- This topic has 498 replies, 85 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I have NOT backed Grands Crus because he has the best form. Neither do I believe he’ll win…
I’ve backed Grands Crus Gord, because I believe he’s
good value
to win.
Now call me Humpty Numpty if you want Ken but what does the above quote from the Ginger one mean to you? What it means to me is he doesn’t believe
Grand Crus
will Win because he doesn’t have the best form.But he’s backed him because he thinks 8/1 is good value. For someone who considers VALUE everything Ginge,8/1 is actually poor value for a race 9 months away!
My interpretation of the 8/1 on the other hand is this……….I believeGrand Crus
will go off the 6/4fav on the day and win easily,thats because I picture the event as if it were tomorrow in my head,I’m well aware the horse has to get up every morning and eat drink and work without sustaining an injury but 90% of the time my Ante-Post bets do just that…’Spirit Son’ and ‘Quito de la Roque’ confirming just that! Ginge who do you believe will win then? Simple question as thats what the end result is all about!
Sorry Ken but when someone quotes they ‘Dont believe he’ll win’ means to me he thinks it will lose! As a Gambler myself I cant/wont allow negativety like that to influence my decisions.
Grand Crus
,on my reckoning he should be 4/1 2nd fav now! 8/1 is just toooo big imo!
What I said was, "Neither do I believe he’ll win".
It’s simple maths Gord.
If I did "believe he’ll win", then that means I believe he has a better than 50% chance of winning. But I don’t.Any punter beliving a horse to have a 49% or less chance, believes the horse
will NOT win
. ie
Has a better chance of losing than winning
.
What is more Gord, you
yourself don’t believe Grands Crus "will win"
. As you’ve said "on my reckoning he should be 4/1". By saying Grands Crus "
should be 4/1
" to be
fair
odds, what you are saying is Grands Crus has a
20%
chance of
winning
and an
80%
chance of
losing
. So you yourself
believe Grands Crus will lose
.
To be value at 8/1 a selection needs only to have a better than 11% chance of winning. I believe Grands Crus has a much better than 11% chance of winning.
Dont start the ‘Simple’ Maths Sh*t Ginge! When I say I fancy a horse I’m saying I fancy it to win,now if I honestly thought that my 40/1 winners only had a 2.5% chance of winning then I wouldn’t be putting my Money on them,simple as that! Of course I also protect my stake by backing them e/w and as my Cheltenham Ante-Post bets proved,thank goodness I did!
How can you say on one hand you believe ‘Grand Crus’ wont win and on the other that he has more than an 11% chance of winning! Contradiction or what? If he only has an 11% chance of winning and thats because you take the Maths bit way too far,in fact you let it rule your whole outlook on racing and that is why you back half the bloody field in a race,stand firm man,make a decision on what you have seen with your own eyes,not someone elses (Timeform) and stay confident! When i took 6/1 aboutCamelot
winning this years 2000gns its got nothing to do with him having a …………er………..17% is it chance of winning,its because I believe ‘if’ he turns up he wins! Simple as me Ken!
You still can’t see it Gord.
If you asked me if each individual horse “will win” the King George? I’d have to say "no" to every single horse.
If you asked me “who has the best chance of winning?” It would have to be Long Run. Has by far the best form, obviously acts on the track and time of year. If putting in a perfomance similar to either of the last two King George’s, he’ll probably win. But, with a capital “B”, after Cheltenham Long Run has questions to answer. It’s not absolutely certain he’ll ever run to that form again. So whether he’s better than a 25% chance of winning (like he needs to for top price of 3/1 to be value), is doubtful at this stage. Unless it was announced ear plugs will be reapplied. There is no contradiction in what I say Gord.
I believe Grands Crus has around a 17% chance of winning (fair odds of 5/1). Which makes 8/1 very good value. But that also means he has around an83% chance of losing
(17% + 83% = 100%).
It would NOT make any sense for me to say “I think Grands Cruswill
win”, when I believe he has a
far
greater chance of
losing than winning
.
There is a wacking great contradiction in what you’ve said about thinking Grands Crus “will win”. If we take “
will win
”, to mean a better chance of
winning
than
losing
. That means a better than
50%
chance of winning. A horse with a better than 50% chance should be
odds-on
, yet you believe Grands Crus “should be
4/1
”. If a horse has
less
than a 50% chance, then it probably "
won’t win
".
