Tipster's Plan
 

I have picked out 2 tipsters to follow. 1 in Sydney and 1 in Melbourne. The plan is you follow their top 3 tips win only and so far the results from 7/5 to 25/6 are.

375 tips for 83 winners a strike rate of 22.1%

The outlay is $375.00 for a return of $390.50 a profit of $15.50 and a return of 4.1% ROI

benny

Benny

I have no wish to burst your bubble mate, but you could do better throwing darts at a dartboard whilst blindfolded. Anything that hits the wall is a no-bet...

I must applaud your tenacity though, even though so many people have told you that there is no easy way to win consistently at gambling (investing for the more serious), you continue to search for an easy answer.

If you made a profit of $15.50 on 375 wagers the tipsters are obviously backing favourites or you backed them as place bets. This is just what the bookies and the agencies would like you to do, it is a no win situation over the long term.

I have noticed that you come in for some harsh treatment on this forum but I must admit, you bring a lot of it upon yourself.

Please listen to the advice that you are given carefully and if you aren't sure what it means, ask for clarification.

Good luck with your future betting.

They are win bets and just to show you some of the prices were $8.60, 1 at $10 plus 1 at $14. The ave price is $4.70.

benny

Benny,

I really have to agree Zlotti. You should stop looking for the magical, surefire, 100% guaranteed or your money back, no sweat system out there...commercial or otherwise.

I don't punt for a living but my profit margin has substantially improved since I started taking notice of what some of the other forum members have to say. Some people "here" actually make money from this and most of them would admit that they either do a lot of work each week (watching videos, studying sectional times etc) or have put in a lot of work in the past narrowing down a set of "statistically significant" variables which help them single out a winner.

Take it from me, with that small a sample size and that small a profit and strike rate, I wouldn't be putting all your super into it on July 1.

Sorry to be harsh.

Work it out....
 

Okay Benny

I promise this will be the last time I try to make you see the light...

We will have to make some assumptions before we can start:

You continue following the same tipsters for 365 days and they give you the same ROI of 4.1%

You are in the average tax bracket

You have $2794 to spare

You continue to get an average price of $4.70

Can you feel the tension mounting?

Your return will be $115.46 on an outlay of $2793.37 in 365 days

Also consider the time and services required to lay 2794 bets either by telephone, internet or agency. You will be paid a handsome 4.1 cents per bet which is surprisingly similar to your ROI. (the telephone option is not a good idea, its going to cost you $419.10 just for the bets @15 cents)

The 22.1% strike rate you pointed out means that 77.9% of the time, they were wrong in their selections. (which is about average for paper tipsters)

So, to summarise: You wagered $2794 to win $116 with a 78% chance that you won't achieve it.

Consider this alernative: Deposit your $2794 into an interest bearing account with no fees or charges (ever) with an interest rate of 5.5% (Don't tell me there aren't any...)

Even after tax you will have made $124.49, that is a $9.03 increase in your yearly profit. And what did you do for your $124.49? Zip...

It's no where near as much fun as the GG's but it's good economics unless you can lift your ROI. It stops being fun when you lose consistently.

Anyway, as I said at the outset, this will be my last post regarding your finances. I apologise in advance for any spelling, calculation or syntax errors. (could be the Red Ned) I have done it mainly for fun, but also out of a genuine concern in your inability to apply reason.

Good luck with your betting account!

Benny i'm not going to tell you it cant be done but if you do want a profitable system your system has to have an edge that hardly anyone else is using.

Blindly following a tipster has no edge(over the rest of the betting public).

My suggestion to you would be to sit down and have a think about a way to find consistent winners that the majority dont.

I'm not claiming to be a success at the punting game but i've had my head in form guides researching various systems for years,it's all been like an apprenticeship for me,i'm aware of the tricks of the trade now,you'd be wise to listen to the people around here,they have done their time too.

I'm not going to reveal my edge but the one tip i will give you is to try to bet on horses that have not yet reached the peak of their racing careers.

Your tipsters may tip some good priced winners but if you only bet on the up and comers he tips instead of the been there and done thats he will no doubt tip plenty of you'd be in a much better financial position at years end.

