- This topic has 251 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 6 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Oh and… I am still one punter who agrees with those you describe as “can’t see the obvious, and seemingly are willing to be influenced by a bunch of chancers who have manipulated the Supreme market”… It is you who seems to be saying nobody can have a sincerely held different opinion on Ballyburn.
Will it be “bad luck” if Ballyburn does not go for “the obvious”?…
When backing a horse that has been seen by others (if not yourself) as racing too free… Then you’ve taken a chance on Ballyburn racing at a longer distance which has (if going for the Supreme) not paid off. Just as anyone backing Ballyburn for the Supreme has taken a chance Mullins doesn’t take (in their view) too much notice of the horse’s pedigree.
imo Whatever the decision eventually made of Ballyburn’s target it is not “luck”, it’s just “probabilities”. Over time (not just one, two or even three races) if the punter is good at predicting a trainer’s choices he / she will do well.
That’s just my opinion, Stilvi.
Value Is EverythingWhats the probability of classing something as unlucky then ginge?
by that I mean, say someone worked out that an event had a 0.25% chance of happening and it did would that not be classed as unlucky.?Blackbeard to conquer the World
Stilvi,
In fairness if you had been on the Titanic and Ginger rowed out from the Carpathia to get you, and you managed to stutter, “Thanks for saving my life old chap- jolly bad luck about that iceberg what?” through ice cold chattering teeth as he dragged your half dead body out of the freezing water to safety he would probably reply , “No- statistically speaking, having considered the density of the ice fields at this latitude at this time of year, coupled with reading the form reports from other ships and knowing the capabilities of Titanic and the likelihood that connections would be inclined to overrace on the first voyage, it was almost inevitable. The value option you should have taken would have been the old packet steamer that follows a route 3.25 degrees further south and would have got you into New York a mere 27 hours later. You chump. Here, have my jacket”.These are three definitions of “Luck”, Nathan:
“success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one’s own actions”.
“chance considered as a force that causes good or bad things to happen”.
“something regarded as bringing about or portending good or bad things”.
Some may argue that your “0.25%” comes within the first definition, which is fair enough. For me though, the 0.25% comes within the person’s working’s out, so it is included in the “through one’s own actions”.
The only time I’d personally express “luck” is to wish someone has “good luck”, in respect of expressing hope that things go well for the person concerned… Or “bad luck purely as a way of expressing sympathy.
The luck that Stilvi expressed:
“I am great believer in that as a punter luck never evens out. You are either lucky or unlucky. It’s not like a series of coin tosses. This year didn’t look that good before this happened”……Seems to come from one or the other of the two other definitions. Where Racing is concerned I have to strongly disagree with this quote, particularly with the middle two sentences, as they are directly opposed to my beliefs and the way I bet.
Value Is EverythingThink I’d take my chances with the sharks and freezing water in that situation
Surely a quick death is preferable
Of course there is less bad luck involved in backing an injury prone horse who ends up being injured again, but there is still an element of bad luck attached to the bet. I made my last comment off the back of Let It Rain, a two-time bumper winner sustaining an injury a few days after the trainer stated it was all systems go for the Festival Bumper. I don’t see how that could be classified as anything other than 100% bad luck.
After Gaelic Warrior won at the Punchestown Festival the trainer quoted the horse as being ‘a perfect fit for the Stayers Hurdle’ atfer which he was supported down from 16/1 to something like 4/1 favourite. How is that anything but bad luck when the trainer then decides to send the horse novice chasing, something he could easily have done the year after?
Anyway, just added GALA MARCEAU EW MARES HURDLE
She hasn’t had too many goes over the longer trip, and unlike the favourite we know she should improve for the step up in trip.
Stilvi,
If I’d had only one ante-post bet in my whole life and it had been LET IT RAIN in the bumper and that happened…Or If I had only one ante-post bet in my whole life and it was GAELIC WARRIOR in the Stayers Hurdle…
Then yes, I’d consider myself “unlucky”… But that’s not what us regular gamblers do.
Instead of looking at what’s happened individually, they should be looked at within the prism containing all your other ante-post bets.
On the previous page is listed 34 horses you’ve backed for the Cheltenham Festival… And told us of even more since that post… Therefore, surely you should expect one or more of those 34+ horses to have trainers that change their mind/s on their target. Especially when it is Willie Mullins who has so many good ones to juggle around…
And fact is because you’ve backed so many, you can expect one or more of those 34+ horses to get injured soon after the trainer has stated things are going well.
I don’t bet anywhere near as many as you do ante-post, Stilvi. Am sure it has happened to me though in the past and probably future too… But with me I’d have to total up the number of bets I’ve had in almost 40 years of ante-post betting… So even if it happened to me, it’s just something that can be expected.
…Something else to bear in mind is these supposedly “lucky” or “unlucky” things do not occur at regular intervals. ie You can not expect 4 bets to go well followed by 1 that doesn’t followed by another 4 that go well and 1 that doesn’t etc. There will be times when a gambler will have a group of bad things occur fairly close together… and other times when nothing bad happens for a longer length of time. That’s just how it is.
