How often does the market get it right.

[Valda]

I wonder if anyone here has tried this approach. I’ve been part of a smallish group using an app that analysis how astute the market has been by looking at the outcome of a race year on year over a 10 year period.
What price was the favourite at when the winner came from the sharp end and what price was it at when outsiders won.
Sounds a bit left field, I know, but it works.
Anyone here tried this approach ?

[Derek27]

Hi Valda, welcome to the forum.

When you say it works, does this mean you've made money over a period of time by using this analysis?

I'd be quite surprised if just ten races could produce any meaningful data. I'm also not sure what you mean by the market getting it right?

Some people think the market got it right when the clear favourite wins, but in reality, if the favourite is 3/1, the market says not that it's going to win but that it has a 25% chance. From that perspective the Betfair markets are quite accurate - I believe the price of winners correlates quite closely to the expected percentage of winners for each price.

[StellaBot]

For every variable market there is a variable system
For every variable system there is a variable market

For both there is?

[simonv74]

Uniformitarianism.

The past is the key to the present.

If you knew a favourite had never won a particular race in history (same race, number of runners, day of the week) would you back it?

Thousands still will as they're looking at form only.

History will give you a better idea...

[Derek27]

Uniformitarianism.

The past is the key to the present.

If you knew a favourite had never won a particular race in history (same race, number of runners, day of the week) would you back it?

Thousands still will as they're looking at form only.

History will give you a better idea...

A race's history can only give you indications and limited information - it's today's line-up that's important.

No horse in the history of the Sussex Stakes had ever won it twice until Frankel, but you could still see why he was 1/20 and few would have bet against him on that flimsy principle. It's not just top class racing but in any grade of race, every now and again, a horse or horses line up that bucks the trend and form students are more likely to be wise to it.

Not suggesting the OP and team would do, but many people spot races that have a good historical record for three-year-olds without even checking what year the race was open to four-year-olds. Such methods require a lot of analysis and work for little gain.

[simonv74]

Of course the trend can be bucked, but historically if the SP had been ~2/1 and they had all lost and this year's SP was way down at 1/20 you wouldn't lay it, there was no precedent at that price.

The wisdom of the crowd has set the SP, historical SP is what it's all about, based on the same race conditions year on year.

[Valda]

Uniformitarianism.

The past is the key to the present.

If you knew a favourite had never won a particular race in history (same race, number of runners, day of the week) would you back it?

Thousands still will as they're looking at form only.

History will give you a better idea...

A race's history can only give you indications and limited information - it's today's line-up that's important.

No horse in the history of the Sussex Stakes had ever won it twice until Frankel, but you could still see why he was 1/20 and few would have bet against him on that flimsy principle. It's not just top class racing but in any grade of race, every now and again, a horse or horses line up that bucks the trend and form students are more likely to be wise to it.

Not suggesting the OP and team would do, but many people spot races that have a good historical record for three-year-olds without even checking what year the race was open to four-year-olds. Such methods require a lot of analysis and work for little gain.

What we do, Derek, works.
I was sceptical but it simply works time and time again.
If you can forget everything you think Is important, form, jockey, trainers 14 day strike rate etc and listen to what the market is telling you historically it is very profitable.

[Derek27]

Of course the trend can be bucked, but historically if the SP had been ~2/1 and they had all lost and this year's SP was way down at 1/20 you wouldn't lay it, there was no precedent at that price.

The wisdom of the crowd has set the SP, historical SP is what it's all about, based on the same race conditions year on year.

Ten races just isn't a big enough sample. Race rules change, handicaps become non-handicaps and vice versa, which would make such data useless.

The crowd is not very wise and backs 160% overrounds!

[Valda]

Derek - have a look at EDITED.
Read the theory , there is a 7 day no strings, no card details, trial.
Come into the chat room and see what we are doing and how much we are winning.
Then tell me it doesn’t work !

[GBDundee]

Of course the trend can be bucked, but historically if the SP had been ~2/1 and they had all lost and this year's SP was way down at 1/20 you wouldn't lay it, there was no precedent at that price.

The wisdom of the crowd has set the SP, historical SP is what it's all about, based on the same race conditions year on year.

Ten races just isn't a big enough sample. Race rules change, handicaps become non-handicaps and vice versa, which would make such data useless.

The crowd is not very wise and backs 160% overrounds!

One thing for sure, all these horses at this track with the same jockeys have never raced together 10 times..maybe there is more to this than one first thinks?

[Derek27]

Derek - have a look at EDITED.
Read the theory , there is a 7 day no strings, no card details, trial.
Come into the chat room and see what we are doing and how much we are winning.
Then tell me it doesn’t work !

I haven't even had time to sleep tonight nevermind read about systems.

Besides, you need to provide a link - I'm not likely to find anything searching for the word 'edited'.

I never said that the method wouldn't work or be profitable, I'm sure there are statistical methods that will have an edge. I was just saying it's not something I would be interested in. When I was a punter I regarded backing a horse whose profile was backed up by statistical history as a very, very slight positive, not something I would want to go all in with. But if the method works for you I'm really pleased for you. I certainly wouldn't discourage you.

[Valda]

If anyone would like to know the name of the App and where to find the website please pm me as I see it has been edited out of my post.

[Derek27]

Of course the trend can be bucked, but historically if the SP had been ~2/1 and they had all lost and this year's SP was way down at 1/20 you wouldn't lay it, there was no precedent at that price.

The wisdom of the crowd has set the SP, historical SP is what it's all about, based on the same race conditions year on year.

Ten races just isn't a big enough sample. Race rules change, handicaps become non-handicaps and vice versa, which would make such data useless.

The crowd is not very wise and backs 160% overrounds!

One thing for sure, all these horses at this track with the same jockeys have never raced together 10 times..maybe there is more to this than one first thinks?

Analysing races where the horses have met several times can be quite boring and harder to find value. It's the harder to assess horses whose form often gets underestimated and overlooked in the betting, which results in betting opportunities.

[Valda]

Derek - you can lead a horse to water but you can’t....etc. etc
So I’ll just leave it with you mate. It works.

[jimibt]

Derek - you can lead a horse to water but you can’t....etc. etc
So I’ll just leave it with you mate. It works.

i know how hard it can be to convince folk of new approaches etc, i guess the best testimony to set the tone would be to post up a sub-set of today's selections. if i were doing this, i'd opt to ping up the bullet proof entries only, that way you'll satisfy the naysayers and at the same time demonstrate the confidence in this approach.