Punting 1.01

[mardigras]

19 minutes ago, barryb said:

Read this mate, good guide on how to do it.

https://www.horseracinginfo.com.au/betting-guide/framing-your-own-market.htm

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.

[FeelTheFear]

39 minutes ago, barryb said:

Read this mate, good guide on how to do it.

https://www.horseracinginfo.com.au/betting-guide/framing-your-own-market.htm

Thanks mate. I have been doing something similar and rating based upon % to field% converted to a market. I have a spreadsheet that then does the work and even tells me how much (%) over the market is. I guess it is getting my market as accurate as possible. I hate not betting a horse that was a dollar under my market when it wins. Will have to take a new look at it. 

[FeelTheFear]

21 minutes ago, mardigras said:

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.

One of yours...

(i) Assess chances in each race you wish to bet on.
(ii) Give runners a % chance of winning
(iii) Correlate that % chance to a price 
(iv) Compare your prices with the prices available for the runner
(v) If the price is 10%+ higher than the price you have calculated, write the runner down, with your price and the price available or use a computer.
(vi)Do this for 1 month.

If after 1 month, you could not back each runner to either win a certain amount or on level stakes and show a profit, then

(a) Refine how you assess chance because you have it wrong
(b) Repeat points (i) to (vi) until your recorded results result in a profit. I would suggest of at least 5% ROI over the month

After you have reached point (b) successfully the first time, repeat the process for another 5 months. As soon as you reach any month that your records do not show a profit. Go back to (a) because you still have the assessment process wrong.

Once you have an assessment approach that has won for 6 straight months, you could trial it with real money. A conservative approach would be my suggestion. If after a long period of success, potentially increase stake (within reasonable limits with consideration to the total won to date).
 

[Turny]

Thanks Barry - will put to good use - been doing something like that but not as good as this

Thanks

Tom

[mardigras]

56 minutes ago, FeelTheFear said:

Thanks mate, appreciate your insight. I never chase losses and have a betting strategy that allows for wins and losses automatically, based upon the bank.

I am working on times. Comparison between tracks and track conditions are a challenge.

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.

[VC!]

48 minutes ago, barryb said:

Read this mate, good guide on how to do it.

https://www.horseracinginfo.com.au/betting-guide/framing-your-own-market.htm

Brilliant Basil

I have no problem rating a field just arriving at value I had no understanding this explains it perfectly 

Will practice over the next 3 months to see how I go

Good thread Rod you’re not over the hill yet

Basil loved your post going back quite a few months on how when the internet first came out and your land line was tied up all day I could relate to that myself so much easier now

[mardigras]

5 minutes ago, FeelTheFear said:

One of yours...

(i) Assess chances in each race you wish to bet on.
(ii) Give runners a % chance of winning
(iii) Correlate that % chance to a price 
(iv) Compare your prices with the prices available for the runner
(v) If the price is 10%+ higher than the price you have calculated, write the runner down, with your price and the price available or use a computer.
(vi)Do this for 1 month.

If after 1 month, you could not back each runner to either win a certain amount or on level stakes and show a profit, then

(a) Refine how you assess chance because you have it wrong
(b) Repeat points (i) to (vi) until your recorded results result in a profit. I would suggest of at least 5% ROI over the month

After you have reached point (b) successfully the first time, repeat the process for another 5 months. As soon as you reach any month that your records do not show a profit. Go back to (a) because you still have the assessment process wrong.

Once you have an assessment approach that has won for 6 straight months, you could trial it with real money. A conservative approach would be my suggestion. If after a long period of success, potentially increase stake (within reasonable limits with consideration to the total won to date).
 

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.

[barryb]

5 minutes ago, VC! said:

 

Basil loved your post going back quite a few months on how when the internet first came out and your land line was tied up all day I could relate to that myself so much easier now

Yep, now in our house my 15yr old asks what are we watching on TV Dad, only 2 possible answers, channel 62 or 63. 

[FeelTheFear]

23 minutes ago, mardigras said:

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 you wrote it a while ago.

I will have a play at barryb's link and see how I go. 

[hesi]

Thanks for that, very interesting.

It all hinges though on your ability to rate the chances of each horse in a race.

