Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Hi,heres the situation.I have arace that in the last 5 years has had a a max field of 20.I have found a stat that has given the winner in 2 in the last 5 years.
University educated friends have told me that its just a coincidence.My assertion is that awinner in 2 in a 20 runner race is a 10-1 chance,combined together in 5 consecutive years is 10x10x10x10x10=100,000 to 1,at my calcs.
Coincidence or not whose right?.
University educated friends have told me that its just a coincidence.My assertion is that awinner in 2 in a 20 runner race is a 10-1 chance,combined together in 5 consecutive years is 10x10x10x10x10=100,000 to 1,at my calcs.
Coincidence or not whose right?.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 20
|
By:
Hard to say from the info given but it looks more like your friends are right, I'm sorry.
The problem is more complicated than you imply. If you stuck a pin in the race, you'd expect to get the winner once in every 20 runnings. Agree so far? But say the pin hit a 100/1 chance - would you want to bet it? Yet if the pin hit the 5/4 favourite you'd lose money because it would be 20 years before you expect to get another winner (and it's still more likely to lose than win). |
|
By:
Well Pete i see what you are saying, but surely you couldnt hit the winner with two stabs in a single year, let alone 5 consecutive years?.
Is there some other info that you want?,thought it was straightforwad?. |
|
By:
There are a lot of other factors. It's just that I quickly get bored typing
 Say you were picking with a pin. You'd expect to get a winner one time in 20; but the odds against you getting two winners out of 5 are not 19 x 19. Here's a quick explanation... Year 1 - odds of getting a loser = 0.95 (95%) Year 2 - ditto Year 3 etc. ditto Therefore the odds of getting 5 losers in 5 years are 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.95 = 0.77 (77%) The odds against getting one winner out of five = 5 x(0.95 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.05) = 0.2 (20%) (Note that we multiply by 5 because any of the five years will count). The odds against getting 2 winners when selecting at random for 5 years are... 10 x ( 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.05 x 0.05) = 0.02 (2%) - The 10 comes from accepting 2 winners whatever year they occur. This means that getting 2 winners out of five by totally random selections is about a 50/1 chance. As we know, 50/1 chances come up. Not often, but often enough to be unremarkable. |
|
By:
Maybe i havent explained it correctly,its a winner EACH year from 2 selections,on 5 consecutive occasions.
|
|
By:
Pete ive read yours again.its not "two winners WHICHEVER year they occur",I'm talking about a winner EVERY year!!.
|
|
By:
pipey...cut the chat & tell us the race & the 2
 |
|
By:
This is the thing that amazes me Trev,as regards "cut the chat".There is no chat!!,theres no discussion!!,nothing,anybody would think we were at pond level.
I reckon the problem is that too many people watch never mind the buzz**** et al, and talk 3 steps adeparted from what they actually mean, and everybody is supposed to be on their wavelength and understand them. I actually went on "lay a day",asked a question and got answers to a different question,almost as if they preempted what they thought my next question was going to be!!.;still didnt get an answer to my original question. I still have no answer to my question here,winner in 3 does not mean, winner in 3 years etc.Look i admit perhaps it wasnt a clear question originally,so can we get a definitive answer first,before we continue.Not much point in continuing if i'm barking up the wrong tree?. |
|
By:
If the race your quoting has all the horses with an equal chance then your calculation looks right except
for the 10/1 which should be 9/1 ( as in 10% chance = 1/10 = 9/1 odds ) Obviously this would be massively significant. But if the race you are quoting is say a 20 runner Maiden where most of the runers have little chance and your 2 slections are 4/5 and 7/2 on average in each of the 5 races it will only probably be slightly significant. |
|
By:
Actually Tinker its a 20 runner handicap.Only discovered it last year.Lets take The Royal Hunt cup as another example.I found a winner in 4 horses stat [32 runners at the time]that had about 4 or 5 years of success consec.It was nice that in the next 2 years that it lasted,of the 4 each year i actually fancied very stongly one of them in each of the 2 years,7-1 and 33-1+ winners followed in those 2 years.
So unearthing stuff like that is useful,albeit exhausting.Thats my take on it,i still say that my University friends are wrong,and i'm still waiting for a definitive answer from someone,one way or the other. Bill The Bloke may well be correct tho,maybe ive misunderstood his post?,i dont know. |
|
By:
I misunderstood your original post, pipey.
