The Mullins accies

EC1 said:
ok DO

DG

why don't you just spit out what your problem is eh?....don't arse about with snidey "thanks"..get it off your chest..you obviously have some issue with that value hunt thread..so spell it out
Click to expand...

Nothing could be further from the truth EC, the thanks button on here is the nearest thing we have to the "like" button on Facebook, I just found your post funny in the sense of "get over it"

Chill
 
Diamond Geezer said:
Nothing could be further from the truth EC, the thanks button on here is the nearest thing we have to the "like" button on Facebook, I just found your post funny in the sense of "get over it"

Chill
Click to expand...

i'm chilled..but you have a got some kind of bee in your bonnet about that thread..or "value"...even though you won't say so.

lets put it into perspective..its a thread to give us all an interest..a joint effort..that in the past has been very interesting..and people have read that thread in decent amounts. so its good for the forum..no one is saying it will be a license to print money..its a project for us to have a go at.

thats all it is
 
EC1 said:
i'm chilled..but you have a got some kind of bee in your bonnet about that thread..or "value"...even though you won't say so.

lets put it into perspective..its a thread to give us all an interest..a joint effort..that in the past has been very interesting..and people have read that thread in decent amounts. so its good for the forum..no one is saying it will be a license to print money..its a project for us to have a go at.

thats all it is
Click to expand...

Honestly I haven't EC, I'm just trying to learn by asking questions but if you see me as a distraction I'll **** off, never one to stay where not wanted.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I was one of those who lost out on a really tidy return from a fourfold when Annie Power crashed out of her race.

The thing was, on the morning of the race, because the Cheltenham morning markets are so competitive, the four were probably all value prices relative to their true chances. Multiply that value in a fourfold and you have a really attractive bet.

Of course they all need to win but they were all genuinely expected to do so and AP would have bar that fall. Such is life. Such is racing. Such is betting.

Coming back to Min, speaking as someone who fancies Altior very strongly, the most impressive thing about him for me the other day was the ride he got. This was a no-messing ride. They probably needed to know he could travel at Cheltenham pace and set about ensuring it. I'm not convinced he had as much in the tank at the end as it looked but he was visually impressive although I doubt the form amounts to anything within 10lbs of what Altior achieved at Kempton.
Click to expand...

I remember this well. The 4-Fold was as big as 20/1 on the day. It was serious value.
 
I can't remember the exact odds but I see got a return:

Bets:
Douvan, Un De Sceaux, Faugheen, Annie Power : 3 x ½ pt win trebles ; 1 pt win acc
Click to expand...

I remember thinking I stood to win a nice sum that day.

But you'll remember from my 'review':

With plenty of cash due from the Big 4 bet (four trebles and the accumulator) if Annie Power landed this race, I made a rare good decision to lay her off to secure a very tidy profit regardless.
Click to expand...
 
SlimChance said:
I remember this well. The 4-Fold was as big as 20/1 on the day. It was serious value.
Click to expand...

i also remember a man on the train home telling anyone who would listen that ruby made annie fall on purpose to "save the bookies"

with a straight face
 
Desert Orchid said:
I can't remember the exact odds but I see got a return:


I remember thinking I stood to win a nice sum that day.

But you'll remember from my 'review':
Click to expand...

A profit secured but I remember nearly bottling a guy who placed laid her telling me it was the correct bet. She should have been 1/10 to win the race. It took an act of God to beat her.
 
Slim and DO make good points. These accs are only worth doing good and early or late. The competition on the day is certainly a factor but when you're looking at evens or odds on 9 weeks in advance you really need at least the comfort of NRNB.
 
archie said:
Slim and DO make good points. These accs are only worth doing good and early or late. The competition on the day is certainly a factor but when you're looking at evens or odds on 9 weeks in advance you really need at least the comfort of NRNB.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. I doubt you will streal much by backing these now.
 
Anybody that thinks Un De Sceaux is a shoe-in might want to take a look at Betway's Mullins special in their "January sale". Douvan, Faugheen and UDS 10/1 treble.

Not sure how much you'll be able to get on mind.
 
I have a different concept of value to your good self, EC1, and I think I can see why DG and others might struggle with it.

I don't get the idea that if a horse has a 10% chance of winning a race it means that if the race is run ten times it will one of those runnings, to me that is counter-intuitive. At this time of year it's hard to imagine wide margin winners being overturned if the race is run again, I don't see it as equivalent to rolling dice.

Sure, luck in running is needed, horses get baulked, boxed in, intimidated and all the rest of it. Over jumps there can be falls, mid-air collisions, horses falling in front of you, etc. So it's true that in many races the best horse on the day doesn't win because of some misfortune, but barring accidents in most races at this time of year the margins are not very fine and there is a clear cut winner.

To me the uncertainty derives from what Slim would describe as 'guessing'. Evaluating form and estimating a horse's chances requires the use of assumptions which may be right or wrong. Will the horse improve, will the race be run to suit, will it go on the ground?

For these reasons I tend to regard percentage chance mainly in terms of degree of confidence that I've identified the most likely winner and the size of the margin it appears to hold over its opposition. From this I have an idea of the odds I will be prepared to accept, having built in an added margin to allow for luck in running.

If I don't like the odds I will let it pass, but I would find it very hard to go and back another horse in the race to beat what I consider to be the most likely winner.
 
Grey said:
I have a different concept of value to your good self, EC1, and I think I can see why DG and others might struggle with it.

I don't get the idea that if a horse has a 10% chance of winning a race it means that if the race is run ten times it will one of those runnings, to me that is counter-intuitive. At this time of year it's hard to imagine wide margin winners being overturned if the race is run again, I don't see it as equivalent to rolling dice.

