Punting - why value is the key

Morgans

what I think you arent getting is that if you dont concentrate on betting on those opportunities that 1.01, you are automatically getting involved with value. It just appears that you dont recognise that.

What is the reason when a selection becomes worthy of a bet for you?

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

You're struggling with it as for you to accept it can happen you have to either label it a fluke or label the punter a bad punter.

You're either arguing a different point that I am or haven't a clue what I posted

I defined what I am calling a "bad" punter as someone who makes bets with -EV. If that person shows a +ive RoI over 750 bets it is a fluke, they have been "lucky". You're really struggling with that. In the case you stated, i.e. they are only getting 85% of the "fair" price it would be a huge fluke to show a +ive RoI over 750 bets

Do you disagree with what I have said above? And don't simply answer yes or no, back up what you say.

RoverJames wrote: »

This shows you're application of the theory you are spouting is flawed, plenty of folks with degrees don't know what they've studied fully, lots of them won't admit it.

There is no flaw in what I have "spouted" that I can see, any of the alledged "flaws" you pick up are either not flawed or you have done a very bad job in exposing their flaws

RoverJames wrote: »

750 bets is a tiny number, take winning SPs in lots of 750 and you'll see substantial variance.

I disagree, under a set of not too limiting assumptions you could derive a reasonable estimate of the probabilities I am referring to with 750 bets

And here you are again referring to events and potential bets that were not placed rather than the series of 750 bets on which we are evaluating

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

Inferences can of course be made with sample sizes of less than infinity, and for dice rolls etc 750 I would consider a large number, not for horseracing though as There are too many variables.

for the calculation I am proposing there are only 2 variables:

1. Price obtained
2. Fair price

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

So in a nutshell RJ where did I state that a "bad" punter could not show a +ive RoI over a series of 750 bets (or in the parlance I've been using where did I state that the probability a "bad" punter would show a +ive RoI over 750 bets was zero)

You seem to have implied that I did indeed state that.

And still no indication where I said the above

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

And still no indication where I said the above

I actually have more pressing things to do than respond to 4 or 5 posts, don't lose the head old boy

Colonel Sanders

eg a punter bets at an average price of 5/1. However, on average, they only get 85% of the "fair" price

The probability this bettor doesn't lose over the course of 750 bets is 5.6%

In other words they are just over a 1.059 shot to lose money

I am comfortable saying that someone who fails to lose money over 750 bets betting at an average price of 5/1 but only getting 85% of the "fair" price is lucky

EDIT: btw I'm comfortable saying anyone placing even one -EV bet but winning is lucky even if the bet is very likely to win. eg someone placing a bet on a 1/100 shot when the "fair" price is 1/50 is a fool in my book even though there is a probability of over 98% that they will win

Huntley

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

I am awaiting your proof that the law of large numbers is either false or flawed, as you have repeatedly implicily stated by saying the gist of my OP is flawed

I have never stated that the law of large numbers is incorrect. I have said that your application of such theories being the most fundamental aspect in this circumstance is flawed. The flaw being that I place more credence on ones ability to read race form properly and select winners than finding 'value' (Note that I have said that I do take account of value, just not with the same importance that you do). My evidence of being able to follow this and show a positive RoI is through my own methods, two separate logs on here are proof of that. You regard that as merely down to luck or a fluke.

Again, I still think that this whole topic is subjective which is why your insistence on merely acknowledging your own view as 'correct' has resulted in my loss of interest debating with you. My own evidence of not adhering to your view whilst still showing to prove successful isn't satisfactory enough for you because there isn't a mathematical equation to support it. Hence why I have said that your view that successful gambling is solely based on adhering to statistics and theories is far too literal. I don't do so, yet have been able to show that one can be quite successful placing more emphasis on other aspects when gambling.

Morgans wrote: »

The key is picking the horse you think will win the race AND that horse representing value for long term success.

I wouldn't dispute the above.

The difference is that I regard the first part as more fundamental to successful gambling and Colonel Sanders gives more credence to the second part.

