General Chat

[Faugheen_Machine]

My post was mainly about changing the way we think about value or moving thinking away from value to some extent (maybe a lot or maybe a little). The reason I do roll ups has nothing to do with value as I am not rolling up with a target price in mind at all. Rather it is to limit how much I need to invest to win the amount I want to win. It’s pure gambling or risk taking and nothing to do with value. I have chosen a sport a know quite a lot about and imo suits roll ups for my purpose.

So far i have had luck on my side and a very high success rate because of the darts I now have a number of fancied horses on my side that would have been too expensive for me to do otherwise. Had the roll ups lost I would have had no choice but to leave the horse unbacked. As I say nothing to do with value at all.

So you're saying just back winners and forget about the price?

I'm sure we've all heard people say 'an even money winner is better than a 50/1 loser!' Of course it is on that one occasion. A small sample size. If the evens shots true chance of winning was 2/1, and the 50/1 was actually a 16's poke - which is the correct bet to have.

In my mind, if you're having a bet you should always be looking for an edge, or at the very least thinking you have an edge.

I may have missed the point of your post completely, in fact, I think I have.

[Faugheen_Machine]

Yep, spot on, but whilst factually correct it doesn’t consider the complex mind and emotion involved, take 5/1 about a horse who you missed the early value on and sling it in with a 6/4 certainty out of Trap 1 at icy Sheffield and turn the horse into a 14/1 shot and you feel pretty good about life….

FOMO - I'm sure we all suffer from it from time to time

[Rooster Booster]

No I’m completely not saying forget about the price. Again I am talking about changing the way we think about value and moving our thinking away from it to SOME extent. The degree of the shift I’m not sure ...certainly not a 180 degree shift, which forgetting about the price would be. Rather than trying to fight something we cannot control (widespread lack of value...that I am hearing over and over again) we refocus our energies on finding alternative strategies.

I came up with roll ups as a way of mitigating the impact of the universal reduction in value offered (as people are perceiving it) and I was wondering what steps others have taken. Or is everybody just limiting the number of horses they are backing as less are seen as value? Or are people backing horses that they don’t consider value because they kind of have no choice...or something else?

For those that build books are you finding it costs you more now because there is less value or are you investing the same and lowering your return expectation...either way this is exactly the behaviour the firms want. Or are you introducing new strategies in order to maintain an edge....etc etc

[Imperial Commander]

I think I can see what you're getting at here RB.

Probably like many others, I have gone further down the roll up route this year than in previous years. The way I would explain this is that if horse X for the Festival (at just ok ante post value as the prices have been squeezed this year) is doubled with horse Y somewhere else (at good value where the backer feels they have an edge) then the double bet can become value.

Ok, we all have to draw our own lines here as to which ante post Festival bets are value or not so yes, being more selective and only choosing value bets is the overall critical factor. But to offset that, if you are making a book there is also the factor of wanting to get coverage of the key players in any event so there are times when filling a gap becomes more important than value on every bet if the overall book is in expected profit and balanced.

There are so many angles for each individual that it's tricky to make the point relevant to everyone but as RB was originally asking, it would be interesting to get a few viewpoints on this.....

[Quevega]

Totally with FM on this subject (the value), and Ista (psychology)

Roll ups are doubles for a start and rely on two separate outcomes which increases the risk. There is probably just as good a bet at the same odds available for one outcome.
I just hate the term as it sounds so much like someone is convincing themselves of something that is not true. It implies IMO that it's a given when statistically it's not.

If you have three winners at 1/3 then you're likely to get a loser 1 in four attempts over the long term, or better or worse than that in the short term.
Although like FM has said, if those bets were value, then you're more likely to profit in the long term.

So unless you're a genius. In which case you should put more money on these bets and not have them roll on to poor value antepost bets for Cheltenham that you think will win ? but might not even run ! through no fault of your own.

Not a dig at you Rooster specifically, and I've said similar before so will be boring for some.
But it's just one of those things that bugs me.

I can kind of see it when someone is making a book, but even then it's not really valid, as everything I've said still applies really.

It's a battle for all gamblers constantly to not con yourself.

[SharpHat]

Got told today by the manager of my local paddy power that they will no longer be accepting my ante post bets. No explanation given. What a joke. At least wait and see if they're winners before banning me

[Rooster Booster]

I think I can see what you're getting at here RB.

