- This topic has 34 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Did you back it?
I stand by my point that it wasn’t leaping out and that my conclusion was a fair one. I must find out which race had the most prize money.
He is just
an example
of what punters are up against
. Personally, I think these big field sprints are the rather unseemly way the industry juices its lower rank supporters, but as Ginger would say, what do i know?
What do you know Prof?
OMG, I’ve just worked out the horse you’re talking about.
Beaten a total of 1 3/4 lengths at a shorter trip in it’s previous race. Am sure Timeform won’t mind me quoting what they said of the 4th of 14 performance:
"after 12 weeks off, shaped very well; patiently ridden, travelled fluently, finished strongly; still early days for this excellent yard, and one to note for good-quality handicaps this back-end, the Ayr Gold Cup an obvious target".
It wasn’t the Ayr Gold Cup he was seen in next, but stepped up in trip in a stongly run race which was sure to suit… won another top sprint handicap.
Shame I didn’t look at the race. Yep Prof, "It is just another example of your"… poor race reading skills.
Sorry, but people who insinuate wrong doing by connections, deserve harsh words.Value Is EverythingDid you back it?
I stand by my point that it wasn’t leaping out and that my conclusion was a fair one. I must find out which race had the most prize money.
He is just
an example
of what punters are up against
. Personally, I think these big field sprints are the rather unseemly way the industry juices its lower rank supporters, but as Ginger would say, what do i know?
What do you know Prof?
OMG, I’ve just worked out the horse you’re talking about.
Beaten a total of 1 3/4 lengths at a shorter trip in it’s previous race. Am sure Timeform won’t mind me quoting what they said of the 4th of 14 performance:
"after 12 weeks off, shaped very well; patiently ridden, travelled fluently, finished strongly; still early days for this excellent yard, and one to note for good-quality handicaps this back-end, the Ayr Gold Cup an obvious target".
It wasn’t the Ayr Gold Cup he was seen in next, but stepped up in trip in a stongly run race which was sure to suit… won another top sprint handicap.
Shame I didn’t look at the race. Yep Prof, "It is just another example of your"… poor race reading skills.
Sorry, but people who insinuate wrong doing by connections, deserve harsh words.I wasn’t insinuating anything, ginger. I didn’t put the name of the horse because I knew some pompous person on here would say I was insinuating wrongdoing by discussing the horse’s performance. I wasn’t insinuating any wrongdoing. I made an old joke about the prizemoney. If you can’t make a joke on here, well, it’s sad and
sad
.
I was making an overall point about punting. I think 5f and 6f large field sprints are ******* stupid races designed to take money off punters. They alienate people as far I as I have seen.
On Saturday in a large town in Kent I visited two chain bookies, both large shops. I was one of three watching racing in one; and one of four in the other.
I picked Regal Parade over Captain Ramius, but I can live with that.
My function on here is to represent normal human beings, not anoraks, gambling psychos and Timeform Marines. Normal human beings ask normal questions.Prof
Saving you the reasearch, the race that the horse won was a £37k race, worth a good deal more than the races it had contested previously. But then £37k handicaps don’t coem along everyday, so I would hazard a guess that most in the field were stepping up in race value after losing last time. Incidentally the winner turned round form with the second by about a length a pound better terms. The two are clearly evenly matched and on top of their form. The winner had been placed first 4 in 7 out of its last 9 races, not exactly one hiding its light under a bushel.
I note that the winner stepped up in race value to finish a fair 7th of 26 in £75k race last Saturday, which was won by a non-winner this season. But then since this was the most valuable sprint handicap in Europe it’s hardly surprising that a last time loser stepped up to win a race of greater value.
I didn’t back the horse, since for my own reasons I haven’t been betting on the flat this season partly due to lack of time to seriously commit. Sprint handicaps aren’t my cup of tea in the main, but some swear by them in the same way that my eyes light up if I see a 20-runner handicap hurdle during the NH season.
I suppose we could have 5 runner non-handicaps with 1/3 favourites winning on a regular basis. Presumably you would be on here complaining abotu races being uncompetitive. Still, some aren’t happy unless they have something to complain about!
Just a thought. 26 runners competed in the Ayr Gold Cup last Saturday, and something had to finish last (Cheviot as it happens). Does that make Cheviot a poor horse? Of course not, it was just slowest of 26 that turned up on the day!
