- This topic has 2,646 replies, 45 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Really boys this playground fighting will have to stop.
Very much a case of the Egotist vs the Egoist.
Are we going to get the cane Miss?
Value Is Everythingbit like when I put up
Fleeting spirit at 40/1
to win the July Cup,
Art Conneisseur at 40/1
to win the Golden Jubilee and a bit like
Prohibit at 40/1
to win the Kings Stand,Now when you have History like that on here I might just give you a bit of
respect
until then If I was you I’d definately stop making yourself look like the biggest ‘I am’ on here as we both know who really is…………’I am’!
Get over it! Back in the days when I used to put my 100% books in the thread.
Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:46 am
3:45 Golden JubileeAlready advised
11 points @ 12/1 Kings ApostleNow
4 points @ 40/1 (WH) Art Connoisseur
3 points @ 94/1 (betfair) Duff
20 points @ biggest early price Sacred Kingdom100% book
Sacred Kingdom 9/4, JJ The Jet Plane 11/4, King’s Apostle 17/2, Kingsgate Native 16/1, Ialyos 16/1,Art Connoirsseur 22/1
, Bushranger 22/1, Diabolical 25/1, Duff 33/1, Lesson In Humility 50/1, Strike The Deal 50/1, Cannonball 66/1, Regal Parade 132/1, Intrepid Jack 200/1
Can I have your "respect" now please Your Royal High-Horse?
And I didn’t even need to risk losing my money ante-post. 
A horse estimated in my 100% book as a 22/1 shot wins @ 40/1.
It’s about time you realised TAK, big priced winners are no good if you don’t have the over all profit to go with it.
Under my current staking system it would’ve been 14 points (not 4) winning 560.
Of Course in comparison to me you are both Amatuers.
Was there ever a better post than this one I put up in Jan 2010?
"Jonjo has a plan he’s going to run Don’t Push It and get AP a sportsman of the year award before he retires"
The race was of course the Grand National and when the first thread started without one mention of any other horse I simply posted "Don’t Push It will win" and started backing him that day at all rates fom 60 down to 22’s. I bet him ever week without fail with just about every bookie on the planet and when you guys talking about great wins I just laugh to myself.
None of the two of you have patch on me
I am the greatest tipster in the room
and the best looking and if you want a second opinion your both ugly
One last post on the subject, unless provoked of course.
You have criticised my thread just as much as I have yours,suggesting I have only put up 2 winners in the past 6 months could be construed as telling Porkys and yet I couldn’t give a monkeys about deleting your insults,think of our little riposte as character building,its been a good debate now lets move on.
Before this last few days I hadn’t mentioned your poor record Gord. I pointed out some home truths about your threads in retaliation for your untruths about me Gord. Suggest you learn from that. Untruths seemingly due to jealousy on your part. You’ve had 2 winners, and around 42 losers since your last winner, victories at 11/2 and 6/1. That’s the TRUE record of your thread. Not opinion, just "fact".
Yes, you may well have had winners not put up on there, but what about all the losers you’ve backed that aren’t on there too? For you to claim on there that you’re doing so much better on betfair (just as you did on your previous thread) may or may not be true. Point is it must be considered a form of aftertiming. Also, what is the point of keeping these betfair prices to yourself anyway, when you’re already on? Immediately after betting why not go on your thread and say "take ?/1 on betfair, it won’t last long", instead of waiting until it’s shortened up before claiming a good price? With just 2 winners in around 60 bets and with a deficit of worse than -45% on stakes, you can hardly be considered the "Ante-Post King" anymore. I look foreward to the time when your former name can (in my eyes) be reinstated TAK. For now, the "P" will remain silent, The Aftertiming King seems more apt.I now wish I’d pm’d you and told you how and why I was hurt by your "fake, cheat and charletan" jibe Gord. (Yes, men can admit to being "hurt", it’s allowed these days). But as your last pm to me basically said, It’s nothing to do with me, blame the monster I’ve created. It didn’t seem worth trying.
That’s it from me.
Happy punting Gord.Value Is EverythingOne last post on the subject, unless provoked of course.
Entirely different subject a man must defend his position in life look what happened to Julius Caesar. I have to nip these coups in the bud when someone has it in-fa-me
Did I mention I was the greatest tipster on the planet?
One last post on the subject, unless provoked of course.
I now wish I’d pm’d you and told you how and why I was hurt by your "fake, cheat and charletan" jibe Gord. (Yes, men can admit to being "hurt", it’s allowed these days). But as your last pm to me basically said, It’s nothing to do with me, blame the monster I’ve created. It didn’t seem worth trying.
That’s it from me.
