Waikato Cup/Cal Isuzu Stakes

[hesi]

Well the Bonecrusher Stakes has been such a good, educational thread, with the good grace of the various contributors, can we try it again next Sat with the above 2 races, should be more exposed form being WFA and open handicap

Still getting ny ahead around the subtle difference between picking value as opposed to winners

[mardigras]

I'll add a response to this here from another thread.

On 8/12/2018 at 1:37 PM, Newmarket said:

Hey mardigras,

Obviously you have all the info at the click of a mouse, maybe you may be able to help.

I mainly use betfair for aus punting, have tried wagertool with mixed success. 

If you were giving a bit of advice to punters just starting out with betfair, and obviously not set up or as dedicated like yourself, what would that advice be, maybe a few simple things that punters sitting down in front of the tv on a sat arvo could think about. Ta

To add something to the picking winners ideas versus value.

Two main things I will comment on regarding a) betfair and b) value.

a) Betfair: Since betfair arrived and once it gets to the point of reasonable liquidity, what it does give punters in an overall sense of things as a decent guide to chance. It's not necessarily perfect but it has become the market leader. Even the bookies will tend to use betfair (not NZ racing), as the guide to pricing. When betfair is down, they are more often like headless chooks because they have started to rely on it so much - perhaps too much.

So if you want a guide to chance (as a way to give yourself a guide, then as the race gets close, it isn't a bad one). If you wait till then, of course you may well have missed the boat since many bookies will shift based on shifts on betfair. 

And as mentioned previously. To get the best out of betfair, patience on odds is important. The fluctuations can be massive. If you strongly believe the odds are going to shorten, by all means take the offer. But in general, patience will reward you better such is the competitive nature of those trying to lay the horses.

b) Value: One of the hardest things I think that punters that are new to value is understanding that it isn't about winning each race. It is about winning at the rate that your assessment suggests it should. So if you rate a horse as a 10% chance and it's paying 15s. You should EXPECT to lose. Since the reality is you believe your horse only has a 1 in 10 chance of winning. So 90% chance of NOT winning.

So a good way of thinking about that is not to expect to win race to race, but be expecting to win overall. Since after backing 100 horse as 10% chances, each paying 15s, you'd be expecting that 10 of them won and you'd be nicely rewarded. So again, it's a patience thing. You're not trying to find the winner of the race, you're trying to find the horse(s) that if you back them continually at the right chance level, you will win. 

For some, that takes a lot to get their head around. Thinking a horse at $4 is the winner of the next race, and then backing something at 12s which loses(which you thought was a 14% chance), is to be often expected. If you thought the $4 winner was a 30% chance, then maybe you should have backed it. If it was a 20% chance (and still therefore reasonably likely to win), it just isn't a good bet. It's easy to see the ones you missed backing, but punters often forget the ones they would have backed.

It's a disciplined approach to punting if the end game is profit. If the end game is fun, then  it makes little difference trying to be so disciplined. Have fun and accept what you get.

 

Edited December 9, 2018 by mardigras

[Steve Paul]

11 hours ago, mardigras said:

Since after backing 100 horse as 10% chances, each paying 15s, you'd be expecting that 10 of them won and you'd be nicely rewarded. So again, it's a patience thing. You're not trying to find the winner of the race, you're trying to find the horse(s) that if you back them continually at the right chance level, you will win. 

A Few really good threads on here at the moment re' punting, thanks to everyone for contributing and taking time to explain their logic, methods etc.

To me though the above appears flawed and even a little contradictory?

100 horses as 10% chances paying 15's will of course return a good profit if 10 of those horses do in fact win, a BIG if, and the original 10% chance is, at the end of the day, an opinion.

I have highlighted above, expecting that 10 of them will win - and if you continually back them you will win.

This is the flaw and the contradiction for me, expecting to win and will win are generally mutually exclusive when punting horses.

When I personally back a horse in a race I ALWAYS expect it to win, regardless of what it is paying.

To back a horse in a race not expecting it to win but being satisfied with the fact that if it does you will be getting a bigger return, according to your assessment, is something that comes across as unusual to say the least to me.

And to NOT back a horse that you think WILL will win a race because in your assessment it is paying unders, again seams unusual to me.

