Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Looking forward to this with interest. Hopefully it will be as much a success as your last effort.
Feel free to tell me where to go, but if you could even post a very short comment as to why you choose each horse, I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only person who would value that. Thanks!10/1 Air Force One, very happy with that
Great chance without Exotic Dancer too!
Best of luck Dice Man
Oh well, I had my finger on the trigger waiting for him to be confirmed. Shame. Hope you delayed too halfwaytoheaven!
4/1 Notre Pere looks nice to those who have it now, well done.
Value has its place but the trouble is those who are value punters usually believe that actively seeking value is the only way of succeeding in betting in the long term. It isn’t, they are wrong but maybe its an ego thing? Perhaps they don’t like the thought of people actually being better judges of form / horses than they are? I don’t know but you will have to work hard to convince the value only brigade that there are other ways.
Thing is though, if people are really good judges of form/horses, they will be betting on selections which almost certainly have a better chance than the market suggests – which means they are value.
Whatever way people want to describe it, if people are betting profitably over a long period of time, they are getting prices which are above the fair price for their selections. Which is called value. They might think of it in other words themselves, but that’s what it is.
I saw the term groundhog day mentioned before, and this discussion is very very similar to a few I haw have on poker forums (fora?) regarding the difference in attitude between the mathematical players of the internet age and the live players who prefer to ‘know’ the exact cards their opponent has.
Anyway, I think we’re going around in circles here (and most especially being a relative newcomer to this forum, I don’t want to be getting too belligerent
).stuartd75’s post is very valuable for those who really want to analyse their results though.
They’re a righteous lot these value hunters, aren’t they?
Do I take it then that you bet in every race you price up, The Dice Man? I presume there’s always one horse which lies beyond the boundary of perceived chance?
No, far from it. Pricing up to 100% will clearly always result in some horses in my book being different to the market. Personally I have a margin edge so that I will back (or lay) horses which are a certain % longer (or shorter) in the market than I think they should be.
But next time there’s a 5/4 chance which you have priced up at 11/8, and a supposed 12/1 shot available at 20/1, come and see me before your bookie.
The Netto wine was p*ss, by the way.
Not sure why you need to make it a personal challenge, but unfortunately I am a sucker for bravado and can’t back down
. If you would like to escrow money to someone and set up terms, I will do the same!!DavidBrady – there are plenty of statistical ways of assessing whether the number of bets is statistically significant based on the spread of results, strikerate and average price taken along with the profit/loss so far. I can go into it in detail if you are interested but it involves calculating something called a T statistic and checking to see whether your results fall within x standard deviations.
Yes this is what I do too. Although believe me David – it’s not the most thrilling of topics
Let’s take an eight-runner race, where you have assigned probabilities which all but match the odds offered about seven of the horses. The one which doesn’t correlate is perhaps seventh or eighth in the betting, but is priced up at 20/1 against your perceived chance of 8%. The favourite is 5/4, which ties in (more or less) with your 11/8.
Which do you back? If the favourite was well supported and reached a price significantly shorter than your perceived 11/8, would you lay it?
Yes of course I would back the 20/1 shot and lay the favourite. With all due respect this is a really silly question. In fact it’s not a question of opinion, it’s like asking "If you thought a £5 note was worth five £1 coins, but someone would sell the note for four £1 coins, would you buy it?"
Or some such question where you have just offered someone a clear profitable opportunity and want to see will they turn it down.No, it wasn’t a silly question at all.
You would back the 20/1 shot because you believe it should be trading at less –
that is your opinion
.
I would buy the £5 note for four one pound coins because it is worth more than £4 –
that is fact
.
Lee
Whether my assessment of the prices are correct or not is another matter, but the way the question was framed – there is a 100% correct, indisputable and obvious answer.
Yesterday’s crash cost me 3k, would have been a fun time to have a camera in my living room
Admittedly the ’10/1 shots at 7/4′ was a poorly thought out example (although there are three opinions involved – yours, mine and the bookmaker’s – and there’s no proof as to who is correct), but where do you draw the line?
Maybe now we have discovered the technicality, and we are all sitting on the same side of the fence. when backing them at 7/4, it is your opinion that they should be shorter than 7/4?
Then we are all happyLet’s take an eight-runner race, where you have assigned probabilities which all but match the odds offered about seven of the horses. The one which doesn’t correlate is perhaps seventh or eighth in the betting, but is priced up at 20/1 against your perceived chance of 8%. The favourite is 5/4, which ties in (more or less) with your 11/8.
Which do you back? If the favourite was well supported and reached a price significantly shorter than your perceived 11/8, would you lay it?
Yes of course I would back the 20/1 shot and lay the favourite. With all due respect this is a really silly question. In fact it’s not a question of opinion, it’s like asking "If you thought a £5 note was worth five £1 coins, but someone would sell the note for four £1 coins, would you buy it?"
Or some such question where you have just offered someone a clear profitable opportunity and want to see will they turn it down.I might apply the ‘value’ concept the next time I decide to go shopping. I know what bottle of wine I want to buy – I’ve had it before and it’s like Charlize Theron in a jecuzzi, great to look at and extremely pleasurable once you dive in – but there’s been a small price increase and the £24.95 seems a little steep for the complex and elegant Californian white. There is however a riskier proposition, a Netto own-brand, which looks reasonable at £2.95 for what is described as ‘soft and fruity, and full of flavour’. Perhaps more of a Dawn French in a chocolate fountain.