Happy punting Gord.Are you Sure thats it??
Did I mention I was the greatest tipster on the planet?
There’s as much evidence of that Fist, as there is of God truly existing.
Unless, you aren’t him are you!
Value Is EverythingIf he did exist he’d slap you right across the chops for ruining what could have been a great day for you yesterday. You took the best 2 horses in Europe and opposed them
Overall you got 1.5 about you selections for the day, us blessed ones got 2.59 net on thee holy double.May your God go with you
I would be interested to see ginge, your prices to beat for both Frankel and Excelebration yesterday, if you still have your book to hand.
Were they value,even at odds on i wonder?
But Softie, Fist and Gord don’t ever want to hear about percentages again.
Ahhh too bad. This was what I had worked out for soft, heavy in places… (There’s those dots again)…
I’ll be cheering on Frankel all the way, but both Cirrus and Nathaniel are too big to ignore. I’ve backed them both against him at a combined price of just over 4/1 (in my book it’s a combined 5/2).
Both are proven in soft ground and stay further than Frankel. It looks like being a stamina test.
Still make Frankel favourite, but nowhere near the price this morning.
I’ve got him in my book as a fair
70%
4/9, then it’s 4/1 (20.375%) Cirrus, 12/1 (8%) Nathaniel, 100/1 (1%) Pastorius, 400/1 (0.25%) Master Of Hounds and 800/1 (0.125%) Bullet Train
Come race time (as you predicted Softie) the ground wasn’t quite as bad as forecast. I didn’t make another book on paper afterwards, but mentally I would’ve added to Frankel and Master Of Houmnds, and taken a bit off the others. So more like…
Frankel 75% 1/3, Cirrus 17.825% 9/2, Nathaniel 7% 14/1, Pastorius 0.75% 132/1, Master Of Hounds 0.3% 300/1, Bullet Train 0.125% 800/1. (Forgive me Gord, I’ve used decimals to bring everything to 100%
)So even though I believed Frankel had over 4 times the chance of Cirrus and almost 11 times the chance of Nathaniel… The value bets were Cirrus and Nathaniel.
My Mile book was:
Excelebration 42% 11/8, Cityscape 20% 4/1, Elusive Kate 17% 5/1, Carlton House 12% 15/2, Most Improved 4% 25/1, Side Glance 33/1, Soveriegn Debt 1.5% 66/1, Indomito 0.5% 200/1.With Excelebration having over twice the chance of Cityscape, almost 2 1/2 times Elusive Kate and 3 1/2 times the chance of Carlton House. But as I don’t want to win 42% of my 10/11 bets… Excelebration was not (for me) the bet to strike.
Of course Fist would say (with the benifit of hindsight) I was proved wrong. But if I were to offer odds of 4/1 a throw of a dice… He backs the number 6 and 6 comes up… Would he have been right to take the 4/1?
Fist also conveniently forgets I backed Maarek @ 8/1 (SP 5/1), I did NOT back it because I thought it had the best chance of winning. Far from it, I backed it because I considered it a 14% chance (that’s less than either Cirrus or Cityscape). ie I considered it VALUE to win. I also backed Sapphire @ 100/30 (SP 5/2). So "Greatest Punter In The World", you can keep your odds-on winners.
Value Is EverythingWith the benefit of hindsight my ass Ginger I told you you were stone mad beforehand.
Really mate there’s a want with you…..how many races were there yesterday? and you go up against Frankel…..if that ain’t someone craving for attention I don’t know what is.
Plus FIST never CONVENIENTLY forgot you backed bugger all
Can’t you count for ***** sake?
Your outlay for the day was 267 points your return 398.66 which equates to 131 points profit which
is under 1/2
on the cash you laid out.
Like any dutcher most of the time overall you are betting at odds on even if it doesn’t seem so at the time if you weren’t your profits would be sky high which they are not.
I thank you for the apology
Calm down Fist, can assure you there’s no hostility in my words.
You’ve misunderstood my post. Please read it again. I’ll get back to you when I have more time with an explanation. But beware, it will include percentages.Value Is EverythingExplanation…
But Softie, Fist and Gord don’t ever want to hear about percentages again.
Ahhh too bad. This was what I had worked out for soft, heavy in places… (There’s those dots again)…
I’ll be cheering on Frankel all the way, but both Cirrus and Nathaniel are too big to ignore. I’ve backed them both against him at a combined price of just over 4/1 (in my book it’s a combined 5/2).
Both are proven in soft ground and stay further than Frankel. It looks like being a stamina test.
Still make Frankel favourite, but nowhere near the price this morning.