Anyhow I will continue to follow the threads with interest and again thanks to all the sensible contributors.

Steve.

[mardigras]

15 minutes ago, Steve Paul said:

 

To me though the above appears flawed and even a little contradictory?

100 horses as 10% chances paying 15's will of course return a good profit if 10 of those horses do in fact win, a BIG if, and the original 10% chance is, at the end of the day, an opinion.

I have highlighted above, expecting that 10 of them will win - and if you continually back them you will win.

This is the flaw and the contradiction for me, expecting to win and will win are generally mutually exclusive when punting horses.

When I personally back a horse in a race I ALWAYS expect it to win, regardless of what it is paying.

To back a horse in a race not expecting it to win but being satisfied with the fact that if it does you will be getting a bigger return, according to your assessment, is something that comes across as unusual to say the least to me.

And to NOT back a horse that you think WILL will win a race because in your assessment it is paying unders, again seams unusual to me.

All good Steve. when I say a 10% chance, I'm no longer believing that to be opinion. 

So it comes down to whether your assessment is an accurate representation of chance. And you'll only know that if over a reasonable period, your 20% selections win 20% of the time and your 10% chance selections win 10% of the time and so on, across every value.

Since after the race, there is a 100% chance that the winner won.

I'd rather not bet (or just have a bet for interest sake) than back a $2 runner that I thought would win, but realistically thought it was a 40% chance. I'm gonna win on a lot of races, but my account is likely to be below where it started, financially.

[FeelTheFear]

If I expected a horse to win then surely I would have it assessed at short odds, say $1.20, allowing for variability like jockey falling off or getting blocked etc. The rest of the field would be at long odds. 

If I found that there were 5 strong chances in the race, then my assessment would reflect that. How do I sort out which will win? If I think number one will win, then it's price assessment will once again be lower. If it has a similar chance as others, then it will be higher odds bases upon each horses assessed chances.

Just thinking out loud...note I threw in the word assessment and assessed many times to appear I know what I am writing about. . 

[barryb]

3 hours ago, Steve Paul said:

When I personally back a horse in a race I ALWAYS expect it to win, regardless of what it is paying.

To back a horse in a race not expecting it to win but being satisfied with the fact that if it does you will be getting a bigger return, according to your assessment, is something that comes across as unusual to say the least to me.

And to NOT back a horse that you think WILL will win a race because in your assessment it is paying unders, again seams unusual to me.

The majority of horses I back I don't expect them to win, the price they are paying tells me that its unlikely to win the race, I have in my opinion increased my chances of coming out ahead because I am backing it at overs, but unfortunately I don't have the ability to influence the outcome of the race. I can only bet on what I know long term works.

The last statement from you is basic economic sence, if you continually take unders you will lose long term, taking unders is exactly the same as playing pokies long enough you will lose. The house in race betting has odds stacked in its favour and will eventually win if you keep betting horses at less than your theoretical chance.

Constantly betting on overs and with an edge DOES NOT guarantee you will win long term either, you have increased your likelihood but thats all. Handling a huge run of outs mentally is far more important than any selection strategy ever will be.

 

[FeelTheFear]

I found that having a rating system, I could expect a high percentage of winners from the top 3 and sometimes a big winner from the 4th or 5th horse. I then had the problem of which do I back? If I take the first two, I have a good strike rate but miss winners from the 3rd to 5th. Many winners were short odds with others in the medium range ($5-$10) and every now and then one with huge odds. 

Then along came the Terrible Trio and threw some advice our way.

With pricing a market according to perceived chance, I eliminate the need to choose based upon rating but choose based on value. If the majority of winners come from my first five,  it makes sense to back those of value.

I like to price and look at those at value that have a better chance to win, that is single odds.  I have extended this to all runners assessed at single digit odds, not just the first 5. That means I have a better strike rate but at value. I find it difficult to wait too long before a winner comes along.