Probably like many others, I have gone further down the roll up route this year than in previous years. The way I would explain this is that if horse X for the Festival (at just ok ante post value as the prices have been squeezed this year) is doubled with horse Y somewhere else (at good value where the backer feels they have an edge) then the double bet can become value.

Ok, we all have to draw our own lines here as to which ante post Festival bets are value or not so yes, being more selective and only choosing value bets is the overall critical factor. But to offset that, if you are making a book there is also the factor of wanting to get coverage of the key players in any event so there are times when filling a gap becomes more important than value on every bet if the overall book is in expected profit and balanced.

There are so many angles for each individual that it's tricky to make the point relevant to everyone but as RB was originally asking, it would be interesting to get a few viewpoints on this.....

I see your point re horse Y. In my example horse Y is an arrowsmith who I consider to be value therefore making the double or treble value.

At some point we cannot just back horses that we see as being value as all bookmakers need to do is reduce prices so that nothing or very few represent value (which is what they are starting to do) which means we then need to redefine value as a relative thing rather than an absolute thing. Maybe people are already doing that and it would be interesting to hear from people that have made that transition and how they’ve made it.

I have seen more comments this year than any other questioning whether a horse represents value. I feel like saying ok which horse/s do represent value then and I think we are often struggling to answer that this year or at least to the same degree. It’s becoming increasingly harder to say which horses represent value and the bookmakers control this not us. This is what I mean by throwing us a few bones like GDM....I genuinely think this is a strategy on their part to make us feel like there is still value out there if we are smart enough.....bollocks the horse more than likely will not win. Nothing against the horse but if the only horse you can find in a race that’s value is 25s then there is only going to be one winner and that’s not the punter. Please don’t take this too literally, many may believe there to be others that represent value , it’s just an adjective to illustrate a point.

Maybe an interesting question would be to name all the horses in the first two in the betting that represent value in peoples minds.if there are not that many then surely that’s a call to action (and like I say it would be fascinating to understand what action folks are taking) otherwise we are just victims to a process we have no control over.

[Rooster Booster]

Totally with FM on this subject (the value), and Ista (psychology)

Roll ups are doubles for a start and rely on two separate outcomes which increases the risk. There is probably just as good a bet at the same odds available for one outcome.
I just hate the term as it sounds so much like someone is convincing themselves of something that is not true. It implies IMO that it's a given when statistically it's not.

If you have three winners at 1/3 then you're likely to get a loser 1 in four attempts over the long term, or better or worse than that in the short term.
Although like FM has said, if those bets were value, then you're more likely to profit in the long term.

So unless you're a genius. In which case you should put more money on these bets and not have them roll on to poor value antepost bets for Cheltenham that you think will win ? but might not even run ! through no fault of your own.

Not a dig at you Rooster specifically, and I've said similar before so will be boring for some.
But it's just one of those things that bugs me.

I can kind of see it when someone is making a book, but even then it's not really valid, as everything I've said still applies really.

It's a battle for all gamblers constantly to not con yourself.

So are you only betting ante post when you think the horse is value. If so do you disagree with what appears to be the general view that there is far less value around this year or are you having far less bets?

ps this was never intended as ‘merits of roll ups ...discuss’ thread it kind of misses the point I am obviously very badly trying to make

pps the first 7 favourites have come in on the darts today but I’m hoping it’s not first 8 as I’m opposing the wizard

[Quevega]

So are you only betting ante post when you think the horse is value. If so do you disagree with what appears to be the general view that there is far less value around this year or are you having far less bets?

ps this was never intended as ‘merits of roll ups ...discuss’ thread it kind of misses the point I am obviously very badly trying to make

I'm probably betting slightly less.

And yes I'll only bet most of the time (very occasionally I rush a bet immediately after a race or some sort of news) when I personally believe that on balance there is a good chance the horse will go off at a shorter price with a chance of winning.
Or that the odds do not reflect the chances the horse may run in the given race and it's chances of winning if it did.

At least that's what I attempt to do.
Obviously this goes wrong sometimes, but hopefully (and for several years now this has fortunately been the case) I'll get enough value in the book to profit overall.
I don't make books, but I mean Cheltenham overall in this regard.

I'm not sure the bookies would decrease the prices too much as they want to play to a certain extent.
However, if people continue to take shorter or premium prices then they'll obviously play along.
This year probably reflects the 2 factors of
1. ante-post Cheltenham specialist punters having in general a very good festival, and
2. therefore the bookies in general not so much.
These 2 factors are bound to drive prices down.

