Double your profits
 

PUNTING TIP.

Everyone knows if you back every favourite you will end up losing.
This is because some of those favourites were in fact well under the odds.
Betting every favourite for level stakes will probably end in a loss of 14% or so.
If you could come up with a selection process that can eliminate much of those "under the odds runners", then it is extremely likely that betting Favourites is very Profitable.
Just say you could do that!
Just say you could turn it around by careful selection and ended up with a profit of 2% using level stakes.
What that means is your runners are paying at 2% over the odds.
Or you could equally say that the runners are winning 2% more races than what their starting price indicates that they should.
DON SCOTT's WONKY WHEEL proved to those of understanding, the necessity of getting VALUE about your selections.
And either I am doing the Math wrong or it is true that if you take those same selections in doubles, then the Profit percentage will double.

It works like this.
Supposing a roulette wheel had 49 Reds and 51 Blacks.
Suppose the house has 100 spins for today.
If the house pays even money on each colour, then the Punter wins $2 for every $100 invested if he only bets a dollar each spin on black.
The next day the same thing happens.100 spins.Another $2 is won for his $100.

100 spins yesterday and 100 spins today will equal 10,000 possible doubles combinations.
And the Punter would have got 2601 of them doubles.
And the house would have paid him 3 to 1 which amounts to $10,404 for an Investment of $10,000
The house lost $404 for every $10,000 bet by the punter.
OR, $4.04 for every $100 bet by the Punter.

JUST IMAGINE WHAT THE PUNTER WOULD HAVE OBTAINED IF HE WAS PLAYING QUADRELLAS.
Would it be 8% Profit or would it be 16%?
Whatever, it is no wonder that the PROFESSIONAL PUNTERS are doing well in the EXOTICS areas.

Moeee, there is no neon sign that lights up and says: 'This horse is 2% [pick any % figure you like] over it's true odds!'

The punting myth-busters say: 'the is no such thing as 'true' odds. Not pre-post or starting price true odds anyway.

Sadly, unlike Roulette, horse racing true odds can only be worked out after a race.

can't buy that
 

Untrue.

The result of a race is dependant on the immediate circumstances.
If the exact same race was ran the very next day, then it is highly likely that the result would be different, and therefore the calculated true odds after the race would be different than the previous days event.
And if this same race was ran a thousand times over a thousand days, THAT is the ODDS that we are calculating when we do the form and assessment.

[QUOTE=moeee]
The result of a race is dependent on the immediate circumstances.
QUOTE]

Exactly.

How can anyone work out true odds BEFORE a race when the result will be dependent on immediate circumstances that happen DURING the race, that we the punter will not know until AFTER the race?

A horse you work out as having true odds of say 10/1 that loses it's jockey during the race, has not got a 10/1 chance of winning, it has no chance of winning. So your 'true' odds would have been false and therefore not true odds at all.

True odds can never be more than an educated guess, if they weren't there would be no horse racing as nobody would take our bets unless we accepted unders [just like the games in a Casino]!

Agree with Crash and Mooee.
Odds offered by bookmakers or on TAB do not in any way reflect the REAL chances of a horse winning a race.
All they reflect is popular opinion...which is often wrong and is the only reason that punting on horses can exist.
There are so many variables that affect the outcome of a race that the realistic odds are impossible to frame. I've always thought that Bookies get a free ride when they can quote 6/4 in a 12 horse field. TAB pools..the odds on offer and subsequently the punters are influenced by the media, pre-post odds and bookmakers laying off.
Best bet in my opinion is to follow a strong stable or a horse in that stable and using a good staking plan bet on the fact that owners want a return on their training costs and initial outlay.
All the rest (weight handicapping, ratings, percentages) is peopledeluding themselves that there is an easy way of making money...never has been, never will be...usually just another case of mathsturbation.

Can't say I agree.
Following a top stable does not mean you're any better off usually.
The horses are more overbet than other neddies.

If you were to take the odds offered by bookmakers, the TAB, or Betfair and add the over round or commission - overall you'd be very close to break even or above.
This indicates the accuracy of the price to true chance.
While there are vast areas of under or over pricing with regard to individual horses or races, as a mass, there is no more accurate predictor on volume of bets.
I've just done an exercise with regards to four commercial seperate ratings strategies, and while they do highlight certain areas of value, they certainly haven't been able to beat the overall market consensus.

You can work out true odds before a race...

If you're getting prices on horses and making a profit, you're getting over the true odds, if you're making a loss, you're getting unders.
So, you know that if you keep taking the odds you've been taking, for the sorts of horses or races you've been investing in, then the result will be the same overall.

It's not the horse, or the race that counts, it's the end result.

True odds are not about predicting winners as much as predicting profit.

Yes this is true for one particular race.
But then on the next race the jockey falls off another horse and the next race a different jockey.
It is over a period of races that your assessed odds will show themselves as being accurate indicators by the profit or loss on turnover made.

My 2 cents worth in laymans language, Crash what you say is CORRECT, however, (as Chrome says, the odds are remarkably accurate and close to break even in most cases when commisions are added back) we are talking about many 1000's of races so that 10-1 is calculated INCLUDING the 1 race in 500 when the jockey falls off etc. in the same way as the odds are slighly better (on a sliding scale) the better the draw etc. Overall the book seems to be pretty accurate the lower the price and slightly worse (on a sliding scale) the higher the odds but overall it comes back to the book being set at 118 or whatever, does that make sense?

I'd agree with Chrome on the point that the most accurate overall odds is the market. Technically they are not 'true' odds in the accurate meaning of the word of course, but they are as true as we will ever get.

If we consistently only back our selections at better than market TAB odds we can do OK. Provided of course our selection ability/system provides a suitable SR of winning bets.

I see what you're getting at Crash, no you won't get the "true" odds of a particular horse or event accurate all the time, or in fact all that often.

It's the group of events where true odds can be discovered.

I ask myself if a horse is even money, do I think that this horse would win fifty out of 100 runnings of this race, or more?

Could a 10/1 shot win one in 10 if this race were run 100 times, this does not mean the odds were wrong if the horse wins or loses, because adds are always speculation of future earnings, not a predictor of independant results.

I don't think anyone will get within a bull's roar of true odds for each event.