Grandouet

droidman123

UrbanSea wrote: »

You must not think about value.

There are plenty of times I've fancied a horse but didn't back it cos I've missed a price and it can differ. I may back a 5/4 shot because I think it's a good price for one horse, but might not back a 10/1 shot because I think it's a 16/1. Value is everything

I know all about value, but just say i didnt back the horse because it was only 6-1 and it wins! A lot of if,s and buts. Its just my personal point.

UrbanSea

droidman123 wrote: »

I know all about value, but just say i didnt back the horse because it was only 6-1 and it wins! A lot of if,s and buts. Its just my personal point.

Fair enough, I see you made a point about value just as I posted

droidman123

Arctic89 wrote: »

Then you will lose money in the long term if you continue to back horses that are underpriced.

Obviously doesnt happen with every horse i back, but now and then when the situation crops up i would back the horse regardless if it was 2points shorter than i thought it should be.

Huntley

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Price is everything.

Subjective.

Arctic89 wrote: »

If that doesn't make sense to you, I think you might not understand gambling. Or at least finding value.

'Value' is a subjective term.

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

It actually did not

You said whether a horse was 9/1 or 7/1 had no bearing on whether you should back it if you fancied it to win

This is incorrect if you actually take punting seriously

He cannot be incorrect. Value or price isn't the defining aspect of gambling for everyone, it may be for you. I know plenty of 'shrewdies' (hate that term) who would have very different and compelling arguments on the subject.

Arctic89 wrote: »

Then you will lose money in the long term if you continue to back horses that are underpriced.

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

droidman123 wrote: »

If you fancy it to win, back it,regardless of price.

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.

mdwexford

droidman123 wrote: »

Obviously doesnt happen with every horse i back, but now and then when the situation crops up i would back the horse regardless if it was 2points shorter than i thought it should be.

If the horse is two points shorter than you think it should be then it obviously is not a bet.

I understand you are saying a winner is a winner but if you missed the right price then you should just let it go most of the time.

droidman123

mdwexford wrote: »

If the horse is two points shorter than you think it should be then it obviously is not a bet.

I understand you are saying a winner is a winner but if you missed the right price then you should just let it go most of the time.

So if a horse is 8-1 and by the time i get to the bookies its down to 6-1 and i really fancy it to win, i shouldnt back it?? Suppose it goes on to romp home....i should think...oh well nevermind i didnt get the 8-1 anyway!! Sorry but that really doesnt make sense.

Nulty

droidman123 wrote: »

So if a horse is 8-1 and by the time i get to the bookies its down to 6-1 and i really fancy it to win, i shouldnt back it?? Suppose it goes on to romp home....i should think...oh well nevermind i didnt get the 8-1 anyway!! Sorry but that really doesnt make sense.

If you really fancy it to win then your estimation of it's chances are closer to being represented by a price of 3/1 or 2/1. In that case you just don't understand what your doing.

droidman123

Nulty wrote: »

If you really fancy it to win then your estimation of it's chances are closer to being represented by a price of 3/1 or 2/1. In that case you just don't understand what your doing.

Huh???? What kind of crazy talk is that? Just because i fancy it,doesnt mean it will be a short price.believe me i,ve backed some hairy goats that i have fancied in my day ; )

mdwexford

droidman123 wrote: »

So if a horse is 8-1 and by the time i get to the bookies its down to 6-1 and i really fancy it to win, i shouldnt back it?? Suppose it goes on to romp home....i should think...oh well nevermind i didnt get the 8-1 anyway!! Sorry but that really doesnt make sense.

Depends what price you think the horse should be.

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.

Nulty

droidman123 wrote: »

Huh????

I'm not going to go into detail and cover all possibilities with regard to field size and prices, but if you think the a horse is going to win, then your estimation of it's true price is de facto lower than the price your willing to take.

At what price do you not bet a horse that you think will win? Would you back Big bucks to win the world hurdle (assuming he is still in it) at:

1/1
4/6
1/3
1/5
1/10
1/20
1/50
1/100

Where along that line of price do you think putting you weeks wages on him is just not worth it? Fact is, the chances of him going wrong or breaking down are better than him winning at 1/100.

I'm probably still not making sense but if you don't get it already then you need to think about it more. I'm probably not the person to try and explain it.

Response to your edit: You don't understand what I said. That's not what I mean.

Sorry, I'm just not making any sense here :D

droidman123

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colonel Sanders

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

Reading this thread makes my head hurt.

prettyboy81

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

Huntley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colonel Sanders

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: