Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Ascot 2002* compared to Ascot 2008(over the two days) .
average overround per runner in 2008 1.54%
average overround per runner in 2002 1.35%
* results for 2006 not yet ready on RP site.
Bookmaker’s (theoretical) profit on any average race has improved by about 14% at this particular meeting.
If you just took the Saturday, the average overrounds per runner were 1.28%(2002) and 1.56%(2008), giving bookmakers an improvement in their theoretical profit of around 22%. This, of course, means that punters betting at SP are worse off by 22%, equating to a 22% increase in the cost of their bets..
Not quite the 30% I mentioned in my earlier post on this thread, but still very significant.
reet hard.
If you compare any meeting today with the same meeting pre Nov 2006, when the main change took place, you will discover the difference in overrounds per runner. I haven’t checked it for a while, but I’ll have a look at today’s Ascot card compared with the same card in 2005(if they raced) as an example..
If anyone can return a consistent profit betting at SP at present, they must be very astute judges of racing form to beat those percentages. It must have been easier before the changes, yet still very difficult.
I emphasise consistency because anyone can enjoy a profitable spell or even get very lucky with a big multiple bet pay out. I’m talking about people who are betting almost everyday confident that they can make good money betting at SP. I would say that such people are very rare indeed and are much rarer today than they were before November 2006.
If you compare SPs since the change(November 2006, I think)) in terms of overround per runner with those before the change, you will find that they have increased on average by about 30 per cent. In effect, the SP punter is considerably worse off since the change, and bookmaker’s margins are higher. They needed to be higher because many Licensed Betting Offices were struggling as operating costs spiralled. The Fixed Odds Betting machines have also helped many units to survive and indeed, in my locality there seems to be more betting offices opening as they become profitable again.
SP betting is fine for people who bet for entertainment and amusement: you have to pay for your pleasure. For those who aspire to making a decent return on their betting as a reward for studying form, I wouldn’t recommend it.
I’ve known the stable for a very long time and they do not entertain geese as swans. Nicky is very shrewd and also very capable, like his father. I’m sure the horse must have an excellent chance if he turns up.
lightbulb36,
You seem, by your enquiry, to be at the beginnings of using race times as a means of assessing form. There are no quick answers to your questions.
I hope I don’t seem unhelpful or patronising, but the best approach is to get hold of a decent book to get you started. I suggest ‘Time’ by Nick Mordin as a good starting point, even if it is a bit dated. There are several very good texts based on US racing, where time and pace analysis are more widely used than they are here.Pompete,
You make a very valid point about pre-conceived ideas and their reinforcement by the media affecting the psychology of football betting.
In my experience, betting on outsiders is likely to produce optimum returns where football is concerned, although this is still likely to be a loss.Football is not scientific because matches are unique chaotic events and results are decided only by goals scored. Goals are only a crude measure of superiority in any given game, although over the season, the best teams will score the most goals.
I don’t know how this relates to the eminent philosopher, Wittgenstein, and his views on the problems of life, but good luck anyway.
reet hard
I think you have a fair point about morning prices. They are often very tight compared to the eventual SP. I believe that it is better in the long term to bet at SP rather than take morning prices, but I wouldn’t recommend either as a sensible betting strategy in the current climate for anyone wanting to make money.
If you are managing to stay ahead despite the percentages you have to beat at SP, then it is very much to your credit and you must be a good judge of form.. Very few could say the same – I certainly couldn’t do it as a punter with limited time to analyse form. In fact, I don’t think I could realistically expect to make money even if I had much more time to study.
barry dennis
In the ‘old days’, most punters did not have the knowledge of margins that they now have and those that did had no platform on which to express their thoughts.
Today, there is still only a relatively small band of punters who trouble themselves with profit margins, although a large proportion of that small band are forum members.
Anyone still betting at SP is doing so ‘For Amusement Only’.
They may as well be playing bingo, the lottery or feeding the slots for all the chance they have of winning.
The high street bookmakers make no qualms about the fact that they offer a good service and have overheads that must be covered by profits from the increased margins they make from SP betting since the changes two years ago.
No point in us criticising SP on this forum because we are aware of the conditions under which SP operates. Might just as well mock the lottery ticket buyer or the bingo player and that would include most of us from time to time.
The SP battle is over with; no-one cares any more. Let it go.
I think you are right, Seagull.
What a golden marketing opportunity, especially the idea that anyone can win it, using the example of Mrs Haddock.
I know C4 will be pushing it like mad because it would boost their viewing figures enormously if they can get the public interested in this bet as a regular weekly punt.
