Forums

General Betting

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 3 of 3  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 103
By:
DFCIRONMAN
When: 15 May 19 22:05
"Filtering of race types" - There are "simple " race types....BUT the VALUE is better if you rate more complex race types, whether on NH, Turf or AW.
By:
lewisham ranger
When: 16 May 19 10:18
surely a system is just that, you are backing say gosdens second string exclusively in any race. or any kodiac in a two year old race, I don't know, I'm just throwing out an example. you can't rule one out because if you do that you're not sticking to the system. to be honest I don't really understand what you mean by "filtering race types" and how that applies to a system. perhaps you could elaborate.

It's the inflexibility of systems I don't like. Anyway I don't see why you would need a "system" if you have all the information in front of you, all the stats, all the form and so on. it's just a question of applying that in an intelligent way.
By:
DFCIRONMAN
When: 16 May 19 12:00
Just preparing to to a meeting today ...so not much time to respond.

A rating system needs to be capable of allocating points on a CONSISTENT basis......taking account of NUMEROUS FACTORS. It is not a simplistic system like the Gosden example you put forward.

Race types are numerous as well...Claimers; Sellers; stakes ; listed; Conditionals; Ladies; amateurs; Hunter Chases; .....etc etc etc These are IMO simple types of races or just more erratic races to rate.

Mixed age handicap races are where some VALUE can be found...whether NH, Turf or AW races. The average "punter" just will find it difficult to take account of the multiple FACTORS that can give certain horses a better chance of winning such races.

Have to go now.......interrupted by phone call....Probably will post again over week-end .

GL whatever your approach to betting on horses is.
By:
lewisham ranger
When: 16 May 19 12:03
ok df, thanks.
By:
DFCIRONMAN
When: 18 May 19 13:32
As posted  above, there is also "subjective" input when doing the ratings, therefore the combination of :-

A. CONSISTENT points for each horse in a race....using the data from a race card ( taking account of all the data that is IMO "relevant" to deserve points  for each horse)... and

B. SUBJECTIVE points for certain  FACTORS that punters are unlikely to take account of when just looking at a race card (No way can I expound  on these FACTORS as they are a key part of arriving at a "holy grail"  ratings "system")

Once you have the ratings, then ,due to the consistent way that ratings are arrived at, you can apply various BETTING STRATEGIES that ALL can give good to VERY GOOD ROI.

The hardest part of the SUBJECTIVE input is that you need to take account of certain FACTORS that CHANGE as at different times in year.

Trust this helps LR.......The fact that people say that "systems" only work for a short period of time, then DON'T work is down to them probably not having an understanding of WHY this occurs.

It is likely to take many years to produce a complex "system" that can operate on a CONSISTENT basis and then you NEED to understand how to use such a ratings "system" ( which can take many more years to arrive at this "understanding").

Most people will just give up on their "system".....then they say "systems don't work"....meaning they have not really understand the complexities regarding horse racing etc etc

Anyway....I trust this post is helpful...and GL with bets.


Cheers the nooooooooooo
By:
lewisham ranger
When: 23 May 19 15:12
actually I have a theory with systems. I don't think the market corrects to systems over time like people will have you believe.

most of the time because people don't bet in a disciplined way. if people want to punt the favourite, they'll do so. they won't care that stats or numbers or form says it's a rubbish price. they'll punt it anyway.
By:
ZEALOT
When: 04 Jun 19 22:04
Lewisham 100% correct . I dont know why folk say that , it baffles me .
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 05 Jun 19 12:02
The first place to start is in deciding what type of race you are going to bet in.

For instance - a typical class 4 handicap. The horse with a single lowly novice win to it's name is the most likely winner and will probably start favourite. Yet there will be horses in the race with much better form.

Then in the next handicap you study, they'll all be exposed and the form horse in the highest class might win.
That is unless something has been dropping down the handicap showing no form in the process, and is now very well handicapped if they decide to go for it.
Or it might just be going backwards. 

Some very different situation there, so how do you work a system to accommodate just those few?
And there are many more to consider.
By:
Sandown
When: 23 Jul 19 15:18
zooot

I'm pretty certain that with the effort you have put into your analysis you have demonstrated that you could turn your negative positions into positive ones.

What you are clearly not seeing is that you haven't gone past first base - all your effort has gone into selection, but there are 2 other very important strands which you are neglecting, and you do not have to turn yourself overnight into a form expert to do this.

Firstly, you must understand that the game is really about pricing and staking as well as selection. I reckon that you could take your selections and make a profit above commission rate IF you knew how to price a race and if you staked using a mathematically sound staking plan.

The latter aspect - staking is freely available if you google Kelly staking. The pricing aspect is a little harder to do as it would involve theory and lots of trial and error. Only by pricing up a race will you find the right  races to play in and learn by practice how to develop your pricing skills.

You will have to learn about probability but that just requires reading up - its all available.

Right now you are like a prospector with just half a map - find the other  half.If you do, you will find that you have a completely different experience betting on horses- and anything else come to that.
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 07 Sep 19 12:15
The Kelly Criteria requires that your percentage-estimations (probabilities) are better than the bookmaker’s estimations.


So you only need to be better than the experts employed by the bookies - lol.

Best of luck with that.
By:
Sandown
When: 12 Sep 19 11:55
So you only need to be better than the experts employed by the bookies - lol.


Yep, that's just about it, in a nutshell.To win at anything, you have to be better than other people. That surely doesn't come as a revelation to you Dr Crippen? Or  does it?

As a point of fact, it's not really the bookmakers that you have to be better than, it's the market i.e. other players.Bookmakers are just the middlemen in reality.
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 13 Sep 19 11:20
That surely doesn't come as a revelation to you Dr Crippen? Or  does it?

