Pricing your own race

[Trotter]

4 minutes ago, richard-westwood said:

Actually im now noticing it's the total bracket figure ......was nick in the top 5 on that ?

not sure what you mean richard ?

[Villa Chris]

Where does the decimal come into it. I always thought you got your odds by adding up all the ratings of every horse in the race which for example say is 158. Horse X has a rating of 21, so you divide 21 by 158, then multiply by 100 which leaves you 13.29%. That horse has a 13.29% chance of winning going off your ratings which is roughly 13/2 odds. You compare your odds to the bookies and then see if you’ve got value. 

[richard-westwood]

1 minute ago, Trotter said:

yes ........ he was joint 2nd

Aldrich Boy 20.4%
Nicks Not Wonder 12.24%
Coquetta  12.24%

the next 3 were all on 8.6%

Yes it seems to be cropping up time and time again .....makes sense really because a horse can have big value ...say 33 on a 25/1 shot ....but if hes up against a really really strong fav who you get 4/1 on a 7/2 shot ....then the latter is the better bet ......value has to be taken hand in hand with actual strength in form.......the 2 I rated today were 1st and 2nd on the bracket total score

[richard-westwood]

9 minutes ago, Villa Chris said:

Where does the decimal come into it. I always thought you got your odds by adding up all the ratings of every horse in the race which for example say is 158. Horse X has a rating of 21, so you divide 21 by 158, then multiply by 100 which leaves you 13.29%. That horse has a 13.29% chance of winning going off your ratings which is roughly 13/2 odds. You compare your odds to the bookies and then see if you’ve got value. 

They are on different scales .....your mixing percentages and whole numbers which means your scale is waaayyyyy..out ....gonna get huge differences in ratings .....by converting it to a decimal you are using the same scale for both hence you get a more accurate rating ....the rest of it is correct lol......maybe I'm wrong ...if you think it works carry on   . ...I just always taught myself to use the same scale ..... like my 2 horses today were rated 9.4 ...and 7.3 .....its a very accurate scale...right down to a decimal point 

Edited January 13, 2021 by richard-westwood

[Trotter]

5 minutes ago, Villa Chris said:

Where does the decimal come into it. I always thought you got your odds by adding up all the ratings of every horse in the race which for example say is 158. Horse X has a rating of 21, so you divide 21 by 158, then multiply by 100 which leaves you 13.29%. That horse has a 13.29% chance of winning going off your ratings which is roughly 13/2 odds. You compare your odds to the bookies and then see if you’ve got value. 

that's what I'm doing ... 

[Villa Chris]

6 minutes ago, richard-westwood said:

They are on different scales .....your mixing percentages and whole numbers which means your scale is waaayyyyy..out ....gonna get huge differences in ratings .....by converting it to a decimal you are using the same scale for both hence you get a more accurate rating ....the rest of it is correct lol

Can’t get my head around the decimal haha. Am I being thick here? 

[Trotter]

6 minutes ago, Villa Chris said:

Can’t get my head around the decimal haha. Am I being thick here? 

I'm not quite sure either ......... you're bound to get decimals if you're dividing a small number by a big number

 

 

[richard-westwood]

3 minutes ago, Villa Chris said:

Can’t get my head around the decimal haha. Am I being thick here? 

Not sure what score youd end up with for the bracket totals???......on mine like today because they are both on same scale I end up with top rated 9.4 ....2nd rated 7.3 .....its a very accurate measurement down to a decimal place ......your way might work but you'll probably have bigger gaps in the ratings.....I dont know if what your doing alters the overall result unless I do the same race lol

[Villa Chris]

1 minute ago, Trotter said:

I'm not quite sure either ......... you're bound to get decimals if you're dividing a small number by a big number

 

 

Exactly . Obviously your ratings have got to be up to scratch, too, otherwise you’re fighting a losing battle. You had a 40/1 winner yesterday and your second best rated won today, so I’d be optimistic . 

[Trotter]

In my race today the total number of points for all the horses added up was 49

Nicks not Wonder had 6 points

6 divide by 49 x 100 = 12.24

So the horse had a 12.24% chance of winning 

That equates to 7/1 near enough ...... when I posted his odds were 20/1 at bet365

Are we talking about different things here Richard ?

