Double your profits

[moeee]

PUNTING TIP.

Everyone knows if you back every favourite you will end up losing.
This is because some of those favourites were in fact well under the odds.
Betting every favourite for level stakes will probably end in a loss of 14% or so.
If you could come up with a selection process that can eliminate much of those "under the odds runners", then it is extremely likely that betting Favourites is very Profitable.
Just say you could do that!
Just say you could turn it around by careful selection and ended up with a profit of 2% using level stakes.
What that means is your runners are paying at 2% over the odds.
Or you could equally say that the runners are winning 2% more races than what their starting price indicates that they should.
DON SCOTT's WONKY WHEEL proved to those of understanding, the necessity of getting VALUE about your selections.
And either I am doing the Math wrong or it is true that if you take those same selections in doubles, then the Profit percentage will double.

It works like this.
Supposing a roulette wheel had 49 Reds and 51 Blacks.
Suppose the house has 100 spins for today.
If the house pays even money on each colour, then the Punter wins $2 for every $100 invested if he only bets a dollar each spin on black.
The next day the same thing happens.100 spins.Another $2 is won for his $100.

100 spins yesterday and 100 spins today will equal 10,000 possible doubles combinations.
And the Punter would have got 2601 of them doubles.
And the house would have paid him 3 to 1 which amounts to $10,404 for an Investment of $10,000
The house lost $404 for every $10,000 bet by the punter.
OR, $4.04 for every $100 bet by the Punter.

JUST IMAGINE WHAT THE PUNTER WOULD HAVE OBTAINED IF HE WAS PLAYING QUADRELLAS.
Would it be 8% Profit or would it be 16%?
Whatever, it is no wonder that the PROFESSIONAL PUNTERS are doing well in the EXOTICS areas.

[crash]

Moeee, there is no neon sign that lights up and says: 'This horse is 2% [pick any % figure you like] over it's true odds!'

The punting myth-busters say: 'the is no such thing as 'true' odds. Not pre-post or starting price true odds anyway.

Sadly, unlike Roulette, horse racing true odds can only be worked out after a race.

[moeee]

Sadly, unlike Roulette, horse racing true odds can only be worked out after a race.

Untrue.

The result of a race is dependant on the immediate circumstances.
If the exact same race was ran the very next day, then it is highly likely that the result would be different, and therefore the calculated true odds after the race would be different than the previous days event.
And if this same race was ran a thousand times over a thousand days, THAT is the ODDS that we are calculating when we do the form and assessment.

[crash]

[QUOTE=moeee]
The result of a race is dependent on the immediate circumstances.
QUOTE]

Exactly.

How can anyone work out true odds BEFORE a race when the result will be dependent on immediate circumstances that happen DURING the race, that we the punter will not know until AFTER the race?

A horse you work out as having true odds of say 10/1 that loses it's jockey during the race, has not got a 10/1 chance of winning, it has no chance of winning. So your 'true' odds would have been false and therefore not true odds at all.

True odds can never be more than an educated guess, if they weren't there would be no horse racing as nobody would take our bets unless we accepted unders [just like the games in a Casino]!

[waggamick]

Agree with Crash and Mooee.
Odds offered by bookmakers or on TAB do not in any way reflect the REAL chances of a horse winning a race.
All they reflect is popular opinion...which is often wrong and is the only reason that punting on horses can exist.
There are so many variables that affect the outcome of a race that the realistic odds are impossible to frame. I've always thought that Bookies get a free ride when they can quote 6/4 in a 12 horse field. TAB pools..the odds on offer and subsequently the punters are influenced by the media, pre-post odds and bookmakers laying off.
Best bet in my opinion is to follow a strong stable or a horse in that stable and using a good staking plan bet on the fact that owners want a return on their training costs and initial outlay.
All the rest (weight handicapping, ratings, percentages) is peopledeluding themselves that there is an easy way of making money...never has been, never will be...usually just another case of mathsturbation.

[Chrome Prince]

Can't say I agree.
Following a top stable does not mean you're any better off usually.
The horses are more overbet than other neddies.

If you were to take the odds offered by bookmakers, the TAB, or Betfair and add the over round or commission - overall you'd be very close to break even or above.
This indicates the accuracy of the price to true chance.
While there are vast areas of under or over pricing with regard to individual horses or races, as a mass, there is no more accurate predictor on volume of bets.
I've just done an exercise with regards to four commercial seperate ratings strategies, and while they do highlight certain areas of value, they certainly haven't been able to beat the overall market consensus.

You can work out true odds before a race...

