March 23, 2006 at 17:54 #70466
i don’t believe anyone can analyse 200 horses prices per day effectively.
I would tend to agree, it was certainly true for me.
Nowadays, because I don’t put in much time for racing, I almost never bet on anything below G2. This gives me a small number of horses to keep track of and they usually run at the weekends.
But even if you specialise and find that you simply ignore 150 of the daily offers, that still leaves you 50 prices to pick from.
And, remember, you can always say "no" to all 50 and have a bet free day. There’ll be another 200 offers along tomorrow.
But Mordins "race a day". Why?
Probably to prove you can find regular profitable bets and to focus the mind on a specific target.
This is just for 30 days. It wasn’t something he suggested people should rigidly stick to forever.
SteveMarch 23, 2006 at 18:19 #70467davidjohnsonMember
- Total Posts 4491
It must be something in the water but I would agree with you about Carvillshill’s post. Best thing I ever did was to set up a betting bank account totally seperate to my everyday money. I don’t track my individual bets but must be winning as my account continues to rise, albeit steadily over the last 3 years.
I’m fortunate enough to be in a position whereas I’m paid to watch plenty of racing and it certainly gives you an advantage, providing you can read a race properly, a skill which improves like most things, the more you try it.
<br>I wont sit here and type and pretend I’m any sort of pro because I’m not. I don’t have the bank behind me and don’t fancy the stress that would go with punting for a living.March 23, 2006 at 18:23 #70468FlatSeasonLoverMember
- Total Posts 2065
If you don’t mind me asking David what’s your job?March 23, 2006 at 18:28 #70469ArtemisParticipant
- Total Posts 1736
I think you are being optimistic in saying that the ‘average’ punter can realistically expect to make a profit betting on horses or anything else. The cold reality is that very few will succeed in the long run. The figures, which are repeated year in, year out, show conclusively that the’average’ punter loses about 10 per cent of stakes.
A few disciplined individuals are able through hard work to turn this disadvantage around and make a long term profit of up to ten per cent. To make this worthwhile the stakes have to be very high as clivex has observed.
carvillshill’s post is just about spot on for anyone aspiring to make it pay. I now have a method which doesn’t require me to watch a lot of racing, but if I think that if I were a pro, I would watch as much as I could.March 23, 2006 at 18:45 #70470davidjohnsonMember
- Total Posts 4491
On reflection a couple of things worth bearing in mind that I would not necessarily regard as a rule are that regarding all-weather form, in the main if a horse has shown improved form at Southwell, I wouldn’t take it at face value that it would be capable of repeating it away from there. Also I tend to tread very carefully in amateur handicaps and to be honest I usually aviod those bad staying events for amateur riders on all-weather througout the winter.March 23, 2006 at 18:47 #70471SirHarryLewisParticipant
- Total Posts 1208
Interesting comments. I agree with the watching racing stuff….it seems obvious but I made my profit last year while I lived in Denmark and saw very few races. In fairness- i assume it was a blip.
The other thing I would say is to watch out for your own personal trends within betting. For example I have an appalling record when it comes to the citreon supreme novices at chelters and an extremely good one when it comes to the staying novices race the following day. I assume that I just understand better whats required for a horse to win this.
I have noticed some people are really good with analysing 2 year old form but Im hopeless and wouldnt touch a race like that now. Sprinters also, i keep away from.
Others have also touched on one really important aspect here. Being a small time mug punter is in some ways perhaps more enjoyable then being a serious measured better. It allows you embrace almost all the races at cheltenham and may highten your enjoyment. Once you become serious, I would imagine that it would all be completely different since youll be consigned to a watching brief only
SHLMarch 23, 2006 at 18:53 #70472FlatSeasonLoverMember
- Total Posts 2065
Intersting SirHarry what you say about 2yo form becuase that’s what I was going to have a good crack at this year as being realtively new, no-one will have a form advantage over me. Last year i tended to best at these races, but I understand what you mean because of the improving aspect involved and form difficulties. About the only races i did do well in though.March 23, 2006 at 19:44 #70473carvillshillParticipant
- Total Posts 2778
DJ agreeing with me…. there really must be something in the water! I put it down to post-Chelenham fatigue!March 23, 2006 at 19:55 #70474StormontMember
- Total Posts 300
Im not a pro, and i dont think i will ever be in that line of business.
Id advise anyone who is interested in betting to read Barney Curley’s autobiography, which someone has already mentioned on here. Not only does it give some sound advice but its also a very good read.
Im only 21 but been into racing for many years at different levels. Im only just starting to become familiar with jump form and horses to watch for/be wary of.
I will have a bet most days, but there has to be some value……. which their rarely is during the week.
With many friends working in yards across the country (mainly flat yards) i do recieve my fair share of ‘inside info’ – however, ive learnt to listen to the inside info and then most of the time ignore it unless you think the horse has a chance yourself, fairly obvious you would think, but it is so easy to get drawn in.
Its just like market movers, very tempting, i know especially when the money comes for a Barney Curley, Stuart Williams or Ian Williams trained horse, unless you are there at the start of the gamble you are more than likely to lose money.
