Horse Antepost
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I want to open a debate amongst all the very knowledgeable contributors to this forum about the ways in which we, as opinion players, can prosper in today's highly efficient exchange market. Some of you may quibble that the market is not "efficient" but I'd like to work on the assumption that in the LT, it is.
Anyone who reads or contributes to the General Forum will be aware of the degree to which sophisticated "efficiency" players many of them using automated bots, are dominating this exchange in terms of being consistent and highly profitable players who have made the exchange extremely efficient. They may not possess the depth of knowledge about horseracing betting that contributors on here have, but they are succeeding in taking money off us.
We may like to believe that we have an edge over other players in that we may be able to price a race better than the average horse player or that we have a better understanding of certain types of race or that we have a "system" that works, but we must not fool ourselves that it is possible to beat the market all of the time. Lack of consistency, either of approach or of betting strategy or staking strategy is likely to be a bugbear. I am sure that we have all experienced the emotional pulls which lead to chasing or poor deviation from a proven MO.
In attempt to learn something that will help opinion players, I hope that we may share some insights.
My first contribution in my next post will be in the area of betting strategy as opposed to selection method.
Anyone who reads or contributes to the General Forum will be aware of the degree to which sophisticated "efficiency" players many of them using automated bots, are dominating this exchange in terms of being consistent and highly profitable players who have made the exchange extremely efficient. They may not possess the depth of knowledge about horseracing betting that contributors on here have, but they are succeeding in taking money off us.
We may like to believe that we have an edge over other players in that we may be able to price a race better than the average horse player or that we have a better understanding of certain types of race or that we have a "system" that works, but we must not fool ourselves that it is possible to beat the market all of the time. Lack of consistency, either of approach or of betting strategy or staking strategy is likely to be a bugbear. I am sure that we have all experienced the emotional pulls which lead to chasing or poor deviation from a proven MO.
In attempt to learn something that will help opinion players, I hope that we may share some insights.
My first contribution in my next post will be in the area of betting strategy as opposed to selection method.
Show More
All I can offer is that in the current era I believe it's not possible for one "opinion player" to have an edge that will give him/her an advantage in the majority of markets. I'm not much of an in running player, that's a totally different game where the market is volatile and prices can fluctuate by such a large degree that it's possible for a skilled (and technically advantaged) player to play most races and win big in the long term. For pre race players it has to be the same old advice to 'specialise', not necessarily restricting yourself to a narrow band of the horse population, but only playing in the types of races where you know can gain an edge over the market.
Good Post Sandown
My most successful strategy would be to concentrate on the negatives at the top of the market and im trying to mostly bet when i find these opportunities rather than trying solely to find a "Winner" in a race, a bit like the Sherlock Holmes method of "Eliminate the impossible and the unlikely and you are left with the truth
method".
I thought that a couple of months ago that Tom Segal made a very good point about ratings and time guru's stating that they are the boffs but to make it pay you have to be a "Artist"(apart from traders and bots where they do outperform opinion players who dont perform to their strengths) many form students and figure people by their very nature concentrate on the "Truth", its how they then apply it to betting that they fall down, ie they WANT order in a inexact world
My most successful strategy would be to concentrate on the negatives at the top of the market and im trying to mostly bet when i find these opportunities rather than trying solely to find a "Winner" in a race, a bit like the Sherlock Holmes method of "Eliminate the impossible and the unlikely and you are left with the truth
method".I thought that a couple of months ago that Tom Segal made a very good point about ratings and time guru's stating that they are the boffs but to make it pay you have to be a "Artist"(apart from traders and bots where they do outperform opinion players who dont perform to their strengths) many form students and figure people by their very nature concentrate on the "Truth", its how they then apply it to betting that they fall down, ie they WANT order in a inexact world
You both (Figgis, Zilzal) make good points and I agree with you. Specializing is a proven LT strategy (Figgis) and starting with the strong negatives (Zilzal)does help to narrow the field, albeit with the rider that as its logically impossible to prove a "negative" i.e. you can't ever say that a horse can't win (unless you know for sure that it isn't off), and many a time I have found to my disbelief a horse winning that I gave no chance to.
As my first contribution, I'd like to offer the observation that generally speaking, the commission system favours layers rather than backers.You will pay less in commission laying a bet than backing it. The PC 1/2 has redressed this imbalance but nevertheless anyone who has losses to work with should bear this in mind. I can back this up with figures if need be. To that extent, Zilzal1, you have an edge if you prefer to "lay" rather than "back."
More importantly, I have researched my ability to price up races over a long period of time, working with those races in which I had some interest or proven experience of.
To my surprise, I found that whilst I did indeed have an edge over the market, it was a small edge if taken over over all the field. The edge increases with those at the top of my ratings and decreases with those at the bottom. The reason for this, I'm sure, is that the unknown elements are so much greater with horses with back form but no current form, or with very lightly raced horse tremendous improvement may occur. When dealing with small probabilities, any additional factor can have a large % change in assessment. The result is huge volatility.
I therefore found that profitability was optimized when concentrating on just the top one or two in my assessment and that rather than playing each horse according to its potential value, the results over the whole sample were better when restricted to the top two, although the number of bets were reduced. In fact, using the same stakes, maximum profit was less but that could be redressed by using larger stakes. The main advantage was a reduction in variance of results.
Now, a most important finding was that what really mattered was not the absolute chance but the RELATIVE advantage that one or both horses had over the next group. The greater the edge, the better the results.
As my first contribution, I'd like to offer the observation that generally speaking, the commission system favours layers rather than backers.You will pay less in commission laying a bet than backing it. The PC 1/2 has redressed this imbalance but nevertheless anyone who has losses to work with should bear this in mind. I can back this up with figures if need be. To that extent, Zilzal1, you have an edge if you prefer to "lay" rather than "back."
More importantly, I have researched my ability to price up races over a long period of time, working with those races in which I had some interest or proven experience of.
To my surprise, I found that whilst I did indeed have an edge over the market, it was a small edge if taken over over all the field. The edge increases with those at the top of my ratings and decreases with those at the bottom. The reason for this, I'm sure, is that the unknown elements are so much greater with horses with back form but no current form, or with very lightly raced horse tremendous improvement may occur. When dealing with small probabilities, any additional factor can have a large % change in assessment. The result is huge volatility.
I therefore found that profitability was optimized when concentrating on just the top one or two in my assessment and that rather than playing each horse according to its potential value, the results over the whole sample were better when restricted to the top two, although the number of bets were reduced. In fact, using the same stakes, maximum profit was less but that could be redressed by using larger stakes. The main advantage was a reduction in variance of results.
Now, a most important finding was that what really mattered was not the absolute chance but the RELATIVE advantage that one or both horses had over the next group. The greater the edge, the better the results.
Hype is your biggest friend
Steeplechasing(who used to post on NH ante post) did some number crunching for me a while ago and found that Favs under 3-1 fared far worse at the Cheltenham Festival(and indeed RA) than they did at other races at the track at normal meetings, this can imo, be attributed to bandwagons that are boarded by people jumping onto the market
I do use forecast quite a bit in my betting, there are two threads on Politics where ive outlined my betting over this years period in a short summary where i turned a decent profit(before the events!!) over a period which included the Festivals at Cheltenham, Aintree and up until Chester.
Steeplechasing(who used to post on NH ante post) did some number crunching for me a while ago and found that Favs under 3-1 fared far worse at the Cheltenham Festival(and indeed RA) than they did at other races at the track at normal meetings, this can imo, be attributed to bandwagons that are boarded by people jumping onto the market
I do use forecast quite a bit in my betting, there are two threads on Politics where ive outlined my betting over this years period in a short summary where i turned a decent profit(before the events!!) over a period which included the Festivals at Cheltenham, Aintree and up until Chester.
As an opinion player i have found after 30 years of following and punting horses its about being selective and cherry picking your races if you wish to make a notable profit. Only since Feb 2006 have i made this game pay when i began to log p+l across the board each day, also noting emotions (good + bad)i was feeling at certain points of the day as a result of success or failure, identifying these and trying to learn from these. Ive have found ive improved alot in eliminating what i term as 'wank' betting, although i will admit to occasionly succumbing still ! My basic strategy is identifying races i wish to bet in, this could come in many guises, ie bad favs, over handicapped horses, under handicapped horses, diff trip, ground etc.Then i will, like Zilzal says, begin a process of elimination starting with form and asking myself can it feasibly win. Once the shortlist is formed i will go through their form again and look through certain videos again to crystalize my opinion (always keeping an open mind). Ideally the shortlist would be v.small by now, only then will i put a price on each horse in the list that i would be prepared to back it at. I will only back a horse at this price or above, normally the larger the price discrepancy the larger the bet.
I have found using a points structure of 1-5 very beneficial to evaluate the strength of each bet.
Getting the money on is the hardest part these days and is something i would love to discuss further but probably not on an open forum !
Top thread Sandown
I have found using a points structure of 1-5 very beneficial to evaluate the strength of each bet.
Getting the money on is the hardest part these days and is something i would love to discuss further but probably not on an open forum !
Top thread Sandown
Ive topped the threads on the politics forum if anyone is interested in reading them, i dont pretend im some sort of guru and the summaries are not comrehensive, the strike rate is low because i learned from many years ago that i couldnt make a profit from the front of the market
Sandown
That's pretty much how I look at it. Actually, I don't even bother pricing up a whole field. I'm not interested in backing something I'd consider having, say, a 10/1 chance because it's available at 14/1. I know in theory that strategy would produce a profit but personally I just couldn't handle the kind of losing streaks associated with that. Not only would it not suit my temperament, with that kind of win to lose ratio it takes longer to find out if you're doing something wrong.
That's pretty much how I look at it. Actually, I don't even bother pricing up a whole field. I'm not interested in backing something I'd consider having, say, a 10/1 chance because it's available at 14/1. I know in theory that strategy would produce a profit but personally I just couldn't handle the kind of losing streaks associated with that. Not only would it not suit my temperament, with that kind of win to lose ratio it takes longer to find out if you're doing something wrong.
As my first contribution, I'd like to offer the observation that generally speaking, the commission system favours layers rather than backers.You will pay less in commission laying a bet than backing it. The PC 1/2 has redressed this imbalance but nevertheless anyone who has losses to work with should bear this in mind. I can back this up with figures if need be.
Would you be able to explain a little more why you believe this to be the case, Sandown? To my mind it makes no difference.
Good thread btw.
Would you be able to explain a little more why you believe this to be the case, Sandown? To my mind it makes no difference.
Good thread btw.
liam the lips
Agree with a lot of what you state.
Focus,sticking to 'selection and 'betting rules'is important.Discipline is crucial (though sometimes very hard to follow).
A Betting Bank is essential, as is keeping a journal/spreadsheet records of all selections( with criteria used), bets placed and P/L accounts.
