Grandouet

droidman123 · 08-01-2013 5:24pm

i probably would never back a horse at 1/3 even if i thought it would win. now that statement might seem contrary to what i was saying earlier. but i,m talking about horses in the 3,4,5,6,7,8/1 bracket. i gave an example of a 6/1 and an 8/1. but it would apply to a 10/1 or 12/1 etc as well. i just dont think a horse what is priced at 6/1 which i think should be about 8/1 would be enough of a drop to make me change my mind. having said that i take your point above. 1/3 would certainly be too rich for my blood, even if i really fancied it. my outlay would have to be too big a stake to make it worh my while. and as i said, just because i personally fancy a horse, it certainly doesnt mean it will win, god knows i have backed enough "certs" in my day:o

ste2010 · 08-01-2013 5:28pm

Every second thread I go onto lately is being destroyed by subjective perspectives or valueless endless repetitive arguments based on opinions..
I think there are arguments for both sides..value and sense there's no point in making a case with no context ..also this thread is a Grandouet thread

Colonel Sanders · 08-01-2013 8:38pm

Huntley wrote: »

Subjective.

If consistent long term profits are your objective it's not. You cannot make money in the long run without consistently getting prices that are bigger than they should be. If we take "the long run" as being an infinite number of bets this is a irrefutable mathematical fact.

Obviously nobody makes an infinite number of bets but over the lifetime of a punter a +EV punter losing money is a statistical anomaly, a -EV punter winning money is a statistical anomaly.

Huntley wrote: »

'Value' is a subjective term.

Agreed but there are several metrics you can use to see if, on average, your assessment is correct. e.g. keeping records of P&L, RoE, price taken v Betfair SP

Huntley wrote: »

He cannot be incorrect.

He cannot be correct if long term profits are the end goal. I was making the implicit assumption that was the case, maybe I was wrong to do so

Huntley wrote: »

Value or price isn't the defining aspect of gambling for everyone

Unless you gamble for "fun" it should be, I don't find losing money fun

Huntley wrote: »

You can just as easily lose in the long term by selecting overpriced horses.

This assume that a -EV gambler only gives up as much edge as a +EV gambler has running for him. I'm struggling to believe that's the case but do not have any empirical evidence tbh

Huntley wrote: »

I would take account of the price of an animal but to an extent I agree with you, it is too easy to get far too entangled with the value argument.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one

Huntley · 08-01-2013 9:24pm

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

You cannot make money in the long run without consistently getting prices that are bigger than they should be.

This is one of the many illusions that is simply a pretence for many who gamble to seem knowledgeable.

Value has no importance if you are consistently picking losers. There is an array of evidence to support that, unlike your unsubstantiated claims above.

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Unless you gamble for "fun" it should be, I don't find losing money fun

No I gamble to win money, and am fortunately very content with my ability to do so.

Everyone has their own perception of value and its importance so I won't be delving into this topic much. However, picking winning selections is the most fundamental aspect of successful gambling, not value as you seem to think.

droidman123 · 08-01-2013 9:37pm

Huntley wrote: »

This is one of the many illusions that is simply a pretence for many who gamble to seem knowledgeable.

Value has no importance if you are consistently picking losers. There is an array of evidence to support that, unlike your unsubstantiated claims above.

No I gamble to win money, and am fortunately very content with my ability to do so.

Everyone has their own perception of value and its importance so I won't be delving into this topic much. However, picking winning selections is the most fundamental aspect of successful gambling, not value as you seem to think.

i agree completely. if i have 20 euro on a 6/1 winner that i rationed should of been about 8/1 i am not exactly going to be "dissappointed". its a 120 euro profit no matter what way you dissect the rights and wrongs of value. appologies to everyone for getting of the main thread.

Morgans · 08-01-2013 9:41pm

Its why people clamour over Kieran O'Connell's tips in the Star ahead of Pricewise.

Colonel Sanders · 08-01-2013 9:45pm

Huntley wrote: »

This is one of the many illusions that is simply a pretence for many who gamble to seem knowledgeable

It is a mathematical fact

I'll take centuries of irrefutable mathematical theory over your ramblings

Huntley wrote: »

Value has no importance if you are consistently picking losers. There is an array of evidence to support that, unlike your unsubstantiated claims above

Oh god....

