Will Wilde is a London-based maths graduate who is the head trader at Football Form Labs. They provide soccer betting software that allows you to analyse a treasure trove of data across 50 different leagues.

He's on the podcast this week to share hi...

This week we welcome back to the podcast Vince Accardi from Daily Sectionals.

We've had a long association with Vince and he's on the show to give his unique perspective on form analysis:

Database vs. instinct and experience

On-speed vs. backmarkers

Big vs. small markets

Specialising vs. diversifying

And also how he manages his betting strategy:

Level vs. proportionate staking

Standard bet size vs. confidence levels

Market intelligence vs market ignorance

Early vs late betting

Favourites vs long shots

Each way (or place only) vs straight out

Static vs dynamic banks

Profit on Turnover % vs Profit only.

Today’s Guest:

Vince Accardi

Dave Duffield: Always a pleasure to have you on Vince and we've run a For and Against series for a few weeks now and wanted to get your take on things. The standard opener has been whether you're working off data or gut instinct and experience. I'm pretty sure you lean towards the former.

Vince Accardi: Yes, it's all very important. Data versus gut, they both play a role, but first and foremost we need to understand the data. Then from there, we can have our gut instinct which is going to create the opportunity.

Dave Duffield: When you're talking about relying on the data, what type of data do you place importance on?

Vince Accardi: I'm a very big stickler, as you know David, it's all about the IVR data and it's all worked through sectional times. Coming though that derivative of class, having that clarity via that model is what it's all about for me.

Dave Duffield: What part does gut instinct and experience play then in the outputs of that model, or do you just rely on tweaking and fine tuning the inputs, so that the outputs you don't really have to second guess?

Vince Accardi: There's always an element of fine tuning, but the reality is your gut instincts all derive from the confidence level that you get from your information that you are working with, and that's what it's all about. The greater confidence you can have from what you're working with, the better gut feeling you're going to get towards making something happen.

Dave Duffield: For the data itself, you've mentioned this on a podcast or webinar previously, you don't really adjust that for luck in running or other subjective factors?

Vince Accardi: No, I don't. But in ratings, there's always a lot of talk about a horse that was trapped 3 wide or 4 wide. It always comes out in the figures anyway.

The reality is, if you can have that correct profile of the runner, that's going to give you the crystallisation. Then you can truly understand the true merits, perhaps if it was wide, or it didn't get a run in the critical last 150 metres, ultimately, a race is at least 1000 metres, or 1200m, or 1400m, or 1600m.

You need to engage in the entire race, not just one portion.

Dave Duffield: Another common question I've been asking is, whether you focus on every race Australia wide, and grind away at a profit, or whether you're focusing on just a few.

Vince Accardi: Yes, that's a really important point that you make there, David.

There are two types of players as we know, or maybe there's multiple types of players. I am the type of player, that I like to work on identifying key runners that I like to tag, and work within those parameters.

I'm certainly not one that wants to enjoy working on every single race. It certainly doesn't stimulate my philosophy. Whilst I might look at every race, ultimately, I don't like to subject myself to that type of betting activity because I feel less is best for me.

Dave Duffield: A few weeks ago, Nathan Snow said that he really thrives on trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together, and that's why he doesn't want to focus on different states and all different races. It sounds like you're similar?

Vince Accardi: I am similar in the sense that I typically like to focus on Melbourne and Sydney,

Our 'For and Against' series has focused on Australian thoroughbred and harness racing punters in recent weeks, so today we wanted to broaden our horizons with an expert sports punter.

Dan Weston is the founder of Tennis Ratings which is a fantastic resource for traditional (pre-match) and in-play betting.

Punting Insights:

Why he trusts the data rather than relying on his gut

How to handle incomplete data and accurately assess young improving players

When he respects the market and when he's happy to take it on

His preferred betting strategy and how he manges his own bankroll

Today’s Guest:

Dan Weston - Tennis Ratings

Dan will be a guest speaker at the inaugural Matchbook Traders Conference in London next month.

If you're interested in learning from sports modellers, traders, mathematicians and programmers you can use the promo code TRADERSCON50 to claim a big 50% discount.

Dave Duffield: Always good to chat Dan and often it's about specific tournaments, but today I wanted to get a different perspective on a series we've been having recently which covers both form analysis and also staking. Your background and your expertise is tennis…. would you describe yourself as a data reliant tennis analyst, or more gut instinct and experience?

