Conversely?

[jose]

If the old system/selection method of backing a last start winner if it starts again inside 7 days is profitable, the opposite may well be true too.

ie: Lay a last start winner if it has not started within, say, 28 days.

The reasoning being that if a horse is going well then the connections would start it sooner than 28 days from a win.
If it has not started for >=28 days it may have had a setback of some sort which would also make it a risk.

Can one of the database gurus run it through for me please.
Also maybe 14 days, 21 days etc.
A thousand thankyou's in advance, jose.

[Guitar Jim]

Backing a last start winner if it starts again within 7 days is *guaranteed* to produce a long term loss; if that's the only criteria for the selection. It's simply impossible to win, long term, this way.

There's no easy way to permanently make a genuine profit from backing horses. The tiny, tiny amount of successful, professional punters ALL work unbeliveably hard and diligently year in and year out in order to produce several percent profit on turnover. Any other approach is just pure gambling and in this day and age will definitely not produce *genuine and permanent* earnings.


Successfully making money on the punt is a complex and difficult career path.

I think the hobbyist though has an extremely hard time accepting and believing that. There's probably thousands and thousands of hobbyist punters all over Australia who believe they can achieve a *genuine* profit. They'll look at their great results from last week/month/year and be convinced. Good luck to 'em; I guess everybody needs hope in their lives.

The mathematics of gambling on horses is based around the fact that virtually everyone (except a knowledgable professional) MUST lose eventually. The government and TAB's are guaranteed their profit for obvious reasons, and the bookie will ALWAYS win unless he *gambles*...... so the loser MUST be the punter. That's the facts of life.

I hate to put a dampner on your hopes, but laying horses in the manner you desire will also not provide a window to a genuine, permanent profit.

It's harsh I know, but it's the truth.

[Bhagwan]

Stop frightening us Mr.Guitar Jimmy , I know we can all win , I just know it.

Jokes aside , punting to lay horses can be a very risky business .
Because one is dealing with prices similar to place betting & we all know what that feels like , its like trying to paint ice hoping we dont become unstuck.
In lay betting for those who dont already know , the biggest profit is finding short priced horses that we fell will fall over, the shorter the Favs price for the win the greater the price if it falls over .
The higher the price ,the lower the lay price.
If any of them get up to win instead of loose, say 1 in 6 lays you more than likely will loose.
It is very difficult to find false Favs , possible the best one can do is approx 20% of those we deam will fall over will indeed win, which guarantees you will loose if laying them on the prices on offer.

If one want to prove this to themselves.

Pick one paper Fav from each meeting , say this Sat that we feel should fall into a glorious heap. There well be approx 10 meetings to target , thats 10 favs for one to select.
Now I can almost guarantee 2 of those 10 will win , which means you would have lost money if one were to bet on all 10 to fall over.

I know it sounds a bit strange , but no matter how hard you try to find the false fav , 20% will still win . Weird is`nt it.
One stat I uncovered was that in maiden races 1110M & less .
Favs starting from barrier 1 had only a 15% chance of winning based on 5 years of results.


I cant help feeling that place betting would be a more comfortable option to the average punter because the initial outlays are far less & the divs one is dealing with are similar.

As for last start winners in the last 7 days.
The stats show that it is the distance of exactly 1200m & must be $4.00+ in the pre-post market that produces the strongest results & with a few filters, can show a profit , one of my systems I use, is based around this & has shown profits over the last 5 years.
Maybe the reason for this is that it might attract the specialists in this distance range.

If you want a simple system based around Favs , here it is, free...

Pick one meeting & one meeting only for each day of the week.
1)Target the TAB fav to win $5 with a $300 bank & recovering all losses until a winner is struck, using the TAB prices at jump time .
Make your min divisor 2.50 even if the price on offer is less than this.
Accept any small losses that may come from doing this .
2)Stop at the first winner for the day.
3)If all 8 races loose, start afresh the next day.
Do not carry any loses over to the next day.