Let's take another view. Benny is a happy but poverty bound Aussie Joe just avoiding financial ruin by the seat of his pants but feeling he deserves a little bit of excitement to brighten the struggle for existence that is his daily life. He walks to the TAB which is just down the road from him so his bets cost him nothing to make. His next door neighbour gets the paper delivered but Benny can get up early enough to carefully unfold it, jot down the tipsters info and fold it up again before his neighbour is awake. His info costs him nothing. Now he's making his bets and actually earning himself a bit of beer money (although not enough to worry about becoming an alchoholic). He can go down to the pub (on the days he comes out in front) and skite to his mates "I'm one of the elite 5% that makes a profit on the punt". He has earned status, enjoyed the buzz we all get from picking a winner and can raise a middle finger to the banks and their interest sapping charges.
Let's face it, Benny is a conundrum. We don't know what he wants from the punt or what drives him. He's an enigma wrapped in an enigma wrapping thingy.
Benny, for heaven's sake tell us about yourself.

Sorry, I'm beginning to ramble now.

KV

LMAO

Where can i buy one of them.

Zlotti,

Whilst I agree that Benny's plan is flawed, I don't think your maths re his potential profit is correct.

From the stats he has presented he is having around 200 bets per month. If he has a bank of $2500 and is betting 1% of the bank per bet, he is betting $5000 per month. If his POT is 4% he makes $200 in the first month or $2400 in a year - he has practically doubled his money. If he chooses to increase bets as the bank grows, he will obviously make more.

The beauty of a "high action" betting strategy is the turnover. Even a modest return of 5% POT is lucrative.

I doubt the long term prospects of his plan based on the tips of a journalist very strongly but if one can find a method that plods along at 5% and provides a reasonably large amount of wagers, you'd be rich.

Hammers

Read his mail again....

375 tips for 83 winners a strike rate of 22.1%

The outlay is $375.00 for a return of $390.50 a profit of $15.50 and a return of 4.1% ROI

375 $1 bets = no staking plan

If his average return divi drops below $4.5248868778280542986425339366516 he is on the road to ruin. Damn, I said I wasn't going to post anymore about Benny's finances. Oh well, I'm a number junkie.... what can I do?

Zlotti

And if he uses a staking plan....
 

Mathematical Proof that Progressions cannot overcome Expectation.




by Richard Reid

---

In "The Casino Gambler's Guide," Allan Wilson provided a mathematical proof of the fallacy that a progression can overcome a negative expectation in a game with even payoffs. This article expands on Wilson's Proof and provides the proof that progression systems cannot overcome a negative expectation even if the game provides uneven payoffs.


Let b_k = the size of the k^th bet.
M_k = the size of the payoff on the k^th bet.
p_k = the probability that the series terminates with a win on the k^th bet, having been preceeded by k-1 losses in a row.
n-1 = the greatest number of losses in a row that a player can handle, given the size of the player's bankroll. In other words, the n^th bet must be won, otherwise the player's entire bankroll will be lost.

Let's now define B_n = b_n * M_n

The expected value for any series is:

E_series = p₁B₁ + p₂(B₂-b₁) + p₃(B₃-b₂-b₁) + . . . + p_n(B_n-b_n-1-b_n-2- . . . -b₂-b₁) + (1-p₁-p₂- . . . -p_n) * (-b_n-b_n-1-b_n-2- . . . -b₂-b₁)

If we let

E_series = A + B where,

A = p₁B₁ + p₂(B₂-b₁) + p₃(B₃-b₂-b₁) + . . . + p_n(B_n-b_n-1-b_n-2- . . . -b₂-b₁)

and

B = (1-p₁-p₂- . . . -p_n) * (-b_n-b_n-1-b_n-2- . . . -b₂-b₁)

then it is easier to see that "A" represents the probability that the series will end with a win multiplied by the bet size at the n^th term in the series and "B" is the probability that the series ends in a loss multiplied by the net loss.

Now let's rearrange the terms in "A."

