ODDS-ON LOOK ON

[crash]

Well here were we go with this one. Anything expressed here is IMHO only and is no more relevant than anyone else's IMHO:

I try to abide by this rule 'odds-on, look on' most of the time. I sometimes get caught out because I have to put my bet on early or it is a race with few runners and I might go down to even $1.50 SP if I see no competition. Why do I mainly abide by this rule? 'Value, value, value', being subjective, must be arrived at in some way. You can take other people's opinion, or you can do you own price-line.

I do my own price-line. I never read 'tips' or opinion about any horse or race in the press or on listen to racing radio. I am a pure handicapper basing everything on past facts, Stewart's reports, trainer standing, jockey standing, horse history etc. Any 'opinion' colours mine. I avoid that completely.
If my selection happens to start at $10 to $20 SP [extreme example], I just raise my bet!!

How good do you think you are at doing a price-line, for a 5 to 8 horse race, for an 8 to 14 horse race [or more] to find what you consider a fair price or overlay?

How about a stakes, cups or group race ?

At what point do you say 'Odds-on, look on' ?

Or, do you follow the 'any price a winner' philosophy?

Cheers,
Crash

[KennyVictor]

Personally I don't differentiate according to offered price. By that I mean I frame a market to 70% and if the price offered is above mine I'll take the bet. Just means I have to rate the horse well above the rest of the field to take odds on.

KV

[crash]

[QUOTE=KennyVictor..... Just means I have to rate the horse well above the rest of the field to take odds on. KV[/QUOTE]

Regardless of field size? A 19 horse Quality at Doomben?

[DR RON]

Crash, in theory you are right regarding overlay betting. If you can frame a race accurately then in the long term you should come out on top. Not so much on any given day, but in the long term yes. The only problem I have with it is that if you dont rate every race every day, how do know that the races you dont get a chance to bet on for any reason, aren't the ones that you would get many of your winners from. For example for all the horses you rate as say a 3/1 chances that are offered at say 5/1 , many of those selections that you do bet on may lose and the races you dont rate may be the ones where many of them get up. I don't know if I've explained what I'm getting at clearly enough but hopefully I have, and would be interested in your opinion . For example a crisis may occur that keeps you off the punt for say 2 or 3 weeks. You keep the formguides and rate the races after you come back and find out that you have missed many of the value winners that would put you in front for the year. Unless your winners fall into a very consistent pattern then lady luck could play a major part in your success or failure depending on what happens during the races you miss.

When I go with a particular method i think might have merit, i never look at the resullts of the races I couldnt bet on for fear that i missed my best winners.

[lomaca]

For example for all the horses you rate as say a 3/1 chances that are offered at say 5/1 , many of those selections that you do bet on may lose and the races you dont rate may be the ones where many of them get up.
Dr Ron!
An excellent point that, many people (not all) on this forum overlook.
They bet on certain races only, but when looking up past results for guidance, they look at ALL races. Big mistake.
I must qualify, that it applies mostly to people who ask others to look up results for them, without giving sufficient details.
Cheers

[KennyVictor]

Regardless of field size? A 19 horse Quality at Doomben?If I rate a horse at $1.49 in my 70% market and it's paying $1.50 I'll take it. But how often in a 19 horse quality at Doomben do you rate a horse so far superior it is a $1.49 chance (in a 70% market not the 114% or whatever that the bookie offers)? I believe if I rate a horse that much better than the rest of the field it has a good chance of winning so I'll believe what my computer tells me and have a bet.

KV

[crash]

I'd agree with that Kenny. Your on the right road that suits your style as far as I'm concerned. A bit different to mine. but mine is one of many. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Cheers.

[crash]

Crash, in theory you are right regarding overlay betting. If you can frame a race accurately then in the long term you should come out on top. Not so much on any given day, but in the long term yes. The only problem I have with it is that if you don't rate every race every day, how do know that the races you don't get a chance to bet on for any reason, aren't the ones that you would get many of your winners from. winners.

