Gambles on horses that are wrong

Who stated this was a 'theory'? Do you have one? I am asking for opinions on heavily backed horses that run badly.

If they were efficient, why would this happen?

look for horses that habitually shorten significantly in price in play as opposed to their starting odds....a horse in example running yesterday in 14 runs only once failed to shorten more than 50% in all its races since debut

It's another good example of inefficiency yes - the inrunning prices, although I was specifically meaning pre-race prices in my original point. But I agree some of the inrunning prices are even further off.

i think you missed the point slightly

I suspect that some very good napsters in BF Competition Leagues may trigger market moves where odds reduce. Some people probably back them if odds are value, and get on before the odds reduce.

Bookmakers may also shorten odds for certain napsters selections,and based on other information they might have, which may well trigger reduction in odds on BF.

Say one good napster gets good odds winners enough to scrape a profit at SP .....it does not mean they get it "right" with every selection.....more often they will get it "wrong", but they are probably betting at value odds well above what the BFSP is. Thus they can make a profit in Leagues at SP ....and further profit because they are probably getting far higher odds at BF SP.

The over all market is generally "efficient" the way bookmakers operate.............the overround is in their favour.

"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." Many traders follow market moves.....and they get on at right time, then get out at right time well enough to get a sardine whether horse wins or loses.

If you have the ability to recognise when odds are value, then you might be the one that gets on BEFORE the odds tumble. The selection might not win, but if you are backing them based on your view generally get it right enough to make a profit....that is all that counts.

Often connections start false gambles on horses to let all the mugs follow in, then back there's on the quiet without being noticed. Also doesn't help with the idiots on ATR say gamble landed when the winner goes 9/4 into 7/4 they make it seem like following the money always works.

SHAPESHIFTER
SHAPESHIFTER 28 Jun 14 21:12 Joined: 04 Apr 03 | Topic/replies: 2,964 | Blogger: SHAPESHIFTER's blog
They also have so much money that their keyboard has both capital and lower case letters....

The assumption that when a horses's price tumbles it ALWAYS means "connections are on",is completely wrong.There can be several reasons for a price shrinkage.Perhaps a tipping service has given the horse,or maybe the Ladbrokes/Hills rep. has gone round the course bookmakers saying here's £200,get the price of that one down".Happens all the time.

Unless you've got stats to prove otherwise surely the consensus is that the BF market is incredibly accurate? Especially the last ten minutes before a race. Some people think there isn't a "THEY" but have a listen to the Mulrennan and Dwyer tape and tell me this doesn't happen every single day - jockeys decide whose is most fancied and all on that one.

Plus imo the sport is full of drugs and THEY can bet with more confidence when they know the electric carrots are available.

An interesting post for the other type of market wronguns from today too:

http://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/30295531/sureness---drifters-do-win#flvWelcomeHeader

Ocean - I have certain stats yes, but not done a full analysis of this issue.

The question is also not about the markets 'as a whole' but these specific cases...

"Unless you've got stats to prove otherwise surely the consensus is that the BF market is incredibly accurate?"

This is surely correct! If the markets are wrong on a regular basis in an easily determinable way it would be  a virtual license to become wealthy.

My guess would be late, sustained money = accurate. Any other type of money would depend on connections and all the other variables.

You must have other examples where the horse is backed all morning then drifts late on as it finds it's price.

It's an interesting distinction Ocean about the timing - however, I've observed a lot of these 'wrong money' moves coming late too.

"I've observed a lot of these 'wrong money' moves coming late too." Stu.Why don't you start talking about numbers.Saying you've seen "a lot" etc. is meaningless.How many are you talking about 10,20,100,1,000 ? Lets have some figures.

I'm not trying to 'prove' something here fellas, which some seem to think I am! I only care whether markets are correct in terms of using them as a guide.

I am just trying to understand why heavy money appears to be unrelated to how the animal runs. I find it slightly strange that others don't observe this as much as I do.

artie - it's sporadic but regular every day in the markets in my opinion, take a guess how often then about a couple of times a day for the very heavy moves that are unrelated to the strength of the horse's run.

You're saying two horses a day ?

It's a bit of guess - I'm only doing that because you asked, but maybe around that for very heavy moves that are unrelated.

again, what you'd class as very heavy is of course subjective, but large amounts backing moving a price significantly.

