- This topic has 365 replies, 45 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
I backed Cloth Of Stars at 40/1 myself but did him win only and only in the unlikely event that Enable didn’t run her race. For me, there is little point doubling your stake when the likelihood is that you are sacrificing the win part.
If anyone missed the 40’s on Cloth Of Stars and took him each-way on the day on 5th Odds terms 1-2-3, they then get the SP of roughly 20/1, cut to 4/1 for the place. £1 e/w gives you £5 back but you have staked £2 and effectively had a 6/4 “winner” for your money. With Enable almost certain to to place, there are only two places up for grabs, so value then becomes questionable. I just preferred to risk a win at 40/1 early doors in case something happened to the favourite. £82 for a £2 stake was a better risk/reward angle for me.
Anyway the point is that you can’t remove the normal allowance that a horse receives on weight for age terms, just because they happened to be better than previous fillies who have won classics and contested the Arc.
We should be celebrating brilliance, instead of having the notion that Frankel must GIVE a stone to older horses, in the interests of fairness.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I suppose I don’t really believe in each way betting, because it costs you twice as much. I mean well done with Cloth of stars and Order of st george placing, but if you’re not confident of the win another day something else would pop up and fill the each way places, whereas for me Enable was always going to win.
As a footnote, the global gathering of handicappers who agree ratings for the elite – all Group 1s – have allotted Enable 128 after Sunday and agreed the margin of her victory at the equivalent of 6lbs value.
Her rating equals those of Zarkava and Danedream. Treve got 130.
People were going on here about how backing something each way was a much better punt than backing enable, or going for this loser horse or this loser horse, when the obvious was staring us all in the face. It’s human nature to overanalyse stuff, or create barriers to success when there are none there beforehand.
Sometimes you got to do a goreisking and leave your brain at the door
Think everyone with a good knowledge of form could see it was “obvious” Enable had a far greater chance than any other racehorse, Judge. Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good bet.
What were the prices on the morning of the race? Think I remember Evens and 9/1 bar. So bookmakers had her 5 times more likely to win than any rival. You may think it was 8, 10 or more times, but that would mean you’d need to push every other horse’s chance out significantly to accomadate your evaluation of Enable’s chance. ie Did you really believe beforehand Order Of St George had a true 25/1 chance or Cloth Of Stars should have been 200/1?
Neither does Enable having a massive chance make another horse a bad bet. Obviously at Evens you needed to believe she had a better than 50% chance to back her. It’s up to every punter to come to a conclusion whether any price is worth taking and wouldn’t criticise anyone believing Enable value @ Evens whether she won or lost. At 33/1 BigG only only needed to believe Cloth Of Stars had a better than 3% chance. That means he could consider Enable a poor bet and Cloth Of Stars a good bet even if believing his chance 12 times worse than the filly.
There’s no such thing as “overanalyse stuff”; deciding what is and what is not relevent is all part of analysing, as well as how much aspects of form will/may influence the result. Overall (not just in one race) if someone does not analyse enough he/she will not profit. Overall, (not just in one race) the more I study the more it enables me to draw the right conclusions and the more profit is made.
Evens may have been an excellent bet. I didn’t work the race out on the day after (as said on page 2 here) believing 12/1 Enable “worth taking” for the Arc before she ran away with the Irish Oaks.
Value Is EverythingThere’s no such thing as “overanalyse stuff”;
I disagree Ginger. Sometimes my first opinion of a race has been spot on, but because I’ve then spent too long coming back to the race I’ve changed my mind and backed something else. I’m sure we’ve all done it.
It’s often the case that your first gut instinct is the right one.
There’s no such thing as “overanalyse stuff”;
I disagree Ginger. Sometimes my first opinion of a race has been spot on, but because I’ve then spent too long coming back to the race I’ve changed my mind and backed something else. I’m sure we’ve all done it.
It’s often the case that your first gut instinct is the right one.
Sorry Judge – you’re right in a way.
Depends what form you’re analysing?
Form analysis will improve a punter’s record only if the form he/she analyses is from a good form book. Which may not be the punter’s fault……And even then (just as importantly if not more so) the punter needs to be good at analysing form in order to profit. For the majority of punters analysing any form is a waste of time.
Value Is EverythingNot sure Ginge that every winning approach has to be via the form book. I’m sure there are plenty of winning punters out there who only rely on videos or perhaps on the more fashionable speed figures and do fairly well out of it.
This statement For the majority of punters analysing any form is a waste of time.
Might well be true although as most punters are rather lazy and the extent of their research would probably be a glance at the racing post page down the betting shop, any work would be welcome.
certainly I think the more work you put in the more likely you to profit- I would agree with that- but it’s the quality of the work involved, and if you have an instinct for the wrong sort of horses all the time you’re not going to win anyway. Even in gambling there is such a thing as “talent.”
I must admit from a personal point of view I’m just too lazy to spend hours working out which horse beat which horse and pricing up every horse in an overall tissue- which I guess is what most professional punters do, or claim to do. If I had to do that I wouldn’t bet at all as it would bore me to tears. I do look at the ratings and try and watch the videos which I enjoy doing far more than scanning through the form book. I think you can apply some common sense as well- for example there was a race yesterday at Salisbury, a maiden race where the favourite looked far too short- based on what I had seen on the videos- it was duly beaten. I won’t aftertime by mentioning the particular race. But I could see it was like 5/4 which was ridiculously short as there were some promising newcomers against it and it just didn’t look that great on the video- I could have spent ages working out the tissue and whether or not some horse in the race was value to beat it but by the time I had done all that I would probably have fallen asleep. Basically the logic was the favourite was far too short and therefore some of the other horses were value, would have been enough to get me to place a bet.
I must admit though my more “intuitive” approach is not to this point at least, by any means a winning one. But I do think that others could take a less is more approach and still win.
I’ve done Saxon Warrior for next year’s Arc. 50/1 seems overpriced for a horse who should be shorter than he is for the Derby at the moment.
Saxon Warrior 50/1
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.