It isn't difficult to take account of both opinions (not facts), as you have done so yourself. The only one struggling to do so is Colonel Sanders, who is insistent on repeating his stance without acknowledging the flip side of the coin. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

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

The probability this bettor doesn't lose over the course of 750 bets is 5.6%

In other words they are just over a 1.059 shot to lose money

I am comfortable saying that someone who fails to lose money over 750 bets betting at an average price of 5/1 but only getting 85% of the "fair" price is lucky

I think that there is a tiny minority of people who could do it due to knowing more than the rest of us. Again, I'm a firm believer that the bookies price up the vast majority of events consistently.

Someone as good at picking winners as Beckham is with a dead ball sort of skill

Again how many people make money from gambling? A tiny tiny percentage of punters.

To decide are these few punters lucky, value hunters or excellent form interpreters isn't really for you or me to decide.

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

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

EDIT: btw I'm comfortable saying anyone placing even one -EV bet but winning is lucky even if the bet is very likely to win. eg someone placing a bet on a 1/100 shot when the "fair" price is 1/50 is a fool in my book even though there is a probability of over 98% that they will win

But of course how do you determine the fair odds of a horse? Entirely subjective regardless of the result. If a horse is backed from 4s into 2s and wins what was the fair price? Was 4s value?? Was 2s ?? No one will ever know. Again, it's not spins of a roullette wheel or throwing a dice, over thousands of results patterns emerge admittedly. Each race presents a unique set of variances that some people interpret better than others.

Overthelast

Colonel/Huntey -

Apologies to interrupt the debate but I have a question - is it possible you are both right?

ie Colonels op is a mathematical fact but Huntey can ignore value given his method of punting & still come out a winner (ignoring the exteme's of backing odds on shots)?

faoile@n

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)

Huntley you appear to be changing tack as the thread evolves.

Do you still think the following is true from the Grandouet thread?

ft9

Overthelast wrote: »

Colonel/Huntey -

Apologies to interrupt the debate but I have a question - is it possible you are both right?

ie Colonels op is a mathematical fact but Huntey can ignore value given his method of punting & still come out a winner (ignoring the exteme's of backing odds on shots)?

No both can't possibly be right as Colonel is completely dismissing Huntleys success and putting it down to 'fluke'.

faoile@n

faoile@n wrote: »

Huntley you appear to be changing tack as the thread evolves.

Do you still think the following is true from the Grandouet thread?

..... He said the same thing days ago.

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

No both can't possibly be right as Colonel is completely dismissing Huntleys success and putting it down to 'fluke'.

No I'm not which you would see if you
1. Had a clue what you're talking about (your last post on this thread indicated you don't, or found the concepts too hard)
2. actually read what I said

ft9

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

No I'm not which you would see if you
1. Had a clue what you're talking about (your last post on this thread indicated you don't, or found the concepts too hard)
2. actually read what I said

No one know's anything only you, seemingly. I closed all my online accounts recently and the majority were money making accounts. So I must have been flukey to make money in the few years I spent gambling online as I don't have a clue according to you. And Huntley has been very successful too and you are completely dismissing him.

You referred me to a post about tossing coins. I have no interest in discussing tossing coins with you.

The more this thread goes on you get more nasty as someone doesn't agree with you.

RichieLawlor

RichieLawless wrote: »

No one know's anything only you, seemingly. I closed all my online accounts recently and the majority were money making accounts. So I must have been flukey to make money in the few years I spent gambling online as I don't have a clue according to you. And Huntley has been very successful too and you are completely dismissing him.

You referred me to a post about tossing coins. I have no interest in discussing tossing coins with you.

The more this thread goes on you get more nasty as someone doesn't agree with you.

It's not Colonel Sanders that you have to agree with. It's a statistical fact. It's not his opinion.

The coin toss was an EXAMPLE, of what he is saying. The fact you can't comprehend that is frankly baffling.

Overthelast

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

No I'm not which you would see if you
1. Had a clue what you're talking about (your last post on this thread indicated you don't, or found the concepts too hard)
2. actually read what I said

Ok. Mr X focuses on backing winners. In doing do, to make a profit, he is implicitly getting value, although that does not form part of his decision making in backing a horse ie he focuses solely on form & finding a winning opportunity.

The reason I ask is I have a friend who is quite similar to Huntey (in punting terms) - I see you Colonel spotting price differentials/arb opportunities all the time (a lot quicker than I'd ever spot them) but my mate couldn't give a fiddlers about these in selecting his fights with bookies. He focuses solely (and very successfully) on trying to pick winners. He restricts himself to betting on track at the same 5 or 6 meetings each yr & makes money consistently. While he is getting value, for him, its not key or his focus.

