Your Professional bets~ Debate Only

[Gingertipster]

Thought I would start a thread where any PL member can put a tip in that they believe is a “professional bet”. Realise there are many different definitions of what a professional bet is; but in this case: You must believe his chance is much better (not just slightly over-priced) than the odds available imply. A price likely to crash. Not a thread each member should contribute to every day or even every week, just when he's seen outstanding value. So if you consider a horse to be a true 4/7 63.6% chance and is available at 4/5 52.4% it's a professional bet. Likewise one believed to be a 3/1 25% chance available at 9/2 18.2%; a 10/1 9% chance at 16/1 5.9%, 20/1 4.8% at 40/1 2.4% or 50/1 2% at 200/1 0.5% and so on. The bigger the price the less (percentage) difference is needed to be a professional bet. To help PL members who are not accustomed to the table of odds and chances, I here is an explanation that even a novice punter should understand. To make it easier for them to spot a “professional bet”. “Every punter knows for each £ he / she stakes on a 3/1 winner, he gets £4 returned (winning £3 plus £1 stake back). For every 100 bets of level stakes at 3/1 a punter must win 25 to break even (25 X 4 = 100). Staking 100 points and getting 100 back. If he wins more than 25 he will make a profit, less than 25 will result in a loss. Therefore, 25% = true odds of 3/1. So a punter should only back a 3/1 shot if he believes it has a better than 25% chance of winning. Gamblers want to know “who's going to win”? But they should not necessarily back the horse with “the best chance of winning”. The important question is “in your opinion, who is “VALUE to win”. Bookmakers stay in business by betting to an over-round figure. In a four horse race with a competitive market he may offer: A 11/8 (42.1%), B 2/1 (33.3%), C 100/30 (23.1%), D 11/1 (8.3%). 42.1 + 33.3 + 23.1 + 8.3 = 106.8% Working to 106.8% for an over-round of 6.8%. Yet betting is all about opinions, bookmakers prices might not be right. If after studying form of the race above a punter believes: A has a 40% 6/4 chance of winning. B 30% almost 9/4 C 20% 4/1 D 10% 9/1 All four adding up to 100%. Comparing the punters prices to bookmakers; the only horse at a better price (value) with bookmakers is D at 11/1. D is the only possible bet, despite in the punters own opinion having the worst chance of winning. Quarter of A's chance, a third of B's and half of C. With a 10% strike rate at 11/1 showing a profit. Where as a 40% strike rate at 11/8, 30% at 2/1 and 20% at 100/30 all result in a loss. (Though in our Professional Bets thread D would not constitute a bet as the value is only a marginal 1.7%. 10% - 8.3% = 1.7%). Even if a punter does not want to work out a race to 100%, knowing the table, seeing each price as a percentage and vice versa helps to find value. To calculate the percentage each price is worth, add a point and divide by 100. So 3/1 = 3 + 1 = 4, 100 '/, 4 = 25%. 100/30 = 3.33/1 + 1 = 4.33, 100 '/, 4.33 = 23.1% And so on”. For odds in decimals (what you see on betfair or tote) there is no need to add the 1, just divide 100 by the figure. Here are the prices and their percentages. Evens 50, 21/20 48.8, 11/10 47.6, 6/5 45.5, 5/4 44.4, 11/8 42.1, 6/4 40, 13/8 38.1, 7/4 36.4, 15/8 34.8, 2/1 33.3, 85/40 32, 9/4 30.8, 5/2 28.6, 11/4 26.7, 3/1 25, 100/30 23.1, 7/2 22.2, 4/1 20, 9/2 18.2, 5/1 16.7, 11/2 15.4, 6/1 14.3, 13/2 13.3, 7/1 12.5, 15/2 11.7, 8/1 11.1, 17/2 10.5, 9/1 10, 10/1 9.1, 11/1 8.3, 12/1 7.7, 13/1 7.1, 14/1 6.7, 15/1 6.2, 16/1 5.9, 18/1 5.3, 20/1 4.8, 22/1 4.3, 25/1 3.8, 28/1 3.4, 33/1 3, 40/1 2.4, 50/1 2, 66/1 1.5, 80/1 1.2, 100/1 1, 132/1 0.75, 150/1 0.66, 200/1 0.5, 250/1 0.4, 300/1 0.33, 400/1 0.25, 500/1 0.2, 800/1 0.125, 1000/1 0.1, 2000/1 0.05 For an Evens shot to be a good bet you must believe it to have a better than 50% chance of winning, 21/20 48.8%, 11/10 47.6% and so on (see above). Though a margin for error should be factored in. Few gamblers are 100% accurate, so it may be best not to back what you consider a true 4/1 shot at 9/2 but to do so at 5/1 or more. For the benefit of this thread it should be considerably more. For odds-on percentages, subtract the odds-against equivalent from 100. So for 4/6, 6/4 = 40% , 100 – 40 = 60, therefore 4/6 = 60% Mark

[chris34]

Re: Your Professional bets Great idea ginge ;) not something I get much chance to do because im a form backer the night before sadly due to work but is likely to be something I try and play around with this winter while the jumps are on ;) will certainly read through this all again and also apreciate any websites/books that would help me find out more about this type of betting?

