There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
18 Mar 23
13:20
Joined:
Date Joined:
18 Jul 02
Even though i know that Mullins, De Bromhead and Elliott house the best jumps horses in the word I still struggle every year at cheltenham to build a case to back them.
My brain draws me to the english form, as I have watched all those races and I always seem to make the irish horses prices too short in my analysis. I know that this is unconscious bias, but i stupidly ignore it.
For example I never has Galopin at anything under 2/1 when in reality he only had one or two serious rivals. Does anyone else share this.
How do I get around this problem? Should I put some sort of odds adjustment into my prices?
My brain draws me to the english form, as I have watched all those races and I always seem to make the irish horses prices too short in my analysis. I know that this is unconscious bias, but i stupidly ignore it.
For example I never has Galopin at anything under 2/1 when in reality he only had one or two serious rivals. Does anyone else share this.
How do I get around this problem? Should I put some sort of odds adjustment into my prices?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 8
|
By:
Don't think odds adjustment is the right way to go Celtic , you'd admittedly be guessing so which way do you make the adjustment if you don't consider all the facts available.
Could consider a few things though.. Don't bet at festivals ( like myself ) Don't study form ( like myself ) Outside the festivals it'll hardly be an issue as you can continue to ignore Irish racing ( unlike myself ) or just consider following the market when the occasion demands a bet. Good luck whatever you decide  |
|
By:
Watch more Irish racing?
|
|
By:
Why did you think Galopin only had 1 or 2 serious rivals? Was a fair case for most of the field, all the way down and including Sound Russian. But you are right, there are biases lots of punters have without knowing it. Recency bias is also quite a big one. So the last horse that impressed you for the future race will often be the one you make shorter compared to other horses who may at the time have impressed you even more prior to it.
|
|
By:
Yes, recency bias is a huge deal for punters. It's one we suffer from in our own punting, but one we can exploit via incorrectly priced horses.
Confirmation bias (where you cherry pick pieces of evidence that support what you already believe) is also a key issue. I also get talked out of things by tittle-tattle. E.g., I fancied Marine Nationale, but heard he "needs good ground", and Corach Rambler, but heard "he might be using this to prep for the National", so I let a few get away this year. |
|
By:
Very rarely watch Irish Racing i just listen to Ruby and Kevin Blake before Racing they are never far wrong.
|
|
By:
Just because Galopin won doesn't mean that the relatively tight sp was correct. That's the very definition of confirmation bias.
|
|
By:
The way he hacked up says the price could have been shorter
|
|
By:
Of course. Every favourite that hacks up could have been a shorter SP. Shishkin could have won by 10 lengths and people would have said that Evens was a gift.
|