If you're getting prices on horses and making a profit, you're getting over the true odds, if you're making a loss, you're getting unders.
So, you know that if you keep taking the odds you've been taking, for the sorts of horses or races you've been investing in, then the result will be the same overall.

It's not the horse, or the race that counts, it's the end result.

True odds are not about predicting winners as much as predicting profit.

[moeee]

How can anyone work out true odds BEFORE a race when the result will be dependent on immediate circumstances that happen DURING the race, that we the punter will not know until AFTER the race?

A horse you work out as having true odds of say 10/1 that loses it's jockey during the race, has not got a 10/1 chance of winning, it has no chance of winning. So your 'true' odds would have been false and therefore not true odds at all.


Yes this is true for one particular race.
But then on the next race the jockey falls off another horse and the next race a different jockey.
It is over a period of races that your assessed odds will show themselves as being accurate indicators by the profit or loss on turnover made.

[partypooper]

My 2 cents worth in laymans language, Crash what you say is CORRECT, however, (as Chrome says, the odds are remarkably accurate and close to break even in most cases when commisions are added back) we are talking about many 1000's of races so that 10-1 is calculated INCLUDING the 1 race in 500 when the jockey falls off etc. in the same way as the odds are slighly better (on a sliding scale) the better the draw etc. Overall the book seems to be pretty accurate the lower the price and slightly worse (on a sliding scale) the higher the odds but overall it comes back to the book being set at 118 or whatever, does that make sense?

[crash]

I'd agree with Chrome on the point that the most accurate overall odds is the market. Technically they are not 'true' odds in the accurate meaning of the word of course, but they are as true as we will ever get.

If we consistently only back our selections at better than market TAB odds we can do OK. Provided of course our selection ability/system provides a suitable SR of winning bets.

[Chrome Prince]

I see what you're getting at Crash, no you won't get the "true" odds of a particular horse or event accurate all the time, or in fact all that often.

It's the group of events where true odds can be discovered.

I ask myself if a horse is even money, do I think that this horse would win fifty out of 100 runnings of this race, or more?

Could a 10/1 shot win one in 10 if this race were run 100 times, this does not mean the odds were wrong if the horse wins or loses, because adds are always speculation of future earnings, not a predictor of independant results.

I don't think anyone will get within a bull's roar of true odds for each event.

[crash]

I see what you're getting at Crash, no you won't get the "true" odds of a particular horse or event accurate all the time, or in fact all that often.
I don't think anyone will get within a bull's roar of true odds for each event.

Yep, that's all I meant and that's what we bet on, the next event. To use a well know phrase: 'Horses can be Pharlap one day, Radish the next' !

[waggamick]

I've long time thought that the concept of odds quoted reflecting the actual chances of a horse winning a race are misleading.
It may just be semantics but I feel that most punters(if not all, unconciously)look at a race in light of all of the previous races they have looked at and determine that 2/1 is in fact a fair chance of a 200% return on their investment given the class of the opposition rather than a realistic 1 in 3 chance of winning that particular race.
If odds are a reliable predictor then why is it that only one in three favourites salute?
As far as getting unders on horse from strong stables..it can be likened to the stock market where a premium is paid for shares in a bluechip...the reduced dividend is accounted for in the greater surety of a return.
I look at odds more as market sentiment rather than a true measure of the horse's chance of winning a particular race.
Look at firmers and drifters and see if the return offered is worth the risk.
Interested to know if anyone has heard of any Technical Analysis (a la stockmarket) done on firmers/drifters?

Working on a system that I would greatly appreciate being tested by one of you blokes.
I looked at 4 and 5 year olds in Waterhouse, Hawkes(pre-Ingham split), Freedman and Hayes stables (as well as Mc Donald,Stokes-SA and Heathcote...might get rubbed out on EI move in Qld) and backing them every start from a spell until they win..then drop them until next prep.
Surprising how good the return is on these proven horses.

Based system on:
Eliminating 2 and 3 yo's as they are still being tested for ideal distance and 'placement' for a win by trainer more difficult given experimental nature of younger horses and vulnerability to growth injuries and undisclosed form of opponents;
top trainers won't persist/use up stable accommodation for 4 and 5 year olds that they think are not a good chance of winning a race;
owners won't shell out $30000 a year on training for a 4 or 5 year old that hasn't a very strong chance of winning a race;
top trainers use top jockeys, vets, feed, facilities;
top trainers use own facilities to get horses race fit and most 4 and 5 year olds win within 5 starts of a new prep with a lot getting up in first 3 starts of a new prep;
top trainers want to stay top trainers and;
experience with the horse allows top trainers to set a 4 or 5 year old for a particular race against horse with disclosed form.
Apprecite someone giving this a trial.
Level stakes or bet to clear a hundred on eventual win.

