Easy Coin

[Vortech]

As most know you can make money out of firmers from Prepost to Starting Price

So for 2012

Metro Races

Prepost $4.00 - $6.00
Starting Price $2.00 - $3.00 NSW Tab

494 Bets
193 Wins
$493.50 Return a loss of 50cents

One filter or using Betfair and you have an easy profit.

[Barny]

Vortech, it has been posted on here that those horses who open longer than pre-post have a S/R of 5%, day in, day out. I've never checked this BTW, and I'm a doubting Thomas ..... ;)

DTM ;)

[Vortech]

Does that mean those shorter have a 95% strike rate

[Barny]

Does that mean those shorter have a 95% strike rate
I guess so ..... it's a hard stat to believe though.

[Vortech]

Must be the same lot that believe mechanical systems cant work.long term

[Barny]

It was tested live Vortech.

DTM ..... :)

[Puntz]

One filter or using Betfair and you have an easy profit.
seems original


I prefer the original, original rules and filters which has a in-built rating method. As the cliche goes, " if it ain't broken, why "fix it" ?
Because if you used all of 2012, including wet tracks, ya way way out when favorites and other runners are scratched, taken into consideration.

494 Bets / 365 days = 1.27 bets per day.(round down to 1...., bet per day ? )

And Openers, what "openers" ??

With Mark's permission I'll post it.

[Vortech]

The test was only an example of a specific range of prices.
Not all firmers.

[Lord Greystoke]

Something material regards that price range(openers) Mr V?

LG

[Puntz]

Ok,
a test,
the way to calculate according to the method that was shown, let's say ya have $100 bank on the day.

A 4.00 Pre Post with a $2.00 opener would equate to a 50 unit bet.
$6.00 with a 3.00 opener would be a $33.30 bet, ( 33) and so on

Both those 2 examples have the same rating of 200 each if it were in the same race. But ya have to do the entire field and get the best 3.
The trick is to wait and see what happens up to near the start of the race, then bet according to your opening calculations.
So for example if the $2.00 opener's price moved out to say 3 or 3.50 towards the start of the race, it's still a $50 bet.

Common sense does need to come into consideration on wet track though.
I know of a race one time where a outsider, non qualifier 1600M 6/1 pp, paid 10/1
It was a race 7, but saw on a race 2 of that same venue they had to go wide due to a wet patch on the track.
So I threw the rule book out and backed the 6/1 that went out to 9/1 in the ring, but saw a plunge on the screen, then it went back up again.
Smiles, the bookie saw it so he moved his price up to 10/1 thinking he get the attention off while the 2 favs ( near the barrier) were having it out.
It won, but was not a qualifier.

[beton]

My two bobs worth.
The AAP prepost has a book of 150% plus. At jump the book is nominally 100% less the rake. In order to do this the prepost prices must as a whole lenghten to achieve the 100% (83% tab) (Betfair has commission out after the event).
Only those with the best chance will buck the lengthening trend in which case those lengthening will have to lengthen further. Herein lies the dilemna- how to pick the shortening ones and get better odds before they shorten to the point of negative return.

[Lord Greystoke]

My two bobs worth.
The AAP prepost has a book of 150% plus. At jump the book is nominally 100% less the rake. In order to do this the prepost prices must as a whole lenghten to achieve the 100% (83% tab) (Betfair has commission out after the event).
Only those with the best chance will buck the lengthening trend in which case those lengthening will have to lengthen further. Herein lies the dilemna- how to pick the shortening ones and get better odds before they shorten to the point of negative return.Beton, that's an interesting question you raise(if I have read it correctly!). What is your best guess / stab at an answer, If I may ask?

I have been looking at this very subject of late and come to the conclusion that dutch betting a small subset of firmers or those level at open or within + x% tolerance might do the trick. I have also been experimenting with 1 or 2 filters to narrow the list down i.e. narrowing the field down initially as per PP price and eliminating weaker selections from the end shortlist.

LG

[beton]

LG
The lowest PPP is no surety of being the opening fav. In a lot of cases this is far from truth. The opening fav is no guarantee of the starting fav. It is also very difficult to monitor as it is four dimensional involving all runners. So you are going to have to sort the horses most likely to succeed away from the field mostly likely to fail. Then you have to lock in your price before it shortens too much. Joe Public is a far better judge of a winner than credit is given. The more strength Joe Public puts on a horse the greater the SR. Down to 80% at $1.20 and 100% on BC.

