Finding winners

[Bang on]

Thought I would start a new thread to discuss what everyone looks for when trying to find winners. For myself, I have made plenty of mistakes in the past, and still make plenty of mistakes now. I am not quite where I want to be yet, but I do make money from betting and don't mind discussing/sharing thoughts with others.

 So what are the variables ? What do I look for ?

Going - always plays a part. I will rarely bet on Heavy or Soft going. If it doesn't say 'GOOD' somewhere in there I usually leave well alone.

Form - the best recent form figures are a good 'guide' to a horses wellbeing, and are a good starting point. The downside is that it is normally factored into the price.

Recent run - most horses will run better with a recent run, it gives them the 'race fitness' as opposed to having just galloped at home. Obviously there are exceptions as some seem to run better when 'fresh'. ** My advice (for what it's worth) is especially during the jumps season, horses that have been off for a year (or longer) will have had some sort of problem. The trainer will regularly have them 'superfit' so as not to break down again, and there can be some nice prices.

Jockeys - the top jockeys seem to always get on the best horses. The downside is that again it is factored into the price. Try and note jockeys who take their chance when it is given... also those who don't to avoid.

Trainers - trainers in form have plenty of winners, keep an eye on trainers coming into and going out of form. I especially look at 'new trainers' as most seem to try and get a win on the board as quickly as possible.

Race types - handicaps or non-handicaps . Personally I rarely bet in selling, claiming, or non-pro jockey races ( Amateur, Apprentice, Lady, Gentleman, etc).

Horse aids - blinkers, cheekpieces, visors .. especially 1st time.

Weight - don't worry about weight in sprints, although in a 3 mile chase  it can have an effect.

There are many more variables to consider, it can become mind boggling. Try to keep it as simple as possible, try not to overthink things. You can find winners in so many different ways. What do I do ? I get the Racing Post and spend an hour or 2 marking the paper with all sorts of information that I think works for me, Different coloured pens, highlighters etc. If you don't have that time, use what works best for you.

 

Good luck with your punting, I hope I haven't muddied the waters. This forum is a good place to improve your punting. Far better to learn from each other than try and go solo.

I would love to hear other peoples thoughts on finding winners.

[gbettle]

I'd like to recommend a, ""Wisdom Of Crowd Market Index" you can find here.

TL;DR: "In sports markets, the probabilities implied by the prices on offer are a proxy for the wisdom of the crowd for that particular event. By adapting Shannon's Entropy formula, we can generate our own." 

[MCLARKE]

Interesting thread, looking at your recent impressive results what you are doing is obviously working for you.

Personally I am not looking for winners but rather what is good value.

That is why one of my main criteria is badly drawn horses, they tend to offer good value. Also the form of horses that were badly drawn last time might look worse than it actually was.

Some of my other criteria include :-

Ignore horses that are wearing headgear, it's maybe a sign that they are unreliable.

Ignore horses that are carrying a lot of weight, these may have been raised to a level where it is difficult for them to win.

I prefer horses running over a shorter distance than the last run.

I don't like horses that won last time.

I do like horses that have had a recent run (less than 9 days ago). I don't like horses that ran 9 to 15 days ago.

I don't like CD winners.

I prefer females to males (horses not jockeys!).

I prefer horses 5 or younger.

I don't like 7lb claimers.

I don't like beaten favourites.

I don't like betting at 25/1 or above.

The criteria may vary depending on the race conditions that I am looking at.

 

[Bang on]

14 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

Interesting thread, looking at your recent impressive results what you are doing is obviously working for you.

Personally I am not looking for winners but rather what is good value.

That is why one of my main criteria is badly drawn horses, they tend to offer good value. Also the form of horses that were badly drawn last time might look worse than it actually was.

Some of my other criteria include :-

Ignore horses that are wearing headgear, it's maybe a sign that they are unreliable.

Ignore horses that are carrying a lot of weight, these may have been raised to a level where it is difficult for them to win.

I prefer horses running over a shorter distance than the last run.

I don't like horses that won last time.

I do like horses that have had a recent run (less than 9 days ago). I don't like horses that ran 9 to 15 days ago.