[richard-westwood]

Thinking about it ....I cant see a problem with how you are doing it .....I will have smaller numbers ...8.4 / 65.1 etc ....you'll probably have bigger numbers ithink that's all the diff if I've got my head round it ...lol 

[Villa Chris]

7 minutes ago, richard-westwood said:

Not sure what score youd end up with for the bracket totals???......on mine like today because they are both on same scale I end up with top rated 9.4 ....2nd rated 7.3 .....its a very accurate measurement down to a decimal place ......your way might work but you'll probably have bigger gaps in the ratings.....I dont know if what your doing alters the overall result unless I do the same race lol

Right, Richard , I’ve clicked on to it now. Sometimes I have to go through it 10 times before it clicks . 

[Villa Chris]

1 minute ago, richard-westwood said:

Thinking about it ....I cant see a problem with how you are doing it .....I will have smaller numbers ...8.4 / 65.1 etc ....you'll probably have bigger numbers ithink that's all the diff if I've got my head round it ...lol 

Seems like we are chasing each other’s tail here ?

[richard-westwood]

1 minute ago, Trotter said:

In my race today the total number of points for all the horses added up was 49

Nicks not Wonder had 6 points

6 divide by 49 x 100 = 12.24

So the horse had a 12.24% chance of winning 

That equates to 7/1 near enough ...... when I posted his odds were 20/1 at bet365

Are we talking about different things here Richard ?

Yes that looks right ..... there are slightly diff ways you do the maths but it should arrive at the same result as far as I can see 

[Villa Chris]

Just now, richard-westwood said:

Yes that looks right ..... there are slightly diff ways you do the maths but it should arrive at the same result as far as I can see 

So would you say the way me and trotter have done it is ok ? 

[richard-westwood]

Just now, Villa Chris said:

So would you say the way me and trotter have done it is ok ? 

I think so .....I'm just used to my way ....if you want to pick a race tomorrow and we can check then that would be a good exercise 

[Trotter]

2 minutes ago, richard-westwood said:

I think so .....I'm just used to my way ....if you want to pick a race tomorrow and we can check then that would be a good exercise 

I've done the 7.00 at Chelmsford tomorrow which seems to be the best handicap on the flat ........... 

I haven't posted anything up yet as I was waiting for the prices tomorrow !

[MCLARKE]

48 minutes ago, richard-westwood said:

I've been sitting in my quiet moments thinking just that .....but then I have to reduce form ....or handicap rating etc ....each seems equally important .....I mean ....if a horse gets the distance ....but is not in form ....or badly hcapped then it doesnt win ......see the dilemma ?....but I agree it does make a big diff especially in the longer dist races .......maybe steal 5% from the hcap section ?....that might work ?.....do people think distance is as important as being well hcapped ??

Yes I do see the dilemma but I suppose that's what makes the whole puzzle so fascinating and why I waste so much time on it !

Horses that won last time out have a strike rate of 20.0% and an AE of 1.00 (i.e they do not have an edge).

Horses that won last time out over the same going have a strike rate of 21.1% and an AE of 0.99 (i.e. they are over-bet).

Horses that won last time out in the same class have a strike rate of 24.5% and an AE of 1.03.

Horses that won last time out over the same course have a strike rate of 23.8% and an AE of 1.05.

Horses that won last time over the same distance have a strike rate of 22.4% and an AE of 1.05.

This only looks at the last run but would indicate that a horse having won at the distance and running in the same class is of more importance than the basic form rating.

 

[Villa Chris]

6 minutes ago, richard-westwood said:

I think so .....I'm just used to my way ....if you want to pick a race tomorrow and we can check then that would be a good exercise 

Haven’t got time for tomorrow unless I get rained off early but I’ll do one for Friday if not. 

[richard-westwood]

7.00 chelm tomorrow I have rated it but wasnt gonna use 

1   9%  10/1 

2  9%  10/1 

3 9% 10/1 

4 11%  8/1 

5 7%  13/1 

6 5% 19/1 

7 7%  16/1 

8 12%  15/2 

9 11%  8/1 

10 7%  13/1 

11 2% 50/1 

12 6%  16/1 

Those are mine ....but ...my will be diff to yours because your percentages per section and points awarded will be diff if yiur using your own scales remember 

Edited January 13, 2021 by richard-westwood

[richard-westwood]

4 minutes ago, Trotter said:

I've done the 7.00 at Chelmsford tomorrow which seems to be the best handicap on the flat ........... 

I haven't posted anything up yet as I was waiting for the prices tomorrow !

Great minds trotter ?

