General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 379 comments are related to the topic:
VALUE?
VALUE?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 379
|
By:
small WIN on SERIAL KILLER ...if track is fast enough?
|
|
By:
Rode all over the world.Best place was in dubai. Australia is good.Hated america as they treat their horses really bad and dont care for then at all.How some of them have a licence is beyond my comprehending.My dad has his licence .And 55 animals in training.Tough job.People dont turn up for work . Placating owners he never gets a day off.His mobile is going 24/7.Trust me i dont know where he finds the energy.
|
|
By:
When i was in Dubai i was put in a 5star hotel and had a taxi at my disposal from 4am till 6pm.All my meals were paid for.The only thing i had to pay for was beer and well i better not mention that.
|
|
By:
Myself frankie fallon and a few others .Molrenna and eaves.
|
|
By:
Nobody read the article, it still works today!
|
|
By:
I claim that the final odds are reflective of a starter's chance in the long run. If you match a dog at 5.0 (market framed to 100%), you will get 20% winners, returning you 100% (20 X 5.0) of your outlay. Some of these may blow to 6.0 and will win 16 2/3% of their starts, returning you 83.33% (16 2/3 X 5.0). Some may even blow to 10.0, win 10% and return 50% (10 X 5.0).
Some may firm to 4.0. 25% of these will win, returning you 125% (25 X 5.0) of your outlay. If you get matched when the market is framed to 100%, it does not matter if it blows or firms, you will break even. What you lose on the roundabouts you gain on the swings. It is also the case that the only way to make money on a plunge is to get matched before the plunge takes place. The only plunges that are more often right than wrong are the ones that firm into odds-on. If you get matched after the plunge takes place you are back to the 100% return syndrome. In the example above (5.0 into 4.0) you will get 25 X 4.0 = 100%. This is why I say that if you don't know if the plunge took place for good or bad reason, ignore it. I give the example of a fair coin. (50% chance heads, 50% chance tails). If it is tossed and it lands and it is covered (and nobody peeks) one side of the coin is now 100% chance and the other side is 0%. Trouble is nobody knows which is which. Therefore, ignore it, and assign 50% to each side. Same as a dog which has been backed from 5.0 into 4.0. Ignore the price movement and treat it the same as any other 4.0 dog. |
|
By:
Yes, you are right in that scenario, but it's two different things chances of you winning and chances of a firmer or drifter winning.
Which is why unless you know a particular bet will firm or drift, whether you back early or late makes no difference if the market is close to 100%. You can still make money on plunge horses depending on the market reaction, some plunges see the odds drop below SP, some plunges see the odds drop to only best price at the bookies. On longer shots, often the price is well above best price at the bookies. The ability to eliminate market corrections and identify plunges is often the key. This is when you have an advantage. Sometimes there are indicators or flags to look out for. |
|
By:
I've never been able to guess if the odds are going to go up or down. I suspect there are indicators which enable some punters to guess right a bit better than 50%. That info could really be exploited if programmed into trading software that updates 15 times a second.
If its not trading software that has forced me out, then I am back to square one. I did suspect that survival of the fittest has toppled me from near the top of the tree, except that when I run simulations over the last 18 months (my period of decline) they duplicate the results of previous years. I certainly can't complain about Betfair, its been good to me. Just a bit perplexing trying to account for the downfall. I still reckon its traders, and I say good luck to them. Actually, if traders are the only ones left standing, surely pools will diminish and the whole exchange must self-destruct. |
|
By:
Eddie the eagle
Date Joined: 01 Feb 04 Add contact | Send message When: 26 Nov 11 19:25 Joined: Date Joined: 01 Feb 04 | Topic/replies: 4,400 | Blogger: Eddie the eagle's blog I know many will struggle with this, but still imo it doesn't make you clever to figure that one out. The knowledge of maths and ability to solve equations like that among the average person in the street is shockingly bad. I'll bet you less than 50 % of adults would give you the correct answer if you asked how much 30 % out of 60 is. I'll lay you at 1.5  |
|
By:
Actually 1.43 would be more apt
 |
|
By:
could nto hav the fav at the price.
AB Form HORSE Est 50d 5 x5443 Just Beware 20 p16.5 7 64303 Dane Cottage 16 16 4 876x6 Lilac Belle 15.5 p15.5 6 51962 Catawollow 15 p17.0 |
|
By:
Tight is not even close.345
AB Form HORSE Est 50d 2 62111 Folk Tune 29.5 20 8 441x3 Zafranagar 28.5 20 3 x0x2x Castlerock 27.5 5 26262 Quiet Whisper 27.5 27 9 44745 Astrolibra 27.5 p27.0 10 40005 Miereveld 27 p18.0 7 81222 Taste The Wine 26.5 25 |
|
By:
As TOWF is not saying what he considers to be VALUE on posting ratings, then unlikely those who don't know how to use RATINGS to FIND VALUE bets will grasp much from posts.
