Ratings Discussion

[Chrome Prince]

Thought I'd open a discussion on ratings from members.

A common ratings benchmark is to get the highest strike rate from whatever method is used. This becomes the top rated horse and then there is a big distance between strike rate and accuracy, the further one goes down the field.

Surely from my point of view, if one comes up with a rated price and unders is offered, then one should be able to make a profit laying said horses.
Vice versa, if overs are obtained one should be able to make a profit backing.

Often with a rated price, the shorter the odds, the more you make, the longer the price the more you lose - this is the conundrum.

I don't subscribe to the view of distribution, frequency or strike rate as an indicator, it is the value offered by overs or unders of that rated price that reflects the accuracy.

What stands out is the All The Good horse.
Surely 40/1, 50/1 etc was complete overs and the favoured horses should have been a point better odds, yeah all fine in hindsight, but even a class 2 horse who had proven itself over the distance and had been imported by a top UK trainer to contend a Group 1 had to be further clues.

Hindsight too easy after the fact.

My question is, has anyone found accurate ratings anywhere, or been able to make them from scratch, and by accurate I mean, horses starting over the price provide profit, horses starting under the price provide good lay profit?

This is the true indicator of accuracy.

[partypooper]

slightly off track I know but conversly as we all know just taking the lower SP's overall regardless of whether the individual is good value or not (according to who?) the closer to break even and even into profit at odds on, which smashes a lot of theories.

[Chrome Prince]

That is true and the reverse of what should occur if the ratings are accurate.
I've not been able to find ratings that defy this....yet.

[moeee]

Almost anyone can Form a Market.
The usefulness can only be determined over a period of time and events.
Accuracy is not the best judge of success.
The Profit is the only useful judge of whether or not the Prices are any good.
If you get Winning Overs only one race in ten and muck up the other 9 times, it may not matter.
If that one Winner pays more Overs than the other 9 muckups, there could still be room for Profit.

[partypooper]

hey Moeee, that's what I have been saying for years, good onya!!! exactly right!

[Chrome Prince]

So often we hear -

x% of top raters win
x% of the top two
x% of the top three
etc

Whilst that's a good guide to overall performance, it is not a guide to accuracy.

A good example are the unitab ratings. The ratings pretty much breakdown as expected distribution of winners.

However, if one were to bet overlays and lay underlays, one would be severely out of pocket. The market peforms better.

[moeee]

A good example are the unitab ratings. The ratings pretty much breakdown as expected distribution of winners.

However, if one were to bet overlays and lay underlays, one would be severely out of pocket. The market peforms better.

Well then what is being shown in that case, is DUMB Punters are betting heavily on the animals that those ratings are coming up with.
Or perhaps you haven't really looked close enough at the results and are just guessing.
Or perhaps the sample you have used is not Big enough.

[crash]

I agree with Chrome,

'The market performs better'.

[Chrome Prince]

Well then what is being shown in that case, is DUMB Punters are betting heavily on the animals that those ratings are coming up with.
Or perhaps you haven't really looked close enough at the results and are just guessing.
Or perhaps the sample you have used is not Big enough.

Certainly I think it's a case of the first point you make.
I have dissected the ratings closely enough and the sample size is certainly big enough.

I'll post more on this shortly.

[Chrome Prince]

Uggh I just lost a whole page of data, it got deleted :(

[Chrome Prince]

O.K. the premise was that backing the overlays only should return profit and the underlays should return loss.

Going by actual TAB price the reverse transpired.

The shorter the price, the more likely to win and the loss less, the greater the price, the less likely to win and the greater the loss.

[Chrome Prince]

So I do the exercise again, based on 100 raters having an impact value of 2.38 and priced to field size.

Looking at overlays to rated price, I come up with:
3,290 selections
440 winners
13.37% strike rate
$2,692.80 return
$597.20 loss
18.15% loss on turnover.

And this is rated to 100% market.

Clearly the market price is outperforming the ratings by a substantial amount, even though a 100 rated horse is 2.38 times more likely to win.

The reverse scenario is to look at horses under the rated odds to prove the price guide is better than the 2.38 times greater rated price.

2,897 selections
973 winners
33.59% strike rate
$2,538.10 return
$358.90 loss
12.39% loss on turnover

So a horse under the rated price is far more likely to win, and more likely to return less loss than backing overlays.

So the ratings still can't beat the market price despite being 2.38 times better than the raw data.

[Chrome Prince]

So taking this a step further, one would imagine if you could lay a horse at half the rated price and back it at twice the rated price in a 100% market, one should be able to make money.

should

1266 selections obtaining twice the rated price
105 winners
8.29% strike rate
$1,026.80 return
$239.20 loss
18.89% loss

Half the rated price or less

6,185 selections
1,412 winners
22.83% strike rate
$5,230.90 return
$954.10 loss
15.43% loss on turnover

One is better taking lower priced 100 raters, one loses less percentage and nearly three times the strike rate of "overlays".

Market Price is better value than the rating, but the rating is a better guide to winners.

