Punting - why value is the key

Pinesky

I agree value is a key component to overall betting strategy but it is not possible to truly compute absolute value before the race ends because there are unknown chance factors , horse is sick , left in stalls , poor ride, fall, brought down, baulkef, trapped on rail , not get clear run etc.Maybe all these variables can be deemed to result in good luck or bad luck.
What I do subscribe to is if you back a horse at 2/1 that should be 1/1 you have a better chance of making money than if you do the reverse but it is not absolutely guaranteed .

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

If you give a specific example I'll try derive an estimate of this "large number". It would be no more than an approximation however
......................................

Despite your last comment You are spuriously attempting to undermine my opinion and you're not doing a very good job tbh

Backing 10 to 15 horses a year over 50 years, total number of bets 500 to 750, large number ?? Yes or No.

I'm not undermining your opinion, I'll agree to be disagreeing with your blanket application of the large number theory to punting.

You can claim I'm not making a good job of it all you like, there are countless statistically valid sampling plans that illustrate the importance of having an appropriate sample size. When looking at attribute data (win or lose for example), the sample size needs to be large to make any conclusions. With variable data and appropriate analysis smaller sample sizes are ideal but the able analyst will appreciate there will be variation is results across pools of data so only a confidence statement will be made.

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

By the way please give a case where the law of large numbers is not applicable?

Anywhere there isn't a large sample size.

As per above 10 to 15 bets a year on UK/Irish horse racing when there are over 10,000 races per year

droidman123

Slattsy wrote: »

I hear you barking big dog.
Value is key clearly, but everyone's opinion of value is different. Because of opinion and assumptions.

I never get too caught up in the statistics side of things. I follow form. If I think a horse should be evens and the bookies price it up at 2/1 then I'll steam in.
The flip side to that is.... If I price a nag up at 3/1 and think it will win, but the bookies price it up at 7/4, do I still back it? If I think it will win then of course I'll back it. That's how I roll.

There are instances where I believe a horse are underpriced and i won't play though. And then I'll look elsewhere or call it a no bet race.

Everyone prices, picks, studies horses in their own unique way.

There was a lot of nonsense posted but as I say, each to their own. I'm like Luxembourg, I try to stay neutral :-)

as usual slattsey, you probably talk the most sense on here. i think this all started with me stating that if i thought a horse that i really fancied in a race was,say,6/1 and i thought he should be 8/1 i would back it anyway.but as usual self styled guru,s on here start making a mountain out of a mole hill. does anyone really think that a load of stats about betting mathemethics would make me change my way of punting?:rolleyes: i have my way and others have theirs.its really is that simple.

premierstone

Here's a link I came accross that might help those who are still adamant that Value is not the single most important factor to sucessfull punting - http://www.geegeez.co.uk/25524/

BQQ

premierstone wrote: »

Here's a link I came accross that might help those who are still adamant that Value is not the single most important factor to sucessfull punting - http://www.geegeez.co.uk/25524/

Value betting is based on making your own tissue prices.
You do that by reading the form.
Do it wrong and your prices are worthless.

Seems to me that reading the form properly is the single most important factor to successful punting.

Something that the writer of that article seems unable to do btw.
He seems to be looking for something to confirm his pre-race analysis, rather than accepting he got it wrong.
He says his selection was the only one making ground in the closing stages off a slow pace, but in fact, the horse than came second was held up and stayed on too. And obviously better than his selection. Maybe he didn't notice as it was one of the horses he categorically ruled out beforehand.

premierstone

premierstone wrote: »

Here's a link I came accross that might help those who are still adamant that Value is not the single most important factor to sucessfull punting - http://www.geegeez.co.uk/25524/

I'm a firm believer in value and tissue prices etc, I aim to lay about 3000 to 4000 short priced horses in 2013 and make a decent wad of cash in doing so. We all know if you lay 3000 to 4000 horses on the exchanges willy nillly you'll lose your arse.

I can completely see how someone can just accept that the bookies are aiming to take 10 to 15% from bets and punt away selectively ignoring the value concept and just back horses (10, 20 ish a year) that they think have an awfully decent chance of winning.

Value is immaterial to them, the result is all they care about.

I'm different, I don't really care about the result, all I'm bothered about is laying at a price I consider to be poor value for the backer. If I do that 200/300 times a month I'm happy, I know 1 in 3 / 1 in 4 of them will win.

