- This topic has 49 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I spent time working for a hedging service in Newmarket – supposed shrewdies – part of a network of agents that saw smart money. If any bet went down – in their eyes – the race was automatically bent. I left, almost embarrassed for thinking you could make a living with hard work and belief and not pandering to the conspiracy theories. This thread proves all of that to be nothing more than a mask that people hide behind. HARD WORK PAYS in whichever direction you choose to take it. All of these people had a work ethic second to none.
And they kept a cool head. Pittsburg Phil famously lost $285,000 in the final week of the Saratoga meet one year (27 consecutive losing bets), but earned back $290,000 on the final two races of the last day’s card. That’s $7 million in 2012 dollars. According to onlookers, and the New York Times reporters who made it a headline story, he didn’t lose his calm demeanor ("playing on tilt" in poker terminology) at all during this time.
Wowzers Miss Woodford! In Patrick Veitch’s book he mentions setting an alarm to listen to radio commentary on the Melbourne Cup, winning some astronomical amount of money on the race then going back to sleep! In my dreams! If I won 6 figures on the Melbourne Cup I’d not sleep for about 2 weeks (for varying reasons I’m sure
). Different world!Controlling the Jeckyl and Hyde; having the ice cool nerve where all before have crumbled is what seperates the men from the boys Im afraid.
Favourite thread on here in years, some reight stories, the interview with the Aussie Alan was spectacular.
Is it a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.Are we too close to J. Magnier to realize what he has achieved.Is Coolmore the most successful stud farm operation in the world?He,Magnier took on the billionaire with the oil wells and successfully out did him. He took on those willing to spend and spend and spend and he now stands at the top of the pile.Is that gambling or what?He gambled on the keen eyes of his staff to judge the yearlings, the ability of his trainer,Aidan O’Brien and his own knowledge of bloodlines.I don’t know who to compare him to. The rest inherited their blood lines,with the exception of the Arabs, he set up his operation from scratch.He even scared off his original supporters with his risk taking moves.It will take fifty more years before we will know how he compares to the Aga Khan. But that is a bet I would be reluctant to cover.
What is evident from the majority of names submitted is that they’re not ‘gamblers’ at all; rather they’re ‘investors’ in a financial market they deem ‘inefficient’ or in the correct market parlance ‘weakly efficient’. Therefore they know that by the application of a great deal of very hard work they should be able to find an ‘edge’ and hence a profit
And perhaps above all they’re aware of the mind-set, failings, pit-falls and limitations that causes the 99% of punters they’re playing against to lose money
So in light of that may I add Phil Bull and Dick Whitford with their edge-inducing timefigures and private handicaps. Bull the punter, Whitford the math
It does admittedly take rather more balls (and a larger tank) to bet Large^2 than Pony^2 but nevertheless I regard anyone who manages to eke out a few percentage points long-term net profit from the difficult, trying, exasperating, fascinating, intellectually-stimulating pursuit of betting-the-races as a ‘great gambler’ be there three digits on their bottom line or seven
Very true Drone, a true gambler has little regard for their stake, whether it be money, reputation or even their flesh and bones. Having observed betting shop punters for many years I cannot help but despise the breed that bet "not to lose" for they will never win, especially if they do not derive any pleasure from punting. A punter who, by diligence, discovers a method by which they can turn a profit is to be admired only if they have also enjoyed the entertainment along the way.
A person that can risk everything and should the Fates be against them, can begin again without losing faith in themselves, they are to be much admired. After all, life is short and we come this way but once.Phil Bull and Alex Bird are the two men I admired most.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Gary Wiltshire for me,fearless layer who’s Black Silks with Blue epaulettes and Red Cap,often mistook for the legendary Jim Joel colours knows how to Punt,he told me at Nottingham one of his was going to win on the all weather the following week,the name of the bloody thing still escapes me but it duly romped in at 9/4.Top Man Gary!
Glad I started this – my favourite thread in years.
