odds

[stipulate 3]

anyone tell me who puts the suggested starting odds in Press // Herald alongside each runner ??is it the TAB ???

[laadeedaa 0]

You would think so

[chelseacol 2,488]

You would think so

You would - but they are often so far away from the Fixed Odds offered, that I am thinking they are done by someone separate from the bookies

[Idolmite 2,560]

Maybe they are the TAB odds but like from the day before?

[shaneMcAlister 1,425]

In England and Ireland those prices are referred to as tissue prices. They were never prepared by the bookies, just someone working for the paper. They were a guide and sometimes they could be a long way different.

A successful full time horse punter (rarer than the Moa) would prepare his own tissue prices then back whatever was over those odds on the track. Regardless of his feelings.

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

In England and Ireland those prices are referred to as tissue prices. They were never prepared by the bookies, just someone working for the paper. They were a guide and sometimes they could be a long way different.

A successful full time horse punter (rarer than the Moa) would prepare his own tissue prices then back whatever was over those odds on the track. Regardless of his feelings.

Always assuming that the 'successful full time horse punter' thought the animal concerned would win(or place as applicable).

In fact I would say a 'successful fulltime horse punter' would have no regard whatsoever for the odds. What they would have regard for is the possibility/probability that a given horse would pay a dividend(and therefore that they would get a return(however small) on their investment). They might then go hunting for the best price available on that runner.

We mugs are the ones who are influenced by the odds published or on the tote. We change our bet because the one our research tells us will win because the div is not good enough.

Totally subjective and irrational behaviour but we get sucked in time and time again.

[barryb 2,064]

Amazing, I thought we had made some progress as informed punters but this thread just shows that we haven't even got to the starting gates least of all the race.

[chelseacol 2,488]

Amazing, I thought we had made some progress as informed punters but this thread just shows that we haven't even got to the starting gates least of all the race.

Isn't this in fact good news for good punters;)

[Nerula 1,403]

Always assuming that the 'successful full time horse punter' thought the animal concerned would win(or place as applicable).

In fact I would say a 'successful fulltime horse punter' would have no regard whatsoever for the odds. What they would have regard for is the possibility/probability that a given horse would pay a dividend(and therefore that they would get a return(however small) on their investment). They might then go hunting for the best price available on that runner.

We mugs are the ones who are influenced by the odds published or on the tote. We change our bet because the one our research tells us will win because the div is not good enough.

Totally subjective and irrational behaviour but we get sucked in time and time again.

Best punting post/tip of the year.

I have a big punting mate who says. "Dont back faves or outsiders, Back Winners". He only bets with a voucher and he keeps that voucher rolling over and increasing. He is a mate of "Craig the Whale"and like the latter spends a huge amount of time on research.

[chelseacol 2,488]

Always assuming that the 'successful full time horse punter' thought the animal concerned would win(or place as applicable).

In fact I would say a 'successful fulltime horse punter' would have no regard whatsoever for the odds. What they would have regard for is the possibility/probability that a given horse would pay a dividend(and therefore that they would get a return(however small) on their investment). They might then go hunting for the best price available on that runner.

We mugs are the ones who are influenced by the odds published or on the tote. We change our bet because the one our research tells us will win because the div is not good enough.

Totally subjective and irrational behaviour but we get sucked in time and time again.

I dont think the odds should influence the selection process (at least if picking winners as opposed to exotics), BUT the odds must have an impact on how you then bet.

If no value available for your selection - then don't bet...

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

I dont think the odds should influence the selection process (at least if picking winners as opposed to exotics), BUT the odds must have an impact on how you then bet.

If no value available for your selection - then don't bet...

It's called risk and reward. The higher the risk the higher the reward.

Most(but by no means all) of the people who invested in finance companies a few years back (because they were offering a point or two more interest than the Banks at the time) could explain it to you.

I suspect somehow that most 'successful horse punters' confine their betting to place punting on red hot favourites(or low odds sports bets as the case may be).

Better to take a 5c profit per dollar than to stretch the odds with an exotic or whatever but stretch the risk dramatically as well.

The bottom line is you need to be sure the horse is going to pay a div. Going exotic relies on other horses paying divs to and multiplies the statistical odds(and hence the return).

Now if you want a bit of the reverse where the returns are guaranteed good you need to become an insurer. Collect the premiums month after month/year after year and then bingo the event you were betting would not happen(eg Christchurch earthquake) does - big 'loss' incurred. How do you react? Jam the price(premium) up(and also argue about what it was you were agreeing to cover in the first place).

That is the difference between a price taker(eg us mugs on the tote) and a price setter(eg the insurers) and that is why we are down where the muck is racked and they fly by in the Lear Jet.

Simple really.....

Of course if you are going to take this latter option be aware of Murphy's law which says that the minute you accept the risk the shite will hit the fan - so you better have some(ie plenty) reserves on hand. Alternately you could be like AMI or Western Pacific and not worry too much about that possibility.

(Incidentally remember Western Pacific was the insurer of choice for the southern guineas triple crown a few years back - they sqwarked when D Bradley rang up offering to knock over the winner of the first two in the last leg - weren't above bending a rule or two themselves though)

[Todamax101 533]

Read somewhere most big punters are happy to get a 10% profit over a year.

An all up bet of $100 on $1.30x$1.30x$1.20 gets you $202.Sounds easy dont it? Try this each week in your head.It's amazing how often one of these "certainties' come unstuck.

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

You people who are serious about it...

Would you say harness horses are easier to apply these theories to than thoroughbreds?

Strikes me they there are fewer of these favourites who come unstuck in that game especially on the all weather tracks.

Whether it be a better overall standard of horsemanship(don't get up in arms - I just mean that quality drivers aren't forced out by weight issues or relocate to Aussie, Hong Kong or wherever), more consistent racing(ie they run more often), a more consistent track surface, a more predictable racing pattern or whatever.

