Jump to content
Announcements
*** York Ebor Competition: Well done to 1st daveg, 2nd glavintobuy & 3rd Donnyflyer ***
** September Poker League Result : =1st muttley & juanmoment, 3rd McG **
** August Naps Competition Result: 1st Zidane123, 2nd Adamross, 3rd Wanderlust, 4th Rainbow. KO Cup Winner: Peter York, Most Winners: Alastair **

Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?


torn up slip
 Share

Recommended Posts

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? Perhaps I could have worded it better, but lets stop circle jerking each other here. Sometimes there is a time and place for a few home truths and not trying to spare peoples feelings. The thread has consistently shown that the strategy of backing odds on shots is completely the wrong process for showing a reliable, continued, sustained profit. The fact he is pereservering with it tells me he is more concerned with trying to prove everyone else wrong than he is of proving himself right. I dont believe he is actually backing these horses with any proper money in all honesty, as if he was he would surely have realised by now that it is not what he had hoped for when he initially set out. Odds on backing is more than acceptable on occassion. But only on a certain type of race imo. Backing odds on shots in class 4,5 and 6 handicapps, novice/nursery races, maiden's etc etc is for the foolhardy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? Mowgli, Thankyou for moving all of the comments out of my thread, the original post would have just polluted it to be honest. There have been some really good posts in this thread to be honest, notably from DM99 who posted one of the better posts that I have seem for a while. I will not reply to the original post that started all this as I would just be wasting my time at this stage I feel. Cheers again Mowgli, and also Thankyou to the people who realise and have pointed out that the general etiquette of this forum is to respect other members and not to mock them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

Mowgli, Thankyou for moving all of the comments out of my thread, the original post would have just polluted it to be honest. There have been some really good posts in this thread to be honest, notably from DM99 who posted one of the better posts that I have seem for a while. I will not reply to the original post that started all this as I would just be wasting my time at this stage I feel. Cheers again Mowgli, and also Thankyou to the people who realise and have pointed out that the general etiquette of this forum is to respect other members and not to mock them.
You wont reply to the OP because you have no logical or rational argument that would defend your case you mean. Let's not kid each other on otherwise. Lets hear you try and defend what your doing if you still believe in it yourself. Dont try and pi$$ up my back and tell me it's raining. Do yourself a favour before you make yourself look a bigger fool than what you already are and admit to making a complete bollocks of trying to prove what you initially stated you could by making a sustained profit from backing odds on shots. The over insistence on here of high fiving and cock skiing each other is nauseating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? My opinion , for what it's worth , is that trying to make a profit from short-odds favourites is bound to be a long slog but like everything in betting DISCIPLINE is the keyword and a profit could well be found ;) I would start by betting in NON HANDICAPS only , both on the Flat or over the Jumps . [personally i would stick to hurdles for obvious reasons, falling etc] If you want eveidence simply click on any Flat race meeting on the RP site , click on Favs and see the difference in strike rate between Handicap and Non handicap Favs. Secondly , and this depends on whether you have access to the stats , stick only to races where at least 50% of previous favs have won that particular race . The sun newspaper usually provides a favs record at the bottom of each race [at least the main meetings that day] Thirdly , i would stick to odds between 1/3 and 6/4 . With each bet guaranteeing a 100% return on the original stake ie if the 1st selection is 5/4 then a single win bet is advised. If however we have ,say , a 1/2 shot then the winnings [if any] should be placed onto the next selection between 4/5 and 1/3 . If anyone knows where else a 'fate of the Favs' record is available i'd be interested . The RP members section allows access to the past record of each race but thats a subscription service and i'm a tight Bugger !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? I'm not going back over all ground. We've had this before where you go all quiet when the thread is in profit and then suddenly I have a bad run and you're all over it. Standard. I gave you stats last time and I think I backed 3 odds on shots out of 17 when you claimed I was just backing everything odds on. The way you behave is not the pincers lounge way and therefore I will not get into a flagging match. Plenty of posters give very constructive criticism, ef Andyjkmak. We are poles apart in terms of the way we bet but we botherspect each others opinion. Thanks for your time and insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? My point remains. You clearly stated from the outset that you felt you could make a sustained profit from backing short priced winners on a regular basis. You've been at it nearly 3 months now and are showing a not insignificant loss. So I ask again. At what point will you cut your losses and face up to the cold hard fact of the realisation you've made a hash of things. Odds on betting is something that is more than acceptable at the right time. Relying on this method solely though has time and time again, by people far superior to you or I at the game, been proven to be one of the most sure fire ways to show a line of profit far inferior to those who back each race on it's own merits and who try to find the better value price. You cant possibly still have any confidence in what you initially said. If you think im merely insulting you then I apologise, but I genuninely think your just being pig ignorant now in the face of overwhelming evidence to support what im saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? But if you put every post in the manner of the one you have just posted, then I could discuss this with you properly, but you don't. You said my thread gives you a good laugh when I post losers, I find that insulting and therefore will not discuss this in any more detail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

