- This topic has 35 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
To me, it’s not about being a favourite backer or not, the’s nothing wrong in looking for value. The Lockinge result sums it up perfectly Audience was suppose to be a pace maker to Inspiral, a thing in which they would have done in training loads of time. The fact nothing took on, or good enough to challenge, Audience says it all. Is Audience underestimated, probably, but as the season develops we will quickly forget about this run.
I think the wet winter has set back the top level horses in their fitness.
You've got to accentuate the positive.
Eliminate the negative.
Latch on to the affirmative.
Don't mess with mister in between.I’ve seen it swing either way on plenty of occasions, we had plenty of fancied winners of the 3 year old races early on last year but when it came to Royal Ascot it was a bloody erm…..bloodbath for punters.
It might also feel disappointing because there were a classier bunch of 2 year olds last year and so much is expected of them.
Economics won the Dante after a nice maiden victory, surprising result. Desert Crown wins the Dante after a maiden at Nottingham, well fancied.To answer the title, no not at all. Reading the races better than I ever have and not scratching my head when I get it wrong. Anybody moaning is just clearly a losing punter
I think Red Rum is right that with the wet Winter / Spring many trainers have found it difficult to get their horses 100% first time out. But once knowing Aidan’s have generally needed the run then a punter can allow for that in his / her working out / selections… And Trainers in (or out) of form has probably meant more this season too for that very reason too. Again easily allowed for by looking at results.
Not that all horses from a stable will be fit… But even so there are ways of judging this too. In Saturday’s Lockinge the stable companions Inspiral and Audience: Inspiral had won on reappearance as a 3 year old in the Coronation Stakes, but that was after she’d missed the Guineas because she was not ready. She’s since also been below form on reappearance in the Queen Anne in June last year – beaten by a 33/1 shot. Hardly surprising she needed her reappearance in mid-May this time around… Whereas although Audience’s form was nowhere near as good as Inspiral, his record first time out is near perfect…
Winning on debut only run at two @ 15/2.
Odds-on for 3yo reappearance. Only second, but beaten more by inexperience in a very slowly run race than for fitness.
Won @ 14/1 4yo reappearance.
So Audience was much more likely to be at his best than Inspiral.Although Audience was a pacemaker, he had better form than most pacemakers, eg beaten less than a length by Kinross at level weights. Albeit had to prove he’d stay a mile at Newbury, but the ground (Lockinge far from the only race on the day to break Racing Post Standard) favouring speed. ie True Good-Firm. Getting a freebe on the lead and ignored by the other jockeys… And also Havlin judging the fractions pretty much spot on – all helped.
Along with Inspiral, Big Rock was the other one with the best form. But he was running on ground much firmer and had changed stables to an arguably worse trainer since.
The best of the others was probably Charyn, but he too was not sure to act as well on the ground. Ran well enough, just didn’t have the positional advantage of Audience.
What on paper – with Inspiral and Big Rock – may have looked the best Lockinge in a while, didn’t turn out that way. Audience’s winning performance sub-standard because others failed to give their best. Can expect the form not to work out, but that – for me – makes things more interesting.
Earlier in the week I thought they were predicting going on the soft side.
Just wish I hadn’t been on holiday.
Value Is EverythingI do think people are under-estimating the 2000 Guineas form just because of the winner’s odds.
Noble Speech could well be a Champion.Value Is EverythingTalking as a winning punter – I presume that means being in profit for the year – the original thread title is correct. It’s a concern that shouldn’t be dismissed lightly.
If you need to rely on the occasional dart to maintain that profit then at some point the game dies. The vast majority will hardly ever find that sort of winner, and will eventually walk away.
As for the reasons – although it doesn’t explain a single year – I would suggest a greater spread of trainers who can produce listed/Group winners, the general mediocrity of the weighing room which has been an issue for a long time, and a weakening breed. In the ‘old days’ it was a very small closed shop who invariably cleaned up the best races.
As for that Newmaket Craven meeting just to try and maintain an interest I picked out 8 horses as eyecatchers. They all lost next time. In fact my list of eyecatchers has only produced three winners – Hidden Law, Diamond Rain, and Mountain Breeze. All Godolphin.
“If you need to rely on the occasional dart to maintain that profit then at some point the game dies. The vast majority will hardly ever find that sort of winner, and will eventually walk away”.
————————————————————–You’re not making any sense, Stilvi.
If you think too many outsiders are winning and too many shorties losing then – if you are right – is it not the simplest of games?
Just back the outsiders and lay the favs.
…If you’re right that more outsiders are winning than ever before, then more outsiders winning obviously means it is easier to back big priced winners. So every reason for punters NOT to “walk away”.
Value Is EverythingPunters complaining that the odds of winning horses are too big is ridiculous.
Perhaps more than ever before, the exchange market has forced some horses odds to be exaggerated… With punters supposedly getting on the bandwagon those who supposedly “the market says will win” or “won’t win”. Idiots following the money which makes some horses far too short and others far too big.
…Which is fair enough.
Just identify those who are shorter than they should be and LAY them…
And identify those bigger than they should be and BACK them.Simples.
Value Is EverythingI’m afraid you are the one not making any sense. You just don’t seem to realise it.
‘Just back the outsiders and lay the favourites’.
That’s just a bonkers statement.
For most people the challenge/fun is trying to pick winners – before the race. I haven’t laid a horse in my life, and don’t intend to do so.
