Finding Value
 

I have been reading some of the posts along with several emails that i received about betting and the need to secure value, but how dose one go about securing such value.

Here's an example of what one email said.

Rosehill race 5 #6 is our value tip. Take no less than $5.00.

I looked up the race and the prepost odds and it's $5.50 to me that's not value. If it had been $8+ then maybe I would think about it.

Do you agree?

Mad Gambler

Right now Qtab is showing $1.70

The idea of value I.E. (the price you get is bigger/better than the true chance of winning) is fine in theory but hard to implement with horse racing.

I used to be a believer in the VALUE approach as most books have a chapter devoted to this and some books are written exclusively about VALUE. A case for me of seen it done bought the T shirt etc.

The books usually use examples such as coin tossing 1/1 or dice throwing 5/1 about any side coming up then explain if you can get 11/10 or 11/2 you will win in the long run.

After much deliberation I have come to the conclusion it is a non starter with horse racing as for the value approach to work you really need to know the exact probabilites of an event occurring. No one knows the true probability of a horse winning, not even the bookies. That is why they keep changing the price in line with the market to balance the books.

Compare this to roulette where the odds offered for red/black coming up is 1/1 even money. Whether no one or everybody bets on red, those odds will never change, because the casino knows the exact probabilty of the event occurring 19/18, slightly odds against. They have value on their side and in the long run will come out ahead.

If the bookies knew the true chance of a horse winning they would offer odds under that chance and there would be no point in backing horses as we could never win in the long run. This brings me to another point and that is the champions of the value approach never mention it is the long game and takes time to make a profit. If someone threw a dice and offered 1/1 about '1', 2/1 about '2' etc. Because there is no consideration of actually trying to find out which side will come up, except we know the exact chance is 5/1, we back the '6' at 6/1 because we have value. After 30 throws we could be well down where as someone else picking numbers at random could be in profit, but we know if we continue long enough we will come out on top, hence the long game.

VALUE in horse racing is just your opinion against others, you may be right you may be wrong. It seems to me like actually opening the box and counting how many oranges it contains as opposed to guessing from the size of the box.

I have no doubt someone will come on and argue the other side so I remind you that I used to follow the VALUe approach but have changed my mind and think it more important to find a winning bet (at a price that suits the bettor) knowing that the bookies are nearly as ignorant as we are in knowing the true chance of a horse winning. ;)

Agreed!
I used to do the same, looking for value, missed a lot of good winners.
Now my only stipulation is, it must pay at least $2.5 for a win and if betting for a place it must be $2.0 or over, place divi, even if I rated it at less that that.
Lost too often, on even money chances.
Good luck

A horse being over the odds does not have an improved chance of winning as a consequence of being at the wrong odds is the way I look at it.

value shmalue -

implement a minimum price you are willing to take about any selection, therein lies the value

Thank heavens,finally some commonsense comments with regard to "value",,,

I do think that,at times,with astute punting it's possible to get $3-50 fixed odds against a horse that eventually starts at $1-70.That's pretty good value.By the same token its damned easy to get it wrong too.

There are odds that I wont accept and I'm prepared to sit back and watch a race rather than cop a "theirs for yours" proposition.

Like everyone here I know how to price against rating,but if it means that I price a horse at $6 and can only get $4 its crazy to refuse the $4 after doing the hard yards rating the race in the first place.

Good punting,,, Bill..

Totally agree
I understand the "logic" of overs but in my opinion it is false logic.
If a horse is rated to win then it is rated to win. The price has nothing to do with it winning or not. What rubish.

Exactly!
All the price means is, that most of the people either agree with your rating or not.

So if you rate a horse as having the greatest chance of winning, then you will take any odds for it? Would love to be your bookie....

No
I didn't say that. If I subscribed to the whole ratings thing (which I don't) I would still bet unders on a top rated horse. But I would only bet odds that I considered fair.

BJ!
Most of us who beleive in ratings versus systems, use some formulae to convert ratings to prices. What prices you get depends entirely on the formulae used.
A top rated horse, to me, still means a horse with the best chances in the race 'IN MY OPINION'.
It's up to us if we are prepared to except the offer of the bookmakers, and anybody silly enough to except ANY price, deserves what he gets.
Incidentally, I think most of the people using systems, also think the same way.

There hasn't been one person say that they will accept "any" price.

Any price
 

I will accept "any" price.

So what is a "fair" price then? Some random number, or a price that you think represents "value" against the horses true odds in your opinion?

This is the whole argument. So many people in here saying that value is a load of crap, yet nobody would be prepared to take "any" odds about the top selection.
Why is this so?
I suggest the answer lies with everybody here trying to get "value".