What a patronising question from Sandown.

He comes on here stating the blindingly obvious, and takes a swipe at me by asking an insulting question like that.
By:
Sandown
When: 13 Sep 19 13:34
Your sarcastic comment deserved nothing less, Dr C.I'm happy to continue any debate at a more informed level, if you wish.
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 15 Sep 19 11:32
So Sandown, you took offence at my criticism of an online company which is only set up in order to take money from punters.

But what's the point in bickering? Especially when you seem heavy on rhetoric and light on substance yourself.
Which is the first thing you need to address by the way.
By:
Sandown
When: 15 Sep 19 12:34
For someone who has been on here since 02 I had hoped that you might have more to offer but obviously not.I'll leave you in peace from now on Dr C.
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 15 Sep 19 19:37
Well that's a shame Sandown. So it's no use us anticipating anymore revelations such as:

''To win at anything, you have to be better than other people.''

I'm sure that little gem took many punters a very long way.
By:
Sandown
When: 18 Sep 19 19:15
In short, over the longer run the markets are amazingly accurate and 5% commission is not just an annoyance, it makes most sophisticated betting approaches unprofitable

This is the most important conclusion drawn by zoot, who having been on the site since 04, is obviously an experienced player and his analysis of a large data base is surely sufficient to support his conclusion.

It confirms many academic studies into the subject over many decades, not just in the UK but elsewhere (USA,Australia mainly). These studies also observe the existance of a favourite-longshot bias (where outsiders are over-bet to return a greater loss than at the front end of the market) although analysts of horse-racing markets since the emergence of exchange markets also confirm that exchange markets show that this bias largely disappears.(punters tend to be more knowledgable than bookmaking and PM players.)

What is not reported is the variance around each price bracket due to over and under betting, essentially because this is much harder to demonstrate. Horse racing win probabilities estimated by individuals are inherently unprovable at the time of play and can never be shown on an individual race basis. This makes the problem totally different to say the problem of games of pure chance (roulette, dice) which have a mathematical basis where results can be shown to meet known statistical theorems.

Zoots aim of finding sufficient edges to enable him to set up some kind of automated selection strategy was always likely to meet with failure because "edges" will be found by the market eventually and disappear given the efficiency of the market.

This is not the same thing as saying that a predictive methodology which seeks to identify profitable bets is impossible to develop. I am not alone in having done so, and I am certainly aware of at least one large antipodean organisation which operates in the UK (not hugely on the exchanges) which bets in six figure stakes on a daily basis.

I do not know of anyone who wins regularly for medium and large amounts that does so without knowing how to assign probabilities more accurately than the market does and to stake according to proven mathematical staking plans. In every race it is theoretically possible for half the field to be over--bet and half under bet according to ones own estimates of outcome although I would say that the actual fraction of the field to throw up a worthwhile value betting opportunity is usually about no more than a quarter of the field

Any player who succeeds in this game will know that the amount of known information relative to theoretically knowable information  which cannot be obtained by everyone (insiders have the best chance) is at least equal. But the element o chance involved is also at least the equal of either if not both.

I believe that it would be possible for me to have taken zoots selections and made a profit on them through purely through the identification of positive and negative value and applied the appropriate staking to each. Of course, it would be far easier to start with my own selections in the first place.Difficult to prove such a claim, but if it easy to make money out of random chance games like roulette if given over -the odds on any chosen number when not spending any time on selection, then it follows that  in a game of 50/50 skill/chance one can do better than playing roulette.
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 22 Sep 19 11:52
I take a very different view to that of zooot and those who he seems to have impressed.

The way they approach the problem will never work in long tern. 

In fact thinking that there is a system out there was his first mistake.
His second mistake was that he appears to treat every race the same anyway.

So he'd lost before he'd even started.
By:
DFCIRONMAN
When: 23 Sep 19 10:56
"In fact thinking that there is a system out there was his first mistake."

DevilLaugh.........Obviously Dr C you don't have one !
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 24 Sep 19 11:52
Please DFCIRONMAN if you want to debate, then try and write like an adult and not a teenager sending text messages littered with little faces to their pen pals.

It just makes you look like a child.
By:
DFCIRONMAN
When: 24 Sep 19 14:12
You are the one DR C who posted -"In fact thinking that there is a system out there was his first mistake."

What you base that on is a "fishing" expedition IMO........

I've already posted, near start of thread, that having a complex "system" is necessary to take on mixed age H/C races ( excluding certain types of races)....whether NH, AW or Turf. It is the pathway to the "holy grail".

Not going to debate whether it is or not.......as cant say any more than what I've already posted earlier.

GL with bets.
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 24 Sep 19 15:03
Thank you DFCIRONMAN, that's better.
By:
Coachbuster
When: 02 Oct 19 23:03
great posts zoot enjoyable read .

I get the impression we're all very much on the autsistic spectrum on here with out many of us realising it .... 

anyway ,about the premium charge  ....my main gripe is the way you are charged for a winning week , but then an equally  losing week follows  and so therefore you end up paying a charge for no profit whatsoever .   Similar to Screamings' scenario i guess ...equally unfair  ...
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 04 Nov 19 13:20
In fact thinking that there is a system out there was his first mistake.

Absolutely, but that's not to say you don't have to be systematic in your approach.

But if anyone thinks that a foolproof system that anyone can work is out there, they're going to be dissappointed as was the author of this thread.   
For the simple reason that every race throws up a different set of circumstances that cannot be covered by a straightforward system.

Even the principle way of assessing horses which is collateral form is subject to opinion.
How many times does the private handicapper agree with the official ratings?
Page 3 of 3  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com