Punting - why value is the key

ft9

hucklebuck wrote: »

If you were that profitable why were you in Huntleys log looking for his selections?

While I had a look through there I could see Rover has posted a bit there too.

Interesting that the person who is on his second user account has two people arguing with the theory of large numbers while he took a sabbatical.

Haha I just got what you meant there now. You think that me, Huntley and Rover are the same person? OK my real name is James Hunt and I drive a Rover, because I lost all my money gambling and can't afford a decent car. (sorry James)

Conspiracy Theories forum

---

>

Brilliant.

hucklebuck

Overthelast wrote: »

Without winners, value would become irrelevant

I would take a placed 16/1 at €1 ew over a 1/1 winner with a €2 win stake, value is not exclusive to winners

You'd make a lot more backing Huntley's selections than pr1cking about with PP enhancements on soccer :pac:

hucklebuck

hucklebuck wrote: »

I would take a placed 16/1 at €1 ew ............

Level stakes win and place bets
Bookies wet dream, well done dude.

Overthelast

"I cannot accept a view that:

1. Violates a mathematical rigouous idea
2. is backed u with mere conjecture"



Therein lies your difficulty in understanding that Value isn't necessarily the key.

I've read all your posts and agree with your maths based facts, but I can also see that a disciplined punter can turn a profit without making value their key consideration when selecting a horse to bet on.

As I stated, imo, your being too dogmatic - perhaps in time, you'll look back and go, cripes, I went a bit overboard there. Or maybe you won't. You believe value is key. I think its a secondary consideration - I could see someone opening a thread & title it "Why Backing winners is key" & I would equally see from that angle why you could argue that as dogmatically as you have your opinion here. We won't fall out over it!!

Great thread.

hucklebuck

RoverJames wrote: »

What are you suggesting?
Please do spell it out so we can laugh at what a silly chap you are making yourself out to be.

Spell it out? And I thought you were reading between the lines

RoverJames wrote: »

What sabbatical are you referring to btw?

Huntleys, it's in my conspiracy theory

RoverJames wrote: »

Also it's clear from my posts I have no issue with the law of large numbers, when applied correctly. N/A with regard to selective punting as it's not throws of the dice we are talking about.

I know you don't, I think the issue is if you always bet on value then that is your constant.

Huntley

hucklebuck wrote: »

If you were that profitable why were you in Huntleys log looking for his selections?

While I had a look through there I could see Rover has posted a bit there too.

Interesting that the person who is on his second user account has two people arguing with the theory of large numbers while he took a sabbatical.

I enjoy the comedy aspect that you bring to the forum hucklebuck. Not making any comparisons here but I was wondering why the village clown hadn't yet emerged so to speak.

hucklebuck

RichieLawless wrote: »

I was in Huntleys thread because he's proven to be successful, and I value his opinion, often he punts the same horse as me. Great minds and all that eh.
You think I wasn't profitable and that I made that up? Or would I not be allowed to look at a thread on the internet because my accounts were positive?

I think if you are that good at finding winners on your own why would you be asking someone else in their betting log what they were backing.

RichieLawless wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about a second user account as I've only ever had one. I changed my name as a joke alright, but it should be back to normal in the morning.

I wasn't talking about you it was Hunt(l)ey.

hucklebuck

RoverJames wrote: »

Level stakes win and place bets
Bookies wet dream, well done dude.

Another point missed, good job! I was trying to keep it simple as people keep missing the proven maths element, maybe I should have done it using apples;)

Are we not discussing value and ROI?

It's tosh to suggest it's all about winners.

Overthelast

Lads, I'm off to join Colonel in the sack..good night....:D

hucklebuck

Huntley wrote: »

I enjoy the comedy aspect that you bring to the forum hucklebuck. Not making any comparisons here but I was wondering why the village clown hadn't yet emerged so to speak.

Sweet Jesus, you are Anne Robinson too?