I don't like CD winners.

I prefer females to males (horses not jockeys!).

I prefer horses 5 or younger.

I don't like 7lb claimers.

I don't like beaten favourites.

I don't like betting at 25/1 or above.

The criteria may vary depending on the race conditions that I am looking at.

 

Some interesting points.

' I prefer horses running over shorter' - I agree, most would go for the horse 'upped in distance', but I have found more winners dropping in distance.

'I don't like horses that won last time' - I don't mind, but NOT 11 form (especially in handicaps)

'CD winners' - year in, year out, they only win 13% of races (although sometimes more than 1 in a race), the exception to this IMO are certain courses that have their own strange configurations/quirks etc. Southwell fibresand was  one of them.

7lb claimers - they are raw novices and make plenty of mistakes, ** one of the reasons I don't like apprentice races.

BF - have a 20% strike rate so treat with caution. ** personally I try to avoid odds on favs in general, too many get beat.

25/1 or above - unless it is plainly wrong, or you know something others don't.

[alexcaruso808]

19 hours ago, gbettle said:

I'd like to recommend a, ""Wisdom Of Crowd Market Index" you can find here.

TL;DR: "In sports markets, the probabilities implied by the prices on offer are a proxy for the wisdom of the crowd for that particular event. By adapting Shannon's Entropy formula, we can generate our own." 

Is that formula part of a script     that I can use to have my computer calculate odds? 

[gbettle]

17 hours ago, alexcaruso808 said:

Is that formula part of a script     that I can use to have my computer calculate odds? 

Did you click the link? It explains it pretty clearly - including examples - how to calculate the WCMI:

[alexcaruso808]

50 minutes ago, gbettle said:

Did you click the link? It explains it pretty clearly - including examples - how to calculate the WCMI:

yes, I clicked the link and indeed that's how I saw the formula.  I thought it could be run as part of a script as I saw this.

[gbettle]

27 minutes ago, alexcaruso808 said:

yes, I clicked the link and indeed that's how I saw the formula.  I thought it could be run as part of a script as I saw this.

It's also part of a FlatStat daily stat

[calva decoy]

I love sayings horses for courses ( truisms ) certain venues for instance jumps Hexham flat Epsom  if I see a sole CD winner in a race I'll back it .

In form small yards , if the yard are having winners I'll follow for usually 5-7 days .

Maidens & or Bumpers , horses not given a hard time who've finished 4th on debut I've done well with & generally well priced .

The weather / going has a lot to do with how I play , if it's dry on a Friday ( flat racing ) & we're due a deluge Friday night / Saturday morning £ stays in pocket .

Certain trainers at certain courses I look for especially with sole runners on a card .

For instance , M.Johnston despite being Yorkshire based doesn't have a very good record in the county especially not on the flat tracks at Donny & York but does very well down South & at HQ .

Sir M Stoutes 4 year olds at Leicester , C.Wall & C.Dwyer at Yarmouth , R.Harris & M.Saunders at Bath , H.De Bromheads 2 mile novice chasers are angles I've done well with .

With all the info disposable at our fingertips these days , a lot of the time ( if your working ) is finding the time to back winners .

If I do good in the Nap competition my wallet has had a bad month , if I do bad in the Nap competition my wallet is smiling as I like to Dutch my Naps , I'm a bit weird really ?

Edited September 11, 2021 by calva decoy
Put Hexham twice

[MCLARKE]

On 9/9/2021 at 8:28 PM, gbettle said:

I'd like to recommend a, ""Wisdom Of Crowd Market Index" you can find here.

How do you use this to select your bets ?

[Bang on]

52 minutes ago, calva decoy said:

 

Certain trainers at certain courses I look for especially with sole runners on a card .

I'm a bit weird really ?

Yes, especially if they have travelled a fair distance with a sole runner.

AS for the wierd bit... aren't we all ? ?

[gbettle]

25 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

How do you use this to select your bets ?

I take an opinion on the op's original, when "... the crowd is relatively uninformed (0.03) about the likely outcome and presents an excellent opportunity for the informed sports trader. Personally, I do not trade in any market with an index above 0.13 (approx)."
 

