mardigras

curious has hit the nail on the head. The key point is exactly as he wrote - and getting there can be different for each person. Simple advice on betfair, spend time watching the markets before betting. Some price changes especially around longer odds runners can shift massively in the last minute or so - usually outward. I haven't used any of the betfair betting tools. I thought they were generally targeted around traders, but maybe useful for standard backing/laying as well. On your iphone with the way you have it set, can you see market depth on betfair? And market %? Useful info when using betfair to gauge the competitiveness of the market overall. And refer to other betting sites for odds comparison or use an odds checker site. Factor in commission charges on betfair when comparing prices.

Since it all runs automatically, I set an acceptable exposure on the markets for laying, and lay to that exposure. I usually set my application to check and adjust prices 4 times per race. Could be just one runner or at times 5 or 6 runners. I have laying set to not take SP as I want to control whether price is sufficiently below my assessed price. I lay both the win and place markets. The horses will usually be paying more than the totes, but I lay based on that price compared to chance so even though it is higher, it still has to fall within criteria around that. With backing, I usually use set stake. Although at times I change it and bet to return a % of 'bank'. I've tried many variations on betting to bank %, betting to overlay rate. End results have shown little variance to ROI. So I usually just set it to what I think is good for the day. Staking plans are fine, but I don't see a lot of variance overall. When I was seriously betting, I used to operate as a bookie on UK markets. Running books starting from 18 - 30 hours out from a race. In doing that, I would look to lay the entire field. Always initially to below my price, and also laying off some at higher prices than my own ratings (although only at the point of approaching start time) on the basis I would generally take guaranteed cash than sit with a high exposure. UK markets are great for that as they have strong liquidity. I stopped doing that after a couple of times when my house lost power in the middle of the night and I was left with markets all over the place with limited ability to adjust prices or get out of the market. Those times were too stressful so I reverted to just laying those under my prices and limiting the exposure to what I was happy losing on those markets. Then I don't have to worry if the power goes off. The marketplace varies. Some layers come in and seem desperate to take bets, so set the high price. I think patience is a key ingredient to using betfair.

Nice barryb. That's how you do it. Interesting that you do it before the races barryb. Novel idea, but I like it.

It's something we'll never know. He looked to be tiring so it could have made the difference of a tight margin.

I see Jake Bayliss rode He's Gold 0.5kg over! Without wanting to start that all over, I doubt it made a difference to the result - but why on earth do these jockeys accept rides at weights they can't make.

I provide my prices to a few close mates - so I do NZ for them. I do all the prices myself for NZ/Aus/Ire/UK. I can do HK at times for friends but the main issue is having sufficient information to do them properly. My approach is a little different to the norm. I attempt to identify the time each horse will run in the race in question. And a confidence around that time. Which is where I then do simulations based on running those races with those times (and degrees of error) primarily against a normal distribution to tell me the chance factors. As for how many I find, heaps. But I don't back them all as I prefer to have less losses so I'm looking for some specifics around my price and the available prices. I used to operate primarily as a bookie. But if you can price OK, you can do either. I still run a number of books, mostly targeting horses that I rate as having less than a 3% chance but are paying well below the odds I believe they should be. I'm could bet on more horses, but I prefer the idea of losing less often (even if the ultimate returns would be higher). Betting on 25 runners that I assess at 4% that are paying 30+ means I'm likely to lose 24 of the 25 times. So I'd typically back around 8 to 20 horses on a Saturday. And I'd lay around 150. And on betfair, I'd warn people who take SP odds on NZ racing on 'roughies' to use caution. The liquidity is so poor, the SP prices are often below what you could get most other places. That diminishes of course with an event with higher liquidity.

A lot of people there? I saw some coverage from Whanganui?? Seemed to have a pretty decent turnout there. Are they on the chopping block?

