BJ,
An odds-on horse has a 50% chance of winning. That is their average SR.
Their is no reason or certainty that your $1.10 horse has an 80% chance of winning. Thats speculation only. Horses at the odds you mention get beaten all the time. I had 8 odds- on bets in a row once that all lost !!

The saying "odds-on look on" has legs:-)

Hey Crash thought you were having a day off? anyway this one..... what you say is true but purely from a statisical point of view, the lower the odds the greater the S/R and the less LOT (level stakes) this is true without any other considerations, filters etc.

My post and I think others refer to the stuff surrounding forming a book your self and only backing starters on offer with the tote or actual bookie price at better odds (value) than what you have rated them at.

Most punters end up with wanting to back the horse they really think will win, not simply any horse starting at better odds than what they have assessed its chances to be.

If you are going to do that you are going to have to be prepared to bet on every race as there is no rational link between a horse starting over the odds and an improved chance of winning the race.

What you say about value for an individual selection makes sense. Obviously no-one backs a horse at money back when it can be pick off by a sniper in the grand stand if you know what I mean.

__________________
pipped at the post

You have taken as reference all odds on horses. I can guarantee you right now that combined, have a greater than 50% strike rate.

If you were to take smaller sections of those horses you would find different results.

Group together all horses that start under $1.2.
Also group together all horses that start between $1.8 and $2.

All these horses are odds on. Are you suggesting to me that both groups will have a 50% strike rate?

I can guarantee you right now, that the shorter priced group will have a strike rate much much greater than the horses priced closer to even money.

No THERE is no certainty that my $1.10 horse itself has a greater than 80% chance of winning, but taken as a group, and averaged out, you will find I am sure, that horses that start at $1.10 or shorter, will win greater than 80% of the time.

It is not about having a greater chance of winning, it is purely about the money involved in betting a selection and the money returned to your pocket.

There is nothing anywhere that says if you choose a certain method, you must bet every race.

Take 2 roulette tables. A) pays 2 to 1 on even money, and B) pays evens..

Do you need to bet every spin on table A) to improve your chances of winning?
Or are you just at an advantage no matter when you choose to bet?

I would not feel obligated at all to bet every spin, but I can guarantee that I would be trying to. If you have an advantage, the more you turnover, the more you make. The bigger the advantage the higher the profits, the less the risk.


Imagine you rate the field.
Horse A) is rated as a $4 horse.
Horse B) is rated as a $5 horse.
A) on the books is $2.
B) on the books is $100.

Anybody that bets on horse A is mad. Clearly the value lies with horse B. If you choose to rate the field, then why would you not back the value?
If you merely wanted to find the top selection, you would not waste your time rating the field.

If you have such little faith in your ability to rate the second horse, then why should you have faith in your ability to rate the top horse.
Makes no sense to me.

Please note the words: 'AVERAGE SR' above [meaning overall, all odds-on runners combined].

Party, I agree that the smaller the odds-on price, the greater the winners in that odds on price range [obviously goes without saying surely]. I was just mentioning a well know fact about 'average' SR for the price range. If 50% is wrong as BJ claims and it's much higher. all we have to do is back all the odds-on runners and make our fortune!

Runners starting at $1.10 might have an averaged 80% chance of winning which sounds about right, but BJ was indulging in speculation only to say that horse A starting at $1.10 has an 80% chance of winning. Not enough info. will ever be available to make such a claim before a race and I'm sure we have all heard about the 1 horse race that the runner managed to lose [happened].

Look at this example: 'Back all horses with a win SR of 50% or more, that is the only runner with that SR in the race for better than $2 and you will live in clover'. Correct or not? Exactly my point. [without going into the obvious details] It's absurd.

BJ,
Here is another average: All favorites have an average SR of around 30-33%.

Both average Fav. SR along with average odds-on SR are well known averages. If you doesn't believe either one [or even both] of them, that's fine by me. I'm not going to argue the point.

Rubbish. If horse A wins sane people have backed horse A and throw their money away punters have backed horse B.

__________________
pipped at the post

Exactly,
Whats the point in rating a race then backing the horse that, according to your ratings, is going to come second. If you are place betting maybe...but on the nose ?
hmmmm

Basically IMHO (lol) it comes back to how you price your ratings.

Price to 80% aka Don Scott you are in dreamland.

Price to 100% still pie in the sky.

Price to 120% you should be getting close to the prices on offer.

The "value revolution" as good as it was,has whiskers on it.It worked well 20+ years ago,Don taught us too well.His ratings method is as sound as it ever was.Pricing those ratings the way he showed us is no longer a realistic proposition.

On course professional punters have almost passed into history.The reason?? No "overs" these days....

This doesn't mean that we have to accept unders,simply cop what we feel is a realistic price.Bookmakers prices are subjective,however,if they want to stay in business they have to be competitive with TAB prices.In fact, to survive they have to offer better.

On course bookmakers these days adjust their boards in accordance with the tote prices.Simply because the tote is a true reflection of the market at that point in betting.

Good Punting,,, Bill.

BJ has a bit of a point regarding odds [see below]. I think I know where he is coming from.

Our ratings [or anyone else's] are never 100% correct. If they were there would be no horse racing, at least none to bet on.

If we are 25% to 35% correct with our ratings we are doing as reasonably well as anyone else's ratings.

Given BJ sample:
Imagine you rate the field.
Horse A) is rated as a $4 horse.
Horse B) is rated as a $5 horse.
A) on the books is $2.
B) on the books is $100.

I would take the ['value'] $100 offered on B) forever and a day, every time anyone was silly enough to offer those odds. Why? Elementary. Our ratings aren't foolproof and B will get up [very] often enough for us to quickly clean out any bookie stupid enough to offer that price.

I would take ['value'] $10 on B) forever and a day too and again quickly clean out the bookie for exactly the same reasons already outlined. However, if offered $7 on A) and $10 on B), I would back A) every time. Get the drift?

Backing prices wins money long term. Backing horses never will. Finding prices over what you rate, taking your ratings SR into account, is the name of the game.

If I rate 2 horses in a race at A$4 and B$6 to win and one of them is offering 25% above it's price, I will back the 'over' price even if it is B [or C if there is one] because my SR says I will be wrong about A and B [and C] often enough to make money by taking the best price, not what I think is the best horse.
Do that 100 times and your a winning punter in the end. Back horses and not prices and you can never win longterm.