[Chrome Prince]

It is an interesting conumdrum and a clear demonstration of the inadequacy of ratings by comparison to market prices.

Of course, there are ratings that outperform the market, this was never the argument, the argument was the accuracy and value of ratings by direct comparison to market influence.

[wesmip1]

Chrome,

The problem is that most ratings are setup to imprive the strike rate not the profit. Using the impact values for profit instead of strike rate will allow a more realistic rating system that can then be used for overs/unders analysis.

Choosing which values to put into the ratings and how to weight them is the key though and this is also the hardest part.

Good Luck

[Chrome Prince]

Using the impact values for profit instead of strike rate will allow a more realistic rating system that can then be used for overs/unders analysis.


To be honest I'm glad I started this thread because I hadn't even considered your suggestion and it's definitely food for thought.
Thanks wesmip1, that's another idea to test.

Cheers.

[stebbo]

My question is, has anyone found accurate ratings anywhere, or been able to make them from scratch, and by accurate I mean, horses starting over the price provide profit, horses starting under the price provide good lay profit?

This is the true indicator of accuracy.

While I haven't tested laying the horses starting under the price for a profit, the simple answer is Yes. I have ratings which provide a profit for every top rater straight out, and a better profit for every top rater that is an overlay.

They do exist.

[Chrome Prince]

While I haven't tested laying the horses starting under the price for a profit, the simple answer is Yes. I have ratings which provide a profit for every top rater straight out, and a better profit for every top rater that is an overlay.

They do exist.

I think that is really the benchmark. If the ratings provide a profit on overlays, and that profit is in direct proportion to the amount of overlay (20% overlay equals 20% profit rated to 100% market), then you can pretty much brand them value over a decent number of races as a sample.

[moeee]

Its excellent that you have delved into your past figures and are trying to make sense of them.
But this is where you are falling down.
Its your paradigm that is mistaken, not your Ratings.
It has been shown many times that if you backed every single horse that runs, you will lose around 15 % of your investment.
This is not some remarkable figure.
It is not just how it is.
It is the exact same figure that is the deduction that those who run the pools deduct.

Usually if you back those that are under , say $10, the actual loss will be closer to 10%, and if over the $10, then your losses will be closer to 20%.
The reason for that is because those under $10 are actually starting at a price that is pretty much their actual Chance of winning.
Those over $10 , actually have a much less chance of winning than their Markey Price would indicate.

This percentage loss will occur whether you only back the topweights, or if you only back Barrier 1, or if you only back the Favourite.
OR IF YOU ONLY BACK THE TOP RATER.

UNLESS.

The TOP Rater is the top Rater because it really is.
After the race, the Winner should have been the top Rater, because it won.
If it wasn't, then the Race wasn't analysed correctly, and the method used to Rate the horses needs improvement.

[crash]

The TOP Rater is the top Rater because it really is.
After the race, the Winner should have been the top Rater, because it won.
If it wasn't, then the Race wasn't analysed correctly, and the method used to Rate the horses needs improvement.

I'm sure that the only way to analyse a race 'correctly' to decide the genuine top rater in a race, is after it has been run. If it was so easy, we would all have recognised and backed the winner of the C/Cup which was the correct top rater and at massive overlay odds.

Personally I've never seen any publicly available ratings that produce a long term profit and correctly recognising 'overlays' is a subjective guess, not a science that only requires correct computing.

[AngryPixie]

After the race, the Winner should have been the top Rater, because it won.
If it wasn't, then the Race wasn't analysed correctly, and the method used to Rate the horses needs improvement.
HUH???

That's like saying the favourite shouldn't have been the favourite because it didn't win the race. Want to expand on that a little? You're not suggesting that the top rater should win every race are you??

[moeee]

Don't know about anyone else, but if I could get MY Ratings to consistently show a Profit, I'm sure I wouldn't make them publicly available.
What would be the Point?

If you want Ratings that DO make a Profit, then you shall have to purchase them.
But funny how so many Ratings are about from various places, but i don't recall anyone stating that their ratings make a Profit on a Flat Staking Investment.
Perhaps Punters Choice has that Information.
But then you would need to Purchase that I guess.

The Market that the Animals start at is pretty much a consensus of all methods and ratings that are around, and as soon as a Selection method becomes available that does better than the others, the Market soon reflects the Method and those selections start shorter and eventually begin paying the 15% or so less than what they should.

[moeee]

HUH???

That's like saying the favourite shouldn't have been the favourite because it didn't win the race.

EXACTLY!

If the Favourite had every opportunity to win the Race, and didn't, then surely it shouldn't have been Favourite.
Surely the Caulfield Cup Winner shouldn't have been 50 to 1.
Any Winner should never have been a 50 to 1 Chance.

The TOP Rater should run like a top Rater.
If it don't, then the Race needs to be analysed afterr the event to find out why it didn't perform.
But as Punters we like to spend our time trying to predict winners of future races and nowhere near enough time is spent looking at previous Races.