There are many outsiders in races. Occasionally, I might take two, as in the French Guineas, fortunately one won, and the other finished last. Most people haven’t got the time, inclination, or money to bet in the same way that you do. You are actually proof of the point that is trying to be made. You are not confident of making a profit if you are reduced to backing one horse in a race.
People with a reasonable knowledge shouldn’t need to go to such extremes to have a chance of winning. As I keep saying for most people the only way to survive is by landing the occasional dart to pay for all the losers. Do you think the people who can’t manage that are just going to be happy to carry on losing?
“People with a reasonable knowledge shouldn’t need to go to such extremes to have a chance of winning. As I keep saying for most people the only way to survive is by landing the occasional dart to pay for all the losers. Do you think the people who can’t manage that are just going to be happy to carry on losing?”
———————————————————————————-Stilvi,
People with “a reasonable knowledge” of Racing who do not take value into account or who are poor at evaluating form into chance just as well stick a pin in. They won’t make a profit, they’ll just complain that the wrong horses are winning.Punters don’t need to bet multiple horses in races like I do. They just need to be good at evaluating odds into chance whether they bet 1 horse in a race or 4.
Value Is Everything“Most people haven’t got the time, inclination, or money to bet in the same way that you do. You are actually proof of the point that is trying to be made. You are not confident of making a profit if you are reduced to backing one horse in a race”.
———————————————If punters haven’t got the “time or inclination” to study then thinking they should be making a profit is crazy.
It does not take much money to make a profit, just time and effort.
You still don’t understand the way I bet Stilvi.
If I rate a horse as a 59% chance of winning (Rossallion in the Irish Guineas) I will back it @ 10/11 because a 59% strike rate on 10/11 shots will show a good profit. I believe it has a 59% chance of winning whether I believe it is the only horse who is value or one of three who are value, that 59% does not change. So saying I am “not confident of making a profit if you are reduced to backing one horse in a race” is rubbish.Likewise if I think a horse has a 13% chance of winning and 8/1 is available. Would be 13% whether I believe it the only horse to be value in the race or one of three etc. Although I would never describe that as being “confident” anyway. As believing it a 13% chance of winning also means I believe it an 87% chance of losing.
The only thing dictating whether I have one, three or ten bets in a race is the available odds. ie How many I believe are value. Nothing to do with “not being confident”.
Value Is EverythingLikewise if I think a horse has a 5% chance of winning and is available @ 33/1. 5% of winning also means I believe it a 95% chance of losing… So how can I be “confident”? It’s just daft to think anyone can be confident of winning when betting at 33/1.
However, any punter who has made the same assessment as me about this 5% 33/1 shot who has not found another horse to back in the race can still just solely back this one 33/1 shot. Betting just one big priced horse in a race/s is not wrong, it just means:
A) They won’t need anywhere near the strike rate I need to show a profit.
But also:
B) They will need to expect massive losing runs (if regularly betting one runner at big odds then you’d be talking about losing runs of potentially hundreds of races without a winner). And be able to maintain confidence (Hugh Taylor style) as well as being able to take that pressure to your betting bank when going through those massive losing runs. ie To (as you put it) “carry on losing” for so many races before they find that winner to “pay for all the losers” and then some. It’s just what can be expected when betting at those odds.Value Is Everything…But there is nothing wrong with betting shorter prices as well as bigger prices in the same race. Helps with bringing fairly consistent winners which helps keep confidence high, which in turn keeps the punter working things out in the same profitable way.
You can always back to win more on your outsiders if that’s what you want.
Backing multiple horses in races is not cheating. It is allowed.
But beware: If not good at evaluating form into chance it’ll just result in even greater (and quicker) losses.Value Is EverythingAll those long winded replies are no more than confirmation that for all the time and effort you are not confident enough to pick a winner of a race.
Today we have an 8 runner Classic which boils down to whether you are with the favourite or against, but you have done no more than narrow it down to 37.5% of the field.
Of course it’s not cheating, and I have already said elsewhere that I applaud anyone who makes a profit, but you shouldn’t be making all observations on the sport based on your own extreme way of punting.
“Today we have an 8 runner Classic which boils down to whether you are with the favourite or against, but you have done no more than narrow it down to 37.5% of the field”.
——————————————————————A horse’s chance should never be judged on whether you are “with the favourite or against”. Every horse has a price where the punter should be “with” and a price to be “against”. My assessment of Rosallion is a 59% chance of winning (41% chance of losing). Therefore (with a small margin for error) anything better than 4/5 is a bet (as you’d say “with”). 8/11 or worse would not be a bet (“against”). Therefore I am “with”.
Whereas in the same race I make Haatem a 13% fair 13/2. Therefore for me (with a margin for error) anything better than 7/1 is a good bet. Therefore why shouldn’t I be “with” Haatem too?
…And it is not as if I have backed all three as main bets anyway.
Yes, I have chosen to back Rosallion and had partial savers on Haatem and Unquestionable. I could have chosen the opposite or just backed one and not the others. But my workings out suggested they deserved at least a bit on them too. The amount on Haatem and Unquestionable is pretty insignificant.
If having to break it down to with or against then I am “with” Rosallion.
Value Is EverythingMini book building like ginger does is a very common way of playing a race
You seen to be making out that method makes him some sort of unconfident coward
Which is frankly an odd opinion
There is more than one way to skin a cat
We find what works and use it, we find what doesn’t and throw it away
The aim being each year to be a better punter than last year
For instance iv given up betting in group sprint races unless I very strongly fancy one
The results this season and last have shown they are all poor horses for the grade and the form book isn’t worth a lot it’s just which horse gets the best run through the race
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.