No! not some random number!
Common sense I would say. I personally settled for $2.50. Reason? Odds on favs just do not win often enough to produce a profit. But odds above the 2.50
line fit nicely into a 20 to 25% strikerate with an ave. return big enough to make some money.
If you call that looking for value, yes I cheerfully admit I am.

2.50 is no good for the strike rate you mention Marcus. You would have to do better than that. At best your treading water [25%SR], at worst your losing [20%SR].

'Fair' price or 'Value' is subjective and basically means a price that is profitable for your [own] SR. A personal value to be worked out from punter to punter and from bet to bet. Trying to put a definition on it for everyone has as much chance as trying to define 'big'.

Crash.
My average return/ winning bet is $5.30
But if I include odds on favs it will increase the strikerate but greatly reduces the ave return/ winning bet. That's how the $2.5 odds fit in.

Hypothetical situation:
A horse showing $1.10 on the tote with 1 minute to go. Somebody offer you odds of $2.40.
You are saying to me that you would not take it because it is less than $2.50.
I would suggest that the money bet suggests this horse has greater than an 80% chance of winning, yet you are not prepared to back it at $2.40.

My main point when I posted that not one person has suggested that they would take their top selection at whatever odds they can get. I get the feeling that they are all selective about accepting odds, and if that is the case, then they are searching for value. Simple as that.
Just an observation from the posts on this thread.


As far as your backing over $2.5 favourites, from my observations, they all win the same ratio in comparison with the odds offered (on average). Of course there are clear exceptions, but on average, you would be no better off IMHO....

Whether you get the impression from my post or not, I back every one of my selections at whatever odds I can get. I don't have any super ratings system, so I don't have the luxury of having any clue about the horses that I back... Just use a system, close my eyes, cross my fingers, and kick back and enjoy the ride while it lasts....

My ratings, are deliberately tilted towards horses that are NOT likely to be favs.
After all there is no need to rate a race to find the favorite, all one has to do is look at the sceen in the TAB.
I am trying to find a horse that has a good chance of winning, or run a place.
Many times of course this will include the fav. as the top selection, whether I like it or not.
If I bet on short odds it will ruin my return on the winning bets because of the overall strikerate being in the low 20 or less.
Also I mostly bet for place, if the return is more $2.0 place div. Try to make money by betting on place for less then that and you will need a really good SR.
Anyway you do as you do, and we do as we do. I still think looking for value on one's own rated price is a fruitless task.
Who knows what the true odds are?
Do you?
Good on ya! you have a licence to print money.
Good luck

BJ,
An odds-on horse has a 50% chance of winning. That is their average SR.
Their is no reason or certainty that your $1.10 horse has an 80% chance of winning. Thats speculation only. Horses at the odds you mention get beaten all the time. I had 8 odds- on bets in a row once that all lost !!

The saying "odds-on look on" has legs:-)

Hey Crash thought you were having a day off? anyway this one..... what you say is true but purely from a statisical point of view, the lower the odds the greater the S/R and the less LOT (level stakes) this is true without any other considerations, filters etc.

My post and I think others refer to the stuff surrounding forming a book your self and only backing starters on offer with the tote or actual bookie price at better odds (value) than what you have rated them at.

Most punters end up with wanting to back the horse they really think will win, not simply any horse starting at better odds than what they have assessed its chances to be.

If you are going to do that you are going to have to be prepared to bet on every race as there is no rational link between a horse starting over the odds and an improved chance of winning the race.

What you say about value for an individual selection makes sense. Obviously no-one backs a horse at money back when it can be pick off by a sniper in the grand stand if you know what I mean.

You have taken as reference all odds on horses. I can guarantee you right now that combined, have a greater than 50% strike rate.

If you were to take smaller sections of those horses you would find different results.

Group together all horses that start under $1.2.
Also group together all horses that start between $1.8 and $2.

All these horses are odds on. Are you suggesting to me that both groups will have a 50% strike rate?

I can guarantee you right now, that the shorter priced group will have a strike rate much much greater than the horses priced closer to even money.

No THERE is no certainty that my $1.10 horse itself has a greater than 80% chance of winning, but taken as a group, and averaged out, you will find I am sure, that horses that start at $1.10 or shorter, will win greater than 80% of the time.

It is not about having a greater chance of winning, it is purely about the money involved in betting a selection and the money returned to your pocket.

There is nothing anywhere that says if you choose a certain method, you must bet every race.

Take 2 roulette tables. A) pays 2 to 1 on even money, and B) pays evens..

Do you need to bet every spin on table A) to improve your chances of winning?
Or are you just at an advantage no matter when you choose to bet?

