Be Careful
Your assertion that you rarely get a big overlay with odds on pops is not quite so. If you look at the percentages. A horse assessed at say 12 represents 66% of your market.If you could get say 910 or 52% that represents an overlay of about 14%. If you assess a horse at say 101 or 9% and you get 251 or 4% then that is an overlay of 5%. So as you can see there is good value in getting overs on short priced horses. I do hope I am not coming across as being too critical here. I have only posted a few times and am enjoying the cut and thrust of the differing opinions.Especially Testa, Equine Investor et al.

Legion,

No offence taken but I would take the "4%" overlay anytime - let me show you why. Lets say each time you see either of these overlays you put $10 on.

In the first case (your "bigger" overlay) you are getting a price of $1.90 on a horse that you think will win 66% of the time so your expected return for your $10 is 10 * 1.90 * 66% = $12.54. If this happens 100 times a year then you have outlayed $1000 and should win $1254 (25% POT). Quite a nice return.

Now with your "smaller" overlay you are getting a price of $26 on a horse you think will win 9% of the time. Expected return is therefore $10 * $26 * .09 = $23.40. If that happened 100 times per year then you have still outlayed $1000 but will win $2340 (134% POT).

Now I know which overlay I prefer - how about you? :grin:


_________________
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try." - Yoda

[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2002-08-10 20:37 ]

Becareful ,

What about the losses in between the 100 winners?

There are most probably going to be a lot more losers at the 10/1 price than the $1.90 price.

Testarossa,

In those examples I was saying we had 100 bets total. In the $1.90 case you would expect to have 66 winners and 34 losers so you would have spent $1000 (100 * $10) and got 1254 in dividends (66 * 10 * 1.90). In the $26.00 case you still have 100 bets but only 9 winners (so 91 losers) so again you bet $1000 and get $2340 in divs (9 * $10 * $26). Obviously in real life you don't always get the expected win rate in the short term - so in the first example you might only get 56 winners or you might get 76 winners, similarly the second example might only have 6 winners or 12 winners but in the long run this will even out. Obviously you have to adjust your staking to the expected hit rate - you will get lots more "losing" bets with the 10/1 scenario and the potential run of outs is quite long so you must allow for this but as long as you do that the rewards are there for the taking!

Becareful, your a gun did you do the IQ test on television bet you gunned that too.I was just wondering what your staking procedures were, as I agree totally about longer priced winners but was just unsure on how to stake them properly. cheers plug

one other question, how do we know (which ever ratings that you use) that the horses true market value is correct and therfore that we actually are getting overs, when maybe the true chances were actually less than what we predicted

Be Careful
I read with interest your answer regarding relative overlays. At once I thought "Aha" but he is assuming a level stake approach on 66% chances and 9% chances. The fool.Surely he realises the run of outs will kill him.So it was with much smugness i began to tap out a reply. Just as an after thought I ran the figures using my own staking approach.
As much as I hate to admit, the figures suggest an even wider anomaly using a more sophisticated staking method. You are absolutely right Be Careful and I reproduce my results for your and others interest.
Using our previous example I bet to take out a certain amount on each race. Lets say $100.
My assessed price of 12 has me outlaying $66 and securing 910 for a return of (66*1.9*.66)$82.76.Over our 100 bets this is $8276 for a profit of $1676 or 25%POT.
For the 101 chance the figures are assessed price 101 or 9% outlay $9 return at 251(9*26*.09)is 21.06 times 100 bets $2106 for $1206 profit or %134POT.Amazing.
Be Careful for all these years I have operated on the assumption that my returns would be proportional to the percentage differences without even bothering to check (obviously). In fact I gave up trying to chase turnover and only operate on races where I can get my price about my expected winner. Of course I do take the overs about longer priced horses when I can get my price about the expected winner.Your post has caused me to have a serious re think. Thanks for taking the time and I look forward to many more fruitfull discussions.

Plugga
Perhaps I can answer your question about knowing whether you are really getting better value than a horses real chance. The quick answer is we don't. Nobody does.That is why we have a dynamic market.In handicapping a field and arriving at a price for each runner you are expressing an opinion. All else being equal (Like your staking,discipline etc)you will win long term if your opinion is more accurate than the general market.

Plugga,

My basic "staking plan" is really simple - I just bet 1% of my current bank each bet (actually I do vary it a bit with smaller bets if I have a really small pool or if it is a real longshot but the basic bet is 1%). So when my bank was $2000 I was betting $20, at $5000 I bet $50, etc. As the bank grows so does the bet size, if I have a run of outs then the bet size reduces. This is the only problem with chasing the longer odds horses - you do have to be very cautious with bet size to survive the longer runs of outs. My current strike rate is just a bit over 10% and my longest run of outs so far was 41 (that hurt!) but it was followed up with 9 winners in the next 50 bets. Your other question was basically answered by Legion - you only know if you are getting value if in the long run you are winning! I have no doubt that on many occassions my evaluation about a particular horse is wrong (like when it runs last!) but in the long run I am winning so in most cases I believe I am being more accurate than the general punting public and that is what you need to do.

Legion,
Congratulations on actually bothering to check before posting a reply - it's more than a lot of people seem to do! I think your original mistake was that you were looking at the absolute change rather than the relative change - so you were saying that a 14% difference is better than 5% difference (seems logical) - but what you should look at is the relative change so we have 66%/52% compared to 9%/4%.

Of course both overlays are worth taking and as long as you are accurate both will make a good profit. The shorter priced horses do have the advantage that you can be more aggressive with your bet size and so have a higher turnover (but lower POT) whilst the longer priced horses give the higher POT but you have to be more careful with bet size to protect yourself from the lower strike rate.

The main reason I concentrate on the higher priced winners is that I just cant seem to predict the under $6 market with enough accuracy to make a consistant profit. My "system" seems to work great with horses in the $6-$15 "real" chance range (after I add in my overlay required this gives bets in the $8 to $25 range) but if I go below that my POT drops dramatically. I don't know if this is just my system or whether there simply aren't very many real overlays below that price - I suspect it is a bit of both!

Anyway best of luck finding those overlays - they are definitely the path to profit!
_________________
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try." - Yoda


[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2002-08-11 10:46 ]