- This topic has 13 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 1 day ago by
.
- Posts
Having retired several years ago, I reguarly watch racing on television quite a lot Not all, of course, but many spew out rubbish day after day. Sometimes I beieve they must be getting backhanders from bookmakers (of course I know this is not the case!) bwcause viewers who follow them must lose a fortune.
Today’s effort is an example – “I like this horse even though it didn’t run well last time.” Today it was 2/1 favourite. “I would rather back this horse at 2/1 rather than 5/1 knowing the money is down fo it.”
It would appear that many commentators do not understand that bookmakers sometimes create false fsvourites to draw punters in. Don’t they understand the concept of value?
However what makes me laugh the most is they give you five good reasons why a horse must win. It doesn’t! After the race the same commentator will give you several reasons why the winner actually won. This is to make you think they are knowledgeable when the reality is they no nothing. Of courae, there are a few exceptions who really understand the game.
As a long missed friend and contributor used to say …..
Let the mute button be your friend!
I’m still hoping a jockey will tell a presenter who pushes a microphone under their nose just after the race exactly where they can shove it.
good luck to allI do use the mute button, but only for the adverts which are more annoying than commentators.
I always watched it on record so am about half an hour behind so I can skip through the ads and any tedium.
The more I know the less I understand.
Commentators give five good reasons why a horse “might” or should” win beforehand, but not “must” win. Post race analysis should be seen completely differently to pre-race. What do you think will happen? is a different question to What has happened? It’s good to use evidence of what happened in the race itself in order to explain what went right and wrong. Something that didn’t seem obvious beforehand could have proved important in today’s race and more importantly in future (betting) races… And equally something that seemed important beforehand sometimes proves not important at all afterwards.
As my moto says: “Value Is Everything”. I make my own 100% tissue, but use all information and that 100% book changes from Early Odds to what itv would be a minute from the off. I do understand why a punter might find some horses that shorten into 2/1 “value” and not value if lengthening to 5/1. A horse’s best form may well indicate it has a better than 33% chance of winning, therefore 2/1 would be a good bet. Whereas the same horse’s recent form would have a worse that 16.7% chance and therefore be a poor bet @ 5/1. Sometimes eg when the trainer was when the horse ran last time out himself in poor form and now the trainer is in good form. With that trainer form, the chance of the horse coming back to form is greater than it would be if the trainer is still in poor form… And even better if there’s confidence in the horse – well backed to do so.
Bookmakers can also keep a certain punter on his books purely because he has a good record with a particular trainer. The bookmaker using that punter’s one bet in order to tip him off he should shorten the horse… Or lengthen the horse if that one punter does not get involved.Although some horses might be made a “false favourite” by bookmakers in the Early Market. Not so the market a minute before the off. Punters can back horses for many different reasons and sometimes punters make some “false favourites” at off time. But a lot of the time I can see why some horses have shortened in the market.
Value Is EverythingToday is a good example of what i mean “The ground is very soft and more rain is likely (actually happended) so you should look to older horses to find the winner. You are looking for a horse with lots of experience who can go in this groumd.”
The winner and second were 3yo in the Prix de L’arc de Triumph.
If you found a reliable way of picking winners then why on Earth would you tell anyone else about it?
In fact going on TV and encouraging people to bet on other selections would be quite a good idea.
Official going according to the Racing Post “very Soft”. My arse.
Abbeye Slow by just 1.09
Arc Fast by 0.23Value Is Everything“going on TV and encouraging people to bet on other selections would be quite a good idea”
That explains a lot Richard!
Seems to me that several of these presenters spend most of the time speculating about who might make the pace and detailing the type of tack a horse is wearing rather than weighing up form etc
Plus too many pundits favourite certain stables and jockeys and don’t look at the form fairly. Too many go for those at the front of the market and don’t do their homework. And most of them are as dull as dishwater. Apart from that all good.🤣
I complain about most racecourse commentators, but, in my view, there is one clear exception and that is Matt Chapman. He always talks sense and always gives the pro’s and con’s. You never get ‘this is a cetainty, get on’ but rather the reasons for his selection and, of course, why is all might go pear shaped. He is particularly interesting when he interviews owners/trainers and always asks sensible questions. Others are irritating with the standard question (the only one they know) ‘will your horse win’. The answer is always that they are hoping for the best. They can hardly say ‘well it’s only a training session today.’
The Matt ‘boom’ is worth waiting for.
They are nearly all guilty of recency bias and big trainer favouritism. There was barely a mention of Gewan in the Dewhurst prelims that I heard, yet his York form put him above Distant Storm and close to the National stakes 1-2 on a line through Italy. It’s one of the oldest adages in racing that you can forgive a horse one bad run -eg Delacroix- Pride of Arras- (that was 2 runs) yet pundits all seem keen to write good horses off after a poor performance last time out.
2-35 at Galway today. I wasn’t ‘the 6/4 favourite is likely to win’ but ‘it will win, a certainty’ Result: came 3rd behind a 12/1 winner. Don’t these commentators realise there is no such thing as a certainty in racing? If there were there would be no bookmakers.
These television commentators continue to amaze me. They say things that are completely illogical. At Newcastle today there was a 5 runner horse race. The betting opened 1/1, 5/2, 11/2 and long odds the two outsiders. They backed the favourite down to 8/11,the 6/1 down to 5/1, then down to 4/1 with the second favouite taking a walk to 7/2. The third favourite was the form horse having won its previous race. The horse it beat won irs next race.
So,in my view,the only question was whether the form horse could beat the favourite. If you thought the favourite would win then obviuosly you would not back the form horse. Alternatively, if you thought the favourite could get beat then backing the form horse at 4/1 was a knocking bet.
The commentator said, “I think the form horse will win. I would have backed it at 5/1, but not at 4/1.”
As it happened the favourite won at 4/5 very easily and the form horse was second.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.