Just to explain what is happening.
My ruleset selects races where distance is at least 15 f and runners > 5.
Then it starts at the bottom of the favourite list and works its way up until it finds a selection between 12 & 20 odds when it lays a £10 bet just before the off.
The rules then monitor in play and take me out either when a negative Green of £15 is held for 5 seconds or we are about 1 minute from the post.
The average loss on the 4 winners toady would have been £12.09 each. A couple of others ran very close too.
Of course if I'd just backed them each for a tenner today it would have been cigars all round.
Finding a loser
-
JollyGreen
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:06 am
Surprisingly, no winners Saturday but two today.
Bearing in mind that this is only practice mode and my records are incomplete, I estimate that over the last 7 days, had my automation backed each selection for £10 instead of laying for £10 it would have made about £1200 "on-paper" profit before commission.
On the plus side, I have learned a great deal about how to set up automation rules and I am now quite proficient on the use of signalling. I can now confidently state that I am able to consistently lose money, entirely on autopilot.
On the plus side, I have learned a great deal about how to set up automation rules and I am now quite proficient on the use of signalling. I can now confidently state that I am able to consistently lose money, entirely on autopilot.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
i'd more than bet that reversing to a back based approach will similarly confound your hopes. i've experimented with this contrarian type approach before and found that in reality, there has to be a magical little ingredient that makes the chosen trade a bit special (never found out what of course ).
Out of interest, in your summary of the rule that you use, you mention that you place a lay bet on a runner between 12 and 20 odds. Do you place the chosen trade on the highest odds runner, the lowest or just any random runner that happens to occupy that range at the time??
Just interested to see if the selection is systemised or completely random - good luck next week !!
).Out of interest, in your summary of the rule that you use, you mention that you place a lay bet on a runner between 12 and 20 odds. Do you place the chosen trade on the highest odds runner, the lowest or just any random runner that happens to occupy that range at the time??
Just interested to see if the selection is systemised or completely random - good luck next week !!
-
newaustralian
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 3:40 am
Thanks for the post. I believe laying is the way to go ( along with a money management system). my horse selection method is rather simple. I only lay horses that have at least 2 runs back from a rest and are longish odds. I can detail my method if required - PS this is in Australia only
It is first (lowest priced) selection that the rules come across in the desired range. There is no analysis other than its lay price.jimibt wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2017 6:40 pmOut of interest, in your summary of the rule that you use, you mention that you place a lay bet on a runner between 12 and 20 odds. Do you place the chosen trade on the highest odds runner, the lowest or just any random runner that happens to occupy that range at the time??
Just interested to see if the selection is systemised or completely random - good luck next week !!
interesting, as JG says, some high chance odds going on here, just a matter of figuring how to avoid the 1st selected horse from winning
. You could use further signals of course to track its progress and lay it IR - but only if it's out of contention and above its original BSP.As I said in earlier posts, this was never intended to be a serious strategy, its far too simplistic to work, everyone would be doing it. I bet everyone tries something like this at the start. But now.......its become interesting because of the mathematically weird results (perhaps I've got my maths wrong). I would expect that a selection with odds suggesting a 6% probability of winning must therefore have a 94% probability of losing). Although my results are way off these figures, we must recall that its only been a week and therefore its really only a tiny sample of races. I am assuming that my results to date are purely short-term variance that will correct over time. I am going to continue with it for at least a few days more just to see what happens.
The real problem with this kind of strategy is not just those lays that go on to win, but the percentage of runners that give a good enough show during the race that they first take out any protection you might have in place before going on to lose as expected.
You can't take the chance of letting them run to the end because the losses when they do win will kill you (especially from my sample). You can't even let them run too close to the end because the price volatility nearing the post may well render your "stop" useless ( I had one where the leader/favourite fell at the last and the odds came in, miles past my stop, instantly. The stop triggered, but even though my selection went on to lose as expected, the on-paper loss was almost the same as if it had won by the time practice mode said the stop was filled. It would have been even worse "live" I am sure).
Conversly, if you are too cautious and fearful, you are just as killed by taking stop losses too early/cheaply.
Today, there were only four qualifying races and I had no layed winners.
The real problem with this kind of strategy is not just those lays that go on to win, but the percentage of runners that give a good enough show during the race that they first take out any protection you might have in place before going on to lose as expected.
You can't take the chance of letting them run to the end because the losses when they do win will kill you (especially from my sample). You can't even let them run too close to the end because the price volatility nearing the post may well render your "stop" useless ( I had one where the leader/favourite fell at the last and the odds came in, miles past my stop, instantly. The stop triggered, but even though my selection went on to lose as expected, the on-paper loss was almost the same as if it had won by the time practice mode said the stop was filled. It would have been even worse "live" I am sure).
Conversly, if you are too cautious and fearful, you are just as killed by taking stop losses too early/cheaply.
Today, there were only four qualifying races and I had no layed winners.
Just to illustrate the point above. Today there were 13 qualifying races (UK/IRL) and a £10 lay bet was auto-placed on a single selection in each race. For a change, they all did the decent thing and lost. £130 profit, easy money, look at my wad!
But in reality, as a result of in-play action and various kinds of stop, (linked to time running or negative green up position) intended obviously to limit the potential damage should a high priced lay go horribly wrong, I would still have ended the day with a LOSS of around £25.
JollyGreen wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:26 amI was just browsing the forum as I have been awake since 06:00. After a 4 hour drive home last night I thought I would be totally knackered but as soon as 06:00 ticked around I was up and out with my dogs.
