HORSE RACING VARIABLES

[LeMale]

Just now, LeMale said:

My 2 pennies worth is, it's very much swings and round-abouts and as a @Zilzalian Type 2.5 (kind of inbetween) i make a judgement call depending on the odds at the time i'm betting, which can be very beneficial (like in the race you mentioned - placed bet at 16-1 with 365 win bet not ew because price too low, got BOG as sp was 33-1) or can backfire badly, just like the race after that with Moutarde where i split the bet, half at 40-1 (and 2 mins after went to 50-1) and half at sp both ew with skybet. At the time i was gutted i took the 40's as price was rising, but like i said, it backfired because it went off at 12-1 i think and lost £16.80 on the sp bet. I will try to put them on here at the end as don't want anybody thinking i'm a "hindsight punter" as long as no one laughs at my stakes. (it's what keeps it fun and not really gambling in my eyes) It can be frustrating when that 16-1 shot drifts to a big price (a price that i would normally bet ew) and it places, so i get nothing, but when it wins like yesterday i make more, like i said, swings and round-abouts you have to take the rough with the smooth, that's racing. 

Couldn't put both up, so here's the other one.

[Zilzalian]

4 hours ago, LeMale said:

My 2 pennies worth is, it's very much swings and round-abouts and as a @Zilzalian Type 2.5 (kind of inbetween) i make a judgement call depending on the odds at the time i'm betting, which can be very beneficial (like in the race you mentioned - placed bet at 16-1 with 365 win bet not ew because price too low, got BOG as sp was 33-1) or can backfire badly, just like the race after that with Moutarde where i split the bet, half at 40-1 (and 2 mins after went to 50-1) and half at sp both ew with skybet. At the time i was gutted i took the 40's as price was rising, but like i said, it backfired because it went off at 12-1 i think and lost £16.80 on the sp bet. I will try to put them on here at the end as don't want anybody thinking i'm a "hindsight punter" as long as no one laughs at my stakes. (it's what keeps it fun and not really gambling in my eyes) It can be frustrating when that 16-1 shot drifts to a big price (a price that i would normally bet ew) and it places, so i get nothing, but when it wins like yesterday i make more, like i said, swings and round-abouts you have to take the rough with the smooth, that's racing. 

This is bang on the money "as long as no one laughs at my stakes. (it's what keeps it fun and not really gambling in my eyes)" having said that i would have pissed myself laughing if it was 10p EW 🤣

[frames]

A long time ago (decades, probably) there was a vogue amongst gamblers for being dismissive of 'systems' and then saying that what they did was to use 'methods' for selection. In the end I suppose you pay your money and make your choice, but the difference between the teeth of that fine comb of definition escaped me then, and still does. Each gambler has their own likes and dislikes - and their taboos. My personal taboo is never to back each way - it only takes a moment to calculate that the 1/5 offered on a 33/1 shot that finishes 2nd or 3rd is not 6.6/1, but 3.3/1 - and you are still trying to find a 33/1 shot to place.

One of the 'methods' that was popular for a while at least used current form as a basis - look for horses that put up improved speed figures in a better race LTO - 'better' was defined by value of race e.g improved figure in 30k race  LTO, now running in 20k race. It was a starting point, and was useful. It had some success then, and is probably a good yardstick still. At the time it was known as the Van Der Wheil method - apparently named after a gambler.

[harry_rag]

8 minutes ago, frames said:

A long time ago (decades, probably) there was a vogue amongst gamblers for being dismissive of 'systems' and then saying that what they did was to use 'methods' for selection. In the end I suppose you pay your money and make your choice, but the difference between the teeth of that fine comb of definition escaped me then, and still does.

I suppose a system is something where "computer says yes/no" and you bet regardless of how good or bad the bet strikes you. A "method" might be where you consider the system rating alongside other variables and make an informed choice. The use of speed ratings seems to fall more into the latter category. Compare the output to the prices on offer and make an informed choice on how many selections to back and how to combine them. 

