- This topic has 6 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
- Posts
Some reference on a previous thread was made to my view today on the jockey sponsorship by bookmakers and there presented tips.
This leads me to question of the proposed tips and features of The Morning Line on the morning of the Grand National. My partner who should know better as she works at Ladbrokes waived from Chicago Grey to three or four other horses then back to Chicago.
Between these musings I commented that none of these horses they’ve featured or tipped will win.
That left about 15 of the field to look at but I find Form study really tedious so I pumped for Balthazar King as its won for me before.
Auroras Encore had excellent form in pattern races as now we all know and some good students on here did so to. Mon Mome won a pattern race the previous year before going on and deemed a 100/1 shock!?.
Now todays Morning Line surprise surprise they half fancy Auroros to do the double.
These guys work only in racing 24/7 I spend 8 hours a day buying and selling office equipment but these fellas cant give a sneaky chance by highlighting its form to the viewer or reader?
Bookmakers I believe to the once or twice a year punters hide the likely winner away down the 50’s mark so they are left unconsidered and the media in the pockets of the bookies they leave unmentioned as well?
My view but all things considered I think it needs a mention
I have recently started betting on horses that slide in the betting in the last 10 minutes it’s amazing how many times a horse that was 5-1 goes out in the betting to 9-1 or 10-1 suddenly goes on to win and how many times does a heavily backed horse which jumps in the market in the last 10 minutes fail to live up to this sudden backing.
I backed Universal in the 1.50 at Newbury as it went out to 9-1 (11-1 SP) and it won keep an eye on this I am sure this thing of horse drifting and winning is not coincidental.
It’s all a big connivance. Two conversations of what appeared to be the utmost contrivance occurred on Channel Four racing this afternoon. First when Luck spoke to good old Harvey Smith about A. Encore’s chances. I did not quite hear Smith’s first sentence but it was spoken in a voice of don’t-be-stoopid-lad incredulity, he’d been murdered by the handicapper for winning the National [quite right too, I say] but they had brought him along for the crowds and because they had ‘said they would bring him along’.
Luck looked bemused as the whole of the day’s baloney selling point (can Encore do the double?) collapsed. It was like the time an ecstatic and evidently wadded-up winning owner at Cheltenham forgot the fourth wall and gushed to Alice Plunkett: ‘HE ALWAYS TELLS US WHEN IT’S GOING TO WIN!’
The second conversation occurred when Luck was roaming the parade ring before the Scot. G. National. He happened upon Pipe the Younger and asked him what horse he would like to have trained for the race. Pipe, with what appeared to be a why-ask-an-obvious-question-like-that grin, said: The King horse!’If you watch these big handicaps it soon becomes clear that most of the horses in it are not there to race in any serious sense for whatever reason, going, weight, fitness etc. No wrongdoing is suggested. There will be a couple down the weights who could piss up with a bit of luck and as like as not the bookies can ‘hide’ them with a silly price because they know that it is a very cool customer indeed who does not consider the price, even though – and perhaps because – we have all become Coton merchants. Then you have a few near the front of the betting and a false favourite. What does that equal: a full satchel and bigger bellies.
This is why I suggested that Channel Four need more characters who have lived the hard knocks of betting, instead of the slightly train-spotterish crowd they have now. Although Racing Post TV looks like it’s produced in someone’s shed it still has the punting truth about it sometimes. I remember when Mark Winstanley contemptuously worked his way through a National card a couple of years ago, chucking out horse after horse that was suggested with ‘No.’
Young sidekick: ‘But you could make a case … ‘
MW: ‘No, you couldn’t. The handicapper stops them winning. Simple as that.’
When I hear a pundit say that on C4 Racing I know it will have come of age. As I say, it is all a rather unseemly pretence to part the public with its money, and very, very few people in the game are not part of it one way and another.Bookmakers I believe to the once or twice a year punters hide the likely winner away down the 50’s mark so they are left unconsidered and the media in the pockets of the bookies they leave unmentioned as well?
My view but all things considered I think it needs a mention
You are joking Jibsa, right?
Bookmakers hiding the winner, ye right.
If that were true why does each price win the amount of times you’d expect them to?
Value Is EverythingBookmakers I believe to the once or twice a year punters hide the likely winner away down the 50’s mark so they are left unconsidered and the media in the pockets of the bookies they leave unmentioned as well?
My view but all things considered I think it needs a mention
You are joking Jibsa, right?
Bookmakers hiding the winner, ye right.
If that were true why does each price win the amount of times you’d expect them to?
Typical. As usual Ginge, you just bury your head in the sand regarding the ongoing problem of bookmakers ‘hiding’ the likely winners of races.
Never was this more starkly demonstrated than at a recent Warwick meeting where the bookmakers
quite literally
hid some of the likely winners, using blankets purloined from the local WRVS. I can’t begin to imagine how much money they made that day but I’m willing to bet that wheelbarrows were involved.
Britain eh? It’s one rule for the rich and another for the poor.
Bloody Thatcher…etc
Mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.