- This topic has 12 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
I am a mixture of both. Some days I back horses that are proven, other days I back horses that are unproven. Although, because I am not a short price backer I tend to err more on the improver side.
You’ve put up some very good threads recently Marb!
I do my own ratings so I’m happier with proven horses. Ratings tend to work much better with the quantifiable. Improvement is very difficult to quantify numerically in a systematic way given the individual nature of the racehorse.
April has been a tough month for me for that very reason. A lot of unexposed first run of the new season improving types can regularly make a mockery of ratings generated from last season at this time of the year.
On the plus side that has led me to investigate the wonder of the Timeform P or p. Seriously good when used in the right way, I’ve discovered.
The enthusiasm for most race goers remains unearthing the unexposed type. The hype horses which have this profile whether unraced or unexposed provide the pre-race talk – much of the talk is "created" by publications owned by bookmakers, studs and all different folk who for no rhyme or reason want nothing more than to give Joe Bloggs a suitable nod and wink.
Gallop reports can often sway arguments to a horse displaying bundles of ability working alongside Group contenders, but ultimately seeing is believing…..
Horses with solid form book appeal always take preference – you know the horse is capable of running to a minimum of x and if that remains best in the race, I would much rather select a horse proven to run, than something which has "potential" but on everything shown to date needs to prove otherwise. They still have four legs, a head and a tail with a monkey strapped to their back capable of doing anything…..
In the last 15 juvenile races with newcomers – 12 have gone to a 2yo with previous experience. The three winners including High Spice had been a maiden exclusive to unraced horses.
Those who back horses because essentially the horse is "proven", and therefore only needs to replicate a previous run(s) to win a given race, or those who back horses because of potential improvement, and the affect this can have on a horses chance of winning the race?
The former will tend to lead you to shortish prices that win more often, and the latter to bigger prices that win less often.
I’d disagree with this statement. So often I think you end up with short prices about the potential improvers or ‘unexposed’ sorts, particularly with well-bred sorts from the fashionable yards. So many of these horses without any worthwhile form after three runs are priced up on pedigree and potential rather than what they’ve achieved.
Sorry that you didn’t want to turn it into a value debate, but essentially that’s what it boils down to, backing the exposed sorts with the form in the book when their price is too big, and backing those that have potential for improvement when that hasn’t been factored sufficiently in the price.
Another alternative is something of a mixture of the two. Backing a horse that has had a good recent run, but was out of form before that. However, you are only asking it to return to the form of two years previous in order to win.
I prefer backing proven horses against ones which the media has hyped up as being full of potential.
The Rainbow View analogy is interesting because with a horse unraced as a 3yo but with solid form as a 2yo you are always placing some faith in potential (Johannesburg is another example)
If Fantasia had run on Sunday I would have backed her as she had already proved that she had trained on while RV had not.
I mainly err on the side of proven, but am not averse of punting on horses which I deem to have potential – i.e. further improvement.
For that reason, Rip Van Winkle has not been erased from the notebook just yet.
That said, I feel you can attach more confidence to your "proven" horse bets than you can the " potential " ones, where guess work and hope play more of a role.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Every race should be assessed on its own merits, and it’s therefore hard to see how anyone could consider themselves as one type or the other.
The either/or definition is far too prescriptive. There is a very large shade of grey in between those two extremes, and it probably covers most punters.
Interesting thread Marb .. I would go back right to the orginal question though regarding the types of punters.
You could say 80% of punters will back a horse based on nothing more than a guess .. Beryl’s Pearl was running on Aunty Beryl’s birthday and came second at 20/1 etc. Or take a notional glance at the names, jockeys, trainers and at a push look at the tipsters in the paper.
Then 20% of punters seriously look for the winner.
I like this question.
Fits well with my day job. Value investing vs. Growth investing.
Like fund management, you can potentially gain alot more from ‘growth stocks’ than value. This can obviously be the case with horses.
I tend to be a value man, so I like to get as much data on previous runs as possible and find some read-across information. Therefore, I tend to agree with davidbrady.
Initially I always backed horses with CD next to their name, and although this tactic works on occassion it can prove misleading.
It comes down to a ‘margin of safety’. If the horse is proven and the price is too big relative, then you buy. If not, sell.
Each case is different, but I do think betting exchanges have made a difference…
In the days when it was punters v bookies, I think bookmakers tended to underprice unexposed horses on the whole. The value often lay in sticking with proven performers taking on those with potential.
Betting exchanges have changed that to an extent. The market is much more accurate these days. If there is an unexposed horse that is the "real deal" it is usually strongly supported on Betfair. It may look poor value to the form book student on what it has achieved on the racecourse, but that isn’t the whole story of course. We are now playing against people who possess more information than is available in the public domain.
Good analogy marble.
Although comparing horse racing to running a chippie is strange lol. I get the point though. At the end of the day its a risk:reward ratio in application. The greater the risk the greater the reward. The less the risk the less the reward. Then again, many successful businessmen are involved in both high risk and low risk ventures. Should we as gamblers be the same? And if so, its about knowing when and where to take the risk. Knowing which horse is an improver and when to back it! Knowing which horse is a safe bet and being on it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.