You will see that there will hardly be a day when one wont get up for you.
Sometimes one will find that there are dual favs, say $0.10 apart , back the one with the best Wt.Rating as per TABQ (e.g.100Ptrs) or any other
Wt. rating source.

This $5 represents 1.66% to starting bank & over say 7 days , represents 11.62% for the week, on you starting bank of say $300 = $35 profit

[Shaun]

The problem with that is get 1 day with no fave and it takes 60 winning days to get back the money you lost

[Chrome Prince]

If the old system/selection method of backing a last start winner if it starts again inside 7 days is profitable, the opposite may well be true too.

ie: Lay a last start winner if it has not started within, say, 28 days.

The reasoning being that if a horse is going well then the connections would start it sooner than 28 days from a win.
If it has not started for >=28 days it may have had a setback of some sort which would also make it a risk.

Can one of the database gurus run it through for me please.
Also maybe 14 days, 21 days etc.
A thousand thankyou's in advance, jose.

Hi Jose,

Last Start winner within 7 days = 18.39% Strike Rate, 3.69% Loss on Turnover.

Last Start winner within 7 days 8 to 14 days = 14.85% Strike Rate, 17.06% Loss on Turnover

Last Start winner within 7 days 15 to 21 days = 13.76% Strike Rate, 16.92% Loss on Turnover

Last Start winner within 7 days 22 to 28 days = 12.52% Strike Rate, 19.33% Loss on Turnover

While you are on the right track, it is the price at which you are able to lay the selections which will determine your success. You'll find that you need at least a 20% loss to start winning, because of the odds people will accept.

[jose]

Thanks fellas.
Hey Chrome thanks a bundle for that.
Those figures more or less support what I was trying to get at ie: that the longer between runs from a win the worse the strike rate.
Now surely it is just a matter of tweaking it a bit to get it into lay territory.

Maybe:
- price cutoff of $4:00
-Up in dist by >=200m

could push it into profit territory.

[BJ]

In lay betting for those who dont already know , the biggest profit is finding short priced horses that we fell will fall over, the shorter the Favs price for the win the greater the price if it falls over .
The higher the price ,the lower the lay price.
If any of them get up to win instead of loose, say 1 in 6 lays you more than likely will loose.
It is very difficult to find false Favs , possible the best one can do is approx 20% of those we deam will fall over will indeed win, which guarantees you will loose if laying them on the prices on offer.



Now considering that more than 30% of favourites win. If you lay favourites and only 20% of those win, how will you lose exactly?
The answer: Unless you are laying the favourites for more than an average of $5, you won't.

The favourite is determined by the punters money, not somebody framing his market in some newspaper. If you are going to lay favourites, at least wait until you know the approximate odds it will be paying.

[jose]

B,J that is exactly the tree I was barking up.
If they are laid @ <$4:00 then maybe, just maybe, we can glean a profit from them.
Do you have any stats/figures along those lines?

[punter57]

Guitar Jim. In post 2 you referred to the bookies beating the punters (making a profit) AS A MATTER OF COURSE, just as the TABs do.I'm wondering if you could tell us how bookies arrive at their prices? This is not a dare, a challenge or any kind of attack. I've asked this many times and despite being assured it's "not rocket science" or "it's no riddle" or similar, no-one has PRECISELY explained it. Can you? Could you give an example? As you are aware, if ten Forum Members did their ratings in isolation there would be quite a discrepency between them, but NOT with the bookies (watch opening markets at the races). There is SOME with the bookies but not that much. Thanks, and hoping to read you (or anyone else who could enlighten us), P57

[Guitar Jim]

Bookies frame their market based on their personal assessment of each runner, however, this is not what they put up on their boards when comes the time to accept bets. They will put up whatever prices they think the punters will fall for (these prices always advantage the bookie of course) and often these prices are almost identical to the TAB prices of many runners (primarily the more favoured horses as they are often overbet). Also on the longshots a bookie won't generally offer huge odds like you often find on the TAB. Also a bookie is influenced by what prices other bookies put up.
As betting progresses prior to the race, the punters will themselves influence the displayed prices, but if the bookie is doing his job properly and not gambling his market will always be framed so that at the end of the day he's virtually guaranteed to come out in front, even if he loses on some races.
That's my understanding of it.
But I'm not an expert on this rather precise subject.

