As a punter – and now as a tipster – the one thing I really fear, is luck…
My issue, is simply the uncertainty that it brings...
I can spend hours weighing up all aspects of a race, come to a conclusion on how it is likely to pan out – and then luck will intervene and everything will go out of the window…
Ofcourse, that is the nature of the beast we are dealing with when we are gambling on horses. There are a thousand and one variables that can affect the outcome of a race and it could never be possible control all of those.
However, I can assess and prioritise all of those variables and come to a decision on the most likely result, in a controlled fashion – until, that is, luck intervenes !!
Now you may be thinking that there isn’t a lot we can do about luck – but in this day and age, there is actually a fair bit we can do to manage it’s impact…
Each way betting can be considered a way of reducing the impact of luck; as can betting more (as this increases the sample size and therefore means luck should be more likely to even out).
That said, I would view both of these more as judgement calls, rather than luck managers.
I touched on it in Novembers monthly report, but one method which I believe you can use to manage luck, is the in-running market on Betfair…
I consider it my job, to try and find horses which can win races.
Of course, in order to win a race, you invariably need a little bit of luck – and that is the bit that I can’t control.
However, if I can find horses which either win races – or go close to winning races – and we use the tools available to us to manage our luck, we should have a winning combination.
Going back to the in-running market on Betfair…
If a horse goes below 2 in-running on Betfair, then the market has decided that at that point in time, it is more likely to win a particular race than it is to lose it.
As the price of a horse crosses that ‘2’ threshold on Betfair, it is like tossing a virtual coin, to decide whether or not you will win a race.
In the long run, if you either come out ahead or behind on those kind of horses, you can be considered, either lucky or unlucky…
But the question is, why take that chance ?
As I said in my opening sentence, the thing I fear most about betting, is that element of luck.
And here we have an opportunity to greatly reduce it – so why wouldn’t we take it ?
For roughly ten years now, that is precisely what I have done with almost every bet I have struck – I’ve layed it back on Betfair at a much lower price.
The reason for this is simple: I’m confident in my judgement – but I’m not so confident in my luck !
In a similar vein, I intend from now on, to quote my monthly numbers in both a ‘raw’ form (so reflecting how the tips passed the post) – but also in a form ‘adjusted for luck’ (so as if I had layed back the bet in-running at 2 on BF, to take half the profit whatever the outcome).
Whether as individuals, you would want to do the same thing, is entirely up to you…
I suspect that most of you guys are gamblers and so I won’t be at all surprised if you choose to continue without change.
However, I do not class myself as a gambler – and that is why I try to minimise the impact of luck, whenever I can…
However, I do not class myself as a gambler – and that is why I try to minimise the impact of luck, whenever I can…
I could write endlessly on this subject – but I think you all need to digest what I have written so far.
I will therefore post this ‘introduction’ on the blog – with a view to turning it into a discussion – driven by your thoughts/questions - in the comment section.
Just a final parting shot for you to consider…
The ‘raw’ TVB figures for November, were:
Points staked: 38.75
Points profit: 18.25
However, the ‘adjusted for luck’ TVB figures for November were:
Points staked: 38.75
Points profit: 56.125
To Sunday evening, the ‘raw’ numbers for December were:
Points staked: 8.25
Points profit: 2.25
Whilst the ‘adjusted for luck’ numbers were:
Points staked: 8.25
Points profit: 6.87
Quite a compelling argument for not just leaving things to luck, I would suggest ?!?!
TVB
Great ! Like the idea,presume you are laying the horse back to make 1/2 point profit,or is it to return just 1/2 point?
ReplyDeletePerhaps I need to get out more, but I find this sort of thing fascinating.
ReplyDeleteWe can see that from the figures you quote, positive results have been boosted by the strategy of placing in running lays. Any idea what happens to the bottom line figures during losing spells if following this strategy? Could you reasonably expect losses to be lessened somewhat or is it more a case that when the tipping itself is slightly out of kilter, the horses themselves tend not to run well enough to get the lays matched?
Btw, I'd count myself as a "gambler", but one that likes the idea of bank protection. :)
Cheers,
Rowan
Hi Anon,
ReplyDeleteThe thing about IR lays, is that you can set them at a level which best suits your view to risk…
For the figures quoted, I have assumed that a lay would have been put in place to ensure that the same profit was yielded from the bet, the moment the horse went odds on in-running, whether it won or lost.