A = p₁B₁ + p₂B₂ - p₂b₁ + p₃B₃ - p₃b₂ - p₃b₁ + . . . + p_nB_n - p_nb_n-1 - p_nb_n-2 - . . . - p_nb₂ - p_nb₁
A = p₁B₁ + p₂B₂ + . . . + p_nB_n + b₁(- p₂ - p₃ - . . . - p_n) + b₂(- p₃ - . . . - p_n) + b_n-2(- p_n-1 - p_n) + b_n-1(- p_n)

And for "B" we get

B = -b_n(1 - p₁ - p₂ - . . . - p_n) - b_n-1(1 - p₁ - p₂ - . . . - p_n) - . . . - b₂(1 - p₁ - p₂ - . . . - p_n) - b₁(1 - p₁ - p₂ - . . . - p_n)

Now if we combine A and B again, we get,

E_series = A + B
E_series = p₁B₁ + p₂B₂ + . . . + p_nB_n - b₁(1 - p₁) - b₂(1 - p₁ - p₂) - . . . - b_n-1(1 - p₁ - p₂ - . . . - p_n-1) - b_n(1 - p₁ - p₂ - . . . - p_n)
E_series = p₁B₁ + p₂B₂ + . . . + p_nB_n + p₁b₁ + (p₂ + p₁)b₂ + (p₃ + p₂ + p₁)b₃ + . . . + (p_n + p_n-1 + . . . + p₂ + p₁)b_n - (b₁ + b₂ + . . . + b_n)

Wilson points out that to get rid of the subscripts, all we have to do is realize that p_k = (1-p)^k-1p, where p is the probability of a win on an individual play and 1-p is the probability of a loss. If we think about it, it makes sense that the probability of a series terminating in a win at the k^th level is the product of the probability of k-1 losses in a row multiplied by the probability of win on the k^th trial.

So how do we use this information? Well, let's try substituting this expression for each p_k and see what we get.

E_series = (1-p)^1-1pB₁ + (1-p)^2-1pB₂ + . . . + (1-p)^n-1pB_n + (1-p)^1-1pb₁ + ((1-p)^2-1p + (1-p)^1-1p)b₂ + ((1-p)^3-1p + (1-p)^2-1p + (1-p)^1-1p)b₃ + . . . + ((1-p)^n-1p + (1-p)^n-1-1p + . . . + (1-p)^2-1p + (1-p)^1-1p)b_n - (b₁ + b₂ + . . . + b_n)

Simplifying, we get

E_series = (p(1-p)⁰B₁ + (1-p)¹pB₂ + . . . + (1-p)^n-1pB_n + p(1-p)⁰b₁ + ((1-p)¹p + (1-p)⁰p)b₂ + ((1-p)²p + (1-p)¹p + (1-p)⁰p)b₃ + . . . + ((1-p)^n-1p + (1-p)^n-2p + . . . + (1-p)¹p + (1-p)⁰p)b_n - (b₁ + b₂ + . . . + b_n)

If we factor p out of the first parts of the equation and look closely, we can see that the k^th term T can be written as:

T = p[(1-p)^k-1]B_k + p[(1-p)^k-1 + (1-p)^k-2 + . . . + (1-p)² + (1-p)¹ + (1-p)⁰]b_k

or rephrased for B_k = b_k * M_k we get

T = p[(1-p)^k-1M_k + (1-p)^k-1 + (1-p)^k-2 + . . . + (1-p)² + (1-p)¹ + (1-p)⁰]b_k

If we substitute

C = (1-p)^k-1 + (1-p)^k-2 + . . . + (1-p)² + (1-p)¹ + (1-p)⁰

and if we multiply C by (1-p) and call this D

D = (1-p)C = (1-p)^k + (1-p)^k-1 + . . . + (1-p)³ + (1-p)² + (1-p)¹

Now, if we subtract C from D, we get

D - C = (1-p)C - C = (1-p)^k - (1-p)⁰
[(1-p) - 1]C = (1-p)^k - (1-p)⁰
C = [(1-p)^k - 1]/[(1-p) - 1] or
C = [(1-p)^k - 1]/-p]


Now if we substitute C back into T, we get

T = p[(1-p)^k-1M_k + [(1-p)^k - 1]/-p]b_k
T = p(1-p)^k-1M_k + 1 - (1-p)^k]b_k
T = p(1-p)^k-1M_k + 1 - (1-p)(1-p)^k-1]b_k
T = [[pM_k - (1-p)](1-p)^k-1 + 1]b_k This now allows us to write the equations in terms of summations. We therefore get

