Stats, odds,value

barjon

barjon

Rookie
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
3,890
Just for the sake of it I have recorded what happened to horses with sp odds 5/1 through 10/1 (whole numbers) for a full week’s racing in UK and Ireland. Not a massive sample, I know, but are they just interesting stats or do they actually tell us anything (other than that bookies come out smiling, of course).

SP Runners Losers Winners Odds (rounded)

5/1 69 64 5 13/1
6/1 62 55 7 8/1
7/1 64 59 5 12/1
8/1 73 67 6 11/1
9/1 73 66 7 9/1
10/1 67 63 4 16/1

Sorry, can’t seem to edit it to put numbers properly under the headings, but I hope you get the drift.
 
Last edited:
Maruco said:
It does. It tells you that if you're a guesser you lose.
Click to expand...

Er, what’s guessing about it? Doesn’t “value” betting rely on horses running to their “true” odds. So the difference between the Sp odds and the true odds as exampled by the results (albeit too small a sample) either shows that to be doubtful or that bookmakers were massively underpricing.
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
Er, what’s guessing about it? Doesn’t “value” betting rely on horses running to their “true” odds. So the difference between the Sp odds and the true odds as exampled by the results (albeit too small a sample) either shows that to be doubtful or that bookmakers were massively underpricing.
Click to expand...

If you were to get a large set of data of BSP you'd find that it's a pretty smooth curve with the implied chance. I really wouldn't over think these things.
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
Er, what’s guessing about it? Doesn’t “value” betting rely on horses running to their “true” odds. So the difference between the Sp odds and the true odds as exampled by the results (albeit too small a sample) either shows that to be doubtful or that bookmakers were massively underpricing.
Click to expand...

It was a flippant way of saying that the chances of winning at a range of odds from 5/1 to 10/1 is much worse than the actual odds, so by default if you don't don't have a strategy to beat those odds you'll be a loser.

It's the same as my last answer to Reet. Profitable punters who that claim that value is irrelevant and don't seek it is untrue. They do, they just have a method where it doesn't enter their thought process, but in reality what they are backing is value, and that's why they stay ahead.
 
If horse racing was a mechanical, repeatable sport then that would be right. In a coin toss, for example, the “true” odds are evens and you would snap up 6/4 because it is good value and you would be certain to profit over time. Races, though, are not mechanical, repeatable events and arriving at the “true” odds for a horse given the multitude of variable factors seems to me an extremely hazardous journey. Without establishing those true odds with some accuracy how can one move to the next step of deciding whether the offered odds represent good or bad value?

What we do know with more certainty, however, is that the winner’s price must represent good value so it makes sense to me to concentrate on trying to find the winner, rather than trying to determine (wild guess in my case) which horse represents best value.
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
If horse racing was a mechanical, repeatable sport then that would be right. In a coin toss, for example, the “true” odds are evens and you would snap up 6/4 because it is good value and you would be certain to profit over time. Races, though, are not mechanical, repeatable events and arriving at the “true” odds for a horse given the multitude of variable factors seems to me an extremely hazardous journey. Without establishing those true odds with some accuracy how can one move to the next step of deciding whether the offered odds represent good or bad value?

What we do know with more certainty, however, is that the winner’s price must represent good value so it makes sense to me to concentrate on trying to find the winner, rather than trying to determine (wild guess in my case) which horse represents best value.
Click to expand...

Races are decided on ability, readiness and luck on the day.

Leaving aside luck in running, which cannot be determined, the best horse [or the best horse at the weights] is the most likely to win so it boils down to figuring out which horse is the best, then trying to figure out if 'today is the day'.

The market will be a big help in the latter but a sound approach to assessing ability is crucial. Nobody gets it right all the time and there are plenty of judges on here whose evaluations I totally respect - even the ones I have on ignore (I can see what they're saying if someone quotes them in a reply) or choose not to read (in the case of midweek lower-class fare which doesn't interest me - while maybe arriving a different assessment of the race.

I very often find myself top rating one that has me thinking, "That one should win but I fear x, y and z too much to want to back it at that price."

I don't mind when those unbacked ones win. They confirm that my assessment of their ability was correct but I would see it as taking odds-on on the toss of a coin, and I'd never do that.

For me, if it works for you it works for you.

If you're losing some part of your assessment is getting it wrong.
 
barjon said:
What we do know with more certainty, however, is that the winner’s price must represent good value so it makes sense to me to concentrate on trying to find the winner, rather than trying to determine (wild guess in my case) which horse represents best value.
Click to expand...

The two don't need to be exclusive. I often see horses that I know will shoten that I still wouldn't bet. Do whatever suits you.
 
Nice, desert. I tend to come in from “ready to win” side since I’m concentrating on those in my tracker first and foremost.
 
barjon said:
Indeed. I also appreciate that operating as a business much relies on risk/reward analysis in the long term.
Click to expand...

It's like anything in life, with enough experience you can calculate something without needing to calculate it.
 
Back
Top