Multiple Horseracing Selection Systems

I frequently pay visits to various betting forums in order to keep up with the latest new ideas and theories that the respective forum members are currently discussing.  If I am able to add something positive to their discussions, I will.  Otherwise, I keep quite and just observe.

Whilst visiting the various forums, I continually come across comments such as the one below:

‘Hi Fred, I have just noticed that your laying system has selected Mr. Ed in the 12:50 at Wolverhampton today.  Well, so has my laying system too.  I have noticed that, whenever our systems have selected the same horse in the past, that horse has always gone on to lose.  That means that Mr. Ed is a definite lay as it is definitely going to lose.  The chances that both of our systems are incorrect must be somewhat remote.  I might therefore substantially increase my stake on the selection.  In fact, I may well use double my normal stake.  The best of luck to you.  Bill.

I must admit that, in the past, I have posted very similar comments myself on one or two of the forums.  I now know better.

Now, Fred doesn’t know how Bill’s laying system selects its horses.  Bill doesn’t know how Fred’s laying system selects its horses either.  However, both Bill and Fred suspect that their respective systems generate their respective selections using entirely different methods, given how few common selections that their respective systems generate. 

Given Bill’s comments above, there is obviously a belief that if both of their respective laying systems have selected the same horse in the same race, then it has increased the chances that the horse in question will lose.  But, is this belief really justified?

The answer to this question is ‘No’.  Certainly not.  There is no justification whatsoever for believing that if more than one laying system has selected the same horse that the chances of that horse losing have increased.  An identical argument applies to backing systems, by the way.

Why is this?

My research, and that of others, shows that betting exchange odds are, for all intents and purposes, very approximately, perfect.  It therefore follows that the strike rate of a horse is directly proportional to its betting exchange odds.  By way of an example, if the odds of a horse on a betting exchange are 4.0, then statistics reveal that it does, indeed, win one in four of its races.  So, the strike rate of a horse is determined by its exchange odds, and only its exchange odds.  It is in no way determined by how many, or how few, laying or backing selection systems identify a particular horse.  Therefore, the fact that both Bill and Fred’s laying selections identified Mr. Ed is completely and utterly irrelevant and it does not imply that the horse is any more, or any less, likely to win, lose or draw.  

Therefore, if Bill really were to lay Mr. Ed for double his usual stake, just because Fred’s system had also identified the horse, in my opinion, it would be a little fool-hardy since the horse’s chances of losing have not been increased just because Fred’s system has also identified the horse as a lay.

Now, let’s think about the laying selection systems of both Fred and Bill.

We know that the long-term strike rate of any system is directly proportional to the average betting exchange odds of the horses that it selects.

So, let us suppose that the average betting exchange odds of the horses that Fred’s laying system selects is 5.0.  We know that a horse whose odds on a betting are 5.0 will win one in five of its races because betting exchange markets are approximately perfect.  This implies that the long-term strike rate of Fred’s laying system is 100 – (100/5) = 100 – 20 = 80%.  Therefore, according to Fred’s laying system, Mr. Ed has a 80% chance of losing.

Now, let us suppose that the average betting exchange odds of the horses that Bill’s laying system selects is 3.0.  We know that a horse whose odds on a betting are 3.0 will win one in three of its races because betting exchange markets are approximately perfect.  This implies that the long-term strike rate of Bill’s laying system is 100 – (100/3) = 100 – 33.33 = 66.67%.  Therefore, according to Bill’s laying system, Mr. Ed has a 66.67% chance of losing.

Also, Mr. Ed’s odds on the betting exchange are 4.0.  We know that a horse whose odds on a betting are 4.0 will win one in four of its races because betting exchange markets are approximately perfect.  Therefore, according to the betting exchange, Mr. Ed has a 100 – (100/4) = 100 – 25 = 75% chance of losing.

So, he we have a dilemma. 

According to Fred’s laying system, Mr. Ed has an 80% chance of losing. 

According to Bill’s laying system, Mr. Ed has a 66.67% chance of losing. 

And, according to the betting exchange, Mr. Ed has a 75% chance of losing.  

What we have here is one horse, one race and three different estimates of its percentage chance of losing. 

How can this be? 

Surely, it can’t be correct?

Surely, somewhere we have mad a mistake in our calculations?

No, not at all.

The logic and mathematics is sound.  I have checked it several times.

The point is this:  Within the context of Fred’s laying system, Mr. Ed has an 80% chance of losing.  I repeat, within the context of Fred’s laying system.  Likewise, within the context of Bill’s laying system, Mr. Ed has an 66.67% chance of losing.  I repeat, within the context of Bill’s laying system.  Also, Mr. Ed has an 75% chance of losing. within the context of a betting exchange.  I repeat again, within the context of the betting exchange.  

So, which system is right and which is wrong with regard to Mr. Ed’s chances of not winning the 12:50 at Wolverhampton?

The answer to this question is that they are all correct and at the same time, they are all incorrect.

The reason for this is two-fold.

Firstly, the strike rate of Fred’s laying system (80%) is a long-term average.  It therefore cannot determine the absolute strike rate of any horse in any race, only what the strike rate is likely to be over the long-term.  Similar arguments can also be applied to Bill’s laying system and the betting exchange.

Secondly, Mr. Ed’s actual chances of losing the race are indeterminate.  There are just too many imponderables to contemplate.  We are therefore only able to provide an estimate.  Even then, an estimate can only be provided in terms of the long-term, and not the immediate term.  In addition, the estimate can only reflect the context in which the estimate is provided i.e. the system of Bill, Fred or the ‘bloke next door’.    

Psycho

www.laythepsychicway.com

www.psycholaysdogs.com

www.psychosshortlays.com