How many horses do you see per day that are backed and win,or nearly win ?

I get your point artie - I'm asking about the subset where it's unrelated to running strength.

Some have already suggested example reasons, and the post from the horse forum today is interesting too.

I think that if you are trying to get some financial benefit by studying the betting market.i.e. clues to what is expected to win etc.,you are wasting your time .

This wasn't meant to be a strategy post per se - more a discussion of when masses of money goes missing, as I notice it enough to make me ask the question.

Like I said, I'm surprised others don't find it so odd or notable.

Guess my underlying question is what criteria the backers are using in these cases.

Is that the question?


If you don't "know" why a gamble goes wrong, then do you know why a gamble wins?


If you "know" why a gamble wins, then you would know why they lose.

Obviously knowing for certain would mean that I'd be a millionaire

Doesn't stop anyone discussing the reasons though (as some suggestions above)...

But to remind you, I mean only when they are 'wrong'.

There was an interesting post in the horse forum one I put up above...suggested rumour-mongers influencing prices deliberately. I often wonder about that one.

I've been surprised by the number of times I've seen horses backed on Betfair at points below what is available with Bookies, creating an Arb for £100+.   Why would someone do this? Some have been gambles and won but I doubt if you would profit by following all of them.

I think that there are so few people operating in the early markets that false gambles can be created by bots jumping over each other to join in what they see as a gamble.

stu - I strongly suggest that you need to apply your mind as to why gambles that WIN.....WIN.

If you manage to puzzle that out, then you might be able to identify gambles which may lose.

Why waste your time on the negatives....be positive on gambles that WIN, then you might learn more about factors that are important to a horse's chances of winning.

Favourites lose roughly 66 % of races.....so they fall into the category of gambles that lose, and therefore "wrong". So it happens every day......so compare the WINNERS' factors against the losing favourites factors and perhaps this will take you on the road of enlightenment

Well that's not really true is it - you can lay as well as back on here!

However, as I said above, I'm interested in these markets as indicators, so that's where my real interest lies currently.

* My first comment was in reply to your point that focussing on gambles that WIN is more important.

But I take the point about making the comparison, yes

Jun 30, 2014 -- 7:24AM, TheBaron wrote:

I've been surprised by the number of times I've seen horses backed on Betfair at points below what is available with Bookies, creating an Arb for £100+.   Why would someone do this? Some have been gambles and won but I doubt if you would profit by following all of them.I think that there are so few people operating in the early markets that false gambles can be created by bots jumping over each other to join in what they see as a gamble.

Certainly the bot issue is an issue when there's lack of liquidity, but not sure it matters much for the heavier moves later.

a horse significantly reducing in odds doesnt always mean a huge monetary gamble... today for example i looked at the graph for a horse that had come in from 45 to about 16 and it had only taken roughly 200 pounds to force that downward line

Yep in small markets without much money it doesn't mean much.

EW horses where there are a group of 'owners' can also plunge a price.

When 28 over 75's go to the ring two minutes before the off and put down a 5'er each on a 28/1 slot, the spike is as obvious as their hair colour.

gamble of the race only won one race so far today, 4/6 sp

when you have people trading ( not straight backing or laying ) in a near 100% market , it's easy for someone with market knowledge to manipulate the market in there favour , without even knowing if the horse is trying today or not

just my view

Brighton evening races were notorious for blocks being put up two ticks away from the betting to push the price in.

I guess that is the other big factor in this question - which is the role of 'trading' moves rather than backing moves. I always think smashing a price down is risky though, even if you are trading, but some may see it otherwise.

always found the horses that are not gambles the most interesting, the ones that win at big prices and are not backed in the markets.

Yes, also interesting - you wonder how no-one knew in those cases...

Jul 1, 2014 -- 5:07AM, roadrunner46 wrote:

always found the horses that are not gambles the most interesting, the ones that win at big prices and are not backed in the markets.

That could be because the horse is actually slow bt manages to run the race of his life.

LINE OF REASON 1st 18/1 won at the curragh last weekend, dont think that horse was slow, did have the lowest weight in the race, lots of clues in the form book as to why this horse had a good chance on the day, if you know what your looking at. guess sometimes slow horses can run the race of their lives, dont look out for slow horses myself.