[richard-westwood]

Those,are rough scores above ...just realised yours will be diff due to your own points and percentages 

Edited January 13, 2021 by richard-westwood

[Villa Chris]

Cepage who won on Saturday was a good example of a horse that had everything for that particular race. 7 horse race. Had won off that mark before. Had won on the going before and distance winner. He also dropped down in class and top rated . The rest of the field had it all to prove . He won by miles and was third favourite at 7/2 at one point but went off at 11/4 second favourite.  Looking at that, it’s easy money and I bet long term if you could find those kind of bets you’d make profit.

[richard-westwood]

2 minutes ago, Villa Chris said:

Cepage who won on Saturday was a good example of a horse that had everything for that particular race. 7 horse race. Had won off that mark before. Had won on the going before and distance winner. He also dropped down in class and top rated . The rest of the field had it all to prove . He won by miles and was third favourite at 7/2 at one point but went off at 11/4 second favourite.  Looking at that, it’s easy money and I bet long term if you could find those kind of bets you’d make profit.

Yes and it's more likely that the value bets at the head of the market are the more likely winners .....most winners come from top 5 betting remember 

[richard-westwood]

20 minutes ago, richard-westwood said:

7.00 chelm tomorrow I have rated it but wasnt gonna use 

1   9%  10/1 

2  9%  10/1 

3 9% 10/1 

4 11%  8/1 

5 7%  13/1 

6 5% 19/1 

7 7%  16/1 

8 12%  15/2 

9 11%  8/1 

10 7%  13/1 

11 2% 50/1 

12 6%  16/1 

Those are mine ....but ...my will be diff to yours because your percentages per section and points awarded will be diff if yiur using your own scales remember 

No value in this race 

Triple distilled 19/1 I can get 28

Mustaqqur 50 I can get 66 

But I call them "inflated " so not betting prospects imo 

That's what I was on about earlier .....if a horse has form figures 676 but has a big value diff ....say 20 but you can get 25 .....it looks good on paper but if his overall form is nothing special then hes inflated ....he looks better than he actually is .....that's the minefield of value betting ....all that glistens and all that ?

Edited January 13, 2021 by richard-westwood

[Trotter]

I'm going to try to post my 'chart for the 7.00 at Chelmford tomorrow (formatting permitted!)

13/2 Old News - (age 2, form 8, C/D 2, cl 2) 14 - 20.28% (4/1)

16/1 Seas of Elzaam - (age 2, form 5, C/D 3, cl 0) 10 - 14.49% (6/1)

12/1 Casaruan - (age 2, form 3, C/D 3, cl 0) 8 - 11.59% (15/2)

8/1 Strawberry Jack - (age 1, form 0, C/D 3, cl 3) 7 - 10.14% (9/1)

9/2 Johnny Rebb- (age 1, form 4, C/D 1, cl 0) 6 - 8.69% (11/1)

12/1 Glenn Coco - (age 0 , form 0 , C/D 3 , cl 2) 5 - 7.24% (13/1)

6/1 Dutch Decoy- (age 2, form 0, C/D 1, cl 2 ) 5 - 7.24% (13/1)

25/1 Triple Distilled - (age 1, form 0, C/D 1 , cl 2) 4 - 5.79% (16/1)

10/1 Masked Identity- (age 0, form 0, C/D 1, cl 2) 3 - 4.34% (22/1)

5/2 Brunel Charm - (age 2, form 1, C/D 0, cl 0) 3 - 4.34% (22/1)

8/1 Final Frontier - (age 0, form 3, C/D 0, cl 0) 2 - 2.89% (33/1)

66/1 Mostaqqer - (age 2, form 0, C/D 0, cl 0) 2 - 2.89% (33/1)

 

Assuming that appears OK ....... 

The first figure is the current odds at Bet365
then the horses name
then in brackets the points awarded under my 4 headings for awarding points
then the total points for the horse
then the % chance of winning
finally My Odds in brackets

I've listed these in order from my favourite to my outsiders

So what I'm looking at for 'value' is the first odds now at bet365 compared to my odds at the end of the line

You'll see that my first 3 all look good value!

[richard-westwood]

1 hour ago, Trotter said:

I'm going to try to post my 'chart for the 7.00 at Chelmford tomorrow (formatting permitted!)