[fintron]

Re: Your Professional bets I will contribute a few in here although I probably won't be brave enough to put up my own tissues. Although I tried it for a while, I don't compile a full tissue for each race anymore (mine were erroneous) but sort of scan through the market principals in my mind and work out what price I think they should be and then compare the price of the remainder against those to try work out who I think should be the bet. So it is still value betting, of sort. I know you use Timeform to help you form your figures Ginge, but I am too tight to fork out for that. When I did my tissues in the past I tended to get the order right, i.e. horse A has more chance of winning than horse B, who has more chance of winning than horse C etc, but it was the relative differences and the actual prices to be allocated to each that was where I struggled.

[Gingertipster]

Re: Your Professional bets Fintron, Although 100% books are my preferred way of identifying value, it is not essential. Just being able to see each price as a percentage and vice versa is enough. For example looking at a bookmakers board. Without that knowledge it is a lot more difficult to answer the question “is horse A value at 6/1?” Yet is a lot easier to answer “Does horse A have a better or worse than 14% chance of winning?” If the former back it, if the latter don't. I believe you have the knowledge to make it pay Fintron, without 100% books. Members do not need to use true odds to contribute to this thread, but it helps. Might not be contributing much myself for a few weeks, finished with the flat (unless I find a bet in the Breeders Cup). And not going to buy Timeform Perspective for the flat until the Postal Strike is over.

[Trilobite]

Re: Your Professional bets Some nice Odds Analysis tables here http://www.adrianmassey.com/odd/index.php

[bowles10]

Re: Your Professional bets A question that I and maybe a few others want to ask. I understand the table of odds but your's & mine would always be different as how can 2 people come up with the same chances for each horse. I may think a 20/1 chnace has better than a 5% chance of winning, in fact if i fancy it strongly I would have it at perhaps 5/1, so 20/1 would be great value to me but you may have it at 2.5% 40/1 chance. It can happen & this is where i have the problem with the true odds. Surely it is still a matter of opinion? I am sure i will learn from this thread but at this time, won't necessarily contribute until I can understand the logic more.

[Gingertipster]

Re: Your Professional bets

Some nice Odds Analysis tables here http://www.adrianmassey.com/odd/index.php

Interesting Trilobite but... Hmmmm, Those stats are mixing “true odds” and bookmakers odds. Therefore (imo) wrong. Their large sample shows 22.6% of horses won at 3/1. Pretty much exactly what I'd expect. If we were talking about Early Prices and not SP's: A bookmaker (imo) will add 2% in a competitive market to what his odds compiler believes has a 23% (100/30 chance). 23% + 2% = 25% = 3/1 So a bookie will offer 3/1. However, if it is an uncompetitive market he may get away with an even shorter price of 11/4. Also, if he thought the horse was difficult to give an accurate assessment (unexposed, could improve a lot or not) again he may go 11/4. So although most times just 2% would be added, the times uncompetitive markets or unexposed horses occur would equate to the other 0.4% difference. The gap being 2.4% (25% - 22.6%). However this states “The true decimal odds of something which happens 22.6% of the time is 4.42. So the “fair” price for horses with an SP of 3/1 is 4.42 (3.42/1). This is the sort of price you should expect to take or lay on the exchanges”. The trouble is he is mixing true odds with bookmakers odds. He seems to suggest by saying “so the “fair” price for horses...”, that any 3/1 shot has a true 3.42/1 chance of winning. That is (imo) wrong. In my opinion the true statement should read “so the average fair price for horses...“ Because with any individual bookies 3/1 horse, it is only opinion what percentage chance it has. It could reasonably be thought to have anything between a 15% and 31% chance of winning, depending on your opinion. This is also based on SP's, so price could be influenced by one big bet. There is no “fair” price to any individual bookies 3/1 shot. As there is no “fair” price of any individual priced 13/2 or 33/1. Though these are not really bookies assessments anyway, more punters opinions (SP's). Bookies reacting to punters opinions. Do have respect for a lot of what Adrian Massey does though.