Doc,

Simple. I don't. Nor do I care. There are enough races to select from to bet in to keep me happy. If I miss something that after the event, would have been better, big deal. Another day starts tomorrow.

Lets take today [SAT.] Here are my betable races that should offer me betable fair odds on my selections with only a few possible winners and not 6 [or more] possible winners. You will notice that none of them are stakes or group races: Welters and Qualities class is as fare as my serious money ever gets bet. That's my punting style and other punters have maybe the same or their own approach that works for them.

Melb. R4 and R8. Doomben R5 and R7 Morphettville R6. That's it. The big races and a couple of others I'll have fun bets in. What I miss doesn't worry me, I concentrate on what I think I can nail now and don't worry about what I 'might' have nailed from results. If I can't get my fair price for my selection, I ignore the race. I don't look for another to bet on. Tomorrow starts tomorrow.

[KennyVictor]

The only problem I have with it is that if you don't rate every race every day, how do know that the races you don't get a chance to bet on for any reason, aren't the ones that you would get many of your winners from.
Doc,
Simple. I don't. Nor do I care. There are enough races to select from to bet in to keep me happy. If I miss something that after the event, would have been better, big deal. Another day starts tomorrow.
Must be the silly season, I completely agree with what Crash says here :-).
I look at all the results on days that I don't bet, I cuss when I miss a winner and it used to annoy me but I found I was smiling just as often when I would have had a losing day. Unless you're betting longshots (and miss out on that $200 winner on your day off) it shouldn't take long before things even out.

KV

[crash]

We better be careful Kenny, we'll be sending each other chocolates soon. 8-)

[Chrome Prince]

There have been 22 races where the favourite started at less than $2.00 in a field of 15 or greater.

10 from 22 won
14 from 22 placed

Win loss 4.2 units
Place loss 4.5 units

My rule: "The shorter the price, the bigger the field, the better chance a horse has, so look at obtaining the best price you can"

Big fields usually mean longer prices, where the price of the fave is shorter than normal, bells ring to get on but get a good price elsewhere than the TAB.

These horses have an amazing strike rate, and you would think they would find trouble with other runners etc.

[KennyVictor]

What's that based on Chrome? Sp, Best Tab?

KV

[Chrome Prince]

KV,

The loss quoted is using TabCorp prices.

If you got TopFluc, or Betfair, Austote etc...you'd probably be in front by a fair way.

[Duritz]

I am a pure handicapper basing everything on past facts, Stewart's reports, trainer standing, jockey standing, horse history etc.

Is he a good judge, this Stewart?

[Duritz]

My (proper) addition to the thread:

Theoretically, if you can price a race perfectly, then you bet the overs and you win overall. Mathematically, that's a truism.

However, there are a lot of unknown's which will effect how "perfectly" you price a race. Here's what I often do: I price a race to 100% (something I always like to begin with, b/c it tells me their "true price" IMHO), then convert it to a varying percentage, based on an estimate of the level of unknown.

Lots of first up horse's in the race? Lots of queries. Maybe will price a value market to 60%. Full, exposed form, runners with reliable ratings? 80-90%.

It's basically an insurance policy when the unknown (which is what stops your market being perfect) becomes bigger.

As to the odds on thing, I stay out of odds on runners, and will look for value around them, even if I price them odds on.

Here's a good example - last Saturday I priced (at 100%) Candy Vale $1.80 and Demerger $6.50. Next best, $12+. I thought Candy Vale was a special, I rarely price them in the odds on, esp in Saturday metro's.

However, I had one bet in the race. Demerger. For obvious reasons.

Had I priced Candy Vale $1.60 and $1.80 or $1.90 (or probably even $2.20) was available, I'd still have balked. Why? Because there's one BIG thing that happens to odds onnies that doesn't happen to 10/1 shots. They run them dead and bet around them.

Candy Vale wasn't dead. She was dead unlucky but she wasn't dead. But a SIGNIFICANT enough number are run dead to ensure that if you take odds on, even if you price it overs, you'll get skun.

[crash]

What were the 'obvious reasons' Demerger was a good bet to beat Candy Vale?