Welcome back by the way, it's been quiet.

hucklebuck

RichieLawless wrote: »

Haha I just got what you meant there now. You think that me, Huntley and Rover are the same person? OK my real name is James Hunt and I drive a Rover, because I lost all my money gambling and can't afford a decent car. (sorry James)

Conspiracy Theories forum

---

>

Brilliant.

Take your time lad, any plans to change your name to James Huntl ?

Morgans

Huntley, do you really want someone to go through your logs and point out how the majority of your selections are done on value grounds and not on what horse has the clear best chance in the race. You seem to be claiming that they arent done on value grounds.

The point is that those who claim they are beating Colonel Sanders's mathematics aren't. Everything is down to value. Would be very interested to know why Huntly puts up a level stakes profit rather than a basic winners to losers.

Once price is a factor at all, value determines whether you win or lose. Its not that hard to understand.

faoile@n

Huntley I find it ironic that you are calling someone the village clown

Huntley wrote: »

What is the marker to decide whether the bookie is wrong? The only marker is the selection winning, in which case the bookies price should always be lower than what was offered. (Essentially no price should be offered)

Do you still stand by this comment?

RichieLawlor

Morgans wrote: »

Huntley, do you really want someone to go through your logs and point out how the majority of your selections are done on value grounds and not on what horse has the clear best chance in the race. You seem to be claiming that they arent done on value grounds.

The point is that those who claim they are beating Colonel Sanders's mathematics aren't. Everything is down to value. Would be very interested to know why Huntly puts up a level stakes profit rather than a basic winners to losers.

Once price is a factor at all, value determines whether you win or lose. Its not that hard to understand.

It is very hard to understand I think you'll find

ft9

Huntley wrote: »

I enjoy the comedy aspect that you bring to the forum hucklebuck. Not making any comparisons here but I was wondering why the village clown hadn't yet emerged so to speak.

I LOL'd at that!

Huntley

Overthelast wrote: »

"I cannot accept a view that:

1. Violates a mathematical rigouous idea
2. is backed u with mere conjecture"



Therein lies your difficulty in understanding that Value isn't necessarily the key.

I've read all your posts and agree with your maths based facts, but I can also see that a disciplined punter can turn a profit without making value their key consideration when selecting a horse to bet on.

As I stated, imo, your being too dogmatic - perhaps in time, you'll look back and go, cripes, I went a bit overboard there. Or maybe you won't. You believe value is key. I think its a secondary consideration - I could see someone opening a thread & title it "Why Backing winners is key" & I would equally see from that angle why you could argue that as dogmatically as you have your opinion here. We won't fall out over it!!

Great thread.

Precisely, there isn't only one way/system to follow to make money from gambling.

Morgans

The fact that several of the bets in Huntley's logs are each way suggests that price is the key determinant of the level of profit or loss.

The fact that many of the bets in the log use Betfair prices (best value?????) than SP suggests that price is the key determinant of profit or loss.

Why not just put up the winners in your log and leave the value take care of itself. Why change your staking plan?

Here are some of the more explicitly stated uses of value in selection. The more abstract use of value - (the mere mention of prices) can be argued in every post in the log.



Askanna
The favourite has the form in the book but if Askanna can return to her Spring form from last season she should have a very good chance to go close. The trip of 2 and a half miles is probably on the tight side but I'm willing to take a chance at the price.

Silvinaco Conti
The fact he has been prepared for this race is a massive advantage and any juice that gets into the ground will only improve his chances. There is very little in it on ratings but I think he is slightly overpriced and am hoping with conditions to suit he will land another Grade 2 novice chase for connections.

Fingal Bay
Hobbs has his string firing at the minute and I think that minor setback is the only reason why this horse isn't odds on.

Saphir River
There was 50/1 around for a brief couple of minutes but that is long gone, and I am satisfied to have an experimental punt at 25's.

Why bet on two horses in the grand national, other than the fact that their prices represented value?

mdwexford

Poor Colonel, been somewhat similar arguments on the poker forums from time to time from equally misguided people.

Better off calling it a day before your head explodes or you put your foot through the computer.

