General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
02 Feb 13
11:41
Joined:
Date Joined:
08 Mar 03
Coming at this from mainly a horse racing perspective but sure it's applicable to all sports....from experience, do people feel that stats give you a real edge in that they are often replicated year on year or is the truth that they are mainly random and of dubious relevance in predicting future events?....essentially, i have heard both arguments anecdotally, as i'm sure we all have, and am interested in any insights from actual experience of crunching numbers. Thanks in advance for any replies.
Show More
Publicly available information can't give you the edge (by definition having an edge means being "better" than average).
Your interpretation of the publicly available information is where the edge lies.
Your interpretation of the publicly available information is where the edge lies.
If you have the "Holy Grail", then you will have so many STATS that support you having it !
However, you still have to decide which betting strategy to take when you have so many options available
A "Holy Graill" system of rating races will use factors that are replicated over a few years, but there are many factors that are relevant to rating a race and it is the combination of all the factors that can then provide ratings that can indicate "value" generally from race to race.
You may not see "at a glance" that you have the "Holy Grail", and it is necessary to analyse results over many races "in depth". Carrying out the statistical analysis will then throw out many many options as to how to use the HG for betting purposes.
Of course, the chances are you don't have the HG but at least all the statistical analysis should let you know this.
For example :- You can have horses rated and the result for race "at a glance" don't look that "impressive".............but if you delve "in depth" the ratings can indicate what bets can be placed. Take the 3.10 race on 14.04.08 ratings and results below......
15:10 Handicap Hurdle(Class 4) 4yo+ 2m4f Heavy 11 hdles
1,Thenford Sir 28
2,Nifty Roy 12 CO 5TH/6TH/7TH FAV
3,Pendle Forest 2-1F
4,Mey Clouds 3RD 6-1 2ND FAV AM 10/16
5,Fair Spin 33
6,Hardybuck 22
7,City Music 50
8,Flaming Heck 28
9,Celtic Saloon 28
---------------------------------------------Ex £217.30 CSF £138.72 TRICAST £971.64
10,Roadworthy 66
11,Bumper 20
12,Sol Run 7 3RD FAV AM 4/16
13,Baby Sister 4TH 15-2 4th fav AM 6/16
14,Ever Special 2ND 12-1 CO 5TH/6TH/7TH FAV AM 3/16
15,Lady Sambury 1ST 12-1 CO 5TH/6TH/7TH FAV AM 11/16
16,Teenando 16 AM 5/16
Most people would "at a glace" believe the ratings were useless......................However, there are many ways to use such ratings.......
You need to carry out statistical analysis over many many races rated to have it confirmed that betting strategies "work" consistently enough to make a profit. If you have the HG, then stats will support this.....
However, you still have to decide which betting strategy to take when you have so many options available
A "Holy Graill" system of rating races will use factors that are replicated over a few years, but there are many factors that are relevant to rating a race and it is the combination of all the factors that can then provide ratings that can indicate "value" generally from race to race.
You may not see "at a glance" that you have the "Holy Grail", and it is necessary to analyse results over many races "in depth". Carrying out the statistical analysis will then throw out many many options as to how to use the HG for betting purposes.
Of course, the chances are you don't have the HG but at least all the statistical analysis should let you know this.
For example :- You can have horses rated and the result for race "at a glance" don't look that "impressive".............but if you delve "in depth" the ratings can indicate what bets can be placed. Take the 3.10 race on 14.04.08 ratings and results below......
15:10 Handicap Hurdle(Class 4) 4yo+ 2m4f Heavy 11 hdles
1,Thenford Sir 28
2,Nifty Roy 12 CO 5TH/6TH/7TH FAV
3,Pendle Forest 2-1F
4,Mey Clouds 3RD 6-1 2ND FAV AM 10/16
5,Fair Spin 33
6,Hardybuck 22
7,City Music 50
8,Flaming Heck 28
9,Celtic Saloon 28
---------------------------------------------Ex £217.30 CSF £138.72 TRICAST £971.64
10,Roadworthy 66
11,Bumper 20
12,Sol Run 7 3RD FAV AM 4/16
13,Baby Sister 4TH 15-2 4th fav AM 6/16
14,Ever Special 2ND 12-1 CO 5TH/6TH/7TH FAV AM 3/16
15,Lady Sambury 1ST 12-1 CO 5TH/6TH/7TH FAV AM 11/16
16,Teenando 16 AM 5/16
Most people would "at a glace" believe the ratings were useless......................However, there are many ways to use such ratings.......
You need to carry out statistical analysis over many many races rated to have it confirmed that betting strategies "work" consistently enough to make a profit. If you have the HG, then stats will support this.....
Depends on the type of betting strategy you opt for.
Some say 10,000 races.....others say a few hundred.....
IMO 1,500 to 2,000 races is enough to indicate whether your ratings operate to a high standard or not.
Trouble is not many people have the time or inclination to spend time on such in-depth analysis......and maybe they are "right" ( generally they will be!) in choosing not to, as there are plenty other ways of passing the time in a more healthy way and they will generally be better off so doing! Unless they have the HG
Some say 10,000 races.....others say a few hundred.....
IMO 1,500 to 2,000 races is enough to indicate whether your ratings operate to a high standard or not.
Trouble is not many people have the time or inclination to spend time on such in-depth analysis......and maybe they are "right" ( generally they will be!) in choosing not to, as there are plenty other ways of passing the time in a more healthy way and they will generally be better off so doing! Unless they have the HG
300 is an ample amount imo .
Specialise in horses where the average man knows "zip all" about .
eg 2YO only - 3Y0 only - horses that need a fast pace - etc etc
Specialise in horses where the average man knows "zip all" about .
eg 2YO only - 3Y0 only - horses that need a fast pace - etc etc
Results inform statistics, statistics do not inform results
What does 'inform results' mean? And what can 'inform results'?
Definition of INFORMATION
1
: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2
a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction
=================================================
Statistics provide information that can help you to evaluate a race...etc etc
1
: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2
a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction
=================================================
Statistics provide information that can help you to evaluate a race...etc etc
Indeed statistics are good tools but like most things it's how you use the tools that really count.
If I played Federer with a a top quality racket I would obviously lose rather spectacularly, however if I used that racket to break both his legs, I think I may have a chance of beating him.
If I played Federer with a a top quality racket I would obviously lose rather spectacularly, however if I used that racket to break both his legs, I think I may have a chance of beating him.
DFCIRONMAN • February 2, 2013 2:56 PM GMT
Depends on the type of betting strategy you opt for.
Some say 10,000 races.....others say a few hundred.....
IMO 1,500 to 2,000 races is enough to indicate whether your ratings operate to a high standard or not.
Spot on and I would agree with the amount of minimum sample size for realistic surveys, but its testing things
like tracks that makes the biggest difference as you simply wont get the same results from the wide variety of
shape, form, surface, undulation that this most important parameter directly creates...
Depends on the type of betting strategy you opt for.
Some say 10,000 races.....others say a few hundred.....
IMO 1,500 to 2,000 races is enough to indicate whether your ratings operate to a high standard or not.
Spot on and I would agree with the amount of minimum sample size for realistic surveys, but its testing things
like tracks that makes the biggest difference as you simply wont get the same results from the wide variety of
shape, form, surface, undulation that this most important parameter directly creates...
Watch the Southwell results tomorrow to see what I mean as this is a specialist track because of
surface material and so little recent form at this track is available so it will be very revealing and interesting.
surface material and so little recent form at this track is available so it will be very revealing and interesting.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539