There have been 22 races where the favourite started at less than $2.00 in a field of 15 or greater.

10 from 22 won
14 from 22 placed

Win loss 4.2 units
Place loss 4.5 units

My rule: "The shorter the price, the bigger the field, the better chance a horse has, so look at obtaining the best price you can"

Big fields usually mean longer prices, where the price of the fave is shorter than normal, bells ring to get on but get a good price elsewhere than the TAB.

These horses have an amazing strike rate, and you would think they would find trouble with other runners etc.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 420,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/06/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

What's that based on Chrome? Sp, Best Tab?

KV

KV,

The loss quoted is using TabCorp prices.

If you got TopFluc, or Betfair, Austote etc...you'd probably be in front by a fair way.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 420,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/06/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Is he a good judge, this Stewart?

My (proper) addition to the thread:

Theoretically, if you can price a race perfectly, then you bet the overs and you win overall. Mathematically, that's a truism.

However, there are a lot of unknown's which will effect how "perfectly" you price a race. Here's what I often do: I price a race to 100% (something I always like to begin with, b/c it tells me their "true price" IMHO), then convert it to a varying percentage, based on an estimate of the level of unknown.

Lots of first up horse's in the race? Lots of queries. Maybe will price a value market to 60%. Full, exposed form, runners with reliable ratings? 80-90%.

It's basically an insurance policy when the unknown (which is what stops your market being perfect) becomes bigger.

As to the odds on thing, I stay out of odds on runners, and will look for value around them, even if I price them odds on.

Here's a good example - last Saturday I priced (at 100%) Candy Vale $1.80 and Demerger $6.50. Next best, $12+. I thought Candy Vale was a special, I rarely price them in the odds on, esp in Saturday metro's.

However, I had one bet in the race. Demerger. For obvious reasons.

Had I priced Candy Vale $1.60 and $1.80 or $1.90 (or probably even $2.20) was available, I'd still have balked. Why? Because there's one BIG thing that happens to odds onnies that doesn't happen to 10/1 shots. They run them dead and bet around them.

Candy Vale wasn't dead. She was dead unlucky but she wasn't dead. But a SIGNIFICANT enough number are run dead to ensure that if you take odds on, even if you price it overs, you'll get skun.

What were the 'obvious reasons' Demerger was a good bet to beat Candy Vale?

I don't take odds-on so I didn't bet the race or bet around Candy Vale either, as it was clearly a genuine fav., that was just very unlucky. Candy Vale was not beaten by a better horse, but by bad luck. It happens, but no one can predict that in advance.

She was 16/1, I had her $6.50, she was a far better betting proposition.

That's another thing I've found through research - the more horse's you back in a race, the harder it is to profit.

I think the reason for this is also to do with the "unknown" factor. Some races, you're going to get it wrong badly, sometimes due to things form and weights etc can't pick up on. In these races, if you've backed 4-5 chances b/c they're all over your assessed odds, the damage is big. Then, in the race when you're best overlay wins, if again you've backed 4-5 chances, the profit is not as big as it can be.

You get more collects backing 4-5 overlays but you need TOO many winners to show a profit.

I rarely back more than one horse a race, even if I have more than one overlay in my top few selections, and I find that it is a very secure way to bet, b/c you clean up when you have a horse as a big overlay (like Demerger, or Altruist on Sunday at Sale, who I priced $5.70, paid >$22, one bet for the race) and when you get it wrong, you limit the damage.

If you can, research this in your own punting, see if it helps.

As to the luck thing, of course no-one can predict it, but it's going to happen to all horses at some point, which is ANOTHER reason not to take odds on - odds onnies will miss runs also, and possibly more often, b/c other jockeys are often conscious of keeping a shortie "pocketed", and trying to get it beaten by ganging up on it. Think of the way they took on Might and Power in the 1997 Melbourne Cup (and he was 9-2!).

Demerger was the best horse in the race, and after Candy Vale, the second best winning chance in the race. Was certainly over the odds. Of course Candy Vale had to carry a lot of extra weight too!!! Just about every single tipster, ratings expert, late mail person had her as a good thing. And it takes a special horse to win carrying all that extra weight!!!

The best place to get good overlays (other than on the racecourse) is with an online bookmaker who offers fixed odds on (almost) every race

Hey Duritz, that's one of the most inciteful posts I've seen for a while, how lucky we are you didn't go off in a huff after your beer thread was so insensitively cast into the abys. (Your proper additions to the thread are quite interesting too :-).
I'm going to consider reassessing my way of calculating overs as a result of your thoughts on the extra problems which may be encountered by shorties.
I suppose it's possible to assess to some extent the truth of what you say. Over time if your theories are correct the very short priced horses should actually lose more often than their abilities would suggest. If the betting market is as accurate as many people here like to think we should get some sort of regular graph of a horses price against rate of winning (or amount returned through winning bets if you like). The graph should show a downturn around the odds on mark if indeed these short priced horses are getting stomped on by their fellows - run dead or whatever.
Of course there is the possiblility that the average punter is making allowances in the same way you are and the graph will be a straight line but if they are all that clever I might as well give up anyway.
Nevertheless, my own ratings which have no such dead/stomping factor should show some sort of variation.
Anyway, thanks for that post, it's given me something to think about.

KV