Packing it in

[Professortrubshawe]

Gambling on horses is an emotional rollercoaster and I’m a normal human being. I do not share the pretensions of most gambling users on this web ie to appear to be the machine bettor, the cool head, the king kiddie, the omnscient wonderboy of the Timeform school for whom money lost and money won is a mere nothing compared with the end of term accounts. People like that are, well, there’s a mildly rude word for them.

My post wasn’t prompted by pocket (but the worldview on here is entirely Manchichean: one is either a disenchanted loser or a smug winner). It was thinking out loud about how it all works and what it requires from you if you are not simply going to hand money to bookies in a one-way arrangement.

But it’s like to talking to a bunch of estate agents who cannot see that regardless of whether they make money or not, there are elements of their operation which are unseemly.

[Gingertipster]

For your own good Prof, give racing up, it isn’t worth the lows you’re going through.

Quite the reverse me old son!

In your first post Prof, you were wondering whether to give racing up completely, I am saying you should…

Now you’re saying what?

Value Is Everything

[Professortrubshawe]

I also said other things, for which read above. And answer if you dare.

[betlarge]

This is morphing into an (unintentionally) funny thread!

Mike

PS Ginge, if you (or anyone else) uses the ‘hilarious’ phrase

‘simples’

again, I may have to self-immolate.

[Gingertipster]

I returned from a trip abroad on Monday having seen no racing news for about two weeks. Suddenly I was aware of a

pleasurable sensation

: not only was I on holiday from work, I was on

holiday from racing

. That sat me thinking about how close to work, indistinguishable really, the whole business is.

What if I packed it in for good

? No more squinting at form and turning it over mentally;

no more disappointment

(the

default emotion

of the Turf); no more

rage

at one’s own

stupidity

and bad luck (put inverted commas round bad luck as you see fit); no more getting up early to get a handle on big race form. But there again no more thrills and spills, no more big wins.
Still it was very tempting to just forget all about it (so easy now it’s rarely in the mass media), and that surprised me.
Then today I thought: c’mon, it’s Brighton. Hard work but you like Brighton. So I got a copy of the Post and settled to it.
And I lost.

‘

I can’t go on, I can’t go on. I’ll go on.

‘ Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot.

Prof,
You said you had a "pleasurable sensation" when "on holiday from racing". You said "what if I packed it in"? There’d be "no more disappointment" which according to you is your "

default

emotion" for flat racing. "Rage", why anyone would "rage" at their own "stupidity", is beyond me?

"I can’t go on".

Is racing really worth this?
If you’re recognising "pleasure" through NOT betting… And recognising betting with the primary emotion of "disappointment", with "rage" thrown in, and ending "I can’t go on" (whether a quote or not)…

Leads anyone to the conclusion, there is NO point of going "on" with betting?

Save yourself all that heartache and give up racing Prof.

Value Is Everything

[Gingertipster]

This is morphing into an (unintentionally) funny thread!

Mike

PS Ginge, if you (or anyone else) uses the ‘hilarious’ phrase

‘simples’

again, I may have to self-immolate.

I don’t find anyone in the state of mind Prof gets himself in as "funny" Mike.

"Simples" isn’t meant to be funny in this context. Was going to leave the "s" out, but thought it might offend if (again) taken out of context.

Value Is Everything

[Professortrubshawe]

This is morphing into an (unintentionally) funny thread!

Mike

PS Ginge, if you (or anyone else) uses the ‘hilarious’ phrase

‘simples’

again, I may have to self-immolate.

I don’t find anyone in the state of mind Prof gets himself in as "funny" Mike.

"Simples" isn’t meant to be funny in this context. Was going to leave the "s" out, but thought it might offend if (again) taken out of context.

I don’t quite understand why thinking out loud and exploring a few moral viewpoints worries you so much. Odd, very odd.

[Pants]

This is morphing into an (unintentionally) funny thread!

Mike

PS Ginge, if you (or anyone else) uses the ‘hilarious’ phrase

‘simples’

again, I may have to self-immolate.