The over insistence on here of high fiving and cock skiing each other is nauseating.
It's nowhere near as bad as it once was. I think there is more of an emphasis now on encouraging other punters rather than virtual back slapping. It's clear you don't agree with Wizz's methods but that's up to him and if he wants to back that way then that's his choice. It isn't my way of betting either because I think you should always consider the risk-reward scenario and look for the value or what you perceive as value. I don't think there is a need for it to get personal, nothing wrong with a difference of opinion, that's what forums/message boards are for. :ok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

There have been some really good posts in this thread to be honest, notably from DM99 who posted one of the better posts that I have seem for a while.
Thanks for the kind words Wizz, and I think it is great that you have been able to take all of this criticism and feedback without ruffling your feathers. I think you should keep at your thread. It is an interesting experiment and if you are able to tweak your system you will be able to improve your results. The major keys are to be selective and get better odds. I would look for horses that are priced up early at evens or higher but should be a hell of a lot shorter. You also need to be extremely selective and only back horses that are colossally superior yet the market doesn't reflect it. This is critical. You might get just a couple of bets a week or even less. Finally, stop the variable staking and keep all bets the same stake. The trap with variable staking is that you can lump too much on the real shorties, and when they let you down you have an abyss to climb out of. Good luck amigo :loon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

My point remains. You clearly stated from the outset that you felt you could make a sustained profit from backing short priced winners on a regular basis. You've been at it nearly 3 months now and are showing a not insignificant loss. So I ask again. At what point will you cut your losses and face up to the cold hard fact of the realisation you've made a hash of things. .
what i cant understand is why you think 3 months is a long term proof of backing odds on cannot lead to profit..If you take one of the most successful threads here,Monte...Take a snap shot of 3 months when he wasnt having the best of times would that "prove" he wasnt a success when clearly he is..?? Personally i would never back a odds on shot for love nor money..But if someone wants to do that,and start a thread loggin this,well then let them do it rather than attack them at every junture..:cow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