E_series = sum ****[[pM_k - (1-p)](1-p)^k-1]b_k**** + sum {b_k**** - sum {b_k****, for k = 1 to n

The last two terms cancel, so we are left with:

E_series = sum ****[pM_k - (1-p)](1-p)^k-1]b_k****, for k = 1 to n
E_series = sum ****[(1+M_k)p - 1](1-p)^k-1]]b_k****, for k = 1 to n

If we now look closely at this equation, we can make several observations. First, the sign of E_series depends solely on the resulting sign of [(1+M_k)p - 1]. To make things a little easier to follow, let's say we're dealing with a game that has even payoffs. This means that M_k = 1 and therefore
E_series = sum ****[2p - 1](1-p)^k-1]]b_k****, for k = 1 to n
E_series = [2p - 1]sum ****(1-p)^k-1]]b_k****, for k = 1 to n

Now it is a little easier to see what is going on. For example, if we are in an unfair game, then p < 0.5 and we can easily see that 2p-1 will be a negative value. For example, if our chance of winning is only 49%, then p = 0.49 and 2p-1 = -0.02. In an even game, p = 0.5 and we see that 2*0.5-1 = 0. In this case, the equation is telling us that in an even game the expected value is zero just as we would expect it should. If we are playing a game with an advantage, then p > 0.5 and 2p-1 will be positive.

The general formula for uneven payoffs work just as well, but is more complicated to understand. Suffice to say that if [(1+M_k)p - 1] is negative, then regardless of the progression, the game will eventually result in a loss for the player. Hopefully, this post will provide definitive proof of the fallacy of trying to overcome a negative expectation by using any type of progression whether it be the martingale or some other modern progression.

wow!!!!!!

I knew that...

Hi Benny,
You have the positive opportunity of refining these selections into a plan of attack so as to create a greater profit here.
Your tipster has had a good run , with a SR of 66% of picking the winner in 3 .
You will see that this will drop down to an average of 45% over time because it is difficult of any tipster to sustain that SR because he is targeting every race .

A couple of ideas to think about .
1)Target only 3 races for each venue say races 4,7,8 only.
These are usually good value races.
If you go over past results , you should find your POT would have stronger just by doing this.
Just for interest , my data program tells me that for some reason , race 4 has had higher value winners than any other race No. based on 20,000 races.
In race 8 , the Fav wins less but pays the highest average div than any other race No. & its loss on turnover is less than any other race No.
Race 7 is the next best for the same reasons as adove.

2) Consider targeting the 2 highest payers of the 3 selections.
That way one is betting 2 horses a race instead of 3 , at good prices.
3) Consider targetting the 2 horses of the 3 , with the best Wt. rating as per TABQ. (100Pters. ect.)
4) Consider using the Neurals std. setting , minus the Time setting (set to 0), to split his first 2 selections only ignoring the 3rd selection.
That way one is betting only one horse per race .
5) Bet 1 or 2% of bank level stakes.

Check this out , I beleive you will increase profits dramaticly by using just one of these ideas .
Put in the homework & see what is revealed.
Remember , Tipsters are not machines , with a guaranteed outcome day in day out , so be prepared for a few bad days in a row .
The damage should be minimised if one restricts their betting to 3 races a venue rather than betting every race.
Or
If one feels one needs more action , delete the first 3 races for any venue , these are usually poor value races with questionable form.
e.g. Maidens, 2YO , lots of first starters & resumers , low divs, ect.

Cheers.

Some good advice there i agree with most of it but imo wouldnt he be better off working out the type of races the tipster performs best in,who's to say this tipster is a good read of the type of race race 4 on the programe usualy is.

