- This topic has 34 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 23 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Well, after calming down and … :laugh:
But I think you all missed my point, which was the betting market that accompanied the race.
Creskeld … 7/4, 6/4. 11/8, 5/4, 11/10 … 5/4, 11/8<br>Shore Vision started recieving money to bring it down to 9/2 from 6s, as the fav started to drift.
My point was, who KNEW the fav was not going to run it’s race and lumped on Shore Vision?
It seemed like a lot of mug money was taken before the true ‘good thing’ actually was backed. I smell something rotten and stand by my original statement.
I don’t doubt for a second that it was not the best betting opportunity on the day. But it nonetheless looked the best bet on the Southwell card. But it ain’t going to get me my money back whatever I think, so to hell with Southwell.
Rory, I would disagree with your evaluation of me. I can handle losing and would not still be gambling if I couldn’t evaluate a race. I’ve been doing this for 30 years. What I can’t handle is being taken for a ride on a hotpot that (IMHO I must hasten to add) was never at the races. I would ask everyone, why the late surge on Shore Vision, if a gamble was going down on the fav?
As far as evaluating a race, just check out the betting tips section for Sunday’s Aintree meeting. And the Titanics section for the last two weeks. I was trusting to luck at Southwell as I am in current need of paying funeral costs which I honestly cannot afford to pay. I rolled the dice, and got F.A. in return. I don’t normally bet on the A.W., as I have total contempt for it. But I needed to take a chance on what I considered the best bet of the day. All or nothing you might say. It’s the last time I give time and money to the dross that is A.W.
I’ll stick with what I know. One thing is for sure, you don’t get very far in this game without a little thing called ‘privilaged info’.
Racing Daily,
firstly, my words to you last night were rather harsh, but that’s because I feel very strongly on the issue – no personal affront intended.
Unfortunately, I’ll have to disagree with you again.  You haven’t spotted a bent race; you want to believe that the race you mention is bent because it gives an explanation of events that suits you.
You jot down the market moves for Creskeld as if this somehow tells its own story, and you want to know why anyone who wasn’t "in the know" would lay Creskeld, or indeed lump on Shore Vision.
Firstly you will note that Creskeld did NOT drift in the betting ring. He was merely backed into an unfeasibly short price before settling a little. Had he drifted from 7/4 to 11/2, say, then that would have been significant.
Secondly, you don’t need to know a favourite isn’t "off" to oppose it. As both myself and Alan have stated, we believed that based on previous form and the draw of the 1st and 2nd favourites, Shore Vision was a better bet than Creskeld at likely odds. No inside information and no conspiracy theories.
You give the impression that those in the know backed Shore Vision, knowing him to be "the true good thing". You will notice from today’s Racing Post that not one significant bet was struck on the winner on course. You also claimed that the jockey took a pull yesterday – have you had a chance to review the race?
By the way, you’re making a mistake by not getting involved in all-weather racing; careful study of race trends, draw analysis and current form make it one of the most lucrative media for the informed punter/layer in the winter period.  There are fewer dodgy descriptions of the going (I refer you to Ludlow yesterday) and races tend to unravel in similar patterns, meaning that a decent race reader should prosper in the long run.
The same could be said of backing/laying greyhounds Rory. The moral of the story is don’t bet on what you don’t know. I know nothing about AW and assumed that Creskeld was going to do the business, based on the market and the newspapers. It isn’t easy however to make a bridge between AW and turf form, especially if you specialise in one and not the other. Sometines you just need to take notice of what you hear, that is, in a way, guesswork rather than knowledge.
E Minor 4/7, beat by the 12/1 second favourite, today.
After reading through this thread I’m going to look out some AW Stats and see if it is as bad as I think it is. You right RD, you should stick to what you know and not to what you think you know.
One of the tipsters I use advised us to back Shore Vision yesterday @ the earlier prices for 8/1 & 7/1. The reason being he felt it was value against such a short priced favourite. It was not a strong bet as the horse was still a maiden but the reasoning (of which there was more than I have posted) made Shore Vision a value bet in his eyes.<br>I think value is something alot punters don’t seem to understand, they like to think a winner is a winner so surely that’s value no matter what the price & conditions of the race.<br>Does anyone know what I am getting at here?
Learned Lad. Lingfield 3.45<br>Can anyone explain why this horse was fancied on Betfair this afternoon. The first betting show on ATR didn’t even have the horse listed yet it was being backed at 16-1 despite being 20-1 with Hills and 57.00 with the tote?<br>The horse won easily, its first win in 21 attempts and it was being ridden by a jockey with some of the worst percentages on the AW.<br>At the off there was over 500 quid available to lay and about a tenner available to back.<br>Could it be that someone knew something?
r.d of course its fixed i started a thread on it but most you closed ranks as usual.come ON friends lets admit it RACING IS BENT,but we love it.xxxxxx
Quote: from jasonr on 6:53 pm on Nov. 27, 2002[br]Does anyone know what I am getting at here?<br>
<br>No, Jason, I think you’re operating on a far superior intellectual plane to the rest of us – no-one on here has ever heard of the concept of "value".