I’ve got him in my book as a fair
70%
4/9, then it’s 4/1 (20.375%) Cirrus, 12/1 (8%) Nathaniel, 100/1 (1%) Pastorius, 400/1 (0.25%) Master Of Hounds and 800/1 (0.125%) Bullet Train
Come race time (as you predicted Softie) the ground wasn’t quite as bad as forecast. I didn’t make another book on paper afterwards, but mentally I would’ve added to Frankel and Master Of Houmnds, and taken a bit off the others. So more like…
Frankel 75% 1/3, Cirrus 17.825% 9/2, Nathaniel 7% 14/1, Pastorius 0.75% 132/1, Master Of Hounds 0.3% 300/1, Bullet Train 0.125% 800/1. (Forgive me Gord, I’ve used decimals to bring everything to 100%
)So even though I believed Frankel had over 4 times the chance of Cirrus and almost 11 times the chance of Nathaniel… The value bets were Cirrus and Nathaniel.
My Mile book was:
Excelebration 42% 11/8, Cityscape 20% 4/1, Elusive Kate 17% 5/1, Carlton House 12% 15/2, Most Improved 4% 25/1, Side Glance 33/1, Soveriegn Debt 1.5% 66/1, Indomito 0.5% 200/1.With Excelebration having over twice the chance of Cityscape, almost 2 1/2 times Elusive Kate and 3 1/2 times the chance of Carlton House. But as I don’t want to win 42% of my 10/11 bets… Excelebration was not (for me) the bet to strike.
Of course Fist would say (with the benifit of hindsight) I was proved wrong.
Fist – Yes, you did say beforehand Frankel and Excelebration would win. (Well done for tipping a couple of odds-on shots
). Therefore, am I right that you’d say afterwards that you were proved right and me wrong? ie You’d say the result (ie the benifit of hindsight) proves me wrong. But because nobody can back a horse after it has past the post – in my opinion the result can not be taken in to account when assessing whether a horse beforehand is/was value or not. It is the form of every horse beforehand that tells us which horse/s is/are value.If we take the throw of a dice.
If I were to offer odds of 4/1 a throw of a dice… And you back the number 6 and 6 comes up… You win! But was 4/1 value beforehand? Would you have been right beforehand to take the 4/1 as a value price? Of course not, if someone was to bet a lot of 4/1’s about 5/1 chances – there’d be no way the punter would come out on top. Therefore the result does not prove value beforehand.Fist also conveniently forgets I backed Maarek @ 8/1 (SP 5/1),
I used "conveniently forgets" not because you did not know I’d backed Maarek, of course you do. I used those words because (imo) you forget or don’t realise the relevence of me backing both Maarek and Sapphire.
I did NOT back Maarek because I thought it had the best chance of winning. Far from it, I backed it because I considered it a 14% chance (
that’s less than I considered either Cirrus or Cityscape’s chance
). ie I considered it VALUE to win. I also backed Sapphire @ 100/30 (SP 5/2). So "Greatest Punter In The World", you can keep your odds-on winners.
In common with a lot of punters Fist, you seem to believe a 6/1 shot running against a long odds-on fav has a worse chance than a 6/1 shot in any other race. This is not neccessarily the case, it could be either way. Of course every race should be judged on its own merits. But the mere fact there are punters who believe backing against odds-on favs is stupid – means quite often we can get exceptional value.
Don’t expect you to agree Fist, but hope you now understand what I meant?
Value Is EverythingYour outlay for the day was 267 points your return 398.66 which equates to 131 points profit which
is under 1/2
on the cash you laid out.
Like any dutcher most of the time overall you are betting at odds on even if it doesn’t seem so at the time if you weren’t your profits would be sky high which they are not.
Fist,
Your picking at my 12% as not a significant figure is wrong. I suggest you calculate your percentage profit on stakes. And by that I don’t mean a day, week or month’s figure. Must be at least a year if not more. Many punters can make 12% or more in a short space of time. Few make more than 10% outright and only the best make more than 20%. I expect my jumps thread to drop this season.I am more than happy with my profit yesterday.
Value Is EverythingSo in reality, the bookies have had a couple of decent results there, based on those figures.Maybe not in volume terms, but certainly in laying at what seems to be a great price for them.
With Frankel,who was available all morning at 1/4 i think, they have paid out at 2/11 sp on a 1/3 shot, and Excelebration, they have paid 10/11sp on an 11/8 chance.
Bit like going into your local grocer and saying " I would like to give you £1.50 for that £1 pot of jam because i really want it".Grocer then realises he can sell plenty of £1 jam at £1.50 so puts the price up to £1.75 and so on.