My experience is that trainers want to give owners value for their money and that they avoid situations where the horse in question is odds on (ruioning a chance for the owners to punt) and anything outside 8/1 indicates taht maybe the race in question is not the race it was set for.

[crash]

Some really solid observations there waggamick.

As for firmers and drifters, I've read an article that says more drifters win overall than firmers [what is naturally assumed]. I can't confirm whether it's true or not [?]

4 and 5yr. olds are the best betting targets overall. They are in their prime, have established form and are not yet into the nagging small injuries and even getting sick of the whole game that often starts to appear in 6yr. olds.
Punters of course are the last to know when these older horses are in good all-over condition and 'set' for a race [like older athletes].

We start to see the word 'freshened' very often with horses over 5yrs. old. What that really means is that the horse was bugged-up from a run or had some injury or other health problem attended too [best to avoid these 'freshened' horses]. Generally, 6yr. olds are on their way down and 4yr. olds on their way up. Worth looking at the 4yr. olds in races against older horses, especially over sprint distances 1000m to 1600m.

Following 4 and 5yr.olds from good trainers until a 1st. prep. win only has a lot going for it as the odds stuff up after that. Things can be narrowed down by becoming familiar with the way trainers prep. most of their horses. Mick Price for instance presents horses forward in condt. so the early starts are the ones to be on with his horses.

Different tracks suit different trainers [and jockies] too. For instance, Hayes doesn't make the top 10 at the Valley but his runner's odds will be down regardless:

Bridget Flynn 25.0% [SR]
Price, M G 22.0%
Edwards, J W 22.0%
O'brien, D T 19.0%
Maher, P F 18.4%
Tom Hughes 18.4%
Freedman, D L 17.0%
Fox, Ms K 16.0%
Martin, T R 14.0%
Symons, J G

It's worth checking out who does well where. Punters could do a lot worse than following some good trainers. Some of the highest SR's come from trainers most punters have barely heard off and their runner's odds are not so affected like the big name trainers. They don't present a lot of starters but a punter wouldn't lose out by grabbing a fist full of the better but less know trainers with high SR's and following them and their generally better odds.

[waggamick]

Your roulette analogy only applies given that there is a finite identifiable range of variations.
Red and Black would have to be a two horse race...the same two horses...race after race.
Even the roulette example doesn't stand up given that the House runs a '0'.
Ask yourself why Jamie Packer is selling newspaper businesses and buying casinos.Remember too that when you look at 'value' you have to take into account the %tax the TAb takes as well as the margin a bookie has to allow for their tax.
You never get the REAL ODDS and you cannot work them out given the vast array of tangible and intangible variables.
Insurance companies employ highly paid full time actuaries and pay millions for software and computers and still cannot predict any event with even close certainty...hence their rising premiums after any significant event.
The best we can do is use our experience to judge fair risk/return.Anything else is either us having ourselves on or being manipulated by those wanting to profit from our fears and ignorance.

[crash]

PUNTING TIP.

It works like this.
Supposing a roulette wheel had 49 Reds and 51 Blacks.
Suppose the house has 100 spins for today.
If the house pays even money on each colour, then the Punter wins $2 for every $100 invested if he only bets a dollar each spin on black.
The next day the same thing happens.100 spins.Another $2 is won for his $100.

100 spins yesterday and 100 spins today will equal 10,000 possible doubles combinations.
And the Punter would have got 2601 of them doubles.
And the house would have paid him 3 to 1 which amounts to $10,404 for an Investment of $10,000
The house lost $404 for every $10,000 bet by the punter.
OR, $4.04 for every $100 bet by the Punter.

JUST IMAGINE WHAT THE PUNTER WOULD HAVE OBTAINED IF HE WAS PLAYING QUADRELLAS.
Would it be 8% Profit or would it be 16%?
Whatever, it is no wonder that the PROFESSIONAL PUNTERS are doing well in the EXOTICS areas.

I think this is the post your replying too waggamick. It wasn't my analogy.

[partypooper]

Waggamick, some good stuff there mate, but just one thing you say that I don't agree with, i.e. QUOTE: If odds are a reliable predictor then why is it that only one in three favourites salute?