If a punter doesn’t get value, he/she doesn’t win in the long run. That is how it is, whether you or I like it or not. Maths is important.
Just because I buy Timeform doesn’t mean I back the one/ones they pick out. They’ve actually tipped a different horse for the King George. I use my own knowledge/opinion Gord, as well as consulting Timeform. Just as I am sure you use other form books. I just like to give credit to an organisation that often helps me identify winners/value. There was no Timeform man on my shoulder when we beat the Racing Post etc in a quiz.
Good luck with Camalot. Unfortunately for me, it looks as though Harbour Watch is struggling to get there, having backed him before the Richmond. Dabirsim staying in France too, so things falling at Camelot’s drawbridge since you got on. No Montjeu has yet kept its mile speed at three, but Camelot has prospects of holding on to it for long enough to win the 2000. Coolmore must be wanting a mile Group 1 winner for their sire. Certainly got the “value” there Gord! In fact, even 5/2 looks tempting at the moment, as does 5/2 for the Derby. No two year old impressed more and almost unlimited potential to improve at the longer trip.
P.S. Backing more than one horse may not be what you like to do, but it suits me fine. Bets in three races today, three winners.
Value Is EverythingI see it loud and clear Ginge! You and I have a philosophy towards Horseracing that is a world apart but ultimately the end result is the same to make a profit from the sport. I am the sort of Punter who has a ‘hunch’ about a horses plans,I work from visual form that is supported by the Clock,I second guess Trainers plans as they are creatures of habit and I’ll support them for a target race I believe they will be aimed at.Then and only then do I concern myself with the price and the bigger the better.All of my so called Cheltenham ‘Bankers’ were double figure prices.Who would call
First Lieutenant
at 20/1 a banker,or
Sunnyhill Boy
at 16/1 the same,nobody! Thats why I have never let a price about a horse put me off let alone considering the mathematical percentages of a 20/1 shot having a mere 5 in a 100 attempts at winning!
You dear boy are obsessed with numbers,you are now suggesting that you believe ‘Long Run’ has the best chance of winning the King George but would have a better one with bloody ear plugs,(Nicky…Wise up mate) But because ‘Grand Crus’ is a bigger price you think he’s the better bet,your judgement is being tainted by numbers and instead of having an opinion about a horses relative chances because you have seen it with your own eyes,you have to refer to its Timeform rating and its bloody price before making a decision,then you divide your stakes up to accomodate 3,4 or 5 different horses in the same race then add a little saver on at the end,Incredible! I dont see that type of ‘money investment’ as gambling at all,it tells me there’s an insecure Punter who cant commit to an instinctive decision and needs to cover as many bases as possible.who do you cheer on when you have backed so many horses? I was willing home ‘Albertas Run’ in the Ryanair even though I would have won a grand more on ‘Medermit’,thats horse racing to me,Loyalty in my horses and Passion, certainly not Mathematical anomalies,(What a word to finish eh?)
Keep up the good work Ginge,you are a winner……in your unique way!
you have to refer to its Timeform rating and its bloody price before making a decision,then you divide your stakes up to accomodate 3,4 or 5 different horses in the same race then add a little saver on at the end,Incredible! I dont see that type of ‘money investment’ as gambling at all,it tells me there’s an insecure Punter who cant commit to an instinctive decision and needs to cover as many bases as possible.
Maybe he’s more interested in making money than gambling. Can’t fault that. All he’s doing is what the bookies do really. Many pro punters do the same.
I’m not a gambler, I’m an investor.
So you’re criticising me for backing too many horses in a race, yet backed both Alberta’s Run and Medermit. Should’ve listened to me
My main bet Riverside Theatre at 7/1.Value Is EverythingMaybe he’s more interested in making money than gambling. Can’t fault that. All he’s doing is what the bookies do really. Many pro punters do the same.
Exactly Ken, I’m far from "unique".
Value Is EverythingAll of my so called Cheltenham ‘Bankers’ were double figure prices.Who would call
First Lieutenant
at 20/1 a banker,or
Sunnyhill Boy
at 16/1 the same,nobody! Thats why I have never let a price about a horse put me off let alone considering the mathematical percentages of a 20/1 shot having a mere 5 in a 100 attempts at winning!
You dear boy are obsessed with numbers,I suspect we are closer than you’d like to think Gord. You made 20/1 shot Flight Lieutenant your "banker". I made Smad Place 40/1 each way (or 16/1 ew betting without BB) my "best bet of the festival" (see One Horse Only thread). Both of us don’t let a big price put us off backing one. You like to think you "fancy it strongly" or it’s "banker" material. I back it because I believe it to be tremendous value.