[Dolus]

Punter57

I'm glad I am not the only person in the world who would like to know exactly how bookmakers arrive at their prices.

Speaking from a UK perspective, the early prices offered by different Bookmakers are almost identical, which makes me believe they are all getting them from the same source or they are all using the same method to price up.

It seems like a secret black art that no is willing to divulge, probably with good reason. I asked our national racing paper , no answer. When bookmakers advertised postions for odds compilers I replied saying I was interested but, how do you become an odds compiler. They seem to have a stock answer, that you have to start at the bottom and work your way up.

You would have thought that someone somewhere would have written a book about it. I have heard that in times past you could go to evening classes and attend bookmakers school.

[punter57]

Dolus. I'm tending to the view that the bookies association is something like the freemasons, ililuminati, or some bunch like that as there NEVER appears to be someone with the straightforward answer, willing to go public ANYWHERE. Good to read you.

Guitar Jim. Thanks for your reply. I 100% agree that the bookies are putting up prices they think we'll fall for, and always in their favour, but that is begging the question of what makes them so sure IT IS IN THEIR FAVOUR. This is why I'd like to know how they do it. So many punters have extremely complex formulas for arriving at their own "prices needed" for each race, that I'm wondering why these punters can't simply wipe the bookies out. ie the bookies think it's 10-1, Kerry Packer thinks 2-1(and is more correct than the bagmen) and puts 20,000,000 on it!! Maybe he loses twice but when he's right it's 200 million!!
As far as I understand the bookie biz today, it is no longer a case of making an "over-round" balanced unbeatable "book" anymore. If not, then they are "gambling". How come so successfully?? Cheers, and hoping for help.

[KennyVictor]

Punter57 (and others),

When you make a best fluc bet at Centre racing they state that:

Best Fluctuation is guaranteed to be paid at the top Official on-course bookmakers’ fluctuation as determined by the Bookmakers Pricing Service (BPS).

Maybe this Bookmakers Pricing Service is the holy grail we are after.

KV

[BJ]

B,J that is exactly the tree I was barking up.
If they are laid @ <$4:00 then maybe, just maybe, we can glean a profit from them.
Do you have any stats/figures along those lines?

No I don't have any stats. Just an observation from the post I was replying to, I didn't really see the point.

As far as laying favourites goes. Betting on the tote purely on favourites, a punter will return ~90% of their money. Therefore if you lay every favourite within 10% of the tote price, you must win in the long run.

?

[Guitar Jim]

http://justracing.com.au/thoroughbreds.php?catid=28 This webpage explains bookies percentages. This is why bookies must win.
They know how to work the percentages.
If a bookie frames his market to a high percentage, and the mug punters fall for it, then that bookie would have a smile on his face from ear to ear.

[Dolus]

I reckon the bookmakers could put up any price they liked about a race with regards to the majority of punters. They need prices to protect themselves against the few clever dicks who know the score.

Nobody really knows what the odds are about a horse winning, and that includes the bookmakers. They just aim to take a percentage of the book. Having seen bookmakers interviewed on the TV they don't seem to care whether a horse is percieved to have a chance or not. They just want to take as much money as possible and when they have enough they shorten it and push another out to get some cash on that. Lets face it if they aim to make 10% on the book then 10% of $25,000 is better than 10% of $10,000.

There was the ridiculous situation earlier this summer at a meeting where the bookies were losing hand over fist as all the favourites were winning. It was the last race and they wanted to get the favourite beat and were pushing the price out.