Rob
Cheviot: when a horse finishes last the question of his quality all depends on his form elsewhere, as you, I and everyone else on here perfectly well knows. Seems a silly question to ask.
I agree about NH. But I don’t care what you say, form works out a lot more straightforwardly with jumps. Why is this?
Prof
Saving you the reasearch, the race that the horse won was a £37k race, worth a good deal more than the races it had contested previously. But then £37k handicaps don’t coem along everyday, so I would hazard a guess that most in the field were stepping up in race value after losing last time. Incidentally the winner turned round form with the second by about a length a pound better terms. The two are clearly evenly matched and on top of their form. The winner had been placed first 4 in 7 out of its last 9 races, not exactly one hiding its light under a bushel.
I note that the winner stepped up in race value to finish a fair 7th of 26 in £75k race last Saturday, which was won by a non-winner this season. But then since this was the most valuable sprint handicap in Europe it’s hardly surprising that a last time loser stepped up to win a race of greater value.
I didn’t back the horse, since for my own reasons I haven’t been betting on the flat this season partly due to lack of time to seriously commit. Sprint handicaps aren’t my cup of tea in the main, but some swear by them in the same way that my eyes light up if I see a 20-runner handicap hurdle during the NH season.
I suppose we could have 5 runner non-handicaps with 1/3 favourites winning on a regular basis. Presumably you would be on here complaining abotu races being uncompetitive. Still, some aren’t happy unless they have something to complain about!
Just a thought. 26 runners competed in the Ayr Gold Cup last Saturday, and something had to finish last (Cheviot as it happens). Does that make Cheviot a poor horse? Of course not, it was just slowest of 26 that turned up on the day!
Rob
Cheviot: when a horse finishes last the question of his quality all depends on his form elsewhere, as you, I and everyone else on here perfectly well knows. Seems a silly question to ask.
I agree about NH. But I don’t care what you say, form works out a lot more straightforwardly with jumps. Why is this?
My function on here is to represent normal human beings, not anoraks, gambling psychos and Timeform Marines. Normal human beings ask normal questions.
Prof
Define normal!
You raised a question about the performance of a particular horse. I did a bit of quick research and put up a reasonable explanation for its performances. If doing a bit of reasearch is abnormal then I’m happy to stay that way as it puts me a step ahead of those that can’t be bothered.
The Cheviot question was rhetorical and illustrates a point I’d mused over in the past.
Yes I think NH form is more predictable because there’s a bigger gap in quality over the range of performers. The distances involved mean that differences are more obvious, and many of the horses involved are established performers who have found their level. The trick is find the ones operating below their level or on the way up. In the mian I think the profitable area to look is at the younger less exposed performers.
Rob
I don’t want to mention individual horses and trainers on the forum because it’s bad form and someone will inevitably say I’m libelling, and I don’t want all that because I am making no suggestion of criminality.
I find a result such as ******** in the ********* a bit pissing. As far as I can see he was 17lb worse off than his previous win in a Class 4 ten months previous.
OK, OK, i accept he’d been running well in Class 2S at times. But in my Saturday morning form study (2 hrs)
his form says: well in the grip of the handicapper.
So you’re not saying any skulduggery is involved, just having a moan that these sprint handicaps are too difficult for you to find the winner then Prof. Is that it?
You moan the result was "a bit pissing" and the winner was "well in the grip of the handicapper"…
Yet my form book said differently…
You moan about these sprint handicaps (like the Portland) are too difficult, but then the very next week… You back Regal Parade in the Ayr Gold Cup.
There are plenty of other races you can bet in Prof. I had a four timer Ayr Gold Cup day, bets in 4 races and 4 winners (all main bets)… And didn’t touch the Gold, Silver or Bronze.
If you don’t like competitive sprint handicaps because they’re too difficult, then DON’T BET IN THEM! It’s that simple.
But hold on, your minimum price to take is "100/30", so you don’t like uncompetitive races either…
You couldn’t make it up.
Value Is EverythingMy function on here is to represent normal human beings, not anoraks, gambling psychos and Timeform Marines. Normal human beings ask normal questions.
You think you’re a normal human being Prof?
Yep, anyone who puts in the hours to be successful is never liked by those who believe the World owes them a living.
I’m an anorak and proud of it Prof!
