- This topic has 129 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote: from thedarkknight on 8:26 am on April 22, 2006[br] The fact is that it isn’t the quality of racing that you object to, it is having to work hard to win money. You seem to want a free lunch of bad e/w races every day – one has to assume that betting in 100% books on betfair is too difficult for you?<br>
I don’t recall objecting to the quality of racing last night. WHat I objected to was:
1) Horses being balloted out, for the sole purpose of ripping-off betting shop punters with BAGS percentages.
2) The sanding over of the UK and the resulting bingofication of UK horse racing. You know and I know why polytrack is suddenly flavour of the month – it tends to create a slow early pace and leads to more false results.
Polytrack course are springing up left and right not because of public demand but because of bookmakers and their archaic pricing and risk mechanisms. WHen bookies finally wave goodbye to UK racing in a few years time, I fear we will have a few white elephants on our hands.
Oh, and maybe you could point me to these 100% books on BF in the place market that I keep hearing so much about. A horse might be showing at 5.0 in a 400% book, but if you want a few hundred on, you’ll be lucky to average anything over 4.5.
Each-way betting with bookies these days is more about just getting on at a fixed price in fair each-way races (like 16 runner handicaps) than betting in ‘bad’ each-way races – which is nigh on impossible.
sberry, I agree that Kempton is a step in the right direction. RH, longer run-in, nice fountain in the middle ;)<br>The surface merely caters for horses with different preferences (as opposed to viewing pleasure) but I take the point you make.<br>It would be nice to see a few undulating tracks that parallel the course’s turf track. Imagine running around Goodwood on a polytrack surface LOL<br>It isn’t such a far fetched thing on a track where the turf and a/w tracks don’t have to cross one another. Ascot is another example where such a thing could be achieved, in theory.<br>Newmarket’s project interests me in the originality of a straight track where the fastest horse on the day wins. No excuses there for anyone. If you get boxed in, too bad.
If anyone doubts that there were quality horses on show last night then take a look at the Group winning Diktatorial and the multiple Graded Stakes winner in the handicap.
There’s nothing wrong with dirt racing – the quality that we should be talking about is the dross that Wolverhampton will be staging tonight and that Southwell, Lingfield and Wolverhampton stage regularly in the winter.
but it’s all those idiosyncratic courses that make reading form very difficult to transfer from one course to another.<br>Actually, I do consider Kempton a challenge. I am taping all the meetings and compiling videoform. Nothing elaborate, but a referance to refer to when betting there. Nice menus with the 1-2-3 for each race and some personal postscript thoughts on the running of the race. Something for my own reference. Kempton has made me think that a/w can be enjoyable, but my thoughts are that it could be more enjoyable :)<br>I have all seven meetings archived now on HDD. I’m feeling the urge to start compiling soon …<br>Kempton, like I said, is a step in the right direction. The longer run-in sorts the men from the boys.
EC, i am in total agreement. aw racing can be nicely profitable if you put the time in – you sure don’t have to worry as much about whether the ground is soft, rock or indifferent and you can equate form across the tracks and more to the point – why moan – agreed, it achieves nothing positive and only encourages others who want to pick holes in racing, to see racing picking holes in itself. you don’t see fly fishers moaning at carp fisherment, telling them they’re boring and it’s like shooting fish in a barrel – they seem to understand the principal of looking for the positives rather than the negatives. it’s all a question of outlook i suppose, is your glass half full or half empty ? maybe it’s cos i’m getting old…
Quote: from thedarkknight on 12:51 pm on April 22, 2006[br]I don’t think Kempton will produce a high proportion of "false" results. The longer straight has meant that luck in running has played much less of a part than it does at lingfield. I certainly can’t remember too many unlucky losers there thus far?<br>
Are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is? What price will you offer me on, say, favourites having a lower winning percentage at Kempton than any turf course by year’s end for 2006? (courses have to stage at least 70 races to be taken into account)
‘Fair’ odds would be around 33/1. Maybe you’ll offer me even better than that considering how punter friendly Kempton is in your world! I’m looking for an each-way bet.
kempton polytrack is different to lingfield but they all will be different to lingfield as lingfield has been down for ages now and is totally worn in and easily the fastest of the aw tracks – you can’t duplicate years of wear. kempton polytrack and wolves polytrack are very similar though imo, both in times and make up – plenty more kickback at wolves and kempton, though i think not quite as pronounced at kempton. as far as i am concerned i am equating kempton and wolves polytracks as equal for comparisons, only the finish being majorly different. i am sure the similarity between kempton and wolves surfaces was a plus point for hail the chief last night too, together with the longer run-in.
Glenn it was an article about why people called each way bandit and each way spiv like each way betting and whether e/w betting is a mugs game
can’t be arsed to copy it, but here’s the gist of that bit
from April 10, 127 races on which e/w bettting operated, 18 overbroke books, 12 between 16 – 18 runners
Quote:
"Some would have it that such "each way thieving" races are an endagered species, but they seem remarkably healthy"
(Edited by empty wallet at 1:44 pm on April 22, 2006)
Sounds like the Sportsman are publishing mis-information by bookie-payrolled propagandaists. They really should change the advert where the paper is lifted out of the punter’s pocket and put in the bin to one where it is lifted out of the punter’s pocket and placed where it currently resides – in the bookmaker’s pocket.