Thanks for the kind words Wizz, and I think it is great that you have been able to take all of this criticism and feedback without ruffling your feathers. I think you should keep at your thread. It is an interesting experiment and if you are able to tweak your system you will be able to improve your results. The major keys are to be selective and get better odds. I would look for horses that are priced up early at evens or higher but should be a hell of a lot shorter. You also need to be extremely selective and only back horses that are colossally superior yet the market doesn't reflect it. This is critical. You might get just a couple of bets a week or even less. Finally, stop the variable staking and keep all bets the same stake. The trap with variable staking is that you can lump too much on the real shorties, and when they let you down you have an abyss to climb out of. Good luck amigo :loon
That is pretty much what I was going to say DM - I hope you stick with the thread mate and just ignore the cynics. Get a full season of these bets under your bet and keep some good records (you probably have started this already) and then by going back over them you will be able to identify areas where you could refine. My gut feeling, from knowing your wider bets outside of the thread, is that your strengths lie with the Pattern racing, where the form is there for all to see? What about the all-weather maidens and claimers that have served you well in the past pre-thread? ----- Its a shame to see people getting stuck into other punters and taking pleasure in seeing them have losers. Good to see many are able to offer constructive feedback though as I think the phrase "if you dont have anything useful to say dont say anything at all" rings true. --- Just for the record, I rarely bet odds on. Anything below 4/1 makes me thing long and hard about having a bet because of the necessity for a high strike rate - beyond me. The other thing I would urge anyone to consider when having a bet is that there are so many reasons why horses may not win- even when they look bombproof on the formbook and we have to consider these before placing unsustainably large bets or on shorties. For example: - breaking slowly out of the stalls - meeting with interference - bursting a blood vessel - getting brought down/falling/saddle slipping (jumps only) - poor ride from incompetant jockey (of which there are many) - late changes in ground conditions - unknown draw biases prevailing on a day All of these factors can effect a 1/3 shot as much as they might effect a 20/1 shot, so when your selection is effectively running a gauntlet of these unnknowns, can you justify betting at long odds on? For me, personally, I can't, as the risk doesn't justify the return.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? When dealing with odds on shots for the long term I feel tackling them as both a backer and layer could be the way to profit. Obviously all odds on shots won't win so is there not more of an edge if you are able to judge effectively which is a possible winner or a loser then either back or lay the selection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? I disagree completely with the original poster. Backing odds on shots can certainly yield a profit. Compare horse racing with tennis (or football) betting. Everyone assume that these sports are profitable, yet favourites are frequently huge odds ons shots, with things like 1/4 standard and even 1/100 for matches involving Nadal/Federer/Djokovic. If you back winners, you'll be a winning punter. The problem comes from lacking discipline with selections and stakes. I'm a big fan of Wizzkid Walter but, as someone else pointed out, I'd be interested to know why he selects the horses that he does and why he leaves out others. It's the short favourites that are left out that are the most interesting as calling them correctly is the hardest thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

I disagree completely with the original poster. Backing odds on shots can certainly yield a profit. Compare horse racing with tennis (or football) betting. Everyone assume that these sports are profitable, yet favourites are frequently huge odds ons shots, with things like 1/4 standard and even 1/100 for matches involving Nadal/Federer/Djokovic. If you back winners, you'll be a winning punter. The problem comes from lacking discipline with selections and stakes. I'm a big fan of Wizzkid Walter but, as someone else pointed out, I'd be interested to know why he selects the horses that he does and why he leaves out others. It's the short favourites that are left out that are the most interesting as calling them correctly is the hardest thing to do.
Personally i dont think Wizzkid finds the odds-on shots that represent value... Like that 1/9 shot yesterday, personally i dont think any horse should be that price and i cant see how any horse can be value @ 1/9 considering the amount of freak incidents that happen in racing , for example on the flat not coming out of the stalls, not getting a clear run, falling off the horse, horse breaking a leg etc etc... I think if Wizzkid can find odds-on shots that do represent value, then he will be successful.. Just like Monterosso's thread, it doesnt matter a hoot about the horses form, if you keep getting a horse that ends up with an SP @ 10/1 and you get it @ 20/1 every time, you will end up in profit... Same goes to Wizzkid, if he can get the best price possible on his selections (e.g. backing it @ 4/5 and it finishing up at an SP of 4/7) over time im sure he will end up in profit. I think his downfall at the moment is trying to find a winner instead of trying to find value. Something i am trying to figure out myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? I regularly do favourites at evens to be placed or win and I rarely lose! Yes it's luck to an extent but they favourites for a reason god damn it. Unless the jockey f's up then corse the better horse will win. Put usain bolt up against any other sprinter who will mostly win!!!??? Imagine putting say 1 grand on every frankel race. Silly bet!??? I think not if it wins it's best bet of the minute

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? Dont see how yesterdays 1/9 shot could be deemed a worthy bet. As you say the risk to gain ratio doesnt make it a good bet no matter how good the horse is. If i fancied it i would have put it in a double with another fancy horse , risking only one betting stake instead of 2. If you're betting short priced horses on a regular basis then getting another 10/30/70 % extra in the form of a double makes it worthwhile.The extra return often aliviates the pressure when backing a loser elsewhere. Also if you are going to bet at very short odds then it may be wise to watch the TOTE pools. L Dettori rode a 1/66 winner back in the 90s , however those clued up smashed the TOTE win , effectivly paying 1/10 !! Since that race the TOTE have amended their minimum payout and have reduced it to 1/20.Walter if you are going to bet on anything shorter than 1/20 then do it on the TOTE. Long odds on shots do lose on occassions remember N Henderson's Zaynar at Kelso in the Champion Hurdle Trail losing at 1/14 !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