[Lord Greystoke]

LG
The lowest PPP is no surety of being the opening fav. In a lot of cases this is far from truth. The opening fav is no guarantee of the starting fav. It is also very difficult to monitor as it is four dimensional involving all runners - Agreed, so perhaps we ignore the 'noise' = price movements after open and concentrate on what we can monitor = the best chances(see below) and where they open up? So you are going to have to sort the horses most likely to succeed away from the field mostly likely to fail => Can do, using 3 filters(last at open) Then you have to lock in your price before it shortens too much - Lock in min odds on BF - Not a big BF user so assume this can be done? Joe Public is a far better judge of a winner than credit is given. The more strength Joe Public puts on a horse the greater the SR. Down to 80% at $1.20 and 100% on BC I don't get what you mean here.Thanks for further clarification - please see above.

LG

[beton]

Thanks for further clarification - please see above.

LG
The shorter the odds - the higher the strike rate. At =>$1.50 the return is negative. This is not because of anything other than the rake. A $2 winner has odds of winning = to $2.36 and wins accordingly. At less than $1.50 the return nears breakeven and moves to positive because the mug punter starts to baulk
at only winning a little compared to the outlay. (yet they will put their money in the bank for a paltry 3%) But at $1.20 (off memory so don't shoot me) the strike rate is up to circa 82% (small base overall). In the case of Black Caviar and a 100% SR any bet is money for jam. I would like to see BC in a field where she is challenged. But BC is one off. We are in the business of continuity. The greater number of bets - the greater number of failures. So we have to (1) contain the failures and (2) get overs.

[Lord Greystoke]

Gotcha.

So at SP =<$1.50 the return is break even or a small profit, and we can then increase that return to something greater than Bank interest using 1 or 2 simple filters and/or a recovery mechanism for the few and far loosers in between winning stretched, especially given what must be an 80%+ SR ?

This would be 1 example of a 'capital preservation play' then, as per my query-quandry on another thread. But we don't necessarily have to use SP as the main filter to achieve the same modest but almost guaranteed return, I guess - e.g. using price at open as the main filter but producing a shortlist of final selections to dutch(back based on opening price, regardless of price movement post open) might yield a similar return?? i.e. 5-10%. Would also be heaps more action / turnover than waiting for the sub $1.50 pops an having to automate the process to make it work.

Cheers LG

[beton]

LG
the first thing is how many bets do you get at <$1.50? In reality there are few. Our objective is to pick the winner more often at greater odds. Getting firmers is not the answer. Not backing easers is not the answer either. Picking more winners is the only answer.
The trouble with stats is that they are overall and general as opposed to being specific. Do you back all horses in all races? Do you lay all horses in all races? These are the only situations that stats can mean anything.
These figures are for 5472 runners in 1419 races producing 868 winners FOR A 13% LOSS. roughly 4 horses per race. But these are more the races and the horses that we would pick and back. Of these 3010 eased 387 won for $2561, 930 firmed 149 won for $711, 337 stayed the same for 39 wins and $239, and 1106 were streamers at 242 wins and $990. But roughly the same number of winners eased as those that shortened. The shorteners have a better SR but a lower divvy. There still needs more to narrow it down.

[Lord Greystoke]

Based on your stats, I think it may be helpful to go back to this point then, as you say...

There still needs more to narrow it down... you are going to have to sort the horses most likely to succeed away from the field mostly likely to fail

Let's assume this step can be done on a consistent basis and with a reasonable degree of success, at least for a subset of race types, venues, field sizes etc etc

Then all that remains would be to achieve overs then, and this could be as simple as...
1. taking the bookies openers for starters (best/simplest 'ratings' and free)
2. adjusting for the % book bias = minimum acceptable price($Pm) - any suggestions for this percentage?
3. setting up a SP Bet via BF whereby SP > $Pm

LG

[beton]

Based on your stats, I think it may be helpful to go back to this point then, as you say...

There still needs more to narrow it down... you are going to have to sort the horses most likely to succeed away from the field mostly likely to fail

Let's assume this step can be done on a consistent basis and with a reasonable degree of success, at least for a subset of race types, venues, field sizes etc etc

Then all that remains would be to achieve overs then, and this could be as simple as...
1. taking the bookies openers for starters (best/simplest 'ratings' and free)
2. adjusting for the % book bias = minimum acceptable price($Pm) - any suggestions?
3. accepting any price > $Pm

LG
Work In Progress

[Lord Greystoke]

Work In ProgressI assume that you mean the part regards narrowing the field down to the 'likely winners' or best chances. Would you say that this is the biggest single challenge regards making the punt pay = yield a + return over the long run??