Huntley

Morgans - I have continually stated that I take account of value, but that I place more importance on being able to read race form and select winners. I don't publicise my bets anymore but even in the logs anything I bet on was because I felt that it had the best chance of winning. Hope this clears things up for you and feel free to further critique my selections, that is what they are there for.

As to why I laid out my bets as I did, it was for mitigating reasons that do not concern anybody. Rest assured that the concept of my betting wasn't drastically altered as a result, I select the horse that I think is the most likely winner.

Morgans

Huntley wrote: »

Morgans - I have continually stated that I take account of value, but that I place more importance on being able to read race form and select winners. I don't publicise my bets anymore but even in the logs anything I bet on was because I felt that it had the best chance of winning. Hope this clears things up for you and feel free to further critique my selections, that is what they are there for.

As to why I laid out my bets as I did, it was for mitigating reasons that do not concern anybody. Rest assured that the concept of my betting wasn't drastically altered as a result, I select the horse that I think is the most likely winner.

Even when you select two horses in the same race.

Morgans

When does a horse become an each way bet and not win only?

When does a horse you think will win become worthy of a bet?

Morgans

Huntley wrote: »

Morgans - I have continually stated that I take account of value, but that I place more importance on being able to read race form and select winners. I don't publicise my bets anymore but even in the logs anything I bet on was because I felt that it had the best chance of winning. Hope this clears things up for you and feel free to further critique my selections, that is what they are there for.

As to why I laid out my bets as I did, it was for mitigating reasons that do not concern anybody. Rest assured that the concept of my betting wasn't drastically altered as a result, I select the horse that I think is the most likely winner.

So, while you are understandably keen to point to your logs on here as evidence of your methods, in this case, it shows that while you may not think it, and too stubborn to give in to Colonel Sanders and thousands of years of mathematics, you are up to your wazoo in value betting. You would not have tipped up horses like Saphir River at 1/2.

You simply saying that it is, despite all the evidence to the contrary, doesn't mean that it is. You clearly were interested in price, in finding the best price for selections, in picking horses each way when you thought their was a value in doing so, and when needs be, selecting two horses in the same race.

Why bet each way when you are picking the horse most likely to win?

Why pick two horses in the same race, if you are only picking the horses that are most likely to win?

Huntley

Morgans wrote: »

So, while you are understandably keen to point to your logs on here as evidence of your methods, in this case, it shows that while you may not think it, and too stubborn to give in to Colonel Sanders and thousands of years of mathematics, you are up to your wazoo in value betting. You would not have tipped up horses like Saphir River at 1/2.

You simply saying that it is, despite all the evidence to the contrary, doesn't mean that it is. You clearly were interested in price, in finding the best price for selections, in picking horses each way when you thought their was a value in doing so, and when needs be, selecting two horses in the same race.

Why bet each way when you are picking the horse most likely to win?

Why pick two horses in the same race, if you are only picking the horses that are most likely to win?

If I pick two horses in a race then I think both are equally likely to win. I thought that would be self explanatory considering my previous stance on betting.

I have already explained the rest in my previous post. If you want to rabble on and repeat yourself you can do so without the benefit of my time. *Cue the impending ridicule and sharp comments from other quality posters*

mdwexford

mdwexford wrote: »

Poor Colonel, been somewhat similar arguments on the poker forums from time to time from equally misguided people.

Better off calling it a day before your head explodes or you put your foot through the computer.

I'm pretty sure you were one of the many misguided regular posters of this forum who had the 2012 Gold Cup down as a two horse race

How I laughed at that muck.

mdwexford

RoverJames wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you were one of the many misguided regular posters of this forum who had the 2012 Gold Cup down as a two horse race

How I laughed at that muck.

Why do you put smilies in that dont have any relevance to your post.

It was a two horse race, why you thought otherwise and backed the winner did you.

Not sure what this has to do your inability to grasp basic math concepts but anyway, back to crawling up Huntleys butt with you. (No offence Huntley)

mdwexford

mdwexford wrote: »

.........

