MCLARKE Posted May 6 Author Share Posted May 6 You could do the same calculation applying an overround. So in my 16 runner example if they were all offered at 12/1 the overround would be 123%. If you backed all the runners to win you would lose 3 points, if you backed them each way you would only lose 1.5 points. I am not suggesting you back them all (I did say theoretical) and I'm fully aware that in each race there will be an overround, I'm just trying to show that for 16+ runners you are better backing each way than to win. I don't quite understand your comment about guaranteeing a profit, it doesn't appear basic to me. LeMale and harry_rag 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemight Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 16 minutes ago, MCLARKE said: You could do the same calculation applying an overround. So in my 16 runner example if they were all offered at 12/1 the overround would be 123%. If you backed all the runners to win you would lose 3 points, if you backed them each way you would only lose 1.5 points. I am not suggesting you back them all (I did say theoretical) and I'm fully aware that in each race there will be an overround, I'm just trying to show that for 16+ runners you are better backing each way than to win. I don't quite understand your comment about guaranteeing a profit, it doesn't appear basic to me. I am not an each way backer,nor will i ever be,but there is no doubt that when a Bookmaker offers extra places on each way bets ( i have seen Sky do as many as 7 places in the past at Cheltenham) ,the over round actually works in favour of the punter. In short-the more extra places over the standard that they offer-the better value the Punter has. harry_rag, MCLARKE and LeMale 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCLARKE Posted May 6 Author Share Posted May 6 When I was allowed to bet with Sky betting in races where they offered 6+ places was one of my most proftable strategies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frames Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 It's just mental arithmetic, what you need to be able to do before betting : Field Book is 100% - back 3 horses at 5/2 (29%),4/1 (20%), 7/1 (13%). Total stake 56%, total return !00%, profit 44%. Each field is different so each race has be calculated to find enough of margin to be worthwhile. This is betting, not selection - everybody has their own way of choosing horses to back. It's work, you have to be able to add the field percentages up quickly so you can take advantage of price fluctuations. You choose how many horses you back against the field depending on price and percentage takeout. harry_rag 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCLARKE Posted May 7 Author Share Posted May 7 You are assuming 1 of these horses will win, quite a big assumption ! Perhaps a real life example might help harry_rag and LeMale 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry_rag Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 On 5/6/2024 at 4:20 PM, frames said: taking 3 or 4 against the field for a total of less than 100% guarantees a profit @MCLARKE I think he meant to say IF one of them wins here. I think that's where some confusion has arisen. Overall though this thread has got a bit derailed with everyone talking at cross purposes. I could be wrong of course, but in an attempt to stop the chaos, I'll try and summarise thus. You were making the valid point about extra place races; backing each way is likely to be more profitable in the long run than backing win only. That's because the extra places reduces the overround that the e/w punter is up against relative to win only. A fair point and well enough made. Unfortunately, t'other fella has been thrown by your theoretical reference to backing every runner in the race and gone down the route of explaining to us how markets work and how dutching works. All of which was a bit "teaching granny to suck eggs" and not really relevant to the point you were making. Might be best to leave it there but if there are any more posts that miss the point or explain things that don't really need explaining I'll delete them to keep things tidy and on topic.    LeMale 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemight Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 On 4/21/2024 at 9:49 PM, MCLARKE said: There has been debate in the Speed Ratings thread about the importance of going and distance. This has raised the question about which are the most important variables to consider when making selections. I will start with my list in order of importance. Please fell free to comment or add your own lists. Odds (both current race and previous race, exclude long odds) Days since last run (higher preferred) Race distance v distance of previous races Finishing position of previous runs (not including last run) Draw (this list is for flat racing only) Number of runs Number of runs (current season) Going Weight Class movement Country horse bred in Race distance Claiming jockey Winning / losing distance of last race Turf / AW Weight v previous run Official Rating Finish position last run Same / different jockey Same / different course Number of runners in previous race Sex of horse Age Previous course Handicap / non handicap Official rating v last run Official rating v last winning run Maiden / non maiden Course winner Races since last win Month Course Distance winner Beaten favourite        Getting back to the original topic, Course