- This topic has 42 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote: from davidjohnson on 3:03 pm on Aug. 5, 2006[br]
Quote: from Racing Daily on 2:53 pm on Aug. 5, 2006[br]I agree.  OB was far too short at Evs.<br>But she did it, so the odds ended up being right.
Err. No. <br>
Tell that to everyone who backed OB ;)<br>There are many, many favs that start too short.  But if they win, they surely have justified that price – whether it be by a hd or 3l.  I know the value pundits will disagree, and I too kinda agree.  But at the end of the day a win is a win.  <br>There are many horses who only ever win by a hd, due to their style of running.  Are the bookies to offer higher odds for that reason?  I doubt it.<br>I looked at the Evs and decided that it was short. Another man may have looked at it and said it was outstanding value. It’s just a personal opinion.
If the race were run again today under the exact same conditions, would OB be shorter or longer than 1/1 and would AG be shorter or longer than 9/2. Therein lies whether or not you got value. The result itself is irrelevant. If I had a fiver for every time I’ve bitten my tongue in the pub about this, I wouldn’t need to back horses!
That’s only relevant if yesterday’s form can be taken into account. They wouldn’t race two days in a row therefore the argument is without any logical premise. The market was formed on the basis of their form leadig into the race. I’d said I woudn’t back OB at 11/8 so there’s no way I’d have backed her at shorter.
Alexander Goldrun’s odds were about right and she did very well to get as close to OB as she did but the winner is better than the bare form. I’d have backed her at 2/1 but AG would have needed to be closer to 6s before I’d have risked anything on her.
The value question comes up every so often and not many seem to understand what it’s all about. Punters who were happy to take evens about OB yesterday will lose in the long run because her true odds were about 6/4 and that’s like taking 4/5 your choice on the toss of a coin. You might win in the short term. You cannot win in the long term.
The market was formed on the basis of their form leadig into the race.
I’d say it was formed on the consensus of the interpretation of the form & ability of the 2 horses and their suitability to the task at hand.
While I rate OB the better horse, I think the conditions and make-up (i.e. the entrants) were more suited to AG and massively reduced the "quality gap" between the 2 horses.
On the subject of value, I was doing some tipping at the weekend and this is what I wrote about the race on Friday evening:
"Nassau Stakes: looks like it’ll probably be between Ouija Board and Alexander Goldrun. They’re both proper group 1 horses, but Ouija Board is, in my opinion, the better horse.<br> <br>However, there’s not much in it and I feel the 10f over firm ground at Goodwood might be on the sharp side for Ouija Board while the race should suit Alexnder Goldrun who won it last year.<br> <br>With Ouija Board trading at 2.3 and Alexander Goldrun at 4.9, I’ll go with the latter.<br> <br>Bet: Alexander Goldrun, 1 point win."
Steve
Punters who were happy to take evens about OB yesterday will lose in the long run because her true odds were about 6/4
You mean that your interpretation of her true odds was 6-4
Quote: from Maurice on 11:54 am on Aug. 6, 2006[br]Alexander Goldrun’s odds were about right and she did very well to get as close to OB as she did but the winner is better than the bare form. I’d have backed her at 2/1 but AG would have needed to be closer to 6s before I’d have risked anything on her.
<br>So based on the ACTUAL race yesterday, in your opinion AG would have won that race only once every seven runnings!
Quote: from Maurice on 11:54 am on Aug. 6, 2006[br]The value question comes up every so often and not many seem to understand what it’s all about. Punters who were happy to take evens about OB yesterday will lose in the long run because her true odds were about 6/4
So if OB should have been 6/4 and AG 6/1, which of the remainder should have been shorter because adjusting only their SPs that gives a 96.7% book!
Cracking race. I was supposed to have been there but unfortunate circumstances led me away. Well done Ouija Board :)
Most exciting Flat race I’ve seen since the Royal Rebel/Persian Punch battle in the Gold Cup.
Two very fine and genuine racemares.
A note to trainers and breeders. At the going down of the sun and in the morning please repeat the mantra:
"A Group1 winning Colt/Filly is not proven top-class until he/she is also a Group 1 winning Horse/Mare"
KEEP THEM IN TRAINING
Quote: from davidbrady on 8:32 pm on Aug. 6, 2006[br]
Quote: from Maurice on 11:54 am on Aug. 6, 2006[br]Alexander Goldrun’s odds were about right and she did very well to get as close to OB as she did but the winner is better than the bare form. I’d have backed her at 2/1 but AG would have needed to be closer to 6s before I’d have risked anything on her.
<br>So based on the ACTUAL race yesterday, in your opinion AG would have won that race only once every seven runnings!
Quote: from Maurice on 11:54 am on Aug. 6, 2006[br]The value question comes up every so often and not many seem to understand what it’s all about. Punters who were happy to take evens about OB yesterday will lose in the long run because her true odds were about 6/4
So if OB should have been 6/4 and AG 6/1, which of the remainder should have been shorter because adjusting only their SPs that gives a 96.7% book!<br>
No! The price at which I’d choose to bet has to be beyond what I consider to be worthwhile margins for error on the part of the odds compilers. Why would I back OB at about evens when I could back something like Strategic Mount (which I thought was a more likely winner) at 7/1?
AG was unlikely to beat OB in my opinion and would have needed to have been offered at ridiculous odds for me to be tempted.
Surely on there best form there was never going to be very much between them. I think we saw yesterday exactly that.
SHL
To an extent, yes. On Saturday morning I wrote:<br><br>"Alexander Goldrun121<br>Ouija Board120+<br>Chelsea Rose119?<br>Nannina117?<br>Echelon111<br>Race For The Stars109?<br>Nasheej107+
I don’t think there’s any point in looking past the top two. Chelsea Rose may be a bit flattered by her proximity to Alexander Goldrun last time as the latter was ridden confidently. Alexander Goldrun has been exposed as short of true G1 level when taking on the colts so Ouija Board gets the vote but is not betting material at 11/8."
I couldn’t bring myself to back AG at 4/1 – 9/2 either because I didn’t think she had the beating of OB unless something was amiss with the favourite. As I said, at 6/1 or more I might have been tempted but I’d have been much happier to back OB at 2/1.
Where’s the ‘tearing my hair out’ emoticon? :)
The ‘a-winner’s-a-winner’ approach is flawed. If you don’t believe me, let’s get together one day, starting at 9am and toss a coin for 12 hours. You can have odds of 1/2 your call for £100 a time. You might win the first dozen times and be happy to keep taking 1/2. By the end of the 12 hours, I’ll be laughing cos I’ll be a long way in front.
The odds are totally irrelevant once the race is over and the result is known. Bets are made in anticipation of the contest. True odds exist somewhere out there and, as another contributor pointed out, there’s a strong element of subjectivity in compiling tissues.
But be honest, would you have backed OB before the race at 1/100? And if not, why not?
The way I look at it, if I look at a race and say "I hope I can get 2s about that one", and the tissue shows 5/2, then i’ll play. However, if it’s a 6/5 shot i’ll leave it.<br>But who says my evaluation that the horse is a 2/1 shot is correct? Me? That’s hardly rocket science, it’s pure personal interpretation.<br>The fact is that OB was an Evs shot. You either take it or leave it. Personal interpretation is all it comes down to. One mans rag is another mans value.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.