Maiden winners at big prices surprise me sometimes - wonder how the trainers must have known they were pretty decent at home, yet the books put up a big price for the same horse. Not sure how they would run the race of their lives yet never show it at home? Possible though I guess?

You can rarely actually win a race while being 'slow'!

Which is why the gambles don't make sense then...the bigger prices were correct as they factored that in.

When I see a horse go from 4.0 to 2.8 (with exposed form) I assume that someone is very sure there is a gap in ability for that specific race. Any doubt in the animal, and it is very foolish to back it at 2.8

I'm also talking about clearly weak runs in these cases - that's a long way short of just 'not winning' remember...

That example I gave from higher up (4.0 into 2.8 with exposed form) ran only into a struggling 4th place.

Beaten a short head and I would more understand them.

I often put up a nap in competition at "good" odds when I post it........then , most of time, it is backed into shortened odds on BF......and the bookmakers follow the trawler.

Now and then they a selection will run a bad race.....2 days ago I posted a nap that was approximately 17.5-1 on BF.  It reduced in last 5 mins before off from 15-1 SP to  7-1 SP..................finished last. I had already selected it before checking RPost and there were some favourable comments there about the horse. This might have been the "reason" why it shortened in odds.

I had problems accessing my computer that day, and took me 25 mins before I could post a nap in comp........and the horse I wanted to post won at 6-1 SP, but I could not post it in time for comp....so quickly picked the 17.5 - 1 BF odds one. So I still suspect some punters are backing my selections , probably to trade, and it effects the odds on BF , then effects the bookies odds.

I had a bad day re the 2nd selection.....it happens.

Yesterday the nap won at 5-1 SP.....it actually increased in odds after I posted it ( very very unusual !)......perhaps the ones who backed my nap the day before ignored that one.

Jul 3, 2014 -- 7:25AM, King of Dubai wrote:

Going purely from odds, which horse has the best implied chance to win??4.0 into 2.8or1.9 out to 2.8???

Thats a good (tricky) question there

Of course they should have the same chance, however, we often read price change into chance. Maybe that's not always right of course.

DCF - with that record shouldn't you be massively ahead just by trading your own selections!

My mindset is more  "backer" orientated.........trading just does not appeal to me.

Fair enough, it is a somewhat different game.

Just to go back to that example King - I think it (and this whole issue) relates closely to your view of how inside/knowing/corrupt racing is in general.

yesterday horse drits from 3.9 to 13s....cruises into lead and just ties up.....another race horse opens 22s into 8.....into 1.01

2 different races

It's also a good question, whether market 'drifts' are the same as market 'gambles' in terms of change in relative chance. I think people look at drifters like that one with more suspicion in many ways - guess trying to 'win' isnt really as frowned on.

for obvious reasons!

Good depictions on the 'drifters' side yes. However, this post was originally about the other side - the gambles.

5.40 Carlisle: Big drifter Gran Canaria Queen - wins by 4lengths, Fave backed heavily 4th place.

like i said earlier on the thread, dont look out for slow horses LINE OF REASON 1ST 4/1 fast 0.15

winners is not what we are looking for  --  it is horses that should be a lower price than they actually are . QED

see what you mean made that an even money shot yesterday

LINE OF REASON form franked today with DISCUSSIONTOFOLLOW winning today

100

Monday gambles

2.5 L
3.7 L
3.9 L
4.5 L
4.2 L
3.7 L
2.9 L

Tuesday gambles

2.0 L
1.9 WON
4.8 L
3.5 L
4.4 L
4.9 L
5.1 L
4.5 WON
1.8 L
2.5 WON
3.8 L
4.7 L
4.7 L

Tues evening

2.6 L
4.2 L
5.2 L

I used to use an active spreadsheet that took readings 12 minutes before the off.

Then, if anything moved in 25% (i.e. 4.00 to 3.20), I laid it.

If it moved out and another hit 25%, it then backed the first one and laid the second.

etc.

Depending on field size (don't remember exactly), it was the 'third' one that hit 25% that usually won and only if it went further down than 30%.

Theory was:

a) if a fave, if the fave lost in the previous race, usually fave backers chasing.

b) first two were usually headlines on the day (jockey, trainer winning)

c) heavy lays on another horse initially shifted market

d) third was truer money, usually last minute 'get on' rather than steady movement in.