Dan Weston:Absolutely completely based on data, I don't really use gut instincts whatsoever. I'm pretty much a slave to the numbers, I'll use them pretty much exclusively. I would say that there's no real situations where you can't use data. The only time would be if a player just hasn't played enough matches and then I would leave the match alone, I wouldn't even get involved with it.

I find that with using gut instincts and lean mentally towards a player, you're creating the dangers of gamblers fallacy where you remember the significant events of the past. Sometimes because they are significant, or you remember when a player blew a number of match points, or something like that, it tends to stick in your mind and you think that player is vulnerable in that situation. Where it might just be a one-off, but because it's a notable event it sticks in your mind, rather than all the times they served out to love and didn't even think about it twice.

So I would look at the data rather than my gut pretty much always. Sometimes the gut is often correct as well. For example, last night in Quebec, Gibbs threw it away again, and she actually lost the match after winning the first set 6:1, having a set and break-lead in the second set, three match points in the second set and a break-lead twice in the third set. I think she traded a very low 1.01, 1.02 kind of price. My gut would have led me to believe that Gibbs was vulnerable as a front-runner, and that's completely backed-up by the data as well.

For example, like last year with Gibbs against Pavlyuchenkova in the US Open when she just didn't want to get over the line in the second set at all. Ended up losing on a tie break before finally winning in the third set. She's no stranger to these low price turnovers. My gut would have said that and the data backed it up, but because I've got the data I'd rather use that anyway, you know, it's there, it's concrete, it's absolute.

Dave Duffield: In that situation when you talk about data, are you talking about break-point conversions and match point conversions and actually winning matches where they've held match points? Or are you talking about their performance versus say in-play prices from Betfair or MatchBook or the like?

Dan Weston:There'll be a lot of ways that I'd look at it. What I tend to do for my own trading is I'll have a kind of a base data thing that I'll look at, which would generally be performance when leading in a match, or leading in a various facet of a match. For example, if they've won the first set, how do they perform by taking the first break of the second set? How frequently do they do that? Are they consistent,

The 'For and Against' podcast series continues this week with our Trial Spy Dean.

It's been clear already that no two successful punters operate exactly the same way and Dean certainly has a different approach as well as the courage of his convictio...

In this podcast episode, South Australian racing analyst Heath Pope answers a number of different questions about how he does the form, prepares rated prices and then stakes his bets.

Punting Insights:

Certain form factors he considers over-rated

The importance of jockey ratings

Why trainer ratings can't be used as a 'one size fits all' approach

When he incorporates market intelligence into his staking

Why he doesn't bet the exotics

Today’s Guest:

Heath Pope

Dave Duffield: We've got a series running right now on the differences, but also some of the common traits amongst successful analysts and punters. I wanted to get you on and talk about both form and your betting and money management.

We'll start with the analysis side of things. Would you describe yourself as a data guy or more videos, instinct experience?

Heath Pope: I'm what you probably would classify as old school. I specialise in just one area, even though my raw data figures are computer generated, I basically just use those as the base figure with the rest of my form analysis coming from what I actually see with my own two eyes as well as gut instinct, having got to know those horses I specialise in.

Dave Duffield: With that knowledge of the horses, your preference is South Australian racing. Why did you choose to focus on that area?

Heath Pope: I like to concentrate on an area which is less popular. In regards to Sydney and Melbourne where the markets are very efficient, I would rather concentrate a lot more on an area more where, I believe, I've got a much more stronger edge.

Dave Duffield: When you're doing the analysis that you mentioned and it comes down to experience and knowledge of the horses, are you watching videos and taking a lot of notes?

Heath Pope: That's all I do. All I'm doing is watching videos. I do the form for myself but I'm still working for Racenet and I'm also providing video comments for every horse in every race. If there’s 14 horses in a race I'm watching the race 14 times. After a while you do tend to get to know them.

Dave Duffield: Are you saying that in the Hilton Donaldson days you’d have to listen to him 14 times, calling the same race.

Heath Pope: I miss Hilton!

Dave Duffield: Very well. What about speed maps? What role do they play ... I'm talking about when you're previewing a race or trying to determine whether you want to bet into a race. How do you come up with the speed map and then how does that come into you're assessment in terms of, yeah, I want to bet or no, I don't?