I don’t find anyone in the state of mind Prof gets himself in as "funny" Mike.

"Simples" isn’t meant to be funny in this context. Was going to leave the "s" out, but thought it might offend if (again) taken out of context.

I don’t quite understand why thinking out loud and exploring a few moral viewpoints worries you so much. Odd, very odd.

Maybe it’s because you start a negative thread of a nature similar to this every other week. You implied you ‘can’t go on’ everyone that’s replied has agreed that you indeed shouldn’t go on but you don’t seem to want to listen.

[Gingertipster]

Maybe it’s because you start a negative thread of a nature similar to this every other week. You implied you ‘can’t go on’ everyone that’s replied has agreed that you indeed shouldn’t go on but you don’t seem to want to listen.

Exactly Pants.

Every so often Prof starts a thread and then seems to want to go back on his original post.

We’re concerned for your own welfare Prof.

Value Is Everything

[Woolf121]

It’s a valid thread, racing fans, particularly those who study form and place bets, need to consider if the time and money is well spent. If horses are not giving their running in significant numbers then any amount of study and hard work is complete folly. Better get a hat pin.

[Gingertipster]

There is simply too much disguised ability around especially in lower grade racing, too many unconsidered runners romping home like champions passing your selection laden with ticked boxes.

Woolf,
This is simply not true. "Too many unconsidered runners" are NOT "romping home". Do you really believe the price is because connections "disguise" ability? If connections knew the horse capable of better form, there’s no way it would be allowed to go off an outsider.

Of course outsiders ("unconsidered runners") win…
But if you take bookmakers mark ups off SP’s of unconsidered winners; you’d find that roughly the number of outsiders win that can be expected to win. Same with any price, short and middle range too.

Say your selection has the best form and has "ticks" in all the right boxes, with an SP of say 4/5. Yet is beaten by an unconsidered 20/1 shot. Fair 4/5 shots have a 55.6% chance of winning, but take the bookies mark up off and the average 4/5 shot can be expected to win something like 53% of the time. Where as taking the bookies mark up off the 20/1 shot, around 4% can be expected to win.

Of course if your average 4/5 selection has around a 53% chance of winning, it also has around a 47% chance of losing. So it should not be seen as a surprise when a 4/5 shot gets turned over. Also… with so many 20/1+ outsiders running during a day, week, month or year… and those numbers adding up; it should not be seen as a surprise when a 20/1+ outsider wins.

The often said notion that the game must be bent because outsiders beat hot favourites is ridiculous. It originates from people who don’t understand odds.

Value Is Everything

[Drone]

Gambling on horses is an emotional rollercoaster and I’m a normal human being. I do not share the pretensions of most gambling users on this web ie to appear to be the machine bettor, the cool head, the king kiddie, the omnscient wonderboy of the Timeform school

Being normal is nothing to be ashamed about; by definition it’s a trait shared by the majority, and most take comfort from being part of the grey and unremarkable crowd

The abnormal however are a small troupe to be celebrated: they strive to make the best of themselves and endeavour to utilise what skills they have to maximum advantage, be that for artistic, intellectual, or financial gain

for whom money lost and money won is a mere nothing compared with the end of term accounts

Harking back to my (obvious) assertion that betting for profit is no more than a self-employed business opportunity with money lost and won simply equating to business turnover: that lost is business expense and that won is business income. Subtract the former from the latter at the end of your chosen financial year – "end of term accounts" – and you have your net profit or loss

People like that are, well, there’s a mildly rude word for them

Anorak? Geek? Anally retentive? Tosser? Boring twat? – would you level these accusations at the self-employed population in general: those who maintain diligent accounts and for whom one purchase (bet lost) and one job (bet won) is of no consequence at all but is just a couple of lines in the annual profit-and-loss account, which of course is the only thing of consequence

