Explaining Value Bets

[Chesham]

This book was better than “Art Of Legging and recommended as a starting point. to a small group that I belonged to by Rob Morris

Hi Jackform

“The Four Quarters Of Horse Investing” could fit into your post above and also a Odds Line can be created. You could then see which of your contenders is being offered at value odds . The Template allows you to decide how close each contender is to the other contenders and then choose the best odds line.

The idea is that around 80% is used for your contenders and 20% for S—-t hppens and none of your contenders win. But in theory if you have only backed those contenders who are being offered at value odds you should finish in the Black

The book is out of print now and I paid around $49 some years ago it was recommended to me by Rob Morris who you would know from Smartsig Magazine.

View attachment 84012View attachment 84013View attachment 84014View attachment 84015View attachment 84016

Also see Rob in his own words . He did demonstrate his pre race odds lines to the group over 7 days and was well in profit backing his value bets by the end of the 7 days

Worth noting is that he checked out his odds lines to see if they were accurate over a period of time. ie a 9/2 shot would win just over 18% of the time but obviously if he got better odds than 9/2 he would in the long term be in profit. He only backed his odds line up to 9/2 if they were at better odds, this was because of avoiding long losing runs. A true 9/2 will only win 18.2% of the time

https://www.theukbettingforum.co.uk/XenForo/threads/ingredients-to-consider.22797/post-98910

 

[OnTheNod]

Sorry Donny not sure why you have reacted this way , do I know you from Flatstats under a different name and why do you feel that you need to stop posting on the forum. I can’t see any reason why I might have upset you.

If anyone else can she’d some light on Donny , reaction to my post 16 on this thread, please let me know as I am absolutely puzzled

I Think Chesham it maybe because the links you have given, states you do not have permission to read these links.

 

[Chesham]

I Think Chesham it maybe because the links you have given, states you do not have permission to read this links.

thanks . Did not realise

 

[OnTheNod]

He can read the links he is greened up

Well i cant and i am green so maybe something is up.

 

[Chesham]

Well i cant and i am green so maybe something is up.

I have screen shot the pages above

 

[sniper7]

This might be a slightly silly question, so bear with me.

The idea of value has been around a long time. Long before algorithms, models, or anything particularly clever.

In the 1970s, people were backing horses at prices like 9/1 simply because the odds didn’t look right to them. No spreadsheets, no data feeds just a sense that the price didn’t reflect what was likely to happen.

In the 1980s, prices were chalked up, bookmakers were signalling with their hands, and moves in the market were slow enough to watch in real time.

In the 1990s, it was telephone bets, tissue prices, and what passed for fairly professional markets back then.

A lot has obviously changed since then.
Everything’s quicker.
There’s more money.
More information.
More people involved.

But I can’t quite shake a basic question.

Is value still the same thing it always was a mismatch between price and chance or has the concept itself changed at some point along the way?

And if the concept hasn’t changed, then has the way of spotting it really changed in principle, or is it mostly the same idea dressed up with faster tools and better data?

One more thought, just to take it a step further.

It’s often said that the founder of Timeform made the equivalent of around £10 million in today’s money from betting, using what were, by modern standards, very simple ideas.

The obvious question is:
could that still be done today?

Not “would it be easy”,
not “would many people manage it”,
but in principle is the door still open for that level of edge to exist?

Or has something fundamentally changed in the nature of the market itself?

Again, happy to be told I’m missing something obvious.

 

[Chesham]

@sniper

Phil Bull's Ledger for 1962 showed that on average all his winning bets were at odds of less than 2/1

However he was betting with a low ROI using a high turnover and stopped betting when the introduction of betting tax came in as it wiped out his margin.

Years ago Martin Pipe hired a Private Handicapper to work out the weakest races from a competitive aspect for their runners. If you are Playing Poker you like a Table that has players weaker than you

I think Phil Bull was being stood bets by real bookmakers such as William Hill the man and not todays Company. They could could lay off some of the liability. The 8%tax introduction meant he could not make a worthwhile profit as his ROI was around 10%and only bet for the fun of it, from then on. He also had his own horses some of whom were trained by Towzer Gosden

The link between Phil Bull and Towzer Gosden (Arthur Gosden) was a highly successful and influential owner-trainer partnership that bridged the gap between scientific betting and traditional horse training in the mid-20th century.