[VC!]

9 minutes ago, barryb said:

Yep, now in our house my 15yr old asks what are we watching on TV Dad, only 2 possible answers, channel 62 or 63. 

I have 3 kids 5 TV,s in my house one certain TV is sacred never to be used by anyone but myself lol

It all started from the wife complaining that’s not fair no one else in the house can watch TV don’t be so selfish 

So I fixed it everyone now has a TV

 

 

[hesi]

6 minutes ago, hesi said:

Thanks for that, very interesting.

It all hinges though on your ability to rate the chances of each horse in a race.

Many punters would do this on an ad hoc basis, as opposed to a scientific.

ie, Look at a horses price, think that is paying too much and has a better chance than that, so take the horse as overs.

Garbage data in, garbage out

[FeelTheFear]

I have seen punters write that any price about a winner is good. They don't take into account long term.

[VC!]

56 minutes ago, FeelTheFear said:

I hate not betting a horse that was a dollar under my market when it wins. Will have to take a new look at it. 

I was thinking the same thing could you incorporate it into your bet if you used odds boost price pump etc

[Vanturk]

43 minutes ago, barryb said:

Yep, now in our house my 15yr old asks what are we watching on TV Dad, only 2 possible answers, channel 62 or 63. 

too true bb. same here

[mardigras]

3 minutes ago, VC! said:

I was thinking the same thing could you incorporate it into your bet if you used odds boost price pump etc

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.

[VC!]

I’m starting to understand now how irrelevant it is to assess a horses chance through a gear change 

[FeelTheFear]

11 minutes ago, mardigras said:

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.

I have a spreadsheet that will calculate and let me know the % over. I was using 120%+. I am not an entertainment punter at all, I want to make money ?

[mardigras]

9 minutes ago, VC! said:

I’m starting to understand now how irrelevant it is to assess a horses chance through a gear change 

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.

[VC!]

3 minutes ago, mardigras said:

And for me, value only really comes into it when the value is at the 120%+ mark. 

OK since I’m in practice mode for the next 3 months I’ll take that on board

I’ll set aside over 100% and over 120 of course all my 120s will be in my over 100s and see how I go

I also use Betfair but find it difficult to get set on NZ racing 

Anyway just need to figure out what units I apply

Its going to be an interesting exercise

Find your passion and you never work a day in your life

[FeelTheFear]

5 minutes ago, mardigras said:

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 never use blinkers or other gear as such though if a horse shows erratic tendencies in its races and the trainer is astute, I may factor it as a positive in my mind to add to the overall picture. It is never a strong factor as it is still an unknown, unless it has been used successfully before. 

[barryb]

5 minutes ago, FeelTheFear said:

I never use blinkers or other gear as such though if a horse shows erratic tendencies in its races and the trainer is astute, I may factor it as a positive in my mind to add to the overall picture. It is never a strong factor as it is still an unknown, unless it has been used successfully before. 

The trouble is FTF & this is what dopey doesnt get, you CAN NOT quantify it as you CAN NOT be sure that this was the telling factor & even if you could how much weighting would you apply?, for me anything above 1% is pure speculation.

[FeelTheFear]

1 minute ago, barryb said:

The trouble is FTF & this is what dopey doesnt get, you CAN NOT quantify it as you CAN NOT be sure that this was the telling factor & even if you could how much weighting would you apply?, for me anything above 1% is pure speculation.

Exactly. As I said previously, I may factor it as a positive if previous use showed improvement but still can't quantify with a figure. It is one of many variables I add in my head to get an overall sense of the horse and possibility of improvement. Adding 10% or 20% because of blinkers is fantasy. It's a minor factor among a sea of other minor factors that may add weight to an overall asessment. What the horse has done previously is the main dish, what it does today is the dessert. The rest a bit of garnish.

[Brown fox]

How much weight do you give Jockeys? For example I would throw all Leith Innes's rides into my Exotics and

Multies at Ellerslie because he consistantly rides the track well.

[mardigras]

7 minutes ago, Brown fox said:

How much weight do you give Jockeys? For example I would throw all Leith Innes's rides into my Exotics and

Multies at Ellerslie because he consistantly rides the track well.

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.