Hi All

Like many others, I use an Excel based ratings system to determine my picks for any given race (thanks to Shaun on this forum for technical assistance with this a few weeks ago).

Results so far are encouraging and my top 4 rated will produce the winner 68% of the time based on a sample of 200 races. POT of 21% backing all four horses to win to level stakes (using TAB divs as basis for calc). No doubt this'll reduce substantially when I eventually find the courage to put some cash on my selections!

My question relates to the concept of value. With a 68% chance of one of my Top 4 coming in the winner, value theory (as I understand it) suggests I should bet only when the combined odds on offer are below 68%? Is this correct? I understand that when backing a single horse, value can be achieved when my assessed odds for a specific horse are lower than the odds on offer from the TAB/Bookmaker but I wonder whether this approach is valid for backing four horses in a race when my assessment of their % chance of winning (68%) is based on a historic trend in a relatively small sample as opposed to taking each race and each horse on its merits and trying to establish value on a race by race basis.

Any thoughts on this? I've rerun the spreadsheets to see what impact this approach has on POT and it does increase (to 31%) but the number of bets is substantially reduced so could just be a quirck.

Welcome some feedback

Many thanks in advance

200 races is not a bad sample.
If one is hitting 21% POT betting 4 horses, I would not change anything just yet.

Well done.

Be prepared for the run of outs that will come up, no matter how good the ratings.

What I do is stop after 9 outs in a row & wait for one of my selections to get up before re-commencing.
It works for me.

If one wishes to establish a clearer picture of how ones system may perform , one idea that works well is have 3 sample batches of 150 races.
If one batch shows a profit & the other 2 batches manage to break nearly square , the plan has potential.



The only thing that could kill the plan is short prices that are not in ones top 4 selections .

So its an idea to avoid any race where the second Fav in the race is not paying $4.00+

That way, one is only competeing with one thats poor value & a chance of getting up , not 2 horses of poor value with a chance of getting up.

Cheers.

__________________
Cheers.

Sparky12, I would presume you are selective in the type of race for your strike rate of 68% and POT of 21%? and you are betting level stakes?

One of my friends had a friend who worked for Mark Read. He said that M.R. would total his assessed odds/percentage of his top three selections, and if he could get those odds or better he would then have a bet. For example, if the assessed total percentage of his top three selections came to 65%, and if another bookie/TAB were offering odds on those three horses that totalled 65% or better, he would then back all three horses. However my friend does not know if M.R. would juggle the amount bet on each horse or whether he would use those as suggested by his ratings.

I agree with Bhagwan - I would not be too eager to change anything yet.

Michael G - Yes, the system is restricted, in my case I focus only on Class 6 and above and I ignore 2yo and 3yo only events so exposed form is key, I'm using level stakes for my calcs ie: same amount on each of the four horses, race after race, irrespective of results - not actually betting anything as yet! V interested in comments re Mark Read's approach - the difference is he is assessing the odds of his top 3 picks based on his evaluation of horses in a specific race I suspect - in my case I'm simply assuming my 68% strike rate is valid and continues into the future and using that 68% "chance" of success as the basis for the value comparison - not sure yet that this is correct or valid hence the post.

Bagwan - thanks for the words of encouragement and advice - I'm on a losing role now following a fantastic run of results so great to be brought down to earth so quickly!

Sparky,

21% pot return is a very good figure [exceptional] for backing 4 horses per race based on ratings. Boy, who's are those?

What is your average winning odds to reach that sort of figure? It would have to be quite high as even at $8 units win average your true odds for 4 runners is only evens. $4w would be money back and no profit. 68% SR is a hint I suppose but I can't figure it at the moment [I've got the flu]. Maybe someone here can[?]

Crash

You've got me worried now mate! Quick calc suggests average Div of $7.8, total races in this sample is actually 181. Not all races require all 4 horses to be backed - the system has a cut off price of $40 for a horse so anything over is a no bet (so sometimes only 2 horses backed and sometimes 3) - my ratings have thrown up a surprising number of ridiculous longshots which I don't bet. Having said that doing a box trifecta of my top 4 has produced a 7000-1 Trifecta of late and yes, I didn't invest! Infact a box trifecta on each race returns a POT significantly into 3 figures but if you exclude the 7000-1 tri then things looks very good but not the stellar retuns produced by including it! Quinnella results are good too interestingly enough.

If I was to restrict my bets to (say) only horses priced $16 and under, this would perhaps be more realistic test as longshot winners (and there's been a few) are eliminated from the results thus meaning less skewed result - the POT drops to around 9% (last time I checked) so maybe that is a good reality check.

The ratings are my own and fairly simply contructed so no rocket science here I'm afraid - hence keen to get feedback such as yours as I am a pessimist by nature and, like you, can't believe a 20%+POT would be achievable in a bigger sample by backing 4 horses. I'd love however to have the time to filter the four horses down to maybe one or two only with some proper form study as I do think that's got to be a way to some solid and regular profit but............

Cheers

Well I'd keep doing what your doing for the moment but be very wary of your real odds. You should make sure your going to get at least evens on your shortest priced runner. A 3 horse bet would mean all of them are paying at least $6 min. If it's less, you are accepting odds-on. Not good in my book, but others are OK with it.

Swings and slides. Increase you chances, reduce your odds etc. I used to back 2 horses in a race for a long time but now I [mostly] just back 1 horse per race.

Hi Sparky,
Try this with your past figures.
With the 1st & 2nd rated only bet them if paying $3.50+
With the 3rd & 4th rated only bet them if $8.50+

This should increase the POT.

2nd fav in race must be $4.00+ otherwise no-bet race.

Maybe make $28 as the cut off.

Cheers.

__________________
Cheers.

Thanks Bhagwan

This'll test my Excel skills for sure! Appreciate you giving this some thought - will run the numbers this weekend and see how I go and report back.

I reworked my ratings formulas to accommodate lower class races this week (Cl1-6 at country/provincials) - got 5/7 quinellas and 3/7 trifectas at Rockhampton yesterday based on boxing my top 4 rated - 6/7 winners as well - joy lasted about 1 minute when I saw the returns.......still, I enjoyed that minute immensly, considered giving up the day job, island in the sun etc etc....all good fun.

Cheers

Sparky i'm currently following my own ratings and they are producing figures that im very happy with,the strike rate of the highest rater isnt as high i would like but like you the top 3 or 4 is producing the goods,my suggestion to you would be to restrict yourself to races where the chances of a good divedend are higher.

Try 10 starters or more on a saturday and either 11 or 12 any other day,it works for me.