Here is an example from the past, I have rated the field and show the assessed single digit market and market available. Hope this makes sense. Once again, an ongoing thought process

Race Info: Tauherenikau 2050m 17 May 2018 Mdn Hwt Slow
Horse Rating Market Assessed Market Avail. Bella Margarita 116 $8.71 $13.70 Bet Donardo 116 $8.71 $5.40  Bastille Babe 90 $11.15 $6.10 Platinum Edition 90 $11.15 $3.20 Our Jackson 126 $7.98 $5.10 Banteneighty 83 $12.12 $38.00 Billy Paco 140 $7.19 $10.10 Bet Triumph 122 $8.29 $12.20 Bet Her Son 125 $8.08 $17.30 Bet

Edited December 9, 2018 by FeelTheFear

[FeelTheFear]

Bella Margarita won

[barryb]

& the absolute optimal way to bet multiple runners per race is using a fractional Kelly Criterion.

I have used this for sports and racing over the years to huge effect.

[Mk2_Zephyr]

I have always found the 2nd fav to be a good bet, you know why everyone likes the favourite, but what makes someone bet BIG on another horse .....   

[oldandtired]

Early market seems quite accurate on my ratings.

Would probably bring LL in a touch and push out LA.

But small field average pace rail back to true means no bet for me.

[mardigras]

At this stage, value for me is Caprikosa. I have at $11. 

[mardigras]

And in the cup, Igraine and Mongolian Marshal are too short for me at $2.20 and $3.20. I have at $3.25 and $5.50.

Value for me would be Maygrove who I have at 8s - $23 on NZ TAB.

[FeelTheFear]

Still working on my markets. Have the Isuzu Stakes a lot tighter.

Te Rapa 15 Dec. 2018 Waikato Cup 2400m
Five To Midnight	$5.40
Maygrove	$6.34
He's Cavalier	$18.61
Igraine	$8.57
Mongolian Marshal	$6.97
Excalibur	$6.81
Blue Breeze	$18.32
Kyrie Eleison	$15.07
Wooden Edge	$13.25
Te Rapa 15 Dec. 2018 Cal Isuzu Stakes 1600m
Lizzie L'Amour	$5.65
Love Affair	$7.10
Nicoletta	$8.01
Bisou Bisou	$8.49
Belle Du Nord	$9.62
Caprikosa	$8.53
Supera	$9.00
Piece Of Kate	$9.34

 

 

[Docker]

[01]    Five To Midnight $3.70 
[02]    Maygrove         $8.90 
[03]    Hes Cavalier     $9.50 
[04]    Igraine             $5.10 
[05]    Mongolian Marshal$5.30 
[06]    Excalibur         $6.50 
[07]    Blue Breeze         $14.70 
[08]    Kyrie Eleison     $7.40 
[09]    Wooden Edge         $10.00

[01]    Lizzie Lamour    $4.80 
[02]    Love Affair        $4.20 
[03]    Nicoletta        $5.60 
[04]    Bisou Bisou        $7.50 
[05]    Belle du Nord    $11.10 
[06]    Caprikosa        $6.20 
[07]    Supera            $5.30 
[08]    Piece Of Kate    $7.80

Market set on a Good 3

[The Crucible]

I understand the concept of "value" and the expected return (over an extended period) if you bet on horses that are over the odds relative to your assessment of their chances of winning.

The challenge of course is getting your assessment of a horse's chances right.

The previous two posts have rated Piece of Kate at $9.34 and $7.80.  Love to understand how you arrived at that!?  The TAB have her at $81.  Your ratings suggest you'd be very keen to have a bet on her at that price.

I reckon the TAB are closer to the truth.  She's a winner of four races from 30 starts, none above Rating 72.  Its a WFA race so she is carrying the same weight as some very good mares - the top two in particular.  There is no way in the world that she can be considered a better than 10% chance of winning.

Provided track doesn't turn into a bog, I'd take $7.10 on Love Affair every day - much better than a 14% chance of winning.

[curious]

Here's my first crack at one of these. G3 or D4 wouldn't change it.

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by curious

[curious]

[Docker]

18 hours ago, The Crucible said:

I understand the concept of "value" and the expected return (over an extended period) if you bet on horses that are over the odds relative to your assessment of their chances of winning.

The challenge of course is getting your assessment of a horse's chances right.

