UNDERESTIMATED

[Jay Trotter]

I just completed a very good read entitled "Enemy Number One" by Patrick Veitch. Veitch is one of the U.K.'s most highly regarded punters. The book is mostly a biographical slice of his handicapping life with focus on a particularly troubling period when he had to go into hiding.

Anyway, the one little nugget I took away was what he referred to as "underestimating"!

"Many punters seem willing to debate endlessly the merits of value in betting, with those favouring a winner-finding strategy locking horns with those favouring an emphasis on seeking out value. I suppose one could say that the value side are correct, but the vagueness of the word causes unnecessary debate. 'Underestimated' is the correct word, because it is true by definition and also provides a continual reminder of the logical way to approach betting..."

"...the three most common criteria that punters use: comment on a recent run (the impressiveness or not of the most recent effort), comment about today's race (the ground will suite him), and information (word from the barn, etc.)."

Basically, he says that the market moves to take into account these very basic and public facts.

His method goes beyond the obvious. As an example on effort:

"I've analysed what has been said by the experts about his run last time out. I feel they have made a huge error in the way they've descibed his performance. He was far, far more impressive than the consensus of expert opinion believed."

or on today's conditions:

"The market's view of how effective he'll be on today's ground is entirely incorrect. It is presumed that he doesn't like soft ground, but his stable was badly out of form when he tried soft in the spring and, watching the way he gallops, I'm fairly confident it will suit him."

"It is sometimes the case that a factor that we know decreases a horse's chance of winning can improve the chance of it being underestimated and hence make it a good betting proposition. You might, for instance, be fairly confident that rain will reduce a horse's chance of winning. But if you believe that this is only probable, whereas the market treats is as almost certain, then you may be justified in placing a bet."


In a nutshell, he looks beyond the consensus opinion and when he spots a discrepancy between the common thought and the actuallity of the given situation, he takes advantage of those wagering opportunities.

Underestimation gives you "true" value!

Trotter:ThmbUp:

[Overlay]

The flip side of that is that overestimation can have benefits,too, as when the public keys on, and overbets, a horse (even a legitimate favorite) because of a positive factor or angle that may indeed be an asset, but not to the extent that the public believes. That will almost certainly make playable overlays out of one or more other horses in the race, as long as bettors are willing to look at the entire field, rather than focusing exclusively on isolating the one most likely winner.

[gm10]

I just completed a very good read entitled "Enemy Number One" by Patrick Veitch. Veitch is one of the U.K.'s most highly regarded punters. The book is mostly a biographical slice of his handicapping life with focus on a particularly troubling period when he had to go into hiding.

Anyway, the one little nugget I took away was what he referred to as "underestimating"!

"Many punters seem willing to debate endlessly the merits of value in betting, with those favouring a winner-finding strategy locking horns with those favouring an emphasis on seeking out value. I suppose one could say that the value side are correct, but the vagueness of the word causes unnecessary debate. 'Underestimated' is the correct word, because it is true by definition and also provides a continual reminder of the logical way to approach betting..."

"...the three most common criteria that punters use: comment on a recent run (the impressiveness or not of the most recent effort), comment about today's race (the ground will suite him), and information (word from the barn, etc.)."

Basically, he says that the market moves to take into account these very basic and public facts.

His method goes beyond the obvious. As an example on effort:

"I've analysed what has been said by the experts about his run last time out. I feel they have made a huge error in the way they've descibed his performance. He was far, far more impressive than the consensus of expert opinion believed."

or on today's conditions:

"The market's view of how effective he'll be on today's ground is entirely incorrect. It is presumed that he doesn't like soft ground, but his stable was badly out of form when he tried soft in the spring and, watching the way he gallops, I'm fairly confident it will suit him."

"It is sometimes the case that a factor that we know decreases a horse's chance of winning can improve the chance of it being underestimated and hence make it a good betting proposition. You might, for instance, be fairly confident that rain will reduce a horse's chance of winning. But if you believe that this is only probable, whereas the market treats is as almost certain, then you may be justified in placing a bet."


In a nutshell, he looks beyond the consensus opinion and when he spots a discrepancy between the common thought and the actuallity of the given situation, he takes advantage of those wagering opportunities.

Underestimation gives you "true" value!

Trotter:ThmbUp:
Interesting read.
What did you think of the bit where he goes into hiding?

[Jay Trotter]

Interesting read.
What did you think of the bit where he goes into hiding?

Well, from the sounds of it, he was scared "shitless" of the guy who was trying to blackmail him into investing in his enterprise, obviously justified. From what is written in the book the villian was as ruthless as those you would find in a Hollywood movie.

Your take?