If you consistently back winners that are not the wrong price the number of losers will more than cancel out the profits on winner. If you do indeed have evidence to disprove my "theories" you should publish them. You'd probably win a Nobel prize

The only "unsubstanciated" claim I made was as follows

This assume that a -EV gambler only gives up as much edge as a +EV gambler has running for him. I'm struggling to believe that's the case but do not have any empirical evidence tbh

However, reading people far more knowledgeable than me, most successful gamblers work off a profit on turnover of approx 8%. For a -EV punter to lose "only" as much as 8% (s)he needs to bet into an over round of on average just under 109%. Seeing how much is wagered on BAGs, virtuals and other high margin products I don't believe this to be the case. By all means prove me wrong

Huntley wrote: »

No I gamble to win money, and am fortunately very content with my ability to do so.

Good for you

Huntley wrote: »

However, picking winning selections is the most fundamental aspect of successful gambling, not value as you seem to think.

You are 100% wrong here. I'd recommend you read a basic stats book, start off with random variables, expectation and variance

Otherwise this would be an excellent starting point

NewApproach · 08-01-2013 9:51pm

Reading this thread makes my head hurt.

prettyboy81 · 08-01-2013 10:05pm

All this cannot be over Grandouet!!!!!!!!!

Huntley · 08-01-2013 10:08pm

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

It is a mathematical fact

I'll take centuries of irrefutable mathematical theory over your ramblings

Your attempt to seem totally in the know about gambling is inept at best. There is no mathematical fact which states that value is the most fundamental aspect to successful gambling.

This "mathematical fact" is a myth that piss poor gamblers like yourself cling onto in the hope of actually making some money some day. You can look at your statistical books and timeform all you want but on all known evidence here you have little to show for it apart from some mediocre attempt to look shrewd, when you are anything but.

premierstone · 08-01-2013 10:11pm

Colonel I really wouldnt bother shur Huntley is always right did you not get the memo?? He is now so arrogant that he will argue against matemathical theroms lol couldn't make it up

Colonel Sanders · 08-01-2013 10:15pm

Huntley wrote: »

Your attempt to seem totally in the know about gambling is inept at best.

I don't claim to be "in the know", and if it's so "inept" prove it wrong... As I said there's probably a Nobel prize in it for you if you do

Huntley wrote: »

There is no mathematical fact which states that value is the most fundamental aspect to successful gambling.

Start with Expected Value and then move on to more complicated concepts when you get your head around that

Huntley wrote: »

This "mathematical fact" is a myth

I'm all ears.....

Huntley wrote: »

piss poor gamblers like yourself

:rolleyes: what a retort

Huntley wrote: »

You can look at your statistical books and timeform all you want but on all known evidence here you have little to show for it apart from some mediocre attempt to look shrewd, when you are anything but.

If simply backing winners is your thing go into a casino and continuously bet on red on a roulette wheel. You'll back plenty of winners but you'll be expected to lose 2.7% of your cash turnover over a long period of time

NewApproach · 08-01-2013 10:19pm

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

I don't claim to be "in the know", and if it's so "inept" prove it wrong... As I said there's probably a Nobel prize in it for you if you do

Start with Expected Value and then move on to more complicated concepts when you get your head around that

I'm all ears.....

:rolleyes: what a retort

Go into a casino and continuously bet on red on a roulette wheel. You'll back plenty of winners but you'll be expected to lose 2.7% of your cash over a long period of time

Wrong. You'll be expected to lose 2.7% on the first spin. And another 2.7% the next spin. Such is the importance of EV...

Colonel Sanders · 08-01-2013 10:21pm

NewApproach wrote: »

Wrong. You'll be expected to lose 2.7% on the first spin. And another 2.7% the next spin. Such is the importance of EV...

Apologises, turnover. Slip of the keyboard

Huntley · 08-01-2013 10:23pm

premierstone wrote: »

He is now so arrogant that he will argue against matemathical theroms lol couldn't make it up

No problem with arrogance provided it is backed up.

Do you understand the idiocy in stating that value is the most important aspect of successful gambling? The only value that counts is a winning selection. That is the most fundamental aspect of gambling, without it you cannot be successful.

Colonel Sanders · 08-01-2013 10:24pm

Huntley wrote: »

Do you understand the idiocy in stating that value is the most important aspect of successful gambling?

I've actually no response to that it is so fundamentally incorrect

Arctic89 · 08-01-2013 10:25pm

Huntley wrote: »

This is one of the many illusions that is simply a pretence for many who gamble to seem knowledgeable.

Value has no importance if you are consistently picking losers. There is an array of evidence to support that, unlike your unsubstantiated claims above.

No I gamble to win money, and am fortunately very content with my ability to do so.

Everyone has their own perception of value and its importance so I won't be delving into this topic much. However, picking winning selections is the most fundamental aspect of successful gambling, not value as you seem to think.