On the other side of the coin there were the big four bookies who operate chains of shops on a national scale and they had huge liabilies on the last race with lots of combination bets running onto the favourite. They were sending money to the track to shorten the price by backing other runners. As soon as the price shortened the course bookies were pushing it out again. It was constantly see-sawing between 2/1 & 9/4.

I also have a feeling (no proof) that each race priced up includes a bogey horse. That is one that is a lot shorter than it should be. This would have two effects. A lot of Punters rely heavily on the price to make their choice and it would allow the bookie to make the prices on some of the outsiders appear more generous.

[punter57]

Dolus and Guitar Jim. We all know the bookies make an over-round book and then let the odds fluctuate as demand waxes and wanes, hoping to end up with a situation where any result is a winner for them. However (please think about this Jim), as Dolus noted the bookies were getting a caning in the first seven races in his example. They were NOT succeeding despite the over-round. The reason is simple: they were making mistakes vis-a-vis the punters.
For example, Jim, they may have had a $3 fav (ie33%) and seven other runners in the first race at $7 (ie 7 x 14% =98% ) which means a "book" of 131%. What they want is only 25% of the money on the fav so that IF it wins their liability will be only 75% of the money bet and they'll have 25% profit. Of course they also want about 11% of the money on each of the others so that on each of them it's only 77% liability. Unfortunately a large amount of well-informed money (ie you or me) thought the fav was really an even money shot AND BET THE LOT. The bookies were now left with 50% of the money on the fav (ie 150% liability), furiously shortening the price, but all too late. Race after race it goes something like this. Comes the last race and the very same situation EXCEPT one of the $7 pops gets up (Horse H) and finally the bookies cheer!! UNTIL the bookies clerk leans across and says "we didn't get 11% for each of the seven non-favs, we only got 5% on B,C,D,E,F and G but someone plonked 47% on H =77% (now it's a massive and total annihilation). This is a result of we, the punters being as well informed as the bookies, framing our own(better) market and awaiting the right time to move (ie not necessarily betting BIG unless we are "sure" we have an edge).
Of course,this rarely happens but IT COULD. Why doesn't it? Any ideas? Or, even if the "mass" of punters are not smart enough to see the 2-1 fav as being dramatic overs (ie it should be evens) and then there is no 50% of the money landing on it, why can't you or I be perennially on the "right ones"?
Let me know further. Cheers.

[Guitar Jim]

Punter57, when those bookies were "behind" because of all those favs. winning *they were really NOT behind at all*, that's worth repeating a hundred times * they were really NOT behind at all*. The reason why is because of the laws of mathematics regarding the situation.
A bookie knows, because of the applied maths, that those *seemingly* successful bets WILL NOT continue to be successful, and there's a 100% guarantee on that. Those punters would have falsely thought they beat the bookies with those bets on the winning favs. The next week they would have re-invested some of those winnings , then the week after, then the week after etc etc etc. All the money the bookie seemingly lost on his so called bad day, he will re-coup, he MUST..... because the odds and percentages are in his favour. It's completely irrelevent whether those punters re-invest those winnings over 1 week or 10 years..... the exact same laws of mathematics and averages apply. The ONLY way those punters who won on that day can keep their profits is to NEVER bet again on the horses... they must lose long term, because the odds and percentages are NOT in their favour.
This is also the reason why people believe they have winning methods or systems...... they check both past and present results and they think it wins; after all the results are there to see. They then start operating it in the real world and sure enough, after the first few months, or even years, they are in front; whoopie! A "winning system" they believe.
Little do they know that at some point they will begin to lose, they'll still be confident though and expect to re-coup the inevitable losses. Eventually the system will fall behind and the poor punter will be dumfounded, completely mystified as to what's happened. Well, I'll tell you what's happened....... the bookies have gladly accepted this punter's bets fully safe in the knowledge that the percentages are on the bookies side and they know that eventually the bookies must win.
That's the reality of the cruel world.