Phil Bull, the professional gambler and mathematician who founded Timeform, was a significant owner-breeder who chose Towzer Gosden to train his most important horses.

---

Key Aspects of Their Connection​

• The Partnership at Lewes: Towzer Gosden trained at Heath House in Lewes, Sussex. Phil Bull, who lived nearby at "The Hollies," sent his horses to Gosden because he respected Gosden’s skill and integrity. At the time, Lewes was a major hub for English racing.
• The "Timeform" Approach: Phil Bull was famous for his data-driven approach to racing. He used his own Timeform ratings to identify value and potential. Gosden was the practical hands-on expert who turned that potential into winners on the track.
  
  
  
• Success with Tenebel: Their most famous collaboration was with the filly Tenebel. In 1961, she won the Coronation Stakes at Royal Ascot. This was a massive achievement for Bull as a breeder and owner, and it cemented Gosden’s reputation as a top-tier trainer.
• Mutual Respect: Despite Bull’s reputation as a loud, cigar-chomping iconoclast and Gosden’s more traditional standing in the racing "establishment," the two men had a deep mutual respect. Bull trusted Gosden's judgment on the fitness of his horses, which allowed Bull to bet with the massive confidence he was known for.

Legacy​

This partnership is often cited in racing history as one of the first times a "professional" gambler/analyst worked hand-in-hand with a major trainer to systematically win big races. It also set the stage for the next generation; Towzer Gosden’s son, John Gosden, went on to become one of the greatest trainers in the history of the sport.

 

[Chesham]

To see how the "Whitley method" works in practice, we can look at the two highest-rated horses of the modern era: Frankel and Sea The Stars.

Comparing their Form Ratings (merit) against their Timefigures (speed) perfectly illustrates why John Whitley's computerization of these numbers was so revolutionary for bettors.

---

Example 1: Frankel – "The Freak of Nature"​

Frankel holds the highest Timeform Form Rating in history (147). However, his Timefigures tell an even more interesting story about how he ran his races.

• The 2000 Guineas (2011): * Form Rating: 142 (initially)
  • Timefigure: 136
  • The Analysis: Usually, 2000 Guineas winners have a Timefigure around 120–125 because the race is often tactical. Frankel went off so fast (opening up 10 lengths by halfway) that he broke the "clock." A Timefigure of 136 for a 3-year-old in April was mathematically unprecedented. It proved he wasn't just better than his rivals; he was physically operating at a higher "power output."
• The Queen Anne Stakes (2012): * Form Rating: 147
  • The Analysis: This 147 is based on Collateral Form. He beat a world-class horse (Excelebration) by 11 lengths. Because we knew exactly how good Excelebration was, the math forced Frankel's rating into the stratosphere. Even if the time had been slow, his "Form Rating" would remain high because of the massive distance he put between himself and elite competition.

---

Example 2: Sea The Stars – "The Perfect Professional"​

Sea The Stars had an arguably "perfect" season in 2009, winning six Group 1s in a row. Yet, his ratings show a different profile than Frankel’s.

• Overall Form Rating: 140
• Peak Timefigure: 132 (Coral-Eclipse)
• The Analysis: Sea The Stars was famous for "idling." Once he got to the front, he would stop exerting himself and just do enough to win by a length or two.
  • The Problem: Because he never "demolished" fields by 10 lengths, and because he didn't push the pace from the start, his Timefigures (132) were often lower than his Form Rating (140).
  • The Insight: John Whitley’s system highlighted that Sea The Stars was a "value" horse. The clock said he was great, but the collateral form said he was a legend. He was winning with plenty of "gas in the tank," which the ratings accounted for by keeping his Form Rating high despite "ordinary" winning times.