[mowgli77]

Re: Your Professional bets

A question that I and maybe a few others want to ask. I understand the table of odds but your's & mine would always be different as how can 2 people come up with the same chances for each horse. I may think a 20/1 chnace has better than a 5% chance of winning' date=' in fact if i fancy it strongly I would have it at perhaps 5/1, so 20/1 would be great value to me but you may have it at 2.5% 40/1 chance. It can happen & this is where i have the problem with the true odds. [b']Surely it is still a matter of opinion? I am sure i will learn from this thread but at this time, won't necessarily contribute until I can understand the logic more.

Exactly what I've said before. It's about opinions, you could take 10 punters from PL and get them to price a race up and there will be varied opinions. I might think a horse at 10's is great value because I feel it should be nearer 5-1, the next man may think it has no chance and should be 25-1. I am a value backer and try find the horses that are priced wrongly, underrated and overpriced or overrated and worth opposing rather tha just trying to find a winner but that is value based on my own personal opinion. I personally think the table of odds and chances is a bit of a subjective nonsense/basic maths and that is probably why it never gets publicised. :ok

[BillyHills]

Re: Your Professional bets

Gamblers want to know “who's going to win”? But they should not necessarily back the horse with “the best chance of winning”. The important question is “in your opinion, who is “VALUE to win”.

This is the my main problem with all this stuff, your saying you shouldnt back the horse you think will probably win, so after lots of time studying, reading form lines, reaching a short list, looking at the going etc...you finally come up with a selection and guess what, its half a point shorter than you think it really should be, and further more the next best is even shorter than the 7/1 you really wanted, but dont worry there is value to be found on one of the outsiders so you can ignore all the form reading and back that one instead, or just for insurance you could back 5 of the others that are all overpriced. Pardon the sarcasm, cant help it at times. Its pure and simple, if the one you really fancy isnt value then you dont bet in the race, there will be another along soon enough, no way on this earth would I advocate backing any horse just because its a bigger price than you think it should be. Using this method you would be hard pressed to back any of Nicholls, King, Jonjo or Hendersons most of the year, or indeed anything ridden by AP or Ruby come to that. The guys are right, its about opinions, take today for example, Royal Charm was 4/9, which believe it or not I thought was great value, now many would immediately think that was very poor value, I actually took 4/11 (bog) (see my thread, not after eventing) thinking it would be nearer 2/9. There were two or three others in the race at much bigger prices that some would have considered fair value, especially the way some of the stables horses have been running, but no way would I have wanted to be on them instead, its just foreign to me to whole idea to back horses just because of a good price can be secured. I do understand the reason for the thread though Ginge, lots of new pupils around since you last preached the gospel :lol Thats fair enough, I give you one thing you really, really believe in this and it may help some others to understand odds more, just dont agree with the use of them.

[Gingertipster]

Re: Your Professional bets

A question that I and maybe a few others want to ask. I understand the table of odds but your's & mine would always be different as how can 2 people come up with the same chances for each horse. I may think a 20/1 chnace has better than a 5% chance of winning, in fact if i fancy it strongly I would have it at perhaps 5/1, so 20/1 would be great value to me but you may have it at 2.5% 40/1 chance. It can happen & this is where i have the problem with the true odds. Surely it is still a matter of opinion? I am sure i will learn from this thread but at this time, won't necessarily contribute until I can understand the logic more.

Very much doubt whether our opinions would be as far apart as 14.3% difference (2.4% 40/1 and 16.7% 5/1). However, will treat your question Bowles with the respect it deserves. Of course it is all about opinion, that's the beauty of betting. There is a difference between bookmakers early odds, punters odds and definite true odds. Bookmakers early odds are his compiler's opinion of each horse's true chance plus their mark up added. 100% + a mark up for each runner. See my example in first post. Each individual punter's odds are always to 100%, or less if he wants to include a margin for error. It is again only each punter's opinion of the true chances of each horse. So they will be different. There are no definite true odds when it comes to a horse's price. It is all about opinion. We are not talking about throwing a dice or something else with a certain percentage chance of outcome. But we can make an educated opinion of the true odds. If there was such a thing as definite true odds, there would obviously not be any betting on it. I will try and put up some 100% books later on in the season; before any other betting forecast is known. Since my first year of trying, the most I have known my assessment to be different to a bookies price is 12%. Though it was not in a 100% book. Immediately after the 2002 Greatwood Hurdle I thought Rooster Booster's performance indicated he had around a 20% 4/1 chance of winning the Champion. When bookmakers prices came through Big Mac said that some had him at 8/1, one 10/1, but Stan James went 12/1 !!!!! That's 7.7% !!!!!. I had my normal sized (at the time) bet. Put the phone down and immediately thought this does not happen very often, so went in again. Few days later my Timeform Perspective came and they confirmed my impression. Something like “Rooster Booster put up a performance good enough to win three of the last four Champion Hurdles”. By this time he was best priced 8/1, but I doubled my bet. Eventually won at SP 9/2. Found out a few years ago it is also Dave Nevison's biggest single win, by backing it at the same time, though somehow he got 14/1 with SJ. So even though my assessment was vastly different to bookmakers opinion; no doubt Dave Nevison was thinking along the same lines as I was. Just wish my bet was as big as his. Of course two “intelligent” punters may well come up with two different prices. However, it is very very rare to be more than 8% different. If they are more than that then someone has probably missed something important in their form study. Whenever my assessment is more than 5% bigger than bookmakers I double check my work. I do miss things sometimes. You've only got to take a look at bookmakers early prices to see how close bookmakers odds compiler's opinions are. Do occasionally make a 100% book with exposed horses, where my prices are so close to bookmakers that no early price is good enough for a bet.