At the end of your post you mention the punters getting the better of the bookies on a fav. bet and being better informed than the bookies (at least regarding this one fav.): And you ask why this can't happen more often. Well, I'm afraid those punters were definitely NOT better informed, just as the bookies are not better informed when the bookies win. Because of the very, very, simple law of averages the punters MUST back favourites that win races .. that's obvious. When a Fav. romps in the punter *thinks* he beat the bookies with logic and insight....... the law of averages dictates that a certain number of favs. MUST win...... they MUST win regardless of whether the punter has greater or lesser knowledge than the bookies.
And like I sad, the punters will eventually re-invest the money they *think* they won.... they will eventually end up back at square one and wonder how it happened.
It's all about percentages... it's not about picking winners.
The only chance for probably 99.9% of punters to win is this.......... firstly make sure you are not behind with your punting to date (this refers to your entire history of betting over your entire life to date..... this of course disqualifies nearly everyone), now start betting using any method whatsoever you desire; set a profit goal and as soon as you reach that goal....... quit betting for life. For close to all of us, there's no other way to make a *permanent and genuine* profit on the punt.

[punter57]

Morning Guitar Jim. We are kind of going round in circles here. The question is: how do the bookies arrive at the odds BEFORE they load them up.We punters arrive at our "prices" through a process which may be the same or similar or radically different to the bookies and it is very possible we COULD be better. Everything you said is correct for mechanical devices etc (ieRoulette/Keno/Craps etc etc) as the "edge" is a direct calculation plus "house advantage". Any person with even the most basic maths ability could estimate that a dice has six faces and each has 1 chance in six of coming (ie5-1). Put the dice up at 4-1 per face and the dice owner couldn't lose long term ( as you've made a "correct" book of 120%). Then go back to Dolus' example in his most recent post.Dolus' dice was set to about 160% but he was too smart to take any of the unders (#1-4) nor the "correct" odds (#5) though plenty of others DID. He only took "overs", on #6. This can only work for BOTH sides (ie setting a CERTAIN book of "unders" or recognising a CERTAIN over) if the CERTAIN, correct, underlying odds are known.
It would be pointless a bagman putting Sunline at 20-1 plus 25% and some hopeless maiden at evens plus 25%, then announcing his book was 125%!! The bookie STILL has to get the underlying (set to 100%) odds right. Any ideas how they do THIS better than punters??
This also shows the flaw in saying punters MUST bet favs. If the fav (ie the one the bookies put as the shortest priced) is obviously unders, only a small percentage would bet it. This will definitely wipe a bookie out (over time) as the rest of the money goes elsewhere in the race. Offer Sunline at 20s and NO-ONE will bet on the so-called fav just because it's evens. The bookies odds have to be close to reality BUT better (for them) than reality too. How to arrive at THIS reality Jim?? Cheers

[joelance]

Hi Punter57

How bookies arrive at their opening prices. As no one on here seems to know including myself i have a few suggestions.

You could try emailing the following

Warren Block of Superform
Gary Crispe of Racing and Sports or
How about bookmakers themselves such as Mark Read.

You may not get your answer but its worth a try as these 3 people would definately know how opening bookmakers prices are derived

Hope this helps

Joe

[punter57]

Good advice Joe. I tried this when I lived in Alice Springs. Terry Lillis (this was before the Internet; before Centrebet, before Gerard Daffy). He basically (but politely) fobbed me off with something along the lines of "I have my opinions" This was at a social function at Pioneer Park, and he wasn't annoyed or anything, At the Tennant Creek Cup (1995), I asked a bookie who was staying with friends nextdoor to my friends and GOT a similar reply. I actually have a slight idea, which you may be interested in Punter57@Hotmail.Com. It came to me SUDDENLY and could provide an answer. However, it's only for "ratings" types (which you are if I recall correctly, from our discussion of High Cee). Cheers

[Guitar Jim]

There's no mystery to this; there never has been.