Level stakes on a single selections only
Focus only on Hcaps ( preference for G1 Tracks and Class 1-3 races)
Bet criteria :-
Recent winning form
Ability to act on track
'Fancied' ( in first 4 of SP F/C)
Nothing less than 3/1
Agree with a lot of what you state.
Focus,sticking to 'selection and 'betting rules'is important.Discipline is crucial (though sometimes very hard to follow).
A Betting Bank is essential, as is keeping a journal/spreadsheet records of all selections( with criteria used), bets placed and P/L accounts.
Level stakes on a single selections only
Focus only on Hcaps ( preference for G1 Tracks and Class 1-3 races)
Bet criteria :-
Recent winning form
Ability to act on track
'Fancied' ( in first 4 of SP F/C)
Nothing less than 3/1
facts...i cant go along with the fancied(in the 4) part....
for me ....thats what someone else thinks should be @ the front of the market....i'm looking for whats outside that...but i think should be in it.
course form & trainer form...make up a large % of the ticks i'm looking for generally.
for me ....thats what someone else thinks should be @ the front of the market....i'm looking for whats outside that...but i think should be in it.
course form & trainer form...make up a large % of the ticks i'm looking for generally.
One of the things i sometimes look for in a race(usually a handicap) is a excusable bad run LTO, esp if i feel the top of the market looks a bit weak
i see Below Zero is near the head of the market at Chester tomorrow, imho he is far better dominating a smaller field
You just know whats going to happen now
Oh im playing LOWTHER in the race, back to a winnable mark, acts well here and a more suitable distance
(Cue tailed off)
i see Below Zero is near the head of the market at Chester tomorrow, imho he is far better dominating a smaller field
You just know whats going to happen now
Oh im playing LOWTHER in the race, back to a winnable mark, acts well here and a more suitable distance
(Cue tailed off)
trev w Joined: 22 Feb 04
Replies: 3458 19 Aug 11 18:23
facts...i cant go along with the fancied(in the 4) part..
just one criteria I find is relevant( based on 10 years of records)
Replies: 3458 19 Aug 11 18:23
facts...i cant go along with the fancied(in the 4) part..
just one criteria I find is relevant( based on 10 years of records)
Anybody can improve by having a conversation with me.Briefly,30 years ago you could spot horses winning with 18 lb in hand,now you have to wait a whole year to find ONE!!!!,Sagramor backers at Ascot will know what i mean.
You shhould never rely on 2 year old form,as they get overturned by previous backward 2 year olds.
Most horses reach their peak at 4,and if any good would have won and become useless as a betting prospect,with trainers looking for black type as thei hore is handicapped out of itAn edge is gained by spotting horses in their first handicap that are assessed wrongly by the handicapper.People forget that the handicapper has to sometimes assess a horse that runs in a very moderate race with a messy outcome.
Now comes the "Art" part,you can learn it,if you dont have the gift straight off,but it'll take like me 40 years!!.I'll show peole how to visually race read any race.
Believe it or not i've actually heard some betting shop punters assert that its just a question of a jockey jumping off and riding,and if the pace is too slow?,well then they say,"all they have to do is to go and make the pace themselves then !!!!!!!!".Yes i kid you not!!!.Any takers.
You shhould never rely on 2 year old form,as they get overturned by previous backward 2 year olds.
Most horses reach their peak at 4,and if any good would have won and become useless as a betting prospect,with trainers looking for black type as thei hore is handicapped out of itAn edge is gained by spotting horses in their first handicap that are assessed wrongly by the handicapper.People forget that the handicapper has to sometimes assess a horse that runs in a very moderate race with a messy outcome.
Now comes the "Art" part,you can learn it,if you dont have the gift straight off,but it'll take like me 40 years!!.I'll show peole how to visually race read any race.
Believe it or not i've actually heard some betting shop punters assert that its just a question of a jockey jumping off and riding,and if the pace is too slow?,well then they say,"all they have to do is to go and make the pace themselves then !!!!!!!!".Yes i kid you not!!!.Any takers.
Anybody can improve by having a conversation with me.Briefly,30 years ago you could spot horses winning with 18 lb in hand,now you have to wait a whole year to find ONE!!!!,Sagramor backers at Ascot will know what i mean.
You shhould never rely on 2 year old form,as they get overturned by previous backward 2 year olds.
Most horses reach their peak at 4,and if any good would have won and become useless as a betting prospect,with trainers looking for black type as thei hore is handicapped out of itAn edge is gained by spotting horses in their first handicap that are assessed wrongly by the handicapper.People forget that the handicapper has to sometimes assess a horse that runs in a very moderate race with a messy outcome.
Now comes the "Art" part,you can learn it,if you dont have the gift straight off,but it'll take like me 40 years!!.I'll show peole how to visually race read any race.
Believe it or not i've actually heard some betting shop punters assert that its just a question of a jockey jumping off and riding,and if the pace is too slow?,well then they say,"all they have to do is to go and make the pace themselves then !!!!!!!!".Yes i kid you not!!!.Any takers.
You shhould never rely on 2 year old form,as they get overturned by previous backward 2 year olds.
Most horses reach their peak at 4,and if any good would have won and become useless as a betting prospect,with trainers looking for black type as thei hore is handicapped out of itAn edge is gained by spotting horses in their first handicap that are assessed wrongly by the handicapper.People forget that the handicapper has to sometimes assess a horse that runs in a very moderate race with a messy outcome.
Now comes the "Art" part,you can learn it,if you dont have the gift straight off,but it'll take like me 40 years!!.I'll show peole how to visually race read any race.
Believe it or not i've actually heard some betting shop punters assert that its just a question of a jockey jumping off and riding,and if the pace is too slow?,well then they say,"all they have to do is to go and make the pace themselves then !!!!!!!!".Yes i kid you not!!!.Any takers.
the laying being more profitable than backing thing I think is to
do with the much smaller commission you tend to pay on laying bets.
when i first got into racing I was at school and it seemed a lot of fun,
you saw a horse you liked the look of and you backed it. unfortunately (or
fortunately) I had no idea then of the different layers that exist in horse racing.
whether or not the horse will reproduce the form of it's previous run, the amount of weight
they had to carry, what sort of ground it liked, its time figures, was all a complete mystery to
me then. Now horse racing gambling seems more like a rocket science than something to have fun with.
If anything now i've developed punting fear- everything that once seemed straightforward, now I look
for ways it which it can go wrong.
do with the much smaller commission you tend to pay on laying bets.
when i first got into racing I was at school and it seemed a lot of fun,
you saw a horse you liked the look of and you backed it. unfortunately (or
fortunately) I had no idea then of the different layers that exist in horse racing.
whether or not the horse will reproduce the form of it's previous run, the amount of weight
they had to carry, what sort of ground it liked, its time figures, was all a complete mystery to
me then. Now horse racing gambling seems more like a rocket science than something to have fun with.
If anything now i've developed punting fear- everything that once seemed straightforward, now I look
for ways it which it can go wrong.
One thing I don't really look for is recent winning form. I think horses with recent winning form especially in handicaps tend to be overbet and underpriced, the fact that they have won means they are carrying more weight and therefore their chance of repeating the form is reduced.
I also tend to concentrate on horses who have run well in a given set of circumstances rather than won. A couple of years ago I put up a horse called Advanced on here when he won over 7f at Ascot, I backed him at 46. After the event it was said that he didn't have form at 7f, when I questionned this it was said he didn't have winning form at 7f, but he'd gone close, within a couple of lengths a year or so earlier (when last tried). I also put in a couple of in running lays (something else that I learned on this forum) on Advanced at 6 and at 2 which had he not won in the photo would have still given me a 1pt profit.
I still have daft bets, I'm off to york today and will have something in every race, but for proper bets this is my approach now.
I also tend to concentrate on horses who have run well in a given set of circumstances rather than won. A couple of years ago I put up a horse called Advanced on here when he won over 7f at Ascot, I backed him at 46. After the event it was said that he didn't have form at 7f, when I questionned this it was said he didn't have winning form at 7f, but he'd gone close, within a couple of lengths a year or so earlier (when last tried). I also put in a couple of in running lays (something else that I learned on this forum) on Advanced at 6 and at 2 which had he not won in the photo would have still given me a 1pt profit.
I still have daft bets, I'm off to york today and will have something in every race, but for proper bets this is my approach now.
Punters will often avoid horses that have won last time out if they're carrying a penalty. or horses who are on a roll, having won last 2 or 3 races, because they think 'it can't win again'.Prices are often very good for these type of selections. The horses to back are the improving/unexposed type.
facts...thats what makes this a decent thread...the differing angles..
will read through the lot again when i've got a bit more time.
will read through the lot again when i've got a bit more time.
Stake & Chips
18 Aug 11 18:56
As my first contribution, I'd like to offer the observation that generally speaking, the commission system favours layers rather than backers.You will pay less in commission laying a bet than backing it. The PC 1/2 has redressed this imbalance but nevertheless anyone who has losses to work with should bear this in mind. I can back this up with figures if need be.
Would you be able to explain a little more why you believe this to be the case, Sandown? To my mind it makes no difference.
It shouldn't make a difference but it does.
Whenever the reciprical bets are evaluated, the layer comes off best . For example taking a 50% prob with a a £100 stake over 1000 bets at an average SP of 2.60 the backer would expect an EV of £30,000. His gross win is £80,000 on which at %% comm he pays £4000 or 13% of gross win leaving a net of comm profit of £26,000.
The layer seeking to achieve the same EV of £30,000 before comm would lay at 1.4 with a gross win of £50,000 attracting 5% comm of £2500 (8% of gross win) leaviing net profit a/c of £27500.
Reducing the EV to £10,000 leads to the backer paying 30% of EV in commission and the layer 25% with net profits of £7000 and £7500 respectively.
The comparison worsens for the long odds against backer vs the long odds on layer so that at say 10% prob the backer expecting to win £10k over 1000 bets at £100 stake at av SP of 5.5 would pay 45% of EV in commission whereas the layer with the same expectation would pay just £1000 or 10% of EV leaving him with £9000 of net profit vs the backer's £5500.
The sting in the tail for the backer is that he can also expect sequencing will work against him when volatile results penalise him on a winning streak for which he can't offset long losing sequences.
This bias in favourt of long odds on layers works even more so for traders who work to very high levels of consistency and is perhaps the main reason for the introduction of PC1/2.
18 Aug 11 18:56
As my first contribution, I'd like to offer the observation that generally speaking, the commission system favours layers rather than backers.You will pay less in commission laying a bet than backing it. The PC 1/2 has redressed this imbalance but nevertheless anyone who has losses to work with should bear this in mind. I can back this up with figures if need be.
Would you be able to explain a little more why you believe this to be the case, Sandown? To my mind it makes no difference.
It shouldn't make a difference but it does.