From a goalscorer perspective I have a simple system that only involves two variables. 3 x 25 =  75 = bet, no other considerations involved (where 3 is the fixed odds price). 3 x 24 = 72 = a possible bet if I have time to look at the players stats. The former is very much a pure system bet whereas I record the latter as a "studied" bet which you could definitely say uses a consistent method. The studied bets have the better ROI this year though it was the other way round last year.

I've had many systems or methods that have worked well for a while over the years but fallen away over time. That will be for a variety of reasons; sometimes there was no real edge as the approach was based on too small a data sample, sometimes the bookies or other punters cotton on and the prices adjust, sometimes the market gets dropped because the firm was taking a hammering. Sometimes the value is still there like low hanging fruit but the b*****d farmer bans you from the orchard! 

[MCLARKE]

2 hours ago, frames said:

A long time ago (decades, probably) there was a vogue amongst gamblers for being dismissive of 'systems' and then saying that what they did was to use 'methods' for selection. In the end I suppose you pay your money and make your choice, but the difference between the teeth of that fine comb of definition escaped me then, and still does. Each gambler has their own likes and dislikes - and their taboos. My personal taboo is never to back each way - it only takes a moment to calculate that the 1/5 offered on a 33/1 shot that finishes 2nd or 3rd is not 6.6/1, but 3.3/1 - and you are still trying to find a 33/1 shot to place.

One of the 'methods' that was popular for a while at least used current form as a basis - look for horses that put up improved speed figures in a better race LTO - 'better' was defined by value of race e.g improved figure in 30k race  LTO, now running in 20k race. It was a starting point, and was useful. It had some success then, and is probably a good yardstick still. At the time it was known as the Van Der Wheil method - apparently named after a gambler.

Not the legendary Van Der Wheil method !

I think it was based on adding the last 3 finishing positions together and taking the first 5 in the betting, I I looked at it once but the results weren't much better than random selection.

As for each way betting, I only bet each way in handicaps of 16 runners + or where extra places are available. If you do the maths on a theoretical 16 runner race where all the horses are at odds of 15/1 you would breakeven backing all the horses to win but a return of 1.5 points if you bet each way.

[Zilzalian]

Biggest problem with system creators is that they become so entrenched in "their baby" that they blind themselves to all other considerations, they shout hallelujah when they get a winner (confirmation bias) but are silent/ignore if a loser. The smart people are those that no matter how much work they have put in to their system they are still able to reason around it taking many other variables into account to form a reasoned judgement. For me my Speed ratings are a starting point and i then see how many negatives i can find in the top rated and then make an informed decision which goes something like this  A. go with the Speed figure. B. don't have a bet. or C. change my mind and bet another horse. On top of this i would consider what stakes each option is worth so If we take A. for example i would ask myself how strong is this number in relation to the others in the field and that would create further options like A. max stake B. Half/part stake. C. win or EW. or D. not a great option in my opinion (although i have on occasion) back more than one in the race. The big thing with me is if my horse doesn't come up to my expectations i don't just shrug it off i really want to know why even if there is no obvious reason and maybe simply got my assessment wrong. Tonight i top rated a french horse in the 730 at Chelmsford it got beat into second at 20/1 beaten by the favourite. Even though the Fav was on a good roll my conclusion was that Tazara was drawn in the widest stall was bumped at the start and it used up a lot of energy getting around the field to lead and i would hazard a guess that it would have been a very close call given a better draw.

[MCLARKE]

I hope that I am transparent in my systems, I always state my profit or loss in the various threads I post on.

By your definition I am not smart because I will take the outcome of my system and bet on it regardless. So called negatives can in fact be positives if they are over compensated for in the betting.

You are right though, most systems fail. I always test mine on a years worth of data to see if it still makes a profit. I will then calculate the p-value to ensure that the results are not driven by chance. Even then I will bet small amounts until I have a sufficient bank for that system.