There is something both intrinsically romantic but also life-affirming about the guy who (preferably starting with nothing) successfully takes on the system and wins – be it mathematical, psychological or plain and simple insider trading!
Our very own Gingertipster can hold is own,his style is unique to the forum and i like his originality and consistent approach to the Sport of Kings!
A similar thread was done some years ago, with different names put forward:-
http://www.theracingforum.co.uk/horse-racing-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10804
..preferring British eccentrics, especially women in a man’s game = the Paget/Rank duo –
"
At the outbreak of war in 1939 and for some five years previously the two biggest racecourse gamblers, as opposed to professional backers, were both women. The other was Mrs. J.V. Rank who, like Dorothy Paget, had a number of horses in training but nothing like so many. Neither would hesitate to have £10,000 (£320,000 in today’s money) or more on their horses whenever they ran
".
Thanks for reviving that thread UM
Like the badger, Dorothy Paget was crepuscular-to-nocturnal by nature, breaking her fast at dusk, lunching at midnight and dining at dawn. So the afternoon’s racing tended to occur when she was in the land of nod. No matter, her bookmaker was quite happy to lay her lumpy bets after the results were known: to everyone bar her presumably.
So the story goes
^I can relate to that
..incidentally, you wrote 5 years ago:-
"I’d recommend watching ‘The Cincinnati Kid’ and then deciding which character you warm to: Steve McQueen’s or Edward G’s. A fair barometer of whether one is a gambler or a waster
"
..I’ve never seen the film, so which did you warm to? who was the gambler and who the waster? I really must see this sometime.
Glad I started this – my favourite thread in years.
There is something both intrinsically romantic but also life-affirming about the guy who (preferably starting with nothing) successfully takes on the system and wins – be it mathematical, psychological or plain and simple insider trading!
Our very own Gingertipster can hold is own,his style is unique to the forum and i like his originality and consistent approach to the Sport of Kings!
Many thanks for the compliment, to be mentioned in a thread called "Greatest ever gamblers" is very flattering Gord. I fear am not even in the fourth division, let alone the same league as Bird, Bull and co.
Value Is EverythingAgree.
The best gamblers are not "gamblers" at all, they’re "investors".
Only betting when they can see an edge / value.
"Betting" should be no more a "gamble" than being in "business".Value Is Everything"
I’d recommend watching ‘The Cincinnati Kid’ and then deciding which character you warm to: Steve McQueen’s or Edward G’s. A fair barometer of whether one is a gambler or a waster
"
..I’ve never seen the film, so which did you warm to? who was the gambler and who the waster? I really must see this sometime.
The main characters’ nicknames says much really: Eric "The Kid" Stoner and Lancey "The Man" Howard. The former (McQueen) emotional, charismatic and mercurial; the latter (Robinson) cold, lacklustre and steady
So naturally
it follows that I warm to "The Man" – the gambler as investor and not "The Kid" – the gambler as waster, who however was much more ‘entertaining’ if you like that sort of thingPerhaps Potts and Nevison could be persuaded to take the roles in a re-make
The main characters’ nicknames says much really: Eric "The Kid" Stoner and Lancey "The Man" Howard. The former (McQueen) emotional, charismatic and mercurial; the latter (Robinson) cold, lacklustre and steady
So naturally
it follows that I warm to "The Man" – the gambler as investor and not "The Kid" – the gambler as waster, who however was much more ‘entertaining’ if you like that sort of thingPerhaps Potts and Nevison could be persuaded to take the roles in a re-make
Great comparrison Drone. My money is on "The Man" Potts!
Value Is EverythingI remember Gary Wiltshire doing a daily betting ring blog for gg.com back in its early days. Was a great read. He did a daily market moves piece on there for a while as well, updated at around 1pm each day and was very informative. I remember him telling of a couple of pro gamblers heading to Hereford that afternoon to have ten large on a novice chaser, duly shortened from 7/4 into 13/8 in the ring as I recall, cant remember if it won or not. GG was as a great site back then. Alan Potts also did articles for them around that time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.