Those that have videotapes of previous Races are the Punters who have the opportunity of finding those animals who are way over the odds, regardless of whether they are top Raters or not.

[Chrome Prince]

But that's the argument moeee,

It doesn't matter whether the horse won the race or not, as long as it was value.
It's easy to pick a horse as a top rater and rate it at evens and it wins, this does not mean the ratings were accurate because it won, the accuracy is not in the result but in the value.

For example, I can rate 100 races where the top rated horse is rated at evens and even if 50% of them win, this is still not justification.

The real justification comes when I back only those that I can get $2.20 on and I make 10% POT. This is the only proof that the ratings are accurate and outperform the market.

There are many ratings services out in the market, which claim x% of top raters win, x% of the top 2 win x% of races and they are mostly correct.
However, they are of little use when backing the overlays produces a negative result.

The winner of the Caulfield Cup should not have been a top rated horse simply because it won, but certainly the price was an overlay, just as Weekend Hussler and Littorio were a bit too skinny, but they should not necessarily have been further down the ratings just because they didn't perform on the day.

I personally don't think it's possible to get all the winners top rated no matter which method one uses - it's all about value.

[stebbo]

The TOP Rater is the top Rater because it really is.
After the race, the Winner should have been the top Rater, because it won.
If it wasn't, then the Race wasn't analysed correctly, and the method used to Rate the horses needs improvement.

With all due respect moeee, the BEST horse does not win every race. And conversely, the winner of the race is not the best horse in the race just because it won.

A true 50% chance will win every second race. It can be the 'best' horse in both races, but as a true 50% chance it will only win one. Just because it's beaten on the day by a rank outsider (who manages to win it's first race after 50 starts and is paying it's correct $50) does not mean that the $2 is no longer the best horse in the race, nor that $2 was not the correct price for that horse.

Cheers,
Chris.

[Chrome Prince]

I can't see the odds changing for a coinflip because heads came up.

[crash]

Some of this sounds like manufactured 'special pleading', especially when we start talking about 'correctly' rating a horse and recognising overlays[?]. We win only if we correctly pick the winner regardless of ratings or overlays. Any mechanical 'science' of picking winners requires 'all' facts to be known and that will never be possible in this game. Art and intuition plays a big roll in picking winners. There will never be a mechanical science of picking winners as horses and Jockeys aren't machines and many unknown variables decide a winner more often than not.

I picked up a 15/1 shot today (Kyneton r5/5 SUPERIOR SHADOW 16.60w Stab) and my decision to back it had nothing to do with science, ratings or perceived overlay, just good old form study and a bit of art and intuition.

[moeee]

With all due respect moeee, the BEST horse does not win every race. And conversely, the winner of the race is not the best horse in the race just because it won.

Cheers,
Chris.
With all due respect Stebbo, I never said the BEST horse wins every Race.
And the TOP Rater is not necessarily the BEST Horse in the race.
But the Top Rater should have run very close to winning the Race.
If it didn't, then there must have been an excuse, or the Ratings are Crap.

I rated a Race today and my TOP Rater ran Last, and my 2nd Rated ran unplaced.
They both began well and bumped into each other putting one of them out of the Race.The other may have worked too hard early.
The winner wasn't Rated a Chance.
Obviously the winner was capable of winning the Race, and I didn't expect it to perform at its Peak today.

And this is where most selection services go wrong.
Predicting whether an animal will perform at its Peak Ability today , or like in the Caulfield Cup, where the Top Raters didn't , for reasons that are obvious now.

[thorns]

A question I have for those who bet ratings for overlays, is how many do you back in a race? If for example oyu rate a race, and there are 5 horses which are overlays, would oyu back them all? Or would you only focus on the top 2 or 3 in your ratings?

In theory I guess if you have efficeint ratings that are more accurate than teh market, oyu would bet them all, but I would assume that it would be next to impossible to have ratings which are that accurate?

[stebbo]

With all due respect Stebbo, I never said the BEST horse wins every Race.
And the TOP Rater is not necessarily the BEST Horse in the race.

I suppose it depends upon how you define BEST. In this context, I define BEST as meaning the horse with the best chance of winning the race. Granted there are other definitions of BEST.

Given my definition, then I would think it mandatory that a ratings system put what it has calculated to be the BEST horse on top.

Cheers,
Chris.

[Merriguy]

Thorns,
Have a look at what scottsbluff has been doing with regards to the question of how many to back. His spreadsheet is very relavent to your question.

It is on this forum, 29th Sept. under the thread "Help to improve profit"

[scottsbluff]

Hello all,


the ratings are the way to go & as l have said if you look around & research you will find free ratings that perform for a profit. But saying that you have to have a personal imput as l will back upto 3 runners from the top selections if l can get overs on ther rating price, but may leave the race if one is under & l think it is a good chance of winning.

We all need to remenber that there is a a of alot of racing these days so it is not a concern for me if l leave a race as we have a vast amount to choose from to secure value.

good luck for the weekend,

scottsbluff