Good advice Joe. I tried this when I lived in Alice Springs. Terry Lillis (this was before the Internet; before Centrebet, before Gerard Daffy). He basically (but politely) fobbed me off with something along the lines of "I have my opinions" This was at a social function at Pioneer Park, and he wasn't annoyed or anything, At the Tennant Creek Cup (1995), I asked a bookie who was staying with friends nextdoor to my friends and GOT a similar reply. I actually have a slight idea, which you may be interested in Punter57@Hotmail.Com. It came to me SUDDENLY and could provide an answer. However, it's only for "ratings" types (which you are if I recall correctly, from our discussion of High Cee). Cheers

There's no mystery to this; there never has been.

Bookies arrive at their prices EXACTLY the same way as a fully educated, informed punter would arrive at his prices. Why are the prices often almost identical between bookies? Well, shall we say there's a bit of cross fertilization....... bookies don't do this in a vacuum like an isolated punter living in Humpty Doo might..... they know where each other stands. They'll often these days try to con the early punter by basically putting up prices that can be almost identical to some TAB prices. Also, based on the logic of form, and when when the form is done by educated individuals, most of the time the aprox. order of favouritism is relatively clear. The resulting prices that the bookies arrive at may or may not be what the bookie initially puts up, depending on how he wishes to test the market. ****The bookies don't get their advantage because they are better informed on form..... they get it because they work their percentages.***

This is American and to do with sports betting as opposed to horse racing, but is interesting and does give an insight to the workings of making an odds line.

http://sportsgambling.about.com/od/...line_making.htm

The impression I get is that the job of odds compiler is pretty high profile and that probably the average track or shop bookie does not know how, or have the time to do it.

Asking an odds compiler 'How do I compile odds' is a bit like asking a car mechanic 'How do I mend my car'. We can all have a go but it takes years of practice to learn all those special little tips & tricks.

when it comes to opening odds ,I suspect that bookies are pretty much the same as they ever were. Some (very few in the 90's) do the form properly and thoroughly and convert their ratings to price..some use ratings services to do it for them..but most just copy what the others are doing.
yes bookies also work together..they use each other to lay off big bets to spread the risk, and they conspire in the ring to create false shorteners etc...It's them and us..always has been...

I also agree that the opening odds are just a test of the punters..often shorter odds are put up than what the bookies were actually prepared to offer...no point in putting up a higher price if the punters are freely taking a shorter than rated price...

In a perfect world, for a bookie, a bookie shortens and lengthens the odds to ensure that every runner is backed and the book is set to profit no matter which horse gets up. Bookies have been long complaining that with the "smarter" punters out there that it is more and more difficult to lay every horse in a race... Of course the Bookies dont complain when a race is a "skinner" for them..i.e the fave loses and the bookie did not manage to take a single wager on the horse that won...

One of the reasons why I admired Mark Read so much is that he was never afraid to set his own book early and never waited to see what everyone else was doing first. That is not to say he didnt watch the others during the course of betting..Mark did his own form and stood by it. When he returned to Melb from Sydney some Melb bookmakers were not happy about it. I dont think it phased Read one bit and, as a punter, I was elated..he brought back flair and life into the ring.

The one disadvantage that bookmakers have compared with the punter is that the bookmaker is compelled to stand up for every race at a meeting. (well at least he is supposed to). The punter, on the other hand has the advantage of choosing the good betting races and ignoring the bad. Melb rails bookmaker Michael Faulkner gave this reason for giving up bookmaking and going on the punt... non paying punters may also have been a factor....I dont know whatever happened to him..can someone enlighten me?

In relation to the original post and days since last start i feel days since last start is the most overated piece of form going around...

You always hear the old (insert high number here)% of winners had raced within the last 7,14,21 days blah blah blah,well guess what that is because (insert high number here)% of runners had raced within that time span.

Ever since Vintage Crop won the cup trainers have woken up to the fact that each horse is an individual and performs at its optimum in different ways..

Furthermore if (insert high number here)% of modern day punters are concentraing on days since last start would it make sense to go against the grain?

Hi Dale,

"In relation to the original post and days since last start i feel days since last start is the most overated piece of form going around..."