Have you ever considered moving into trading investments? Stocks/bonds etc? They'd laugh you out the door. "Sure we'll just buy stocks of successful companies, who cares whether they fall or rise as long as the company is well known". Warren Buffett would love you! :pac:

This is from Donn McClean's website, I think he puts it better than I ever could:

Most punters make the mistake of trying to back winners, without considering the odds. They try to back the most likely winner of a race rather than the horse who is most over-priced. Just because ‘tails’ has come up in the toss of a fair coin, it doesn’t mean that it was a value bet at 4/6. If you back ‘tails’ at 4/6 every time a coin is tossed, in the long run you will lose. By contrast, if you can back ‘tails’ at 6/4 every time a coin is tossed, then, in the long run, you will make a profit. That’s the key. It’s all about the odds.

Source: http://donnmcclean.com/donns-bets/

Colonel Sanders · 08-01-2013 10:27pm

Arctic89 wrote: »

This is from Donn McClean's website, I think he puts it better than I ever could:

I probably would have spend 2 pages explaining it that succinctly

Morgans · 08-01-2013 10:28pm

As long as Huntley can back up his arrogance....

Colonel Sanders · 08-01-2013 10:29pm

Morgans wrote: »

As long as Huntley can back up his arrogance....

As I said there's a Nobel prize in it for him if he does :rolleyes:

NewApproach · 08-01-2013 10:29pm

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Apologises, turnover. Slip of the keyboard

No need to apologise, I agree with you entirely, just trying to stop you bruising your head from banging it against the wall!

Slattsy · 08-01-2013 10:40pm

ft9 · 08-01-2013 10:42pm

I just have one point on this without getting dragged into it.

Someone posted this notion of tossing coins and roulette wheels, which has no relevance what so ever to horse racing and it keeps being brought up. Coins and roulette wheels have no form, fitness, optimum trip, favourable ground, jockey etc....

hucklebuck · 08-01-2013 10:44pm

mdwexford wrote: »

I suggest you look into what prices take up what percentages of the market to work out how often the horse has to win for you to break even.

For anyone who isn't sure how to calculate the probability of a horse using the bookies prices it's easy enough.

Using a horse at 2/1 as an example, the :

For bookies odds:
Divide the numerator(2) by the denominator (1) and add 1. This gives you 3 which is the betfair odds. If you divide the answer (3) into 100, this horses chances of winning the race are 33.33%.

Betfair/ Betdaq odds:
Divide 3 into 100, this gives you 33.33%

If you do this for all the horses in the race you will probably get around 130% this includes the bookies over round.

I am thinking of starting a log using probability to take a short priced favourite with any amount of horses.

Say if the favourite is 1/1, his chance is 50%, ignoring the over round this means the field has a 50% chance of winning so if you take 2 4/1 shots against the favourite you have 40% chance of having the winner.

Using this example you could put a tenner to win on both 4/1 shots and if either win you turn a profit of €30.

I will trial it first, obviously the bigger priced horses you take against the favourite the lower the chance of finding the winner but the bigger the returns.

Morgans · 08-01-2013 10:44pm

It does. Tossing a coin is 50% chance.

If you think your horse has a 50% chance of winning (after you take form, ground, fitness, trip etc), then 6/4 is a good price, and 4/6 is a bad price.

It is the fundamentals.

You dont know you are doing the 50% calculation in your head, but that is what you are doing. You cant bet on a horse with 100% chance of winning.

Colonel Sanders · 08-01-2013 10:45pm

ft9 wrote: »

Someone posted this notion of tossing coins and roulette wheels, which has no relevance what so ever to horse racing and it keeps being brought up. Coins and roulette wheels have no form, fitness, optimum trip, favourable ground, jockey etc....

It's merely used as an example to back up the main point about value

If the coin/wheel is fair the exact probabilities are known. This is not the case with horses, you can never know the exact probability a horse will win a particular race

NewApproach · 08-01-2013 10:46pm

ft9 wrote: »

I just have one point on this without getting dragged into it.

Someone posted this notion of tossing coins and roulette wheels, which has no relevance what so ever to horse racing and it keeps being brought up. Coins and roulette wheels have no form, fitness, optimum trip, favourable ground, jockey etc....

Bookmakers employ odds compilers, who factor these any many other parameters into the price. So that point is easily nullified.

RichieLawlor · 08-01-2013 10:46pm

Lol Huntley is worse than that clown in the Simonsig thread.

He is trying to argue against mathematical FACT

Lol.

Credibility

Gone

Forever.

Lol

ft9 · 08-01-2013 10:47pm

I'm not getting into it. Gonna be a long 2 months...

