rorydelargy
At the Start
Thanks redhead.
Haldon
- Thread starter Euronymous
- Start date
EC1
On a break
If I got 3/1 Somersby would you have backed the wide dog in trap 6?
a devils advocate question..if Somersby had been 16/1 today...would he have been any more value?..because he still lost
i know..if you back horses like Somersby today at 16/1 you will win long term would be an obvious answer
but..a slight flaw in that argument..there is only one Somersby..and only one set of circumstances like today..there isn't really such as thing as.."horses like Somersby"
i read this argument a lot on forums when folk bang on about "value"...its like there are a set of same circumstances that decree in the future..that horses like Somersby would win any more often..when in fact..the only time value is any good to you..is if you are savvy enough to spot it beforehand
what evidence has anyone got..that horses like Somersby would win x number of races under the same circumstances as today..how do you judge it?..there are so many unknowns that it can only be a guess at best...so saying |Somersby is value at 5/1 or 10/1 is based just on guesswork really
Last edited:
G
Gearoid
Guest
Can I add an extra dimension to your devil’s advocate? You imply that on this forum people fall from the same old pitfalls and come to the same conclusions time and time again. If you were to apply this to “value” punters you could argue that they as a group although acting as individuals can create a false impression of value. When they as a group again anything as individuals go after the same price the supply decreases and we get a price change. The value punters are now satisfied because the market move backs up their (rightly or wrongly) assertion that the original price was incorrect. They now have “value” when in fact it was their money in the market and not anything in the implied odds that shifted the market price.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
I think people on any forum generally seem to come to similar conclusions in the main...which is how markets are formed of course.
what you are describing is obviously correct..if a lot of people think one horse is value they will back it..and so it shortens so they believe they were correct
Because a lot of people think a horse is a value price doesn't make it so though in many cases..especially if many are using very similar form reading methods.
The biggest overbet factor is a rating...say the OHR
As soon as an average punter looks at a race and sees one horse is 10lb clear on official figures that horse is usually favourite..even if its over the wrong trip/ ground..the rating makes the market ..due to its overriding impact on the punter
That is engrained in punters in the main..its the best horse in the race..class will tell etc.
G
Gearoid
Guest
You will never stop people backing a loser and turning around and saying "well at least I got the value" or "I only need to be right twice in 12 times to be correct when backing a 12/1 shot" (don't correct me on that I am aware the maths are incorrect). I like your way of thinking but it is very hard to shift yourself from the sanctuary of backing horses at 5/1 that go off even marginally shorter, say 9/2. It just feels good win or lose and creates a false sense of being correct.
.
.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
its guaging that strike rate that is the key isn't it?...running the race in your head sort of thing....well I reckon x would win it 3 out 10 times ect
G
Gearoid
Guest
It's striking the balance. Your bottom line determines your success but people will argue your chances of making the game pay long term are essential to backing horses at but you correctly point out that there is only one Somersby and there is no way of definitively saying you got value. Value is certainly the most banded around world in betting these days and is always a fantastic excuse for backing another loser
.
.
Last edited:
Tout Seul
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,628
This and other threads lately have been very derogatory about average punters.Remember what average means. there are plenty of punters that make independent assessments of races taking into account the factors that they deem important. Many different methods.
On here there is, thankfully, constant and usually healthy disagreement about the merits of particular horses in a race. There is of course, an obvious danger of thinking that one is part of an elite group that thinks rationally. Whilst I don't think that applies on this forum sometimes the language is pretty dismissive of "average" punters .
On here there is, thankfully, constant and usually healthy disagreement about the merits of particular horses in a race. There is of course, an obvious danger of thinking that one is part of an elite group that thinks rationally. Whilst I don't think that applies on this forum sometimes the language is pretty dismissive of "average" punters .
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
I think also..value has taken a knock with how drifters are more highlighted these days.
before betfair there was drifters but you wren't as focused on them as you are with betfair in front of you.
in my mind now..say i think a horse is fair when its 5/1..if it drifts to 10/1... using the value mindset says its really a great bet ..whereas that little voice in my head says non trier nowadays. Yes i know they do win but when a horse is way above what you expected after drifting its very hard to think its any value if you think its not even trying
Last edited:
G
Gearoid
Guest
I'd like to think I have been trying to argue some of your points.
EC1
On a break
it depends on what your exposure to an "average" punter is..we each could have different ideas of an average punter..I meet average...to me... punters when i pop in the bookies at lunchtime and sometimes on way home...believe me there is very little assessment done by my idea of the average punter
Last edited:
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
As they say, "you can't eat value!!!"
Rory, you are of course, right. I shall, however, point you towards the pertinent points in my comment [in bold] since I recognise it wasn't always the case! :
I was referring to the Nick Williams discussion in general and the comments that most of his horses are overbet.