Value Is EverythingYou dear boy are obsessed with numbers,you are now suggesting that you believe ‘Long Run’ has the best chance of winning the King George but would have a better one with bloody ear plugs,(Nicky…Wise up mate) But because ‘Grand Crus’ is a bigger price you think he’s the better bet,your judgement is being tainted by numbers and instead of having an opinion about a horses relative chances because you have seen it with your own eyes,
So you’re telling me I should back a horse @ 3/1 that I believe has only a 22% chance of winning.
….And that I should NOT back a horse at 8/1 that I believe has a 17% chance of winning.
Ridiculous.
I thought you were better than that Gord.I don’t need to be "obsessed with numbers". I just see every price as a percentage and vice versa naturally, don’t even have to think about it. Makes it a hell of a lot easier to identify the best bet/s. Not "tainted" at all. I have an "opinion" about every horse, which converts in to a percentage/price.
Value Is Everything8/1 Grands Crus for the King George now gone with William Hill. Still there with Stan James. Won’t last long now there seems a valid reason for the Cheltenham disappointment (bad scope).
If Corm or Matron are looking in. Apologies, we’ve gone a bit off topic. X all about the "Gold Cup". Don’t know if these posts would be better in Sea Pigeon’s thread about Grands Crus in Big Race Discussions.
Value Is EverythingOf course there was a valid reason for his defeat, he simply was not good enough. Hence 8/1 for an event 9 months away about a horse who has limitations is poor value whatever way you slice the cake.
Of course there was a valid reason for his defeat, he simply was not good enough. Hence 8/1 for an event 9 months away about a horse who has limitations is poor value whatever way you slice the cake.
Eclipse,you are quite right about him not being good enough………to win the RSA and Gold Cup! Back at Kempton he is good enough to beat anything bar ‘Sir des Champs’ if he were to turn up.I dont see 8/1 as bad value as like I say i see him being trained for it and if he is then he goes off 6//4fav so 8/1 is massive in comparison!
Ginge the 2012 Gold cup is old news now so I doubt whether Corm or Matron are really bothered about us waffling on about our different approach to punting.
You have proved yourself a far more consistent judge than myself over the last few years so your ‘Mechanical’ ways of juggling numbers obviously works.You should call yourself the ‘Terminator’ as you have an almost passionless robotic approach to the sport.
I on the other hand am a more ‘Indiana Jones’ style of character constantly searching for the ‘Holy Grail’,swashbucklin my way through the betting jungle finding the odd Jewel on the way!8/1 for an event 9 months away about a horse who has limitations is poor value whatever way you slice the cake.
Oh no, no, no, no, no, no.
So wrong EF.
Wish you were my bookmaker. At 8/1: If a selection is thought to have a better than 11% chance of winning (allowing for form, probable going etc as well as whether it’s likely to turn up) then it is
value
whatever time the bet is struck.
Are you going to give me 8/1 about Long Run then EF? A horse who’s shown his "limitations".
Long Run @ 8/1 where bookmakers offer 3/1. Take their mark up off the 3/1 and those bookmakers believe it to have around a 22% chance. So you’d be offering 8/1 (something which needs a better than 11% chance to be value) about a horse bookmakers believe has double that chance of winning (22%).
Value Is EverythingYou have proved yourself a far more consistent judge than myself over the last few years so your ‘Mechanical’ ways of juggling numbers obviously works.You should call yourself the ‘Terminator’ as you have an almost passionless robotic approach to the sport.
I on the other hand am a more ‘Indiana Jones’ style of character constantly searching for the ‘Holy Grail’,swashbucklin my way through the betting jungle finding the odd Jewel on the way!Do I not like adventure movies. I’m more Morse than Indiana Jones.
Have plenty of "passion" for the
sport
of horse racing Gord. Just take my betting seriously. Can shout home Big Buck’s in the Stayers Hurdle despite having 40/1 about the third horse. As far as betting goes, it’s the beating the bookmaker that gives so much enjoyment.
