- This topic has 25 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Reading the interview with Andy Gibson in today’s Racing Post I got the impression that he didn’t have much time for the ‘Timeform Way’.
I don’t wish to put words in his mouth, but to paraphrase: he reckons Timeform wallahs are a bunch of unthinking inbreds chained to a flawed methodology. What’s more they really shouldn’t bother applying for a job with him, as anything with a Sleepy Hollow postmark will go straight into the wastepaper basket.
A bit harsh surely?
Not another "pro gambler" who wants to make a name for himself by criticising the "establishment".
Can someone please tell me what this Andrew Gibson does believe in?
The name rings a bell, I think I might have met the bloke but just can’t quite place him.
I remember him now "Patterns and Profiles". He came to a West Berkshire Racing Club meeting. Was second in the Racing Post search for a tipster.
He sells, or al least used to sell these "patterns and profiles", so you could say he is / used to be in direct competition with Timeform.To be honest, he did have some good ideas. Looking out for horses with a good record at a certain course / type of course, RH, LH (horses for courses you might say). Also, those with a good record fresh. I did back Sir Rembrandt 11.5/1 at Cheltenham last year (good record fresh and on the course) using his methods. Though I was told years ago by AP about the same thing.
But, I asked Mr. Gibson "what about true odds?", a horse who qualifies to be backed under his criteria, who is obviously poor value, should not be backed. Where as one in the same race who does not qualify, but is obviously value, should be backed. He did not seem to be able to answer / know what I was talking about.
Am sceptical of any pro gambler who does not know his true odds table.
I do not believe he has been a pro for long so has not had time to prove himself.
Given a choice between Timeform and Patterns and Profiles, I’d choose Timeform.
Mark
Value Is EverythingAs far as I’m concerned the more bad publicity Timeform get the better. If that means the market ceases to be so influenced by their analyses then the better the ‘edge’ is for the subscribers who stick with them.
No complaints about the flesh-and-bones from me, though I’ve long found their commentaries more useful than the ratings.
Just wish they’d attempt to move the functionality of Computer Timeform from neolithic to new-millennium.
Must admit to hoping Jimbo’s departure was purely for personal reasons rather than something darker; the consumption of little fish by big fish in the wacky world of business is rarely good news for the sprat.
Never heard of Andrew Gibson
As far as I’m concerned the more bad publicity Timeform get the better. If that means the market ceases to be so influenced by their analyses then the better the ‘edge’ is for the subscribers who stick with them.
No complaints about the flesh-and-bones from me, though I’ve long found their commentaries more useful than the ratings.
Just wish they’d attempt to move the functionality of Computer Timeform from neolithic to new-millennium.
Must admit to hoping Jimbo’s departure was purely for personal reasons rather than something darker; the consumption of little fish by big fish in the wacky world of business is rarely good news for the sprat.
Totally agree with that Drone.
Do you think the Computer Timeform is worth the extra money?
I have kept with Timeform Perspective.Mark
Value Is EverythingDo you think the Computer Timeform is worth the extra money?
I have kept with Timeform Perspective.Don’t have the figures to hand but I think CT is about £150 more than Perspective (for each code), so considering CT is the Racecards, Black Book and Perspective rolled into one, then yes I do think it’s worth the extra. And having spent many a year thumbing through the Perspective, CT is a doddle to use in comparison, notwithstanding its propensity to ‘pause and ponder’ rather often.
Wouldn’t put anyone off continuing with the printed Perspective though; it did take me a while to adjust to having it all on a screen.
I’ve always been a little surprised at the amount of criticism Timeform receives – especially on this site.
At this point I should say that I’m not a Timeform subscriber, but wouldn’t rule it out in the future. As the face/voice of Timeform for so many years I always paid a lot of attention to McGrath’s views. Similarly when I’ve listened to Betfair Radio (sorry, Timeform Radio now) and Timeform employees have been on they’ve often talked a lot sense.
Whether the ratings are helpful I don’t know. Even the ratings published in my form book provider (Raceform) are ignored by me as I don’t subscribe to the ‘distance beaten can be turned around by weight pull’ argument as being of any great significance, which Raceform and Timeform espouse. However, on the rare occasions I’ve read Timeform commentaries I’ve liked them.
But, I asked Mr. Gibson "what about true odds?", a horse who qualifies to be backed under his criteria, who is obviously poor value, should not be backed. Where as one in the same race who does not qualify, but is obviously value, should be backed. He did not seem to be able to answer / know what I was talking about.
Am sceptical of any pro gambler who does not know his true odds table.
Mark
Sorry guys, what is meant by True Odds Table?
But, I asked Mr. Gibson "what about true odds?", a horse who qualifies to be backed under his criteria, who is obviously poor value, should not be backed. Where as one in the same race who does not qualify, but is obviously value, should be backed. He did not seem to be able to answer / know what I was talking about.
Am sceptical of any pro gambler who does not know his true odds table.
Mark
Sorry guys, what is meant by True Odds Table?
Douginho,
The odds converted to percentage or vise versa.
IIf a punter believes a horse has a 50% chance of winning he should only back it if he can get better than Evens. Because if you win less than 50% of your bets at evens (level stakes) you will make a loss on those bets.
To find the true odds of each price add the first figure to the second figure, divide the second figure by that resultant figure, times by 100 to find the percentage chance you have to win at that price, to break even.