Personaly if i was betting 3 horses a race i wouldnt touch a race with less than 10 starters but of course i'd have to check to see how the tipster performs in races with bigger fields.

benny
 

benny, you would almost certainly have a greater chance of success by dumping the tipsters & selecting a couple of youngish trainers within each state that have a decent number of nags in work & following them, esp after a couple of runs up & when there are signs of stable support.

i, like you & a 1,000,000 others would love to be able to wake up each morning (abt 10 ish), give the family jewels a good scratch, stumble down to the local tab, quickly scan the fields (or whatever) for the day, lay the $1k in bets, go home & forget about it all until beer ocklock (abt 4 ish) & go & collect the $1.2k that is just sitting there, waiting for me.

& i am sure that i managed to do that for a few months thru one of my alcoholic delusional phases...

Without checking the forum first for your morning laugh ?????????????????

woops, my bad

Bhagwan,
Long time since I posted, but I'm glad you knew all the those mathematical calculations, I wasn't quite sure so I contacted JFC and He steered me in the right direction.
Seriously though I want to congratulate you for all the time and effort you put in trying to help people on this forum and ask nothing in return.
Not ********ing in your pocket because I have no reason to.

Cheers

Hi Kenchar ,
Tarrs for that .
I was wondering what happened to our friend "JGF".
I reckon he will be having the time of his life on one of those ,
"lets have a fight , sites".


Cheers.

Zlotti,

Don't throw one of those brilliant, if not complex energy sapping equations at me but are saying if you are getting a negative return (loss) on your punting from level stakes, no magical progression method will turn it around into profit.

If that is not what you are saying, can you answer my question anyway.

Basically, YES! Maybe not in the short term but it is a definte YES!

I started reading about this subject to prove those who said it was impossible were wrong. I am a convert, plain and simple. I was wrong, they were right. Sometimes we can't see the woods for the trees and try to make a system work anyway we can. Retro fitting variable after variable, applying 3/16 of 5/8 of F*** A** and coming up with a winning formula because we want it to be.

Zlotti,

Thanks for the reply.
That said, does it mean to profit, you must either have a method that profits level stakes or you price your chances and bet to obtain value.

Pricing horses and betting to your own market seems to be a lost art, with not many people devoting much time to it on these forums.

I must admit, in posing these questions I already have my own answers but like to know what other knowledgeable persons think. It is always good to double check your thoughts with others.

There is always a chance I am wrong.

I dont know if I'm stepping over the mark here but has anyone ever checked the SR of the Free Ratings for wins/places in the newsletter or Lucky Lil's or adapted filters for their selections or added them as a filter to yours.

Top Rank

There is no way you could classify what I do as knowledeable! If this was so, I would be too busy spending my money somewhere to be reading and writing in this forum. It is a hobby, I like numbers, probability, risk etc.

My understanding of Racing is very limited and very narrow. To give an example, I have never looked at form, I wouldn't know where to start. I don't know one jockey from another, and as for trainers, aren't they what you wear on your feet?

To me a race is mathematical or should be. If the handicapper has done his job, every runner in every race is just as likely to win as any other runner. If this isn't so, why bother dumping weight on their backs in the first place?

So, (the purist's aren't going to like this) I see an 8 runner race with 1 selection as a 7/1 chance of winning and start building from there. (Sad eh?)

Now to clarify about form, I said I don't look, not that I don't use it when someone else has rated it. The other bug bear is the pricing, false favourites, emotional money, small pools, big swings in price before jump, even bigger after, fast, good, slow, dead and heavy tracks. It has more variables than marriage and I've been at that 22 years and still can't fathom it out.

Here is a simple question for you. If you're average strike rate at selecting winners is 25% consistently, you have a bank of $500 and you are flat stakes betting. You back only runners that are paying max $3. How long before you have no bank?

Zlotti

I'm with Zlotti...... Kind of.....
 

I have been playing with "last minute" bets. I copy from WA Tab and paste, sort, etc into Excel using Macros (ie pretty automatic).

Zlotti said: "So, (the purist's aren't going to like this) I see an 8 runner race with 1 selection as a 7/1 chance of winning and start building from there. (Sad eh?)"

Whilst we all know this is pretty simplistic (Zlotti included), I don't know my form from my elbow either, but when looking for value has anybody considered the relative value of Place odds compared to Win odds.

I am considering looking at the highest Place/Win ratio (not favourite) and betting the place. This will often be 2nd or 3rd favourite, though not always. Going back through history has raised some pretty long odds at times, but history is not the same a 30secs before the off!