Whenever the reciprical bets are evaluated, the layer comes off best . For example taking a 50% prob with a a £100 stake over 1000 bets at an average SP of 2.60 the backer would expect an EV of £30,000. His gross win is £80,000 on which at %% comm he pays £4000 or 13% of gross win leaving a net of comm profit of £26,000.
The layer seeking to achieve the same EV of £30,000 before comm would lay at 1.4 with a gross win of £50,000 attracting 5% comm of £2500 (8% of gross win) leaviing net profit a/c of £27500.
Reducing the EV to £10,000 leads to the backer paying 30% of EV in commission and the layer 25% with net profits of £7000 and £7500 respectively.
The comparison worsens for the long odds against backer vs the long odds on layer so that at say 10% prob the backer expecting to win £10k over 1000 bets at £100 stake at av SP of 5.5 would pay 45% of EV in commission whereas the layer with the same expectation would pay just £1000 or 10% of EV leaving him with £9000 of net profit vs the backer's £5500.
The sting in the tail for the backer is that he can also expect sequencing will work against him when volatile results penalise him on a winning streak for which he can't offset long losing sequences.
This bias in favourt of long odds on layers works even more so for traders who work to very high levels of consistency and is perhaps the main reason for the introduction of PC1/2.
I think following a stable a big stable can reap an advantage. Mind you, you need at least 2-5 years to get a grip of their habits
Facts, don't get me wrong, I don't avoid horses with recent winning form, I just ensure I give equal consideration to horses who have produced decent performances in circumstances similar to those it is asked to race under today. My biggest bet of the day today was Berling at chester who won last time out, whom I thought was still really well handicapped. We see big priced winners most weekends and you can't find most of those without evaluating their old form.
...........consideration to horses who have produced decent performances in circumstances similar to those it is asked to race under today...........
can't argue with that.
Wd with Berling. My bet was Tactician - unlucky imo.
can't argue with that.
Wd with Berling. My bet was Tactician - unlucky imo.
i disagree - if a horse as produced winning form in identical conditions ,then its got nothing more to give,you need to assess what a horse could be capable of based on its breeding ,desert law before tonight, at bath had never run on g/f,but its mum and dad had won 4/5 times all on g/f,so it had more to give given better conditions,
comingupthehill
"desert law before tonight, at bath had never run on g/f,........................,so it had more to give given better conditions,"
I disagree.
18.09.2010 Newbury 6f Good To Firm £37k Gr2 - Finished last of 7.
"desert law before tonight, at bath had never run on g/f,........................,so it had more to give given better conditions,"
I disagree.
18.09.2010 Newbury 6f Good To Firm £37k Gr2 - Finished last of 7.
i disagree - if a horse as produced winning form in identical conditions ,then its got nothing more to give.....
Handicappers stick around for a number of years gradually moving up and down the handicap during that period. So when I see for instance a 5 year old who is 14lb lower than two years previously and is racing in conditions in which it has previously done well I'll give it serious consideration.
Your point on familial tendencies on the going is one I also consider, but many disagree. I tend to also look at videos too, to try to assess a horse's action.
Handicappers stick around for a number of years gradually moving up and down the handicap during that period. So when I see for instance a 5 year old who is 14lb lower than two years previously and is racing in conditions in which it has previously done well I'll give it serious consideration.
Your point on familial tendencies on the going is one I also consider, but many disagree. I tend to also look at videos too, to try to assess a horse's action.
Town Moor
. My biggest bet of the day today was Berling at chester who won last time out, whom I thought was still really well handicapped
You make a very good general point, one with which I fully agree. I have been following this horse ever since it finished in a very fast time at Ascot last year when it got beat showing that it was capable of a much bigger rating. It has been a devishly tricky horse to retain faith in but yesterday it put in the kind of performance it promised at Ascot. the price yesterday was was more than enough to make following it worthwhile. Earlier in the week at York I missed out on Crackenthorpe at 60.0 on here because I dismissed it. a bad call given its record and its trainers record at York.
The important point is that it pays to follow a group of horses so that you build up inimate knowledge of their abilities and requirements. The only way that opinion players can beat the market is to have opinions based on better inormation than the market. Again, I can agree with facts re recent performances insomuch as the market overvalues recent form and undervalues past form. To an extent this reflects probabilities but the market will always look at the last performance first and givae that more weight.
. My biggest bet of the day today was Berling at chester who won last time out, whom I thought was still really well handicapped
You make a very good general point, one with which I fully agree. I have been following this horse ever since it finished in a very fast time at Ascot last year when it got beat showing that it was capable of a much bigger rating. It has been a devishly tricky horse to retain faith in but yesterday it put in the kind of performance it promised at Ascot. the price yesterday was was more than enough to make following it worthwhile. Earlier in the week at York I missed out on Crackenthorpe at 60.0 on here because I dismissed it. a bad call given its record and its trainers record at York.
The important point is that it pays to follow a group of horses so that you build up inimate knowledge of their abilities and requirements. The only way that opinion players can beat the market is to have opinions based on better inormation than the market. Again, I can agree with facts re recent performances insomuch as the market overvalues recent form and undervalues past form. To an extent this reflects probabilities but the market will always look at the last performance first and givae that more weight.
We are all creatures of habit, therefore look at horses and trainers doing the same thing. My mate went to York yesterday he is not a gambler but wanted 1 horse to back, I gave him Opinion Poll for the reasons above. You may only find 3 bets a week like this and you will do a lot of studying to end up with no bet. Try to leave class 4 and below races.
I do have bets on as low as class 5 races, depending on the type of horse, but I totally agree with the idea of eliminating the dross. Unless you want to specialise in second guessing dodgy yards and following market moves then it's a good idea to cut this sort of crap out. Mondays and Tuesdays are usually good days to take a break from UK racing.
You need a different strategy for every type of race imo as most races throw up a stereotype of horse that runs a cracker and even wins in my experience, this seems to be the case from the top grade down to the bottom.
Most on here will keep finacial tabs on themselves which are important but also someone mentioned that they keep written records of their mood on the day etc which is something i often do as well.
I always remember high and low points, try to have a laugh about the low points but also learn as much as possible from them. I disagree with people that say leave out the lower class races as sometimes they through up good opportunities at decent prices for example;
On the 24th of Jan this year i noticed there was a horse being backed heavily for a class6 6f handicap at kempton, the horses name was YOUNG SIMON and was trained by GEORGE MARGARSON, it was backed from 16's in the morning into 11-2 and duly obliged, make of his previous form what you want. This horse was down to run again 7 days later under a 6lb penalty in an apprentice handicap with his daughter riding it and was favourite for the race. On the same card, on the same day(31/1/2011), GEORGE MARGARSON had another horse running which was called WOOLFALL SOVEREIGN which caught my eye better as it was stepping back in trip which looked to be to his advantage. Normally i probably wouldn't have considered this horse but for the fact that it came from a yard which saddled a well backed winner a week previous and ticked a few boxes on paper for me. Anyway, normally i wouldn't do this but i waited for a few quid to arrive for this horse. It was backed from 16's into 12's morning price, which i had a good cut at w+p and won quite well at an sp of 12's.
Most on here will keep finacial tabs on themselves which are important but also someone mentioned that they keep written records of their mood on the day etc which is something i often do as well.
I always remember high and low points, try to have a laugh about the low points but also learn as much as possible from them. I disagree with people that say leave out the lower class races as sometimes they through up good opportunities at decent prices for example;
On the 24th of Jan this year i noticed there was a horse being backed heavily for a class6 6f handicap at kempton, the horses name was YOUNG SIMON and was trained by GEORGE MARGARSON, it was backed from 16's in the morning into 11-2 and duly obliged, make of his previous form what you want. This horse was down to run again 7 days later under a 6lb penalty in an apprentice handicap with his daughter riding it and was favourite for the race. On the same card, on the same day(31/1/2011), GEORGE MARGARSON had another horse running which was called WOOLFALL SOVEREIGN which caught my eye better as it was stepping back in trip which looked to be to his advantage. Normally i probably wouldn't have considered this horse but for the fact that it came from a yard which saddled a well backed winner a week previous and ticked a few boxes on paper for me. Anyway, normally i wouldn't do this but i waited for a few quid to arrive for this horse. It was backed from 16's into 12's morning price, which i had a good cut at w+p and won quite well at an sp of 12's.
I remember recently someone used to keep a topic going called 'switchers', this can also be quite a profitable punting angle moreso if you get info about them obviously but when looking at them running in lowish grades it seems a trainer would never be called in to explain the improvement in form(i could be wrong on that one).
Good examples of this were Levitate and Esteem lord, both of which one on their first outings for their new yards.
Good examples of this were Levitate and Esteem lord, both of which one on their first outings for their new yards.
That was Cgull on the main forum Rowley.
And there was an example today where Tim Vaughan won the Listed H'cap chase at Newtwon Abbott with horse he has taken from Arthur Moore in Ireland called Stewarts House.8/1 sp.
And there was an example today where Tim Vaughan won the Listed H'cap chase at Newtwon Abbott with horse he has taken from Arthur Moore in Ireland called Stewarts House.8/1 sp.
top2rated - i was aware,but fair to dismiss as it was a group 2 race - way out of its depth,so the form cant be subjectively anasylasied,it had run 7 times not on g/f.
dad
4 straight wins g/f only
mum
2 wins g/f 1 win gd
mums full brother 2g/f 1 fm
so basicly its a 100% g/f horse - running effectively for the first time on g/f.
i can now ear you saying ,so why didnt you sy that,because i havent got the time to stated a full expansive case - the jist of my point was correct - dont let the facts get in the way of a good story.
schoolboy champ non runner today because of g/f going 5 runs on g/f all lost - is an even better example,too high in weights /wrong dist etc - its crying out for g/f now - it would of won easy today ,inexperienced female trainer withdrew it(lack of homework,dont blame her,busy yard etc) - frustrating
horse race trainers should operate like football - a manager(form man/race planner) and a coach - a horse man /vet,its too much for 1 person ,you need 2 specialists.
dad
4 straight wins g/f only
mum
2 wins g/f 1 win gd
mums full brother 2g/f 1 fm
so basicly its a 100% g/f horse - running effectively for the first time on g/f.
i can now ear you saying ,so why didnt you sy that,because i havent got the time to stated a full expansive case - the jist of my point was correct - dont let the facts get in the way of a good story.
schoolboy champ non runner today because of g/f going 5 runs on g/f all lost - is an even better example,too high in weights /wrong dist etc - its crying out for g/f now - it would of won easy today ,inexperienced female trainer withdrew it(lack of homework,dont blame her,busy yard etc) - frustrating
horse race trainers should operate like football - a manager(form man/race planner) and a coach - a horse man /vet,its too much for 1 person ,you need 2 specialists.
the single most important piece of info for me is watching and remembering as many races as possible....the impression that you are left with from seeing horses running with your own eyes is crucial.....and in this day and age that is something that is freely available to everyone
This is a cracking thread, with lots of sage advice and some interesting, conflicting opinions. My two pennies worth follows:
I agree with Sandown in particular about building up an intimate pool of knowledge of certain horses so that you are ready to step in when everything seems to be right and the majority are unaware that this is the case. It can happen very often, too, and in high-profile races, which you'd think would be harder to back horses at value prices in.