Not sure if you are being sarcastic nore but reading this thread gives me the impression that some have no concept of it in horse race betting terms.
No-one knows, heh?<br>1240 Leicester, Last Theatre. TRC team make it a good thing, drifts from 2s to 7/2, outpaced from the word go and never in the race.<br>No-one knows, heh? ;)
Racing Daily
The chances are that paddock or course watchers spotted something wrong with the horse, sweated up maybe, feeling under the weather, didn’t stride out on the way to post, or possibly simply over-rated in the betting. There are numerous reasons why horses drift in the betting, very very few of them could be considered even remotely dishonest.
If I back a loser that I expected to win then I work on the basis that a) I made an error of judgement, or b) something was amiss. I know the latter can happen, so I allow for it when calculating a horse’s chance.
If you are continually looking for conspiracies then I suggest you either stop betting on racing, or look inward and see if your methods or judgement are wrong.
Rob
Robnorth……Well said.
Last theatre also drifted before his previous start,furthermore, the bookies where probably testing the water putting him in so short.
There is nothing wrong with my judgement i’m glad to say. I never bet on the horse. I was just trying to inspire further thought on the subject.
It’s funny how people in racing circles always try to put a valid reason on a betting pattern that that looks suspect, or a horse that blatently runs a stone away from it’s true running. Let’s try the other side of the coin.
Beauvrai, 105 Wolves. Backed from 16s down to 10s …
"always going well, led well over 1f out, drew clear final furlong, easily"
I’m sure the bookies were not offering 16s about this one out of the kindness of their hearts. They were offering the odds because they gave it no chance. Obviously there were people who knew better.
My point isn’t to be a conspiricy theorist. I simply say that without inside info, you are always playing catch up. That is my point.<br>
There is always a valid reason for a betting pattern, even if it’s a suspect one!
It doesn’t take much to shift the price in races at wolverhampton, there were only 7 bookmakers there last time I went, a move from 16s to 10s would need very little money. And anyway Beauvrai had only run once before and I believe it was it’s first run on the surface. It looked a difficult event to weigh up anyway. Presumably a horse suited by getting an easy run.
Regarding ‘always playing catch-up’, I think there may well be information that gives insiders more chance than the rest, but by the same token there are plenty of occasions when an insider’s view is blinkered by their connection.
If you truly believe in your last paragraph then why not forget about betting on horse racing?
<br>Rob
—–<br>"The best tipsters are the ones who do not gamble … you can bet on it!<br>(c) http://www.racingdaily.co.uk "
RD
In view of the tone of your posting here I can’t help thinking that the signature to your posts is slightly ironic. However, I notice you have no tips on your web-site, have you seen the light or should that be darkness<br>?
Rob
<br>
HeHeHe, you noticed LOL<br>What i’m doing at the moment is laying horses that look like (on form) they should run well. It’s coming up trumps :)<br>Say’s it all really (*he says in an ironic tone*) ;)<br>I’m also working on a system for winning small amounts on a daily basis. A change of strategy you might say. We’ll see how it goes … I’ll have the site back up when things are showing promise on paper.
<br>What i’m doing at the moment is laying horses that look like (on form) they should run well.  It’s coming up trumps :)<br>
The reason these selections are successful is probably because they are ‘obvious form’ selections that are over-bet by the racing public. The exchanges now the shrewd operator the chance to lay such horses, though I wonder if opportunities might be reduced over a period of time as the market adjusts to new conditions.
Incidentally I can put forward the following case study for a ‘surprise’ long-priced winner. Some punters would have been mystified by the winner mentioned below. In this case I wasn’t because I backed it, and for very solid reasons.
7th August 1998 1m 7f Apprentice Handicap at Wolverhampton(Class G)
The winner here was CHARLIE’S GOLD at 25/1 (Tote 32/1).<br>On the face of it Charlie’s Gold had little chance, his form reading 00-700 in varied company, including on the Fibresand, at distances up to 1m. Even allowing for a step up in trip his form was uninspiring and no suggestion that he had a chance. However, what I noticed, and presumably most of the racing public didn’t, was that he had won a novice hurdle over 2m 1f at Market Rasen 6 days previously. He was forecast at 33/1. Well he might not necessarily have had a favourite’s chance, but he was a corking bet at that price when he certainly should have been a single figure price, even allowing for the doubt about acting on the surface. <br>I split my bet between Bookmakers and Tote, made damn sure I kept quiet about the horse(!) and did very nicely. These sort of opportunities don’t come up very often but they are there for those prepared to have a proper look. Cynics may well have said it was a dubious race, a long odds winner with no form, but in reality it was just a horse which finally had the race conditions it needed.
Rob
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.