To save me time (and possibly money) has anyone attempted this type of calculation in real time before? Any other comments will of course be welcome.

SeeDee

Thanks for the vote of confidence, (I think) but let's see how http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=10079 goes before I reply in full!

How very true that is.

I've been working out ratings for NSW for a few months now and previously always struggled with converting them accurately to prices. When the system spits out its results on past data I come out about 3.2% ahead over the last 10 years (30,000 suitable races) just betting on the best horse regardless of price. Now I can price them reasonably accurately I can come out about 12.4% ahead just taking horses which finish with an SP above my rated price (now only 14000 bets). Only theoretical figures admittedly but quite encouraging of the bet when the price is right method.

To quote a famous hook nosed politician - Having said that let me say this:

On and off for about three weeks now I've been trying to use those prices to make (small) bets to try out the system. I'll have the real time odds up and a couple of sets of SP prices and I'm trying to get the best price on my horse provided it is above the price I set. It's taken me a bit of practice but I don't miss many bets now and usually get a reasonable price. But what a pain in the ******** this method of betting is!! Juggling three races, half a dozen screens, cursing because the price has gone down when you thought it was going up, deciding Best Div was going to pay more than fixed price but it dives at the last moment. I don't know if I could be bothered doing all this on a regular basis (although it does seem to be working according to plan). I suppose for some it's the thrill of the chase but I'd prefer a system where you can make the bets after the scratchings then sit back and relax and enjoy the races as they come up.

Anyway, my opionion Top Rank, Sure if you can price your horses accurately you can make more money - I think we all knew that anyway. But I'm working on another system where I can make money with less time staring at a computer screen.

Just read it back and I sound like a right whinger. Sorry about that. I don't hate it that much cause I'm here doing it again today, but I don't think I'd enjoy doing it permanently as a source of income.

Cheers

KV

Good afternoon. I'm in the middle of the "putting it to them" (no luck yet unfortunately) and have just zipped into this thread. Laughed out loud at KennyVictor's first post. Quite a few really entertaining people in this forum!!!
Have to disagree with you, Zlotti, however: successful punting is based on psychology and NOT mathematics. Likewise KV, you know my view that ratings are a dead end as,effectively all they tell you is that if the various horses racing around the place had somehow got together IN THE ONE RACE yesterday or on whatever day they ran the times/figure etc that constitute the ratings, we NOW KNOW who would've won ON THAT DAY!!! But what about tomorrow?
Last Saturday Flowerdrum paid $78 on Unitab (66s on course) in MR7. Why did it start so unfancied?? This mare was brought from England where it had 5 wins from 16 starts. It could've been with a mind to breeding BUT since it was being raced then we have to assume that someone thought they would make money with it. John Sadler put in in a 1300 race in April (last place) then a 1400 (2nd last, though it HAD a win in England at this distance). Last Saturday Sadler was still persisting over 1600 metres. Was he certifiably crazy (at those odds!!!!) OR was he telling us to get on? What was in his mind? Well, you might say the horse had "bad form" and Sadler was just being overly "hopeful" (ie irrationally optimistic) or you might say "John's got a plan". Oh, did I mention that Flowerdrum's OTHER 4 wins in England (from 8 starts = 50%!!!!) were over .......1600 metres? Now it's 5 from 9.
I had 11 bets using my method No1 for Flowerdrum, and Atapi ($21 IASbet). I do have a filter which just put Poetic Papal (150s into 70s) out,so I was still a little peeved despite those wins. I have two other angles (methods): one involving trainers placing their horses in the "wrong" race First Up, and the other to do with multiple entries from a trainer. Interesting thing is, for example, that (using 40-1 shots say) these horses win much MORE often than their "mathematically" expected rate. In simple terms not all longshots are the same in the way that every slot IS the same 36-1 chance on a roulette wheel.
Get inside the trainers heads and that's the end of ratings/form study and hours of HARD WORK. Cheers and good luck.
P.S. The last in Adelaide is paying 25s (the only longshot of the day) but I wasn't on it. Must look a little harder!!!

Punter57 you inflexible boffin.