I regularly do favourites at evens to be placed or win and I rarely lose! Yes it's luck to an extent but they favourites for a reason god damn it. Unless the jockey f's up then corse the better horse will win. Put usain bolt up against any other sprinter who will mostly win!!!??? Imagine putting say 1 grand on every frankel race. Silly bet!??? I think not if it wins it's best bet of the minute
Totally agree. If I'm having a larger bet then it will often be a short priced horse. I'm not going to risk a large bet on a 25/1 shot. For me one winning short priced horse will pay for several longer priced EW shots. Of Walters big bets that mirrored mine were both of Frankel's last 2 wins . In my opinion they justified big bets although i sweated a lot in the St James Palace Stakes. In a year i will only have a few big bets and thoses were 2 of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

Long odds on shots do lose on occassions remember N Henderson's Zaynar at Kelso in the Champion Hurdle Trail losing at 1/14 !
Yep. Qewetwo (sic) was my BBOTD that day as I felt he'd get an easy lead in the small field. Someone else put it up in the comp too that day. For a meagre outlay a big win was secured and I laid the hind legs off Zaynar with only a minimal liability. There have been many other occassions where laying similar favs has backfired but the point here is that, by opposing those grossly underpriced and backing those massively overpriced you turn the percentages in your favour and you can be less accurate. I don't doubt that you can make a profit at odds on but it requires so much discipline and selectivity that it is probably beyond the vast majority of punters, particular if, like me, you are an 'action' junkie and want daily interest. If you are an odds on backer and you see your best bet of the season running, you price it up as a 1/2 chance and it ends up double the price you wanted, you end up with Evs. You have your maximum bet on (lets say for argument stake 100 pts when you're average is 25 pts) and you thus end up with a 100 pt win, 50 pts more than you accounted for. Say you like to oppose favs, and price a horse up at 10/1, but can back it at 20/1, if you too have 100 pt max bet on it you win 2000 pts, 1000 pts more than you originally expected. Yes, the 'outsider' backer will burn more losing stakes until he waits for his next winner and the odds on backer will have a shorter wait till another winner, but the outsider back is having 40 extra 'free' bets at average stake (out of the extra 1000 pt he won) as opposed to the extra 2 bets at average stake that the odds on backer is getting. That is why it is in a punters best interests to look for value against the shorties, where the margins are so tight and you have no room for mistakes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

The highest odds horses are most likely to be the most mispriced. A horse that starts out at odds 50/1 first price (expected chance to win 2%) and moves two odds increments to 33/1 (expected win chance 3%) has increased his odds of winning by 50%. A horse that starts out at 2.0 (50%) and steams in to 1.9 (52.63%) has increased his chance of winning by ~5% even though it looks like a massive movement in the odds.
By the way, that is the reason for the huge differences in price between bookies and the exchanges. If you assume that bookies put 1% overround on each horse to protect themselves, then a horse the bookies offer at 33/1 (2% win chance + 1% overround) would go on the exchanges for about 50/1 (2% win chance). It's not true that higher odds horses are a rip off to lay on the exchanges. It is far more truthful to say that bookies have been fleecing punters on the outsiders for decades.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

If i fancied it i would have put it in a double with another fancy horse , risking only one betting stake instead of 2. If you're betting short priced horses on a regular basis then getting another 10/30/70 % extra in the form of a double makes it worthwhile.The extra return often aliviates the pressure when backing a loser
You wouldn't back the horse with money, but you would back it with the returns from a bet on another horse (which is what you are doing when you back it in a double)? Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