Two examples this season that have made my limited Flat playing very enjoyable both came in sprints. I have been following Society Rock since he was a two-year-old, and, for whatever reason, knew that he was a much better horse at Ascot. Something about the track plays to his strengths and that is useful information (particularly as Ascot does not suit all horses). I thought he had a cracking chance in the Golden Jubilee (he'd been second in a better renewal 12 months ago, when he was a weaker horse, so in this example it wasn't really even intimate knowledge that I possessed). I backed him at almost 30s on here. The other one was Margot Did, who I have followed like a hitman since watching her finish second in the Lowther at two. She has an amazing cruising speed and has plenty of ability, so when I saw she was 33s with SJ for the Nunthorpe I had a few pennies each/way and backed her in a bigger bet in the place only market. I have always felt that her cruising speed will see her run better against better horses as she can be pulled along with them and had her down as nearer a 10/1 chance in my book as a result.
Another rule I always follow is that I will forgive any horse one bad run without having to have a cast iron excuse. This is simply for the reason that, to use an old cliche, horses are not machines and we will never know if something is affecting them in a negative way before a race unless it is a major issue. I suspect a lot of niggles are never diagnosed, and that horses often run below-par for such reasons (banged head, trapped nerve, stiff back, gut ache etc). It can of course be a dangerous game if you start making excuses but that is what I try not to do - it's something of a one-strike policy - if it is repeated then I learn my lesson. I have backed a few very big-priced winners over the years as punters have assumed (on the evidence of one run) that a horse is not up to a certain class, distance, going etc.
Perhaps the most important lesson of all to learn is that flexibility is key. The moment you form an opinion of a horse that cannot be changed is the moment that the game can really bite you. Khyber Kim was a good example two seasons ago - he won his first start for Twister in the style of a changed horse but was then sent off at relatively big prices on his next races because people were convinced he was a first-time winner only. He won two big races subsequently and nearly won the Champion Hurdle as well.
I agree with Sandown in particular about building up an intimate pool of knowledge of certain horses so that you are ready to step in when everything seems to be right and the majority are unaware that this is the case. It can happen very often, too, and in high-profile races, which you'd think would be harder to back horses at value prices in.
Two examples this season that have made my limited Flat playing very enjoyable both came in sprints. I have been following Society Rock since he was a two-year-old, and, for whatever reason, knew that he was a much better horse at Ascot. Something about the track plays to his strengths and that is useful information (particularly as Ascot does not suit all horses). I thought he had a cracking chance in the Golden Jubilee (he'd been second in a better renewal 12 months ago, when he was a weaker horse, so in this example it wasn't really even intimate knowledge that I possessed). I backed him at almost 30s on here. The other one was Margot Did, who I have followed like a hitman since watching her finish second in the Lowther at two. She has an amazing cruising speed and has plenty of ability, so when I saw she was 33s with SJ for the Nunthorpe I had a few pennies each/way and backed her in a bigger bet in the place only market. I have always felt that her cruising speed will see her run better against better horses as she can be pulled along with them and had her down as nearer a 10/1 chance in my book as a result.
Another rule I always follow is that I will forgive any horse one bad run without having to have a cast iron excuse. This is simply for the reason that, to use an old cliche, horses are not machines and we will never know if something is affecting them in a negative way before a race unless it is a major issue. I suspect a lot of niggles are never diagnosed, and that horses often run below-par for such reasons (banged head, trapped nerve, stiff back, gut ache etc). It can of course be a dangerous game if you start making excuses but that is what I try not to do - it's something of a one-strike policy - if it is repeated then I learn my lesson. I have backed a few very big-priced winners over the years as punters have assumed (on the evidence of one run) that a horse is not up to a certain class, distance, going etc.
Perhaps the most important lesson of all to learn is that flexibility is key. The moment you form an opinion of a horse that cannot be changed is the moment that the game can really bite you. Khyber Kim was a good example two seasons ago - he won his first start for Twister in the style of a changed horse but was then sent off at relatively big prices on his next races because people were convinced he was a first-time winner only. He won two big races subsequently and nearly won the Champion Hurdle as well.
The shape of the betting market is important. Take 2 horses priced at 4.0. The first one is 4.0 in a field of 4 where they are all priced at 4.0 (+o/r). The second is 4.0 in a field where the second fav is 8.0.
Irrespective of what you might know about the individual horses, the second race is much preferred. Why? Because the market is telling you that in the first race the contenders can't be split, they have an equal chance and its a pure lottery. You may be able to find the odd negative/positive somewhere that the market may not have spotted but you'd be damn lucky to do this for all 4 runners.What's more. it's only a 4 runner race so the bet will be limited to a straight win bet. Dutching 2 would give you an evens chance but that asusmes you could reduce the race to just 2 runners. Making a selection is a guess. The only winner LT would be Bf, the efficiency players or bookmakers.
In the second race, the market is telling you that the 4.0 fav is well clear in its chance from the rest. You can now begin the game by focusing on this runner to see if indeed it has an even better chance than 4.0 might suggest or to see whether it has any flaws. If no flaws then you could play it straight win or EW. If you see some flaws (late change of ground perhaps) then you have the option of laying it or finding the case for the 8.0 shot EW perhaps.Altogether, you have a better chance of reading the race. the market is guiding you.
As part of the importance of price to the outcome, how many people check out the betting pattern from the previous race? The market is the best guide to a horse's chance yet I bet the betting patterns from the previous race are mostly verlooked. If a a fav has failed ask why? Perhaps it was unlucky. Green Destiny at Goodwood is a recent example. Badly drawn that day for a horse who likes to come with a long run from the back, it had more suitable conditions at York. In it wen at a at a decent price.
Irrespective of what you might know about the individual horses, the second race is much preferred. Why? Because the market is telling you that in the first race the contenders can't be split, they have an equal chance and its a pure lottery. You may be able to find the odd negative/positive somewhere that the market may not have spotted but you'd be damn lucky to do this for all 4 runners.What's more. it's only a 4 runner race so the bet will be limited to a straight win bet. Dutching 2 would give you an evens chance but that asusmes you could reduce the race to just 2 runners. Making a selection is a guess. The only winner LT would be Bf, the efficiency players or bookmakers.
In the second race, the market is telling you that the 4.0 fav is well clear in its chance from the rest. You can now begin the game by focusing on this runner to see if indeed it has an even better chance than 4.0 might suggest or to see whether it has any flaws. If no flaws then you could play it straight win or EW. If you see some flaws (late change of ground perhaps) then you have the option of laying it or finding the case for the 8.0 shot EW perhaps.Altogether, you have a better chance of reading the race. the market is guiding you.
As part of the importance of price to the outcome, how many people check out the betting pattern from the previous race? The market is the best guide to a horse's chance yet I bet the betting patterns from the previous race are mostly verlooked. If a a fav has failed ask why? Perhaps it was unlucky. Green Destiny at Goodwood is a recent example. Badly drawn that day for a horse who likes to come with a long run from the back, it had more suitable conditions at York. In it wen at a at a decent price.
A 2-1 shot priced at 3-1 is an equally good bet in either of those races Sandown.
Undeniably so, Sankara, but my point is that the market shape can help by showing us where to direct our time and energy, for the reasons given.
In recent years I've taken to making notes on races/horses I watch, and relying much more on those notes than my faulty memory/form study.
Then I try to restrict my studying and betting to races where I have notes on at least several of the participants. For me this has many advantages.
-It's a very quick way of deciding which races to devote time to - so I get more time on races where I might have an edge.
-When my notes are at odds with what RP etc says about a horse I'm likely to have a different view from the market - potential value
-If a note about a horse is specific and positive enough I don't even need to study the whole field in depth - just enough to satisfy myself it's not poor value.
-I often find in the top handicaps/group races I've got comments on all the runners - makes assessing the race a lot quicker than form study for 20++ runners.
-It reminds me of form I don't rate - eg I'll comment if a race is tactical and therefore the value of form devalued (and who was disadvantaged by that)
For notes I use the RP site which generally works well, though it's a bit of a pain condensing my opinion of a horse's run or season into effectively a text message, at least it's all there on the page when I look at the race.
Then I try to restrict my studying and betting to races where I have notes on at least several of the participants. For me this has many advantages.
-It's a very quick way of deciding which races to devote time to - so I get more time on races where I might have an edge.
-When my notes are at odds with what RP etc says about a horse I'm likely to have a different view from the market - potential value
-If a note about a horse is specific and positive enough I don't even need to study the whole field in depth - just enough to satisfy myself it's not poor value.
-I often find in the top handicaps/group races I've got comments on all the runners - makes assessing the race a lot quicker than form study for 20++ runners.
-It reminds me of form I don't rate - eg I'll comment if a race is tactical and therefore the value of form devalued (and who was disadvantaged by that)
For notes I use the RP site which generally works well, though it's a bit of a pain condensing my opinion of a horse's run or season into effectively a text message, at least it's all there on the page when I look at the race.
dogbolter
I think this an excellent approach. It gives you a personal insight into how an individual horse is likely to perform. The question of "how is horse x likely to run i.e above, below or in line with its PB, given its history" is a better question to ask initially. Time enough later for the question "Who is most likely to win the race and how do I assess their chance?" Many a time though I have missed out because I have failed to spot the signs. Sometimes it is worth playing if the price is big enough - it's amazing how connections seem to try harder when their horse gets in under the radar - c.f Crackentorp in my 12.46 Aug 21 post.
I think this an excellent approach. It gives you a personal insight into how an individual horse is likely to perform. The question of "how is horse x likely to run i.e above, below or in line with its PB, given its history" is a better question to ask initially. Time enough later for the question "Who is most likely to win the race and how do I assess their chance?" Many a time though I have missed out because I have failed to spot the signs. Sometimes it is worth playing if the price is big enough - it's amazing how connections seem to try harder when their horse gets in under the radar - c.f Crackentorp in my 12.46 Aug 21 post.
Hello Sandown,
I've retired from Betfair at the mo but do pop in to the forum now and then to keep an eye on things (esp the ten to follow thread). I'd like to offer some thoughts for what they are worth.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that race markets have become more efficient as they've evolved. I've treated the market with respect and consider the market at the off to always be at its most informed and complete, because everyone who is willing to risk real money supporting their viewpoint has done so. The market is complex. Some of the money is smart and some may be ill informed, while there will be that which follows the smart and that which seeks out the dumb. Attempting to understand the complexity of the market in its entirety is probably futile. Complex and efficient it may be, but that can be a source of weakness and that is where to exploit it.