Well, to me if 1 in 3 Favs. salutes and after adding back the bookies take out, the exercise returns close to break even or even a profit, so I reckon that is an incredible prediction almost spot on in fact?? i.e. on ave. if 1 in 3 of 2-1 shots win isn't that the perfect prediction?

[darkydog2002]

I recall Don Scott writing something in WINNING MORE about betting horses at 7/2 or thereabouts E/W.

Does anyone recall the actual wording?

Cheers.
darky.

[moeee]

Pretty much in that the Bookmakers in their haste to lay these animals, tend to bet over the odds.
And If they are at close to their true odds, then a quarter the win price would be good value as well for the place.

[Mark]

Darky, as far as I can remember he said that if you can get the best odds of every horse that starts between 1/1 - 7/2, then you need never do the form. Backing them e/w returns even more profit.

[darkydog2002]

Thanks Mooee.

Wonder how many actually follow Dons advice here.?

Cheers.
darky.

[waggamick]

Partypooper.....I'm enjoying having a rant about longheld views...mates not interested in my theories and usually buy me a beer to shut me up...that works.
Your idea on faves would stand up if the price in every race was 2/1 the favourite.
What about races where the favourite is Evens..that would imply that the fave wins one in every two races...or 4/6 would mean the fave wins 3 of every five races?
If you go down the 'one in three faves wins a race' road then you are taking unders every time you back a horse at less than 2/1...the logical extension is that the higher the price of the favourite the better the value you are getting...this flies in the face of our herd instinct that says the more people that predict a certain outcome then the more likely it is to occur.
Winning fave Stats tell us that 2 out of 3 times the herd is wrong.
Might be a system in long priced favourites?

Thought of a system once where you(on the TAB) back the Friday paper poll topper for the last race Saturday.
Friday's picks are done on Thursday in a rational calculated way...unless the cadet/coffee boy is busy then he picks as quick as he can...in that case may pay to add up your favoured tipsters who have a reputation to consider.
The last race Saturday sees a lot of drunk money hitting the TAB...full of dutch courage playing up their winnings and going for the big collect...mugs chasing money...and all-ups distorting the pool.
You see blokes late every Saturday lurch their way to the terminal with a glance at the screen for the tote fave and on goes their money...the cumulative effect of the drunk and desparate money sees the fave firm and in come the fluctuation watchers adding to the momentum as the 'fave's' price tumbles.
A good time to get a bit of 'value' about the journo's Thursday pick.
Be interesting to see some work on a system using those rules.

[moeee]

You make sense WaggaMick
You must be Rich.
But somehow you don't sound like a winning Punter even though you seem to understand everything a heeuvva lot much better than most.
I hope I'm wrong and you are a winner.
Then when I go and search through your stuff, maybe I can be a winner too. :)

[Chrome Prince]

Your idea on faves would stand up if the price in every race was 2/1 the favourite.
What about races where the favourite is Evens..that would imply that the fave wins one in every two races...or 4/6 would mean the fave wins 3 of every five races?
If you go down the 'one in three faves wins a race' road then you are taking unders every time you back a horse at less than 2/1...the logical extension is that the higher the price of the favourite the better the value you are getting...this flies in the face of our herd instinct that says the more people that predict a certain outcome then the more likely it is to occur.
Winning fave Stats tell us that 2 out of 3 times the herd is wrong.
.

Nope, don't see it.

The proportion of winning is in direct relation to the price. A 5/1 favourite will win less than one in three, a 4/6 favourite will win more than one in three. You'll lose less, the shorter the price because of price bias, so what?

It is an illogical extension to assume that the higher the price, the more value.
Now, if you were to take advantage of price anomolies elsewhere, that's a whole different ballgame, but to assume a higher price means more value is an invalid assumption.
Many factors are reasons for higher prices, field size being just one.

Let's say we have a favourite at evens in a ten horse field, and in another race the favourite is 4/1 in a ten horse field.
Does this make the second favourite overs????
No, because they win less.

The horse is clearly overs if it is 4/1 with the tote but 7/1 elsewhere.

Considering price only that is.

The biggest mistake made is to assume that bigger prices are more value, and smaller prices are less value. The shorter the price, the less you lose.

The only way to take advantage is to find either a form edge, or a price edge.
In other words, find somewhere where they have mispriced the horse, rather than just accepting that a big price is value.

if you can get the best odds of every horse that starts between 1/1 - 7/2, then you need never do the form

What this means, is getting the best price available, not just backing all the 7/2 shots!

[waggamick]

Mooee,
Not rich!
I'd be ToorakMick or VaucluseMick!
I have a tendancy to think outside the square...which leads to more questions than answers.
I'm in a syndicate with a couple of two year olds and have a 410 bet every now and then.
Learnt(and still learning)from my many punting mistakes.

