Dipshit & his brother

[mardigras]

I've never stated what you do has no merit. It was you who for some reason felt you were in a position to start grading other people's approach around things that you factor differently.

You can do what you like. I'm confident I can price every runner in a race in a lot less time than you can watch one trial. I can price an entire meeting in that time.

You must come up with a heck of a lot of horses that you consider will win and find there isn't a price available for what you will take. I do wonder how someone can come up with what price they will take on a runner without understanding the chances of the other runners. But as I say, each to their own.

I was confident Exaltation was ready - hence my price.

I don't have any issue with any punter doing what they do. I have an issue with anyone putting up on sites like this, what others can do to make money from punting - when the idea is flawed.

I could decide I'm going to bet on all the number 5s that race. That's my choice. Telling people on this site that backing number 5 is the blue print to making money long term on punting, is where I would take issue, even though that blue print is as valuable as the 'other' one often talked about.

 

[SLB2.0]

Mardigras.

Let's say you price three runners at $14's and they're paying $28. Do you back any of them? You do back them all? If you priced the favourite at $2.20 and it's paying $3.20, what would be your entire strategy for this scenario?

[mardigras]

22 minutes ago, SLB2.0 said:

Mardigras.

Let's say you price three runners at $14's and they're paying $28. Do you back any of them? You do back them all? If you priced the favourite at $2.20 and it's paying $3.20, what would be your entire strategy for this scenario?

My strategy is only to back a horse I price in the top 3 (for consistency of return). If the 14s were all outside the top 3, I wouldn't be backing anything. 

I don't bet like most around increasing price based on increased chance (and I don't do Kelly betting). I bet far closer to level stakes with only minor adjustments based on confidence since I'm betting on horses I have assessed as reasonably similar chance (always being in the top 3). I wouldn't bet on the 3.20 because I also assess the price relative to my chance of all runners and bet on the runner with the greatest price advantage. So the 28s are double and the 3.20 is less than double. if the 3.2 was 4.50, I'd back the 4.50.

Which is essentially saying I'll back the runner where I get the best price advantage - but for consistency of winning, I only do that if I've priced that horse in the top 3 in the race.

In the scenario above, If two of the 14s were rated 2nd and 3rd, I'd be likely to back both of those two and omit the other one. That is unlikely given those set of odds. 

And I only back a horse in a race with first starters if my price advantage is very high, (allowing for the remaining market share after considering the market share of the first starters). i.e. if the market share of the first starters is 60%, and the remaining is 40%, I'd require a base market advantage of 250% (100.0/40.0) plus my normal market advantage I require in order to bet.

Edited February 26, 2020 by mardigras

[SLB2.0]

Thanks mate - one more question for you.

In my business, I need to pick winners otherwise subscribers are not happy (most aren't in it for the longhaul, so value goes out the window. Therefore, how do you find going against the horse you think will win, because the value isn't there.

Do you find it difficult? I never used to bet against the horse I thought would win the race, but now I find myself going against my original thoughts quite often, based on market moves, track, bias etc etc.

[mardigras]

1 hour ago, SLB2.0 said:

 Therefore, how do you find going against the horse you think will win, because the value isn't there.

Do you find it difficult? I never used to bet against the horse I thought would win the race, but now I find myself going against my original thoughts quite often, based on market moves, track, bias etc etc.

I've been doing this so long, I don't tend to think about it. I've taken the emotion out of it to the point where 95% of the betting I do is done via a program placing the bets - therefore I don't get to think about those that I expect to win that are at odds I wouldn't take. 

[VC!]

3 hours ago, mardigras said:

My strategy is only to back a horse I price in the top 3 (for consistency of return). but for consistency of winning, I only do that if I've priced that horse in the top 3 in the race.

I have always wondered why your model only prints out the top 7 rated in a race and not the entire field?

Also why not reduce it to print out just the top 3 rated horses in the race?

[mardigras]

1 hour ago, VC! said:

I have always wondered why your model only prints out the top 7 rated in a race and not the entire field?

Also why not reduce it to print out just the top 3 rated horses in the race?

My modelling does the entire field, but I supply my prices by way of a pricing sheet to a number of mates. They can do with it what they like - toilet paper, should they choose that option.