I'd agree Partypooper,1/1 about a 4/5 is incredible odds, but only in hindsight after the race of course.Unaccountable variables assures that 1/1 is never a sane bet or you must embrace "any price a winner" logic [Your other name must be wind-up]
I think stats show one in four favorites win all races.ANY odds you accept below 4/1 puts your pot at risk statistically [only]. We can accept below this often because of known variables that can genuinely alter the stats,but even 2/1 in my opinion cannot allow for unknown variables,especialy personal error.You cannot be sure that your 4/5 judgement is correct before the race,can you? .Obviosly not or alternatively,you have become extreamely wealthy from your very astute judgements.

At what point odds become a no bet is a personal assesment of where we indevidualy set the unknown. For me it's 3/1 and I'd probably be better off at 4/1 as I'm sure most of us overestimate our ability.

Crash,

Last year I would have agreed with you, but now I would have to disagree. I suggest you have a look at the statistics on raw POT figures for bets on various odds ranges. For odds-on favourites (1.90 or less) the loss from backing EVERY runner at this price is only about 5% (using best available TAB odds or a product like DiviPlus) compared to the average 15% loss for all runners. Basically this is due to the "longshot" bias in the TAB and bookies markets so you actually have a much smaller disadvantage to overcome with odds-on runners than longer odds horses.

Now I am not suggesting that you should only back short priced horses but I certainly wouldn't disregard them - it is definetly possible to make a profit from them!

__________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson

The best way to win with odds on favorites is to never to bet on them and never bet against them.There are plenty of other races available that present better opportunities and value. Value and especialy overlay value, is what we are looking for, surely?
How do we find overlay value with very short priced odds, except with hindsight?

crash

you have been offerred some very good advice which of course you are free to reject. In rejecting this advice consider for a moment that the point of the debate, market efficiency (longshot bias) has long been dealt within the sphere of academia. Some of these academic papers (using sophisticated statistical modelling) include:

Fabricand, "Horse Sense"
Snyder, "Horse Racing: Testing the Efficient Markets Model"
Ali, "Probability Estimates for Racetrack Betting"
Asch, Malkiel, Quandt "Racetrack Betting and Informed Behaviour"

You don't have to read all these papers to realise the market efficiency debate is over.

No one is claiming short priced horses offer profitable value on price alone. But looking for value in longer priced horses is not only futile, it is delusory - the mug punters Saturday afternoon fantasy.

[quote]
On 2003-07-21 13:07, Dr Pangloss wrote:
crash - you have been offerred some very good advice which of course you are free to reject. In rejecting this advice consider for a moment that the point of the debate, market efficiency (longshot bias) has long been dealt within the sphere of academia.
You don't have to read all these papers to realise the market efficiency debate is over.

No one is claiming short priced horses offer profitable value on price alone. But looking for value in longer priced horses is not only futile, it is delusory - the mug punters Saturday afternoon fantasy.
***********************************

La Mer: Just to support what Dr. Pangloss and others have already stated, that is the further you get away from the favourite the more you are likely to lose - all the research over the years have indicated this, including more recent research in Australia.

For those that don't believe this to be the case, then the simple answer is to provide some proof, similar to what I've provided below which clearly indicates that the short end of the market is the area that needs to be concentrated on.

Odds On Shots: Strike-rate: 51.1% LOT: 4.1%
Evens to 9/1: Strike-rate: 16.1% LOT: 17.6%
(LOT equals Lose On Turnover)

and it only gets worse the longer the odds get.

Hi,

I've followed this discussion with a lot of interest. It is true that the bigger the odds, the bigger the loss on turnover backing all the selections at those odds.

So it's no surprise that the horses at long odds are the ones that the racing media tell us are value.

If you can find horses that are true odds on chances or just a little in the black (your assessment, not the market's), and get overlays on those selections you can do very well.

This is what the Pro-Punter Super Specials method is all about:

Identifying horses we assess with our own form methods as being very strong winning chances (odds on or a little in the black).
In this process we look at the race and the horses in the race. We pay no attention whatsoever to the prepost markets.

We've already obtained some phenomenal value since we introduced these selections on 21st. June. There has also only been one loser. Of course a 90% winning strike rate will not be maintained long term. But we're confident a very high strike rate will.

[ This Message was edited by: Neil on 2003-07-21 16:43 ]

The market can be used in other more exciting ways..instead of using strikerates, maybe it is far more wiser to add the probabilities of say every runner JockeyA rode then matched against his actual strikerate..this can be applied to any combination you like..Jockey/Dist Jockey/Trainer etc etc..

"Who makes the odds" Dumb question says E.J. Minnis from practical punter. The "idiot" books take off like wild fire with those wanting to easily digest and understand information.
So who does make the odds? If we are refering to those availabe from the TAB operators,then they really are not odds at all-rather the dividends paid out in accordance with the winning tickets and collective value in the totalisator pools.
Leaving aside the TAB takeouts and other factors such as the rounding-down effect,if there was a win pool of $100,000 with $20,000 winning $1 tickets,then the dividend would be $5.
Simply put,the dividens paid out by by the tote opertators are determined by the punters themselves in accordance with how much [collectively] they invest on each race.

That's what racing's about. Different opinions. That's what a forum's about. Different opinions. You have not been personally rejected crash. Other posters are expressing their opinions just as you have been expressing yours.

The last time I had a "Saterday afternoon fantasy" La Mer: it didn't include anything with four legs.
What your saying[academicaly] is that we are all wasting our time on the punt. So why arn't you butterfly collecting or somthing?
Those book writers makes their money selling books. The punt has nothing to do with writing books [poor sods].
What you say is true statisticly. But outside stats there is room to move because of non maths variables. Stats are maths mate and as we know they are great to a point but useless for prodicting a definative win.Just ask any pro punter. Statisticly there could'nt be any winning punters by your maths logic and there is no argument there.Outside stats is where we are at and you are obviously there or you wouldn't be here [ho ho lol].