It was a two horse race, why you thought otherwise and backed the winner did you.

I did actually


Lol at how you still maintain it was a two horse race, you must have lost your arse on that event as it was so valuesome.

If you had that down as a two horse race you literally have no clue, the bookies would never get it that wrong, 15% dude, 15%, the SPs are there for all to see, two horse race, CHUCKLE CHUCKLE CHUCKLE.

If it was a two horse race they'd have both been between 5/6 and 11/10 (or alternatives if one was much better) There's a basic mathematical concept for you to attempt to grasp, CS might give you a grind

mdwexford wrote: »

...

Not sure what this has to do your inability to grasp basic math concepts but anyway, back to crawling up Huntleys butt with you. (No offence Huntley)

I've the concepts grasped very well cheers, as mentioned I'll be laying up to 4000 short priced horses in 2013 and will hopefully make €10k between now and the end of September in doing so

I'm far from a crawler, but that comment does illustrate what sort of chap you are, big man behind the keyboard etc etc etc.

You'd probably sh1t yourself if someone bumped into you oustside the local chipper

mdwexford

Shows how clueless you are then if thats the kind of bet you come up with.

I had a medium bet on Long Run fwiw.

I am aware of the math but Im not a regular punter or anything like it, I might back 5 horses a year outside of the festival.
I do just back a few horses I think will win and try and get the best prices I can and am aware I will lose money over my lifetime, im fine with it.

Good for you, I hope you have continued success.

Yes im a real shrinking violet.

To be fair the bookies aren't going to price up the gold cup too incorrectly, if you still maintain it was a two horse race than considering the prices its you who is clueless, regardless of the result. You're as well off backing very few horses, but, you know that anyway

mdwexford

RoverJames wrote: »

To be fair the bookies aren't going to price up the gold cup too incorrectly, if you still maintain it was a two horse race than considering the prices its you who is clueless, regardless of the result. You're as well off backing very few horses, but, you know that anyway

I didnt like any of the 8/1 shots, I thought the top two should have been shorter. On the day the pig won, it happens.

I know that because I have better things to be doing with my time than the amount of work it takes to be successful at horse racing.

Colonel Sanders

Rest assured I realise the following example is ludicrous. I hope others will also realise it's illustrative

Huntley take the following situation:

You are analysing a 2 horse race & believe both are equally likely to win. Not only that the best price available on both horses is the same. As bookies like to bet over round those best prices are 10/11 each of 2

So you have identified the most likely winner(s) and indeed have a "marker" indicating your assessment to be correct?

Do you bet both horses? If not why not?

If the answer is no sure you are ignoring what you claim to be "the fundamental aspect of gambling"? Not only that you'd be ignoring it based on prioritising value - no?

The above is why I cannot and will not except a non-rigourous result as "fundamental"

Morgans

Huntley wrote: »

If I pick two horses in a race then I think both are equally likely to win. I thought that would be self explanatory considering my previous stance on betting.

I have already explained the rest in my previous post. If you want to rabble on and repeat yourself you can do so without the benefit of my time. *Cue the impending ridicule and sharp comments from other quality posters*

You arent answering any questions or explained anything. It is the prices that the horses are at that determine your bet. That's all. That is why you bet some each way. Why not bet odds on horses each way? The price is why you select two horses in the same race and that is why you are wrong and Colonel Sanders is right in this argument.

Rather than admit that you want to dig a bigger hole by saying that you bet on more than one horse when they have an equal chance of winning? When there are two horses with equal chance on winning, when does it become a bet? I dont think you punt two horses in three horse races. It is the price that makes them bets.

Im trying to make it as easy as possible for you to see the light. Dropping the the "no one like me and i ruffle feathers but dont care' persona would help you. You seem to value that ego rather than engage in something where you might develop your intelligence.

hucklebuck

RichieLawless wrote: »

I LOL'd at that!

You got that one did you?