I would not feel obligated at all to bet every spin, but I can guarantee that I would be trying to. If you have an advantage, the more you turnover, the more you make. The bigger the advantage the higher the profits, the less the risk.


Imagine you rate the field.
Horse A) is rated as a $4 horse.
Horse B) is rated as a $5 horse.
A) on the books is $2.
B) on the books is $100.

Anybody that bets on horse A is mad. Clearly the value lies with horse B. If you choose to rate the field, then why would you not back the value?
If you merely wanted to find the top selection, you would not waste your time rating the field.

If you have such little faith in your ability to rate the second horse, then why should you have faith in your ability to rate the top horse.
Makes no sense to me.

Please note the words: 'AVERAGE SR' above [meaning overall, all odds-on runners combined].

Party, I agree that the smaller the odds-on price, the greater the winners in that odds on price range [obviously goes without saying surely]. I was just mentioning a well know fact about 'average' SR for the price range. If 50% is wrong as BJ claims and it's much higher. all we have to do is back all the odds-on runners and make our fortune!

Runners starting at $1.10 might have an averaged 80% chance of winning which sounds about right, but BJ was indulging in speculation only to say that horse A starting at $1.10 has an 80% chance of winning. Not enough info. will ever be available to make such a claim before a race and I'm sure we have all heard about the 1 horse race that the runner managed to lose [happened].

Look at this example: 'Back all horses with a win SR of 50% or more, that is the only runner with that SR in the race for better than $2 and you will live in clover'. Correct or not? Exactly my point. [without going into the obvious details] It's absurd.

BJ,
Here is another average: All favorites have an average SR of around 30-33%.

Both average Fav. SR along with average odds-on SR are well known averages. If you doesn't believe either one [or even both] of them, that's fine by me. I'm not going to argue the point.

Rubbish. If horse A wins sane people have backed horse A and throw their money away punters have backed horse B.

Exactly,
Whats the point in rating a race then backing the horse that, according to your ratings, is going to come second. If you are place betting maybe...but on the nose ?
hmmmm

Basically IMHO (lol) it comes back to how you price your ratings.

Price to 80% aka Don Scott you are in dreamland.

Price to 100% still pie in the sky.

Price to 120% you should be getting close to the prices on offer.

The "value revolution" as good as it was,has whiskers on it.It worked well 20+ years ago,Don taught us too well.His ratings method is as sound as it ever was.Pricing those ratings the way he showed us is no longer a realistic proposition.

On course professional punters have almost passed into history.The reason?? No "overs" these days....

This doesn't mean that we have to accept unders,simply cop what we feel is a realistic price.Bookmakers prices are subjective,however,if they want to stay in business they have to be competitive with TAB prices.In fact, to survive they have to offer better.

On course bookmakers these days adjust their boards in accordance with the tote prices.Simply because the tote is a true reflection of the market at that point in betting.

Good Punting,,, Bill.

BJ has a bit of a point regarding odds [see below]. I think I know where he is coming from.

Our ratings [or anyone else's] are never 100% correct. If they were there would be no horse racing, at least none to bet on.

If we are 25% to 35% correct with our ratings we are doing as reasonably well as anyone else's ratings.

Given BJ sample:
Imagine you rate the field.
Horse A) is rated as a $4 horse.
Horse B) is rated as a $5 horse.
A) on the books is $2.
B) on the books is $100.

I would take the ['value'] $100 offered on B) forever and a day, every time anyone was silly enough to offer those odds. Why? Elementary. Our ratings aren't foolproof and B will get up [very] often enough for us to quickly clean out any bookie stupid enough to offer that price.

I would take ['value'] $10 on B) forever and a day too and again quickly clean out the bookie for exactly the same reasons already outlined. However, if offered $7 on A) and $10 on B), I would back A) every time. Get the drift?

Backing prices wins money long term. Backing horses never will. Finding prices over what you rate, taking your ratings SR into account, is the name of the game.

If I rate 2 horses in a race at A$4 and B$6 to win and one of them is offering 25% above it's price, I will back the 'over' price even if it is B [or C if there is one] because my SR says I will be wrong about A and B [and C] often enough to make money by taking the best price, not what I think is the best horse.
Do that 100 times and your a winning punter in the end. Back horses and not prices and you can never win longterm.

nice explanation crash
:)

When he says "forever and a day" doesn't it sound like betting every race.

Put it this way. If you aren't betting every race what makes more sense is only back your favoured selection when you can get it at good odds. Otherwise don't bet.

Once you start running a book against the books, you are starting to commit your self more and more to backing every race. As you are in wait of the over the odds horse winning.

