".
Ginge
Value Is EverythingYou’re a condescending little bugger, aren’t you Ginge?
People know what a 100% book is, know how to price up a race (that you can’t teach as it’s totally subjective) and know how to use their judgement to employ such information should they so wish. So please stop this ‘holier than thou, I know best, everyone must listen to me if they want to profit from horseracing’ nonsense because it really is getting old.
All you need to know to profit from betting, on any sport, is that your strike rate needs to exceed the average price of any winners. Value is a non-sensical phenomenon invented by ‘professional’ gamblers to make their mundane existence seem all the more worthwhile, taking the edge off the fact that they simply evaluate form and chance their arm as the rest of us do.
Dave Nevison talks endlessly about ‘value’, yet is quite prepared to let gallop gossip influence his decisions, and indeed the selections he makes to the (ripped off) public – kind of defeats the point, doesn’t it?
Percentages can be quoted all day long, but it doesn’t alter how you perceive a race to be run; if you think horse A will win, and the end justifies the means, you back horse A. If you think horse A will win but horse B is twice the price you think it should B, giving rise to doubts about backing horse A, you leave the race alone. As far as I can see any argument to the contrary is simply a means of convincing someone to have a bet when common sense dictates otherwise.
So, for all our sakes, give it a ******* rest.
You’re a condescending little bugger, aren’t you Ginge?
People know what a 100% book is, know how to price up a race (that you can’t teach as it’s totally subjective) and know how to use their judgement to employ such information should they so wish. So please stop this ‘holier than thou, I know best, everyone must listen to me if they want to profit from horseracing’ nonsense because it really is getting old.
All you need to know to profit from betting, on any sport, is that your strike rate needs to exceed the average price of any winners. Value is a non-sensical phenomenon invented by ‘professional’ gamblers to make their mundane existence seem all the more worthwhile, taking the edge off the fact that they simply evaluate form and chance their arm as the rest of us do.
Dave Nevison talks endlessly about ‘value’, yet is quite prepared to let gallop gossip influence his decisions, and indeed the selections he makes to the (ripped off) public – kind of defeats the point, doesn’t it?
Percentages can be quoted all day long, but it doesn’t alter how you perceive a race to be run; if you think horse A will win, and the end justifies the means, you back horse A. If you think horse A will win but horse B is twice the price you think it should B, giving rise to doubts about backing horse A, you leave the race alone. As far as I can see any argument to the contrary is simply a means of convincing someone to have a bet when common sense dictates otherwise.
So, for all our sakes, give it a ******* rest.
LGR,
There I was thinking you knew what I was talking about and you go and ruin it with your last paragraph. You clearly do not know as much as you think you do. The line in bold tells me (and all value punters) that.It is you who thinks he knows it all LGR, I am always learning. I am not "holier than thou", being an athiest. Just pointing out some simple maths.
Not a great fan of Dave Nevison, like you LGR he criticises others without thinking through what he says.
But I would disagree I doubt wether he takes any notice of gallop "gossip", but if the "information" of gallop reports comes from a source he believes is knowledgeable, why shouldn’t it influence him?If you think A has the best chance of winning but is poor value, then you are right, don’t back it.
But if you think B is twice the price it should be (unbelievable value) then comman sense indicates it should be backed.Ooops, am I being condecending again LGR? Well, at least I don’t resort to swearing.
Value Is EverythingwWhat I find most annoying is being talked down to like I don’t know what value is.
Ginge there is absolutely no logic in saying if the best filly in the world today was 1/10 1/100 or whatever you would back something to beat her.
If you said you wouldn’t back her because she is too short to suit your wallet then that is fair comment.
We all know if you back odds on shots all day you will lose but I don’t back odds on or odds against I back horses on merit.
AS I said before and will say again there;s a huge differnce between Denman 8/11 and some Sothwell boat at 8/11.
You keep talking about 100% books and value to me like I am some sort of rookie……..22/1 Binocular now 7/1 10/1 Blue Bajan won 4/1 8/1 Natagora………..I think I know what value is mate, I don’t have to back 6 8/1 shots to make 3 quid. That may come across as talking down to you…well one good turn mate
Your post was nonsensicle and has no substance. One minute you say you don’t back odds you back horses then you contradict yourself by saying you would bet against a horse who looked nailed on purely because you can’t get the price you think she should be.
If fillies like her were offered at 7/4 Ladbrokes would have been turned into a fish and chip shop years ago……….she was a 1/3 shot on my reckoning and 4/6 was like a gift from the gods of racing. in other words good value,
Hi gang
the bottom line is don’t look for winners, look for the best bets….
ohh…. but that would require estimating RISK.
sorry Fisty
wWhat I find most annoying is being talked down to like I don’t know what value is.
Ginge there is absolutely no logic in saying if the best filly in the world today was 1/10 1/100 or whatever you would back something to beat her.
If you said you wouldn’t back her because she is too short to suit your wallet then that is fair comment.
We all know if you back odds on shots all day you will lose but I don’t back odds on or odds against I back horses on merit.
AS I said before and will say again there;s a huge differnce between Denman 8/11 and some Sothwell boat at 8/11.
You keep talking about 100% books and value to me like I am some sort of rookie……..22/1 Binocular now 7/1 10/1 Blue Bajan won 4/1 8/1 Natagora………..I think I know what value is mate, I don’t have to back 6 8/1 shots to make 3 quid. That may come across as talking down to you…well one good turn mate
Your post was nonsensicle and has no substance. One minute you say you don’t back odds you back horses then you contradict yourself by saying you would bet against a horse who looked nailed on purely because you can’t get the price you think she should be.