If I was only laying 20 horses a year the result would be far more important than the value side of things.

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

Backing 10 to 15 horses a year over 50 years, total number of bets 500 to 750, large number ?? Yes or No.

The law of large numbers does not answer this question, indeed it was never intended to do so.

If by "large number" you mean "guaranteed to win" the number is infinity. The best you can do is say I'm happy to accept a probability of p% that I'll win money and try derive how many bets you need to place

In the example in the OP if you have 750 bets you win with probability 89.9%

If you only punt 4/6 shots that should be 1/2 then if you place 750 bets the probability you win is 99.9943%

Are these probabilities acceptable to your risk tolerance? If so then 750 is "large" if not then 750 is not

RoverJames wrote: »

I'm not undermining your opinion, I'll agree to be disagreeing with your blanket application of the large number theory to punting.

My blanket application was value is key. The law of large numbers merely supports this

RoverJames wrote: »

You can claim I'm not making a good job of it all you like, there are countless statistically valid sampling plans that illustrate the importance of having an appropriate sample size. When looking at attribute data (win or lose for example), the sample size needs to be large to make any conclusions. With variable data and appropriate analysis smaller sample sizes are ideal but the able analyst will appreciate there will be variation is results across pools of data so only a confidence statement will be made.

......

Anywhere there isn't a large sample size.

As per above 10 to 15 bets a year on UK/Irish horse racing when there are over 10,000 races per year

The lack of a large sample size doesn't invalidate the statement that "value is key". Nor does it make the law of large numbers inapplicable

All a small sample size does is:

1. Make the probability a "bad" punter can manage to win larger and conversely the probability a "good" punter can lose larger
2. Make assessing whether you are correctly sizing up a bookmakers odds accurately more difficult

All the law of large numbers says is that the larger number of bets the closer your RoI will be to EV (whether that EV is positive or negative)

Even if you only have 1 bet every 5 years why would you not place that bet at favourable odds?

I bet there are people who have won the lotto after playing a handful of time, yet playing the lotto is as irrational a gambling strategy as you can get

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

........



My blanket application was value is key. The law of large numbers merely supports this
.............

Again I'll repeat, for someone selectively backing 15 horse per annum, value isn't key, the result is. They just accept the bookie have taken their cut (many would expect all of their selections to be priced consistently "unfairly") and the punter ploughs on. They presume the price is no better or no worse than most of the other days prices and they feel they have an edge due to their knowledge or interpretation of the race and the other horses in it.

It's very easy to speel on about value, in punting circles it's the done thing. It's not so easy to show positive ROI over a period, a few on here have done so, most haven't.

All this talk of value and favourable odds is merely bluster unless you can demonstrate you have the capability to find value and favourable odds. It's like people talking about curling free kicks into the corner around the wall.

There are imo as few people backing selections that are value consistently as there are people with +ive ROIs, there are plenty people who talk about both though, hurler on the ditch for want of a better analogy

You mention .....

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

........

All a small sample size does is:

1. Make the probability a "bad" punter can manage to win larger and conversely the probability a "good" punter can lose larger
2. Make assessing whether you are correctly sizing up a bookmakers odds accurately more difficult.... ...........

Can you not concede there are other options, such as ...

3. The punters small number of bets (15) over the period showed they might well actually know more about racing than the majority of punters due to a high percentage of them winning.

Or is it a case of it's just option 1 or option 2?

I'm becoming increasingly bewildered at your reluctance to admit certain posters might be better at picking winners than the rest of us.

You also haven't offered an approximation of what a large number would be, I asked would you consider 15 bets a year over 50 years a large number, the answer to that is Yes or No.

Huntley

A final few words on the issue here as very few people seem to be acknowledging my opinion constructively.

BQQ wrote: »

Value betting is based on making your own tissue prices.
You do that by reading the form.
Do it wrong and your prices are worthless.

Seems to me that reading the form properly is the single most important factor to successful punting.

Precisely. Really enjoyed your take on the issue here aswell http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056832228&page=12

RoverJames wrote: »

I can completely see how someone can just accept that the bookies are aiming to take 10 to 15% from bets and punt away selectively ignoring the value concept and just back horses (10, 20 ish a year) that they think have an awfully decent chance of winning.

