Today's Horse Racing
-
Senseipanda
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:04 pm
now why the hell did i only lay it with 50 
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Backing at short prices or laying at short prices has been done to death but my point was that if you are a value player and have the bank to cover the inevitable long losing streaks you will have, you will never go poor backing something at 1.05 when it should be shorter over the long term. It doesn't matter if it is a horse race or a football match.
Backing at 21.0 about something that should be 31.0 will see you go bust over the long term. It is about the value and not what the relative odds are. Something can be value at 1.01 and likewise something can be value at 100.0.
It is all about getting value regardless of the odds. Black Caviar being a case in point, people have a tendancy to remember the ones that lose at short odds but not so much the ones that win.
And just because the most extreme odds on BF are 1.01 and 1000.0 it doesn't mean the odds of the outcome happening are limited to just 1-100 and 999-1.
If you think backing 1.05 about horses at the off over the long term is a way to the poor house, well you have just stumbled across a profitable laying system.
I for one am terrible at assessing the value and prices and that is why I traded. But I understand that value betting is also a road to riches but imo is a damn sight harder than trading.
Backing at 21.0 about something that should be 31.0 will see you go bust over the long term. It is about the value and not what the relative odds are. Something can be value at 1.01 and likewise something can be value at 100.0.
It is all about getting value regardless of the odds. Black Caviar being a case in point, people have a tendancy to remember the ones that lose at short odds but not so much the ones that win.
And just because the most extreme odds on BF are 1.01 and 1000.0 it doesn't mean the odds of the outcome happening are limited to just 1-100 and 999-1.
If you think backing 1.05 about horses at the off over the long term is a way to the poor house, well you have just stumbled across a profitable laying system.
I for one am terrible at assessing the value and prices and that is why I traded. But I understand that value betting is also a road to riches but imo is a damn sight harder than trading.
Yup, I'm totally with Andy on this one. You can't just blanket back every 1.05 runner, but there WILL be some which are good value if you select them correctly and will make you consistent profit in the long run by backing. It may be possible that most 1.05 runners are bad value though. I just agree that there should always be objectivity when making a decision rather than jumping at an assumption. For example Peter noted that this particular 1.05 horse was unproven, and that was one of his reasons for laying.
So all in all, in theory I have no problem backing at 1.05 or laying at 21, but in reality I don't do it. There's been research to show that losses are more painful than the happiness of equivalent wins and we're somehow programmed to avoid them if we can. I can see that one giant loss is likely to feel extremely painful even if I've won lots of little ones, and so I chose to avoid it.
But a more rational reason for avoiding it, is that it's very hard to verify that you actually have an edge when backing high probability outcomes. You can have loads of wins and think you're ahead, but then all of a sudden have a couple of losses to put you way in the gutter. So you might have thought you had an edge, increased stakes, and then had reality hit you.
So all in all, in theory I have no problem backing at 1.05 or laying at 21, but in reality I don't do it. There's been research to show that losses are more painful than the happiness of equivalent wins and we're somehow programmed to avoid them if we can. I can see that one giant loss is likely to feel extremely painful even if I've won lots of little ones, and so I chose to avoid it.
But a more rational reason for avoiding it, is that it's very hard to verify that you actually have an edge when backing high probability outcomes. You can have loads of wins and think you're ahead, but then all of a sudden have a couple of losses to put you way in the gutter. So you might have thought you had an edge, increased stakes, and then had reality hit you.
The principle of losses hurting more than gains is called Prospect theory and was developed by Daniel Kahneman, who won a Nobel Prize in Economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory
It explains why people are happy to buy lottery tickets, and also how it's the whole concept of why we buy insurance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory
It explains why people are happy to buy lottery tickets, and also how it's the whole concept of why we buy insurance.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
It sent the market on both BF and BD into a spin. The bots on BD didn't seem to know what was going on. It made BD act as though it had cross matching on due to it following the BF market.Wobbler wrote:anybody else see all the money evacuate from the 15.35 @ stratford just before the off?
Looked like most of it was matched by one individual - probably Peter when he checks his bots later
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
A fat finger most likely. Someone entered the wrong odds or clicked on the wrong price.