There were no races where you could bet place only overbroke with the bookies in the period. Anyone telling you otherwise is lieing.
Quote: from Glenn on 1:50 pm on April 22, 2006[br]<br> Anyone telling you otherwise is lieing.
bit harsh, and i don’t want there to be a mix up by me mis quoting, but here’s the revelant part :
<br>In the week commening April 10, there were 127 races in Britain on which each way betting operated.The place market came to a lower % than the win from which it was derived in 67 races (53%) of those instances.
In other words, if you knew nothing whatsoever about the race or horses in it, you would have been better off changing your £10 win bet into a £5 e/w more often than not.Then again. if you knew nothing whatsover about the race or the horses in it, you would have been better off spending your tenner on something completely different!
If you knew the win odds, the fraction of those odds that applied to a place and the number of places in the race – but still nothing about horses – you could have cherry -picked those reputedly rare instances when the place book dropped below 100% and became "overbroke"
You would have had plenty of cherries as it happens:18 to be precise(14% of races). There were even three seperate occasions during that week when there were three individual examples of overbroke place books on the same card.<br> <br>The identities of the majority of those overbroke place books were remarkably similar.Twelve of them were handicaps of between 16 and 18 runners, in whicj the bookmakers were paying quarter odds the first four places.
Some would have it that such "each way thieving" races are an endagered species,but they seemed remarkably healthy , in the week leading up to Easter
Any response on that quote TDK or do you want to withdraw your outrageous claim that Kempton is punter friendly?
Maybe Mr Rowlands could compare the place percentages at Kempton to turf tracks and see what sort of deal punters get there.
Sadly I can’t cherry pick these supposed each-way theiving races as all the bookies I bet with demand that I place a win bet of at least the same size in win books circa 125%-130% for the undoubetd privielege of betting into a 99% place book.
Quote: from Glenn on 5:58 pm on April 22, 2006[br]
Maybe Mr Rowlands could compare the place percentages at Kempton to turf tracks and see what sort of deal punters get there.
<br>
Excellent idea , maybe Mr Rowlands should look into it and see if there is a marked difference
Would make an interesting article imo
So the chickens have come home to roost , when Kempton reopened, I slagged it off for being just another crayford bags track , keep the bookies happy and damn the punters
well I got crucified for daring to suggest such a thing !!!, so now I am saying , its doomed , yeah doomed , no one is going , and nobody will go until the management  put on some decent racing
average crowds of 400/500 tell the full story , we are all fed up with dross , the programme  is 70 per cent dross , and yeah , punters are turning away in hordes , does anyone realise it , maybe , but the dross rolls on , the bookies 24/7 progrmme must be catered to , meanwhile racing goes further down the pan
Ricky
<br>Ricky,
Define dross.
Define ‘decent racing’.
I must have imagined the 0 – 90 race I ran Salute in earlier this month, along with the £12,500 prize fund – or is that just dross?
BTW, I’m not denying they have a problem, but I can’t see any way it can be blamed on the quality of the racing, which is exactly the same as they used to stage on turf.
AP
exactly, let’s scrap brighton, southwell, bath, folkestone, musselburgh and everywhere else with races with less than 5k prize money and while we’re at it, every race course with less punter facilities than kempton, except that would be most race courses – good god according to latest figures the money being bet and the numbers going racing are constantly increasing but no, let’s kill anything we don’t personally like, i’m sure all owners, trainers, jockeys and all else in racing would agree wholeheartedly with you, not.
I don’t buy the defence that the horses are good so the racing must be good.
Why do we like betting on better class horses? Because they are more predictable would be the usual response, but is a 90-rated horse running on turf as predictable as a 90-rated horse running on poltrack? No IMHO due to the falsely run nature of the races and the fact that most of these 90 rated horses haven’t run on polytrack before.
It’s bookmaker bingo racing, with even the better class races probably being on a par with claimers and sellers in terms of predictability. Then we have the contempt Kempton have shown towards punters by putting on five handicaps out of six races on most cards and balloting out horses for the sole reason of shortchanging punters in these handicaps.
It is BAGS filth, solely put on to milk the pathologicals in the shops.
Quote: from Glenn on 1:04 am on July 25, 2006[br]
but is a 90-rated horse running on turf as predictable as a 90-rated horse running on poltrack? No IMHO due to the falsely run nature of the races and the fact that most of these 90 rated horses haven’t run on polytrack before.<br>.
Sorry Glenn, can’t agree here, horses rated in and above this band are the same to predict as they are on turf.
As for those that have never raced on the surface, most horses will handle the SURFACE, proper pedigree research will help and can be factored into the price in the same way you factor it in for a horse racing on a differnt surface on turf.
Whether they will handle the configuration of AW tracks or the kickback is a different matter entirely
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 2:44 am on July 25, 2006)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.