Heath Pope: Speed maps are one of the most important factors in analysing form. It all comes down to me doing the form manually, gut instincts, knowing the horses and also looking outside of the square, as well. A lot of times certain races might look to have absolutely no pace whatsoever, hence it looks too obvious and, some trainers and jockeys who might be behind that slow pace wanting to change things. You get a feel for it after a while and certain horses that can race on the pace ... it's hard to explain really. Some horses are very versatile, let’s just say that.

Does that make sense?

Dave Duffield: Yeah, it's interesting what you said there about sometimes the obvious turns out to to run the opposite way because that's exactly what Andrew Hannan our VIC guy mentioned about speed maps are so mainstream now that trainers and jockeys are all generally looking at similar stuff. So if they see there is no pace there, whereas just a few years ago that's the way it may have turned out, quite often now it's the opposite.

Heath Pope: Yeah. If you're going to let Horse A get away with murder up front then your chances of winning the race you are facing an uphill battle. Jockeys and trainers are going to try to do something about that and it only takes 2, 3 or 4 horses to have the same idea then suddenly your race has turned upside down, hasn't it? Everything is not black and white,

On the show this week is Matt Cosgriff who has been in the betting industry all his life, involved in both on-course and corporate bookmaking as well as a stint as a Senior Trader across all three codes at Betfair. That's a good background to discuss the pro's and cons of various aspects of form analysis and staking as we continue this podcast series.

Punting Insights:

The types of races he tends to focus on

Matt's thoughts on trainers and jockeys

The only time when he takes much notice of weights

How he uses sectionals including bonuses for slowly run races

Money management from a bookmaking and punting perspective.

Apologies for the audio quality on this episode. There is no transcription available this week.

Today’s Guest: Matt Cosgriff - Ladbrokes.

Get More Betting 360

Make sure you don't miss our punting tips to come! Subscribe on:

iTunes

RSS

Stitcher

or you can directly download this episode by right-clicking, Save As Here.

What Do You Think of the Show?

Drop by iTunes and leave a review

Share your thoughts as a comment below

Get connected via Facebook

Stay up to date via Twitter

Reach out personally via Email

Our Melbourne metro ratings analyst is this week's guest on our For and Against podcast series, where we get the lowdown from professional punters on how they go about winning long-term.

Andrew explains how how he approaches form analysis:

Da...

Today is the the second in our For and Against podcast series where we get the lowdown from professional punters on how they go about winning long-term.

Nathan Snow is on the show to discuss aspects of the form such as:

Database vs. instinct and experience

On-speed vs. backmarkers

Big vs. small markets

Specialising vs. diversifying

Nathan also gives his thoughts on:

Level vs. proportionate staking

Standard bet size vs. confidence levels

Market intelligence vs market ignorance

Early vs late betting

Favourites vs long shots

Each way (or place only) vs straight out.

Static vs dynamic banks

Profit on Turnover % vs Profit only

Today’s Guest:

Nathan Snow

Dave: Good to have you back on Nathan. Last week we had Ben Krahe kick off the For and Against series and today I wanted to get you on a run through similar questions starting with doing the form. Would you describe yourself as a data guy or someone who relies more on videos and years of industry experience?

Nathan: It's more the videos and experience, but I am incorporating a bit more data here and there into what I do. Racing’s really undergone an information revolution the last sort of five, ten years and its expanding what you can find out and what's available for punters. You’d be mad not to look at different pieces but the core of what I've done hasn't changed. I just like to add little bits here and there to try and improve what I do.

Dave: How do you add little bits? Like you mentioned the data revolution, you want to stay true to what's succeeded long-term but at the same time you're constantly looking to improve. How do you incorporate that without I suppose throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Nathan: It's more about doing what you do and keeping notes on various things that you may have used to influence your prices and cross-checking them after and seeing what adds up after a few months and what doesn't and what's worth adding little bits here and there to, and what's worth not discarding. It sort of works a bit like that.

Dave: Some of the data guys like to operate on lots of races every day, every week. What's your approach, in terms of the races that you want to focus on?

Nathan: That's why I'm more in the other sort of school. I just focus on one area and getting to know the horses and trainers and jockeys and the patterns of the tracks as much as possible. I find that helps me be in the other school of thought. It really is old school and new school, I guess. I prefer getting to know the horses and doing my form that way.