Value is immaterial to them, the result is all they care about.

I'm different, I don't really care about the result, all I'm bothered about is laying at a price I consider to be poor value for the backer. If I do that 200/300 times a month I'm happy, I know 1 in 3 / 1 in 4 of them will win.

If I was only laying 20 horses a year the result would be far more important than the value side of things.

Top notch angle once again James, and portrayed with much more astuteness than I could have done so myself.

Glad to see that others can understand my view on this topic to an extent and not be affected by the red mist bandwagon that others succumbed to.

I must reiterate however that I have never said that I think the price of an animal or value is totally irrelevant as many have suggested.

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.

I have a different opinion on the importance of 'value' than the majority here but those who have suggested that I am "fundamentally incorrect" is a little ironic, one cannot be incorrect about a subjective topic.

The idea that a 'good' or 'bad' punter is solely based on their adherence to theories and statistics is far too literal. I would have great difficulty in accepting that a punter who can make money from the game could be classified as a 'bad' punter.

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

Again I'll repeat, for someone selectively backing 15 horse per annum, value isn't key, the result is. They just accept the bookie have taken their cut (many would expect all of their selections to be priced consistently "unfairly") and the punter ploughs on. They presume the price is no better or no worse than most of the other days prices and they feel they have an edge due to their knowledge or interpretation of the race and the other horses in it.

I'll repeat, someone merely concentrating on backing winners yet not getting value is more likely to result in losing money. If you are taking bad value bets but you make money over a finite time span this is a statistical anomaly or down to "chance" or variance

I've stated repeatedly that a "good" punter can end up losing money but a "bad" punter can end up winning money in the short term. Spin the coin once, the 4/6 punter might win and indeed outperform the 11/10 punter but is a very "bad" punter

A person might win the lotto twice over their lifetime but still be a poor gambler, in fact merely doing the lotto (as a gambling medium) is an indication of this

A roulette punter who can show a +ive RoI over his life is still a "bad" punter despite expecting to have a near 50% strike rate. It's pure chance (s)he managed to win via the medium of roulette

RoverJames wrote: »

It's very easy to speel on about value, in punting circles it's the done thing. It's not so easy to show positive ROI over a period, a few on here have done so, most haven't.

I'd like to know where I have said otherwise. In any case a +ive RoI is not alone an indication that the punter is "shrewd". The more the number of bets a +ive RoI is based on implies the higher the probability that the successful RoI is bad on "shrewdness" and not "chance" (this is the crux of the law of large numbers)

RoverJames wrote: »

All this talk of value and favourable odds is merely bluster unless you can demonstrate you have the capability to find value and favourable odds. It's like people talking about curling free kicks into the corner around the wall.

I have never stated I, or anyone else, are all singing all dancing greatest punter. What I have stated is that value is the fundamental principle of gambling.

RoverJames wrote: »

There are imo as few people backing selections that are value consistently as there are people with +ive ROIs

I don't actually understand what you're saying here. To show a +ive RoI over a long series of bets you must punt at value prices so I'd expect

"people backing selections that are value consistently" to be approximately equal to "people with +ive ROIs"

RoverJames wrote: »

Can you not concede there are other options, such as ...

3. The punters small number of bets (15) over the period showed they might well actually know more about racing than the majority of punters due to a high percentage of them winning.

The punter is either a "good" punter or a "bad" punter in the terms I've defined (regardless of strike rate). This is a fact

We cannot ascertain this credibly with a small sample size. Your 3 is actually a mixture of my 1 & 2. Plenty of people can pick the most likely winner but if they bet without the odds being in their favour in the long run they will lose

RoverJames wrote: »

I'm becoming increasingly bewildered at your reluctance to admit certain posters might be better at picking winners than the rest of us.

I have never said this may not be the case. what I have said that people picking winners with no regard for price are "bad" punters and any wins are statistical anomalies

I don't care if punter X can pick more winners than punter y, if punter X consistently places "bad" bets and punter y consistently picks "good" bets then punter y is "better", irrespective of strike rates

What I have said is that value is the key not picking winners

RoverJames wrote: »

You also haven't offered an approximation of what a large number would be, I asked would you consider 15 bets a year over 50 years a large number, the answer to that is Yes or No.