winners, distance winners, course and distance winners,all win on average more often than horses which haven't,but the odds reflect this, and there is nothing much to be gained on these variables alone. The way a race is run is perhaps the strongest variable i have found.yet is still largely over looked in form study. For example if i was racing Linford Christie over 100 metres flat out all the way,he would beat me by a good 30 metres and not even have to work up a sweat to do it Now in example B, if Linford was controlling a very steady pace and i sat in behind,Linford would still win easily,but if he didn't sprint for home until about 20 Metres from the line...i would probably have been beaten by only 15 metres,form which looks a lot better for me,but not really a true reflection on our abilities... MCLARKE and harry_rag 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCLARKE Posted May 9 Author Share Posted May 9 25 minutes ago, Systemight said: Getting back to the original topic, Course winners, distance winners, course and distance winners,all win on average more often than horses which haven't,but the odds reflect this, and there is nothing much to be gained on these variables alone. The way a race is run is perhaps the strongest variable i have found.yet is still largely over looked in form study. For example if i was racing Linford Christie over 100 metres flat out all the way,he would beat me by a good 30 metres and not even have to work up a sweat to do it Now in example B, if Linford was controlling a very steady pace and i sat in behind,Linford would still win easily,but if he didn't sprint for home until about 20 Metres from the line...i would probably have been beaten by only 15 metres,form which looks a lot better for me,but not really a true reflection on our abilities... Yep, the topic has difted a bit. I sometimes back horses that haven't won over the course or distance because they tend to be overbet. I must admit I haven't really found a way to quantify the pace angle of a race but I agree it is often key. I think front runners have a good record so I suppose if you can find a race with one front runner in it that might be an angle. anaconda69 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemight Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 23 hours ago, MCLARKE said: Yep, the topic has difted a bit. I sometimes back horses that haven't won over the course or distance because they tend to be overbet. I must admit I haven't really found a way to quantify the pace angle of a race but I agree it is often key. I think front runners have a good record so I suppose if you can find a race with one front runner in it that might be an angle. I think with Course and Distance winners,it's important to look at how many times the horse has RACED over that Course and Distance. For example i would always prefer a horse who has won over C+D from a couple of outings,over one who has won once,yet has probably raced over the C+D 20 times... Front Runners?,yes that would be a good place to start,for many reasons.. MCLARKE and black rabbit 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brigadier Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 The most important factor that I've found over the years is firstly ground, secondly ground and thirdly ground!! I've been betting for 45 years and my 'favourite' time to seek out value is when there is a late ground change. If you are privy to a wet weather forecast you can always jump in and steal some value before those nasty bookmakers cotton on. The other factors that are top of my list are trainer form, I'm not really sure how it always happen but it seems when a stable begin having winners it seems to spur their stable mates on as well! I'm also very big on collateral form. I love to see a horse's previous run(s) being franked by those around it. Also I love to see a horse drop back to it's last winning mark. I'm of the opinion that each horse has a 'winning' mark be it very low or very high and if we can find that then we know further down the line in its career if it falls back down to that mark then its usually a positive sign. yossa6133, MCLARKE and black rabbit 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCLARKE Posted May 20 Author Share Posted May 20 2 hours ago, The Brigadier said: The most important factor that I've found over the years is firstly ground, secondly ground and thirdly ground!! I've been betting for 45 years and my 'favourite' time to seek out value is when there is a late ground change. If you are privy to a wet weather forecast you can always jump in and steal some value before those nasty bookmakers cotton on. The other factors that are top of my list are trainer form, I'm not really sure how it always happen but it seems when a stable begin having winners it seems to spur their stable mates on as well! I'm also very big on collateral form. I love to see a horse's previous run(s) being franked by those around it. Also I love to see a horse drop back to it's last winning mark. I'm of the opinion that each horse has a 'winning' mark be it very low or very high and if we can find that then we know further down the line in its career if it falls back down to that mark then its usually a positive sign. Very wise words as usual. I remember my first nap won at 33/1, it was heavy going and it was the only horse to have won on heavy, even though it was 2 years earlier. The Brigadier 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.