---

Why this matters for the bettor​

If you only looked at the Timefigure, you might have thought Sea The Stars was beatable. But if you looked at the Form Rating, you saw a horse that was unbeatable.

Conversely, Whitley’s system often identifies "Timefigure stars"—horses that run incredibly fast times in low-grade races. These are the "hidden gems" of the betting world:

1. The "Clock-Smasher": A horse wins a minor race at a small track, but posts a Timefigure of 115.
2. The Opportunity: The public ignores the horse because it only won a "cheap" race.
3. The Result: The horse moves up to a Group race and wins at big odds because the clock (Whitley’s numbers) already knew it had the engine of a champion.

---

A Final Note on the Names​

While Phil Bull was the "big personality" and founder, it was John Whitley who took Bull's rough sketches and turned them into the precise, computer-driven models that professional syndicates still use to this day. His departure to form Racing Research actually created a rivalry between the two most respected data companies in the sport.

 

[sniper7]

Chesham I’ll speak honestly, from the heart.

For many years I approached racing in what I now realize was a very “horse-first” way. I tried to solve the race, read the form, understand the animal. And the result, year after year, was simple: my bottom line was negative, badly negative.

The turning point for me came when I was forced to confront a word I genuinely disliked: the market.
Not as an enemy, but as an object of study.

Once I changed that lens, I started seeing numbers I would never have seen otherwise.
Things that, on the surface, pure statistics would tell you should not work situations where the obvious edge looks like 0.82 A/E, dead on arrival.

And yet, through a lot of work, a lot of thinking, and plenty of mistakes, I started seeing something else underneath. Patterns that didn’t fit the narrative, but kept showing up on paper.

I don’t know if they will hold forever. I wish I did.
The truth is I’ll only know by paying for that knowledge in real time, over the next year and beyond.

What the numbers show right now is simply this:
a strike rate north of 35%,
ROI above 30%,
A/E greater than 1.30.

Like you said yourself with Phil Bull, everything good eventually comes to an end. I fully accept that. Markets move. Something that works today will be found maybe tomorrow, maybe in a year, maybe in three.

And when that happens, the only option is to adapt again and look for the gap the market leaves behind.

My honest belief is that if you rely solely on traditional racing knowledge however deep or well-read that transition becomes very difficult when the market forces it on you. And history suggests that when you can’t make that transition, the outcome is usually the same.

In the end, nothing really changes.
Only the scenery does.

That’s just my view earned the hard way.

 

[rbtblb82]

Just putting this here for future reference/ease...

Odds Conversion Table​

Fraction	Decimal	Implied Probability
1/100	1.01	99%
1/5	1.2	83.3%
2/9	1.22	81.8%
1/4	1.25	80%
2/7	1.29	77.8%
3/10	1.3	76.9%
1/3	1.33	75%
4/11	1.36	73.3%
2/5	1.4	71.4%
4/9	1.44	69.2%
1/2	1.5	66.7%
8/15	1.53	65.2%
4/7	1.57	63.6%
8/13	1.62	61.9%
4/6	1.67	60%
8/11	1.73	57.9%
4/5	1.8	55.6%
5/6	1.83	54.5%
10/11	1.91	52.4%
1/1 (evens)	2	50%
21/20	2.05	48.8%
11/10	2.1	47.6%
23/20	2.15	46.5%
6/5	2.2	45.5%
5/4	2.25	44.4%
11/8	2.38	42.1%
7/5	2.4	41.7%
6/4	2.5	40%
8/5	2.6	38.5%
13/8	2.62	38.1%
7/4	2.75	36.4%
9/5	2.8	35.7%
15/8	2.88	34.8%
2/1	3	33.3%
11/5	3.2	31.2%
9/4	3.25	30.8%
12/5	3.4	29.4%
5/2	3.5	28.6%
13/5	3.6	27.8%
11/4	3.75	26.7%
3/1	4	25%
16/5	4.2	23.8%
10/3	4.33	23.1%
7/2	4.5	22.2%
4/1	5	20%
9/2	5.5	18.2%
5/1	6	16.7%
11/2	6.5	15.4%
6/1	7	14.3%
13/2	7.5	13.3%
7/1	8	12.5%
15/2	8.5	11.8%
8/1	9	11.1%
9/1	10	10%
10/1	11	9.1%
11/1	12	8.3%
12/1	13	7.7%
13/1	14	7.1%
14/1	15	6.7%
15/1	16	6.2%
16/1	17	5.9%
18/1	19	5.3%
20/1	21	4.8%
25/1	26	3.8%
33/1	34	2.9%
50/1	51	2%
66/1	67	1.5%
100/1	101	1%
1000/1	1001	0.1%