I leave all my big bets for the big(ger) races. At least then you know all the ones with form will be trying for the big prizes. Having said that, i had a terrible Royal Ascot at York last year.
The main thing that i dont think anyone has said yet on this thread is to never back a horse odds on in a handicap.
To help everyone on their way this year, my strongest selection this year is NAKHEEL for the Eclipse……. i really hope Mark Johnston runs him there.
The 2yo’s is something i really specialise in. I know pedigree doesnt win races, but from pedigree you can find out many things, including whether the horse is likely to be an early type, what sort of trip will it want etc etc. I think 2yo races are where i make the most profit form the stake i put on. I do get to hear about the good ones but unless something makes me like them i wont back them (i missed channon’s 2yo winner today) after being told about it the other day. I just didnt like the dam and i thought the race was very competitive.March 23, 2006 at 19:59 #70475
The figures, which are repeated year in, year out, show conclusively that the’average’ punter loses about 10 per cent of stakes.
I don’t believe these figures, because they don’t make sense.
Lok at betfair, it’s a 100% market with a comission of 5% or less.
That means, if you were on 5% comm. and just stuck a pin in the racecard, you should only lose 5%.
That’s only a 5% loss with zero skill.
If someone is losing more than that on betfair, they’re less capable of turning a profit than a pinsticker.
Let’s assume that backing all favourites on betfair breaks even before commission.
So, of the 140 or so favourites a week, an average punter is surely going to have some ideas about some of them being too long or too short and, just betting on the ones they have an opinion on, should be enough to make up this 5%.
The problem with the average punter is that he’s too loose with his cash.
If he made a point of making sure every bet counts (i.e. placed for the right reasons and only at value odds) and set a target of an annual profit, he’d probably place far fewer bets, but with a higher quality.
And, if he did that, he’d probably be able to turn a profit.
SteveMarch 23, 2006 at 20:05 #70476cormack15Keymaster
- Total Posts 8796
from Steve – So, of the 140 or so favourites a week, an average punter is surely going to have some ideas about some of them being too long or too short and, just betting on the ones they have an opinion on, should be enough to make up this 5%.
Only if their opinion enables them to assess those horses chance more accurately than the market. Not as easy as it sounds.March 23, 2006 at 20:35 #70477
Only if their opinion enables them to assess those horses chance more accurately than the market. Not as easy as it sounds.
Not "these" horses, "one or more of these 140 horses".
SteveMarch 23, 2006 at 21:46 #70478robert99Participant
- Total Posts 897
My rules that I have learned since starting as a 11 year old clock-bag runner would include:
learn your trade first;<br>if you have a family and a mortgage keep the day job;<br>specialise;<br>simplify to what really matters – the rest is noise;<br>0-2 races per day, in depth, with a reasoned case and value price against each contender;<br>around 80% of winners are in the first five of betting forecast;<br>there is NO useful inside information – you are the best informed specialist in your kind of races;<br>the fastest horse on the day (not yesterday) wins the race.
robertMarch 23, 2006 at 22:18 #70479cormack15Keymaster
- Total Posts 8796
Steve – I meant ‘those horses’ out of the 140 which you had an opinion on, not all of them. Narrowing it down to a few horses, or even one, Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â doesn’t necessarily make it easy to be ahead. Your selection criteria and ability to accurately guage the correct price still have to be better than the market no matter how few horses you focus on. Your staking plans and bank management also have to be spot on.
I would suggest that making up the ‘missing’ 5% by focusing on the 140 favourites and identifying where yuou think the market has it wrong is not necessarily a straightforward task.
(Edited by cormack15 at 10:20 pm on Mar. 23, 2006)March 23, 2006 at 22:45 #70480DroneParticipant
- Total Posts 5115
Proven Punter – long term winner<br>Professional Punter – long term winner whose winnings account for all or the majority of income
Not a lot of difference other than the Pro needs balls of steel, a hefty bank and an understanding family or preferably no family/dependents.
The strategies of both are worthy of respect, it matters not whether you bet in ponies or monkees.
There seemed to be a deal of surprise when Betfair let it be known that less than 1% of their clients made more than 15K per year; it didn’t surprise me at all, what would be far more representative is the percentage who make upto15K.
No wish to be a ‘professional’ myself despite being in the fortunate position of being able to devote as much time as I wish to racing/punting; it would bore me as much as anything and in truth think my punting would suffer with having the added burden of knowing it’s outcome has to put bread on the table (or not). Stress is inversely proportional to success.
Betlarge and Carvillshill have it spot on.
My ‘rules’ also include:<br>Compiling a tissue to determine value (the golden rule)<br>Level stakes adjusted annually to 2% of available bank<br>Win singles only<br>Frequently betting two or more runners in a race, particularly against a weak fav who ‘makes the market'<br>Specialisation – knowing what type of race you’re good/bad at interpreting<br>Eyes open ears closed
AS for the actual methods of race analysis employed by a succesful punter I doubt any one punter works in the same way as another. All that matters is the method that works for you: keep it close to yor chest.
Finally always remember the learning curve is long and hard – twenty years in my case – though those lucky souls entering the fray now have never had it so good.
(Edited by Drone at 11:20 pm on Mar. 23, 2006)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.