I used to do this quite a lot, in fact you may find some of my posts where I have offered "losers" etc. There should be one on the Derby where I said to lay Dawn Approach as it couldn't win over the distance. That was based on pedigree and dosage index...nothing to do with drugs
There are some things you really must factor in when looking for a loser.
It is hard for punters and horse connections to beat the handicapper and conventional form is based on trying to do just that. Yes there is always a rick and there is always a horse that hasn't been putting its best foot forward but you cannot know about the latter so it is something you have to accept should you get it wrong. The handicapper and stewards have cameras everywhere so they rarely miss anything untoward. The handicapper's job is to rate a horse on its merits i.e. how it ran in a race. They are not there to determine if the horse handled the ground, the trip, the fences/hurdles or the direction of track, RH or LH. This is where the odd "plot horse" slips through the net. Having said that, lots of people will find it and the price will move accordingly.
So how can you do this?
When looking for a loser, the handicap mark is a very reliable yardstick. It is rare to find a horse running 7 times off a mark of 108 with no success which then gets its head in front off the same mark. It would need a few strange events to occur for this to happen perhaps a few fallers, etc. If that happens well you cannot blame yourself.
Ground is vital. Heavy going brings good and bad horses together which can produce strange results. If you are looking for a loser in heavy ground, look at the front of the book for a shorter price and check its heavy ground form. If it has no heavy ground form then it could be one for your shortlist. You must discard soft ground form as a positive, that is not the same thing. You will often hear the experts on TV extolling the virtues of soft ground form when the actual going is heavy. It's not a good comparison.
Quality of the horses. Be very selective in low grade races when looking for a loser. If the grade is 4-6 then you must look closer at the form and factor in the ground. If it is heavy then it's probably best to put a line through the race unless you are confident it meets your chosen markers.
One last thing. It is often best to start with the favourite because your liability is lower and the reasons for it being so fancied could be something you can exploit. The bookies and layers will try and keep the offered price on the low side and if it is based on trainer's ability etc then you can often find an opportunity. If you cannot find a weakness in the favourite then move through the card. If you stick to this method it will reduce your errors and make it more systematic when looking for the loser.
HTH
JG
I know I'm 3 years too late but that was a great post @JollyGreen
-
wearthefoxhat
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am
Never too late!CK2021 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:55 amJollyGreen wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:26 amI was just browsing the forum as I have been awake since 06:00. After a 4 hour drive home last night I thought I would be totally knackered but as soon as 06:00 ticked around I was up and out with my dogs.
I used to do this quite a lot, in fact you may find some of my posts where I have offered "losers" etc. There should be one on the Derby where I said to lay Dawn Approach as it couldn't win over the distance. That was based on pedigree and dosage index...nothing to do with drugs
There are some things you really must factor in when looking for a loser.
It is hard for punters and horse connections to beat the handicapper and conventional form is based on trying to do just that. Yes there is always a rick and there is always a horse that hasn't been putting its best foot forward but you cannot know about the latter so it is something you have to accept should you get it wrong. The handicapper and stewards have cameras everywhere so they rarely miss anything untoward. The handicapper's job is to rate a horse on its merits i.e. how it ran in a race. They are not there to determine if the horse handled the ground, the trip, the fences/hurdles or the direction of track, RH or LH. This is where the odd "plot horse" slips through the net. Having said that, lots of people will find it and the price will move accordingly.
So how can you do this?
When looking for a loser, the handicap mark is a very reliable yardstick. It is rare to find a horse running 7 times off a mark of 108 with no success which then gets its head in front off the same mark. It would need a few strange events to occur for this to happen perhaps a few fallers, etc. If that happens well you cannot blame yourself.
Ground is vital. Heavy going brings good and bad horses together which can produce strange results. If you are looking for a loser in heavy ground, look at the front of the book for a shorter price and check its heavy ground form. If it has no heavy ground form then it could be one for your shortlist. You must discard soft ground form as a positive, that is not the same thing. You will often hear the experts on TV extolling the virtues of soft ground form when the actual going is heavy. It's not a good comparison.
Quality of the horses. Be very selective in low grade races when looking for a loser. If the grade is 4-6 then you must look closer at the form and factor in the ground. If it is heavy then it's probably best to put a line through the race unless you are confident it meets your chosen markers.
One last thing. It is often best to start with the favourite because your liability is lower and the reasons for it being so fancied could be something you can exploit. The bookies and layers will try and keep the offered price on the low side and if it is based on trainer's ability etc then you can often find an opportunity. If you cannot find a weakness in the favourite then move through the card. If you stick to this method it will reduce your errors and make it more systematic when looking for the loser.
HTH
JG
I know I'm 3 years too late but that was a great post @JollyGreen
JGGs posts are always a good read and can help focus/re-focus when things go off track.
The handicapper(s) role is worth understanding. An entertaining way of doing so is the old ATR "Ask the Handicapper" series, here's a taster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9A1WQGIoRw
All the other(s) are a good listen/watch as Phil explains their approach to handicapping. The trainer-form is the other big factor too. The main thing I took away from the series, was that the handicapper would watch/re-watch the race a fair few times, and that would influence if he put up or put down a horses handicap mark.
How they assess the Irish runners when they run across the water is important to understand. Gordon Elliot used to raid the the big handicaps until a loop hole was closed.
They have around 6 handicappers that specialise in creating ratings, with Phil (now retired - replaced by Dominic Gardiner-Hill) the main overseer.