[Trotter]

Re: Your Professional bets I'm not getting involved.............:lol Personally, I'm no good at thinking 'value' on horses under 10/1........I can't do the differentation between say 5/1 and 8/1 never mind 6/4 and 2/1 My idea of value is to look for a 25/1 shot that I think has a good chance of getting placed, tho' invariably they finish 4th.

[Gingertipster]

Re: Your Professional bets

Exactly what I've said before. It's about opinions' date=' you could take 10 punters from PL and get them to price a race up and there will be varied opinions. I might think a horse at 10's is great value because I feel it should be nearer 5-1, the next man may think it has no chance and should be 25-1. I am a value backer and try find the horses that are [b']priced wrongly, underrated and overpriced or overrated and worth opposing rather tha just trying to find a winner but that is value based on my own personal opinion. I personally think the table of odds and chances is a bit of a subjective nonsense/basic maths and that is probably why it never gets publicised. :ok

So what is it Mowgli subjective nonsense or basic maths? It can't be both, that's impossible. I thought you said once that you use the table yourself. Indeed, it is known in some quarters as the True Value Table. Finding horses in your words "priced wrongly, underrated and overpriced or overrated and worth opposing rather than just trying to find a winner", is exactly what using the table is all about. Thought you were a true value punter Mowgli. You don't come from the Thommo / Graham School of Value do you?:lol:ok A true value punter realises value can be had with an odds-on chance as well as a 5/1 or 10/1 chance. Thommo or Graham will just go for the each way alternative to the favourite; something around the 5/1 to 10/1 mark who might have a bit of a squeak (not true value at all). I am pretty sure you are in the true value camp Mowgli, despite your claim of nonsense.

[Gingertipster]

Re: Your Professional bets

This is the my main problem with all this stuff' date=' [b']your saying you shouldnt back the horse you think will probably win, so after lots of time studying, reading form lines, reaching a short list, looking at the going etc...you finally come up with a selection and guess what, its half a point shorter than you think it really should be, and further more the next best is even shorter than the 7/1 you really wanted, but dont worry there is value to be found on one of the outsiders so you can ignore all the form reading and back that one instead, or just for insurance you could back 5 of the others that are all overpriced.

Oh BH, I thought you were an ex-odds compiler too. Of course you should not back the horse you believe has the best chance of winning, if that price is too short. Take a look at my example of a four horse race. Please tell me why I should back a horse at 11/8 that I believe to be a 40% chance? When I need a better than 42% SR at 11/8 to show a profit. Or why I should back the 30% chance at 2/1, or 20% chance at 100/30? All would show a loss over time. Yet you are telling me not to back the 10% chance at 11/1? Which would show a profit. Thats plain stupid. I have to follow my opinion. Forgive my sarcasm:eyes I would only be "ignoring all the form study" if I went against those percentages. That's the whole point of the form study, to produce an opinion on the runners chance. My own preference is not to have a short list at all, every horse has a price to back it. I don't have a "selection" until I see the prices available. That's just my preference, not saying everyone should follow my example. So you are saying BH that I should back a horse that I believe to be "half a point shorter than it should be"? 2/1 is only half a point shorter than 5/2. The difference between the two is 4.7% (33.3% - 28.6%) So you are saying if I believe a horse has a 29% chance of winning I should back it at 2/1 (something that needs a 33.3% strike rate to just break even). A bookie who believes a horse has a 29% chance of winning, will often offer bigger than 2/1. So I ain't gonna take 2/1 am I? But let's take it further: If a bookie believed all four horses in a race had the same chance of winning (25%), he'd offer 11/4 about all four. Say I believe the same. To your logig I should back all four horses at 11/4 because they are only just below my price to beat. Yet that results in a certain loss. There is a very thin line between value and not value. I don't think you understand what I do at all BH.