Bookies arrive at their prices EXACTLY the same way as a fully educated, informed punter would arrive at his prices. Why are the prices often almost identical between bookies? Well, shall we say there's a bit of cross fertilization....... bookies don't do this in a vacuum like an isolated punter living in Humpty Doo might..... they know where each other stands. They'll often these days try to con the early punter by basically putting up prices that can be almost identical to some TAB prices. Also, based on the logic of form, and when when the form is done by educated individuals, most of the time the aprox. order of favouritism is relatively clear. The resulting prices that the bookies arrive at may or may not be what the bookie initially puts up, depending on how he wishes to test the market. ****The bookies don't get their advantage because they are better informed on form..... they get it because they work their percentages.***

[Dolus]

This is American and to do with sports betting as opposed to horse racing, but is interesting and does give an insight to the workings of making an odds line.

http://sportsgambling.about.com/od/sportsgamblingbasics/a/line_making.htm

The impression I get is that the job of odds compiler is pretty high profile and that probably the average track or shop bookie does not know how, or have the time to do it.

Asking an odds compiler 'How do I compile odds' is a bit like asking a car mechanic 'How do I mend my car'. We can all have a go but it takes years of practice to learn all those special little tips & tricks.

[w924]

when it comes to opening odds ,I suspect that bookies are pretty much the same as they ever were. Some (very few in the 90's) do the form properly and thoroughly and convert their ratings to price..some use ratings services to do it for them..but most just copy what the others are doing.
yes bookies also work together..they use each other to lay off big bets to spread the risk, and they conspire in the ring to create false shorteners etc...It's them and us..always has been...

I also agree that the opening odds are just a test of the punters..often shorter odds are put up than what the bookies were actually prepared to offer...no point in putting up a higher price if the punters are freely taking a shorter than rated price...

In a perfect world, for a bookie, a bookie shortens and lengthens the odds to ensure that every runner is backed and the book is set to profit no matter which horse gets up. Bookies have been long complaining that with the "smarter" punters out there that it is more and more difficult to lay every horse in a race... Of course the Bookies dont complain when a race is a "skinner" for them..i.e the fave loses and the bookie did not manage to take a single wager on the horse that won...

One of the reasons why I admired Mark Read so much is that he was never afraid to set his own book early and never waited to see what everyone else was doing first. That is not to say he didnt watch the others during the course of betting..Mark did his own form and stood by it. When he returned to Melb from Sydney some Melb bookmakers were not happy about it. I dont think it phased Read one bit and, as a punter, I was elated..he brought back flair and life into the ring.

The one disadvantage that bookmakers have compared with the punter is that the bookmaker is compelled to stand up for every race at a meeting. (well at least he is supposed to). The punter, on the other hand has the advantage of choosing the good betting races and ignoring the bad. Melb rails bookmaker Michael Faulkner gave this reason for giving up bookmaking and going on the punt... non paying punters may also have been a factor....I dont know whatever happened to him..can someone enlighten me?

[Dale]

In relation to the original post and days since last start i feel days since last start is the most overated piece of form going around...

You always hear the old (insert high number here)% of winners had raced within the last 7,14,21 days blah blah blah,well guess what that is because (insert high number here)% of runners had raced within that time span.

Ever since Vintage Crop won the cup trainers have woken up to the fact that each horse is an individual and performs at its optimum in different ways..

Furthermore if (insert high number here)% of modern day punters are concentraing on days since last start would it make sense to go against the grain?

[w924]

Hi Dale,

"In relation to the original post and days since last start i feel days since last start is the most overated piece of form going around..."

"You always hear the old (insert high number here)% of winners had raced within the last 7,14,21 days blah blah blah,well guess what that is because (insert high number here)% of runners had raced within that time span."

I havent looked at it that way before.... the figures I had gave a higher percentage of winners within the past seven days over the percentage of winners over 14 and 21 days...I assumed , perhaps wrongly, that the sooner they raced the better their chances.

