- This topic has 37 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
I have ATR and RUK so get to watch all the racing that I want to. That wasnt always the case and I used to do very well without watching any racing (except the channel 4 saturday meetings).
I often hear people say that the best way to improve yourself as a punter is to watch a lot of racing. I disagree and dont believe that watching races is an aid to a sucessful punter. I am pretty certain I could stop watching racing on TV altogether and this would not make a jot of difference to my selections and results.
I think if anything then watching racing can actually be a negative and cloud your judgement. Any opinions, name calling etc expected and welcomed. <!– s8) –>
<!– s8) –>Zoso’s reaction tissue:
Majority disagree with me = 1.01
Majority agree with me = .1000.00I have both channels too. I don’t think it is imperative that any punter (serious or not) requires visual evidence to be successful, but it sure does help.
Trust your eyes, as the the late, great Alex Bird often said.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
IMO, watching can help some of the time. Watching or not watching your own selection is one thing but the advantage comes when you see the other horses that maybe unlucky in running or ones where it is badly ridden etc. I have many times watched a horse in a sprint get so stuffed for room when it should have won and backed it next time out and collected. I just think it can only help Zoz.
Interesting question Zoso.
If I had to choose between my form book and watching TV racing, I’d choose the form book. Do not see how anyone can watch all the racing and form a view on each race. However, I think my knowledge of racing has improved since I got RUK just before this years Derby. Though I do get bored with the class 5 and worse, concentrating on the good stuff. Think it is important to specialise even if you can see it all.So the answer Zoso for me is yes and no.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingI think there’s definitely a case for people working too hard and getting too involved – The more you know the more it can be a hinderance you can get jumbled up in a mine of information. If you look hard enough you can always find a reason not to do something.
People over-complicate sometimes. Sometimes the obvious is just that obvious.
Its all about balance I think. If you don’t know enough you’re gonna struggle, if you know too much you’re gonna struggle.
Can’t have that Flash.
The more I know the luckier I become.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingWatching a lot of racing can be taken to mean a couple of different things I think of course there is the visual thing of actually seeing a race but there is also the temperament Angle.
"The race is tooo competitive for a reasonably predictable outcome from analysis……………….and is one to watch."
Watching a lot of races from this perspective will definitely "improve yourself as a punter".
Anyone can back everything they think will win FFS, just go down the bookies. They probably watch as much racing as anyone – in the conventional sense of course.[/b]
Watching races is essential and watching them live at the course is the best, arguably the only, way.
Watching the races on TV can actually be misleading as you are seeing a two dimensional image of a three dimensional event and camera angles can be notoriously misleading. Which is why a large number of armchair punters who say the commenator is talking rubbish are actually talking rubbish themselves, the TV picture does not always give a true refelction of what is happening.
I have had many decent touches after watching early season flat races and at the end of the race watching the horses behind the winner, not always shown on TV where they concentrate on the leaders. Looking for running on horses who then run over longer next time out. OK the form book should pick up on it – but you are relying on someone else to have spotted it as well.
As has already been said – only trust what you see with your own eyes.
Interesting topic!
I actually think you need to have some understanding of the race before the event than after. I’m not talking about a crystal ball to help you either.
What I mean is that some knowledge of the horses before they run is a great aid. Watching a race over and over again on a video (do people still have videos?) may well help you identifiy horses unlucky in running, short of room, given too much to do etc. However, unless you’re familiar with the horse’s previous record I’m not certain how advantageous your highlighting of said horse is.
It always surprises me those punters who make lists of horses and note that horse x requires 7f on his next outing to show best form. Punter then waits for horse x to be entered in a 7f race and backs it. Well, that’s all very interesting but unless you have an understanding of all the runners in a race I’m struggling to fathom out the logic in your approach.
Watching horse-racing in isolation, out of context, with no knowledge of the horse’s journey (metaphorically speaking) beforehand is unlikely to yield desired results.
But then I lost a fair amount yesterday, so what do I know!
No-one is suggesting that the form book should be discarded in favour of visual evidence, as you clearly can’t remember that much information, but the facility to be able to understand how races develop, identify potential improvers, assess a horse’s action and evaluate pace and style is undoubtedly useful.
It may not be an aid to betting, but it most certainly isn’t a hinderance.
I agree largely with that and Flash’s post
Is this difficulty with "too much racing" because of the urge to have a financial involvement?
