I've been analysing trainer data and have noticed that, in the case of one trainer in particular, his horses lose more often than their odds would suggest. This creates laying value. Therefore, in theory, laying his horses, particularly in certain odds ranges, should make a nice profit. I've checked and re-checked the data several times and have even had it checked independently. The anomaly really exists and has done so for quite some time.
My issue is this: People have some very sophisticated software these days which trawl Betfair markets looking for anomalies which can be financially exploited. As such, this particular anomaly ought to have been detected long before now, particularly as he's a well-known trainer and the anomaly isn't that difficult to detect. Let's face it, this isn't rocket science. It should therefore have been exploited and the anomaly neutralised. Yet, that's not the case.
If anyone has any ideas as to why, I'd be interested to hear them because, quite frankly, I'm stumped.
Why not?
There are a number of really long-term biases in the market that seem to persist over time. I don't know if this is one of them, but they do exist.
It seems that human nature often overrides sense when it comes to risk taking so that's often an explanation.
It seems that human nature often overrides sense when it comes to risk taking so that's often an explanation.
I probably wouldn't discount the chance that you've found an inefficiency there. As mentioned quite often in the forum already, the markets are quite efficient in general, but if you look at it in specific slices then there can be anomalies, otherwise it would be impossible to make a profit. I'm frankly quite surprised my own edge hasn't been chiseled away over the years, but nope, still there!
A few points to think about:
1. If you're talking about a straight laying/betting strategy then you'll need a decent sample size for it to be statistically significant.
2. Not everyone has the stomach to deal with the ups and downs of a betting strategy (vs trading).
3. If you start to put money on this and at some point it goes on a big losing run, how will you decide whether it's just a bad run or that the edge is gone?
I don't think you should assume that there isn't an edge there, especially if you've done enough research on enough data. But you should instead start to consider the practicalities of exploiting such an edge. Develop a plan, then stick to it. In the end, you're not gambling on the horses, you're gambling on whether your betting strategy works or not - and for that, you need to work out criteria to know when you've won or lost, and therefore when to pull the plug (the most important thing). That's how I think about it anyway.
A few points to think about:
1. If you're talking about a straight laying/betting strategy then you'll need a decent sample size for it to be statistically significant.
2. Not everyone has the stomach to deal with the ups and downs of a betting strategy (vs trading).
3. If you start to put money on this and at some point it goes on a big losing run, how will you decide whether it's just a bad run or that the edge is gone?
I don't think you should assume that there isn't an edge there, especially if you've done enough research on enough data. But you should instead start to consider the practicalities of exploiting such an edge. Develop a plan, then stick to it. In the end, you're not gambling on the horses, you're gambling on whether your betting strategy works or not - and for that, you need to work out criteria to know when you've won or lost, and therefore when to pull the plug (the most important thing). That's how I think about it anyway.
-
SeaHorseRacing
- Posts: 2896
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 7:06 pm
I would like to suggest that maybe there are far more ignorant punters then shrewed ones so the ignorant out gain the smart.. maybe resulting in this theory.
One thing Ive learned over the year, generally no matter how much money is put into the market or manipulated its usually does move in favour in the way of the crowd. This could possible be why you believe it is still profitable to appose.
I know a chap who used to only back JP McManus/McCoy and Richard hannon snr/richard hughes horses. Would never back anything else. Its like a stigma that they will hit 5 winners in aday. They do happen but when the acca only pays 50/1 its just silly.
If its a well known trainer I think its likely to not really change.
Additioally if there is a profitable lay system. Maybe take a look at when that trainer has runners from a long break or first time runners for that trainer (including a horse comming from another yard). First time headgear like blinkers, cheek pieces and the visor. I find that these can usually be gambled. Ending up in more value.
Some trainers are very shrewed and they pre organise there purchase.
How is it that a horse can have no form whatsoever, move yards and win within 1/2 weeks. It takes 6/8 weeks to get a horse fit.
I know someone who purchased a horse but did not take ownership for 3/4 months, They intructed previous trainer to stick on blinkers for a few runs to the then take it all off for its first run for the new trainer. Knowing that the blinkers set him alight.
One thing Ive learned over the year, generally no matter how much money is put into the market or manipulated its usually does move in favour in the way of the crowd. This could possible be why you believe it is still profitable to appose.
I know a chap who used to only back JP McManus/McCoy and Richard hannon snr/richard hughes horses. Would never back anything else. Its like a stigma that they will hit 5 winners in aday. They do happen but when the acca only pays 50/1 its just silly.
If its a well known trainer I think its likely to not really change.
Additioally if there is a profitable lay system. Maybe take a look at when that trainer has runners from a long break or first time runners for that trainer (including a horse comming from another yard). First time headgear like blinkers, cheek pieces and the visor. I find that these can usually be gambled. Ending up in more value.
Some trainers are very shrewed and they pre organise there purchase.
How is it that a horse can have no form whatsoever, move yards and win within 1/2 weeks. It takes 6/8 weeks to get a horse fit.
I know someone who purchased a horse but did not take ownership for 3/4 months, They intructed previous trainer to stick on blinkers for a few runs to the then take it all off for its first run for the new trainer. Knowing that the blinkers set him alight.
-
SeaHorseRacing
- Posts: 2896
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 7:06 pm
Here is a perfect Example.
This horse won on Sunday At Fontwell.
It finished 2/2 F/6 5/6 on its last three starts.
Within one month of moving yards it won. Gary Moore is an excellent trainer but this clearly shows the horse never ran on its merriits on its previous starts or this horse has been lined up for the new trainer.
Just thought it would be a good way for you to explore with your stats.
This horse won on Sunday At Fontwell.
It finished 2/2 F/6 5/6 on its last three starts.
Within one month of moving yards it won. Gary Moore is an excellent trainer but this clearly shows the horse never ran on its merriits on its previous starts or this horse has been lined up for the new trainer.
Just thought it would be a good way for you to explore with your stats.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Horses aren't machines and Camping Ground was the "value bet " in the race by a country mile ...as Gary Moore said after the raceSeaHorseRacing wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:07 pmHere is a perfect Example.
This horse won on Sunday At Fontwell.
It finished 2/2 F/6 5/6 on its last three starts.
Within one month of moving yards it won. Gary Moore is an excellent trainer but this clearly shows the horse never ran on its merriits on its previous starts or this horse has been lined up for the new trainer.
Just thought it would be a good way for you to explore with your stats.ice_screenshot_20170301-130355.png
“His work had been good. When we have worked him I’ve been very careful to mind him. If he turned up as he did in the Relkeel when he won we knew he would win today, and he turned up similar to that day.
“We’ve played around with him. We’ve done everything we could and Robert Walford would have done exactly the same thing. Maybe it is just a change of scenery that has done him good.
If you look at last seasons win in the Relkeel Hurdle where he easily beat the likes of Lil Rockerfeller, Cole Harden , and Top Notch, clearly if he was anywhere near that form he would go close. If you look at the profile of the others in the Fontwell race probably didn't need to be at even that level
Simply a case of a horse been out of sorts and coming back into form. Something which happens most days in most races.
On the subject of first time headgear on horses working the oracle . Look no further than Robert Cowell