It's a personal consideration I guess. I typically don't alter anything for the jockey. But when it comes to betting, I won't bet on certain jockeys. I don't adjust prices for them, but some I don't think are good at putting horses into races. So in that respect, if you think a jockey rides a track well, then at least you may be of the view your horse will get the opportunity to run to its potential.

Well attended?

I expect there are some smart punters out there that can use gear changes effectively. I'd expect they would have to know the horse/the horse's traits well enough to have some confidence that the ability that has been displayed to date is being hindered, and the gear change will address that trait. It would have to be horse specific. And I'd respect anyone that has that ability and can factor in what they believe the gear will do performance wise.

I have had a few discussions on that. It comes down to what you want I guess. If you want to win, you can set aside your bets that are aimed at making you a profit. And you can also do entertainment punting. If that's what you enjoy. When I go to the races, I bet mostly on what I see as value. But I will have a bet in a race usually even if I don't see any real value. And for me, value only really comes into it when the value is at the 120%+ mark. If I back a horse at the same price as my price, long term I'd expect to just get my money back. And since I bet largely on betfair, other things need to be considered as well.

Could be - but don't recall writing that. I'd agree with it as a basis for refining your method of defining chance. Using the link barryb put up would be a good start, and checking your results. Isn't much point in framing a market if all the ones you price up that are less than the odds available are losing more than expected. It's not just about getting value, it's about getting value to a metric that you have confidence in.

Yes, chasing losses is an even faster way to the poor farm than the blue print. My opinion is that any staking plan that increases bet parameters when you lose should be avoided. Increasing when you win, OK. Not when you lose. Time comparison is very difficult. But it depends on to what level of detail.

Good stuff barryb. If it's about winning, I think you need to have a way to frame the market. That link provides a easy way to get started for people that want to do it. If I was doing it that way, I'd probably expand it out to a 0.5 - 20 (1 - 40) type approach (even if initially using a model similar to what was in the link). A little bit more granular. And I'd keep records of your markets, so that you can learn from the approach as to how well your prices go relative to market. And also how well your rated 'chance' runs accordingly. If you price things up and every time you price a horse as a $2 chance, if they don't win 50% of the time then maybe your pricing/rating is a bit out. Since essentially you are trying to obtain the true chance of the horse as opposed to the chance the market is giving it.

R1 - Missing Hazard. I've priced it at $15.5 similar to bookies (You may be the one that has it right!). At value I have #4 Show 'N' Go, my price $11.50 available at 30s+. R4 - He's Gold. My price $8.00. I think Son Of Maher and Kiwi Ida are too short to back. So yep, your one. R5 - Feelin The Love. I'm similar to the bookies at $12. I can see a very small amount of value in #5 Passito at my price of $9.60. Not enough to entice me however. R6 - Taree. Interesting. I've priced this at $7.20. And I have some time for #2 AceKingSuited - I've priced at $5.50. R8 Lochan Ora. I've priced $12.50. but now we are talking as this is a blue print special It does have to beat Kaharau however - which has the blinkers on! But I've priced that just above bookie odds at $8.60 R9 Xcuses Xcuses. Looks to be some value there. I priced at $7.60. I'd be looking at #8 Thought That as a reasonable rough chance also. R10 Sentient. I've priced this on top but in a fairly even market to me - at $6.20! Currently only 5s NZ TAB. I may have this wrong. I think #11 Queen Jetsun is a little value. My price is $7.80, bookies currently around 10s. But as I say, I have the market pretty even.

That's been shown to work here Fred. Thomass does that.

As barryb said, you can only assess on what you know. If a horse is punted hugely, then by the time you know that and think they MUST know something, you've likely lost price advantage. I like being different. I'm quite happy to take market drifters. I contributed to a book and the chapter I was involved in was about insider trading in racing markets. It concluded that there was around a 15% impact due to 'knowledgeable' insider trading (from memory). That would have likely changed with the massive shift to fixed odds betting. So the level of insider trading on the tote is likely less although the impact probably still remains. The price changes there are likely as a result of the general public following the fixed price moves (some of which will be caused by insider trading).