Baby steps...

hucklebuck

Morgans wrote: »

Huntley, do you really want someone to go through your logs and point out how the majority of your selections are done on value grounds and not on what horse has the clear best chance in the race. You seem to be claiming that they arent done on value grounds.

The point is that those who claim they are beating Colonel Sanders's mathematics aren't. Everything is down to value. Would be very interested to know why Huntly puts up a level stakes profit rather than a basic winners to losers.

Once price is a factor at all, value determines whether you win or lose. Its not that hard to understand.

Can anyone else feel the word subjective will be used in the reply?

Colonel Sanders

Also a negative answer to the above would contradict your earlier statement that "any winning selection is a value bet"

Colonel Sanders

hucklebuck wrote: »

Can anyone else feel the word subjective will be used in the reply?

Probability is close to 1 IMO that it contains one of the following:

- subjective
- inept
- flawed

hucklebuck

RoverJames wrote: »

If you had that down as a two horse race you literally have no clue, the bookies would never get it that wrong, 15% dude, 15%, the SPs are there for all to see, two horse race, CHUCKLE CHUCKLE CHUCKLE.

What is the 15% you are on about?

LR and KS had roughly over 60% of the market.

hucklebuck

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Probability is close to 1 IMO that it contains one of the following:

- subjective
- inept
- flawed

What is probability? It sounds so mathsy it must be wrong/ subjective.

RichieLawlor

When the forums two best posters (CS and Morgan's) are trying to tell you the same thing and you continually disagree, then it's odds on you are in the wrong.

Overthelast

Good morning.


Who the forums best posters are is irrelevant to this discussion.

I may agree or disagree with any post here, based on the subject at hand.

The thread was titled up "Punting - why value is the key" - if the only argument to support that assertion has a pre-requisite to be grounded in value, well then the thread was titled up incorrectly. Value is one aspect of punting. If it was the key, well then the world of punting would have been occupied long ago by value experts, mopping up an endless supply of value bets and the laying industry would have collapsed long ago.

Ones intelligence is not measured by slamming down another persons point of view. Its in understanding their point of view & what angle they are coming from. I fully understand the Colonel's assertion, but I equally understand Huntley's angle. They are not mutually exclusive.


I too am going to take the liberty to post up a scenario. I equally hope others will also realise its just for illustrative purposes. The only difference being its not so ludicrous, if you have chosen to subscribe to one singular line of thought being espoused here ie Punting - Why Value is the key

mdwexford

mdwexford wrote: »

I didnt like any of the 8/1 shots, I thought the top two should have been shorter. On the day the pig won, it happens.

I know that because I have better things to be doing with my time than the amount of work it takes to be successful at horse racing.

I'd be thinking the collective bookmakers got the prices right and you are wrong
It takes more than time old boy, you need to know what you're at too.

hucklebuck wrote: »

What is the 15% you are on about?

LR and KS had roughly over 60% of the market.

Are you serious? Do you not understand how bookmakers make a profit? Your post above suggests you have no idea. I'm actually surprised at your post, as clueless as I reckoned you were I didn't have you down as being lacking in knowledge to that degree.

Overthelast

For Illustrative Purposes Only!

10 years from now a retired chap walks into one of the few remaining bookshops left in the country. Most bookshops have closed, due to people seeking out (dare I say) “value” on the internet and shopping on-line/e-books. However, a small number of bookshops still trade away profitably, as there is a market to be served for those who prefer reading the paper format and buying tangible & complimentary goods/services. Lets call the chap Mr X.

Mr X has just had an unexpected windfall. He has just been left €1mln in a Will by his long lost relative. He has always fancied a flutter on the gg’s and figures why not now, he’s financially comfortable and is in the latter stages of his life on this island? He goes to the section headed up “Punting”, reaches out, picks up a publication titled “Punting – Why value is the Key” by Prof. Y. He sweeps his hand across the cover and removes the dust.

He takes it home and reads it cover to cover. The book contains a series of related articles, but all centred on one singular line of thought, which states that value is the key to punting, everything else is conjecture. Get value in your punting, your all set.