[waggamick]

and typing mistakes!
$10 not 410

[Chrome Prince]

How do you talk to your fellow syndicate members? :)

[downbylaw]

The last race Saturday sees a lot of drunk money hitting the TAB...Just as the soon to be drunk money hits the greyhounds around 5pm each Friday. It's amazing what happens to the pools with lots of $10' and 20's being thrown in. People love fav's and the #1 box around that time of night.

[darkydog2002]

Thank you Mark.

Its gives me the thought that in that price range using the IAS - OPENING market then multiplying that by 1.2 and ONLY betting those at that price or better.

Whether you bet those at over 7/2 E/W would be a judgement call .

Food for thought.

Cheers and thank you .
darky.

[Chrome Prince]

Darky,

You need higher odds than those unfortunately.
Multiplying by 1.2 still shows a loss.
You would need to get set on all horses at those odds, even the firmers, and that just doesn't happen, unless you secure early odds and 1.20 is available.

The figure is more like a multiplier of 2.0 :eek:

To justify this, I went back through the IAS data I had and recorded where a price multipier of 1.2 or more was available on Betfair.

[waggamick]

How do you talk to your fellow syndicate members? :)Optimistically!
Owned and trained greyhounds...owned and worked pacers...now in a thoroughbred syndicate.
You learn to take the good with the bad...EI, shin soreness, rashes, etc, etc.
Racing (owning, punting and training) is better than all the philosophies and religions when it comes to coping with everyday life. You develop a fatalism to cope with the bad and develop an appetite for risk that when it pays off is well celebrated and recognised for the transient thing that it really is.
PS..thats not how I talk to my fellow syndicate members...they'd sack me on the spot.

[waggamick]

Just as the soon to be drunk money hits the greyhounds around 5pm each Friday. It's amazing what happens to the pools with lots of $10' and 20's being thrown in. People love fav's and the #1 box around that time of night.Mates and I get on the grog after basketball and have had a lot of success backing "5's under 5's",,,that is box 5 under $6....usually indicates smarter ****** punters have spotted a good beginner that wont be disadvantaged out of the squeeze box.
You're right the drunk/mug dough hammers the 1 box irrespective of the ******'s box speed.
We always throw 5 under 5's into first fours..best exotic bet ever given only 8 runners...and pay really good divs.

[Chrome Prince]

Optimistically!
Owned and trained greyhounds...owned and worked pacers...now in a thoroughbred syndicate.
You learn to take the good with the bad...EI, shin soreness, rashes, etc, etc.
Racing (owning, punting and training) is better than all the philosophies and religions when it comes to coping with everyday life. You develop a fatalism to cope with the bad and develop an appetite for risk that when it pays off is well celebrated and recognised for the transient thing that it really is.
PS..thats not how I talk to my fellow syndicate members...they'd sack me on the spot.

Mick, it was a joke, it sounded like your syndicate was full of 2yo kids the way you worded it ;)

[crash]

Simple rules for punting success ?

1. Ignore coat-tuggers
2. Never buy into a race horse :-))
3. Know a track's good jockeys and trainers
4. Work out the difference between knowing when a horse is overs and when a horse is REALLY overs
5. Do the form on the horse and the trainer and work out when a horse is set for a race.
6. See "3"

[waggamick]

Mick, it was a joke, it sounded like your syndicate was full of 2yo kids the way you worded it ;)Actually..I spotted that when I posted it but was too lazy to edit.
In rerospect though...my mate's responses after a 4th and 5th in our first horse's prep...the trainer told them to watch...they couldn't help themselves...on went the dough...and they responded like 2 year olds.
Might have been a Freudian typo!

[waggamick]

Simple rules for punting success ?

1. Ignore coat-tuggers
2. Never buy into a race horse :-))
3. Know a track's good jockeys and trainers
4. Work out the difference between knowing when a horse is overs and when a horse is REALLY overs
5. Do the form on the horse and the trainer and work out when a horse is set for a race.
6. See "3"Have to agree with all of the above plus:
courtesy of my departed dad:
7.Never bet odds on;
8.Never run upstairs and;
9. Don't eat the pies at a postponed meeting.

[Chrome Prince]

7.Never bet odds on;
8.Never run upstairs and;
9. Don't eat the pies at a postponed meeting.

But then again....

You lose less
You get fit
You eat cheap

:D

[partypooper]

Well, at least I know a DEAD horse when I see it! hee hee!