I'm convinced I've only been pecking away at computer keys hour after hour for the last 12 months because my know it all Dad insisted "You'll never make any money betting on horses son". You are quicky becoming as big an incentive to prove the mathmatical approach works.
Glad to hear of your successes and I'm sure you must get great satisfaction from outwitting the **************s but OUR METHOD'S VIABLE TOO GODDAM IT.

There, I feel better now.

KV

Punter57

This is why we have free will and varying bets on a field of runners. You make your decision by getting inside someones head and I by adding up and reducing the overall risk. Could you imagine what would happen to the price of one of your selections if we all thought the same? 1388 people wagering between $1 and $nth on the same runner, what would you spend your $1.04 return on?

And finally, try telling the TAB or a Bookmaker that its NOT mathematics. They win when you win and win when you lose.... how is that possible I wonder? From a mathematical point of view, if you were in the middle of "putting it to them" and you have had "no luck yet unfortunately" the best you can do is breakeven. Unless of course you use a mathematical progressive staking method...

Good luck with whatever way you choose to bet.

Zlotti,

Obviously the answer to your question is not very long.
Here is a question.
Over time, a long long time, the horse with the best winning strike rate wins 20% of the time, just for arguments sake.
Does that mean that unless you are taking greater than $5.00 about these runners you are not getting value.
Or is it the case that every race is an individual event, therefore you need to price each horse with the best winning strike rate in each race.
Thus coming up with a different price and then you shop for the value each individual time.

Your ponderings are very interesting, thanks for the input.

Morning Zlotti. I was in a thread ("pricing" I think) where the feeling was that the bookies mostly follow the TAB odds and jiggle it a bit from there. I wasn't sure if that was correct but a number of former bookies clerks or the like reckoned it was so, the conclusion being that "the market" makes it's own odds and not the bookies (ie it was consensus not maths). This was in reply to me asking for a concrete example of how the individual bookie DECIDES on the opening odds. Can anyone confirm or refute this please?
I'm aware of the "over-round" advantage but am also suspicious that the bookies are trying to psyche us out AS WELL. They know that most punters are frightened of big odds and (especially) big drifters so I wouldn't be surprised to find them deliberately LENGTHENING odds to scare us off from time to time. There are cases where the odds HAVE to be wrong but there is no plunge (ie the punters don't flog the bookies for their mistake). First time I noticed this was when Vintage Crop won the '93 Melbourne Cup.
It had a 60% win record (9 from 15) all between 2800m and 3600m, all at top level, and 100% at the 2 miles. The trainer came 20,000Ks for the race and brought his own jockey to boot. VC opened at about 12s and drifted. My mate in Sydney put $500 on it and I "splashed out" with $200, grinning as it got to 20s on the TAB and won EXACTLY as it should. That year it was much more a "certainty" than Makybe Diva last time and yet no Kerry Packer stepped up with his millions to destroy the bookies. Why not?? It wasn't maths that stopped the big punters but LACK OF CONFIDENCE (doubly "justified" by those odds) I reckon. What do you think?? Bye for now, and good punting.

Sorry in advance if I'm butting in on someone else's question here.

Assessing the odds on one parameter, best strike rate in this case, is of course pointless. As you say, each race is an individual event. If the horse won a lot of easy races and is hopelessly outclassed in its current race of course the price will be over $5.00. The price doesn't make it worth betting on. Next race might have a horse which won the same number of races in top class and is now racing against lesser horses. We'll take the $2.00 on this one and (hopefully) come out in front.

Zlotti's simple question may not be that simple, some of the information can be taken two ways. It implies the punter has done the form to the best of his ability to get his 25% strike rate and it's most unlikely that all his selections would pay less than $3.00 so perhaps he is using the less than $3 as an extra filter. Maybe with this extra filter he can come out in front.
(If you're selecting based on price < $3 only and that gives 25% winners I apologise for adding a level of interest that wasn't there).

KV

Zlotti

When I saw that cut and paste from the Richard Reid article I blacked out for a few minutes....

Benny, Benny, Benny.....mate, you're either a real glutton for punishment, as thick as hospital crockery or taking the p1ss....which one is it?