I understand fully & agree with the mathematical facts you have stated - but I can see how a punter can be very successful by just focusing on picking their X no of "fights" per yr with the layers by selecting horses purely based on form. For them, finding value is secondary. Their implicity getting value, but its not "key" to their success.

ft9

RichieLawlor wrote: »

It's not Colonel Sanders that you have to agree with. It's a statistical fact. It's not his opinion.

The coin toss was an EXAMPLE, of what he is saying. The fact you can't comprehend that is frankly baffling.

I can comprehend the example of a coin toss with relation to value. But coins have no form, jockey, optimum trip, preferable ground, fences to jump.

Have me and Huntley been lucky with our gambling to date?

Slattsy

RichieLawless wrote: »

I can comprehend the example of a coin toss with relation to value. But coins have no form, jockey, optimum trip, preferable ground, fences to jump.

+1

RichieLawlor

RichieLawless wrote: »

I can comprehend the example of a coin toss with relation to value. But coins have no form, jockey, optimum trip, preferable ground, fences to jump.

Have me and Huntley been lucky with our gambling to date?

You actually don't understand. I'm not being dismissive here but you really don't get it.

Just answer this. If someone tosses a coin ten times and you are backing heads every time at 4/6 and win every time is it a good bet. You win all ten but have taken 4/6 on the bet.

ft9

RichieLawlor wrote: »

You actually don't understand. I'm not being dismissive here but you really don't get it.

Just answer this. If someone tosses a coin ten times and you are backing heads every time at 4/6 and win every time is it a good bet. You win all ten but have taken 4/6 on the bet.

I really do understand Richie, it's simple stuff. No it's not a good bet. But coins have no form, jockey, optimum trip, preferable ground, fences to jump. + many other factors.

faoile@n

Seeing as the coin toss EXAMPLE isn't sufficient answer me this...

Arsenal play West Ham at home tomorrow night.

Form analysis, Manager history, Available players known in advance etc: CHECK
Weather forecast available in advance: CHECK
Arsenal are the most likely winners: CHECK
Value isn't as important as picking winners: CHECK

If I offer you 1/100 that Arsenal will win would you back them?

If not why not?

Answers on a postcard...

RoverJames

RoverJames wrote: »

............the bookies price up the vast majority of events consistently...................

faoile@n wrote: »

............
Arsenal play West Ham at home tomorrow night.

..............If I offer you 1/100 that Arsenal will win would you back them?

If not why not?

.........

That was an easy one.

Here's one for you, what price should Arsenel be in your opinion?

If you don't know you can use any future sporting event for illustration purposes once there's a market offer to use as comparison.

ft9

I'm not saying value is irrelevant, I am not debating that. It does play a small part in my gambling.

It's the attitude of the thread I have issue with, and these feckin coin tosses. I'm presuming that the coin toss is just being used as you think people don't understand what value is and you are aware it has nothing to do with racing?

Colonel Sanders

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"

Also some people have stated they have no problem with the law of large numbers but do have a problem with stating value is fundamental. If you think really hard about it that is a contradictory viewpoint

Colonel Sanders

Huntley wrote: »

I have never stated that the law of large numbers is incorrect. I have said that your application of such theories being the most fundamental aspect in this circumstance is flawed.

This is actually a contradictory view btw. (

Huntley wrote: »

My evidence of being able to follow this and show a positive RoI is through my own methods, two separate logs on here are proof of that. You regard that as merely down to luck or a fluke

Incorrect, what I stated was:

If you have shown a +ive RoI over a long time period you have either
1. been lucky
2. have implicitly only backed what you deem the likeliest winner if you think the odds are in your favour (and have, on average, been proved correct)

There is a probability, p, attached to 1 and a probability 1-p attached to 2. Th longer the number of bets the +ive RoI is based on the smaller I'd belive p to be (however it is never zero)

Huntley wrote: »

Again, I still think that this whole topic is subjective which is why your insistence on merely acknowledging your own view as 'correct' has resulted in my loss of interest debating with you

I view them as "correct" as they are rigourous mathematical results

Huntley wrote: »

My own evidence of not adhering to your view whilst still showing to prove successful isn't satisfactory enough for you because there isn't a mathematical equation to support it

You're "evidence" has been addressed above. You have actually "proved" nothing

Morgans said:

The key is picking the horse you think will win the race AND that horse representing value for long term success.

which you agree with

Huntley wrote: »

The difference is that I regard the first part as more fundamental to successful gambling and Colonel Sanders gives more credence to the second part.