Really, the answer to your question is: it doesn't matter what your chums say - if you have confidence in your system then put your money behind it and enjoy your winnings. |
|
By:
Thank you Pete,sorry about the misunderstanding,very decent of you to reply.I'm off out for the next few days.But would like to hook up with clever punters,who could narrow down my selections,i.e.Aintree, Cape Tribulation/American Spin race,exacta in 4, tricast in 5,top 8 filled the first 4.
Obviously!!!,a good result,not always so,but if anybody can narrow them down?,and improve it say down to 2 i would be most interested. I'm only interested in a mutual exchange of talent,in case anybody has the idea that this is some kind of Advertisement/scam/con.No exchange of money. |
|
By:
2 in 20 = 1 in 10 = 9/1, no??
|
|
By:
Pipedreamer, if you have discovered an edge, then
keep it to yourself, otherwise the prices go and you will regret being a fool. Many, many years ago I was at Manchester races and was approached by a middle aged bloke accompanied by a teenaged girl, he wanted to know my opinion for the 3rd race, I told him that RAINCOAT would win that race, the horse won and I was not approached again until the 5th race, whereupon I told him that the race was between 2 horses, the favourite won the race (which was one of the two) at 9/4F, it was only after I had drawn my winnings from the tote double, I realised that I had reduced my winnings because of that extra ticket, he found me to thank me, but I regretted that error. |
|
By:
Yea Bazaar,a point well made.I dont have any intention of sharing with anybody, unless they prove that they can help me.Put it this way,10 decent punters each giving their top 4 in a big handicap would improve things[one would think!].Where selectoions matched it would obviously constitute a bet.
But where does one find clever people?,even people that are clever about anything?.I asked people in commodity dealing about Gold in 1998.They said that it was unlikely to go up.Only a little research yourself told you that they were wrong. You see so called people that are supposed to know stuff,ONLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TOLD,and merely act as a mouthpiece,and they foolishly believe that they know something. I've seen punters walk into a bookie shop and read the racing papers and the analysis of tipsters of those papers,and then declare that they have found the winner by their own thought process.Try telling them that they have only analysed SOMEBODY ELSES ANALYSIS,and they dont get it!. In 40 years of punting,i have never known a more difficult time to pick winners,its dreadful,typical is the 1000 winner hailed as a wonder horse,sectional times dont lie they said.Then fades poorly in the Irish 1000.I have been reduced to using systems and backing horses that i dont even fancy[yes ive chucked out many a big priced winner!!]. Most punters seem to select "the usual suspects",my system suggests horses like Spanish Don,Royal Athlete, Moyenne Corniche etc,Backing them is another thing!!!!!!!!!!,many a clanger!!cue paper headlines "punter at racetrack inconsolable,likely to go mad". The thing is,is that you are faced many times with a Question.A horse is the outsider of 24,you think its the best horse by far in the race,and the question you ask yourself is,how can i be right and everybody else wrong?.So you end up having Peanuts on and you then watch the horse Abu Khadra travel in 2nd place all the way round travelling like a 2's on shot,and duly hack up in the November Handicap. I'll stop now,any fancies for the Hunt Cup?p.s.excuse grammar,punc etc. |
|
By:
The way Ascot is you have to wait for the draw, top and bottom six have a great strike rate, funnily enough in the last 4 years you would have profited from going the opposite side on the saturday in the wokingham
|
|
By:
Yes Zilzal,same as Red Roseins year,when Lochsong the group winner,got beat,"in a handicap".
|
|
By:
As I have been backing big race winners ever since 1957, I
ignore the draw as my bets are mainly ante-post, consequently the going does not come into my ruminations, just the fact that, at the time I think that the horse has the best chance, an allowance must be made that I am wrong and accept losers, but overall I've had lots of fun and some success. Most people pretend to be knowledgeable about a lot of subjects, for varied reasons, a fear of being thought an idiot or outright bragging,(hence con-men) loads of them in the horseracing sphere. I find that the accepted highly educated people are the worst, as they expect others to follow because they have been educated to believe in their, propaganda of "born to rule", but it's a bit late when you find out that their "knowledge " is lacking and has cost you, remember in MOST cases YOU are the best judge, consider why a person has become a TV presenter, yet very rarely manages to tip winners, THOMMO is a good example, use your own judgement. |
|
By:
 Quality Baz ! I remember an old adage my Dad used to churn out regularly - 'trust no man less a fool' ! Cue Thommo et al  |
|
By:
If you want my idea of the Royal Hunt Cup, I will keep my counsel
until minutes before the off, on the day and only the winner. |
|
By:
My pick today is MAN OF ACTION.
|