You wouldn't back the horse with money' date=' but you would back it with the returns from a bet on another horse (which is what you are doing when you back it in a double)? Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.[/quote'] I'm not sure why you say it makes no sense whatsoever ? Yes exactly as you say . 1/9 is far too short for a single but i'd be happy for the winnings from another bet to ride onto a 1/9 shot i fancied. If my estimated returns on a selection was £300 i'd be happy to let it ride on a 1/9 shot in order to get an extra £33. Not a lot of peoples cup of tea but it depends on the individuals actual stake. If someone was staking 50p increments then the advantage would be neglibile however for somebody betting £50+ increments then it may be worthwhile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? Suppose you didn't notice the 1/9 shot until after the other selection had won and returned £300. Would you then bet £300 on the 1/9 shot? And if not, how is that different from putting them in a double? By the way, reading it in the cold light of day, the last sentence of my previous post sounds a lot more aggressive than I intended. Apologies for that. I shouldn't post at 1am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? During the early 90s there was a big article in the Racing Post about Harry Findlay (prior to his invovement with horseracing) and he was saying he regularly had bets like £33k to win £1k on snooker and tennis matches because they were sometimes overpriced even in his eyes ! For the avarage punter like us winning £1k would be significant , but most of us wouldn't risk £33k even if we had it despite a higher degree of certainty.If your avarage stake per event was £10 or less then it may apear to be pointless betting in events where they are that short. Findlay didn't explain his staking plan but i assume by reading subsequent interviews in later years he often put most of his bankroll on single events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

During the early 90s there was a big article in the Racing Post about Harry Findlay (prior to his invovement with horseracing) and he was saying he regularly had bets like £33k to win £1k on snooker and tennis matches because they were sometimes overpriced even in his eyes ! For the avarage punter like us winning £1k would be significant , but most of us wouldn't risk £33k even if we had it despite a higher degree of certainty.If your avarage stake per event was £10 or less then it may apear to be pointless betting in events where they are that short. Findlay didn't explain his staking plan but i assume by reading subsequent interviews in later years he often put most of his bankroll on single events.
I wonder if any of you can remember the woman who risked bets of £100,000 plus on the outcome of Cricket Tests as she said it was offering better interest than the banks then she suddenly stopped
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? i think the original thread title "backing odds on favourites is the quick way to the poor house" is the key here,its simply incorrect...It's like saying backing all spencers mounts is the quick way to the poor house..Or backing 10-1 shots is the quick way to the poor house..Backing a certain kind of any horse with any stat or any price is a quick way to the poor house ..It's backing the correct ones that is the key:nana for example backing ten 20-1 shots who finish no where gives you the exact same amount of loss of backing ten 4-9 shots that finish no where,its just that you are stasticically more likely to come out up with the odds on shots..But you gots to pick the correct one:nana

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? Whizzkid , any chance of doing an update on the "short priced favs" thread its been well over a month since your last one. I did say i would refrain from posting on your thread after you threw a wobbly at me. I have been following your thread with great interest , bit disappointed the bet frequency had dramatically dropped , keep up the good work. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

i think the original thread title "backing odds on favourites is the quick way to the poor house" is the key here,its simply incorrect...It's like saying backing all spencers mounts is the quick way to the poor house..Or backing 10-1 shots is the quick way to the poor house..Backing a certain kind of any horse with any stat or any price is a quick way to the poor house ..It's backing the correct ones that is the key:nana for example backing ten 20-1 shots who finish no where gives you the exact same amount of loss of backing ten 4-9 shots that finish no where,its just that you are stasticically more likely to come out up with the odds on shots..But you gots to pick the correct one:nana
The thread title asks: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? The key is the question mark, it's for discussion and debate rather than a statement. Wizzkid was getting a lot of unfair stick in his thread, by all means debate the point but not by ruining his own personal thread. :ok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

The thread title asks: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house? The key is the question mark, it's for discussion and debate rather than a statement. Wizzkid was getting a lot of unfair stick in his thread, by all means debate the point but not by ruining his own personal thread. :ok
but im defending him:spank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Backing odds on shots long term - the quick way to the poor house?

but im defending him:spank
Yes I know mate, you were saying that statement was wrong but it wasn't a statement, it was a question. :lol Anyways, I try not to back under 2-1 most of the time, favourite opposer rather than favourite backer. :ok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...