Colonel Sanders · 08-01-2013 10:47pm

hucklebuck wrote: »

Using a horse at 2/1 as an example, the :

Your method is 100% correct but I find it easier and less time consuming to use decimal odds

2/1 = 3.0, 1/3.0 = 33.33%

Similarly

Evs = 2.0, 1/2.0 = 50%
6/4 = 2.5, 1/2.5 = 40%
etc
etc

Slattsy · 08-01-2013 10:52pm

hucklebuck wrote: »

For anyone who isn't sure how to calculate the probability of a horse using the bookies prices it's easy enough.

Using a horse at 2/1 as an example, the :

For bookies odds:
Divide the numerator(2) by the denominator (1) and add 1. This gives you 3 which is the betfair odds. If you divide the answer (3) into 100, this horses chances of winning the race are 33.33%.

Betfair/ Betdaq odds:
Divide 3 into 100, this gives you 33.33%

If you do this for all the horses in the race you will probably get around 130% this includes the bookies over round.

I am thinking of starting a log using probability to take a short priced favourite with any amount of horses.

Say if the favourite is 1/1, his chance is 50%, ignoring the over round this means the field has a 50% chance of winning so if you take 2 4/1 shots against the favourite you have 40% chance of having the winner.

Using this example you could put a tenner to win on both 4/1 shots and if either win you turn a profit of €30.

I will trial it first, obviously the bigger priced horses you take against the favourite the lower the chance of finding the winner but the bigger the returns.

I'd follow that log with interest HB, it would be interesting and informative. I still want to learn.
DO IT !!!

Colonel Sanders · 08-01-2013 10:52pm

Btw possibly a sticky or a split thread on the numbers/probability/odds discussions......

hucklebuck · 08-01-2013 10:53pm

Did you not hear he had such a long mathematical argument with Stephen Hawking that Stephen Hawkings batteries ran out and Huntley called him an idiot for not having another battery with him.

RichieLawlor · 08-01-2013 10:55pm

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Btw possibly a sticky or a split thread on the numbers/probability/odds discussions......

How about stickying Huntleys posts in this thread for people to beat him with every time he tries to belittle posters in other threads.

hucklebuck · 08-01-2013 10:57pm

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Your method is 100% correct but I find it easier and less time consuming to use decimal odds

2/1 = 3.0, 1/3.0 = 33.33%

Similarly

Evs = 2.0, 1/2.0 = 50%
6/4 = 2.5, 1/2.5 = 40%
etc
etc

I know, it was a guide, I did have fractional and decimal in as examples, Mr nitpicker.

Slattsy · 08-01-2013 10:57pm

RichieLawlor wrote: »

Lol Huntley is worse than that clown in the Simonsig thread.

He is trying to argue against mathematical FACT

Lol.

Credibility

Gone

Forever.

Lol

This gonna be good

hucklebuck · 08-01-2013 11:00pm

RichieLawlor wrote: »

How about stickying Huntleys posts in this thread for people to beat him with every time he tries to belittle posters in other threads.

That would work except he is always right :rolleyes:

hucklebuck · 08-01-2013 11:00pm

Slattsy wrote: »

This gonna be good

That looks like a black Michael Jackson.

Huntley · 08-01-2013 11:00pm

RichieLawlor wrote: »

Lol Huntley is worse than that clown in the Simonsig thread.

He is trying to argue against mathematical FACT

Lol.

Credibility

Gone

Forever.

Lol

It's comical the way you pop your fat skull in when the brigade are in full flow.

Where is the mathematical fact that states value is the most fundamental aspect of gambling? Amongst all the clueless masses scampering to their computers to get a dig in nobody has acknowledged that without winning selections ones perception of value is totally redundant.

My credibility to strangers doesn't bother me, I make enough money from this game to keep me content and have proven that on here aswell. I only belittle people who make stupid comments, frequently you.

Slattsy · 08-01-2013 11:02pm

hucklebuck wrote: »

That looks like a black Michael Jackson.

Its Bruno Mars.

RichieLawlor · 08-01-2013 11:03pm

Huntley wrote: »

This is one of the many illusions that is simply a pretence for many who gamble to seem knowledgeable.

Value has no importance

No I gamble to win money, and am fortunately very content with my ability to do so.

picking winning selections is the most fundamental aspect of successful gambling, not value as you seem to think.

Huntley wrote: »

Your attempt to seem totally in the know about gambling is inept at best. There is no mathematical fact which states that value is the most fundamental aspect to successful gambling.

This "mathematical fact" is a myth that piss poor gamblers like yourself cling onto in the hope of actually making some money some day.

These are my favourite.

The Colonel is one of the shrewdest (but nittiest) gamblers I know, and any random can tell that from his posts.