I have replied to this twice, and the answer is not yes or no. It's like asking will I win the lotto this year? The answer is not yes or no. The best you do is formulate the problem and approximate a probability the person will win or lose. Let me refresh your memory

The law of large numbers does not answer this question, indeed it was never intended to do so.

If by "large number" you mean "guaranteed to win" the number is infinity. The best you can do is say I'm happy to accept a probability of p% that I'll win money and try derive how many bets you need to place

In the example in the OP if you have 750 bets you win with probability 89.9%

If you only punt 4/6 shots that should be 1/2 then if you place 750 bets the probability you win is 99.9943%

Are these probabilities acceptable to your risk tolerance? If so then 750 is "large" if not then 750 is not

You seem to have read "law of large numbers" and focused on the 2 words "large numbers". The law of large numbers will not and was never intended to tell you what a large number is (nor have I claimed it would). Its application to gambling is:

1. over a long period of time your actual strike rate will get closer and closer to your expected strike rate
2. over a long period of time your actual RoI will get closer and closer to your EV. If you are a -EV punter the more bets you place the less likely it is you finish ahead due to variance.

In a limited set of circumstances you can derive the probability p% of winning given n bets but in most cases you would have to make a lot of assumptions and end up with a very approximate answer

To recap what I stated in my OP:

1. you cannot win money in the long run if you do not consistently obtain odds that under estimate your selections chances
2. A "good" punter can lose in the short term but the more "good" bets (s)he places the less likely it is they will show a -ive RoI
3. Conversely a "bad" punter can win in the short term but the more "bad" bets (s)he places the more likely it is they will show a -ive RoI

and this is why value is the key not merely picking the most likely winner irrespective of price

Colonel Sanders

Huntley wrote: »

I would have great difficulty in accepting that a punter who can make money from the game could be classified as a 'bad' punter.

What about a person who plays the same numbers each week on the lotto and manages to win the jackpot. This person has shown a profit playing lotto, I still think they're a "bad" punter

Ditto a lad walks into a casino and blindly bets on red on a roulette wheel. He walks out showing a profit, I still think that person is a "bad" punter

Colonel Sanders

Huntley wrote: »

I must reiterate however that I have never said that I think the price of an animal or value is totally irrelevant as many have suggested.

I have a different opinion on the importance of 'value' than the majority here but those who have suggested that I am "fundamentally incorrect" is a little ironic, one cannot be incorrect about a subjective topic.

You said the following:

Value has no importance if you are consistently picking losers

If you are consistently getting value the more "good" bets you place the greater the probability you end up with a +ive RoI

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

This invalidates the law of large numbers

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

The law of large numbers does assuming you want to win in the long run

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.

This is pure toss

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

so the 4/6 punter in the coin toss example got value and is a shrewd punter

Where is the mathematical fact that states value is the most fundamental aspect of gambling?

The law of large numbers

he only marker is the selection winning

Selecting horses that can win is far more important.

I determine value by the selection that is most likely to win.

What value is there in a losing selection? In my opinion, there is none.

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

All of the above is incorrect, while I do agree that one's perception of value is subjective

Colonel Sanders

No need to refresh my memory, I did not ask did the law of large numbers answer the question, also by large number I did not mean guaranteed to win, I actually don't know where you pulled that query from..........

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

The law of large numbers does not answer this question, indeed it was never intended to do so.

If by "large number" you mean "guaranteed to win" the number is infinity. The best you can do is say I'm happy to accept a probability of p% that I'll win money and try derive how many bets you need to place

I shall repeat myself and again request an answer, as I have mentioned I believe in value etc and understand completely how over a large number of selections it is important, here comes the question now CS.............

Is 15 bets per annum over 50 years a large number in your view ?



I firmly believe the law of large numbers can be applied to 15 roulette spins, 15 rolls of a die etc etc etc due to the repetitive nature of the event and the lack of external variance effecting the event and result.

I also firmly believe that a selective punter can identify a small number of betting opportunities over the course of a year where he feels a selection has a huge chance of winning, again this selective punter would be buying into the idea that the bookies are taking 10 to 15% out of the market and that some of his 15 selections may be bang on pricewise, some might be undepriced and some may be overpriced, he cares not one jot as he lets the bookies do their job and he does his

I've highlighted the question in bold for you, I'll also make the following points as you seem a tad confused as to what I was asking....