 

[rbtblb82]

14:15 @ Southwell today (06/01/2026)

9 - Secret Road - 5/6f - (54.5%)
1 - Midnight Call - 3/1 - (25%)
2 - Catherine Chroi 5/1 - (16.7%)
6 - Mintana 11/1 - (8.3%)
5 - Lady Bouquet 18/1 - (5.3%)
10 - Sisters In The Sky 18/1 - (5.3%)
11 - Tommytoohoots 18/1 - (5.3%)
4 - Coast 22/1 - (4.3%)
3 - Causin A Commotion 125/1 - (0.8%)

Total/Overround = 125.5%

2-3% per horse = 18-27%, so bookies margin towards the top end for this race.

I don't really have time to do it properly/how Richard Hoiles does it today, I'm just going to use my memory and my 1st thoughts without any placing of the horses on a piece of paper etc., and just say that I think Lady Bouquet is the best value in this race, then maybe Mintana or even Coast, he is capable. Midnight call is a decent horse, won for me the other day, treble for Tony Carroll who is on form, but might be too quick of a turnaround plus top weight, so favourite should win at that price, but I think Lady Bouquet is the value, lets see what happens.

EDIT: Might be 14:15, they keep changing the start time on William Hill for some reason.

 

[gerry]

Talking about prices yes the over round really does make it difficult if not near impossible to win i have been working on a system over last while where most of it is on the market betting dutching and using wins with maybe cover bets in same race.
Using AI to help me work out what i need to make profit the prices where just to high to make long term profit possible with odds bookies give.
Chesham mentioned it in what he said earlier on here and it was my findings to without reading this that i was going to bet three horses in race won just to win and two others cover bets and it worked out the win horse had to be at least 5/1 the cover bets had to be 4/1 and 13/2 at least and if you could find a race with these odds you liked then you would make money but the closest i could even get near it today looking at every race was the win horse 7/2 to low the cover bets i like both not even 3/1 3 places.
So here we either needed the win bet to win and hopefully one cover bet to place to push up profit or one of the cover bets to win and other to place to push up profit.
Any winner would give you profit and that's the point really but small but going by AI it is not winning system simulated over 1000 races if i don't get what i need.
And the funny thing is if i got couple races on same day i even got the right odds the profit goes down if you double them up its a single profit system.
Here is the race that came closest today for me.
3 45 wolverhampton
GRABATABBA WIN 7/2
FOLLOW YOUR HEART MONEY BACK 3 PLACES. 11/4
DIAMONDONTHEHILL MONEY BACK 3 PLACES 11/4 I GOT 7/2 THIS EARLY.

 

[Leodis]

ld15:15 @ Southwell today (06/01/2026)

9 - Secret Road - 5/6f - (54.5%)
1 - Midnight Call - 3/1 - (25%)
2 - Catherine Chroi 5/1 - (16.7%)
6 - Mintana 11/1 - (8.3%)
5 - Lady Bouquet 18/1 - (5.3%)
10 - Sisters In The Sky 18/1 - (5.3%)
11 - Tommytoohoots 18/1 - (5.3%)
4 - Coast 22/1 - (4.3%)
3 - Causin A Commotion 125/1 - (0.8%)

Total/Overround = 125.5%

2-3% per horse = 18-27%, so bookies margin towards the top end for this race.