Sure, luck in running is needed, horses get baulked, boxed in, intimidated and all the rest of it. Over jumps there can be falls, mid-air collisions, horses falling in front of you, etc. So it's true that in many races the best horse on the day doesn't win because of some misfortune, but barring accidents in most races at this time of year the margins are not very fine and there is a clear cut winner.

To me the uncertainty derives from what Slim would describe as 'guessing'. Evaluating form and estimating a horse's chances requires the use of assumptions which may be right or wrong. Will the horse improve, will the race be run to suit, will it go on the ground?

For these reasons I tend to regard percentage chance mainly in terms of degree of confidence that I've identified the most likely winner and the size of the margin it appears to hold over its opposition. From this I have an idea of the odds I will be prepared to accept, having built in an added margin to allow for luck in running.

If I don't like the odds I will let it pass, but I would find it very hard to go and back another horse in the race to beat what I consider to be the most likely winner.
Click to expand...

I'm not really seeing a struggle though..i'm not asking anyone to give value..or suggest what is value. The exercise is to price a race up in % terms..not focus on one horse to see if its value. Its pretty straightforward..a race may have 10 runners..all have some sort of chance..given what we can study about each horse..you just have to calculate how many times that horse might win the race given the oppo it faces.

.thats not looking for value about an individual horse..its a clear figure given for chance of win..thats it.

where is it complicated or open to someone's concept?..its how races are or were priced by bookies surely...in fact not long ago on here...numerous folk said they made a book to see if they had value about something..wouldn't bet without doing so etc.

its like i've suggested inventing wheel or summat...its a basic thing..i thought all serious punters did..maybe not..i don't know.
 
Last edited:
I think we can expand on your main point a little Grey.

I too don't believe this '10% would win the race 1 in ten times'. It's more a case of the market saying after factoring in all known and unknown variables (unexposed/improvement being an unknown) a horse with this profile has a 10% chance of winning this race. Value is a very misunderstood term in betting. How often have you heard a pundit say "I think x is the most likely winner but at the prices I'm looking for value further down the betting".
 
Last edited:
SlimChance said:
Value is a very misunderstood term in betting. How often have you heard a pundit say "I think x is the most likely winner but at the prices I'm looking for value further down the betting".
Click to expand...

I don't get your point - surely if a horse has a 40% chance of winning (and is therefore the "most likely winner") but is only available at Evs, then backing something else which has a lesser chance overall of winning but whose price is not reflecting that chance to it's full extent, then you have achieved "value".

The every horse has a theoretical chance thing is true, as evidenced by the number of winners who are not the favourite. Basic arithmetic that one.
 
Last edited:
simmo said:
I don't get your point - surely if a horse has a 40% chance of winning (and is therefore the "most likely winner") but is only available at Evs, then backing something else which has a lesser chance overall of winning but whose price is not reflecting that chance to it's full extent, then you have achieved "value".

The every horse has a theoretical chance thing is true, as evidenced by the number of winners who are not the favourite. Basic arithmetic that one.
Click to expand...

Let's be realistic here. How many pundits are better judges of a horses chance than the Betfair market 5mins before the race? All this value talk is theory. The theory works on paper but in practice I'll bet a lot of 'value' punters put their money in bad because they are poor judges.
 
Last edited:
I get what you're saying, EC, and I get what your thread is about, but I think the concept can be expressed differently.

Take Cue Card's Cheltenham champion bumper win as an example. No matter how many times they ran the race he would have won it almost every time because, as we now know, he was clearly the best horse in it.

Beforehand, however, all anyone had to go on was his junior bumper win at Fontwell on different ground to what he faced on the big day. Although he won "readily" at Fontwell, the form did not look spectacular, he was a 4yo, from a stable that didn't normally do bumpers, and there was plenty of big opposition. He started at 40/1. That price meant that in most people's eyes there was only a 2.5% chance based on his form that he would turn out to be good enough to win; it didn't mean people thought that if the race was run 40 times he would win even once.

Edit: In the market's eyes there was a 2.5% probability he would turn out to be good enough to win. Most people probably thought he had even less chance than that and a minority thought his chance was better than that.
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
I get what you're saying, EC, and I get what your thread is about, but I think the concept can be expressed differently.

Take Cue Card's Cheltenham champion bumper win as an example. No matter how many times they ran the race he would have won it almost every time because, as we now know, he was clearly the best horse in it.

Beforehand, however, all anyone had to go on was his junior bumper win at Fontwell on different ground to what he faced on the big day. Although he won "readily" at Fontwell, the form did not look spectacular, he was a 4yo, from a stable that didn't normally do bumpers, and there was plenty of big opposition. He started at 40/1. That price meant that in most people's eyes there was only a 2.5% chance based on his form that he would turn out to be good enough to win; it didn't mean people thought that if the race was run 40 times he would win even once.

Edit: In the market's eyes there was a 2.5% probability he would turn out to be good enough to win. Most people probably thought he had even less chance than that and a minority thought his chance was better than that.
Click to expand...

i wouldn't ever put a bumper race up though..the races will be decent class with form in the book.
 
Its pretty simple. If you don't have information that is not factored into the prices than you need to be better at evaluating a horses chance than the market to make a long term profit.

If anyone on here keeps records and does not monitor their bets against the Betfair SP than they need to start doing so now.
 
Last edited:
Surely the Betfair market is purely representative of the opinion of the punting public as a whole? It is a true reflection of that but not necessarily the horses' true chances.

Can anyone calculate with accuracy the true chances?

Very often the betting public's opinion will be formed/informed by whatever sources of information are available to them but how good is that information?

The betting public won't know, for example, that Kalkir is already home and hosed on Saturday.
 
Back
Top