The inspiration for this post comes from Dave Scott commander of the Apollo 15 mission to the moon.

During the mission he conducted an experiment using a hammer and feather to prove Galileo’s theory which reasoned that if there was no atmosphere, no dragging force then two objects of different mass falling from the same height would hit the ground at the same time.

A couple of posts ago I cited the following comments from professional punter Dave Nevison’s which were part of the Racing Posts Master Class series

NEVISON subscribes to the view that knowledge is power but believes that information becomes public property so quickly nowadays that it is difficult to exploit an ‘edge’ for long.
Dave Nevison – Pro Punter

Extending his train of thought, if the market say the odds on Betfair reflects the collective knowledge of the crowd (owners, trainers, handicappers, tipsters (snake oil salesmen), pro punters, betting shop fodder, odds compliers etc) how (over a period of time) can one person consistently out perform the market using information which is in the public domain?

After 127 separate examples of personal odds compilation I have reached same conclusion, Dave Nevison is right as its difficult to find and edge for the modern day punter. What you see in respect to the odds on offer for each horse is a fair reflection of their chances of winning.

The penny finally dopped when I saw this chart that plots % Probability of Win verses  Market Odds (% Probability)

prob-v-market-odds1

(Chart from March 09 edition of SmarterSig)

Reviewing betting records in the vacuum of my home, what I thought was my edge (pace handicapping) was not being factored into my tissue. Unfortunately using the same data as everyone else in is creation, I also disregarded the crowds opinion (the pre race starting price and basic handicapping statistics). As a result my own selections performed poorly.

betting-for-a-livingOdds compilation has been a moderately expensive experiment due to the fact that I have immersed myself in the numbers, treated the activity as an exact science and taken my eye off the fact that the tissue should reflect pre race handicapping of different factors not just one.

As confidence was low, for inspiration I re-read my list of maxims which caused me to dig up some of my older blog posts from back in the day (2004) and the book that caused me to embark on my chosen path.

Way back then, a lot of my success was due to the fact that I always backed my opinion after I had taken the race apart. To arrive at a bet I spent a significant amount of time handicapping the race to determine contenders.

To determine if a contenders’ price represented value, the bit that surprised me was I would then apply a simple technique advocated in Mordin’s book.

It is, I fear, ludicrously simple. All I do is work out a race, using my normal methods.

This involves eliminating all runners who I feel have no chance to win. If this leaves me with four contenders, I know that my selection has roughly one chance in four of winning.

I hope its chance is somewhat better than that, but I know that this is compensated for by the accumulated (though slight) chances of the runners I have eliminated.

So I will want to obtain at least 4-1 for my money. If I think there are three legitimate contenders, I will accept no less that 3-1. If I believe five horses have a chance, I won’t bet if I can’t get 5-1. These prices guarantee me a profit, provided my calculations aren’t in error.
Nick Mordin

Maybe I don’t require a trip to the moon to prove his theories, my emphasis on handicapping over odds compilation pre 2004 indicate the Mordin could also be right.

The next post on this subect will discuss the heroic betting crowd and how they can in combination with my own opinion of the race help me find valuable punting opportunities.

Related Posts