Non-opinion players may have sophisticated and subtle techniques, but these are long-term low-margin strategies that inevitably mean they must play every race, rather like a bookie. As they push at the limits of efficiency they force themselves to be generally correct most of the time, not specifically so. Selective playing is a vital approach in identifying the right type of race (or race with the right horses) to be successful. Anyone who was a successful each way thief would know exactly where to find an opportunity. So don’t play into the markets hands, wait for it to come to you. (I hope we all know that finding value is the key, not finding winners.)
The complexity of a market also means that little weight is often given to very specific factors. Indeed, the more complexity I built into my systems the more I mirrored the market. Approaches that go underneath the radar or realise the importance of certain information are likely to be successful. Slightly more obscure is to build up a picture of a race that doesn’t rely on too much widely available data. Not that simple ideas equate to success, but simple original ones can. My last visit to the race course for a fun day out with my good lady presented a large handicap that I couldn’t be bothered to study in any depth, so I used a method that I find successful with maidens (backing and laying) and chose the horse I most liked going to post (using certain observations). I trusted my eyes and instincts over form and logic. A 25/1 winner was probably the longest odds I’d hit on course for 10 years, albeit to small stakes. In some ways, what works works.
My general approach to betting has always been along the lines of this simple analysis by one of the big form companies. It was written before exchanges, but I still believe it to hold true. That to be successful you must either be a better judge (than the market), have a better system or have better information. I think you can substitute the word different for better.
But beating the market takes time and time is short.
May the force be with you all.
REM
I've retired from Betfair at the mo but do pop in to the forum now and then to keep an eye on things (esp the ten to follow thread). I'd like to offer some thoughts for what they are worth.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that race markets have become more efficient as they've evolved. I've treated the market with respect and consider the market at the off to always be at its most informed and complete, because everyone who is willing to risk real money supporting their viewpoint has done so. The market is complex. Some of the money is smart and some may be ill informed, while there will be that which follows the smart and that which seeks out the dumb. Attempting to understand the complexity of the market in its entirety is probably futile. Complex and efficient it may be, but that can be a source of weakness and that is where to exploit it.
Non-opinion players may have sophisticated and subtle techniques, but these are long-term low-margin strategies that inevitably mean they must play every race, rather like a bookie. As they push at the limits of efficiency they force themselves to be generally correct most of the time, not specifically so. Selective playing is a vital approach in identifying the right type of race (or race with the right horses) to be successful. Anyone who was a successful each way thief would know exactly where to find an opportunity. So don’t play into the markets hands, wait for it to come to you. (I hope we all know that finding value is the key, not finding winners.)
The complexity of a market also means that little weight is often given to very specific factors. Indeed, the more complexity I built into my systems the more I mirrored the market. Approaches that go underneath the radar or realise the importance of certain information are likely to be successful. Slightly more obscure is to build up a picture of a race that doesn’t rely on too much widely available data. Not that simple ideas equate to success, but simple original ones can. My last visit to the race course for a fun day out with my good lady presented a large handicap that I couldn’t be bothered to study in any depth, so I used a method that I find successful with maidens (backing and laying) and chose the horse I most liked going to post (using certain observations). I trusted my eyes and instincts over form and logic. A 25/1 winner was probably the longest odds I’d hit on course for 10 years, albeit to small stakes. In some ways, what works works.
My general approach to betting has always been along the lines of this simple analysis by one of the big form companies. It was written before exchanges, but I still believe it to hold true. That to be successful you must either be a better judge (than the market), have a better system or have better information. I think you can substitute the word different for better.
But beating the market takes time and time is short.
May the force be with you all.
REM
In most fields of endeavour significant progress has been made in improving techniques and outcomes. Medicine, science, technology, business have all advanced especially over the past 50 years. So you would expect the same to happen forecasting outcomes in racing , right?
Wrong. In the past 20 years we have seen the widespread use of computers, the increased availability of form data, the provision of video footage to analyse, the introduction of two dedicated racing channels,better racing daily information, etc etc.
So we should have expected to see an increase in the number of races won by favourites, shouldn't we? The market should reflect all this progress.
Using data from the Adrian Massy website, favourites won 37% of all races in 1991. In 2010 the figure was 34%. Not progression but regression.
Now there could be reasons to do with field sizes, the mix of racing, the introduction of betting exchanges whatever. But the simple truth is that there has been no obvious progress. Why aren't favourites winning 40%+ of all races given all the extra knowhow we have. In fact, I don't believe that the position has changed that much in the past 50 years. The fact is that favs have always won around 30%+ of races and the same is true in every country where racing takes place.
Given that most bookmakers have been winning and that insiders continue to take their share (its been estimated that 20% of all races are affected by insider trading) then we the general public who are not insiders and not bookmakers have not improved our game one jot.
The truth is that most players are in denial. They hope to win l/t but few do.
Where we are less of a disadvantage is where you would expect to see favs winning more races as a % and where the disadvantage is at its greatest favs would win a smaller %.
Again using Masseys figs, here is where favs % is highest
Novice chases 48%
Novice hurdles 45%
Flat maidens 43%
Other hurdles 40%
At the opposite end you have
selling h/c's flat 22%
flat h/c's 26%
novice h/c hurdles 27%
amateurs flat 27%
h/c hurdles 29%
nov h/c chases 29%
Even allowing for the possible effect of differing average field sizes, I think the message is clear.
Focus on races where on races where we are not so disadvantaged, as many have said already.
Wrong. In the past 20 years we have seen the widespread use of computers, the increased availability of form data, the provision of video footage to analyse, the introduction of two dedicated racing channels,better racing daily information, etc etc.
So we should have expected to see an increase in the number of races won by favourites, shouldn't we? The market should reflect all this progress.
Using data from the Adrian Massy website, favourites won 37% of all races in 1991. In 2010 the figure was 34%. Not progression but regression.
Now there could be reasons to do with field sizes, the mix of racing, the introduction of betting exchanges whatever. But the simple truth is that there has been no obvious progress. Why aren't favourites winning 40%+ of all races given all the extra knowhow we have. In fact, I don't believe that the position has changed that much in the past 50 years. The fact is that favs have always won around 30%+ of races and the same is true in every country where racing takes place.
Given that most bookmakers have been winning and that insiders continue to take their share (its been estimated that 20% of all races are affected by insider trading) then we the general public who are not insiders and not bookmakers have not improved our game one jot.
The truth is that most players are in denial. They hope to win l/t but few do.
Where we are less of a disadvantage is where you would expect to see favs winning more races as a % and where the disadvantage is at its greatest favs would win a smaller %.
Again using Masseys figs, here is where favs % is highest
Novice chases 48%
Novice hurdles 45%
Flat maidens 43%
Other hurdles 40%
At the opposite end you have
selling h/c's flat 22%
flat h/c's 26%
novice h/c hurdles 27%
amateurs flat 27%
h/c hurdles 29%
nov h/c chases 29%
Even allowing for the possible effect of differing average field sizes, I think the message is clear.
Focus on races where on races where we are not so disadvantaged, as many have said already.
On those figures I'd argue that favs in handicap hurdles are more likely to be value than those in novice chases - surely the average SP would more than compensate for the lower strike rate? Lot of long odds on favs in novice chases
Interesting stuff all round
Sandown's point re: lack of improvement in forecasting despite technology.
You can't purely reduce horse racing to figures. There are far too many variables to factor in that totally true forecasting is impossible.
This is where an edge can arrive. The perameters are constantly changing, each season that passes involves a different population of horses bred for any number of different reasons with differing strengths and weaknesses. The best you can hope for is a general attempt to identify 'trends' or 'typical' scenarios. Even then the figures offer no guarantee of success.
Humans are non-specific beings, so are horses. Computers are specific machines.
In some way, you have to exploit the fact that we are on the same side of the fence as the horses /jockeys/ trainer, whereas the computers are not.
Fk knows how though!
Sandown's point re: lack of improvement in forecasting despite technology.
You can't purely reduce horse racing to figures. There are far too many variables to factor in that totally true forecasting is impossible.
This is where an edge can arrive. The perameters are constantly changing, each season that passes involves a different population of horses bred for any number of different reasons with differing strengths and weaknesses. The best you can hope for is a general attempt to identify 'trends' or 'typical' scenarios. Even then the figures offer no guarantee of success.
Humans are non-specific beings, so are horses. Computers are specific machines.
In some way, you have to exploit the fact that we are on the same side of the fence as the horses /jockeys/ trainer, whereas the computers are not.
Fk knows how though!
Why aren't favourites winning 40%+ of all races given all the extra knowhow we have.
Availability of information does not equal "knowhow" in my view. Most gamblers in my experience are lazy and whilst they may not admit it rely more on luck than judgement. Few win long term, in my view partly because few put in the effort long term.
Availability of information does not equal "knowhow" in my view. Most gamblers in my experience are lazy and whilst they may not admit it rely more on luck than judgement. Few win long term, in my view partly because few put in the effort long term.
Even if most gamblers did have the extra knowhow, I would argue that the strike rate of favourites would not really improve much, as the fact is that most races are unpredictable. Yes they can be narrowed down to a few chances but not to the pinpoint accuracy required to pick the winner. Past performances and inside info can only help to predict the future to a certain extent and that will always be the case, in my view.
Figgis
I can't argue with your point because as expressed it must be true.But I am talking about a degree of improvement say 5% pts not a wholesale improvement. 100% accuracy is impossible but 40% isn't nor is 50%. These figures are achievable in certain specific cases (allowing for a field size adjustment to an av size of say 9 rnnrs.)
Why is it possible to achieve this kind of accuracy in certain types of race but not overall? The reason is imo transparency of information and of intent on the part of connections. The info is itself more reliable and the race run more honestly.Of course, this is reflected in lower prices but that isn't the point which is how can accuracy of forecatsing be improved.
Whilst on aggregate over a very large sample the market is unnervingly accurate (the wisdom of crowds) in any single case there is a very large chance that the information available is not truly represented in the market.
Say for example that someone knows something very important which if everyone knew would change the prices markedly. That person may make a bet which is no way near large enough to affect it,so whilst being in the public domain it is not widely known enough to be reflected in the prices.Every market must have something like this occuring.
if I'm right, it is the reluctance of players to share information which keeps the prediction accuracy from improving, not the absence of information in the first place.
If I'm right, what prevents the general players from really competing with insiders and bookmakers and bot players is our own reluctance of sharing information for fear of losing our edge.That and a belief that our contribution will be ever be rcipricated sufficiently to make it worthwhile.
I can't argue with your point because as expressed it must be true.But I am talking about a degree of improvement say 5% pts not a wholesale improvement. 100% accuracy is impossible but 40% isn't nor is 50%. These figures are achievable in certain specific cases (allowing for a field size adjustment to an av size of say 9 rnnrs.)
Why is it possible to achieve this kind of accuracy in certain types of race but not overall? The reason is imo transparency of information and of intent on the part of connections. The info is itself more reliable and the race run more honestly.Of course, this is reflected in lower prices but that isn't the point which is how can accuracy of forecatsing be improved.