[Trotter]

I think the best thing about systems is throwing up a quick short list if you don't have the time or inclination to spend ages looking at the form for a days racing.......... use your system to get 3 or 4 'posibles' in a field and then look at those horses in more depth

Similar with 'Trends' ......... a quick way to eliminate a lot of runners in big fields

As long there's some logic behind the system or the trends then it's fair enough........ you have to accept that if you're quickly eliminating runners without due study then you're going to miss some winners !

 

 

[Zilzalian]

3 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

I hope that I am transparent in my systems, I always state my profit or loss in the various threads I post on.

By your definition I am not smart because I will take the outcome of my system and bet on it regardless. So called negatives can in fact be positives if they are over compensated for in the betting.

You are right though, most systems fail. I always test mine on a years worth of data to see if it still makes a profit. I will then calculate the p-value to ensure that the results are not driven by chance. Even then I will bet small amounts until I have a sufficient bank for that system.

I would hope that you do not marry your systems, you don't strike me as the type of person that would/does, by your own admission you have created/tried many systems, which i think supports my assertion about "smart". So by my definition you are in fact smart.

[harry_rag]

You guys have certainly sold me on the merits of speed ratings in the right hands (which isn’t me, recent collaborative dabbling not withstanding). I agree they’re primarily a tool that helps with the decision making and need a degree of interpretation. I think a system that involves actually calculating your own “fair” odds and betting when you can get the required margin lends itself more to backing every qualifier without exception, for as long as the returns continue to support that.

I’m happy with that approach, on a busy day with loads of matches I’ll probably just back the system qualifiers (and have plenty of bets). On a quieter day I’ll have a look at the “not quite” bets and see if any look worth backing regardless. I would also consider other backing options where time allows (bet builders, multis, first scorer). I would never second guess the system, even when it throws up Dominic Calvert-Lewin! I think that’s the difference between ratings that give you an idea of the relative merits of the runners and a system that calculates your own fair odds.

[MCLARKE]

I've tried to calculate the fair odds from my systems but invariably it throws up a lot of the outsiders as value bets

For the 2000 guineas probably every horse apart from the favourite would be a value bet

[harry_rag]

5 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

I've tried to calculate the fair odds from my systems but invariably it throws up a lot of the outsiders as value bets

For the 2000 guineas probably every horse apart from the favourite would be a value bet

I think it’s easier to try and calculate fair odds for binary events (over/under, player to score or not) than horse races or anything with a big field. The ratings angle seems more appropriate for them. You also need less data to be confident about the validity when there’s just two possible outcomes at relatively short odds.

[Zilzalian]

6 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

I think it’s easier to try and calculate fair odds for binary events (over/under, player to score or not) than horse races or anything with a big field. The ratings angle seems more appropriate for them. You also need less data to be confident about the validity when there’s just two possible outcomes at relatively short odds.

Yeah but binary event option bets are for girls surely? 🤣😁😂💋

[MCLARKE]

1 hour ago, Zilzalian said:

Yeah but binary event option bets are for girls surely?

I'm surprised the moderator's allowed that, very sexist

I bet you still like Yorkie bars !

[harry_rag]

48 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

I'm surprised the moderator's allowed that, very sexist

I bet you still like Yorkie bars !

To be fair sexual politics is a minefield. Any notion of a mild rebuke for sexism was somewhat blown out of the water by his sudden identification as being non-binary!

[Zilzalian]

6 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

To be fair sexual politics is a minefield. Any notion of a mild rebuke for sexism was somewhat blown out of the water by his sudden identification as being non-binary!

You should be on tour with that sense o humour. National Express tour to the Outer f'in Hebrides...