LG

[beton]

I assume that you mean the part regards narrowing the field down to the 'likely winners' or best chances. Would you say that this is the biggest single challenge regards making the punt pay = yield a + return over the long run??

LG
Pick any horse in any field and it is not a road to nowhere but a road to oblivion. You may win today but you will lose longterm because someone has their hand in till. You back the fav, they lose longterm, as with the second, third and fourth fav. Consistently picking the winner is the greatest challenge. But you must do this at a greater SR than the odds predict.

[Chrome Prince]

A subject I studied in depth for quite some time.



Then all that remains would be to achieve overs then, and this could be as simple as...
1. taking the bookies openers for starters (best/simplest 'ratings' and free)
2. adjusting for the % book bias = minimum acceptable price($Pm) - any suggestions for this percentage?
3. setting up a SP Bet via BF whereby SP > $Pm

LG
It's not as simple as that, the markets are dynamic.
There are many different reasons for odds movement.
Firstly you have the generic odds movement, which without any outside input, cause most of the market to drift to a better percentage.
Next are the profesional ratings overlays which are picked off fairly early.
Changes in state of track can also cause big movements.
Following on from the above comes the money, stable money and big hitter money. And that ranges from inside knowledge to set ups.
Sometimes inside knowledge and set ups do not go to plan, which is why
the strike rate improves, but a loss is still incurred.

If one were to simply adjust prices allowing for over round and make that the minimum acceptable price, I can guarantee you'll lose. The only way around this is to have a more accurate set of ratings than the bookie openers.

Mark Read's ratings were more accurate, and simply using his ratings and adjusting market percentages would produce a profit on overlays.
This is not the same case with prepost markets and bookies openers.

Because one cannot predict which way the market will go in general, one needs to think outside the box and think of other ways to cash in on market movements. Unless of course you have a set of ratings that outperform the opening bookmaker prices or prepost markets.

[Lord Greystoke]

Because one cannot predict which way the market will go in general, one needs to think outside the box and think of other ways to cash in on market movements. Unless of course you have a set of ratings that outperform the opening bookmaker prices or prepost markets.Good input - a decent dose of realism. So an initial test for out-performance might be a comparison of the first 4 in the market across...

1. Newspaper pre-post market
2. On course bookmaker openers
3. Set of ratings - to be determined

Any suggestions for initial sample size?

LG

[Chrome Prince]

You'd need at least 2,000 races I think to capture a sample of all prices, all winners.

Professionals like Sean B, Mark R, to some extent Zeljko R, make it a business to pick off the overs in their ratings, and if the overs aren't there, sometimes push the market in that direction.
I readily admit, I have never been able to come up with my own ratings which outperform the openers.

Perhaps the place to start is to concentrate on specific race and class types.

[Lord Greystoke]

Or perhaps an initial sample of say 150 races to test the waters, as per the Bhagwan theorum and for a specific event, as you suggest.

Would only a take a month or so to gather - might look at 1400m for starters and monitor for metro / non metro etc

LG

[beton]

Thanks CP for your input. It is always appreciated.
Thinking out loud here, more to invoke discussion. We have to get better ratings. We need them to beat the market movements. The tote runs on pure weight of money and the end result is consistent with the true odds of the horse if the rake was added back, so long term you lose what the TAB grabs. This is similar with the bookies and the exchanges. So you have to be better and/ or be good at cherrypicking.
There are hundreds of ratings out there. The majority don't go near beating the openers. They all start with the history and put specific weighting on each impact value. Within a range they all produce a similar result.

When the trainer nominates he is expecting an even field. When the handicapper finishes he is certain that within his guidelines he has created an even field. Everybody else knows different.

Now Mark R has been rating for eons and at most venues and all races. To do so he must utilize a formula. He can't study and formulate that amount of races in that time. So he has to have help and a formula for consistency.

So the bottom line is "What impact values does he rate highest and most relevant? Then his second etc."

[Chrome Prince]

beton, I believe he is the best in the business, based on what I collected.
I'm not sure he is still active as he sold a lot of his business ventures and his properties after he suffered a stroke. IAS of course are still providing initial prices "from his database", but I believe they don't have the Colonel Sanders secret recipe.