Crash, haven't got the figures in front of me but I rememeber reading several times that the one area that is vulnerable for the bookies is actually odds on favs, i.e. the loss (if all are backed) is very small which leaves an opportunity for the astute backer (looking for value etc) as you yourself said getting 1/1 about a 1-2 chance is EXCELLENT value!

I'm not saying youre wrong but 50% does not sound right as I know it's just less than 50% for 1-1 money chances.
Makes you think about the miniscule edge that the casino has on odds/evens, or black/red doesn't it?

There is a very big difference between Even money chances at the races & the odds offered at the casino. In the first case Even money chances at the races are only ever an opinion price, even after the race has been run, in reality it could have been a 1/2 chance or a 2/1 chance - it will never be known as it's a buyer's market & over the long term the buyers tend to get it approximately right - it's only the vig that stops many of them winning.

With the casino there is no opinion on the maths that never change on odds/evens; black/red chances, it is always in the negative.

It doesn't 'sound' like any such thing. If I can find 2 or 3 win bets a card on Sat. I'm lucky. 1 or 2 a day during the week. If anyone can find more, they are taking 'unders' regularly. However, any bookie offering me $100 on a $4 shot in every race going in Aust. I will back them All :-) !!!

Party,
Well it's around that figure, give or take a little. It is a risky area for bookies against anyone who knows what their doing and who specializes in that area, but I don't see any 'risky customers' in this thread [yourself of course:-)], do You?

La Mer, point taken but what I can't get my head around totally is the FACT that although 1/1 chances are OPINION as you say, when it comes out in the wash say 1000 x 1/1 chances turns out ************ close to 50% wins and 50% losers (not quite but close) and in fact going up through the odds only, (not taking into account ANTHING else) the same holds true, although the gap widens as we go up through the prices, (as you know of course) in other words take the fate of 1000 x 3/1 chances and what d'yer know just less than 1 in three; wins???? When the 3-1 is OPINION, how can that be???
Must be some excellent judges setting those prices eh?

Crash, re "risky" customers, well if they are here they probably would stay pretty quiet on the subject. Still waters run deep as they say.

Take in the TAB % 'take' and rounding down and 1 in 3 for 3/1 shots is meaningless to them [TAB].

1/1 chances at 50% win are a loss,loss too without the punter being able to define and recognize the overlays that are really 1/1, 50% chances that are being offered as 2nd. and 3rd. favorites and corresponding prices. That's where the 'public' fall over [money management?]. Not many of them can do that often enough to be profitable. It takes a dash of art/perception of outcome and a lot of practice. Both ingredients are required.

Whatever. Doesn't really sound like you form a book, more just back your selection when you find acceptable odds for it. Which is not the Don Scott approach to value.

Nice chit chat about $100 on $4.00 chances.

yeah, I was really talking about opinion BOOKMAKERS there, though probably % bookmakers as well, but not TAB for the reasons that you outlined.
I bet on the tote ( best of 3) as there is a definite advantage say from 4-1 upover over sp or even Top Fluc, so in way that is overs isn't it? less than 4-1 and it seems to swing the other way. so same thing top fluc is overs (usually)

There were no TAB's around when Don Scott was punting and bookies, due to the crowds and being in their heyday, they could afford to run a tighter book [better odds]. Things have changed a great deal since Don Scott. Look at the amount of races today and the abundance of rubbish races among them. Also look at the amount of Maidens and 1000m races [1000m races used to be rare]. Both difficult races to win on. Maidens due partly to poor prices and 1000m races because there is no recovery room after a poorish jump. Look also at the very small amount of Welters and 4yr. old and up races around [easy to win on]. It's a new ball game nowadays with some advantages but a heck of a lot more disadvantages that weren't around in Don Scott's time.

I make up a list of prospective bets and priceline them or price them just from handicapping the race. The bigger the overs the bigger my bet. I usually have 1 to 3 selections in the races I've targeted that I think could win [depends on no of runners in a race]. The selection offering the over is my bet. If there are 2 I'll back the better over. Often [during the week] I have days I don't find a bet and I will also back a runner blind if it isn't obviously going to be fav. when I can't be around to watch the prices. I have my good years, and some bad years like most of us I guess.

Finding 3 or 4 bets across 3 meetings on Sat. is about average but sometimes nothing at all. I indulge in fun bets only on the big stakes races and cups. There is just too many possibilities in those races [look what happened it Syd. last Sat. Where was Hotel Grand ?].

Party,
Top fluc. as overs ? Haven't really thought about it, but I guess it's as close to overs as you'll get. A lot will be and most of those will probably not be starting fav. and a few won't be that will be starting fav. I suppose.