So, for example, if you had £20 on a 10/1 shot, thereby standing to win £200 if it was successful; I have instead just taken a profit of £100 when it reached 2 IR….
Of course, as individual punters, we don’t need to do this: we could place a £20 lay at 2 – just to recover stakes; or a £50 lay at 2 – to make a profit – but ensure a bigger profit if the horse wins.
The options are endless – and as I say, should be tweaked by the individual so that they are aligned with their own views on risk…
TVB.
Hi Rowan,
ReplyDeleteYou don’t want to be going outside at the moment – it’s freezing !!
All things being equal, I would expect this approach to be even more beneficial during losing runs. The suggestion there, is that your luck is completely out – so anything that can minimise its impact, is likely to be a good thing…
That said, I think you would want to be a little selective with the use of an approach such as this…
I am a tipster who tends to go for it, if I think I see something when I’m studying a race. Most of my bets are win only – because if I’m right, I expect the horse to go very close: However, if I’m wrong, it could just as easily pull up (Nez Rouge could have been a good example of this yesterday !).
Some tipsters (and indeed punters) have a much more cautious – percentage based - approach. They will try and identify inefficiencies in a market – rather than a horse with potential.
These kind of people will often play EW, in the knowledge that a particular horse is likely to place – and just possibly, could win. If you get the right odds, a bet like that can often be a ‘bet to nothing’…
I will adopt this kind of approach occasionally – but it is not my normal mode of operation – and I don’t think that such an approach would be particularly well suited to the suggested method of laying off in-running…
The time when where laying off in running is most likely to have a negative impact, is when you hit a winning streak !! When this happens, you will still win – but not as much as you would have done conventionally (it minimises good luck as well as bad !!).
TVB.
Really interesting post.
ReplyDeleteI can't help thinking that surely there's no free lunch here though.
If the the prices offered are a reflection of perceived probabilities (at whatever stage of a race), then the theory seems to presume that luck is a bigger factor later in the race than earlier (and crucially that most people don't recognise this). If that is true then you're definitely onto something. However if it isn't then it I'm struggling to see that over the very long term there can be value in it (although there may well be lower volatility).
I'll be thinking about this all night now!
You are absolutely right – there is no value in this method in the very long term, but it does reduce variability. And ultimately, that is all I am after…
ReplyDeleteThe problem with talking about ‘long term’ for luck, is how long is long term..?
If we were betting (or in my case tipping) for an infinite period of time – with an infinite bank roll – then this kind of approach wouldn’t be necessary because luck would even itself out – but we are not…
Over the course of this TVB season, I would expect to tip roughly 60 horses that will trade at odds on in-running. In absolute terms, that is not very many…
We could reasonably expect that 30 of those might win – but would it be unreasonable for 20 of them to win ? And what if they were the ‘wrong’ 20 (ie. lowest prices, smallest stakes ?).
It is such a relatively small sample size, we are leaving ourselves wide open to the randomness of luck – and why ?
I would much rather reduce the variability – even if it means taking a 10% reduction in the profits I could reasonably expect – and be judged purely on the ‘quality’ of the tip…
I read a piece by Tom Segal (Pricewise) the other week, where he was bemoaning the fact that he made a brilliant call in a chase in Ireland but the horse was touched off on the line – whereas the previous day, he got lucky in a sprint at Newbury when his selection won, despite clearly not being the best horse in the race…
He got accolades for his ‘lucky’ winner at Newbury – but nothing for his ‘unlucky’ loser in Ireland. Is that the right way to judge him ?
I think that luck plays a part throughout an entire race – but realistically, we have to draw a line somewhere (as I have to with the tips that I issue – as against the mentions that I don’t). The point where a horse appears more likely to win a race than lose it, seems like a reasonable place to draw that line…
TVB.
TVB
ReplyDeletehaving backed the McCoy ridden Tony Martin horse at Newbury during the Hennesy meeting a couple of weeks ago I can totally understand why you would entertain this strategy!!
When I backed it at near double figures one of my thoughts was that it's the sort of horse you'd back; with your staking i'd have made a profit on the race instead of bemoaning Timmy Murphy's impecable bad timing.
very interesting read worth further consideration.
I think most people can see the attraction of taking away some of the variability Stu...
ReplyDeleteIt certainly isn't a flawless approach - but anything that takes away an element of luck, I would always view positively...
A.