I don't really have time to do it properly/how Richard Hoiles does it today, I'm just going to use my memory and my 1st thoughts without any placing of the horses on a piece of paper etc., and just say that I think Lady Bouquet is the best value in this race, then maybe Mintana or even Coast, he is capable. Midnight call is a decent horse, won for me the other day, treble for Tony Carroll who is on form, but might be too quick of a turnaround plus top weight, so favourite should win at that price, but I think Lady Bouquet is the value, lets see what happens.

I would work to 1.5% per horse, which is usually the norm.

Is this your tissue or the live market? Anything above 113% on a 9-runner, live market is a rip off, IMO.

Regards

 

[rbtblb82]

Live market (William Hill odds), no time for a proper tissue, just gone for Lady Bouquet 18/1, £2.24 E/W (what I had left in that account).

 

[Leodis]

Live market (William Hill odds), no time for a proper tissue, just gone for Lady Bouquet 18/1, £2.24 E/W (what I had left in that account).

Betfair markets can go as low as 101%, hours before the off. Even with the commission, it's still better value.

Regards

 

[rbtblb82]

Well I got that one wrong, there was 2 non-runners which changed it a bit, the favourite ended up being 2/5 and won, my value bet was 6th, looks like it was Tommytoohoots 25/1 and Sisters In The Sky 28/1, both placing.

 

[horsesforcourses87]

Probably most members know about value bets, but for any that don't, there was a good overview on ITV racing which I recorded, so here it is word for word (it's not my explanation, it's Richard Hoiles').....

Defining Value

Obtaining a bigger price than the true price of an event actually happening.

So what do we mean by that? Well the simplest way to explain it is with the flip of a coin.

A single flip of a fair coin has a 50% chance of hitting heads and a 50% chance of hitting tails (50/50). So in racing parlance evens money each of two, the odds 1/1 (even money). So if somebody offered you bigger than even money (1/1) for a single toss of a fair coin, say they offer you 11/10 or 5/4, you should back that irrespective of whether or not you think it's actually going to be a head or a tail, you may of course still lose, it maybe the reverse of what you backed, but over time, if you were getting 11/10 for a single toss of a coin you would win money.

So how do we apply that to an event where there's more than two outcomes? Obviously in most horse races there are more than two runners and a lot have several plus. Just to give you a feel for the percentages, I've expanded to two tosses of the coin.

Head or Tails?

2 Heads - 3/1 - 25%
2 Tail - 3/1 - 25%
1 Heads + 1 Tails - Evens (1/1) - 50%
Total - 100%

Above you can see the various permutations or outcomes. If you flip a coin twice you have the chance of hitting 2 heads, 2 tails, or 1 head and 1 tail. For 2 heads, you have 1 successful outcome and 3 unsuccessful outcomes, for a total of 4, so 3 out of 4 or 3/1 (or 25%). This is because there are 4 possible outcomes, heads or tails the 1st flip and heads or tails the 2nd flip. Obviously the 2 tails is exactly the same. But for 1 head and 1 tail, you could have head tail, tail head, 2 successful outcomes out of a possible 4, 2 out of 4 or evens (1/1) (or 50%).

To be continued...., sorry I've been distracted and it's taking longer than I thought, it's only a 4 minute video but the sound quality is naff so can't upload....

I was surprised when they covered this on ITV given they are heavily reliant on funding from bookmakers. At the same time they'll happily push so called 'pro tipsters' who don't reference price.

Taking value is what makes it possible to win in the long run, you're just doing the opposite to how the bookies make money by laying bets (bad value).

How can we measure value? Timeform provide the betfair starting price (BSP) for every race in the UK & IRE. Simply, we want to be beating BSP. And we use BSP rather than the industry standard starting price (ISP) because this is close to 100%, and occasionally it can be under 100%. The ISP used to be taken from on course, but this was switched to be taken as an average from online books (I believe the top 4 or 5), and has margin buit in. You're often looking at around 2% per runner at the moment.