As soon as he sold, the ratings took a big nose dive which confirms my suspicions. I remember his weight ratings for each race were publicised on the Ozeform website and then withdrawn altogether. That's a big hint.

I do know from my research on his ratings way back, I found out he uses weight ratings adjusted for time and track condition. The time part made up a bigger part than the rest. The final weight rating was all that was published.

Sorry I can't supply any more info, but that's as far as I got.
Just as I was starting to collect the weight ratings and times, they disappeared from the site :(

[Lord Greystoke]

Excellent insights Gentleman. Apologies for my somewhat feeble contributions here.

LG

[beton]

Excellent insights Gentleman. Apologies for my somewhat feeble contributions here.

LG
LG
All pertinant contributions are worthy. IF no-one is listening it is akin to talking to one's self. Again if nobody learns, you might as well do so. So contribute. They are not feeble.

[Chrome Prince]

Agreed, all input contributes to the generation of discussion and ideas.

[Lord Greystoke]

Thanks chaps.. enormous respect for both of you, here. I feel sure that we will find answers to some of the questions thrown up today.

Cheers LG

[beton]

I found out he uses weight ratings adjusted for time and track condition. The time part made up a bigger part than the rest. The final weight rating was all that was published.

:(
Thanks CP. This is a start. This means that he looked at the time rating and added extra weighting to that impact value. It also means that he considered this going compared with previous going. OR did he? If his ratings came out before the official grading of today's race, then this not possible. If they came out after, then it is a case of when. If it was immediately after it is possible that several different scenarios were made and the appropriate one posted, or the ratings were put together after the grading which definately implies a formula. No matter how good you are, it still takes time to put a set of ratings together.

The ratings that I used in the past Larry T and Gunther R only did ratable races and they both commented on the time and effort. Larry is a Melbourne only service, and Gunther would only manage at most 10 races SBMWA.
Interestingly both commented on the effect of the EF. Beton

[Lord Greystoke]

Because one cannot predict which way the market will go in general, one needs to think outside the box and think of other ways to cash in on market movements. Unless of course you have a set of ratings that outperform the opening bookmaker prices or prepost markets.Couldn't let this one go without some more thinking - initial premise: Perhaps the openers or pre-post markets aren't as good as we think they are? Decided to construct a small sample set to compare the accuracy of openers(OP), pre-post(PP), Starting Price on BF(SP) and 6 other sets of ratings(RS1-6) from today's racing at Headquarters.

Results as follows...

FLEMINGTON
.....W2 W4
PP ..25 38
OP ..50 63
SP ..63 63
RS1 50 88
RS2 50 75
RS3 38 75
RS4 38 75
RS5 63 75
RS6 75 75

Where;
W4 = % of winners from top 4
W2 = % of winners from top 2

A small sample no doubt. A bit surprising, nevertheless.

LG

[Puntz]

A pre-post "calculator" may help some what.

[Lord Greystoke]

can you elaborate Puntz e.g. How do you use this tool?

Cheers LG

[Lord Greystoke]

Some interesting differences in stats. I wonder if this had anything to do with SOT = GOOD(Melb) vrs DEAD(Syd). In both cases however, a ratings based system trumped the pre-post market, bookies openers and BF SP.

FLEMINGTON
.....W2 W4 W1
PP ..25 38 0
OP ..50 63 38
SP ..63 63 38
RS1 50 88 25
RS2 50 75 50
RS3 38 75 13
RS4 38 75 25
RS5 63 75 25
RS6 75 75 63(5 top pick winners from 8 races)

RANDWICK
.....W2 W4 W1
PP ..78 78 44
OP ..67 78 44
SP ..78 78 33
RS1 78 78 67(6 top pick winners from 9 races)
RS2 33 56 33
RS3 44 56 33
RS4 44 67 11
RS5 44 89 22
RS6 33 56 33

Where;
W4 = % of winners from top 4
W2 = % of winners from top 2
W1 = % of winners from top pick

LG

[Puntz]

LG

You put in the Pre Post prices, from what I gathered here on this post, either one's own ratings, or the Pre Post from racing pages.
That's in Column C
'
The Openers, where ever one gets their openers from, that goes in Column D
,

Put in all the runners for that race if you wish.
Then press the button that says "SORT"
It will simply sort the highest rated to the lowest and delete the blanks.

