Melbourne Cup True Odds

[Fadge]

No wins on this race today starz, but I'll give you credit for framing the top 7 there or thereabouts. If you take out the 2 scratchings, 5 of those 5 finished in the top 8.

???? You're not alter ego #7, are you?

With regard to the horses that were in the money, yes Efficient was rated 7 points below what it actually ended up paying but exactly what it was rated in yesterday's markets. Purple Moon was rated at FIVE TIMES what it was paying on the TAB before they jumped and in fact would have cost starz more for the place than the bookies were going to have to fork out had it have won. Mahler $40 with 'True Odds' v. $14 with the books a relatively better but nonetheless poor result.

I wonder if Efficient now becomes the second best horse in the country with a Vic Derby and a Melbourne Cup to his name as a 4YO? Surely he's at least slightly ahead of a horse who's never won and never likely to win anything of note... (NB. I do not want or expect an answer on this from the originator of this thread)

 

[the_fresh]

I was wondering why these 'new people' were following me around like a bad smell.

It's very clear now - im_the_gun = the_fresh & Fadge.

All as clueless as eachother non-coincidentally.

Centrebet was nowhere near 138, neither were the TABs.
So what exactly are you left with?

You know... the comment "last years market was 138%"
This itself really does say a lot about just how much you know about punting.

Last week you didn't even know what fixed odds were and now this.

So what's the answer? we're all ears.

Forget it, you're just flooding the thread and boring everyone with lies and stupidity.

mate I've been at the races all day having just got home and left well before 8am.
As for not knowing what fixed odds were, I really hope you wern't talking to me cause you'll look like a fool.

 

[Fadge]

mate I've been at the races all day having just got home and left well before 8am.
As for not knowing what fixed odds were, I really hope you wern't talking to me cause you'll look like a fool.

Nah, that was directed at me after I questioned whether he actually got $5 the place about Zipping in the Mackinnon after he posted his 'True Odds' after the withdrawal of El Segundo...

I also like his reference to the TAB operating model when trying to support his argument that the market was framed nowhere near 138%

 

[johnnyhoward]

???? You're not alter ego #7, are you?

With regard to the horses that were in the money, yes Efficient was rated 7 points below what it actually ended up paying but exactly what it was rated in yesterday's markets. Purple Moon was rated at FIVE TIMES what it was paying on the TAB before they jumped and in fact would have cost starz more for the place than the bookies were going to have to fork out had it have won. Mahler $40 with 'True Odds' v. $14 with the books a relatively better but nonetheless poor result.

His odds were a bit off due to his Zipping lovefest, and he's clearly not as skilled in setting odds as bookies. So much for 'true odds', but he did rank the horses OK in terms of sorting out the better chances.

 

[the_fresh]

This years market Starz:
[FONT=&quot]17.00 EFFICIENT [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.50 PURPLE MOON [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10.00 MAHLER [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7.50 Zipping[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]61.00 Dolphin Jo [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]31.00 On A Jeune [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]31.00 Blue Monday [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.80 fav Master O'Reilly [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]31.00 Sculptor [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]51.00 Lazer Sharp [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]41.00 Douro Valley [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]14.00 Sirmione [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]14.00 Princess Coup [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]61.00 Tawqeet [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]26.00 Eskimo Queen [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]101.00 Scenic Shot [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]201.00 Black Tom [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]101.00 Sarrera [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]61.00 Blutigeroo [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]201.00 Railings [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]31.00 Tungsten Strike [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]= 117%
[/FONT]

 

[starz]

I asked you many times fresh/fadge where you got this 138 from last year.
You still fail to answer.

Anyway, saying this year was 117 means nothing if that's your best shot at getting out of this awful mess.
You also prove how sharp you are by quoting Efficient at $15 when he paid $22-24 on all totes and most betting agencies.

 

[starz]

His odds were a bit off due to his Zipping lovefest, and he's clearly not as skilled in setting odds as bookies. So much for 'true odds', but he did rank the horses OK in terms of sorting out the better chances.

I don't play favourites in this game, only give honest assesments.
It appears you're another who doesn't understand the concept of true odds.

The top raters did go well and hotpot MasterO, Princess Coup, Eskimo Queen not rated as highly and played out that way.

 

[the_fresh]

I asked you many times fresh/fadge where you got this 138 from last year.
You still fail to answer.

Anyway, saying this year was 117 means nothing if that's your best shot at getting out of this awful mess.
You also prove how sharp you are by quoting Efficient at $15 when he paid $22-24 on all totes and most betting agencies.

Starz you really are a idiot.
First of all I get the final odds from the starting prices, Last year I signed on to Racing & Sports to get the final starting prices.
I did the same this year. They are the final starting prices from Racing Victoria.
The market jumped at 117% this year.
The TAB works around 115% on every race. Thats why working out the bookies % helps you find better prices.
If the bookies have 138% up like they did last year for the cup (they went from 125% out to 138%). I never quoted Efficent at any price, I didn't think he was a chance there for sacked him.

You having framed a market at 102% means that no matter what happens every horse will pay over your quoted price because the bookies work around 108% - 120% in Victoria.
your true odds there for are not a true guide, they are a long way from it. about 6% - 18% off the real odds.