A good pointer is definitely price. The majority of punters likely return 85 - 95% of their investment. So obtaining an extra 10-15% every time you bet can be enough to change that dramatically. To respond to VC! laying at 1.01. - it may work but the question you may have to ask is, what will you do after 200 or 300 races of losses where the 1.01 horse wins. I do see them lose, but don't know how frequently. I saw one at 1.02 yesterday that lost. If that interests you, it is easy to test. I'd call that punting on the inability of other punters to read the race. form - what is form? In the media, the norm is to take a horse and assess its performance comparatively to the horses it raced against and then try and identify where the parameters of this race will bring it closer to being the winner. If that works, great. I don't trust the horses last start(s) are necessarily the best indicator of what it will do this start. down in class - individual to a degree. But on the discussion on this site, not so much. As races have defined 'class' levels. Black Type down through grades. It is a useless and unrelated factor because the horse doesn't know what class it raced in. So if the race is a G1 but they race in the same fashion as a maiden race, the horse that finishes 1 length from the winner and then races in a maiden, is not superior performance in superior class. It is just a performance the equivalent of a maiden. I price every runner - if I don't, how do I know the prices of the 'better' runners are accurate? Most of those are just personal considerations. There is no right or wrong. I would say this, none of them are important - if the consideration is applied in a general sense. Punting is about the individual horse, not the collective. If you assess the factor is important to THIS horse, then use it. If it is a factor you think applies to horses generally, my advice would be to ignore it. Generalisations about what works in form are going to lead you to where Thomass is. At the poor farm. On the last point about time. I use time a lot. But not time from one performance. Without considering anything else, in your example, the Randwick horse would likely have greater ability.

Just racing. But the principles of value apply everywhere.

You and I have been on these sites enough to know that often when people are asked to front up with something substantial, it never arrives. So many posters of crap, they hope people simply forget. Sad, but true. I like it when someone challenges my views with substance. But when they are just hot air, I get like Thomass's princess and deflate.

Sounds about right to me. If you need to change the letter for tomorrow - do it Monday would be my advice.

Given this is a racing site. And some may think I'm overly tough on Thomass. I'm happy to have a proper debate on the topic of these things without the need to get all aggressive. I'm quite happy to try and explain why some approaches are flawed etc. (Which has nothing to do with my approach, just that they are flawed). I don't have the answers. But what I do have is what are NOT the answers. What I can provide is insight from a punter that has been successful for decades at punting. Not just bullshit after the races crap. (not that it should be necessary, but I can prove this). And we are in an awesome position of having the likes of barryb, ftf, curious and others with real punting ability that they have so far been happy to share. I also don't claim to have the answers. Just take a look at the selections others put up. Brilliant. We don't always agree. It isn't able to be done that way. If this site wants people like barryb to offer insights, then how can that be a bad thing. If you backed all the selections barryb has put up on this site, I expect you'd be doing pretty well. But what I'd say to any punter that wants to succeed at punting. You must bet to value AND you MUST know what value is. That is talking from a winning mindset - not all punters want to win or even really care about winning. Newmarket made a good point about that. Each to their own etc. But if it is about winning, then you should understand value. If you just want to have a bet and enjoy some fun, that is great. I'm not even trying to change that. But if you come in with suggestions that things like blinkers on or down in grade relate to chance assessment, then you will have to back that up with some evidence - surely. If someone asks me a sane question, I'm more than happy to answer it the best I can - or others will hopefully. This isn't about who is better, this is about sharing info. We're a small group of people that ultimately won't affect the marketplace. So why not? Thomass calls this stuff arrogant. Which is like going to the doctor and he/she diagnoses your problem and you call them arrogant. They are supposedly professionals in their field.

Love it. This is the BP at it's finest.

It makes no diff what he says. He is clueless.

Funny that you talk about 'pee' since 'P' is Thomass's favourite blue print letter - because of the 'Princess' - only just beating out B - for Blow Up and D for Doll.