If the Netto bargain turns out to be a bum deal, I know who to blame.
Blame yourself for not putting a higher value on Charlize Theron in a jacuzzi.
You haven’t understood what I have said at all, The Dice Man.
The value hunters that frequent these boards often state that the horse they fancy is too short, but ‘at the price’ another horse makes more appeal. In effect they’re saying that they believe one horse will win, but they are prepared to back another because its price is not truly indicative of its chance in their eyes.
So, to put that sentiment succinctly, they’re betting against the horse they have deemed the most likely winner having evaluated all of the information to hand.
Just for a moment, say the Champion Hurdle market goes crazy tomorrw, and Binocular is 4/6 while Crack Away Jack is 33/1.
I don’t think there is anyone in the world who thinks that the most likely winner of that race is Binocular. I don’t necessarily believe he will win, but I 100% believe he is the most likely winner. However tomorrow, I will be laying Binocular at 4/6 and backing CAJ at 33/1.Does that make sense?
All I am saying is that it makes sense to use ‘value’ or, as I prefer to call it, ‘risk assessment’, to decide whether or not to back the horse you think is going to win, but logic doesn’t follow that if the potential reward doesnt warrant the investment that something else should be backed instead.
And why does a profit maintained over an extended period of time, whether it be a year or a decade, indicate that ‘value’ has been achieved overall? If you bet with ‘value’ in mind and you show a profit then this is obviously the case, but I can back proposed 10/1 shots at 7/4 (that is horses who are deemed to have a 9% chance of winning but are priced up at 7/4) every single day if 80% of them win. I’m not seeking ‘value’ in this case, I just have a high strike rate.
This isn’t logical, if these are going in at an 80% strike rate they are clearly not 10/1 shots.
Your argument seems to be that you should back the most likely winner of the race no matter what – that’s just crazy, and when you say you have a background in mathematics and logic, you must realise this.
Also, good post carvillshill, that’s really what I have been trying to say. You managed to put it much more succinctly!
All I’m saying is that value doesn’t lead to, or guarantee, profit. I don’t care whether a horse with a supposed (winning) chance of 20% is priced up at 7/2
if
I’m willing to risk the intended stake for the potential reward.
I think the horse will win, so I’ll back it.
What I won’t do is be persuaded to back another horse in the race because its price is significantly bigger than it’s perceived chance. If, after evaluating all of the information to hand, I think the other horse will beat it, why would I? That’s betting against yourself, Mark, and makes little sense (I’m a mathematician by my very nature and work on logic).
So, as I said before, I will quite happily back apparent 4/1 shots at 7/2
if
they’re winners.
This ‘phenomenon’ would be better described as ‘risk assessment’ and should only guide you as to how much, if anything, you stake upon your suggestion of a winner (it’s not difficult to understand that a predicted 4/1 shot priced up at 6/4 is, comparatively, overly risky).
I’ll make an assumption here. When you say
I will quite happily back apparent 4/1 shots at 7/2
if
they’re winners
, what I think you mean is that after evaluating all of the information to hand, you conclude that he should be shorter than 7/2. Is that right?
And when you say –
What I won’t do is be persuaded to back another horse in the race because its price is significantly bigger than it’s perceived chance. If, after evaluating all of the information to hand, I think the other horse will beat it, why would I?
– you mean that you have found a horse which is even better value than the first one? (even though you should have bet both of them)
Otherwise you have me thoroughly confused. I mean, it’s an extremely rare occurrence when the favourite is not the most likely winner of a race, so by your logic
If, after evaluating all of the information to hand, I think the other horse will beat it, why would I?
you should be backing the favourite every time.
That’s betting against yourself, Mark, and makes little sense (I’m a mathematician by my very nature and work on logic).
now I’m even more confused, I would have thought that anyone with a basic understanding of mathematics/logic would immediately see the flaws in what you have posted above (which is why I think I must be misunderstanding you)
Value doesn’t create profit, winning bets do – I’ll back supposed 4/1 shots at 7/2 all day long if they come home first.
There’s over-complicating matters, and then there’s ‘value’.
I don’t really get this at all, to me it’s like saying "I’ll bet black on a roulette wheel all day as long as it keeps hitting."
You’re just admitting that you will knowingly put on losing bets all the time? I’m confused.
There is one problem with being a slave to the value theory
It’s not really a theory, more an undeniable truth. The aim is clearly to find prices which are longer than they should be and back them, or shorter than they should be and lay them. Anything else is just gambling (in the roulette sense of the word).
Why stop at Master Minded? I’m against all four at the moment!
Why? Isn`t that just laying for the sake of it.
No. Not when I think all 4 are too short.
With the Aon now looking unlikely to take place and his entry in the Hennessy not made (looks off also), surely its time to start worrying a bit more about Denman. His medical condition is fine, we are told, but he has less than six weeks left till the big day, he has no intervening entries to date either, at this stage. Straight to the Gold Cup? Find a hurdle race somewhere? A big ask for our Champion trainer…fortunately he stables the next 5 or 6 in the betting… as a consolation.
I was thinking along exactly the same lines today when Newbury looked dodgy and laid Denman for the GC- the downside is small as even if PN finds a race somewhere and he wins he won’t be much shorter on the day. The closer it gets to the Festival the less time he’s got to recover also.
Not sure if this is a good or bad thing but I’ve now laid all the favs for the big races there bar Master Minded!Why stop at Master Minded? I’m against all four at the moment!
).
. If you would like to escrow money to someone and set up terms, I will do the same!!