- By "large number" I do not mean "guaranteed to win", I mean is the integer in question considered a large number in your view, the size of the number is independent of the results.
- I am not asking does the law of large numbers answer the question, I am asking do you think 750 bets (on horseracing, UK and Irish), over 50 years is a large number.
- the answer is either YES or NO or I am not answering

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

Is 15 bets per annum over 50 years a large number in your view ?

I am assuming by "large" you mean it's large enough such that the probability a good punters returns a +ive RoI is quite high

If this is the correct interpretation then in my view 750 bets is "large". So "Yes"

RoverJames wrote: »

the answer is either YES or NO or I am not answering

FWIW it is not a simple Yes or No question, answering "Yes" or "No" is subjective, similar to me asking will the lotto be won next Saturday

Interesting, cheers for the answer

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

Interesting, cheers for the answer

Apologises for the pedantry

I think it's a symptom of doing a pure maths degree

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

................

I think it's a symptom of doing a pure maths degree

No bother at all, you might be right :pac:

The old one about the mathematician maintaining a battery is never fully charges whereas the scientist considers the battery fully charged after the charging curve levels out (sort of like radioactive decay and the 5 half lifes carry on)


I've mentioned already anyway but I'd consider a lifetime punting total of 750 bets over 50 years as very small due to there being 10,000 + ish races in the UK and Ireland per annum.

I reckon if a chap is that selective that he's operating in a somewhat stratospherical level and at a level of activity that wouldn't lend itself to an outsider making any sense of his methods.

Wouldn't be cut out for it myself tbh

Although I haven't had a decent bet on a horse since the Christmas period and don't expect to have any soon either.

dave3004

I read (I think it was RJ) who said value is immaterial to bookies and the result is all that matters. Just to let you know. Thats wrong.

We are as value based as the punter is. Maybe more so.

The only way to beat the bookies is to pick the value in their markets. The only way you can pick value if is there is some to pick.

Quick Example for ya.

If Joe Bloggs has 5 bets, all 10/1 pops. He puts 1k on all of them on the nose. They all win at 12/1. Hes taken 50k off the bookies.

Joan Briggs has 5 bets all 10/1 pops. She puts 1k on all them. They all lose at an SP of 4/1.

Joan Briggs account will be closed down before Joe Bloggs. Its not the result that matters to bookies, its value & shrewd punters.

If the punters business looks shrewd we will exclude them. But we still allow people who are beating us to keep betting cause we know we will get them in the long run.

Dont know if its been mentioned before but bookies have price marks too which help us remove value from markets. So lets say Joe Bloggs is a shrewdie. We only let him on to win 1k in any race. I go up early market on a race in Newbury and he backs a 20/1 pop. Once I see that bet in my screen (it will pop up coz hes shrewd). I will turn off the price a few rolls. Into 16s or so. Now anyone else who fancies it will be getting paid 16 to the euro and not 20. So although Joe Bloggs will beat the bookie consistently, he saves thousands for us in every race and his business is worthwhile.

Excellent thread guys.

RoverJames

RoverJames wrote: »

I'm a firm believer in value and tissue prices etc, I aim to lay about 3000 to 4000 short priced horses in 2013 and make a decent wad of cash in doing so. We all know if you lay 3000 to 4000 horses on the exchanges willy nillly you'll lose your arse.

I can completely see how someone can just accept that the bookies are aiming to take 10 to 15% from bets and punt away selectively ignoring the value concept and just back horses (10, 20 ish a year) that they think have an awfully decent chance of winning.

Value is immaterial to them, the result is all they care about.

I'm different, I don't really care about the result, all I'm bothered about is laying at a price I consider to be poor value for the backer. If I do that 200/300 times a month I'm happy, I know 1 in 3 / 1 in 4 of them will win.

If I was only laying 20 horses a year the result would be far more important than the value side of things.

dave3004 wrote: »

I read (I think it was RJ) who said value is immaterial to bookies and the result is all that matters. Just to let you know. Thats wrong..............

You misread my speel

The "them" I was on about was the backer, not the bookie

I crudely reference the 10 to 15% as the bookies cut, I know it's often more and often less but in guesstimate land 10 to 15% does me fine

As a layer, as I mentioned above the result isn't a concern to me, only the price I lay at.

