- This topic has 70 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“Most people who know betting extremely well will come over as patronising. It’s just the nature of the beast.”
Really? Rowlands is the sole example I’ve come across on Twitter in 12 years – and the big guns are pretty much all there; humility seems the watchword across the board. The smartest in the business know exactly how low this game can lay you at times, no matter how much you have learned. And Simon is way beyond just being patronising and arrogant: deeply snide and abusive are a much closer description these days.
It is an interesting subject ( the thread is at least).
Taken in isolation, the subject matter IS a crock of shite. Used in conjunction with other considerations it can become useful.
You need several tools to build something, but when a couple of tools argue pointlessly as to the merits of their methods, they look like bad workmen.I’ve known (though I wouldn’t say well) Simon for years, I’d say I used to be a lot like him on some levels, deeply entrenched in my views, time study can be a bit of a religion.
I became a better punter the day I realised that for every Slip Anchor there are several horses where that isolated apparent stand-out time figure isn’t as good as it looks on paper and that the good old clock, while it cannot lie, can mislead you.
Five races run at a moderate gallop will inevitably flatter the one race on a card that was truly run.
Plus there are so many other factors in the game and the key is finding factors the ever-changing market is currently taking insufficient notice of.
Though we had quarrels, I don’t dislike Simon and we got on fine last time we had a chat.
But I stand by what I said which Joe picked up on – imposing your belief systems on others is never a good look.
Quite apart from the fact I’d backed Tiber River, I was pleased by the result because I think Simon could benefit more from a humility lesson than Johnny could.
Whether Simon will learn that lesson or not is another matter.
“Dineen 1 Rowlands 0” was mischievous and gratuitous, but people were saying far worse on Twitter last night.
All the best pro punters I know never come across as patronising by the simple device of playing their cards close to their chest – you can’t patronise anyone if you keep your mouth shut.
I don’t know Johnny Dineen at all, but he seems a relatively colourful character.
I don’t agree with everything he says, but so what?
I’d say the same about the IMO highly-entertaining Icy on Twitter.
Life would be boring if we all agreed on everything and differing opinions make the market.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"“Five races run at a moderate gallop will inevitably flatter the one race on a card that was truly run”.
This is precisely the reason why sectional times are so important.
With Sectional Timing we don’t make the mistake of falling for the comparison of overall times run at a different early pace.It is sectional timing that tells a punter the races were run at a moderate gallop. Because when the final fractions are run faster than the rest of a race we know it was a moderate gallop. Whereas a truly run race is identified because it has similar fractions throughout. Therefore sectional timing easily identifies races where overall times “flatter”.
Analysis of overall race times can mislead.
Proper analysis of sectional times don’t mislead.Value Is EverythingOn Twitter or TRF the writer is talking to more than just the one person, Joe.
He / she is also talking to punters who may be less knowledgeable. Therefore things that are written may seem patronising to those that already know (or think they already know) but nevertheless need (or should) be said for the benefit of others less knowledgeable.Value Is EverythingOf all the many people I’ve encountered on the web and in real life, you’re the one that most reminds me of Simon, GT.
Sectional times are a massive help, of course, that’s pretty common knowledge so many years after their advent, but they are only one piece in the overall jigsaw.
But the proof of the pudding is in the eating and no one ever gets paid out more for winning an internet argument.
If what works for you, works for you – crack on and make profit.
If something else works for someone else, respect that and never delude yourself you know more than anyone else and, even if you’re pretty sure you do, don’t abuse that dynamic with sermonising others find patronising.
Example: I’m pretty sure I know – and even knew back then – more about racing overall than the old stable lad I met in a Newmarket launderette in 1982, I doubt he was getting a university Law degree anytime soon either.
But I had the humility and manners to keep my gob shut and listen to him and the net result was two bets – a 7/4 winner and a 10/1 winner – and wisdom that has stood me in good stead ever since.
Who gets more out of any interaction?
The guy giving it large about how clever he is, or the guy who says nothing and just listens and soaks up free knowledge like a sponge?
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"LOL,
I’ll take your comparison with Rowlands as a compliment, Ian. Even though I know it was not meant as one.
Thanks for the patronising post anyway.
You too remind me of Simon in many ways.
Value Is EverythingI genuinely apologise if you found it patronising – what would I gain from patronising you, or anyone else?
It doesn’t put any more money in my pocket.
My best win at Royal Ascot yesterday was Vauban – and it had zero to do with times, sectional or overall.
My second best was River Tiber – ditto.
My third best was Paddington/Chaldean dutched – same again.
Times are a useful tool, but there are so many other factors.
That’s how it is for me, anyway.
Good luck with any bets you might be having today.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"No need to apologise, Ian. I really don’t mind and don’t judge you for it.
Of course there is more than one tool in everyone’s box.
Has anyone said there isn’t?I know you are overall a good judge of racehorses, which is perhaps why I like to challenge you more than any other TRFer.
It is great to have different views.
Value Is EverythingAll of this detailed analysis can be taken too far. It puts me in mind of the occasion when Dustin Hoffman was fretting about his character’s motivation and Laurence Olivier said “My dear boy, why don’t you just try acting?”.
I think many of us have “personal problems” at some time or another, Drone.
Some of us more than others.
Not that I appreciated the comment at the time, but you helped me with mine once which I’ll be eternally grateful for. Value Is Everything“Has anyone said there isn’t?”
You’re absolutely right, GT, nobody has and wrong of me if I implied that was the case.
And actually when I compared you to Simon – I meant on all levels both positive (he is very knowledgeable) and possibly not so positive.
I am always open to new learning and new thinking, and it’s often from much younger punters, whether it be Icy on Twitter or various contributors here.
It costs nothing to listen, same as it costs nothing to apologise, and it can be a profitable exercise.
On another aspect of this, Laurence Olivier was a wise man, CAS!
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Acting is not Racing though CAS.
Personally, over 40 years the more I’ve studied the luckier I’ve become.
Although one rule has also got to be obeyed after all the analysis…Value is everything.
Value Is EverythingBut it is illustrating the point that different methods work for different people, Ginger.
I have deleted my earlier post about Mr Rowlands because on reflection it was unfair. But it would be interesting to know if his analytical approach yields more winners/better profit than Mr Dineen, who sounds like he bets more on instinct.
In other words, Rowland is Hoffman and Dineen is Olivier!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.