[Zilzalian]

3 hours ago, harry_rag said:

You guys have certainly sold me on the merits of speed ratings in the right hands (which isn’t me, recent collaborative dabbling not withstanding). I agree they’re primarily a tool that helps with the decision making and need a degree of interpretation. I think a system that involves actually calculating your own “fair” odds and betting when you can get the required margin lends itself more to backing every qualifier without exception, for as long as the returns continue to support that.

I’m happy with that approach, on a busy day with loads of matches I’ll probably just back the system qualifiers (and have plenty of bets). On a quieter day I’ll have a look at the “not quite” bets and see if any look worth backing regardless. I would also consider other backing options where time allows (bet builders, multis, first scorer). I would never second guess the system, even when it throws up Dominic Calvert-Lewin! I think that’s the difference between ratings that give you an idea of the relative merits of the runners and a system that calculates your own fair odds.

Tell you what @harry_rag How about i supply you with all the raw speed data for 2yo on the Monday of Royal Ascot and see how a different mind might interpret it? I think there are 3 2yo group races races.

[MCLARKE]

10 hours ago, Zilzalian said:

Tell you what @harry_rag How about i supply you with all the raw speed data for 2yo on the Monday of Royal Ascot and see how a different mind might interpret it? I think there are 3 2yo group races races.

Has Royal Ascot added an extra day or does @Zilzalian need to take his / her / their medication

[harry_rag]

2 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

Has Royal Ascot added an extra day or does @Zilzalian need to take his / her / their medication

I don’t want to play devils advocate but I think he means he’d supply the data on the Monday, ahead of the meeting.

I’ll certainly take a butchers even if I feel like I might have been damned by faint praise by being described as having a “different mind”! 

[MCLARKE]

You are right, apologies to @Zilzalian, to be fair I haven't taken my meds yet !

[Zilzalian]

40 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

I don’t want to play devils advocate but I think he means he’d supply the data on the Monday, ahead of the meeting.

I’ll certainly take a butchers even if I feel like I might have been damned by faint praise by being described as having a “different mind”! 

Yep that's why i said Monday to give you time to scrutinise. Apology accepted Clarkey, we have to make allowances for age.

[harry_rag]

21 hours ago, harry_rag said:

I would never second guess the system, even when it throws up Dominic Calvert-Lewin!

Didn't take long for those words to bite me in the behind! He's a bet at 2/1 tonight, maybe he'll actually score whilst carrying my money.

Last time I looked he had the worst numbers of any player in the Big 5 leagues in terms of expected goals minus actual goals.

[harry_rag]

Always rated the guy! 

[Zilzalian]

2 hours ago, harry_rag said:

Always rated the guy! 

When i read your post i looked at the odds and reasoned that the draw was better value as a bigger price than lewis was to score (the actual result is not relevant to my question as such) i am just wondering why you chose Dom Clue Lewless over the draw especially given what you said about him.

[harry_rag]

5 minutes ago, Zilzalian said:

When i read your post i looked at the odds and reasoned that the draw was better value as a bigger price than lewis was to score (the actual result is not relevant to my question as such) i am just wondering why you chose Dom Clue Lewless over the draw especially given what you said about him.

He was a system bet and, as I said yesterday, I back them all regardless, I just thought it was amusing that he popped up as one less than 24 hours after I flagged him as an example of the worst case scenario when following the system.

I never second guess the system and, DCL aside, I can’t really think of any other players who I have an instinctive negative reaction to. Conversely, I’ve missed a few nice winners where I can’t get on at the system price and have swerved the bet at slightly shorter odds on the basis of the stats being poor. As long as the returns hold up (and we’re talking 1000s of bets now) I won’t be faffing with the formula.

I hardly ever bet on results these days. The markets are pretty efficient and I don’t feel as if I have any particular edge. I don’t really look beyond the goalscorer bets unless it’s a quiet day or something leaps out at me. Better to specialise on my strongest area rather than spread myself thinly across results, goals, cards and corners etc. (all furrows I’ve ploughed in the past).