I recall horses backing up after only three or four days after a win and winning again..This applies to trots and gallops. I dont have actual figures..but it suggests that an in-form fit horse can repeat a win.

I personally dont worry about the number of days since last start as a factor myself..my selections come up simply for the fact that the horse won its last start. I dont really care when, but perhaps I am getting over excited when their previous win was only a week ago...

As for that last start winner factor killing prices..I dispute that..there are still longer priced horses to be had. For example Bets Sector would not be able to have a "last start winner longshot plan" without longer prices on offer.

Ive just gone thru my sydney lsw selection winners this year since mid feb, and here they are in order: Syd sATURDAYS this year have been. $17.00, $9.08, $11.30, $26.00 and $9.80..in that order.

I';m surprised that I havent had some shorter ones in there. Remember, these horses had to be $9.00 or longer when the win pool was only 10k. Food for thought...

[punter57]

W924. Hi! There is a standard problem with many systems: people say things like "20% of winners won their previous start " and then you find out that 30% of THE RUNNERS going around are LSWs. Or "3 year olds have a poor record in the Melbourne Cup" until it turns out hardly any go round in the first place and that the 10 wins they've had (or whatever) is PROPORTIONAL to the number who tried it. Or "50% of winners were close-up (<5 lengths) in their previous start" and it then turns out that 70% of today's runners fit this criteria. And so on and so on. The only way any kind of statement about days/lengths/places etc can have any value (in making a profit) is if the average odds of the winners having THAT attribute is greater than the proportion of the runners having THAT attribute. Thus fail all attempts to follow jockeys and trainers if you aren't VERY selective. Beadman may win 10 Group 1s this year and be touted as a"Big Race" jockey but of what use is it if he rode 40 times in G1s (ie he has both the most wins AND the best SR) if his 10 wins averaged out at $3 EACH. Meanwhile Zac Purton has only 1 win (say) in 40 rides (very few and rotten SR) but it was at 50-1. What if this happened every year for a decade?? All those Beadman victories would surely blind the majority of punters to the difference between CASHING A LOT OF TICKETS and MAKING MONEY!!
As for LSW it has more to do with the perceived "class" of the LSW than anything else. Some people may bet blindly on that "1" in the guide but their money is very DILUTED by all the "1"s you'll find most days. cheers.

[KennyVictor]

I havent looked at it that way before.... the figures I had gave a higher percentage of winners within the past seven days over the percentage of winners over 14 and 21 days...I assumed , perhaps wrongly, that the sooner they raced the better their chances.

I recall horses backing up after only three or four days after a win and winning again..This applies to trots and gallops. I dont have actual figures..but it suggests that an in-form fit horse can repeat a win.


I agree with this. The only bonus I give a horse for recent runs is if it's in the last 6 days. Shows it's fit and didn't suffer any ill effects from its last race.
I've noticed a few run twice on the same day in little country meets in WA - don't think I'd bonus those though. :-)

KV

[w924]

Many thanks to Punter57 and Kenny Victor for your valuable comments..."As for LSW it has more to do with the perceived "class" of the LSW than anything else. Some people may bet blindly on that "1" in the guide but their money is very DILUTED by all the "1"s you'll find most days. cheers."

Yes..that is where the combining of ratings with a selection method takes care of the class factor. Call me lazy, but using freely available ratings takes into account all these factors such as class, jock, trainer ..the lot. I would not use a straight mechanical system without ratings, and likewise I dont habve the time nor the inclination to manually do ratings myself. I understand those who get their enjoyment from doing the ratings. It is an art. I'll say art rather than science..because my logic tells me that if it was an exact science every ratings person would arrive at the same selections. Clearly, this does not happen

"The only bonus I give a horse for recent runs is if it's in the last 6 days. Shows it's fit and didn't suffer any ill effects from its last race."

I can fully appreciate your logic there K.V. many a winner in the Spring carnival backs up like this and wins easily. Ive noticed here in NZ, where they sometimes have trots twice at a track over a three day weekend and often the winners on the last day were also winners on the first day. Ive only noticed this as a casual observer as I am not a trottting person.