[Gingertipster]

Re: Your Professional bets

Pardon the sarcasm, cant help it at times. Its pure and simple, if the one you really fancy isnt value then you dont bet in the race, there will be another along soon enough, no way on this earth would I advocate backing any horse just because its a bigger price than you think it should be. Using this method you would be hard pressed to back any of Nicholls, King, Jonjo or Hendersons most of the year, or indeed anything ridden by AP or Ruby come to that.

If you want to just bet on favourites that you percieve as value, and not betting when you think the one horse is not value; that's up to you. It is possible to make a profit that way. But to make an accurate assessment of the favourite you have to know what it is up against. You need to assess the other horses in the race. So if you are doing that without bothering to back the others when they are value; all you're doing is wasting that study time. You may not want to back a horse just because it is bigger than it should be. But Taylor, Nevison, Freemantle, Potts, Veitch, Noakes, The Prophet, Segal all do. Are they all wrong? I don't bet on Nicholls, King, Jonjo or Henderson as often as most punters. But you don't seem to understand that those with the best strike rates aren't neccesarily the best stables to follow. Over the last three years Nicholls has had a wapping 25% SR but with a £234.64 loss to a £1 stake. Jonjo a staggering £410.69 loss. None of the four you mention showed a level stakes profit over three years. Much rather back trainers who are not well known so don't get the mug punters following them. Longsden has shown level stakes profit on all his last three years.

[Gingertipster]

Re: Your Professional bets

The guys are right, its about opinions, take today for example, Royal Charm was 4/9, which believe it or not I thought was great value, now many would immediately think that was very poor value, I actually took 4/11 (bog) (see my thread, not after eventing) thinking it would be nearer 2/9. There were two or three others in the race at much bigger prices that some would have considered fair value, especially the way some of the stables horses have been running, but no way would I have wanted to be on them instead, its just foreign to me to whole idea to back horses just because of a good price can be secured. I do understand the reason for the thread though Ginge, lots of new pupils around since you last preached the gospel :lol Thats fair enough, I give you one thing you really, really believe in this and it may help some others to understand odds more, just dont agree with the use of them.

Ummm:unsure Mowgli, Bowles, You , Me, we all say it is about opinion. Yes, if you thought Royal Charm had a better than 73% chance today then it was a good price and you were correct to back it at 4/11. A "good price" or value is not neccesarily a "big price". Knowing what 4/11 means in percentage terms just makes it easier for many to find that value. That's all I am saying BH, and in my opinion PL members deserve to be told about it, as it is so important. Can you explain your last sentence BH? Presume it is the odds you mean I am using, not PL members. Only, the rest of the paragraph seems to imply the latter. Must be paranoid. :DI was asked if I could show the table. Can delete the thread if you wish. Realise I go on about it a bit too much.:ok But it seems there are a lot of punters who still don't understand.;):lol

[BillyHills]

Re: Your Professional bets Ginge, I just meant I dont agree the way you bet thats all, its well known you would have no problem in betting 3,4 or even 5 in a race, think you backed 11 once. Just different views but as you know I have heard it all before, my opinion is that is the betting of someone who needs to be backing winners very often to keep their confidence going, a return no matter what so they can say they got it right most of the time. Just different views thats all mate, i'll let others have a go as we both know we could go on forever and it will distract from the idea of the thread. Carry on with the thread mate, its a free country:ok

[Gingertipster]

BH, Just surprised at your earlier post, there did not seem to be much logic to it. For what it is worth, I don't have quite so many multiple bets in a race as I used to. The logic to multiple bets is: If two, three or more horses are considered value why not back them? If I think two horses are true 6/1 (14.3%) chances, yet both are available at 7/1 (12.5%) they are both value. If I back one horse I am backing something I believe to have a 1.8% batter chance (14.3 - 12.5). By backing both at 7/1 I am taking a combined price of 3/1 (2 X 12.5% = 25% = 3/1). My assessment is that both have a 14.3% chance (2 X 14.3% = 28.6% = 5/2). 28.6 - 25 = a 3.6% better price than my assessment. As opposed to just a 1.8% better price by backing just one horse. If £1 is put on both, staking £2 over all, the return is £8 (1 X £7 = £7 + £1 stake = £8). Over all stake £2 Return £8. Had I put the same over all stake of £2 on a 3/1 shot I would also be staking £2 and get a return of £8. If it is right in any race to put a bet on one 3/1 shot if I consider it value; it must be right to back two 7/1 shots if I consider them both value. Though I may have taken it too far in the past. By backing saver bets to save the money I have already bet on saver bets is foolish. Confidence is important to most punters, it effects how they look at a race. If a punter is too hung up on backing a winner they tend to back favourites when they are not value. If is more concerned with not losing too much, he's more likely to back a 5/1 plus horse. Obviously a punter should just look at which is value to win.