I'm going to stick my neck out a bit, I've about €1500 in my betfair account, built up from €200 last August, by laying and laying alone I'm hoping to get that to €10,000 + by end of 2013, mainly at the weekends. Value is all I worry about in that sphere. I have been posting my results after every 600 lays in the gambling forum and will continue to do so.

Slattsy

RoverJames wrote: »

I'm going to stick my neck out a bit, I've about €1500 in my betfair account, built up from €200 last August, by laying and laying alone

Impressive.

I've never laid a horse in my life (i've laid a few hounds mind you ) but its something i've often thought about but never get around to.
I may make a concerted effort to lay the odd one soon though.
I'll try find that log of yours and look for some advice and how you pick them.
Good luck getting to 10k.

Slattsy

Slattsy wrote: »

Impressive...............
Good luck getting to 10k.

Cheers

It's not a log though as I can't manage a log and getting my lays away at the price I need, as you may appreciate. A log would be incredibly boring, this one is underpriced............. so is this one........... and this one :pac:

It's the aftertiming thread I'll post in after every 600 lays

To be honest, by the end of quarter three Ideally I want to be at €12K at least, so that's €10.5k profit from now to the end of September (If there's €10k total there at year end, fair enough but I won't have performed to expectation)

Summer will be my busiest time with evening racing, with the ole day job I can only lay horses Fri, Sat and Sun during the winter

droidman123

Theres no such thing as a shrewd punter, only a shrewd bookie. Simplistic but true.

ft9

Huntley wrote: »

A final few words on the issue here as very few people seem to be acknowledging my opinion constructively.



Precisely. Really enjoyed your take on the issue here aswell http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056832228&page=12



Top notch angle once again James, and portrayed with much more astuteness than I could have done so myself.

Glad to see that others can understand my view on this topic to an extent and not be affected by the red mist bandwagon that others succumbed to.

I must reiterate however that I have never said that I think the price of an animal or value is totally irrelevant as many have suggested.


I have a different opinion on the importance of 'value' than the majority here but those who have suggested that I am "fundamentally incorrect" is a little ironic, one cannot be incorrect about a subjective topic.

The idea that a 'good' or 'bad' punter is solely based on their adherence to theories and statistics is far too literal. I would have great difficulty in accepting that a punter who can make money from the game could be classified as a 'bad' punter.

Huntley, anything people have against you here is purely personal. I have yet to see you proven wrong. Ireland is full of begrudger's and this forum is no different, why you're still posting here is beyond me? They won't be happy till you're gone, and listen to Bull**** opinions they agree with

RichieLawlor

RichieLawless wrote: »

I have yet to see you proven wrong.

Are you having difficulty reading or is it the comprehension you are struggling with?

ft9

RichieLawlor wrote: »

Are you having difficulty reading or is it the comprehension you are struggling with?

What has he been proven wrong with?

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

What has he been proven wrong with?

See posts 14, 15 & 43

Any post relying on the law of large numbers can be disregarded as its not relevent to selective punting. Throws of the dice and tossing coins are fair enough, someone knowing their beans can conceptually pick events where a single selection has what they consider an extraordinary chance of success, as its their view no one could actually comment on if the selections are value or not, people might interpret them as being value due to high ROI but that's a tenuous link with a small sample size.

Some people try and find value, using methods that are in their view sound, others buy into the bookies being able to do their job most of the time so they look for horses with extraordinary chances of winning.

As these people might get on before the bandwagon they might well be getting value, that wasn't what brought the selection to their attention though.

ft9

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

See posts 14, 15 & 43

Went to number 43 and saw the words 'coin toss'. So didn't bother with the other two.

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

Went to number 43 and saw the words 'coin toss'. So didn't bother with the other two.

Coin toss was used as an illustration, and has been repeatedly through this thread. Not as an all encompassing generalisation but as a simple numerical example that anyone can understand to illustrate the point

It was a valid illustration of the point at hand, if you can't understand that you are posting in the wrong thread

Some people don't want to learn....

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

Any post relying on the law of large numbers can be disregarded as its not relevent to selective punting.

Not quite sure how many times I've repeated this, but for the last time

the crux of my OP and this thread was that you cannot win money in the long run without value prices

The law of large numbers formally shows this. If you can tell me how it doesn't be my guest

It is relevant to selective punting if by "selective" one means only betting when the odds are in one's favour, whether such an opportunity comes along once every hour or once every year