Lol out loud

RichieLawlor · 08-01-2013 11:05pm

Huntley wrote: »

It's comical the way you pop your fat skull in when the brigade are in full flow.

Where is the mathematical fact that states value is the most fundamental aspect of gambling? Amongst all the clueless masses scampering to their computers to get a dig in nobody has acknowledged that without winning selections ones perception of value is totally redundant.

My credibility to strangers doesn't bother me, I make enough money from this game to keep me content and have proven that on here aswell. I only belittle people who make stupid comments, frequently you.

I used to pay some small bit of notice to you, now I can't stop laughing. You go make your money pal.

I make stupid comments, lol, shall I quote a few more from you.

Lol

Colonel Sanders · 08-01-2013 11:06pm

Huntley wrote: »

I only belittle people who make stupid comments, frequently you.

Time to belittle yourself....

ft9 · 08-01-2013 11:06pm

RichieLawlor wrote: »

How about stickying Huntleys posts in this thread for people to beat him with every time he tries to belittle posters in other threads.

RichieLawlor wrote: »

Lol Huntley is worse than that clown in the Simonsig thread.

He is trying to argue against mathematical FACT

Lol.

Credibility

Gone

Forever.

Lol

You should take a leaf out of your own book.

hucklebuck wrote: »

For anyone who isn't sure how to calculate the probability of a horse using the bookies prices it's easy enough.

Using a horse at 2/1 as an example, the :

For bookies odds:
Divide the numerator(2) by the denominator (1) and add 1. This gives you 3 which is the betfair odds. If you divide the answer (3) into 100, this horses chances of winning the race are 33.33%.

Betfair/ Betdaq odds:
Divide 3 into 100, this gives you 33.33%

If you do this for all the horses in the race you will probably get around 130% this includes the bookies over round.

I am thinking of starting a log using probability to take a short priced favourite with any amount of horses.

Say if the favourite is 1/1, his chance is 50%, ignoring the over round this means the field has a 50% chance of winning so if you take 2 4/1 shots against the favourite you have 40% chance of having the winner.

Using this example you could put a tenner to win on both 4/1 shots and if either win you turn a profit of €30.

I will trial it first, obviously the bigger priced horses you take against the favourite the lower the chance of finding the winner but the bigger the returns.

You should do this log, I'm sure most people here would be interested in it and may learn from it too. I'm sure Huntley will be getting his log back in action shortly, see who has the highest ROI.

RichieLawlor · 08-01-2013 11:08pm

ft9 wrote: »

You should take a leaf out of your own book.

You should do this log, I'm sure most people here would be interested in it and may learn from it too. I'm sure Huntley will be getting his log back in action shortly, see who has the highest ROI.

I know I should listen to my own advice but this is such a great day for the forum.

I'm gonna have my 7 year old come on and explain the maths of it to Huntley

ft9 · 08-01-2013 11:11pm

I think we all need to go on a bonding session in preparation for Cheltenham! I'd say it would turn into a massacre.

RichieLawlor · 08-01-2013 11:13pm

ft9 wrote: »

I think we all need to go on a bonding session in preparation for Cheltenham! I'd say it would turn into a massacre.

Lol how fun would that be

Arctic89 · 08-01-2013 11:14pm

hucklebuck wrote: »

For anyone who isn't sure how to calculate the probability of a horse using the bookies prices it's easy enough.

Using a horse at 2/1 as an example, the :

For bookies odds:
Divide the numerator(2) by the denominator (1) and add 1. This gives you 3 which is the betfair odds. If you divide the answer (3) into 100, this horses chances of winning the race are 33.33%.

Betfair/ Betdaq odds:
Divide 3 into 100, this gives you 33.33%

If you do this for all the horses in the race you will probably get around 130% this includes the bookies over round.

I am thinking of starting a log using probability to take a short priced favourite with any amount of horses.

Say if the favourite is 1/1, his chance is 50%, ignoring the over round this means the field has a 50% chance of winning so if you take 2 4/1 shots against the favourite you have 40% chance of having the winner.

Using this example you could put a tenner to win on both 4/1 shots and if either win you turn a profit of €30.

I will trial it first, obviously the bigger priced horses you take against the favourite the lower the chance of finding the winner but the bigger the returns.

Another +1 for the log!

ft9 · 08-01-2013 11:14pm

I'm just hoping Overturn doesn't fall tomorrow, that would be the ultimate week for you.

RichieLawlor · 08-01-2013 11:17pm

ft9 wrote: »

I'm just hoping Overturn doesn't fall tomorrow, that would be the ultimate week for you.

I wouldn't like to see him fall, I hope he laps the others, make a price for SS

Grandouet

Comments