Dave: Do you still find an edge in speed maps and if so, how do you treat backmarkers versus on-speed horses?

Nathan: It's really all dependent on the map and how much pace you see and how much pace is going to be generated in the race, and which horses are going to land in the right spot. Sometimes, the backmarker, even though they're speed's going to be on if they're drawn awkwardly, they're going to have to go right back, whereas if they're drawn two or three, they can lob mid-field doing the same amount of work and that could be a big difference.

Dave: What about trainers and jockeys. I think it’s fair to say that you’ve got strong opinions on those but how do you factor that into your prices?

Nathan: Yeah, it all becomes about price premiums with trainers and jockeys. You penalise and you add and you penalise and you come up with a price. If the market is compensated as much as you feel it needs to then it’s still worth a bet. We managed to back a Kathy O’Hara winner yesterday even though you penalize a rider and the market penalizes a turn and the price is still there. They still ride winners the lesser jockeys; it’s just a matter of making sure you’re getting the right value to back them.

Dave: Obviously jockeys chop and change in terms from one start to the next but what about trainers?

Nathan: Well,

Today is the first of our For and Against series where will get successful punters on the Betting 360 podcast to detail exactly how they go about winning long-term. You will soon see that while there are many common traits amongst the professionals, no two punters operate the same way.

In fact many come at it from very different angles yet each of them are successful in their own right.

Punting Insights:

In this series we will discuss aspects of the form such as:

Database vs. instinct and experience

On-speed vs. backmarkers

Big vs. small markets

Specialising vs. diversifying

We will also get their take on a number of different betting, staking and money management methods including:

Level vs. proportionate staking

Standard bet size vs. confidence levels

Market intelligence vs market ignorance

Early vs late betting

Favourites vs long shots

Each way (or place only) vs straight out.

Static vs dynamic banks

Profit on Turnover % vs Profit only

Today’s Guest:

Ben Krahe

David Duffield: Hi Ben I wanted to get you on as the first part of a series with most of the guys in our team. That's because there's some similarities in the way people operate, and then there's also some pretty key differences.

I wanted to run through a few different things, and just find out your take on how you approach it, and whether that's changed over the years from the bookmaking that you did right through to punting.

Ben Krahe: Sure, let's go.

David Duffield: The first one was in terms of the staking. I've always said I've never come across anyone that level stakes and has been really successful, but in recent times I have. There is one guy who is heavily data driven and is happy to level stake and ride out the peaks and troughs there. You're like most though, you're from the other side of things, where you've always bet proportionately.

Ben Krahe: Yeah, that's right. I believe the reason we bet is because we have an edge. When we price things, we give certain percentage to those horses. The reason we price things is because we want to find value. If we find more value in a horse, for me, it makes sense that we bet more according to that value. So I always bet according to what I've priced a horse. If I get even money, and I'm betting to five units, then obviously we'll bet to collect five units on that horse, irrespective of whether it's paying $2.50 or if it's actually paying $10. The more value we get, the better return for what we've come up with.

That's the reason I don't bet level stakes. I just believe that the reason we are betting is because we've got an edge and some value, so let's really exploit that value.

David Duffield: One thing that has changed from earlier this year, though, was you went from outlaying the same amount per race, or having the same unit value assigned, to having different confidence levels. How did that come about, and how has it gone?

Ben Krahe: I did a bit of research. What I've basically done is, in effect an A, B, and C race, or a one race, or a half unit race, or maybe even just a one and a quarter or one and a half times unit race.

At one stage there I wouldn't price every race, I might leave a couple of races out if I just wasn't confident. But the service that I'm giving the people is that they want to have a bet. Most guys want to have a bet in most races. I've priced every race. If I'm not too confident on the race, but I've still priced it, and I believe that I've got those prices right, we might only assign that a half unit staking race.

There might be other reasons for that. There might be a change of trainer, or a whole heap of first data that we haven't seen any vision of the trials. There might be various reasons why we're still interested in having a bit of a bet, but we mightn't be as confident in the race.

On the other side, sometimes I get up there, and I am just super confident that I've got that race right.

Ubet's Gerard Daffy is back on the podcast to talk about footy, cricket and golf betting in 2015.

We had a slight hiccup with the audio so had to go to the back-up. It should be clear enough for most people, but there is always the transcript if you...