Whilst on aggregate over a very large sample the market is unnervingly accurate (the wisdom of crowds) in any single case there is a very large chance that the information available is not truly represented in the market.
Say for example that someone knows something very important which if everyone knew would change the prices markedly. That person may make a bet which is no way near large enough to affect it,so whilst being in the public domain it is not widely known enough to be reflected in the prices.Every market must have something like this occuring.
if I'm right, it is the reluctance of players to share information which keeps the prediction accuracy from improving, not the absence of information in the first place.
If I'm right, what prevents the general players from really competing with insiders and bookmakers and bot players is our own reluctance of sharing information for fear of losing our edge.That and a belief that our contribution will be ever be rcipricated sufficiently to make it worthwhile.
Sandown
Do you really think 50% accuracy of favourites winning is at all possible, though? Many races are won by improved horses, sometimes the improvement is not entirely unexpected by those in the know but other times it is. Many other races are won by default becuase the main fancies run below form. I read somewhere that in most races more than half the runners run below their best form to some degree. I've never done an in depth study myself but from experience I'd go along with that.
Do you really think 50% accuracy of favourites winning is at all possible, though? Many races are won by improved horses, sometimes the improvement is not entirely unexpected by those in the know but other times it is. Many other races are won by default becuase the main fancies run below form. I read somewhere that in most races more than half the runners run below their best form to some degree. I've never done an in depth study myself but from experience I'd go along with that.
I do agree with those who say the market is more accurate since the exchanges. This does not translate to more favourites winning, purely because of the unpredictable element I mentioned before. Where I believe the market is generally more efficient is in revealing horses that will run reasonably well and those that more likely won't. This doesn't mean that it's not possible to find good priced winners but I believe it makes it more difficult than before. I suppose it's just that the market is more transparent than it used to be, particularly where insider money is concerned. Let's face it, you can be the best form analyst in the world but if, unbeknown to you, your bet worked like a cart horse in it's most recent gallop, you're knackered.
I find that more time studing results and replays are far more productive than actually studying the race in question. How many times have you looked at a race and thought it might have as well be written in Serbo-Croat as you are simply making a guess at it whilst at other times things will just suddenley jump out of the page and hit you-why spend so much time on the 1st event???
There is so much racing that ive virtually cut out Maidens/Two year olds/Anything under class 3(unless a horse is running that i want to know about)and at certain tracks. Agree with the poster about keeping notes(i also keep a list of races and conditions id like to see the horse aimed at)
There is so much racing that ive virtually cut out Maidens/Two year olds/Anything under class 3(unless a horse is running that i want to know about)and at certain tracks. Agree with the poster about keeping notes(i also keep a list of races and conditions id like to see the horse aimed at)
I agree, zil, about studying results more than the race. All my biggest plays have and will continue to be when I have the horse picked before the race.
I mean already having the horse in mind for a punt next time, rather than trying to solve the puzzle of a race.
Looks like for many of us, the old advice of compiling a list of horses to follow still has resonance.
Sandown
I think that's largely the difference between what makes a race predictable (to an extent) and unpredictable. Some races contain horses that are primed to run to their best but many more don't. Some of these lower class races contain horses that have run over 20 times in a season, how can a punter on the sidelines possibly be sure that these animals are going to perform to their best on any given day?
I think that's largely the difference between what makes a race predictable (to an extent) and unpredictable. Some races contain horses that are primed to run to their best but many more don't. Some of these lower class races contain horses that have run over 20 times in a season, how can a punter on the sidelines possibly be sure that these animals are going to perform to their best on any given day?
Like following lots of different things at different times, but having a list of horses is my one constant. You really can build more knowledge than most this way. Tendency to back ones you shouldn't 'just in case' is more than made up for by that 'Wow' factor when your horse has a big chance and is a big or value price.
Also like certain races that has a trend I like.
Rich owners especially at certain meetings or for ante-post.
Fresh horses at the end of the season.
Claiming jockeys I rate. e.t.c
But I'd guess that 'Wow' factor is where my profit is.
Also like certain races that has a trend I like.
Rich owners especially at certain meetings or for ante-post.
Fresh horses at the end of the season.
Claiming jockeys I rate. e.t.c
But I'd guess that 'Wow' factor is where my profit is.
Inconsistency is a large factor in things, for sure. Horses not fit enough or going stale from too much racing,or horses carrying injuries or as they get older just unable to run to a peak especially after a peak performance following a break,these are all factors which make racing a mix a skill and chance.
But even issues which you might think could be settled such as the merit of a horse can be contentious, as we all know. Then there is the potential for improvement, the effect of weight, the influence of conditions being faced, the intentions of connections before, we even get to the effects of pure chance. Yes, so at best it might be that say 50% average for favs for a 9/10 runner race might well be the limit of what is achievable.
Nevertheless, I set out the topic in the hope that we might, as a group, be able to find ways to up our game. It's clear to me that no-one person can hope to be the font of all wisdom and that as a group we will cover most of the factors and the information that is vital. Much of it gets mentioned on forum debates for ibig races but too often these become competitive rather than co-operative and arguments are used or rejected on the basis of whether they confirm our own opinions.
It would be interesting to see whether it is possible to get more out of such discussions which might lead to a more nuanced view rather than the "it will win" variety which many posts become.
But even issues which you might think could be settled such as the merit of a horse can be contentious, as we all know. Then there is the potential for improvement, the effect of weight, the influence of conditions being faced, the intentions of connections before, we even get to the effects of pure chance. Yes, so at best it might be that say 50% average for favs for a 9/10 runner race might well be the limit of what is achievable.
Nevertheless, I set out the topic in the hope that we might, as a group, be able to find ways to up our game. It's clear to me that no-one person can hope to be the font of all wisdom and that as a group we will cover most of the factors and the information that is vital. Much of it gets mentioned on forum debates for ibig races but too often these become competitive rather than co-operative and arguments are used or rejected on the basis of whether they confirm our own opinions.
It would be interesting to see whether it is possible to get more out of such discussions which might lead to a more nuanced view rather than the "it will win" variety which many posts become.
I am in agreement with James Willoughby on this. I believe if you try to incorporate too many factors into your betting (no matter how pertinent they might be) it will eventually lead to negating any edge you might have. The best way of improving your game is to gain some discipline, however, I'm not sure this can be simply taught. I think a few people are more naturally inclined to work that way but the rest of us only gain it from (bad) experience and determination. For me personally, finding winners didn't take too long to learn, holding on to my profits and making the most of them took a lot lot longer.
^ Excellent point.
Discipline essential, as is a large enough bank to cope with losing runs, so that it doesn't 'hurt' and/or cause panic, when the inevitable occurs!
Discipline essential, as is a large enough bank to cope with losing runs, so that it doesn't 'hurt' and/or cause panic, when the inevitable occurs!
The mental edge is often overlooked and you have to be brutally honest with yourself, if you are the type who can get things out of hand in a day then put your bets on at prices in the morning and watch the replays at the end of the day, go out, get drunk , chase women, in fact chase anything but your losses.
The most stupid suggestion is daily targets!!, if you fancy three horses why limit your winnings if the 1st two win?, you fancied three at the start of the day, same goes for having a bet on a race you'd leave alone, why??, targets are a MASSIVE no no.
Too many meetings??, there was a good book called "The Tyranny of choice" on how having too much can confuse people and make them unhappy(take people who say there's nowt on 365 Channels on TV!!) pick your meetings that records tell you that you well at and chuck the rest, have blank days, weeks and even a month off(Jan and feb are favs imo)
The most stupid suggestion is daily targets!!, if you fancy three horses why limit your winnings if the 1st two win?, you fancied three at the start of the day, same goes for having a bet on a race you'd leave alone, why??, targets are a MASSIVE no no.
Too many meetings??, there was a good book called "The Tyranny of choice" on how having too much can confuse people and make them unhappy(take people who say there's nowt on 365 Channels on TV!!) pick your meetings that records tell you that you well at and chuck the rest, have blank days, weeks and even a month off(Jan and feb are favs imo)
The most stupid suggestion is daily targets
Definitely the biggest flaw of a horse racing punter, 'had my smallest bet on the one i most fancied', hopefully none of you frequnet the betting offices too much but this is a common occurance. The worst is the fella who has 3 fancies on a day, when the first two go down he has a lump on the third one thinking it has a better chance now but let's face it the horses odds still reflect it's chance of winning sadly.
Definitely the biggest flaw of a horse racing punter, 'had my smallest bet on the one i most fancied', hopefully none of you frequnet the betting offices too much but this is a common occurance. The worst is the fella who has 3 fancies on a day, when the first two go down he has a lump on the third one thinking it has a better chance now but let's face it the horses odds still reflect it's chance of winning sadly.
Looking through some old books a few weeks ago I was reminded of the proverb the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I won't mention the name of the book but if I mention the name of Peter Jones I'm sure some of the more mature readers of this thread will know the publication I'm referring to.
The book was published in 1984 and contains detailed trainer statistics. One of the recommendations towards the end of the book was to follow John Dunlop's runners at York based on his 1979-83 record of 21 winners from 50 runners, a 42% strike rate.
I haven't got a clue what happened between the years of 1984-2002 but JD's record at York from 2003 to date reads.....
As you'd expect, with a level stake profit like that and a drop in strike rate, there have been some fairly long priced winners. In fact seven were at double figure odds ranging from 10/1 to 22/1. Mind you even if you took out those seven winners there would still be a level stake profit of £1.
As someone famous once said it's a case déjà vu all over again.
I won't mention the name of the book but if I mention the name of Peter Jones I'm sure some of the more mature readers of this thread will know the publication I'm referring to.
The book was published in 1984 and contains detailed trainer statistics. One of the recommendations towards the end of the book was to follow John Dunlop's runners at York based on his 1979-83 record of 21 winners from 50 runners, a 42% strike rate.
I haven't got a clue what happened between the years of 1984-2002 but JD's record at York from 2003 to date reads.....
| Runners | Wins | Strike rate | £1 level stake |
| 88 | 21 | 23.86% | +£101.00 |
As you'd expect, with a level stake profit like that and a drop in strike rate, there have been some fairly long priced winners. In fact seven were at double figure odds ranging from 10/1 to 22/1. Mind you even if you took out those seven winners there would still be a level stake profit of £1.
As someone famous once said it's a case déjà vu all over again.
Strangely enough I have Trainers Record 1984 to hand
1983 at York J.L Dunlop 8 wins from 16 runners
That seems an exceptional year.
95-2002 he had 24 winners from 147 runners (maybe more)
He missed out on a winner in 97 but generally had 4 winners in 5 of those 8 years with two in 98 & 02.