If fillies like her were offered at 7/4 Ladbrokes would have been turned into a fish and chip shop years ago……….she was a 1/3 shot on my reckoning and 4/6 was like a gift from the gods of racing. in other words good value,
Fist,
With Zarkava I was exaggerating, I had not worked the race out, did not even know who was running against her. So exaggerated both Zarkava and Modern Look’s price. 4/6 I’d say was fair value, without being outstanding but that is just opinion.There is no difference between an 8/11 at Southwell and Denman. To be true value they both have to be better than 57.9% chance of winning to be a good bet. Sure Denman is a better horse but he is running in a better race.
My bets are always to do with odds, each horse has to be what I consider value to back it. Don’t see where you got that I’d back a horse whatever the price?
Sorry if you feel I am talking down to you, I am just trying to educate. As I say I am always learning. Are you so informed? Such a student of form you know everything? There are people I have talked to about the "table", who have been betting on horses for 40 years, some real students of form, and not realised its significance. They knew 50% equals Evens or 3/1 equals 25%, but had no idea 15/8 equals 34.8% or 7/1 equals 12.5% etc.
Just because you backed a few horses at better prices than they are now or won at, does not mean you know about true value. A win at 8/1 means nothing if you do not win more than 11.1% of your 8/1 bets. Knowing 8/1 equals 11.1% helps when trying to find true value. The trouble is value means different things to different people, "true value" is different to the "value alternative" the Leslie Grahams come up with. Their bets may be successful but it is not the same. Backing any 22/1 shot a punter does not need to ask will it win? Just has it got a better than 4.3% chance (at the time the bet is struck) of winning?LGR was quite aggressive implying he knows all about true value and then comes up with a rediculous statement which only indicates he does not.
Ginge
Value Is Everything"There are people I have talked to about the "table", who have been betting on horses for 40 years, some real students of form, and not realised its significance."
Ginge, when them Jayhovah’s Witnesses knock on your front door you tell them about the "table"?
Okay, you have found what you think is the Holy Grail but I, after almost 50 years of searching, still don’t believe there is one.
You believe what you want to, but please have the tolerance to let others think otherwise.
Yours tolerantly,
Colin
I once asked you Fist,
To describe how (before exchanges) a bookie ends up with his early prices?
And you could not, or would not do so.
I have just shown you how he does this, though the percentage mark up might be different to a very small degree. Their odds compilers worked out a race to 100%, then added their mark up. (Once anyone knows the table there is no need to constantly revert to the table, by seeing 7/1 you immediately think of 12.5% and vise versa).
Gizza job Barry.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingI agree that the subject is a little wearing, but every job has its downside, imo.
percentages are not really my thing, but I do feel that Ginger has come in for some pointless slagging here; imo, he’s no worse than the norm for this forum.
It seems the done thing here to be an arrogant know-all and also to be nasty, bitchy, and short on good manners. This has all been said before, and, indeed, some folk have found it necessary to start threads about how rotten the forum is.
Basically, for me, there’s only one, ultimate arbiter in all this, and that’s the
" bottom line".
If a punter makes a profit, then, good oh, I say.Btw, Ginge, though I’m trying to defend you here, what would you say if I told you I thought Z had a 90% chance of winning?
Should I have been on at the price?
All I’ve done with my calcs is knock 10% off for "contingencies/things going wrong", as, imo, nothing was going to beat her today on merit."…I am only trying to educate…’
Archimedes wasn’t as presumptuous as you when he realised his gaffer was being turned over by a cowboy goldsmith, and I have it on good authority that even Isaac Newton was suitably humble in revolutionising physics.
But what do we know, Ginge, we’re merely pupils.
It comes to something when I have to agree with Fists, though
"There are people I have talked to about the "table", who have been betting on horses for 40 years, some real students of form, and not realised its significance."
Ginge, when them Jayhovah’s Witnesses knock on your front door you tell them about the "table"?
Okay, you have found what you think is the Holy Grail but I, after almost 50 years of searching, still don’t believe there is one.
You believe what you want to, but please have the tolerance to let others think otherwise.
Yours tolerantly,
Colin
I think you know the answer to that one Colin.
As far as those Jehovahs Witnesses are concerned,
I do use the table, or to be precise probabilities in my arguement.
They said "the chances of an eye forming as it does, to work how it does, has been worked out as a billion to one. So if there are so many billion to one chances in this world someone must have made them".
I said "if I lined up one billion and one things and asked you to choose one. Then the chances of you picking one particular thing is a billion to one. But the chances of you picking any billion to one chance is one. i.e. a certainty. For every billion to one thing that exists there are a billion other things that do not exist". That flumuxed them.
"But", they said, "look at all the beauty in this world, someone must have made the trees, plants, animals etc"? No, I answered. If everything in this world were grey, bar one square foot of grass. Then all the world would want to come and see this turf, because of its beauty. Beauty is a matter of every individuals experience. Someone who has travelled around every continent might think the hills around where I live are ordinary. Where as one who has not moved from a ten mile radius, might be overwhelmed by their beauty".
Time went slowly, and in the end they made their excuses and left.I am a very tolerant person Colin, but when someone refuses to see that two plus two is four, I will try to educate them.
The table of odds and chances is a factual table.
With throwing a dice the chances are factual (unless loaded).
With horse racing chances are opinions, however, using the table allied to a form book, gives the punter a better chance of finding true value.here endeth the lesson.
Mark, chapter 1.
P.S. I do know my faults
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.