I have a backlog entry to add WCMI to my dwh and spreadsheets, to join the already existing A/E & Archie, yield, ROI, etc.

Edited September 11, 2021 by gbettle
explaining myself better hopefully LOL

[Zilzalian]

A few observations from this quarter. Back in the day it was said that it was almost impossible to make money off course because of the 9% tax on off course betting which has obvious implications like most people who were successful made less than 9% profit. Also most of the money was made by specifically selecting certain races to study due to time constraints. Two things changed all that, firstly the 9% tax was abolished and secondly and most importantly computers. Computers created time so punters could study more and more races per day and even more importantly computers could process any amount of data and even pretty much pick the selection for you, the only draw back to this advancement was that it afforded the bookies the same options all be it in a slightly different way, bookies could then pretty quickly pick up on the betting trends and act accordingly. The interesting point here is that lets call it "the modern way" it equalised things, that is to say, bookies still never went broke in spite of all the innovations. The above comments are all very interesting in respect that you all seem to make a profit so despite everything, it can still be done. It is interesting that today you don't have to be a bookie to become a bookie, (I will leave out the exchanges for the purposes of this discussion) the modern boards do all the calculations for you based on input of bets taken etc. The reason for this lack of change is quite simple in my view and it is this. For every clever punter there are far more than enough mug punters for want of a better expression to cover those losses. i noticed this when i used to go into bookies shops and observe the habits of the majority of punters interestingly it wasn't the horses, dogs or football but Roulette machines that made me realise how bad the average punter is, on many occasion I heard and observed punters win big from small stakes and this was true while they remained in the shop, their biggest problem was actually getting out of the shop with what they had won which they rarely did. What i have just said sounds quite logical and obvious but without that mentality of those punters we would not be able to make a profit. This brings me to my point. The system (bookies) is geared up to exploit those punters and the racing press actually helps them achieve this, we all know that favs win about 30% of the time but looking at lets say timeform or the racing post et al taken literally from the SP forecasts and the tipsters one gets the impression that all the races will be won by the favourite, very rarely do they divert from this "promotional type rhetoric" which mug punters depend on when they have a bet. So all the above methods have a similar thread and that is they are all individual ways of betting and more importantly are in depth analysis using the available data and applying it to personal thinking as opposed to dependence on others opinions. Now my own way of doing things is quite simple and that is to try to simplify everything so I avoid or not give much importance (not all because that would be foolish) to many of the things that would put me off a bet ie Ground, distance, draw trainer, jockey and more importantly the press and tipsters. A recent example I could give is as recent as last Saturday and the Ayr gold cup and i will tag @MCLARKE here for his thoughts and or input, he and i am assuming his 1st choice from 2 options was Bielsa but the draw seemed to present him with a problem (that was a reasonable concern) I don't know if @MCLARKEdid or did not bet on Biesla in the end but if he didn't due to the draw conundrum then he was misled or influenced not by data  because the historical data supported that Bielsa had the plumb draw but the rhetoric from what i call the "noise".

[MCLARKE]

Most of my betting is based on going against the crowd and utilising factors that are underbet. On the flat one of my key criteria is backing "badly drawn" horses. If the pundits are banging on about the draw then it's probably even better value.

As I stated earlier in this thread "I am not looking for winners but rather what is good value".

I didn't back Bielsa because it was part of a test that I am conducting. 

[Zilzalian]

12 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

Most of my betting is based on going against the crowd and utilising factors that are underbet. On the flat one of my key criteria is backing "badly drawn" horses. If the pundits are banging on about the draw then it's probably even better value.

As I stated earlier in this thread "I am not looking for winners but rather what is good value".

I didn't back Bielsa because it was part of a test that I am conducting. 

Yes, i was in no way criticising, just using your Saturday thread as an example of what can happen if people listen to "the noise" Did you find it interesting that despite the noise it ended up bad value? By that i mean one would expect given the noise that the price would get bigger not contract like it did.

[MCLARKE]

Yes I was surprised at the price given that the lower drawn horses were also backed.