The jackpot is the thing that always attracts the cash, but the consolation of the place dividend should also be emphasised. The bet is too complicated to really take off in a big way and can only be placed in a limited number of outlets, so we cannot expect too much.
Two points worth mentioning.
1. Punters who back horses at odds against invarianbly back more losers than winners. This can cause frustration, especially when the inevitable losing runs occur. You simply have to take a long term view of your betting and ignore the ups and downs of the short term. If your basic method is sound, you should be in front in the long run.
2. It is only worth spending a lot of time studying if you thoroughly enjoy it. The margins of success and failure are so small for the average punter that time spent studying form can only be justified as valuable mental stimulation. If you spend this time grudgingly, hoping to get a financial reward for your labour, you are liable to get very frustrated and embittered.
Treat it as a hobby that costs you an amount you can afford and you will get a lot out of it – you might even make it profitable, but it shouldn’t matter if you don’t.Mark,
This method is performing with a lot of credit at a difficult time of the season. A 25 per cent return is exceptional by any standards. I look forward to watching its progress over the next few weeks.
That’s fair enough. The whole bank is at risk until the end of 2008 and he starts again with £2,500 on January 1st, 2009. If he’s prepared to play the 10th, 11th and 12th he could drop £20,475 on the day, but only lose about £3,000 on the year. I think his bank will probably survive the rest of the year – I hope it does.
I believe the problems with off times and overlapping races, which will become more acute in the winter months, is a challenge to the integrity of the system. The system as it stands will not accept splitting stakes, so where there is a clash, only one race can be chosen for obvious reasons.
Do High Street bookmakers still accept ‘Stop At A Winner’ type bets?
If they do, then this type of bet would be no help to anyone using this system unless you were prepared to leave your maximum liabilty on the sequence with the bookmaker as a deposit.With regard to the recent losing sequence of 9 which was rescued by a punt in the 10th. I thought(although I may be mistaken) that the maximum amount at risk was £2500 on any sequence. After loser number 9, the loss was £2,555, which doesn’t break the bank(accumulated winnings), but cleans out anyone starting from scratch on the same day with the recommended bank of £2500.
Monster,
These figures do seem to prove that horses near the top of the handicap win more races and that some allowance should be made for this when assessing a race using ratings. The last peice of research in this area would be to see whether it is more profitable to support the higher weighted horses. The higher strike rates could be offset by lower odds.
I’ve always had a preference for horses near the top of the handicap, even though their chances are not obvious from the ratings. If a horse is near the top and is highly rated, it certainly gives me more confidence when having a bet.
One way to exploit this would be to add an amount to the rating according to a horses position in the handicap. This is something I might well experiment with in the future.
In terms of the ‘composite ratings’ I use, my initial thoughts would be to add points as follows
Weight Band Extra points
Top weight, -1,-2 +3[/color:y6ewpgh2]
-3, -4, -5 +2[/color:y6ewpgh2]
-6, -7 -8 [b:y6ewpgh2]+1[/color:y6ewpgh2][/b:y6ewpgh2]
-9 -10, -11 0[/color:y6ewpgh2]
-12, -13, -14 -1[/color:y6ewpgh2]
Below -14 -2[/color:y6ewpgh2]
I’m not doing very much at the moment with the racing(busy with other things), so I’ll come back to this at a later date. Thanks for the info, Monster.
Monster
Interesting stats. Do you know if they are adjusted somehow to take account of the number of runners in each race? I think they probably are,otherwise they would be skewed in favour of the top weights.
Hi Artemis
The problem with Top Speed ratings is that they are adjusted again when applied to the race in question. to a cerain extent extra weight may or not slow down a class horse, but taking weight off does make an inferior horse any faster.
Agreed. You have to be careful with horses going up in grade and hence carrying less weight in the higher grade. This has long been recognised as a weakness with weight adjusted speed ratings.[/color:1e0fdppv]
For those that use lbs per length consider the following. With the old method 5 lengths = 1second and lbs per length. (Now change by the BHA to 6 lengths = 1second)5f = 3lbs per length or 3ft per pound which would make the length of a race horse in stride 9ft long.
From a Time perspective under the old sysytem, the standard horse covered 55f in one second. (5l =1sec or .20 seconds per length)
Now divide 55 by 5 (Lengths ) and your race horse in stride now = 11ft. Which is a major contradiction as your race horse is 9ft long in stride according to lbs per length and 11ft long in stride when using feet per second.
The Topspeed scale uses:
at 5f, 1 second = 22lbs, 1 length = 3.6lbs.
This equates to 1 sec = slightly over 6 lengths, which is similar to the BHA scale[/color:1e0fdppv]
quote]