You want fun, entertainment, thrills, spills, highs, lows, bing-bang-billyoh from betting Professor Trubshawe: that’s fine and it’s using betting as the enjoyable leisure pursuit it is for the large majority. But such bettors really should realise that betting in such a dilletante manner can only ever result in long term loss; and that loss is solely down to that bettor and is not the fault of the medium on which he chooses to play-bet

It is of course a hallmark of the lazy and/or inept to sling tired sneers such as "machine" "king kiddie" "wonderboy" and "de haut en bas" (clever ) at those prepared to put in at least a smidgin of effort and application

I was going to add "Manchichean" to the sneers but I think you mean Manichaean – good and evil indeed

What fun – this is debate not argument Prof, no need to get all defensive and offensive dear boy

That’s all

[Woolf121]

There is simply too much disguised ability around especially in lower grade racing, too many unconsidered runners romping home like champions passing your selection laden with ticked boxes.

Woolf,
This is simply not true. "Too many unconsidered runners" are NOT "romping home". Do you really believe the price is because connections "disguise" ability? If connections knew the horse capable of better form, there’s no way it would be allowed to go off an outsider.

Of course outsiders ("unconsidered runners") win…
But if you take bookmakers mark ups off SP’s of unconsidered winners; you’d find that roughly the number of outsiders win that can be expected to win. Same with any price, short and middle range too.

Say your selection has the best form and has "ticks" in all the right boxes, with an SP of say 4/5. Yet is beaten by an unconsidered 20/1 shot. Fair 4/5 shots have a 55.6% chance of winning, but take the bookies mark up off and the average 4/5 shot can be expected to win something like 53% of the time. Where as taking the bookies mark up off the 20/1 shot, around 4% can be expected to win.

Of course if your average 4/5 selection has around a 53% chance of winning, it also has around a 47% chance of losing. So it should not be seen as a surprise when a 4/5 shot gets turned over. Also… with so many 20/1+ outsiders running during a day, week, month or year… and those numbers adding up; it should not be seen as a surprise when a 20/1+ outsider wins.

The often said notion that the game must be bent because outsiders beat hot favourites is ridiculous. It originates from people who don’t understand odds.

Of course favourites lose and outsiders win, this has always been the case but in the last five years or so, expectations are less frequently fulfilled.

[Professortrubshawe]

quote]

I don’t quite understand why thinking out loud and exploring a few moral viewpoints worries you so much. Odd, very odd.

Maybe it’s because you start a negative thread of a nature similar to this every other week. You implied you ‘can’t go on’ everyone that’s replied has agreed that you indeed shouldn’t go on but you don’t seem to want to listen.

The Beckett (that’s Samuel, not Ralph ) line was offered in the spirit that it was originally written: a darkly comic reflection. There is very little sense of nuance or irony on this group. It is more like a gang of schoolboys arguing about football stickers. Everything is taken literally and the defensiveness and outright denial of the obvious is a bit scary.

[Professortrubshawe]

There is simply too much disguised ability around especially in lower grade racing, too many unconsidered runners romping home like champions passing your selection laden with ticked boxes.

Woolf,
This is simply not true. "Too many unconsidered runners" are NOT "romping home". Do you really believe the price is because connections "disguise" ability? If connections knew the horse capable of better form, there’s no way it would be allowed to go off an outsider.

Of course outsiders ("unconsidered runners") win…
But if you take bookmakers mark ups off SP’s of unconsidered winners; you’d find that roughly the number of outsiders win that can be expected to win. Same with any price, short and middle range too.

Say your selection has the best form and has "ticks" in all the right boxes, with an SP of say 4/5. Yet is beaten by an unconsidered 20/1 shot. Fair 4/5 shots have a 55.6% chance of winning, but take the bookies mark up off and the average 4/5 shot can be expected to win something like 53% of the time. Where as taking the bookies mark up off the 20/1 shot, around 4% can be expected to win.

Of course if your average 4/5 selection has around a 53% chance of winning, it also has around a 47% chance of losing. So it should not be seen as a surprise when a 4/5 shot gets turned over. Also… with so many 20/1+ outsiders running during a day, week, month or year… and those numbers adding up; it should not be seen as a surprise when a 20/1+ outsider wins.