"You always hear the old (insert high number here)% of winners had raced within the last 7,14,21 days blah blah blah,well guess what that is because (insert high number here)% of runners had raced within that time span."

I havent looked at it that way before.... the figures I had gave a higher percentage of winners within the past seven days over the percentage of winners over 14 and 21 days...I assumed , perhaps wrongly, that the sooner they raced the better their chances.

I recall horses backing up after only three or four days after a win and winning again..This applies to trots and gallops. I dont have actual figures..but it suggests that an in-form fit horse can repeat a win.

I personally dont worry about the number of days since last start as a factor myself..my selections come up simply for the fact that the horse won its last start. I dont really care when, but perhaps I am getting over excited when their previous win was only a week ago...

As for that last start winner factor killing prices..I dispute that..there are still longer priced horses to be had. For example Bets Sector would not be able to have a "last start winner longshot plan" without longer prices on offer.

Ive just gone thru my sydney lsw selection winners this year since mid feb, and here they are in order: Syd sATURDAYS this year have been. $17.00, $9.08, $11.30, $26.00 and $9.80..in that order.

I';m surprised that I havent had some shorter ones in there. Remember, these horses had to be $9.00 or longer when the win pool was only 10k. Food for thought...

W924. Hi! There is a standard problem with many systems: people say things like "20% of winners won their previous start " and then you find out that 30% of THE RUNNERS going around are LSWs. Or "3 year olds have a poor record in the Melbourne Cup" until it turns out hardly any go round in the first place and that the 10 wins they've had (or whatever) is PROPORTIONAL to the number who tried it. Or "50% of winners were close-up (<5 lengths) in their previous start" and it then turns out that 70% of today's runners fit this criteria. And so on and so on. The only way any kind of statement about days/lengths/places etc can have any value (in making a profit) is if the average odds of the winners having THAT attribute is greater than the proportion of the runners having THAT attribute. Thus fail all attempts to follow jockeys and trainers if you aren't VERY selective. Beadman may win 10 Group 1s this year and be touted as a"Big Race" jockey but of what use is it if he rode 40 times in G1s (ie he has both the most wins AND the best SR) if his 10 wins averaged out at $3 EACH. Meanwhile Zac Purton has only 1 win (say) in 40 rides (very few and rotten SR) but it was at 50-1. What if this happened every year for a decade?? All those Beadman victories would surely blind the majority of punters to the difference between CASHING A LOT OF TICKETS and MAKING MONEY!!
As for LSW it has more to do with the perceived "class" of the LSW than anything else. Some people may bet blindly on that "1" in the guide but their money is very DILUTED by all the "1"s you'll find most days. cheers.

I agree with this. The only bonus I give a horse for recent runs is if it's in the last 6 days. Shows it's fit and didn't suffer any ill effects from its last race.
I've noticed a few run twice on the same day in little country meets in WA - don't think I'd bonus those though. :-)

KV

Many thanks to Punter57 and Kenny Victor for your valuable comments..."As for LSW it has more to do with the perceived "class" of the LSW than anything else. Some people may bet blindly on that "1" in the guide but their money is very DILUTED by all the "1"s you'll find most days. cheers."

Yes..that is where the combining of ratings with a selection method takes care of the class factor. Call me lazy, but using freely available ratings takes into account all these factors such as class, jock, trainer ..the lot. I would not use a straight mechanical system without ratings, and likewise I dont habve the time nor the inclination to manually do ratings myself. I understand those who get their enjoyment from doing the ratings. It is an art. I'll say art rather than science..because my logic tells me that if it was an exact science every ratings person would arrive at the same selections. Clearly, this does not happen

"The only bonus I give a horse for recent runs is if it's in the last 6 days. Shows it's fit and didn't suffer any ill effects from its last race."

I can fully appreciate your logic there K.V. many a winner in the Spring carnival backs up like this and wins easily. Ive noticed here in NZ, where they sometimes have trots twice at a track over a three day weekend and often the winners on the last day were also winners on the first day. Ive only noticed this as a casual observer as I am not a trottting person.

He runs his own tipping service to a small collection of private clients............

__________________
Stix
.......Giddy Up..... !!