Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Reet,
I have been using 2 decimal points simply because had I said something like “you need to win more than 5% (instead of 4.76%) of bets at 20/1 to make a profitâ€Value Is EverythingGinger
you wrote "I say again, it does not matter if this horse wins or loses, as long as he wins more than 20% of his bets at 4/1. If he is a good judge of probabilities he will make a profit."
But if he can win more than 20% of his bets at 4/1 he’s going to make a profit anyway regardless of what price he thinks it should be.TRUE
At the end of the day if he backs a hundred 4/1 chances he will need them to win 20 races to break even. TRUE
If out of that sample of a hundred he thinks there are 50 of those that should be less than 4/1 on your advice he should back them and would win,EH? If he thinks anything has a less than 20% chance he should not be backing it at 4/1.
however there is still the probablility that those fifty will fall into the 80 beaten 4/1 shots. Right ?EH? Don’t quite understand your last bit.
Value Is EverythingI can’t for the life of me understand your logic Ginger. You talk about throwing dice and having 200 bets……..then you say if you bet often you will lose.
You talk about 13/8 shots must have 38% chance of winning or better to be value.
please explain to me how exactly do you get to 38%.
If you can’t answer that in a sensible manner then your whole theory is worthless.
That’s the one question you must be able to answer as your whole theory is based around it.
So lets have it…………….thanks
Fist
The reason why a horse at 13/8 should only be backed if you believe it has a better than 38% chance of winning is simply because you need to win 38% (actually 38.1%) of your 13/8 bets to break even.
A £1 bet at 13/8 wins £1.63 (£1.62 ½p to be exact) plus your £1 stake returning £2.63 (£2.62 ½p)
If you have 100 bets of £1 all at 13/8, staking £100 in all.
If you win 38 of those 100 bets (38%).
You get back 38 x £2.63 = £99.94. (38.1% x £2.62 ½p would get back £100.01).
Therefore to be worth backing a horse at 13/8 you must believe it has a better than 38.1% chance of winning.Value Is EverythingI did not say there were any known true odds in horse racing. The true odds of a 16.67% chance is 5/1, fact. Therefore if a punter THINKS a horse has a 16.67% chance of winning he should back the horse ONLY if he can get better than 5/1.
You seem to be saying it is impossible to estimate the percentage chance of each horse in a race. Is this right? But that is clearly not true, if this were the case then every horses early price would be the same.
The exchanges have an impact on bookmakers early prices nowadays but let’s go back to when Betfair etc. did not exist. How did the bookmakers produce their early prices? These are given before the punters backed anything, with as yet no fluctuation of the betting market. Answer: they employed an odds compiler to produce them. He would work out what he thought were the percentage chances of each horse to 100%. Then add the bookmakers mark up.
So if an odds compiler can work out what he believes are the percentage chances of each horse in the race why do you think it is impossible for us punters?
As you say, these bookmakers prices are not known percentages, they are only estimations, plus a bookies mark up.
If the odds compiler believed a particular horse has an 18% (almost 9/2) chance of winning, he adds a 2% mark up, making it 20% and so the bookie offers 4/1. If the punter has studied the form and in his opinion it has a 23% (100/30) chance. Backing what he believes are 100/30 chances at 4/1 would show a profit, so 4/1 in his opinion is a good bet.
I say again, it does not matter if this horse wins or loses, as long as he wins more than 20% of his bets at 4/1. If he is a good judge of probabilities he will make a profit.Please can the non believers of the table of odds and chances answer the questions I ask.[/b]
Value Is EverythingFor anyone who does not believe true value rules every bet:
You’d be quite happy to win less than 16.67% of your 5/1 bets then, is that right? Answer the question lads.
Just picking one small phrase out of my post again I see.
It does not matter if a particular 5/1 shot wins or loses, AS LONG AS MORE THAN 16.67% OF YOUR 5/1 BETS WIN. Say this particular 5/1 shot does win, but you do not win 16.67% of your 5/1 bets, then you LOSE over all.
Let’s take a roll of a dice. The chance of any number coming up is 5/1, anyone backing on the roll should only back it at better than 5/1. I know, I know, in racing we are not talking about certain odds. Let’s take this example then.
Someone brings a loaded dice in to a pub and starts throwing it, I note what number comes up each time. After 100 throws a bookie comes in to the pub and says he will be betting on the outcome. He throws it another 100 times and notes (as I do) what number is thrown.
Of his 100 throws:
1 comes up 15 times.
2, 18 times.
3, 9 times.
4, 25 times.
5, 13 times.