The often said notion that the game must be bent because outsiders beat hot favourites is ridiculous. It originates from people who don’t understand odds.

I never back favourites.

Ginger will never understand my viewpoint. I have not gone back on anything I said in my original post and your customary statistician’s lecture about longshots will cut no ice against it. You appear to dislike abstract thinking, so a discussion such as this will not end well.

[Professortrubshawe]

Gambling on horses is an emotional rollercoaster and I’m a normal human being. I do not share the pretensions of most gambling users on this web ie to appear to be the machine bettor, the cool head, the king kiddie, the omnscient wonderboy of the Timeform school

Being normal is nothing to be ashamed about; by definition it’s a trait shared by the majority, and most take comfort from being part of the grey and unremarkable crowd

The abnormal however are a small troupe to be celebrated: they strive to make the best of themselves and endeavour to utilise what skills they have to maximum advantage, be that for artistic, intellectual, or financial gain

for whom money lost and money won is a mere nothing compared with the end of term accounts

Harking back to my (obvious) assertion that betting for profit is no more than a self-employed business opportunity with money lost and won simply equating to business turnover: that lost is business expense and that won is business income. Subtract the former from the latter at the end of your chosen financial year – "end of term accounts" – and you have your net profit or loss

People like that are, well, there’s a mildly rude word for them

Anorak? Geek? Anally retentive? Tosser? Boring twat? – would you level these accusations at the self-employed population in general: those who maintain diligent accounts and for whom one purchase (bet lost) and one job (bet won) is of no consequence at all but is just a couple of lines in the annual profit-and-loss account, which of course is the only thing of consequence

You want fun, entertainment, thrills, spills, highs, lows, bing-bang-billyoh from betting Professor Trubshawe: that’s fine and it’s using betting as the enjoyable leisure pursuit it is for the large majority. But such bettors really should realise that betting in such a dilletante manner can only ever result in long term loss; and that loss is solely down to that bettor and is not the fault of the medium on which he chooses to play-bet

It is of course a hallmark of the lazy and/or inept to sling tired sneers such as "machine" "king kiddie" "wonderboy" and "de haut en bas" (clever ) at those prepared to put in at least a smidgin of effort and application

I was going to add "Manchichean" to the sneers but I think you mean Manichaean – good and evil indeed

What fun – this is debate not argument Prof, no need to get all defensive and offensive dear boy

That’s all

Oh, you’ve spotted a spelling error in an internet post: mother o’ jeebus you’re Bertrand Russell with a shootin’ stick so y’are!

For a man who clearly sees himself as wise elder you assume a great deal about me. You assume I am a lazy, chuck-it-and-chance-it punter because I find anorak gamblers irritating. I only find them irritating on here because they are incapable of appreciating nuance or irony or having an abstract conversation about the Turf: it’s all defensive yap about ‘pocket’. The same arguments are produced for all occasions, but we both know there are no watertight arguments in this game, which is why no-one has contradicted my central points, they have merely told me to quit.
Ginge has elected to see me as a hopeless loser and degenerate gambler because it makes him feel his rhetoric is stronger for waving his finger at a punter he imagines is in rags. Not the case I can assure you! Addicts never grow bored whereas I do, and when I grow bored I ask myself why.
I certainly put the man-hours into form study. I never bet without doing that. I never trouble Timeform as I like to make my own mind up and win when all the clever boys have backed the wrong one.
I have barren runs but I do make money. In a nutshell: I’m not a lazy punter, and your ex cathedra statements about that are wrong. You would not make statements like that about horses so why make them about men?

[Gingertipster]

Of course favourites lose and outsiders win, this has always been the case but in the last five years or so, expectations are less frequently fulfilled.

The market’s "expectations" are "fullfilled" just as often now as it ever was. Therefore, to expect anything else Woolf is sheer folly.

Value Is Everything

[Author]

Posts