Punters who are flush are probably in general being less disciplined and taking shorter prices than normal and this drives the market accordingly.
If you add in to this, that the Bookies are starting off lower to begin with then it's a double whammy.

Then there is the Love factor, where punters have to back a horse they've won on before, so often after a favourites festival, or antepost favourites festival this will mean premium prices for the following year, with the odd exceptions as usual.

It's probably smarter to wait for the NRNB markets for some bets.
The ones that people miss, but want onside. As in this scenario your guaranteed a run for your money or money back.
Imagine doing several antepost low value cover bets and good roll ups. and the second leg never even runs ?

AND Especially the day of the race markets, as these will certainly be fairer and shorteners will be accompanied by drifters, at least for a while in any case.
The antepost markets are notorious for not doing this.

[Rooster Booster]

I'm probably betting slightly less.

And yes I'll only bet most of the time (very occasionally I rush a bet immediately after a race or some sort of news) when I personally believe that on balance there is a good chance the horse will go off at a shorter price with a chance of winning.
Or that the odds do not reflect the chances the horse may run in the given race and it's chances of winning if it did.

At least that's what I attempt to do.
Obviously this goes wrong sometimes, but hopefully (and for several years now this has fortunately been the case) I'll get enough value in the book to profit overall.
I don't make books, but I mean Cheltenham overall in this regard.

I'm not sure the bookies would decrease the prices too much as they want to play to a certain extent.
However, if people continue to take shorter or premium prices then they'll obviously play along.
This year probably reflects the 2 factors of
1. ante-post Cheltenham specialist punters having in general a very good festival, and
2. therefore the bookies in general not so much.
These 2 factors are bound to drive prices down.

Punters who are flush are probably in general being less disciplined and taking shorter prices than normal and this drives the market accordingly.
If you add in to this, that the Bookies are starting off lower to begin with then it's a double whammy.

Then there is the Love factor, where punters have to back a horse they've won on before, so often after a favourites festival, or antepost favourites festival this will mean premium prices for the following year, with the odd exceptions as usual.

It's probably smarter to wait for the NRNB markets for some bets.
The ones that people miss, but want onside. As in this scenario your guaranteed a run for your money or money back.
Imagine doing several antepost low value cover bets and good roll ups. and the second leg never even runs ?

AND Especially the day of the race markets, as these will certainly be fairer and shorteners will be accompanied by drifters, at least for a while in any case.
The antepost markets are notorious for not doing this.

Great thanks Q...so would I be right in thinking your definition of value is more closely related to the telationship between the price you take and your evaluation of its starting price than your assessment of its price versus its chances of winning...if so I can see why your volume of bets hasn’t dropped that significantly.

[Quevega]

Great thanks Q...so would I be right in thinking your definition of value is more closely related to the telationship between the price you take and your evaluation of its starting price than your assessment of its price versus its chances of winning...if so I can see why your volume of bets hasn’t dropped that significantly.

Yep, a bit of both, and this will differ in degrees with each individual bet. They are kind of both the same.
and obviously I use cash out so will thin them out accordingly (when I consider they can't win) - this don't always go to plan either

[Rooster Booster]

Yep, a bit of both, and this will differ in degrees with each individual bet. They are kind of both the same.
and obviously I use cash out so will thin them out accordingly (when I consider they can't win) - this don't always go to plan either

Yes I understand the correlation between the two . Thanks for taking the time Q

[isitmarchyet]

Video from RacingTV with Willie talking about his Christmas runners:

There's another preview too, with Patrick, Bryan Cooper & Barry Geranty talking about a few of the Christmas races. Must've been recorded a while ago because there's no mention of Appreciate It's setback.

[Benjy23]

Yep, a bit of both, and this will differ in degrees with each individual bet. They are kind of both the same.
and obviously I use cash out so will thin them out accordingly (when I consider they can't win) - this don't always go to plan either

In the antepost price v SP thinking how do you weight the risk of being a NR? I guess it's very much case specific isn't it. But is there a minimum you think if this time of year. Use a horse with a fairly obvious target if you like

[Istabraq]

In the antepost price v SP thinking how do you weight the risk of being a NR? I guess it's very much case specific isn't it.

Any horse can get injured, in the early stages of a te post (March-Sept) I tend to focus on championship races and the Mares hurdle where target should be obvious, but it doesn’t stop a Buzz suffering a season ending injury or Benie being sent to the breeding shed, when you start looking at the novice races the risk increases because many of these horses could run in any of 3 and then they could be geared to a handicap, championship horses are likely to only have the one target…