Oh and…
If a punter is prepared to work at it, then the Table of Odds and Percentages IS the "holy grail". Value Is EverythingGinger the horse is not right at the moment, you have no possible idea that whatever is ailing him will be cured in 9 months time. Therefore at present what chance has he of running in the race? He won a grade one novice chase but the King George is (year in year out) a higher quality race than the Gold Cup in terms of the winner. Thus far Grand Crus has not proved himself up to the level required to win the King George. If you want to take 8/1 about a horse that a) needs to improve and b) needs to come back from an ailment for a race well into the future then it is obvious that there are odds compilers prepared to take the view that he has plenty to prove just to earn his place in the starting line-up.
While your day of race bets show an admirable profit and your methodology clearly works for you in that sphere, your ante-post (ie those placed more than a week before the event) bets do seem to show considerably less returns and significantly less "value" compared to the SP.
Oh and…
If a punter is prepared to work at it, then the Table of Odds and Percentages IS the "holy grail". Never in a million years it is! Its the biggest load of Bollox there is when it comes to assessing a horses chances,thats why you get winners everyday at prices varying from 1/2-33/1.
Eclipse,Ginger doesn’t profess to be ‘The Ante-Post King’ there’s only one of them and its not Tom ‘the’ Seagull!Ginger the horse is not right at the moment, you have no possible idea that whatever is ailing him will be cured in 9 months time. Therefore at present what chance has he of running in the race? He won a grade one novice chase but the King George is (year in year out) a higher quality race than the Gold Cup in terms of the winner. Thus far Grand Crus has not proved himself up to the level required to win the King George. If you want to take 8/1 about a horse that a) needs to improve and b) needs to come back from an ailment for a race well into the future then it is obvious that there are odds compilers prepared to take the view that he has plenty to prove just to earn his place in the starting line-up.
Often when a horse puts up an impressive performance there’s an over-reaction by bookmakers cutting it to a
poor
value price. On the other hand, when a horse runs disappointingly, there’s often an over-reaction by bookmakers. Pushing it out to a
good
value price. Which is what I believe has happened in this case.
Trainer David Pipe has said Grands Crus produced a "dirty scope". As long as he’s telling the truth (and I have no reason to suspect any differently), a dirty scope is not normally something that is a prolonged problem. There is always a chance of something else ailing him, but he’s 8/1 not 8/11. Worth the risk.
Yes, Grands Crus is "only" a Grade 1 Novice Chase winner. But it was a cracking performance, of quality seldom seen so early (December) in the season. Not only is he a Grade 1 Novice Chase winner, but he’s also a Top Class hurdler, a "Top Class" hurdler who’s jumps fences with such ease. So exceptional is that technique that it is highly probable he’ll make an even better chaser than hurdler. So yes, he’s only a novice and has improvement to make; but there’s every reason to believe Grands Crus is capable of Top Class
chase
form. At what distance remains to be seen. I wouldn’t back him to win a Gold Cup (don’t think he’ll stay). But should be very effective at 3m around a flat track like Kempton, as long as it isn’t very soft.
What is up against Grands Crus is also a factor in the bet.
Long Run must have the best chance of winning, but the disappointing run in the Gold Cup is a worry. Haven’t heard any excuse coming out of Seven Barrows. If coming back to form shown in the last two runnings of the King George, I don’t expect Grands Crus to beat Long Run. But Long Run is 3/1, too short for me at this stage.
Of the others:
I’d be afraid of Sire Des Champs if he comes over, but that’s unlikely.Riverside Theatre is interesting, second in 2010 and goes very well at Kempton. 6/1, very fair price and might put a saver on him later on. However, he missed last year’s Ryanair and this season’s King George due to injury. Good chance if turning up, but he seems just as likely, if not more likely to miss the race than Grands Crus.
Bobs Worth is stable companion to both Long Run and Riverside Theatre and I believe much better left handed / at Cheltenham than Kempton and may be better next year at 3m2f than 3m.
Other stable companions, Finians Rainbow and Sprinter Sacre won’t stay even if turning up, Burton Port isn’t quick enough.
Synchronised far more likely to go for the Lexus again, not quick enough for 3m around Kempton.
Kauto Star will be going on 13 years old and retirement seems likely.
The Giant Bolster and Time For Rupert seem to be kept for left-handed tracks.
Al Ferof would be interesting if he can improve on his novice year.
Medermit needs to improve again, but that’s not out of the question. Not a bad outsider bet.
Then we’re getting in to 25/1+ horses.
So there aren’t that many likely to line up with a good chance of winning. Another reason 8/1 looks value. Probably won’t win, but I say again, only needs a better than 11% chance to be a good bet.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.