Punting - why value is the key

Colonel Sanders

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

Huntley take the following situation:

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

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

Do you bet both horses? If not why not?

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

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

Morgans

Huntley wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

hucklebuck

RichieLawless wrote: »

I LOL'd at that!

You got that one did you?

Baby steps...

hucklebuck

Morgans wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Colonel Sanders

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

Colonel Sanders

hucklebuck wrote: »

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

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

- subjective
- inept
- flawed

hucklebuck

RoverJames wrote: »

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

What is the 15% you are on about?

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

hucklebuck

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

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

- subjective
- inept
- flawed

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

RichieLawlor

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

Overthelast

Good morning.


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

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

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

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


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

mdwexford

mdwexford wrote: »

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

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

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

hucklebuck wrote: »

What is the 15% you are on about?

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

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

Overthelast

For Illustrative Purposes Only!

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

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

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

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

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

Colonel Sanders

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

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

faoile@n

Are you on the wind up Overthelast?

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

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

Overthelast

faoile@n wrote: »

Are you on the wind up Overthelast?

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

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

No.

Colonel Sanders

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

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

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

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

Colonel Sanders

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

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

Colonel Sanders

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

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

He loses and goes home penniless.

Similar scenario to your story above OverTheLast

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

I classify "value" as "fundamental" to gambling

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

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

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

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

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

Again it is a theoretical application of a concept I believe to be fundamental

A concept you claim to understand but have not appeared to on this thread

A concept you claim I am "struggling" with yet despite repeated calls cannot point me to my posts where there is "evidence" of my "struggle"

Colonel Sanders

RJ, did you or did you not state, and I quote:

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

If you did say this it is proof you haven't a clue what you are on about

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

RJ, did you or did you not state, and I quote:

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

If you did say this it is proof you haven't a clue what you are on about

I did indeed, as I consider a number in the range of 750 small out of a pool of over 500k, the selective punter selects this small number of events, the bookies have them priced consistently, some of them are bad value, some are good and some are about right in bookies terms.

Your insistance that the law of large numbers can be applied to a small finite number of non routine selections is nothing short of ludicrous, its not throws of the dice old boy.

You can apply your theory to roulette spins etc if the wheel isn't biased, you can't apply it to everyone's punting habits no matter how much you'd like to.

Your inherent problem is that you apply the fluke or luck label or the value label to all positive ROI from a sample regardless of its size, that's an inherent conceptual flaw that you can't overcome in your own head.

Its born out of an inability to pick winners yourself, regardless of value imo, you than speel out the value muck as you have nothing else to contribute.

If I don't have a clue how did I from a 190 euro betting bank lay over 1000 horses on betfair and now have over 1500? What are the chances of that happening if I don't have a clue?

Colonel Sanders

RJ we have went through this before on this very thread. In which you:

1. Stated I was "struggling" with these concepts yet could not point me to any post where this was apparent
2. You posted a load of rubbish such as the quote above that suggested you don't actually understand the theory of what I am discussing (you've backed this up in your last 2 posts)
3. More than once you've told me I said something I did not
4. Not once when called to point to these posts where I allegedly said these things could you actually do so

If you like re-read what we spend several pages discussing again. I'm not posting the same thing all over again

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

............
3. More than once you've told me I said something I did not
...........

Nothing short of a lie, hardly my fault you can't comprehend

I think it is yourself who posted that "you seem to be saying" when I was saying nothing of the sort, the problem being your comprehension

Regarding rubbish, your application of the law of large numbers to selective punting is nothing short of rubbish.

What's amusing is that even though you have a pure maths degree you can't apply what you've learned (or learned off ) appropriately

From your posts here I think you'd struggle with honours maths for the leaving cert.

Please do answer how I have turned €190 into €1500 since August by laying short priced horses (1000+) on Betfair if I don't have a clue

While I do that you wait for PP once a week enhancements so you can practise what you preach, ie knowing nothing about your selections

Q.E.D as the maths numpties say, Q.E.D. :pac:
(don't lose the head now old boy)

Colonel Sanders

Your honour, the prosecution will show that RJ hasn't got a notion about the theoretical concepts discussed in this thread

RoverJames wrote: »

Regarding rubbish, your application of the law of large numbers to selective punting is nothing short of rubbish.

Prosecution rests your honour

...... Or if the prosecution has a clue they'd reckon you have no idea how to apply the theoretical concepts you speel on about.

Your post highlights how you want to be judge and jurythough, ft9 got that spot on

Colonel Sanders

FWIW I've been accused by at least 3 posters of attributing their successful punting to "luck". This is not what I stated if they bothered to read (and understand) what I posted they'd see this. I'll not respond to any further posts on this topic as I've repeated myself at least 3 times

Secondly I'll not reply to any further posts that call my ideas "wrong", "flawed", "inept" or suggest I'm "struggling" based on posts along the lines of "look at my (finite) betting history & I don't care about value". Again I've replied to this repeatedly

*eagerly awaits a juvenile comment stating I'm running out of ground or that another poster has "won"*

RichieLawlor

Nice how CS list 4/5 points and RJ picks one out of the middle to answer and skips the rest.

RichieLawlor

RoverJames wrote: »

A very decent thread and the OP is on the ball. In my opinion the bookies prices on each horse running are typically 15% less than what would be required for a consistent level stakes punter to break even longterm.

Oh look what I found. RJ first post in the thread.