Again, imo it’s all “probabilities”.
These bad things happening to ante-post bets are also easily remembered – at least until Cheltenham is actually upon us. I hope some of the horses you’ve backed win and you can remember the ante-post victories a lot more, Stilvi..
I wish you “good luck”.
Value Is EverythingFirstly, the ante-post side of things has become more important, at least for me. It’s a very big part of whether the year is profitable, or not. Mentioned on another thread that it has become increasingly difficult to win on the type of races that I like to take an interest in. I have cut my bets right back this year, including the weekends when you would hope to see better racing. Nothing at all this weekend. I keep a record, and losing bets are really not much fun. So ante-post bets have become more important. Yes, things will go wrong every year, but it doesn’t mean that isn’t bad luck. Yes, the more bets I have, the more chances that things could go wrong, but also (hopefully) the more chances I will have to balance out the bad luck. That’s the thinking and background.
I have followed the sport for a very long time, mostly profitably, but my interest is very much on the wane. I watched more snooker than racing last week. There are far too many barriers stacked against punters. I fear bookmakers have the game well and truly stitched up. I would say the volume of racing has been ridiculous for many years (all-weather served a purpose to start with, but soon went far beyond) with far too many handicaps on nearly every card, but these days bookmakers can write plenty of condition race results as well. Nothing is going to change because the sport wants losing punters. It’s a very bleak picture, and hardly surprising that those of a certain age will increasingly dwell on the great days of the past which are likely gone forever.
You make some good points, Stilvi.
My mojo for Racing has taken a big hit too. I don’t see it as the bookmakers fault though. Am sure they don’t like the decline of ante-post betting either.Ante-post racing – particularly over jumps – has become harder because of the domination of so few trainers (having so many horses to find races for) and so many races to choose from. You can even back one for chasing’s Blue Ribbon these days, only to find it switched to the Ryanair. At least on the flat there is only one Guineas and only one Derby… Well not really. Again you’ve got the dominance of one man… And he’ll sometimes send a Group 1 horse to the French Guineas / Derby etc.
Maybe not their fault, but something bookmakers could do is pay out on any race of the Cheltenham Festival. So if you’ve backed one for the Bingham you get paid if it wins the Supreme? But would enough punters take the shorter price that would need to be offered in the first place?
Value Is EverythingI don’t solely blame bookmakers for what I see as the demise of the sport. There are too many competing factions with no overall control. All want their slice of the cake. That said plenty of betting restrictions are crazy. A punter having £10-20 on a single shouldn’t be restricted, and all punters should be able to win a minimum of £100 on a single bet. No losing accounts should be allowed to close.
As regards the dual bet, part of using your knowledge is picking the right race. The problem is when you pick the right one, and the trainer picks the wrong one. I won’t mention any names.
Don’t bookmakers already do that? They offer a price on “win any race at Cheltenham”, although it is obviously a shorter price than that for any specific race.
I know William Hill did it, but nothing on their site at the moment, so not sure if it was avaialble earlier in the season.
Some do CAS, but last time I looked it’s not universal.
Think I can remember Bet365 doing it one year and saying they had little interest so didn’t do it again.I just mean it would be nice if a punter backs the horse for the Bingham, he/she is paid out if it were to win the Supreme and vice versa… But I suppose if that were the case they’d need to offer the same price for every race… Significantly shorter prices for races they believe the horse has less chance of winning… Which they wouldn’t get much trade for.
You’d think that some bookmakers would make an offer though, even if it’s just money back.
They make enough offers on everything else.
Gave money back to Shishkin backers when the horse failed to start. Surely they could do the same for Ballyburn backers of the race he fails to run in, especially if it wins the other race?Value Is EverythingYes, Hills did have the “win any race” offer, at least earlier in the season.
I remember looking on their site after Iroko hacked up at Warwick in November. He was something like 14/1 for the Turners, 16/1 for the Brown Advisory but 7/1 to win any race. There was an A to Z list of horses and their price to win any race at the festival.
I don’t suppose it is still there now they are NRNB all races.
I don’t like the arbitrary nature of the some bookmakers giving back money when a horse doesn’t start. It just looks like something of a publicity stunt.
I backed a bumper horse at Musselburgh a couple of weeks ago who was involved in an horrific incident, losing his life before he could successfully cross the line. He would have won, but I didn’t expect my bookmaker to pay out on a winner.
Handicap entries revealed today and three not turning up – Heart Wood, Nemean Lion, and Lowry’s Bar. Fortunately, all three NRNB. Bit surprised: Heart Wood gone up 12lb for bolting up, but the Plate you would have thought would have been an obvious target; Nemean Lion has probably got more entries than any other horse so presumably they don’t think he is good enough to defy a big weight, and I suppose Lowry’s Bar might be still recovering from the bungled effort to rush him into the EBF Final.
Replaced Lowry’s Bar with BUILT BY BALLYMORE, and WATERFORD WHISPERS, both NRNB.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.