Dunlop never had a winner there in 2003
Only achieved his 4 wins target in years 2005 and 2009
Latter years seems to be averaging 8 to 9 runners compared to a low of 11 (97) and high of 30 (98) in the 90's
His best strike rate was in 2yo Condition races but those opportunities are rare now as last winner 2002
Listed races to 4yo+ runners are good
1983 at York J.L Dunlop 8 wins from 16 runners
That seems an exceptional year.
95-2002 he had 24 winners from 147 runners (maybe more)
He missed out on a winner in 97 but generally had 4 winners in 5 of those 8 years with two in 98 & 02.
Dunlop never had a winner there in 2003
Only achieved his 4 wins target in years 2005 and 2009
Latter years seems to be averaging 8 to 9 runners compared to a low of 11 (97) and high of 30 (98) in the 90's
His best strike rate was in 2yo Condition races but those opportunities are rare now as last winner 2002
Listed races to 4yo+ runners are good
Sandown
Roughly what percentage of the Betfair pre-race market on an average race would you say was made up of informed/insider money?
Roughly what percentage of the Betfair pre-race market on an average race would you say was made up of informed/insider money?
"Using data from the Adrian Massy website, favourites won 37% of all races in 1991. In 2010 the figure was 34%. Not progression but regression."
A pleasing quote. To paraphrase one professional punter "you're not going to make money from a consensus of opinion". I feel that the harder the game is, the more it rewards those who put the time and effort in to their research. Obviously if in another ten years time, the figure is 25% then the balance might have tipped too becoming too difficult. I think racing is a great betting medium because there are so many variables, you do not just have football team A playing football team B.
There is: the ground/stable form/trip/tactics/draw/handicap mark/hype etc etc. Such a lot to keep an eye on, and so much racing, that bookies are inevitably not going to have enough time to look into everything, and will make mistakes. With regards to the exchanges, i do completely agree that the market is extremely efficient near the off, quite often if you spot something in the morning at say 9/2, you might have thought was more of a 5/2 chance, more often than not the market will agree with you and have "corrected" by the off.
I do think specialising is the way to go as outlined above re building up intimate knowledge on a select band of horses. i too tend to avoid sellers/claimers/low grade handicaps - the prize money isn't good enough to guarantee that the majority will be trying, and i feel low grade animals tend to be less consistent, and less physically/mentally sound.
Two areas of interest. Hype = great for layers. If you can use it to your advantage then you will have a greater chance of success. A recent example is Frankel's brother Noble Mission, who ran at Yarmouth last week. I didn't know anything about the horses ability, but i believed he would be put in too short in the betting and laid him early doors at 9/4. In my view, the market corrected itself by the off (perhaps overly so, as he drifted to a much bigger price). In the end he ran a very promising first race, but had he won I would still have thought I had taken the right decision, as i had him forecast as around a 3/1 shot at the least (i believe one forecast initially put him in at 6/4?!). Although Born To Sea/George Washingtons filly won first time out, siblings do not always inherit their brothers/sisters ability, and as far as my own betting records are concerned, it has proved profitable long term to oppose these types.
Stats: A recent example would be the "Montjeu sired horses" stat trotted out before Cheltenham this year. I prefer to judge each horse on their merits. TBF i don't believe this affected the starting price of say, Hurricane Fly, but its an example of how quickly something can be generally accepted - a few faces at the preview nights were keen to trot it out! Once something becomes accepted thinking, there is often value to be found elsewhere as a result.
The trick with angles and stats is, IMO, not to become complacent as these can come full circle. (Veitch refers to making the point on his tipping line about Elsworth horses needing the run first time out, and the stable later taking advantage by specifically preparing one to take advantage of this.
Something i looked at about a year ago was the record of Barney Curley horses making their handicap debuts. From memory, i struggled to find a recent example of one that had won on handicap debut, despite them often being priced up far too defensively in the early markets. Barney presumably thinks it would be far too obvious to have them win first time in a handicap! There was therefore, value to be had in opposing them early doors, whether as a backer or layer. Needless to say, by the time of the show the market showed a more accurate reflection of their chances!
Having read that back I'm afraid there doesn't seemed to be anything particularly original in it! I suppose the point I have been trying to make! is that the key is to specialise, yet also be open minded and able to adapt. We can't all be right all the time (sadly!) and what works for one person doesn't work for another. Find what works for you and stick to it but also be aware the game changes.
Have very much enjoyed the discussion and would be interested to hear other people's thoughts on my diatribe
A pleasing quote. To paraphrase one professional punter "you're not going to make money from a consensus of opinion". I feel that the harder the game is, the more it rewards those who put the time and effort in to their research. Obviously if in another ten years time, the figure is 25% then the balance might have tipped too becoming too difficult. I think racing is a great betting medium because there are so many variables, you do not just have football team A playing football team B.
There is: the ground/stable form/trip/tactics/draw/handicap mark/hype etc etc. Such a lot to keep an eye on, and so much racing, that bookies are inevitably not going to have enough time to look into everything, and will make mistakes. With regards to the exchanges, i do completely agree that the market is extremely efficient near the off, quite often if you spot something in the morning at say 9/2, you might have thought was more of a 5/2 chance, more often than not the market will agree with you and have "corrected" by the off.
I do think specialising is the way to go as outlined above re building up intimate knowledge on a select band of horses. i too tend to avoid sellers/claimers/low grade handicaps - the prize money isn't good enough to guarantee that the majority will be trying, and i feel low grade animals tend to be less consistent, and less physically/mentally sound.
Two areas of interest. Hype = great for layers. If you can use it to your advantage then you will have a greater chance of success. A recent example is Frankel's brother Noble Mission, who ran at Yarmouth last week. I didn't know anything about the horses ability, but i believed he would be put in too short in the betting and laid him early doors at 9/4. In my view, the market corrected itself by the off (perhaps overly so, as he drifted to a much bigger price). In the end he ran a very promising first race, but had he won I would still have thought I had taken the right decision, as i had him forecast as around a 3/1 shot at the least (i believe one forecast initially put him in at 6/4?!). Although Born To Sea/George Washingtons filly won first time out, siblings do not always inherit their brothers/sisters ability, and as far as my own betting records are concerned, it has proved profitable long term to oppose these types.
Stats: A recent example would be the "Montjeu sired horses" stat trotted out before Cheltenham this year. I prefer to judge each horse on their merits. TBF i don't believe this affected the starting price of say, Hurricane Fly, but its an example of how quickly something can be generally accepted - a few faces at the preview nights were keen to trot it out! Once something becomes accepted thinking, there is often value to be found elsewhere as a result.
The trick with angles and stats is, IMO, not to become complacent as these can come full circle. (Veitch refers to making the point on his tipping line about Elsworth horses needing the run first time out, and the stable later taking advantage by specifically preparing one to take advantage of this.
Something i looked at about a year ago was the record of Barney Curley horses making their handicap debuts. From memory, i struggled to find a recent example of one that had won on handicap debut, despite them often being priced up far too defensively in the early markets. Barney presumably thinks it would be far too obvious to have them win first time in a handicap! There was therefore, value to be had in opposing them early doors, whether as a backer or layer. Needless to say, by the time of the show the market showed a more accurate reflection of their chances!
Having read that back I'm afraid there doesn't seemed to be anything particularly original in it! I suppose the point I have been trying to make! is that the key is to specialise, yet also be open minded and able to adapt. We can't all be right all the time (sadly!) and what works for one person doesn't work for another. Find what works for you and stick to it but also be aware the game changes.
Have very much enjoyed the discussion and would be interested to hear other people's thoughts on my diatribe
Workforce
Thanks for the stats on favs. I do feel, though, that as there is far more bottom of the barrel racing around these days than back in '91 then there is going to be some increase in unpredictability of results, which could explain the decrease in the favs winning percentage. I still believe, on the whole, that the market these days is far more accurate about the chances of horses running well, or not, than it used to be.
Thanks for the stats on favs. I do feel, though, that as there is far more bottom of the barrel racing around these days than back in '91 then there is going to be some increase in unpredictability of results, which could explain the decrease in the favs winning percentage. I still believe, on the whole, that the market these days is far more accurate about the chances of horses running well, or not, than it used to be.
Also, there has been a shift in the handicapping system since '91 with the agenda of more 'competitive' racing and less predictability.
Thanks Figgis, i'm afraid my interest in "this great game of ours" only started about five years ago, so perhaps i should have put more thought in before referencing stats from 1991!
As regards accuracy of the market, can only make the fairly obvious assumption that the best punters are now operating on the exchanges, presumably driven away from the bookmakers by heavy restrictions placed upon winning accounts.
As regards accuracy of the market, can only make the fairly obvious assumption that the best punters are now operating on the exchanges, presumably driven away from the bookmakers by heavy restrictions placed upon winning accounts.
Workforce
That's true about more clued up punters operating on the exchanges. At the lower end of the game though there are many market moves (positive and negative) that couldn't really be the work of anything other than insider trading. I know this has always been a part of the game but imo it plays a much bigger part than before.
That's true about more clued up punters operating on the exchanges. At the lower end of the game though there are many market moves (positive and negative) that couldn't really be the work of anything other than insider trading. I know this has always been a part of the game but imo it plays a much bigger part than before.
I must be the opposite of an opinion player. In the month leading up to the end of Royal Ascot I backed my opinions and lost almost ten grand. Having been 4 grand up and feeling ok, I was plunged into insecurity, 6 grand down and wondering if I should give up the game - let's say I wouldn't want to get too close to ten grand down.
After Ascot, I decided to focus only on class 2 handicaps and selected pattern events. My approach in handicaps is to use my own ratings and back between 3-6 horses per race if each is deemed 'practical' value as opposed to theoretical value. The top 6 horses in my ratings (for class 2 handicaps) provide the winner in 66% of races.
Anyway, since Ascot I have made a profit of £6264 in handicaps from £27597 staked, having won on 41 of 84 races. There have been times when I have really fancied one in a handicap, in which case I'll have a bigger stake on that one. I hardly ever get this right.
In pattern events, I have made a profit of £1037 from stakes of £18320. The strike rate here is 29 wins from 85 races. In these races I tend to go on my opinions rather than ratings.
So there you have it. I know the sums of money involved are tiny compared to lots of players on here, but I have a full time job and not all that much substance between my legs.
For me, then, the answer lies in combining my ratings with an appreciation of value in class 2 handicaps. In general, whenever I find myself fancying one, I grab hold of the big gun and shoot myself in the foot.
After Ascot, I decided to focus only on class 2 handicaps and selected pattern events. My approach in handicaps is to use my own ratings and back between 3-6 horses per race if each is deemed 'practical' value as opposed to theoretical value. The top 6 horses in my ratings (for class 2 handicaps) provide the winner in 66% of races.
Anyway, since Ascot I have made a profit of £6264 in handicaps from £27597 staked, having won on 41 of 84 races. There have been times when I have really fancied one in a handicap, in which case I'll have a bigger stake on that one. I hardly ever get this right.