[RuleBritannia]

Re: Your Professional bets Am I understanding the theory behind this thread correctly? Whether or not your horse wins it is irrelevant. It is all bout identifying horses who actually have a better chance of winning than the betting would suggest?

[James Bondage]

Re: Your Professional bets I agree absolutely about backing horses when their odds represent better value than the chance you give them of winning. However the horse in question has to be a horse I give a realistic chance of winning the race in question. My method is to identify any horses running that I think are likely winners and then I see whether the odds on offer are an under-representation of the chance of winning I give them. Then I will back it. Then again I don't have the time to compile a tissue for every race, but even if I did so I find the psyche of backing every single horse that is a bigger price than it should be to be flawed. To say something has a 10% chance of winning a race is fine, but that doesn't mean that you'll have a winner for every 10 of those that you back. Each new race with new runners is a completely separate entity in my opinion - what I am trying (and failing) to say is that Runner X has 10% chance of winning a race in someone's opinion - that is fine, and could well accurately represent it's chance, but that likelihood remains at 10% - it isn't affected by your history of backing these 10%ers for example. Just because you're on say a losing run of 13 10%ers doesn't increase the chance of this 10%er winning just because of the 'law of averages'.

[mowgli77]

Re: Your Professional bets

So what is it Mowgli subjective nonsense or basic maths? It can't be both, that's impossible. I thought you said once that you use the table yourself. Indeed, it is known in some quarters as the True Value Table. Finding horses in your words "priced wrongly, underrated and overpriced or overrated and worth opposing rather than just trying to find a winner", is exactly what using the table is all about. Thought you were a true value punter Mowgli. You don't come from the Thommo / Graham School of Value do you?:lol:ok A true value punter realises value can be had with an odds-on chance as well as a 5/1 or 10/1 chance. Thommo or Graham will just go for the each way alternative to the favourite; something around the 5/1 to 10/1 mark who might have a bit of a squeak (not true value at all). I am pretty sure you are in the true value camp Mowgli, despite your claim of nonsense.

I don't use the table but I do agree with the principle of the theory. I will often fancy a horse but feel it is too short so I avoid backing it. With regards to a horse having true odds I might feel an outsider is a donkey with no chance of winning and price it up at 100-1, if 250-1 is available I won't back it due to value because regardless of if it's 100-1 or 500-1 I don't feel it has any chance of winning. I will try find underrated horses to back, overrated horses to avoid and back those with a better chance of winning than the odds suggest. If there is half a point difference I will not cut my nose off to spite my face. If I am looking for around 9-2 on a horse but can only get 4-1 I will probably back it. If it is 2-1 I'll leave it well alone. Each horses odds will never be correct from the bookies because they are a business that works to an over round and would not make any money pricing them all up correctly as you rightly have mentioned so we look for what we feel are discrepancies. By the way I was fishing for a little bite with what I wrote before. ;) I feel you have a very good point about finding value but the odds and percentages often comes across as patronising. :ok

[Gingertipster]

Re: Your Professional bets I did say Mowgli, my explanation is done in such a way any novice punter should be able to understand. I also try to answer any question asked or point made. Sorry if that sounds patronising to the educated punter.:ok I too would not back a 250/1 shot when my price to beat is 100/1. The difference in percentage is normally not enough for my margin for error. To back something at 9/2 I would normally want to believe it to have a 22% (true 7/2) chance. If I backed every horse that has a slightly worse price than my "price to beat", I could end up backing 90% of the field. But each to his own.;)

[Gingertipster]

Re: Your Professional bets

I agree absolutely about backing horses when their odds represent better value than the chance you give them of winning. However the horse in question has to be a horse I give a realistic chance of winning the race in question. My method is to identify any horses running that I think are likely winners and then I see whether the odds on offer are an under-representation of the chance of winning I give them. Then I will back it. Then again I don't have the time to compile a tissue for every race, but even if I did so I find the psyche of backing every single horse that is a bigger price than it should be to be flawed. To say something has a 10% chance of winning a race is fine, but that doesn't mean that you'll have a winner for every 10 of those that you back. Each new race with new runners is a completely separate entity in my opinion - what I am trying (and failing) to say is that Runner X has 10% chance of winning a race in someone's opinion - that is fine, and could well accurately represent it's chance, but that likelihood remains at 10% - it isn't affected by your history of backing these 10%ers for example. Just because you're on say a losing run of 13 10%ers doesn't increase the chance of this 10%er winning just because of the 'law of averages'.