[Stix]

when it comes to opening odds ,I suspect that bookies are pretty much the same as they ever were. Some (very few in the 90's) do the form properly and thoroughly and convert their ratings to price..some use ratings services to do it for them..but most just copy what the others are doing.
yes bookies also work together..they use each other to lay off big bets to spread the risk, and they conspire in the ring to create false shorteners etc...It's them and us..always has been...

I also agree that the opening odds are just a test of the punters..often shorter odds are put up than what the bookies were actually prepared to offer...no point in putting up a higher price if the punters are freely taking a shorter than rated price...

In a perfect world, for a bookie, a bookie shortens and lengthens the odds to ensure that every runner is backed and the book is set to profit no matter which horse gets up. Bookies have been long complaining that with the "smarter" punters out there that it is more and more difficult to lay every horse in a race... Of course the Bookies dont complain when a race is a "skinner" for them..i.e the fave loses and the bookie did not manage to take a single wager on the horse that won...

One of the reasons why I admired Mark Read so much is that he was never afraid to set his own book early and never waited to see what everyone else was doing first. That is not to say he didnt watch the others during the course of betting..Mark did his own form and stood by it. When he returned to Melb from Sydney some Melb bookmakers were not happy about it. I dont think it phased Read one bit and, as a punter, I was elated..he brought back flair and life into the ring.

The one disadvantage that bookmakers have compared with the punter is that the bookmaker is compelled to stand up for every race at a meeting. (well at least he is supposed to). The punter, on the other hand has the advantage of choosing the good betting races and ignoring the bad. Melb rails bookmaker Michael Faulkner gave this reason for giving up bookmaking and going on the punt... non paying punters may also have been a factor....I dont know whatever happened to him..can someone enlighten me?
He runs his own tipping service to a small collection of private clients............

[crash]

Oh, needs to sell tips to make a buck:-))

[Chrome Prince]

How did a two year old thread get dragged up ;)

Some very interesting reading in there, great to see some of the thoughts still working today, and in fact the original poster's idea is working quite well two years on ;)

With a bit of selectivity.

[Top Rank]

funniest thing about that old thread was, why was Guitar Jim even on the forum. According to him, you could'nt win, you don't win, give up.
Barrell of laughs kind of guy.

[Guitar Jim]

funniest thing about that old thread was, why was Guitar Jim even on the forum. According to him, you could'nt win, you don't win, give up.
Barrell of laughs kind of guy.No, you're dead set wrong ol' boy........I said nothing of the sort.

What I said was close to all punters couldn't win (long term): This means that there's a mere handful of skilled, professional punters who can and DO win (long term). Australia has over 20 million people, and there's only a mere "handful" of them who make a "permanent", full time, professional profit on the punt (it's a "FULL TIME" job requiring many long arduous hours of "WORK, WORK and more WORK"; every day, every week, every month and every year)........... the other "MILLIONS" of losing punters don't, and will never, properly understand this. That's why , over a lifetime, they lose on the punt. The hard, real world solutions don't interest them; they want the profits to come more easily.

[Maurice]

I guess this guy's right, but did he really come back from such a large spell, WaW...what a long time between posts...it suppose to be something like 0.2% of the public population can make a living solely gambling on speculations of racing, stocks, sports etc.

I find it amazing no matter where i go or what i read, everyone seems to know at least a few of these rare birds. I know a guy who...., or i know many a professional a punter who makes money using ......or recently dining with my good friend Mr Vegas, at Jupiter's casino, he let me in on a method in which he has success before departing on his private jet flying to his mansion at York-Beverly Hills.

Then of course , there are those who sell, they have been around forever.

BUT also there are those who have spent so much time and money at this, they are not losing anything worth worrying about or making anything for that matter, but now try to collect kudos with apparent knowledge to feed their inflated ego, rather than make an attempt to win real money.