Luckily that doesnt get to me, but understanable maybe
Again though doesn’t it come down to – what suits one doesn’t suit another? People are all different and better at different things.
When it comes to backing racehorses there is no wrong way or right way as long as it works – ask Agnes Haddock.
I think that most punters want to back the horse that was unlucky in running last time. I have always believed you should never back a horse who was unlucky in running last time. The majority of times the unlucky horse will be priced much shorter next time as everyone knows it was unlucky and hit traffic, the way I see it is if it was unlucky last time then its likely to be unlucky the next time.
Most punters have a football team who they consider to be there lucky team or unlucky team. I certainly do, every time I bet on a match involving Birmingham City I will be wrong and lose, they are my unlucky team and I will never in my life again punt on a game involving Birmingham City. Man Utd are my lucky team and I always seem to win whether I lay them or back them.
Most punters will never back there personal ‘unlucky team’ but will pile into the ‘unlucky horse’.
I would never back an unlucky horse as why would I want to back something that has no luck.
Much better to back a lucky horse than an unlucky one in my view.Watching races is essential and watching them live at the course is the best, arguably the only, way.
Watching the races on TV can actually be misleading as you are seeing a two dimensional image of a three dimensional event
Quite agree. The necessity to see it live is arguably even keener for serious point-to-point / hunter chase players, as practically no pointing footage exists, and where it does it is not available free of charge.
My two biggest winning tilts last spring were in the Intermediate Final at Cheltenham and the Dunraven Bowl at Chepstow, and both were informed by having seen most of the leading protagonists of each race between the flags previously.
Similarly, if I’d not witnessed Bon Accord beat Ballylusky in the flesh at Ampton a few weeks ago, and placed all my store in the actuality of the short distance he beat him (rather than having seen that he stomped all over him without touching a twig, and could have won by further), I might have fancied him for the Foxhunters rather less than I did and still do.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Interesting question Z, one I’ve pondered myself. I’m fairly sure I would do OK without watching races, but I also think you see things sometimes that do lead to future bets. Let me first say that I have no interest in the Steve Mellish and other RUK pundits approach of looking at ten reruns trying to spot the horse tenderly ridden in seventh place, but I’ll give some specific examples. After watching Ramonti’s first run for Godolphin in the Lockinge I knew he was a serious racehorse as he ran with the choke out for 3 furlongs and still nearly won- that was a profitable insight. Watching a horse called Drunken Disorderly live at Fairyhouse jump repeatedly to his right I was able to confidently oppose him in his subsequent left-handed starts. Small things like that may not be in the formbook but can mean a lot. So I guess the answer is that race-watching is not essential to successful punting, but it can help!
I think it depends on the individual on how they go about finding winners.
Personally I think those who don’t use visual aids need a whole lot of luck to be successful.
Only as an example what would the chances of me picking out Sizing Europe from reading an Irish form saying he won a novice hurdle beating a horse called Big Zeb and thinking he could be a champion hurdle horse?………..let me answer………about 10,000/1.
It was seeing the horse in that race that prompted me to find out more and I never even knew he was in the CH. When I found out he was I went back watched his next race which he fell in but looked even better in……with no other visual aid I THEN read the form of his next race, in which he beat Osana. After a few more veiwings of the two races I backed him for the champion hurdle at 12/1. Ok he hasn’t won it yet but to me it is things like that which make watching as many races as possible very important. Especially if you wnt to be a successful punter.
Only yesterday someone asked in a thread about Catch Me and should he take his chance at Cheltenham……how can I or anyone even give a worth while honest opinion without seeing the race?………
Horses like Binocular who the hell would back the horse for the triumph on winning what looked on paper like a moderate race?…..without seeing the horse you would have little chance of betting him for a good novice never mind the TH………The only chance you have of doing so is if you take someone elses word for it that he looks special.
You hear and read so much crap you just cant believe half the things you read in newspapers.
One of my favourite young horses Nevertika I saw run in a hurdle race and marked him down as a horse to follow over fences….he’s won 3 out of 3……would be no chance of me betting him in all three races if I hadn’t seen him beforehand. Him and god knows how many others over the last 30 years
Sorry if I going over the top on the subject but I can’t believe anyone would think having a visual aid would be a bad thing or not required………I would be lost 80% of the time without it. Especially as it is near impossible for me to go racing these days. I know a lot of you prefer to look at your 160’s and 170’s but I have never used them in my life and do more than ok out of punting.
<!– s8) –>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.