6, 20 times.He converts his percentages to odds and adds his bookies mark up. Offering:
1, 15% + 3% = 18% = 9/2
2, 18% + 2% = 20% = 4/1
3, 9% + 2% = 11% = 8/1
4, 25% + 3% = 28% = 5/2
5, 13% + 2% = 15% = 11/2
6, 20% + 2% = 22% = 7/2Of my 200 throws:
1, comes up 27 times.
2, 36 times.
3, 25 times.
4, 48 times.
5, 27 times.
6, 37 times1, 27 divided by 2 = 13.5% = 13/2
2, 36 = 18% = 9/2
3, 25 = 12.5% = 7/1
4, 48 = 24% = 100/30
5, 27 = 13% = 13/2
6, 37 = 18.5% = 9/2I have studied form for twice as long as the bookmaker.
1, If I win 13.5% of my bets at 9/2 loser.
2, 18% strike rate at 4/1 loser.
3, 12.5% strike rate at 8/1 WINNER.
4, 24% SR at 5/2 loser.
5, 13% SR at 11/2 loser.
6, 18.5% SR at 7/2 loser.
From my form study (opinion) 3 has the worst chance of winning, almost half the chance of 4 coming up. Yet at the bookmakers prices 3 is the only number worth backing. I have £30 on at 8/1.
You, knowing 4 has the best chance of winning, have £1000 on at 5/2.It does not matter what the result of this throw is. From form study and looking at the prices available, 3 is the best bet. But lets say it comes up 4.
YOU WIN and feeling smug go home £2500 better off. Congratulations.
The bookie leaves, miffed the favourite has come up and cleared him out in one go.
I leave £30 worse off, but knowing that if I take 8/1 about every 7/1 chance, in the end, I will make a profit. And you, by backing 100/30 shots at 5/2 will eventually lose.
If it is the only bet you are ever going to have, then I can just about excuse it. But if you bet often, you will end up losing and losing big time.The only way a punter can win over all is to get value in true odds terms.
Value Is EverythingZoso:
My 100% book post was only to show you how it could be done using probabilities and percentages, after careful form study. How to get true value is entirely up to each individual punter, speed ratings, Timeform, whatever.
There is only one way to skin a cat called profit, that is to get Value.
There is more than one way to skin a cat called Value.
All I am saying is there is such a thing as getting value without winning. It is impossible to make a profit over a long period without getting true value,
As I said a punter needs to win more than 16.67% of his bets at 5/1 to make a profit (assuming level stakes). That is not opinion, that is a fact. Do you dispute it Zoso?
Therefore any horse / selection thought to have a 16.67% chance of winning should only be be backed at bigger than 5/1. Do you dispute that fact Zoso?
Would you be happy to win less than 16.67% of your 5/1 bets Zoso?
Something thought to have a 12.5% chance should only be backed at better than 7/1. Do you dispute that fact Zoso?
To find the percentage chance of each price add the two figures together, then divide the second figure by that resultant figure. Then x that by 100.5/1
5 + 1 = 6
1 Divided by 6 = 0.1667
0.1667 x 100 = 16.67
5/1 = 16.67%Dave Nevison, Eddie Freemantle, John Noakes, Alan Potts they are all professional gamblers, they all know the table of odds and chances off by heart. Even the ones who don’t go by form particularly, paddock judges like Chris Arzani know the table and use it. Every punter who wants to make an over all profit should memorise it. If he does not he may end up backing horses at say 13/8, when he does not realise to be considered value it has to have a better than 38% chance of winning. It is infinately easier to make a profit knowing the table of odds and chances than without it.
If you said a particular horse in a race is value, I might not agree, but I can not say you are definitely wrong. Nobody knows what is or is not value. But the only way to make a profit is to get value in the long run. Unless it comes from a few big wins, which is pure luck. Nobody knows which 20/1 shots are going to win before the race starts, nobody knows what 5/1 shots or 4/6 shots are going to win. But over a considerable amount of time, if you win more than 4.76% of your 20/1 bets at 20/1 and 60% of your 4/6 bets you can say you got value.
I probably could learn a thing or two from you Zoso, about racing as well as diet. But not about value, please don’t be blinkered..
You stated you knew what value was Zoso, but if you did not know the significance of the table of odds and chances then you did not know what TRUE VALUE was at all. Do not be offended Zoso, it is not your fault. As I said in my thread it is the racing medias fault. Because they do not explain and publisise something so vitally important, most punters do not know it. If a trainer does not tell punters a horse has had a wind operation since its last run, it effects how the betting public view the chances of that and every horse in the race. John McCrirrick would rightly go mental saying the trainer “put punters awayâ€Value Is EverythingO.K. fist I believe you, thousands wouldn’t.
Of course Fallon is not whiter than white and as I said I do not like him personally but he did not do much wrong in the recent court case.
Had I been on the jury of his previous court case he may, or may not have had a different verdict.