I don't take odds-on so I didn't bet the race or bet around Candy Vale either, as it was clearly a genuine fav., that was just very unlucky. Candy Vale was not beaten by a better horse, but by bad luck. It happens, but no one can predict that in advance.

[Duritz]

She was 16/1, I had her $6.50, she was a far better betting proposition.

That's another thing I've found through research - the more horse's you back in a race, the harder it is to profit.

I think the reason for this is also to do with the "unknown" factor. Some races, you're going to get it wrong badly, sometimes due to things form and weights etc can't pick up on. In these races, if you've backed 4-5 chances b/c they're all over your assessed odds, the damage is big. Then, in the race when you're best overlay wins, if again you've backed 4-5 chances, the profit is not as big as it can be.

You get more collects backing 4-5 overlays but you need TOO many winners to show a profit.

I rarely back more than one horse a race, even if I have more than one overlay in my top few selections, and I find that it is a very secure way to bet, b/c you clean up when you have a horse as a big overlay (like Demerger, or Altruist on Sunday at Sale, who I priced $5.70, paid >$22, one bet for the race) and when you get it wrong, you limit the damage.

If you can, research this in your own punting, see if it helps.

As to the luck thing, of course no-one can predict it, but it's going to happen to all horses at some point, which is ANOTHER reason not to take odds on - odds onnies will miss runs also, and possibly more often, b/c other jockeys are often conscious of keeping a shortie "pocketed", and trying to get it beaten by ganging up on it. Think of the way they took on Might and Power in the 1997 Melbourne Cup (and he was 9-2!).

[Sportz]

Demerger was the best horse in the race, and after Candy Vale, the second best winning chance in the race. Was certainly over the odds. Of course Candy Vale had to carry a lot of extra weight too!!! Just about every single tipster, ratings expert, late mail person had her as a good thing. And it takes a special horse to win carrying all that extra weight!!!

[syllabus23]

The best place to get good overlays (other than on the racecourse) is with an online bookmaker who offers fixed odds on (almost) every race

[KennyVictor]

Hey Duritz, that's one of the most inciteful posts I've seen for a while, how lucky we are you didn't go off in a huff after your beer thread was so insensitively cast into the abys. (Your proper additions to the thread are quite interesting too :-).
I'm going to consider reassessing my way of calculating overs as a result of your thoughts on the extra problems which may be encountered by shorties.
I suppose it's possible to assess to some extent the truth of what you say. Over time if your theories are correct the very short priced horses should actually lose more often than their abilities would suggest. If the betting market is as accurate as many people here like to think we should get some sort of regular graph of a horses price against rate of winning (or amount returned through winning bets if you like). The graph should show a downturn around the odds on mark if indeed these short priced horses are getting stomped on by their fellows - run dead or whatever.
Of course there is the possiblility that the average punter is making allowances in the same way you are and the graph will be a straight line but if they are all that clever I might as well give up anyway.
Nevertheless, my own ratings which have no such dead/stomping factor should show some sort of variation.
Anyway, thanks for that post, it's given me something to think about.

KV

[Duritz]

Not a worry.

If I get time later today I'll try to come up with a graph (or at least a table, I can do tables, not so good at graphs!) plotting price against % won, we'll see if there is a downturn.

Be in touch later with that.

PS - I was annoyed about my beer thread too!!!

[Beagle]

Odds-on, running dead etc. reminds me of a race a few years back in Sydney when the hot pot was locked away on the fence and couldn't get out. When grilled by the stewards after the race as to why he didn't get out when an opening appeared the jockey simply said " because the opening was going faster than I was". True story, believe it or not. Seems to happen a lot these days, mainly in small fields.

[Stix]

Odds-on, running dead etc. reminds me of a race a few years back in Sydney when the hot pot was locked away on the fence and couldn't get out. When grilled by the stewards after the race as to why he didn't get out when an opening appeared the jockey simply said " because the opening was going faster than I was". True story, believe it or not. Seems to happen a lot these days, mainly in small fields.Classic....... nice work Beagle..... love it !