- This topic has 29 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Wallace
It’s no surprise at all that if you go back far enough, a horse that has dropped by 21 lb in the handicap, has the form to look a good thing. Fact is, nobody other than anyone in the stable would have known that yesterday was the day she was back to form.
I also think it is rather naiive to suggest that a horses 5 performances of polytrack when beaten approx, 14, 8 3/4, 14, 34, 11 3/4 lengths were due to the unsuitability of the surface.
Quote: from davidjohnson on 9:03 am on July 25, 2006[br]
Fact is, nobody other than anyone in the stable would ‘have known that yesterday was the day she was back to form.
Er… isn’t assessing the likelihood, hence chance, of a horse ‘bouncing back to form’ an essential part of form study, particularly when that horse is returned to a surface on which it has won and hasn’t run on for sometime.
Baboosh’s profile leading up to yesterdays win strikes me as a classic ‘read between the lines’ affair that an astute punter would relish.
As long as racing has handicaps there will be ‘quiet’ runs (or perhaps Baboosh really didn’t act on polytrack) and it’s the punters job to decide when it’s ‘off’.
Not condoning the practice just being a realist.
In any case for every succesful gamble of this type there’s any number that fail; following steamers is a fast ticket to Carey Street.
Quote: from Drone on 4:38 pm on July 25, 2006[br]
<br>Baboosh’s profile leading up to yesterdays win strikes me as a classic ‘read between the lines’ affair that an astute punter would relish.
Clearly I’m not astute enough. In my opinion the horse was either a 25/1 or a 5/1, depending on what the trainer had got planned.
These horses seem to be almost as accident prone as complete rags in 16 runner handicaps.
This was just one gamble that won. A few minutes after Baboosh won an even bigger gamble failed at Ayr. No comments about that one or all the others that fail.
The connections have every right to run their horses how and when thay want within the rules. The owner pays all the bills and is entitled to get a good payday when conditions are right and the horse is fully fit.
Of course they do Wallace
Would just make the game a complete and utter farce if every trainer and owner ran their horses that way.
Quote: from Drone on 4:38 pm on July 25, 2006[br]
Quote: from davidjohnson on 9:03 am on July 25, 2006[br]
Fact is, nobody other than anyone in the stable would ‘have known that yesterday was the day she was back to form.
Er… isn’t assessing the likelihood, hence chance, of a horse ‘bouncing back to form’ an essential part of form study, particularly when that horse is returned to a surface on which it has won and hasn’t run on for sometime.
Baboosh’s profile leading up to yesterdays win strikes me as a classic ‘read between the lines’ affair that an astute punter would relish.
As long as racing has handicaps there will be ‘quiet’ runs (or perhaps Baboosh really didn’t act on polytrack) and it’s the punters job to decide when it’s ‘off’.
Not condoning the practice just being a realist.
In any case for every succesful gamble of this type there’s any number that fail; following steamers is a fast ticket to Carey Street.
<br>
Absolutely, for as long as Ive been racing both bookmakers and punters make assesments based not just on the horses form but also who his connections are and are thus watching for any money.
I know that one or two people in here find this kind aspect of the sport a little repugnant but it doesnt bother me personally. Ten years ago, such things (and other aspects of oneupmanship) were almost universally feted but of course with the advent of Betfair thats all changed to some extent.
SHL
Quote: from davidjohnson on 5:08 pm on July 25, 2006[br]
In my opinion the horse was either a 25/1 or a 5/1, depending on what the trainer had got planned. <br>
Coming from such a stable perhaps a clue to it being ‘off’ was it being 25/1 early not 5/1 and a punter who had assessed it at say 5/1 on dim and distant form may have felt that he was indeed on a ‘value bet’ secure in the knowledge he was going to get a run for his money due to the odds available for ‘shrewd’ connections to help themselves too.
"That was the plan" as BV Cutsem was fond of saying.
No time for such gambles, coups call them what you will, just a hard-bitten punter who realises they’re part and parcel of the game and as such ‘second guessing’ such plans is every bit as much the process of punting as strict form study.
Always assuming of course you really feel the need/are masochistic enough to punt low-grade flat handicaps.
Personally this thread has entailed more thought on a 0-65 since haemorrhaging shillings on equivalent dross in the days when Edward Hide was ‘cock o’the north’ and H Wilson PM.
<br>
(Edited by Drone at 10:52 pm on July 25, 2006)
Quote: from thedarkknight on 5:01 pm on July 25, 2006[br]<br>The horse is now a non runner.:o
Going off at a tangent: it’s high time the process for declaring day-of-race non-runners was given a thorough review, vet’s certificates in particular; the willy-nilly handing out of which reflect no credit whatsoever on the veterinary profession IMO
I had a £1775/100 Sedge this morning on Betfair (SP 9-2 after being matched at 1.33 in-running) – that couldn’t bloody win could it!
There was nothing to indicate to the unitiated that the horse was not in terminal decline having left Fanshawe. Yes, it had form on turf but anyone thinking of backing it without inside info was taking a massive leap of faith.<br>Guess this is how some small to middling trainers survive but not great for racing’s image if everone did it.<br>Punters and bookies will watch this stable now.<br>Think the exchanges have been a good thing, bringing choice and an audit trail.<br>Don’t hanker for the halcyon days where money disappeared to bookies who had stable employees in their employ
For those of you who don’t take the Sportsman, ( a majority I would imagine), there’s a nice little article today on the Baboosh gamble.
Michael Wigham is clearly proud of himself at pulling this one off. Figures of £1m are mentioned.
Reminded me of the colossal gambles I used to read about as a kid, (Tender Heart, Yellow Sam) and the "Redcar" gamble described in the superb "Licence to Print Money" by Jamie Read. It appears the trainer had these kind of role models in mind when the plan was hatched.:cool:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.