Hi James, As I said to BH, betting on only favs or those with a good chance of winning (who are value) is fine. You don't need to back outsiders if you don't want to. But, you must take a good look at the form of those outsiders to know whether the favs / good chance ones are VALUE. I here (ex) Timeform Jim McGrath does not bet on big outsiders either. :ok Why is backing multiple horses flawed James? Your last very long sentence is totally true. Don't think anyone is denying that. Always nice to see new members.:welcome

[Blair Boy]

Re: Your Professional bets

Am I understanding the theory behind this thread correctly? Whether or not your horse wins it is irrelevant. It is all bout identifying horses who actually have a better chance of winning than the betting would suggest?

I also grasped the same concept, Although it's not something I can get my head around. Why not look for the winner of the race and back it, after all 1 horse has to win and finding that is usually what I would hope to be backing. After reading Nevison's book I found he also goes against my theory, '' If you just back the horses you fancy you will eventually go skin'', Can't understood how if anyone who manages to consistently back winners will go skint. But then again who am I to say I'm no expert.

[James Bondage]

Re: Your Professional bets

Hi James, As I said to BH, betting on only favs or those with a good chance of winning (who are value) is fine. You don't need to back outsiders if you don't want to. But, you must take a good look at the form of those outsiders to know whether the favs / good chance ones are VALUE. I here (ex) Timeform Jim McGrath does not bet on big outsiders either. :ok Why is backing multiple horses flawed James? Your last very long sentence is totally true. Don't think anyone is denying that. Always nice to see new members.:welcome

Thanks for the welcome :cheers My last sentence was indeed very long :$ I was unsuccessfully navigating my way to trying to explain the jist of my thoughts!! I don't think backing multiple horses is flawed mate, I said backing every horse that is construed as over-priced. I'd rather leave a race alone rather than, for example, backing 7 horses in a 18-runner handicap to make a 20% return on my stake (1/5). I don't only back on favourites or short priced ones, but when I back a longer one it is because I think it can win not just because it is overpriced. Not sure I am managing to explain myself well enough

[Gingertipster]

Re: Your Professional bets

Am I understanding the theory behind this thread correctly? Whether or not your horse wins it is irrelevant. It is all bout identifying horses who actually have a better chance of winning than the betting would suggest?

True, well, of sorts RB. It does not matter if the horse wins or loses, we are just looking for those who are over-priced, better chance than their betting suggests. But, after a good number of bets it is to be hoped profit is made. As if you are getting value, profit will eventually come your way. If it doesn't, you're probably not getting true value. One other thing, just because a gambler gets better than SP, does not automatically follow that it was value. though it is a good sign. A horse backed at 4/1 that drifts to 5/1 may well have been value at 4/1, just not quite as good value as 5/1.

[fintron]

Re: Your Professional bets Can I just add something on the whole value betting debate...in order to follow the approach Ginge is championing you have to simply acknowledge that every horse, by their mere participation, has some chance of winning the race. If you adopt the approach whereby you read the form for all runners and try and work out the winner, which is naturally what any form reader does, then its difficult to get your head around the true value approach. You have to detach from that mindset. The problem with backing the most likely winner of races, although it boosts strike rate, is that every man and his dog is often on the same horse. They look at the same resources as you and have access to all of the same information as you and you are unlikely to be the only one fancying that animal, typically a favourite. I believe (having inferred from others) that to be a successful punter you have got to find an edge, something that makes your betting different from the vast majority of punters. You have to look for things/at factors that others don't. What that means is that you are able to identify horses that have been underestimated, which is reflected in their price, relative to what you are able to back them at. Every horse has its price, just like with everything, value is important. This example may get shot down in flames but lets see if it works.....you are given a wad of cash to buy a new car, roll up at the dealership and have two options. Buy (lets say for arguments sake) a mini cooper for £15k or a Volkswagon Polo for £8k. For arguments sake the market value of the mini is £15k and £12k for the Polo. Which one do you buy? My decision would be be to buy the Polo, as it is £4k less than what everyone else is paying, as opposed to the mini which you'd be buying and not getting much 'in hand'.

[Gingertipster]

Re: Your Professional bets

I also grasped the same concept' date=' Although it's not something I can get my head around. [b']Why not look for the winner of the race and back it, after all 1 horse has to win and finding that is usually what I would hope to be backing. After reading Nevison's book I found he also goes against my theory, '' If you just back the horses you fancy you will eventually go skin'', Can't understood how if anyone who manages to consistently back winners will go skint. But then again who am I to say I'm no expert.