Since (at least) that time; in racing, he does not seem to have done much wrong. Have no interest about what he gets up to off the job. Do not get newspapers because I have no interest in anyones private life.
If you think the game is so bent why don’t you get out of it entirely.
Many insiders, jockeys, trainers and stable staff etc.would like you to believe there is a tremendous amount of skulduggery around. Because then people are much more interested in their opinions.
Value Is EverythingZoso
Yes I do make money by working racing out like this. And as Alanalde says Dave Nevison and every professional gambler I have heard of does it this way. They may not work out races to 100% like I usually do, but they do all know the table of odds and chances.Sorry to say this but It is clear that when you stated, you understood the concept of value, that what you understood was not the true concept of value.
Please Zoso, take a look at my "Question to the racing media thread", it may help you understand. My post about making a 100% book on page 3 might be of particular interest.
Anyone can make a profit for a few months or even a year. But unless a punter understands true value he is unlikely to make a profit over decades.
Value Is EverythingOh Fist.
I am beginning to think you just come on here determined to wind people up. Hope I am wrong, you can not be that naïve can you?
The judge stopped the case because it was pointless to continue. It was obvious there was no case to answer and without doubt they would have been found not guilty had it continued. The judge was just saving the defendants anguish and the tax payer money by ending it. There was no verdict because there was no case to answer. Therefore an even better “verdictâ€Value Is EverythingZoso
A horse does not have to win to be true value. Though I agree many pundits do not seem to know what true value is. I have talked to five so called “punditsâ€Value Is EverythingI was asked for my views on Fallon at Cheltenham yesterday, Lee Motershead was asking racegoers opinions.
Anyone would think Fallon was found guilty in his recent court case. Let me remind you, the case against him was dismissed. Not much evidence and what there was did not amount to anything. It should not have even come to trial. Surely we have to accept that. Though I did have my doubts on one occaison at Newbury, no more so than any other jockey. I have not been that suspicious of him since he left the Ramsdens.
Just because he used cocaine once or twice does not make him a junkie. Some people use cocaine now and again and by doing so it is not so addictive. I do not know if he is an addict and don’t want to know. That is not to say he did nothing wrong. With it in his system while riding he deserves the 18 months ban, in a similar way to drink drivers. Presumably when taking these drugs Fallon had the court case hanging over him. The prospect of a drawn out legal enquiry and a lengthy prison sentence, could be enough to turn anyone to drink or drugs. We don’t know what was in his mind at the time.
I don’t like the bloke personally, but that has nothing to do with his prowess as a jockey and hope to see him return to race riding. It will be bad for racing if we lose a man who is / was the best jockey I have ever seen grace a racecourse. Sometimes successful on a horse no other jockey is capable winning on.Value Is EverythingHad a good win on KK when he won the Gold Cup so am a big fan. But Newmill was close up and he aint been showing much lately. Nickname had excuses last time sure, so had yet to show his best this term.
So what can we judge the horse on?
It was encouraging that is all, early days to say he is back to anywhere near his best.
This may sound a daft question about a Gold Cup winner, but is he sure to stay the trip?
When he won the race he relaxed, but since then in my opinion has not settled so well at 3 miles. His second King George was not his best form either, only just beating Monkerhostin.Value Is EverythingLook at all the results at Ascot since the new course was laid.
It shows a disproportionate amount of winners who run prominently.
Therefore it could be (on the whole) jockeys have been going too slow early, leaving it too late to catch the front runners.
This would explain why times so far have been slow, and why the Victor Chandler (a grade 1 that should be a bit faster) appears very fast.
I wonder if Tom Scudamore and David Pipe are the first trainer and jockey to realise this.Value Is EverythingThe point is with most women racing presenters they are really just that. Good presenters who know a bit, or quite a bit about horses (in general). I do not think they would even claim to know their form. With the exceptions of Lydia and Tanya of course. Though the same could be said of John Francome and Thommo. The former though does know a bit about conformation.
Don’t expect all presenters to be form students, accept them for what they are.
Top 4 presenters who know their form are in my opinion:
Jim (Timeform) McGrath, Steve Mellish, Graham Cunningham and Lydia Hyslop.
Value Is EverythingI expect most of you know but..
The Racegoers Club membership is very worth while. £20 and you can get in to race meetings £3 cheaper.
Also, Newbury’s tattersalls badge gets you in at around £5 a meeting. No Reciprocals though.
Had the stuff from Goodwood asking me if I would like to renew my badge. Theirs worked out about the same.
It was, if I go to every reciprocal from Perth to Folkstone. Who does that? I do not have a helicopter Lord March, Can you lend me one please.Have heard something about a badge covering all or most of Yorkshire which sounds exceptional value. Don’t know if I am right about that.
Value Is Everything