3/1 = 3 + 1 = 4
1 ‘/, 4 = 0.25
0.25 x 100 = 25%
3/1 = 25%The true odds of a 25% chance is 3/1. 23% is 100/30, 22% 7/2, 20% 4/1.
Of course we do not know for definate whether a horse is a 25% chance. But after studying form we can come to an informed opinion.
So us value seekers back anything we think has a 25% chance at better than 3/1, a 23% at better than 100/30, 22% 7/2, 20% 4/1, 12.5% 7/1, 6% 16/1, 3% 33/1 and so on.
Even if a punter does not want to make a 100% book, being able to look at odds and see percentages helps when trying to obtain value.
Mark
Value Is EverythingReading the interview with Andy Gibson in today’s Racing Post I got the impression that he didn’t have much time for the ‘Timeform Way’.
I don’t wish to put words in his mouth, but to paraphrase: he reckons Timeform wallahs are a bunch of unthinking inbreds chained to a flawed methodology. What’s more they really shouldn’t bother applying for a job with him, as anything with a Sleepy Hollow postmark will go straight into the wastepaper basket.
A bit harsh surely?
.. not really Glenn, surely anything that is in the public domain has a shelf life. But, I didn’t think it was a professional gamblers job to, ‘wisen up a chump, or give a sucker an even break’, as you know.
But, I asked Mr. Gibson "what about true odds?", a horse who qualifies to be backed under his criteria, who is obviously poor value, should not be backed. Where as one in the same race who does not qualify, but is obviously value, should be backed. He did not seem to be able to answer / know what I was talking about.
Am sceptical of any pro gambler who does not know his true odds table.
Mark
Sorry guys, what is meant by True Odds Table?
You had to ask didn’t you?!
I’ve always been a little surprised at the amount of criticism Timeform receives – especially on this site.
At this point I should say that I’m not a Timeform subscriber, but wouldn’t rule it out in the future. As the face/voice of Timeform for so many years I always paid a lot of attention to McGrath’s views. Similarly when I’ve listened to Betfair Radio (sorry, Timeform Radio now) and Timeform employees have been on they’ve often talked a lot sense.
Yes, it’s the outsiders they get on who tend to talk rubbish
- Total Posts 17716
I must admit £6 for that timeform card is pretty atrocious
I’ve always been a little surprised at the amount of criticism Timeform receives – especially on this site.
At this point I should say that I’m not a Timeform subscriber, but wouldn’t rule it out in the future. As the face/voice of Timeform for so many years I always paid a lot of attention to McGrath’s views. Similarly when I’ve listened to Betfair Radio (sorry, Timeform Radio now) and Timeform employees have been on they’ve often talked a lot sense.
Whether the ratings are helpful I don’t know. Even the ratings published in my form book provider (Raceform) are ignored by me as I don’t subscribe to the ‘distance beaten can be turned around by weight pull’ argument as being of any great significance, which Raceform and Timeform espouse. However, on the rare occasions I’ve read Timeform commentaries I’ve liked them.
Is the handicapper wasting his time? O.k it is not the main thing but to my mind it is significant. Once a horse becomes badly handicapped it is hard for him to win until dropped to a "winable" mark.
Do agree with you about their ratings not being as important as the write ups. I do think people who knock Timeform are too hung up on their ratings. What they don’t seem to realise is the betting is influenced by Timeform, so something with a good rating will normally be a favourite and poor rating an outsider. So it is up to the subscriber to look through everything to find the value bet.
Mark
Value Is EverythingBut, I asked Mr. Gibson "what about true odds?", a horse who qualifies to be backed under his criteria, who is obviously poor value, should not be backed. Where as one in the same race who does not qualify, but is obviously value, should be backed. He did not seem to be able to answer / know what I was talking about.
Am sceptical of any pro gambler who does not know his true odds table.
Mark
Sorry guys, what is meant by True Odds Table?
You had to ask didn’t you?!
I aim to please.
Mark
Value Is EverythingDo you think the Computer Timeform is worth the extra money?
I have kept with Timeform Perspective.Don’t have the figures to hand but I think CT is about £150 more than Perspective (for each code), so considering CT is the Racecards, Black Book and Perspective rolled into one, then yes I do think it’s worth the extra. And having spent many a year thumbing through the Perspective, CT is a doddle to use in comparison, notwithstanding its propensity to ‘pause and ponder’ rather often.
Wouldn’t put anyone off continuing with the printed Perspective though; it did take me a while to adjust to having it all on a screen.
My brother is in computer software and he does not see why a computer version should be more expensive than the file. He reckons anything computerised would not be as expensive to produce as paper.
Mark
Value Is EverythingMark
In response to your question about the whole ‘weight’ issue:
I think the impact of weight is one of the least significant factors in horse-racing. In the thread about horse-fitness the other day, and the discussion about horses’ weights, I think Dave Jay made the point about horses’ actual body weight being of far more significance than what is on the saddle.
For animals weighing upto 1000lb, I just chuckle when I read comments like ‘will struggle under the 5lb penalty.’ I’m aware of the ‘he’s close to his last winning mark’ argument, but I just don’t see any evidence whatsoever for it. There’s enough data available which seems to show the impact of extra weight having little or no significance (Beyer, Lee-Priest and Mordin have info on this). In addition to this, take a look at the stats of horses running in h’caps from the lower end of the h’cap, their record is atrocious.
When it comes to analysing/assessing races I consider weight carried to be far less important than going, distance, course, trainer, class, pace of the race, recent form, win/run ratio …
Anyway, well done for getting your mate to ask about the table of odds
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.