Based on last race ratings of TOWF....... 1. the FAV CASTLE ROCK at 2/1 SP was close to "true odds" .....therefore was neither a LAY or BACK. 2. the 2nd FAV TROP FORT at 9/2 SP was a VALUE lay in WIN and PLACE market.......as odds were "low" and not rated in the top 7. 3. 3RD FAV was TASTE THE WINE at 11/2 SP.....as was 7th rated, some might find this to a a VALUE LAY in WIN market...........borderline bet. 4. there were 3 CO-4th FAVin race........ QUIET WHISPER at 15-2 SP........as 4th in the above ratings ....it was a VALUE BACK to WIN only. FOLK TUNE at 15/2 SP as TOP RATED at the odds was a WIN BACK....and probably a PLACE BACK....as TR. ZAFRANAGAR at 15/2 SP ,and 2nd top rated, would be a VALUE BACK in WIN market only. This is how RATINGS can help to FIND VALUE bets....... Of course it is hard to"know" what all figures mean in above ratings, so I am only going by them being listed in rated order........ Would be a great result for RATINGS ...wd TOWF |
|
By:
Was thinking of having a bet on the next elimination on the x factor backing little mix.Any views?.
|
|
By:
As TOWF is not saying what he considers to be VALUE on posting ratings, then unlikely those who don't know how to use RATINGS to FIND VALUE bets will grasp much from posts.
The first six return 84% the first 4 78% runners to winners. Depending on the class of the event and amount of runners of course. |
|
By:
"STRIKE-RATE" is not as important as where winners are ranked in the ratings.....and at what odds.
Backing first 3 at top of market in all races would give you a 69% "STRIKE-RATE".....but would you be in profit? |
|
By:
Probability:
New neighbours move in. I say to parents "Do you have children?" They say "Yes, 2." I say "Do you have a son?" (meaning at least 1 son, no tricks) They say "Yes." What is the chance of the new neighbours having 2 sons? |
|
By:
One in three?
|
|
By:
Looking for more responses.
So far 1 response @1 in 3. |
|
By:
1 in 4
- providing they are not Chinese, in which case it gets very complicated. |
|
By:
I won't ask why it gets complicated with Chinese.
1 in 3 = 1 response 1 in 4 = 1 response |
|
By:
I understand the Chinese joke.
|
|
By:
Agree with M_M on both counts - 1 in 4 chance plus......
gets vely compricated with Chinese. |
|
By:
1 in 3 = 1 response
1 in 4 = 2 responses |
|
By:
P required is 1/3.
P(2S/S)=P(S/2S)P(2S)/P(S) P=(1)*(1/4)/(3/4)=1/3 |
|
By:
Good God dunlaying. Do you know if a plunge is fair dinkum or not?
1 in 3 = 2 responses 1 in 4 = 2 responses |
|
By:
The chance of having another son depends on whether the wife still likes sleeping with her husband or is busy plotting how much she'll end up with if she p*sses of next month.
The chance of already having another son is 50% |
|
By:
BTO. What is the chance of 2 sons?
|
|
By:
still 50% because we already know they have one son, but two children.
|
|
By:
1 in 2 (50%) = 1 response
1 in 3 (33%) = 2 1 in 4 (25%) = 2 |
|
By:
Regardless of what order they are in, the chance is the same.
The order of them is irrelevant. The only possible outcomes if you already know one is a son and there are two is: Boy, Girl Boy, Boy Girl, Boy doesn't figure because you asked chance of second son, not chance of order. |
|
By:
Only one guess.
|
|
By:
Enjoyed the problem re 7 persons in the room and all shake hands. How many handshakes?
Anyone else with a probability question? I require a lot of thinking time, so I'll say I'm going to bed now. Tomorrow (my time) we can collate answers and have a lot of fun together. |
|
By:
"What is the chance of the new neighbours having 2 sons?"
33% |
|
By:
It's 33%.
Before the information you know they have 2 kids, which means the following options are all equally likely. G,G G,B B,G B,B The new information means we can remove the option of G,G. This leaves us with (G,B), (B,G) and (B,B) all equally likely. So P(B,B)=1/3 It's a wonderful example of non-intuitive probability. But it's a bit esoteric/pedantic, as in RL they'd probably answer "Oh yes, and a daughter" or "Oh yes, 2 of them in fact". |
|
By:
Wolverhampton R4
a value race for me AB Form HORSE Est 50d 13 63517 Cape Royal 36 37 4 76149 Bond Blade 30 29 9 4x4x5 Dorothy'S Dancing 29.5 27.5 10 50335 Suddenly Susan 29.5 28.5 |
|
By:
AB Form HORSE Est 50d
13 63517 Cape Royal 36 37 4 76149 Bond Blade 30 29 10 50335 Suddenly Susan 29.5 28.5 11 40154 Howyadoingnotsobad 29 28.5 |
|
By:
TOWF - Cape Royal does not like Polytrack - but usually goes nice and short I/R
 |
|
By:
But the question was not about combinations, the question was about probability.
I flipped a coin twice, one of them was heads. Anyone that wants to give me $3.00 or 2/1 about heads, the money is waiting. Which proves if you want the right answer, you must ask the right question in the correct manner. |
|
By:
Australiaone,
Re the handshake problem. I have had a go at it and get this,whether it is correct or not I do not know. Let X be a random variable denoting the number of handshakes required such that each person has shaken the hand of every other person at least once. Then set X =Y[1] +Y[2]+...+Y[6] where Y[i] is the random variable for the expected number of shakes for the ith person to have shaken all the people numbered above him.Then E(X)=E(Y[1])+E(Y[2])+.....+E(Y[6]) Then do the arithmetic and I hope that it comes to E(X)=125/3 |