Value Is EverythingWe need our sceptics like the good professor. It seems to me that this forum is policed by people who will brook no criticism of racing and if they were honest anoraks they would admit to the near impossibilty of staying in credit by pure reading of form alone. There is too much disguised ability about and too many non triers. Witness the burgeoning info merchants claiming to know the day a horse will be allowed to win. A jockey friend of mine told me about 15 years ago that he and his fellow pilots would be ”pulling the heads off horses” in most races and I am certain it’s far worse these days.
Woolf
Neither I nor Gingertipster police the forum, we just hold contrary opinions to some posters.
I’ve no objection to those who are sceptical, and nor do those who ‘police’ the forum, though some ‘sceptics’ do go a bit over the top. But to all sceptics there is the other side of the story and in this case I think he just used the wrong example. The horse in question was an improver with exposed form (7 first 4 placings out of 9), and I did at least present strong evidence to support this. Doc Hay has been improving steadily over the last year and his previous run, beaten into a close fourth over a shorter trip in a competitive event, hinted at a big run to come.
I’m sure some horses do have disguised ability, and there are much easier ways of doing in then "pulling the heads off horses". Wrong ground, wrong trip, wrong course, all perfectly legitimate as it’s connections business where they run their horse and so it should be. The handicapping system will always ensure that some are trying to beat the system. However, those of us prepared to do a bit of delving and study at least have a chance of capitalising on anomalies within the system, and on how trainers campaign their horses.
I suspect that the majority many of those claiming to know ‘the day the horse will win’ are bluster merchants and no more. I encountered one of those at Kelso in the spring. The horse in question didn’t win on that day and hasn’t won since! My opinion was that they would be a good deal better teaching the horse how to win rather than p***ing it about.
By the same token Gleann Na Ndochais, an Alistair Whillans trained novice hurdler I had an eye on last year, won a handicap at Kelso. He was campaigned perfectly legitimately in novice hurdles in races where he was always going to find a few too good. It was clear to me that his big chance would come once he was handicapped and able to compete against those at his level. He duly obliged and I think he will make up into a decent chaser in the next season or two.
If you truly believe that the sport is as bad as you say then I do wonder why you don’t go and do something better with your time. The sport has its faults but they are fair outweighed by the positive points.
Rob
There is a subtle difference between knowing "the horse that will win" which at best is a probability and knowing "horses that will not win".
Those that do not countenance the notion that in some minor races that the jockeys carve up the result before the off belong to the realms of Aristophanes.A jockey friend of mine told me about 15 years ago that he and his fellow pilots would be ”pulling the heads off horses” in most races and I am certain it’s far worse these days.
Can you give me a couple of examples of this as it’s apparently happening all the time?
Mike
We need our sceptics like the good professor. It seems to me that this forum is policed by people who will brook no criticism of racing and if they were honest anoraks they would admit to the near impossibilty of staying in credit by pure reading of form alone. There is too much disguised ability about and too many non triers. Witness the burgeoning info merchants claiming to know the day a horse will be allowed to win. A jockey friend of mine told me about 15 years ago that he and his fellow pilots would be ”pulling the heads off horses” in most races and I am certain it’s far worse these days.
Fair "criticism of racing" is welcome by us "policemen"
. We hate wrongdoing and criminality. But much of what’s written on these pages has no basis in fact or probability.As Rob’s excellent post says "disguised ability" is perfectly ok if it is done by running a horse over unsuitable conditions. Because the jockey can still be trying to win despite those conditions.
We all know there’s a certain amount of "stopping" horses going on. But these "burgeoning info merchants" rely on punters believing the game is bent, because they’d be out of a job if it wasn’t. Therefore, they exaggerate the amount of skulduggery going on. It’s often an ego thing, those "in the know" want you to believe they’re important. Not saying this applies to you Woolf, but some punters also want to believe the "game is bent" (either consciously or unconsciously) because then it is not their fault for backing the wrong horses.
At the risk of appearing to be on an ego trip myself (well, may be I am
)… Your assertion Woolf "if they were honest anoraks they would admit to the near impossibilty of staying in credit by pure reading of form alone", is plainly wrong. Have you read a couple of threads in the Daily Lays And Plays section called "Gingers Flat Winners" and "Gingers Jumpers". Value Is EverythingI found professor on youtube
How many times are we all determined not to click on the Prof’s latest piece of "wisdom"?
Yet we do, time and again, drawn to it like rubber-neckers at a car crash…. Why, oh why, oh why…….. 
My function on here is to represent normal human beings, not anoraks, gambling psychos and Timeform Marines. Normal human beings ask normal questions.
Prof
Define normal!