In pattern events, I have made a profit of £1037 from stakes of £18320. The strike rate here is 29 wins from 85 races. In these races I tend to go on my opinions rather than ratings.
So there you have it. I know the sums of money involved are tiny compared to lots of players on here, but I have a full time job and not all that much substance between my legs.
For me, then, the answer lies in combining my ratings with an appreciation of value in class 2 handicaps. In general, whenever I find myself fancying one, I grab hold of the big gun and shoot myself in the foot.
Figgis
The naive part of my mind tells me that negative market moves (via insider trading) should if anything, be less prevalent. IMO the advancements of technology (ie. camera angles/market analysing software) should have led to a greater amount of convictions for people laying through inside information. The more convictions, presumably the less people are willing to chance it. According to you, it hasn't done. If the number of negative market moves through insider trading has risen on the exchanges, is it right to assume this is due to:
1) Lack of proper clampdown (possible the various policing bodies scared off after Fallon and co trail fiasco)
2) Brazen cheats just simply don't care!
3) A combination of the two
Another assumption is that with such poor prize money, owners are turning increasingly to punting to finance the ownership side of things, whether through backing or laying their horses. Is there a profit to be made from following the money of the shrewder owners? (don't buy this theory, feel market becomes wise to gambling owners and their charges are often underpriced as a result - see JP McManus horses at the Fez for example. Not that he has to worry about training fees, and just to clarify i am not for one second suggesting he lays them either!).
Sorry to go slightly off topic! Would be interested to hear your thoughts.
The naive part of my mind tells me that negative market moves (via insider trading) should if anything, be less prevalent. IMO the advancements of technology (ie. camera angles/market analysing software) should have led to a greater amount of convictions for people laying through inside information. The more convictions, presumably the less people are willing to chance it. According to you, it hasn't done. If the number of negative market moves through insider trading has risen on the exchanges, is it right to assume this is due to:
1) Lack of proper clampdown (possible the various policing bodies scared off after Fallon and co trail fiasco)
2) Brazen cheats just simply don't care!
3) A combination of the two
Another assumption is that with such poor prize money, owners are turning increasingly to punting to finance the ownership side of things, whether through backing or laying their horses. Is there a profit to be made from following the money of the shrewder owners? (don't buy this theory, feel market becomes wise to gambling owners and their charges are often underpriced as a result - see JP McManus horses at the Fez for example. Not that he has to worry about training fees, and just to clarify i am not for one second suggesting he lays them either!).
Sorry to go slightly off topic! Would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Good work Howellsy, but don't be so hard on yourself, your ratings are still a reflection of your opinions.
Workforce
I wasn't particularly hinting at blatant cheating, although we all know it goes on. I was referring more to when a yard know their charge is on or off the boil, in my view, in general this is reflected more in the market now than it used to be.
I wasn't particularly hinting at blatant cheating, although we all know it goes on. I was referring more to when a yard know their charge is on or off the boil, in my view, in general this is reflected more in the market now than it used to be.
Howellsy
Personally i always try and have a day off after taking a hit, i find this necessary to re-balance my emotions.
Personally i always try and have a day off after taking a hit, i find this necessary to re-balance my emotions.
Figgis
Roughly what percentage of the Betfair pre-race market on an average race would you say was made up of informed/insider money?
Don't know the answer to that question Figgis. The pre-race market is so thin, I doubt that it is very high. And in any event, from my own experience, I know that a LOT of insider money goes below the radar through commission agents and most of that off-course, and not through BF.
Roughly what percentage of the Betfair pre-race market on an average race would you say was made up of informed/insider money?
Don't know the answer to that question Figgis. The pre-race market is so thin, I doubt that it is very high. And in any event, from my own experience, I know that a LOT of insider money goes below the radar through commission agents and most of that off-course, and not through BF.
Sandown
Do you not agree that regardless of the form shown and strength of confidence from tipsters/ratings there are some unusually positive moves for horses that go on to show improved form? Likewise, there is a link between big drifts on horses with strong form and well fancied by tipsters that run poorly. I know results frequently go the opposite of the market moves but imo it now happens too often for it not to have a link to inside knowledge.
Do you not agree that regardless of the form shown and strength of confidence from tipsters/ratings there are some unusually positive moves for horses that go on to show improved form? Likewise, there is a link between big drifts on horses with strong form and well fancied by tipsters that run poorly. I know results frequently go the opposite of the market moves but imo it now happens too often for it not to have a link to inside knowledge.
the bottom line about gambling is that in a way you have to be arrogant. you have to really BELIEVE that your opinions are much better than anyone else's.
actually the original post made me think of my "are bots destroying betfair" post on general betting, and how computers are making opinions essentially redundant.
Figgis
I agree with both of your points although I'm sure we could have said the same 20 years ago.
Mythical P
I am very confident that virtually all of the posters on this forum are sufficiently well informed and knowledgeable enough to beat the some of the markets for some of the time. I doubt very much that there are very many who can beat some of the markets all of the time and none who can beat the markets all of the time.
No matter how good we are, randomness will affect our confidence, our opinions (reflux as I like to call it) and our staking and therein lies the reason why opinion players who last many years are rare creatures indeed.
The "bots" make the market so quick to respond to events that finding the "ricks" or the value is very much more difficult than it was pre-BF, don't you agree?
I agree with both of your points although I'm sure we could have said the same 20 years ago.
Mythical P
I am very confident that virtually all of the posters on this forum are sufficiently well informed and knowledgeable enough to beat the some of the markets for some of the time. I doubt very much that there are very many who can beat some of the markets all of the time and none who can beat the markets all of the time.
No matter how good we are, randomness will affect our confidence, our opinions (reflux as I like to call it) and our staking and therein lies the reason why opinion players who last many years are rare creatures indeed.
The "bots" make the market so quick to respond to events that finding the "ricks" or the value is very much more difficult than it was pre-BF, don't you agree?
Sandown
My biggest bets have always been on the better class racing and nothing has really changed there. However, as for the middle/lower end racing my approach has changed greatly since 20 years ago. Back then my only aim was to beat the bookie's odds compilers and fellow punters, I didn't take too much notice of market moves. I know that some proved significant but many didn't and I just took the view that it equalled out in the end, which it did. I've had to change that view in recent years.
My biggest bets have always been on the better class racing and nothing has really changed there. However, as for the middle/lower end racing my approach has changed greatly since 20 years ago. Back then my only aim was to beat the bookie's odds compilers and fellow punters, I didn't take too much notice of market moves. I know that some proved significant but many didn't and I just took the view that it equalled out in the end, which it did. I've had to change that view in recent years.
Sandown
It's true that the market is more efficient these days because of bots and skilled players. As a speed figure player I remember examples such as Kissing Cousin being available at 20/1 in the morning for the Coronation Stakes, Selkirk the same price for the QE2, those kind of ricks just wouldn't happen anymore. Aside from that, though, I still believe the market these days is more transparent about the chances of horses with seemingly exposed form, particulary where some yards are concerned.
It's true that the market is more efficient these days because of bots and skilled players. As a speed figure player I remember examples such as Kissing Cousin being available at 20/1 in the morning for the Coronation Stakes, Selkirk the same price for the QE2, those kind of ricks just wouldn't happen anymore. Aside from that, though, I still believe the market these days is more transparent about the chances of horses with seemingly exposed form, particulary where some yards are concerned.
ok where to begin with this thread? 
im going to address the question. 3 facets the player, the market and the hoss/trainer
Player
- specialisation
- discipline
- bank management and honesty
The Market
- gets it wrong more often (see hoss/trainer), esp in class 2 above races
- completely inefficient in the short run; whatever about the long run, just like the stock market
- odd results are becoming more common but thats down to filthy clerks and other faulty info
Hoss/Trainer
- we can never know all THE INFORMATION about a hoss. maybe mkt guides are useful, but i i wouldnt put a lot of faith into them (see above)
- THE INFO can be well wrong. too many examples to list (eg arazan v sea the stars, was confidently told that arazan was the best hoss oxx ever trained) but stables cant know the strength and depth of other stables and gen inflate their own chances. It is useful to know a horse is trying but 90% of the time in decent races this is a given.
- a lot more pressure for success now given the economy.
thats my twopence worth. i would also say that the handicapper has now eroded any blots by using ratings agencies before rising winners (subjective opinion), so its getting harder to find in form improving types.
great thread lads
im going to address the question. 3 facets the player, the market and the hoss/trainer
Player
- specialisation
- discipline
- bank management and honesty
The Market
- gets it wrong more often (see hoss/trainer), esp in class 2 above races
- completely inefficient in the short run; whatever about the long run, just like the stock market
- odd results are becoming more common but thats down to filthy clerks and other faulty info
Hoss/Trainer
- we can never know all THE INFORMATION about a hoss. maybe mkt guides are useful, but i i wouldnt put a lot of faith into them (see above)
- THE INFO can be well wrong. too many examples to list (eg arazan v sea the stars, was confidently told that arazan was the best hoss oxx ever trained) but stables cant know the strength and depth of other stables and gen inflate their own chances. It is useful to know a horse is trying but 90% of the time in decent races this is a given.
- a lot more pressure for success now given the economy.
thats my twopence worth. i would also say that the handicapper has now eroded any blots by using ratings agencies before rising winners (subjective opinion), so its getting harder to find in form improving types.
great thread lads
Platt, the market will always be more wrong than right, as at the end of the day it is trying to predict the future, which nobody can do 100%. Nonetheless, the pre-race market will be more accurate than any of us could be if we tried to price up every single race. I take the point that some trainers will overrate their horses and they don't know what the other yards have up their sleeves. However, given that in the majority of races a large number of horses run below their best form, just knowing that your own horse is ready to fire (or not) is a huge advantage.
As for Arazan and STS, I think they were absolutely right that Arazan was a better 2yo, obviously things changed after.
ok but to answer the question how does this improve our game?
i know the theory on markets but for me you always have to take on a steamer for instance if his form aint up to it?
i know the theory on markets but for me you always have to take on a steamer for instance if his form aint up to it?
platinni Joined: 15 Apr 04
Replies: 2656 01 Nov 11 13:34
ok but to answer the question how does this improve our game?
Well in my case it doesn't, it just makes it more difficult
Yeah I think the higher the grade of race then you can pretty much ignore the steamers, but not so much at the lower end, that's not to say I would go following the money. I'm more talking about situations where one day a horse can go into a race with recent good form, strong in the ratings, heavily tipped by the press, yet drift for no obvious reason, I'd say in most cases that drift is significant.
Replies: 2656 01 Nov 11 13:34
ok but to answer the question how does this improve our game?
Well in my case it doesn't, it just makes it more difficult
Yeah I think the higher the grade of race then you can pretty much ignore the steamers, but not so much at the lower end, that's not to say I would go following the money. I'm more talking about situations where one day a horse can go into a race with recent good form, strong in the ratings, heavily tipped by the press, yet drift for no obvious reason, I'd say in most cases that drift is significant.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539