Shaking, Let's take opinion out of the equation for a while for an example of certain odds. A dice throw. With 6 different equal options the chance of throwing any given number is 100 '/. 6 = 16.66...(recurring)%. If it were possible to bet on every outcome and receive the same amount returned as you put on; then you'd have to get odds of 5/1 about every horse. £1 bets on all 6 numbers (staking £6 in all) at 5/1 wins £5 (whoever wins) plus your £1 stake for that particular horse, for a return of £6. The amount staked is £6 the amount returned is £6. Therefore the “fair” or “true” odds for anything believed to be a 16.66...% (17%) chance is 5/1. The combined chance of either a 3 or 4 being thrown is 33.33...% (2 X 16.66...%). If a gambler won 33.33...% of his bets at 2/1 he'd break even (33.33... X 2 = 66.66... + stake of 33.33... = 100) 100 staked, 100 returned. So the “fair” or true odds of anything believed to be a 33.33...% (or 33%) chance is 2/1. If a bookmaker offered odds for the combined chance of either a 3 or 4 being thrown he might offer 7/4. Remembering the “true” chance of a 3 or 4 being thrown is 33.33...%; If a gambler won 33.33...% of his bets at 7/4 he would get a return of only 91.67% of what he put on. A loss 8.33%. (33.33... X 1.75 (7/4) = 58.33... + stake of 33.33... = 91.67. So 100 – 91.67 = 8.33 loss. Say a daft bookie offered 6/1 for a 2 to be thrown. Remembering the true chance of throwing any given number is 16.66...% If he wins 16.66...% of his bets at 6/1 it would get back 116.67%. A profit of 16.67%. (16.66...X 6 (6/1) = 100 + 16.66...stake = 116.67 = 16.67 profit). Therefore, we know that throwing a 3 or 4 (combined) has double the chance of winning than just a 2. But if there were two gamblers. One kept on backing the 3 and 4 at 7/4. The other kept on backing 2 at 6/1. We know in the long run, backing the 2 will pay off. Backing the 3 and 4 ends up losing. The 3 and 4 needing a better than 2/1 to be worth a bet. Of course we have been talking about things with definite chances. Racing is about opinions. But we should not forget those percentages. So, Say there was a 10 runner race where the gambler believes horse “A” has a 33% chance of winning. And horse “B” a 17% chance. The bookie is offering 7/4 about A and 6/1 about B. It is pointless backing A when knowing (provided he is right in his 33% assessment) that a 33% strike rate of 7/4 bets will result in a loss? He also knows that a 17% strike rate of 6/1 bets will result in profit. Therefore despite him believing B has half the chance of A, it is B that is the VALUE bet. A gambler should NOT always back the horse with the best chance of winning. If a gambler tries to back the horse he believes to have the best chance of winning, his strike rate is likely to be high. However, he's unlikely to get VALUE enough times to show long term profit.

[Gingertipster]

Re: Your Professional bets Sorry BH, That's the end of the preaching, ;) unless others have a question?:eek

[BillyHills]

Re: Your Professional bets No probs Ginge, you should have a clinic open by now:lol I think its interesting, you know I do if your honest, and sometimes I do play devils advocate on here. Its also interesting that the ones that answer are those that by their own admission 'cant get it round their heads'. The main problem i see that the average punter has is how do you come up with the answer that Horse A has a 33% chance of winning and Horse B has a 20% chance and so on. Most people look at a race and will find their fancy and go straight to the odds comparison site and see what the best price is and then decide whether to back it or not. Its just the 'how do I decide what % a horse has of winning' that beats people, its ok saying make a tissue without seeing the prices first, but that rarely happens with the majority and seeing the prices does influence peoples opinion on a race without doubt. Tell us how you select your bets from looking at the decs to deciding your own % without seeing a betting forecast, and then finally trying to secure the value, if thats what you do of course. It may help those a little confused by your mathematicle explanations.

[billy the punter]

Re: Your Professional bets I'm definitely not getting involved in this thread, other than to say (:lol).... the whole thing falls down if you're not consistently correct with your judgement (ie your % assessment). The whole idea of the table of odds being your gateway to betting success just doesn't sit well with me. Proportioning %'s and acting upon them when seeing the betting is NOT enough alone to make you a winning punter. You initial assessment must be right. As Mowgli touched upon, regardless of what some will say, taking 1000/1 about horses you think are 6/4 shots will NOT guarantee you long term profits. Not if you are wrong with your initial "6/4 assessment". Taking the "right prices" (according to yourself) will not make you win as you may have an incorrect judgement of what the price should be in the first place. Inexperienced or non-winning punters should look to master their assessment skills first, then at a later stage, when they truly know a 40/1 shot is overpriced (for example), go down this route. :ok