Interested in your thoughts

[Turny 1,224]

You people who are serious about it...

Would you say harness horses are easier to apply these theories to than thoroughbreds?

Strikes me they there are fewer of these favourites who come unstuck in that game especially on the all weather tracks.

Whether it be a better overall standard of horsemanship(don't get up in arms - I just mean that quality drivers aren't forced out by weight issues or relocate to Aussie, Hong Kong or wherever), more consistent racing(ie they run more often), a more consistent track surface, a more predictable racing pattern or whatever.

Interested in your thoughts

No track variations - a major difference

hold form better - consistency

racing pattern largely consistent

race more often - disclosed form generall holds

driving patterns don't vary that much

big divvies (surprises) don't occur often

[chelseacol 2,488]

It's called risk and reward. The higher the risk the higher the reward.

Most(but by no means all) of the people who invested in finance companies a few years back (because they were offering a point or two more interest than the Banks at the time) could explain it to you.

I suspect somehow that most 'successful horse punters' confine their betting to place punting on red hot favourites(or low odds sports bets as the case may be).

Better to take a 5c profit per dollar than to stretch the odds with an exotic or whatever but stretch the risk dramatically as well.

The bottom line is you need to be sure the horse is going to pay a div. Going exotic relies on other horses paying divs to and multiplies the statistical odds(and hence the return).

Now if you want a bit of the reverse where the returns are guaranteed good you need to become an insurer. Collect the premiums month after month/year after year and then bingo the event you were betting would not happen(eg Christchurch earthquake) does - big 'loss' incurred. How do you react? Jam the price(premium) up(and also argue about what it was you were agreeing to cover in the first place).

That is the difference between a price taker(eg us mugs on the tote) and a price setter(eg the insurers) and that is why we are down where the muck is racked and they fly by in the Lear Jet.

Simple really.....

Of course if you are going to take this latter option be aware of Murphy's law which says that the minute you accept the risk the shite will hit the fan - so you better have some(ie plenty) reserves on hand. Alternately you could be like AMI or Western Pacific and not worry too much about that possibility.

(Incidentally remember Western Pacific was the insurer of choice for the southern guineas triple crown a few years back - they sqwarked when D Bradley rang up offering to knock over the winner of the first two in the last leg - weren't above bending a rule or two themselves though)

Not sure that place punting on red hot favs is a strategy for most pros Tom. Some for sure, but most??

As I said before the core concept is the value you can get for your selection.

For example if you assess a horse as likely to place (using your place preference) 90 times out of a 100, then a $1.05 place dividend is not value.

If you can get $1.15 it starts to make sense (provided your assessment of odds is correct).

This applies to win and place betting, and can by extension be used in exotics (albeit with other considerations around the bias towards favoured combinations, takeouts etc).

Not so sure how this applies to insurers - I think you will find there are winners and losers among the Insurers here in ChCh in that regard, even allowing for the advantages you perceive they have.

[HarryHindsight 117]

You need to do some form of ratings and compare it to the available price. Of course we can't get the rebates that some survive on. These guys were/are the best at it.

http://www.tonywilson.com.au/writing/alanwoods.php

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

Not sure that place punting on red hot favs is a strategy for most pros Tom. Some for sure, but most??

As I said before the core concept is the value you can get for your selection.

For example if you assess a horse as likely to place (using your place preference) 90 times out of a 100, then a $1.05 place dividend is not value.

If you can get $1.15 it starts to make sense (provided your assessment of odds is correct).

This applies to win and place betting, and can by extension be used in exotics (albeit with other considerations around the bias towards favoured combinations, takeouts etc).

Not so sure how this applies to insurers - I think you will find there are winners and losers among the Insurers here in ChCh in that regard, even allowing for the advantages you perceive they have.

First I would be astounded if most of the pro's are not place punters. Lowest risk overall.

The core concept is not what gives most value it is what will actually win! Once you establish that you look for the value.

Having said that I guess the actual place the most money is likely to be made is the pool with the lowest deductions rate? But if it is (say) trifectas you increase you chances of one of your picks missing out.

And then of course you would have to know the deductions at each of the potential agencies to work out where to do your punting

Secondly don't you get it re insurance?

The insurance game is a gambling outlet too - you(the insurer) are simply betting against an outcome (whether it be the death of the insured - horse or human, the theft or damage of the insured property, a horse winning three southern Guineas races or whatever)

Trust me insurers don't often lose. Once they are established and provided they are not taking on unacceptable risk without reinsurance(there you go again - that is laying off). AMI was stupid to not have sufficient reinsurance cover and Ansvar NZ ... well being primarily a religious insurance organisation maybe they thought they were under the protection of a greater being. From personal experience I know most insurance companies are creaming it paying out far less than the agreed cover because the insured parties are unable to build on the affected land(and in many cases their loss of profits cover has now run out , the bank manager is knocking and they are being forced to accept a lower sum).

Effectively the insurance companies are exactly like the TAB - only difference is the deductions are much much much higher(And after the earthquakes as we can all see from our premium increases the deduction rate has jumped again)

The winners and losers in Chch are among the insured not the insurers - they are always winning.

And don't tell me there has to be a loser if there is a winner because there most certainly does not.

[HarryHindsight 117]

I think you will find there is little value in the place pool with rounding down. There are several formulas to calculate the place odds via the win odds. The Henery & Stern models have been shown to be more accurate. Not sure what the NZ TAB use but when I looked it's a joke , 400% market.

[HarryHindsight 117]

Here's a place calculator ,only does 8 horse fields . Perhaps you can sum up the % for larger fields.

http://www.betting-models.webs.com/freedownloads/3_places_discount_web.htm