The previous two posts have rated Piece of Kate at $9.34 and $7.80.  Love to understand how you arrived at that!?  The TAB have her at $81.  Your ratings suggest you'd be very keen to have a bet on her at that price.

I reckon the TAB are closer to the truth.  She's a winner of four races from 30 starts, none above Rating 72.  Its a WFA race so she is carrying the same weight as some very good mares - the top two in particular.  There is no way in the world that she can be considered a better than 10% chance of winning.

Provided track doesn't turn into a bog, I'd take $7.10 on Love Affair every day - much better than a 14% chance of winning.

You ask a good question. I could discuss in a month of Sundays how I ‘frame’ a market but this isn’t the place for that.

The first thing you pointed out how FTF and myself had similar prices for Piece Of Kate. (FTF has shown over the last few months great skill in landing value bets so his markets, IMO are worth close consideration).

Nuts and bolts. Piece Of Kate has 3 stats that rate as good as if not better than the top 2. The compress field and the non-appearance of a super mare (Savy Coup) or a smart 3 year-old (Avantage) has this fields prices less pronounced.

Would I bet on Piece Of Kate? I have her the 7^th best from 8 runners so to find a reason to include her in a bet could only mean a field bet in a multi (pick 6, quaddie), a change in track conditions or scratchings. Most times I don’t pay attention to the TAB market until race day and when I have made my decision but by then as Robbie Waterhouse says, if you like a horse, just punt it.

[FeelTheFear]

Thanks Docker. Thanks The Crucible.

I usually focus on maiden fields with little obvious form. I try to get a feel for the horse. Has it shown some sort of ability in its races. Perhaps it is fresh up and I look for something that will lead me to think it might go well. A recent trial perhaps or a top rated jockey on board. What is the breeding, especially over ground. It may also be a horse that I have come across in the immediate past as I keep a database of all NZ runners and spend hours a day looking for potential future performers. 

I didn't frame a market before curious, mardigras and barryb generously gave us helpful ways to see how that could be vital. 

This latest market attempt is something new I am trying. It is not based upon so called class of race, weight or track conditions. I have done an analysis to get an average time over the distance of the race that each individual horse has run. I then apply it against a standard time to get a rating. I then add or subtract another 4-5 factors that have a possible influence on the horses ability to perform. These factors are a small adjustment overall.

The tightness of the market for the Isuzu Stakes is the result of the closeness of the times between the horses in the field. It isn't great enough to give a wider spread. As I said, this is something I am trying. The shorter the distance, the closer these times between horses will be. 

I will still continue to 'dabble' in the mire of maiden fields, trying to uncover a gem. I will still continue to try and unearth the 'code' to framing a market and still get it wrong. Hopefully I will receive support and positive feedback on how to do so.

[barryb]

Stormy here tonight lads, been very heavy rain for 2 hrs now. I am only 1km from the track.

Bank on a slow track

[curious]

Oh dear. That doesn't look pretty barryb. However, regardless of track conditions, I'm expecting the most accurate markets will come from Thommo and I'm pretty sure we will see those on Monday.

[barryb]

Nearly an hour later and its still pouring down. 

 

[Sandpiper]

Isuzu: I had Lizzie and Love Affair a touch longer and Supera significantly shorter (8s). Problem is, only Nicoletta brings tempo and she has proven likely to play silly buggers in the lead, so the race becomes a no bet.

Supera would seem to have a decent group race or three in her in the near future. Wish I knew something more concrete of their plans for her beyond 'anything is a bonus'. You have to admire how they have won a $11k r72 and decided that will probably do it as far as handicaps are concerned.

 

Waikato Cup: An easier race for the TAB to not fuck up there has never been. With the two top chances being similarly progressive, similarly suited for distance and near identically weighted from a run together only 2 weeks ago, and the class horse being a very open book at this stage of his career, the market was always likely to have this about right, which it does. I can't see any boogiemen hiding anywhere.

Igrain starting here seems a touch profligate. The City of Auckland Cup is worth $100k more (twice as much), is only two weeks away and she would carry the minimum.  It is interesting to see the value connections ascribe to winning their local cup.

 

 

[barryb]

Short odds now on a slow8 or worse, still pissing down.

Chris Woods will be laying in bed smiling listening to the rain.