It's a very basic calculator according to the rules I found as written. They are not my rules or formula.

Once you have completed a race and have filed it, press the button that says, RESET, and ya good to go onto the next race.

The $100 in Cell F2, calculates if you want to "make 100" calculated from the Opening Price.
The RATE calculation is according to the pre-posts.
I don't keep stats, too many opinions on "official" bookies openers. So over time one gets a "feel" for it.

Hope that helps, ..

[Lord Greystoke]

.
I don't keep stats, too many opinions on "official" bookies openers. So over time one gets a "feel" for it.

Hope that helps, ..Ta Puntz, I get the calculator now, mate. What does this comment above mean, however?

Cheers LG

[Puntz]

What does this comment above mean, however?

You mean "official" ?

hmm, how do I explain that one ?
Read my earlier post on this thread, there's a clue.
It's where the mechanical systems go into a "grey" area when forces of nature and the unexpected changes things to make it so,then it causes one to cast opinions due to those unexpected circumstances, then it may be reflected by the Opening Price.
That OP may be of the opinion of one, who causes another to follow, but it may not.

In short,
there are Odds and True Odds. Which one is it?
Who, or what will one use to fill in the blank where it say's Openers, so as to ultimately determine if it's going to be a bet or a no bet?

I don't know how else to answer, "official"

[garyf]

Informative thread we have here gents.

My answer(s) will be restricted as i am only back in "OZ',
For today flying back out again tonight.

When sorting out a selection(s) method whatever one it is,
I always do this.

You must adjust the number of selections for the field size you,
Are betting in, unless you have your own prices and set a cutoff figure,
At a certain price.

What use is checking the top 1-2-3-4 chances of a preferred method,
In say a field size of 5-6 runners.

This is the formula i used but you can adjust to your own specifications.

"FIELD SIZE"
=<8(1-2-3)
9-12( 1-2-3-4)
13=> (1-2-3-4-5).

Remember if you do your own pricing then you would probably have a set cutoff where over that price the selections are not profitable except possibly for the exotics etc.

For straight mechanical methods.
Openers.
P/Post.
Ratings etc, i use the field/size method.

This is just my way of sorting, others may be different.

Cheers.
Garyf.

[Barny]

Privateer's Pareto thread had Pre-Post odds of $3.50 to $11.00 as the number one criteria in a system that was based around recurring stats in good fields.

DTM ;)

[beton]

Some interesting differences in stats. I wonder if this had anything to do with SOT = GOOD(Melb) vrs DEAD(Syd). In both cases however, a ratings based system trumped the pre-post market, bookies openers and BF SP.

FLEMINGTON
.....W2 W4 W1
PP ..25 38 0
OP ..50 63 38
SP ..63 63 38
RS1 50 88 25
RS2 50 75 50
RS3 38 75 13
RS4 38 75 25
RS5 63 75 25
RS6 75 75 63(5 top pick winners from 8 races)

RANDWICK
.....W2 W4 W1
PP ..78 78 44
OP ..67 78 44
SP ..78 78 33
RS1 78 78 67(6 top pick winners from 9 races)
RS2 33 56 33
RS3 44 56 33
RS4 44 67 11
RS5 44 89 22
RS6 33 56 33

Where;
W4 = % of winners from top 4
W2 = % of winners from top 2
W1 = % of winners from top pick

LG
MY assumption is that in both venues the rating services were the same, raising the issue of track speciality. This is a crucial element in ratings. It is one thing to be good at one state. It is extremely hard to be good at more than one state.
SP is consistent with fav stats. There seems to be an arguement to check the results dutching the top four.

[Lord Greystoke]

There seems to be an arguement to check the results dutching the top four. FLEMINGTON
...W2 W4 W1 POT
PP 25 38 0 (39)
OP 50 63 38 (26)
SP 63 63 38 (26)
RS1 50 88 25 35
RS2 50 75 50 26
RS3 38 75 13 56
RS4 38 75 25 24
RS5 63 75 25 24
RS6 75 75 63 26

Where POT = % return dutching top 4 via BF SP.

Cheers LG

[Lord Greystoke]

RANDWICK
......POT
PP (7)
OP (7)
SP (7)
RS1 (7)
RS2 28
RS3 (34)
RS4 66
RS5 53
RS6 (37)

LG

[beton]

Suitable arguement to monitor. Rather than get one overall, find a consistent rating for each state.