As long you are happy to do that, then fine, but in other forms of life we become really peed off when ripped off but not always in gambling it seems.In saying that though, looking at your book for Frankel`s race there is a huge chance gap of some 58% between Frankel and the rest, which says
to me
that if you are not prepared to back Frankel at the odds on offer then leave that race alone.
Explanation…
But Softie, Fist and Gord don’t ever want to hear about percentages again.
Ahhh too bad. This was what I had worked out for soft, heavy in places… (There’s those dots again)…
I’ll be cheering on Frankel all the way, but both Cirrus and Nathaniel are too big to ignore. I’ve backed them both against him at a combined price of just over 4/1 (in my book it’s a combined 5/2).
Both are proven in soft ground and stay further than Frankel. It looks like being a stamina test.
Still make Frankel favourite, but nowhere near the price this morning.
I’ve got him in my book as a fair
70%
4/9, then it’s 4/1 (20.375%) Cirrus, 12/1 (8%) Nathaniel, 100/1 (1%) Pastorius, 400/1 (0.25%) Master Of Hounds and 800/1 (0.125%) Bullet Train
Come race time (as you predicted Softie) the ground wasn’t quite as bad as forecast. I didn’t make another book on paper afterwards, but mentally I would’ve added to Frankel and Master Of Houmnds, and taken a bit off the others. So more like…
Frankel 75% 1/3, Cirrus 17.825% 9/2, Nathaniel 7% 14/1, Pastorius 0.75% 132/1, Master Of Hounds 0.3% 300/1, Bullet Train 0.125% 800/1. (Forgive me Gord, I’ve used decimals to bring everything to 100%
)So even though I believed Frankel had over 4 times the chance of Cirrus and almost 11 times the chance of Nathaniel… The value bets were Cirrus and Nathaniel.
My Mile book was:
Excelebration 42% 11/8, Cityscape 20% 4/1, Elusive Kate 17% 5/1, Carlton House 12% 15/2, Most Improved 4% 25/1, Side Glance 33/1, Soveriegn Debt 1.5% 66/1, Indomito 0.5% 200/1.With Excelebration having over twice the chance of Cityscape, almost 2 1/2 times Elusive Kate and 3 1/2 times the chance of Carlton House. But as I don’t want to win 42% of my 10/11 bets… Excelebration was not (for me) the bet to strike.
Of course Fist would say (with the benifit of hindsight) I was proved wrong.
Fist – Yes, you did say beforehand Frankel and Excelebration would win. (Well done for tipping a couple of odds-on shots
). Therefore, am I right that you’d say afterwards that you were proved right and me wrong? ie You’d say the result (ie the benifit of hindsight) proves me wrong. But because nobody can back a horse after it has past the post – in my opinion the result can not be taken in to account when assessing whether a horse beforehand is/was value or not. It is the form of every horse beforehand that tells us which horse/s is/are value.If we take the throw of a dice.
If I were to offer odds of 4/1 a throw of a dice… And you back the number 6 and 6 comes up… You win! But was 4/1 value beforehand? Would you have been right beforehand to take the 4/1 as a value price? Of course not, if someone was to bet a lot of 4/1’s about 5/1 chances – there’d be no way the punter would come out on top. Therefore the result does not prove value beforehand.Fist also conveniently forgets I backed Maarek @ 8/1 (SP 5/1),
I used "conveniently forgets" not because you did not know I’d backed Maarek, of course you do. I used those words because (imo) you forget or don’t realise the relevence of me backing both Maarek and Sapphire.
I did NOT back Maarek because I thought it had the best chance of winning. Far from it, I backed it because I considered it a 14% chance (
that’s less than I considered either Cirrus or Cityscape’s chance
). ie I considered it VALUE to win. I also backed Sapphire @ 100/30 (SP 5/2). So "Greatest Punter In The World", you can keep your odds-on winners.
In common with a lot of punters Fist, you seem to believe a 6/1 shot running against a long odds-on fav has a worse chance than a 6/1 shot in any other race. This is not neccessarily the case, it could be either way. Of course every race should be judged on its own merits. But the mere fact there are punters who believe backing against odds-on favs is stupid – means quite often we can get exceptional value.
Don’t expect you to agree Fist, but hope you now understand what I meant?
I’m sorry Ginger but is is the case where Frankel is concerned. The odds of a superstar being turned over against a selling plater being turned over are not the same even if the bookies off the same odds…that’s common sense as you can trust a good horse is more trustworthy than a bad one ….I just feel that to come to the conclusion that opposing the worlds best horse when there are dozens of other races to bet in is not the brightest idea one could have.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.