General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 249 comments are related to the topic:
Question for the Pros.
Question for the Pros.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 249
|
By:
910 winners from 1000 at £100 stakes will give £100 profit
51 winners from 1000 at £5 stakes will give £100 profit i think  |
|
By:
Lex 10 Apr 12 12:46
I think strike rate must be better than the price you bet at = skill. value is waiting for a horse that is at a better price than you think it should be, and while waiting you miss out. ============================================================ Lex 10 Apr 12 13:17 I mean that you are waiting for a price that is better than you think its chance of winning is. eg I think its a 5/2 chance so Im waiting for 3/1 ============================================================= As stated earlier, my "strike-rate" in naps competition is probably one of lowest in leagues. Reason why I am still in small positive points position is due to SP odds being greater than the ones the high "strike-rate" players in negative points position for year. Napped a winner at 5-1 SP yesterday for example.....which was 13.06-1 at BF odds well before race time. There was a strong market move mins before the off that ruined the odds for comp. purposes.... So I only get 5 points for win in comp.. I knew the odds were "good value" when backing it....I did not have to wait until odds went higher....as most of horses I nap reduce substantially in odds after I have backed them. Sure......I could try to get higher odds, but I didn't, as not betting professionally. Every winner I get in competition is at SP odds far lower than the odds backed at........ The +1 point approx. cumulative tally to date for current year does not reflect the extra value obtained from backs ( in example above 8 points of a difference etc)...... I've no idea how those with HIGH strike-rates above me in comp are faring re the odds they back at........Though it is likely the short odds napsters would end up behind me re odds backed at. The top napsters are getting high odds winners regularly....so they will be well ahead of me re odds being backed at and also ahead at SP odds.....Their strike-rate for the top napsters will be well below the short odds napsters....but they will be massively in front of them on odds backed due to to the huge value you they will be grabbing! I never "know" a horse will win, but I am a fair napster in comp...I DO NOT THINK ABOUT STRIKE RATE WHEN PLACING A BET....IT IS IRRELEVANT, AS I EXPECT I WILL ACHIEVE WINNERS AT GOOD ODDS REGULARY ENOUGH TO MAKE A PROFIT. Horses backed are chosen as I believe they have good chance to win, taking account of factors in race and other horses in race. They generally are at value odds. Strike-rate is not what you should focus on.....only backing /LAYING at value odds.....If you are any good/have skill/edge, then the winners will come. I suspect Lex you back horses at short odds end of market.....nothing wrong with that, provided you are skillful enough/ have sufficient edge/s and you will need a HIGH strike-rate at that end of market. The margin of value in odds is likely to be far less at the favourites end of market, compared to horses I tend to select ( eg the nap in comp. yesterday became a CO-FAV at 5-1 SP in last few mins before off........but I backed it well before off at 13.06-1 on BF......You may have backed it too yesterday, and be happy it won at 5-1 SP..... I am happier, because I smugly got the value before the lemmings rushed to back it   .....)Anyway.......value in odds is essential to profitable punting.....strike-rate is what most fun punters are happy with...geting some returns now and then to make them think they are skillful punters. GL with bets. |
|
By:
Investor says you cannot back more than 50 percent winners at fair odds of evens.
I think there is some slight confusion over language here. I mean fair in terms of what bookies would offer if they weren't skimming a percentage. Bookies do very well in that they can price up thousands of events at odds of evens and over a long time their average price will work out to be almost spot on. They do NOT however get it right every time. Sometimes their evens is too short, sometimes it is too long, sometimes it's correct, but over time their mistakes average out. This is where winning punters take advantage. They get bigger odds than they believe they should be getting eg bookies price up at evens, but you think it should be 1.60. Most of you will say this is called getting value. I agree. But the reality is, that if I make 100 bets at a bookies price of evens, some of these could be good value, a few bad value and many priced correctly. If more are priced incorrectly than correctly then I can get more than 50 winners at a price of evens and it is NOT luck. I'm now starting to think we are all talking about the same thing. Whether it's getting bigger prices than you expect, or backing more than 50 percent winners at evens (because they should be smaller odds than evens). I believe it all amounts to the same thing. I would suggest it is therefore INCORRECT to say you can't pick more winners than the odds imply, because by saying this you are at the same time saying it is impossible to get value. In conclusion, I didn't really understand his post at first and even thought it was nonsense, but I'm now inclined to agree with the recent post of Eddie The Eagle who said: Amazing that you people can spend hours discussing strike rate vs value when it's basically the same thing. It's only possible to have a better than expected strike rate long term because you get value prices. This now seems to make perfect sense. We're calling the same thing by two different names. And remember, it's only my opinion  But it also means you can't say strike rate isn't important, because it's essentially the same thing as getting value. You get more winners because you identify the mistakes in price. |
|
By:
we've gone full circle here
value = better strike rate than mean odds = mean odds better than strike rate but my point is still that from a practical punting point of view (not maths point of view) strike rate is more important than the price. |
|
By:
Very interesting read this thread, although a lot of unnecessary confusion over the last few pages! And h-bomb you've hit the nail on the head, they are precisely the same thing.
Lex, to see that they are the same thing consider this example: I back 1000 equally staked bets at evens and win 600 of them. You say that I've made profit because my strike rate is higher than 50%? Yes, but my stike rate is above 50% precisely because I have been on average getting value odds, the fact that my strike rate is 60% simply shows that the 'true' odds were on average below evens, so by getting evens I was getting value. The point is that value odds cause a profitable strike rate so the whole concept of strike rate is really an unnecessary complication! |
|
By:
namwob,
This is something I'm learning as I go. And I'm interested, does this mean I should be backing every selection I believe is value, even if I don't expect it to win? Does this lead to greater profits? It kind of goes against a person's instincts to back things they don't strongly believe will win, but is that the best way to bet? |
|
By:
Also, apologies to those who already understood all that's been discussed.
It wasn't even a subject I meant to get into. But I feel that nobody has really explained it in a very clear way prior to this, Hopefully this will help a few people, besides me. |
|
By:
h-bomb,
If you're still maintaining the edge that you had at the start of this thread, I'm not sure you should be taking advice from me on what leads to greater profits! But yes, any selection that is value, no matter how unlikely, should lead to greater profit in the long run. However sadly it isn't that simple. Long shots, even if they are value, introduce a greater variance into your profits. Put simply you should expect more fluctuations in your profit. That's why kelly staking divides by the odds received, suggesting smaller stakes on unlikely events. That wouldn't be my biggest concern though. Although the sample size is still too small to be sure, it would seem you have a knack for identifying value bets around evens. Now, as the incredulous replies from some others suggest, that's no small talent! BUT I would say that it's dangerous to assume that you can also do the same for more extreme odds. The reality is that the odds offered on most selections are representative of their respective probabilities, and value bets (on betfair at least) are few and far between. It's very easy to price things up and convince yourself you've found value when in fact you've just not weighed up the different factors correctly, which is what a lot of self proclaimed 'pros' do. You seem to somehow be avoiding this pitfall on your evens shots so I would stick with them if I were you! |
|
By:
namwob22000
I have said that they are the same thing. Again, that is not my point. Strike rate is better for the punter as value odds are very hard to determine until after the result. Where as value strike rate is not (see my examples) |
|
By:
Alsovalue odds rely on 'in the long run' - which again cant be determined. But your strike rate can over a set number of races. (as per example)
|