Mr X claps the but shut, jumps to his feet, puts on his jacket and heads off to his local bookmaker.

He proceeds to place 100 X €10,000 Value bets on a series of racing events. Unfortunately, due to a variety of freak results, he ends up losing his €1mln in the space of a few days and soon has lost that and more. Roll on a couple of weeks, he is now destitute, homeless, and following a particularly hard frost similar to the one we enjoyed last night is left with no option but to set fire to his last prized possession, the punting book he purchased some weeks back, in order to keep warm. While huddling around the warm glow of his burning book, a moment of clarity crosses his mind – "maybe I shouldn’t have believed everything I read in that book". The long run is irrelevant to this chap – as Keynes put it, inthe long run, we’re all dead.

Colonel Sanders

I'll post a longer reply later, on the iPhone now

He has staked inefficiently. I'd never stake more than a certain percentage of my remaining bank (note i did not say a certain monetary amount) on a single bet. This guarantees that my probability of ruin is effectively zero.

faoile@n

Are you on the wind up Overthelast?

Bookies have between 5% to 12% overround on every betting market.

Even if one punter finds value in a betting market the bookmaker always makes a profit.

Overthelast

faoile@n wrote: »

Are you on the wind up Overthelast?

Bookies have between 5% to 12% overround on every betting market.

Even if one punter finds value in a betting market the bookmaker always makes a profit.

No.

Colonel Sanders

Btw the largest sample size I can think of (note this is still not sufficient to prove all cases) is every bet ever placed with all UK/Irish bookmakers since their legalisation in the 60's (I think)

Over that time i feel its safe to say that the average bet, placed by the average punter has been -EV (or "bad"). Weighted by stakes the number of "bad" bets placed has been greater than the number of "good"

I think this is safe to say as Over that time accumulated bookmakers profits have been +ive (not just +ive RoI but +ive after expenses/tax etc) Some have gone bust others haven't but their cumulative profit has been +ive

For those that don't like/trust maths that's the biggest piece of empirical evidence that I can provide to back up the OP

Colonel Sanders

FWIW I've repeatedly stated "good" punters can show -ive RoI over the short term (or even go bust)

That does not invalidate my assertion that value is "fundamental"

Colonel Sanders

Punter goes into a casino and over the course of a night manages to predict the colour of the roulette spin 60% of the time. He rubbishes the guy who told him he could only expect Red to come up 48.6% of the time

Buoyed on by a fellow punter who tells him he is great at picking winners & that's all that matters in gambling he stays for another week in the casino & ups his stakes

He loses and goes home penniless.

Similar scenario to your story above OverTheLast

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Before I respond to a few heated posts note the following:

I stated in the OP that you cannot win money in the long run without obtaining value, my definition of value (which I thought was the generally accepted definition) was bets that have +EV

The reason I say this is the fundamental element of gambling is that it is mathematically rigourous. All attempts to either prove me "wrong" or put forward alternative "fundamentals" have not been mathematically rigourous. I am being asked to contemplate something as fundamental on the basis of a finite number of finite series.

Other posters may be able to accept such "evidence" as fundamental, I can't. This is not meant to be arrogant or confrontational btw

So there is the reason I believe value to be the fundamental to gambling and have rejected all other attempts to say something different is "fundamental"

I've quoted this post again for the benefit of people who may not have read it

I classify "value" as "fundamental" to gambling

This "fundamental" is quite abstract & theoretical but I classify it as "the" fundamental all the same

Others may not agree, and best of luck if you don't

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

I'll post a longer reply later, on the iPhone now

He has staked inefficiently. I'd never stake more than a certain percentage of my remaining bank (note i did not say a certain monetary amount) on a single bet. This guarantees that my probability of ruin is effectively zero.

In isolation all that guarantees is that eventually you'll end up with unit stakes so small that they can't be expressed in Euro or pounds.

You're bladdering on about your op again I see, bookies make money! Unreal, we all know that.