Parameters changed.  This was five, possibly six years ago, I believe. 

Not sure it would work now since several horses moving 25% these days.

Tues evening

2.6 L
5.2 L
4.2 L

Wednesday's gambles

4.9 L
4.1 L
4.2 L
3.3 WON
3.5 WON
4.7 L
4.9 L
3.8 L
3.3 L

gambles landed in last 8 days 9/76 11.84% -42pts

Blimey Tamethetiger - if those figures you're quoting are accurate, that's the sort of run that got me thinking (and posting this) in the first place! How did you calculate the 'gamble' though, on what parameters if you don't mind me asking?

Interesting post Shapeshifter - just wondering, was there a reason to pick the 25% figure for movement, or just a choice?

I set my own parameters that took me ages to work out through trial and error. 4/9 have been landed so far today so its swings and roundabouts

Yep, obviously sample size comes into play, but still a pretty poor run for supposedly 'supported' horses.

Do you have any views about your defined gambles over a longer term, from your own stats?

those figures are exceptional rather than the norm. They do prove that all gambles are not the real deal though.

stu I know exactly what you mean - unlike most early responders on this thead : you get an enormous number of heavily backed horses which do nothing at all.

4 landed out of 34 last 2 days, -18 if backing

5/28 landed Sat/Sun -4 if backing

Interesting updates Tamethetiger - I wonder if you have any thoughts/stats about timing of the gambles - later money better was always the theme in the past touted. I'm still not convinced though.

Thanks for reminding me I wasn't mad for posting about this too Desperatemunter!

Aug 6, 2014 -- 11:48AM, stu wrote:

Interesting post Shapeshifter - just wondering, was there a reason to pick the 25% figure for movement, or just a choice?

Years ago, put up some flags at 15% through 40% around 12 minutes before the off.  Found 25% was the best to get some margin to trade out unless I felt it was a lay then would go in-running on the decision.

This was years ago and the market movement has changed.  Haven't done it daily for a while.

and i thought there was only me

Would be interested in anyone's opinion on 3.10 Lingfield 17th Jan.

Glastonbury won the race, but proceeded to drift pre race from (approx) 12.00 to 24.0 max.

Any view how that could be an 'efficient' market would be welcome, for those who say it always is above.

Obviously that example is an example of the reverse 'wrongness' of a market, when a horse drifts and then wins..

Betfair SP Overround/Underround: 101%

Industry overround: 117%

===========================================================

The BOOK indicates an efficient market on the race......FACT.

Horses drift and also shorten for numerous reasons......

The trainer of Glastonbury has a pretty "good" win rate.....though not too many races recently.

The horse had a pretty good strike-rate.

The jockey is a good jockey for this type of race...sprint.....

DRAW was a good one.

Horse had been running in better class races generally since last time it won.....and running over further distances in a couple races.


Many factors in favour..... and at the odds was good value as a bet on taking factors into account.


Why it drifted ...who knows !

Going described as "fast" on TF site.......perhaps punters believed an older horse would not win if "fast" ?  Perhaps some punters did not like to back a horse that had not placed in previous 4 races......though having won  a Class 4 race over distance at Kempton prior to those races, then it had shown some ability to win over the distance early in year !

VALUE is generally always in most races.....even if BOOK shows efficient market. Just got to have a way to recognise it.

Thanks for that DCF, some interesting points there I agree.

DFC even, sorry.

I sometimes think that a market is always both 'right' and 'wrong' at the same time - the bigger prices on a winner were essentially wrong for layers and right for backers, and vice-versa. But in addition to this the higher prices that were matched were more wrong than those matched at lower prices. So, markets may be efficient like you say in some ways, but at the same time represent both right and wrong prices.

However, I'm still fascinated when the market takes a strong view (ie backs or drifts a selection very powerfully), but gets it wrong.

Now there, this just has to be a one of these:

6.45 Wolves - Opus Dei, backed on here from around 8.0 into nearer 3.0 just now, huge chunks, bookies prices smashed into 7/4

Ran like a complete drain, and beat one horse home in the race.

Some mortgages have gone missing on that one.

Have to admit I fancied it at 7/1, but still...