So BSP is a better indicator than ISP, but why? JennyK mentioned that this has zero relevance to horse racing because there are no 'true prices' and that a person's opion on the true price is subjective. Someone's opinion on a price may be subjective, but the BSP is made up of thousands of different opinions that all come together. There's the average punter, the pro punter, traders, market makers etc. This gives us the 'wisdom of the crowd' effect, and over time, from a large data set, BSP is very accurate to the true probability, I.e. a horse with a BSP of 10.0 will win 10% of the time.

With this in mind, try to get out of the habit of looking at who is going to win the race, instead look to which horse might be value at the current prices available and test to see if you can beat BSP. A few hundred bets should be enough to see if you can, and then you have an edge. Horse racing can seem very random at times, especially when you have two 3 figure SP prices winning recently, but this is completely normal, especially given the amount of races that are run every year.

Happy to be of help, where I can.

 

[Chesham]

Price disparity is a good indicator when the Layers are out to get the favourite beaten. look out for favourites in the live BF Market who are trading at twice or more their implied odds based on their market share. If you can take out the favourite then you have removed a big chunk of the Total percentage, leaving other runners who will be at value odds

Examples

Papa Delta you have taken out 45.8% of the BF Book and if you believe the Price Disparity 2.18 times it’s implied odds based on market share , then every remaining horse in the race is a potential value bet

Papa Delta lost

Medieval 2.45 times it’s implied odds amd takes out 45.8% of the book leaving all the other of the runners as Value




This is an extract from an email that I sent to a chap that worked the AW Races with me , back in 2007 (The AW Races were Handicaps Class 4 or above.)


I would not suggest Laying favourites who have a Price Disparity of 2.0 or greater, but I do think that it is an area to pay particular attention to the next 4 in the betting.

For instance (Don't try this at home warning) Just backing the 2nd favourite without any prior form study yields 9 winning bets from 25 and a 36% Strike rate.

Last BF Price Taken for winning 2nd Favourites
6.6
7.0
6.2
5.7
4.4
6.0
7.4
5.8
8.4
Total Invested £50 (Minimum stakes)
Total Returned including £2 Stake £115

The sample is still too small, but it is worth seeing how it pans out in the coming months. We both seem to like having a bet when the favourite looks dodgy and buttoning our pockets when it appears solid. We have already selected our races where we have taken out the favourite and the Market is simply telling us that we are probably taking on the favourite in the right races.

 

[horsesforcourses87]

Price disparity is a good indicator when the Layers are out to get the favourite beaten. look out for favourites in the live BF Market who are trading at twice or more their implied odds based on their market share. If you can take out the favourite then you have removed a big chunk of the Total percentage, leaving other runners who will be at value odds

Examples

Papa Delta you have taken out 45.8% of the BF Book and if you believe the Price Disparity 2.18 times it’s implied odds based on market share , then every remaining horse in the race is a potential value bet

Papa Delta lost

Medieval 2.45 times it’s implied odds amd takes out 45.8% of the book leaving all the other of the runners as Value



View attachment 163748View attachment 163749
This is an extract from an email that I sent to a chap that worked the AW Races with me , back in 2007 (The AW Races were Handicaps Class 4 or above.)


I would not suggest Laying favourites who have a Price Disparity of 2.0 or greater, but I do think that it is an area to pay particular attention to the next 4 in the betting.

For instance (Don't try this at home warning) Just backing the 2nd favourite without any prior form study yields 9 winning bets from 25 and a 36% Strike rate.

Last BF Price Taken for winning 2nd Favourites
6.6
7.0
6.2
5.7
4.4
6.0
7.4
5.8
8.4
Total Invested £50 (Minimum stakes)
Total Returned including £2 Stake £115

The sample is still too small, but it is worth seeing how it pans out in the coming months. We both seem to like having a bet when the favourite looks dodgy and buttoning our pockets when it appears solid. We have already selected our races where we have taken out the favourite and the Market is simply telling us that we are probably taking on the favourite in the right races.

There's certainly more than one way to skin a cat in this game but for me, trading is the hardest skill to master.

There does seem to be a big emphasis on using betfair on the forum over traditional bookmakers. There's a reason they're called 'soft' books, they're are much easier to beat, with all the added concessions they give.