Today's Horse Racing

[dragontrades]

u wot m8?

[northbound]

u wot m8?

Made me think of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocardiography

[jimibt]

Screen Shot 2018-08-22 at 16.35.23.png

Why calculate the percentage based on the decimal odds rather than chance/book?

This is just an experiment to view if there are certain kinds of races where it's possible to dutch all selection at X% higher and get matched on all of them before the off.

Book% would confuse me as I mostly think in odds.

for calculating Dutching, you definitely need to use the runner's book%, rather than odds. Your intention obviously being to cover as wide a range across the book as possible but still leave a little juice for a decent profit. I'd refactor to book, it's pretty easy (100/ decimal odds for each runner).

[edit] - so your final calculation should take the TOTAL book% somewhere between 70 and 80 ish percent, if you've ascertained that the runners contained in that selection have got legs!!

[weemac]

u wot m8?

Irish raider.

[northbound]

for calculating Dutching, you definitely need to use the runner's book%, rather than odds. Your intention obviously being to cover as wide a range across the book as possible but still leave a little juice for a decent profit. I'd refactor to book, it's pretty easy (100/ decimal odds for each runner).

[edit] - so your final calculation should take the TOTAL book% somewhere between 70 and 80 ish percent, if you've ascertained that the runners contained in that selection have got legs!!

Interesting stuff, jimbit. I'll look into it.

[eightbo]

Screen Shot 2018-08-22 at 16.35.23.png

I'd suggest adding another column with a percentage formulae to compare implied chance of winning rather than solely taking one price divided by the other and deducting 1.

e.g. for the max price on Roaring Lion it'd be (1/4.6)/(1/4.1) = 2.65% change rather than 12.2%
and for example a price of 40 contracting to 20 will produce 2.5% rather than 100%

also keep in mind that a move from 4.6 into 4.1 produces 12.2% profit whereas a move from 4.1 to 4.6 produces 10.9% profit due to the difference in hedge prices

if you ever get to working with more advanced formulae, or want to brainstorm ideas with me, you're welcome to hit me up

[jimibt]

Screen Shot 2018-08-22 at 16.35.23.png

I'd suggest adding another column with a percentage formulae to compare implied chance of winning rather than solely taking one price divided by the other and deducting 1.

e.g. for the max price on Roaring Lion it'd be (1/4.6)/(1/4.1) = 2.65% change rather than 12.2%
and for example a price of 40 contracting to 20 will produce 2.5% rather than 100%

also keep in mind that a move from 4.6 into 4.1 produces 12.2% profit whereas a move from 4.1 to 4.6 produces 10.9% profit due to the difference in hedge prices

if you ever get to working with more advanced formulae, or want to brainstorm ideas with me, you're welcome to hit me up

correct -but also more simply, if book% is used, those numbers can merely be subtractd from one another to display the percentage change, i.e. if transforming to book%:

4.6 odds => (100/4.6) = 21.74%
4.1 odds => (100/4.1) = 24.39%

difference therefore is 24.39-21.74 = 2.65%

[northbound]

and for example a price of 40 contracting to 20 will produce 2.5% rather than 100%

Well, it all depends on what you're looking to do with the figures. If you're looking for back to lay angles, I would argue that 100% is more helpful than 2.5%, as the former shows me straight away that I could double my stake. It would actually be 50%, not 100%.

also keep in mind that a move from 4.6 into 4.1 produces 12.2% profit whereas a move from 4.1 to 4.6 produces 10.9% profit due to the difference in hedge prices

This is a good point but again, my initial thought into producing these visuals was simply: in how many races I can simply setup a Guardian bot 10min from the off, back all selections at 5% higher than their current odds, and get matched on all of them before the race starts?

[invisiblelayer]

u wot m8?

Makes you wonder who still bothers try to get matched in the mornings on a run of the mill meeting. Just a few quid sends the market wild!

[Jukebox]

u wot m8?

Makes you wonder who still bothers try to get matched in the mornings on a run of the mill meeting. Just a few quid sends the market wild!

Maybe those who have figured out how to capitalize on that wildness

[Dallas]

Only got involved in 3 of the markets at York but got a green on each and they all traded OK

[eightbo]

I would argue that 100% is more helpful than 2.5%, as the former shows me straight away that I could double my stake.

I said add an additional figure, not replace your existing one

It would actually be 50%, not 100%.

incorrect. a move of 40 to 20 would most certainly be 100%...
(100*20)/20 = 100
where (<stake>*<difference in odds>)/<hedge odds> = <profit b4 comish>

...only trying to help, there is no need to defend yourself, i'm contributing to your ideas, not attacking or criticising them

[ruthlessimon]

also keep in mind that a move from 4.6 into 4.1 produces 12.2% profit whereas a move from 4.1 to 4.6 produces 10.9% profit due to the difference in hedge prices

also he's gotta account for XO's (in both directions)!

geez North it's gotta be rock solid

[northbound]

...only trying to help, there is no need to defend your points, i'm contributing to your ideas, not attacking or criticising them

No worries, I was just debating, am not angry

At the end of the day it all comes down to the angle from which you look at things and how you use the figures you produce.

If we all looked at things from the same angle, we would be fighting for a share of the same pie, wouldn't we?

[invisiblelayer]

u wot m8?

Makes you wonder who still bothers try to get matched in the mornings on a run of the mill meeting. Just a few quid sends the market wild!

Maybe those who have figured out how to capitalize on that wildness

Should of said sends the graphs wild, literally peanuts matched make this happen as in that graph all over the shop