You have previously stated that you give 100% credibility to the first part in fact you said:

Huntley wrote: »

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

Huntley wrote: »

any winning selection is a value bet

But then you say

Huntley wrote: »

It isn't difficult to take account of both opinions (not facts), as you have done so yourself. The only one struggling to do so is Colonel Sanders, who is insistent on repeating his stance without acknowledging the flip side of the coin.

So you do not believe the statement "you cannot win in the long run unless you obtain value"?

If you don't obtain value you will lose in the long run no matter what your strike rate (NB if you're betting on uncertain events the probability of a 100% strike rate in the long run is 0)

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

I think that there is a tiny minority of people who could do it due to knowing more than the rest of us. Again, I'm a firm believer that the bookies price up the vast majority of events consistently.

I believe there to be none

RoverJames wrote: »

I
To decide are these few punters lucky, value hunters or excellent form interpreters isn't really for you or me to decide.

I'm repeating myself but this view is backed up by wht I outlined in my OP, which you claim to agree with

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

No both can't possibly be right as Colonel is completely dismissing Huntleys success and putting it down to 'fluke'.

Incorrect what I said was:

If you have shown a +ive RoI over a long time period you have either
1. been lucky
2. have implicitly only backed what you deem the likeliest winner if you think the odds are in your favour (and have, on average, been proved correct)

RichieLawless wrote: »

No one know's anything only you, seemingly.

Where have I said that? What I have said is no one has presented an alternative view to my OP based on anything but what is effectively conjecture

RichieLawless wrote: »

I closed all my online accounts recently and the majority were money making accounts. So I must have been flukey to make money in the few years I spent gambling online as I don't have a clue according to you. And Huntley has been very successful too and you are completely dismissing him.

See the post above where you accused me of calling Huntley's succes a "fluke"

RichieLawless wrote: »

You referred me to a post about tossing coins. I have no interest in discussing tossing coins with you.

I referred you to post where I stated I had quoted statements Huntley had made that were incorrect as you requested me to do. That post contained examples using coin tosses.

RichieLawless wrote: »

The more this thread goes on you get more nasty as someone doesn't agree with you.

I am not getting "nasty", view points are being put forward that are not backed up with proof. I am merely pointing this out (repeatedly in some cases)

RichieLawless wrote: »

I can comprehend the example of a coin toss with relation to value. But coins have no form, jockey, optimum trip, preferable ground, fences to jump.

A coin toss was used as a simple example where:

1. Prior probabilities are actually known
2. EV's can be explicitly calculated
3. Any ideas being discussed can be illustrated with a numerical example

RichieLawless wrote: »

Have me and Huntley been lucky with our gambling to date?

I have answered this already

Slattsy wrote: »

+1

-1

RichieLawless wrote: »

It's the attitude of the thread I have issue with, and these feckin coin tosses.

My posts in this thread have been quite theoretical, I make no apologises for that as I am expressing a view point based on a topic conceptually easy but mathematically difficult

RichieLawless wrote: »

I'm presuming that the coin toss is just being used as you think people don't understand what value is and you are aware it has nothing to do with racing?

You presume wrong, see above

ft9

So you think a coin toss is like horse racing. That's me done on this thread.

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

So you think a coin toss is like horse racing.

Where did I say that? What I said was

A coin toss was used as a simple example where:

1. Prior probabilities are actually known
2. EV's can be explicitly calculated
3. Any ideas being discussed can be illustrated with a numerical example

1 and 2 are not true for a horse race so how you can infer that I was implying a coin toss is like a horse race is beyond me

RichieLawless wrote: »

That's me done on this thread.

Good, leave the adult thread to the adults

ft9

I said I presume you realise a coin toss has nothing to do withh racing and you said wrong.

Adults thread? There is your nasty streak again shown when your not having it your own way. Traits of a bully.