[LeMale]

16 hours ago, harry_rag said:

He was a system bet and, as I said yesterday, I back them all regardless, I just thought it was amusing that he popped up as one less than 24 hours after I flagged him as an example of the worst case scenario when following the system.

I never second guess the system and, DCL aside, I can’t really think of any other players who I have an instinctive negative reaction to. Conversely, I’ve missed a few nice winners where I can’t get on at the system price and have swerved the bet at slightly shorter odds on the basis of the stats being poor. As long as the returns hold up (and we’re talking 1000s of bets now) I won’t be faffing with the formula.

I hardly ever bet on results these days. The markets are pretty efficient and I don’t feel as if I have any particular edge. I don’t really look beyond the goalscorer bets unless it’s a quiet day or something leaps out at me. Better to specialise on my strongest area rather than spread myself thinly across results, goals, cards and corners etc. (all furrows I’ve ploughed in the past).

Harry, where do you post your footie system bets? I sometimes come across a £5 skybet football multi bet thing and never really know what to do with it, so your tips might come in handy. I did try and look on here, but couldn't find it. Cheers. 

[harry_rag]

25 minutes ago, LeMale said:

Harry, where do you post your footie system bets? I sometimes come across a £5 skybet football multi bet thing and never really know what to do with it, so your tips might come in handy. I did try and look on here, but couldn't find it. Cheers. 

The system relates to goalscorer bets. Time permitting I post them in the thread for the relevant leagues. If you've got a particular offer to use at any time then post the details and I'll suggest something wherever possible.

[frames]

On 5/2/2024 at 7:26 PM, MCLARKE said:

Not the legendary Van Der Wheil method !

I think it was based on adding the last 3 finishing positions together and taking the first 5 in the betting, I I looked at it once but the results weren't much better than random selection.

As for each way betting, I only bet each way in handicaps of 16 runners + or where extra places are available. If you do the maths on a theoretical 16 runner race where all the horses are at odds of 15/1 you would breakeven backing all the horses to win but a return of 1.5 points if you bet each way.

I think the only way to break even, or make a (small) profit by backing all runners in a race is if the book is under round - I can't remember that ever happening.

[harry_rag]

2 hours ago, frames said:

I think the only way to break even, or make a (small) profit by backing all runners in a race is if the book is under round - I can't remember that ever happening.

I think you've missed his point but I had to re-read the post to get my head round it.

If you backed all 16 runners 1 point win in a theoretical race at equal fair odds of 15/1 you'd get your money back. If you backed them all half a point each way with 5 places on offer you'd make a small profit.  (I make it 2 points but I could be wrong.) So it's taken as being suggestive that there's more value than normal when backing each way in extra place races. It will, of course, depend on the overround being applied.

[frames]

38 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

I think you've missed his point but I had to re-read the post to get my head round it.

If you backed all 16 runners 1 point win in a theoretical race at equal fair odds of 15/1 you'd get your money back. If you backed them all half a point each way with 5 places on offer you'd make a small profit.  (I make it 2 points but I could be wrong.) So it's taken as being suggestive that there's more value than normal when backing each way in extra place races. It will, of course, depend on the overround being applied.

I understand the confusion, but the overround, or underround, are not applied - that is the situation regarding the field book. Which race is it that equal fair odds are on offer ?

The field book operates on 100% take out, calculated on price percentage : 7/2 is 22%,11/2 is 15%, 8/1 is 11% and so on for every price available. Every book on every race is overround i.e the take out is more than 100%. The only advantage the bettor has over the bookmaker is that the bookmaker has to bet in every race, the bettor doesn't - so, in a field of 8 or 10 runners, depending on the book takeout, taking 3 or 4 against the field for a total of less than 100% guarantees a profit - and, if that is a 10 runner field, that means that instead of having one horse running for you and nine for the bookmaker you have three or four running for you, which 60% or 70% of the field. This seems to me to be fairly basic.