You raised a question about the performance of a particular horse. I did a bit of quick research and put up a reasonable explanation for its performances. If doing a bit of reasearch is abnormal then I’m happy to stay that way as it puts me a step ahead of those that can’t be bothered.
The Cheviot question was rhetorical and illustrates a point I’d mused over in the past.
Yes I think NH form is more predictable because there’s a bigger gap in quality over the range of performers. The distances involved mean that differences are more obvious, and many of the horses involved are established performers who have found their level. The trick is find the ones operating below their level or on the way up. In the mian I think the profitable area to look is at the younger less exposed performers.
Rob
Yes, I would agree with this. I like to get stuck into an NH card, whereas studying the Flat is plain hard work.
I don’t want to mention individual horses and trainers on the forum because it’s bad form and someone will inevitably say I’m libelling, and I don’t want all that because I am making no suggestion of criminality.
I find a result such as ******** in the ********* a bit pissing. As far as I can see he was 17lb worse off than his previous win in a Class 4 ten months previous.
OK, OK, i accept he’d been running well in Class 2S at times. But in my Saturday morning form study (2 hrs)
his form says: well in the grip of the handicapper.
So you’re not saying any skulduggery is involved, just having a moan that these sprint handicaps are too difficult for you to find the winner then Prof. Is that it?
You moan the result was "a bit pissing" and the winner was "well in the grip of the handicapper"…
Yet my form book said differently…
You moan about these sprint handicaps (like the Portland) are too difficult, but then the very next week… You back Regal Parade in the Ayr Gold Cup.
There are plenty of other races you can bet in Prof. I had a four timer Ayr Gold Cup day, bets in 4 races and 4 winners (all main bets)… And didn’t touch the Gold, Silver or Bronze.
If you don’t like competitive sprint handicaps because they’re too difficult, then DON’T BET IN THEM! It’s that simple.
But hold on, your minimum price to take is "100/30", so you don’t like uncompetitive races either…
You couldn’t make it up.
Skullduggery is a silly word to use in that class of racing. No wrongdoing was implied. I PM-ed robnorth because I didn’t want all this tedious blowharding about criminality from you.
If you watch what I say I am not one of the forum’s great libellers of the Turf. I don’t see criminality at every turn.
I find aspects of the game a little insulting, and this may be aggravated by artful tactics. The game is hard and I sometimes think various agencies make it deliberately harder, then wonder why it is struggling.
I’ve never really had any of those points addressed on here; I get the maths lesson from you and the kung-fu grandmaster lecture from the anoraks. I think my points are fair.
I’ve stayed in profit this Flat season; not massively but a noticeable bump in my income, so perhaps i shouldn’t moan about individual races.I don’t want to mention individual horses and trainers on the forum because it’s bad form and someone will inevitably say I’m libelling, and I don’t want all that because I am making no suggestion of criminality.
I find a result such as ******** in the ********* a bit pissing. As far as I can see he was 17lb worse off than his previous win in a Class 4 ten months previous.
OK, OK, i accept he’d been running well in Class 2S at times. But in my Saturday morning form study (2 hrs)
his form says: well in the grip of the handicapper.
But why was the Portland result so "insulting" and "pissing" Prof?
You made out that the winner Doc Hay had exposed, well established form, and that it improved out of the blue. Where as my form book said the complete opposite. If you don’t say what you find so wrong with the performance, then sorry, we’ve got to draw our own conclusions Prof.
Value Is EverythingBut why was the Portland result so "insulting" and "pissing" Prof?
You made out that the winner Doc Hay had exposed, well established form, and that it improved out of the blue. Where as my form book said the complete opposite. If you don’t say what you find so wrong with the performance, then sorry, we’ve got to draw our own conclusions Prof.
I was using it in a wider discussion. You wish to narrow the argument to this one race. I didn’t say it was exposed, I said it was easy to pass over such a horse because it hadn’t won lesser races and was 17lb worse off than it’s last success. When a horse like that wins at that price and i’m not on it pisses me off. It was a bad example, because a case can be made. But thus far we have had no-one pipe up to say they had a lump on the horse.
End of the day you can’t bear to hear a word against the sport. largely because in your old age you’ve found a way to hedge like a madman and come out on top. Good luck to you. I am in profit this season myself and that is no lie. But there are a lot of things wrong with this sport – if there wasn’t it would be expanding in revenue and public consciousness but the reverse is true.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.