13/2 Old News - (age 2, form 8, C/D 2, cl 2) 14 - 20.28% (4/1)

16/1 Seas of Elzaam - (age 2, form 5, C/D 3, cl 0) 10 - 14.49% (6/1)

12/1 Casaruan - (age 2, form 3, C/D 3, cl 0) 8 - 11.59% (15/2)

8/1 Strawberry Jack - (age 1, form 0, C/D 3, cl 3) 7 - 10.14% (9/1)

9/2 Johnny Rebb- (age 1, form 4, C/D 1, cl 0) 6 - 8.69% (11/1)

12/1 Glenn Coco - (age 0 , form 0 , C/D 3 , cl 2) 5 - 7.24% (13/1)

6/1 Dutch Decoy- (age 2, form 0, C/D 1, cl 2 ) 5 - 7.24% (13/1)

25/1 Triple Distilled - (age 1, form 0, C/D 1 , cl 2) 4 - 5.79% (16/1)

10/1 Masked Identity- (age 0, form 0, C/D 1, cl 2) 3 - 4.34% (22/1)

5/2 Brunel Charm - (age 2, form 1, C/D 0, cl 0) 3 - 4.34% (22/1)

8/1 Final Frontier - (age 0, form 3, C/D 0, cl 0) 2 - 2.89% (33/1)

66/1 Mostaqqer - (age 2, form 0, C/D 0, cl 0) 2 - 2.89% (33/1)

 

Assuming that appears OK ....... 

The first figure is the current odds at Bet365
then the horses name
then in brackets the points awarded under my 4 headings for awarding points
then the total points for the horse
then the % chance of winning
finally My Odds in brackets

I've listed these in order from my favourite to my outsiders

So what I'm looking at for 'value' is the first odds now at bet365 compared to my odds at the end of the line

You'll see that my first 3 all look good value!

Are you doing that differently??...are you just adding up the scores but not multiplying each score by its group percentage ?? Or am I reading it wrong ?

Or have you assigned the same percentage to each field so that kinda cancels it out ??.

I.e ...are you saying age is equally as important as form ??....and that's why ......just trying to get my head round it ?....if your ok with that it's fine.....I'm just trying to understand what your doing lol

Edited January 13, 2021 by richard-westwood

[Trotter]

3 minutes ago, richard-westwood said:

Are you doing that differently??...are you just adding up the scores but not multiplying each score by its group percentage ?? Or am I reading it wrong ?

Yes, I'm just adding up the scores to get a total score then working out the % based on the total score

It looks like you are weighting the different factors that make up the score by awarding each factor a % then multiplying the score within each factor by that set % ........ I'm not using group percentages

my weighting is based on the number of points available within each factor........ so there's a maximum of 10 points for Form, 3 points for C and D, 3 points for Class and 2 points for age

My top score would be 18 ........ that would be a horse that has won it's last two races, had won over CD, was in the youngest age group in the race, had won in this class and was down in class from it's last run

 

[richard-westwood]

1 minute ago, Trotter said:

Yes, I'm just adding up the scores to get a total score then working out the % based on the total score

It looks like you are weighting the different factors that make up the score by awarding each factor a % then multiplying the score within each factor by that set % ........ I'm not using group percentages

my weighting is based on the number of points available within each factor........ so there's a maximum of 10 points for Form, 3 points for C and D, 3 points for Class and 2 points for age

My top score would be 18 ........ that would be a horse that has won it's last two races, had won over CD, was in the youngest age group in the race, had won in this class and was down in class from it's last run

 

I can see now ........it is a different way but I'm not sure how that would effect the value score .....the original is designed so that every section is on the same scale ...then you can adjust the percentages of each field......the way your doing it assumes all fields are equal but theres no flexibility for change .....it will either work or it wont ....its like you've allocated 25% to each field....all it means is you have less flexibility.....not saying it's wrong...just different .....your way is like setting the percentage to 25 and it stays that way always....do you know what I mean? 

[Trotter]

7 minutes ago, richard-westwood said:

I can see now ........it is a different way but I'm not sure how that would effect the value score .....the original is designed so that every section is on the same scale ...then you can adjust the percentages of each field......the way your doing it assumes all fields are equal but theres no flexibility for change .....it will either work or it wont ....its like you've allocated 25% to each field....all it means is you have less flexibility.....not saying it's wrong...just different .....your way is like setting the percentage to 25 and it stays that way always....do you know what I mean? 

I know what you mean .... I follow what you're saying

My fields are not equal because there's a different amount of points available within each field ......... for example 'Form' accounts for 55% of the total available points

and it is flexible in that I can adjust the number of points available within each field............ or indeed add new fields as things occur to me going along

Basically I'm just awarding different number of points to each field whereas you are awarding different percentages to each field ?

We're both ranking the various factors but just in a different way!