There have been several weighty books written on the subject of value, in betting. As far as I am aware no one has come up with a magic formula which gives a definitive method of establishing what value is, or how to apply value in your day to day betting. There are plenty of opinions and maybe, but no definitive equation. So, if finding value is such an intangible process, does it really matter? Can it or should it be completely ignored? What do these madmen who constantly trumpet the horn of value really mean and are they involved in the biggest confidence trick since speed figures were published?

The Value Camp, hold the following argument to be true.

A horse that has a greater pay out odds than it’s chance odds is value. If a horse has a 20% chance of winning (4/1) and is available at odds of 6/1 (14%) represents value of +6%.

So, over a series of a 100 bets a punter can expect to be up around 6% of the stakes he has invested, or the money he’s turned over.

Some punters mistakenly believe that a winner is a winner no matter what price you strike your bet at. This of course is true, on a bet by bet basis, but not right when you look at the bigger picture over a series of bets.

If the same horse with a 20% chance of winning (4/1) was only available at 7/2 (22%), then value is –2%. Even though the horse might win, over a long series of such bets the punter can expect to be out of pocket to the tune of –2%.

This is all well and good but when and if you want to start looking for value, you have to come up with a method that establishes what price (or chance) a horse should be. This involves making your own tissue from the information that is available to you and then comparing the price you think the horse should be to what is on offer. And then having the confidence in your opinions to bet accordingly.

Well, that’s the general idea. Meanwhile back in the real world, us mortals have to work out how to apply all of these grand theories in our day to day betting. How can you know that your horse trading at 4/1 is really a 7/2 chance? This is the start and the crux of the problem with value punting.

Many normal happy punters have devolved from a Lucky15 and a couple of pints on a Saturday afternoon with their mates, into a lonely wannabe navel contemplating statistician or even worse an ************ on horses. And when it all ends in tears they blame their own lack of ability and clueless approach on, the inaccuracy and lack of proper information and statistics. I can’t remember the number of times I’ve heard a hapless value ************ cry .. ‘If only I’d known that the going was good to firm, good in places and not good, good to firm in places. All of this would never have happened and we’d still have the house.’

On every gambling internet forum in the world there are no losing punters, except myself occasionally and one or two others who don’t immediately spring to mind. Yet we all know that there are very few people who can win consistently and even fewer who can make the game pay enough for it to have a positive impact on their lives. If everyone is getting value then why isn’t everyone winning? Gambling and honesty don’t sit too well together and getting proper advise is almost impossible. Any decent advise that is out there is lost in a sea of meaningless information and half ********** opinions from serial losers phishing for snippets of information.

I personally stake between $5 and $15 on every selection that I make, depending on how confident I feel at any particular time. Varying the stake in line with my own comfort zone, not depending on what notion of value I think I have. Changes in the going, a couple of losing days or a general feeling on uneasiness based on break even results can limit my stakes. In the same way that settled going, a good series of winners can see me increase the size of my stake.

Ignoring value completely and not falling under it’s spell, allows me to concentrate on looking for winners. That value camp will argue that if you win more than you lose, then you are a value punter. This is of course true, but the methods by which the winners were found were not based on looking for value. If you can find winners then the value is sure to follow, the same cannot be said of the opposite.