- This topic has 158 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I certainly focus my efforts around a core of horses, this comes from personal experiment to refine my method. What came down to it is, in my financial records I keep a note of what position I had them in my market. I found the ones farther out in my markets were not returning me a profit, though there are the times I back things because they are just over priced.
First written 1960…
(my copy is a 1972 reprint)The part about trainers being invisible sounds strange to our modern multi-media ears.
But they usually say… “he’s well and we hope for a good run”As for Richard Farey
(god love him) why do they bother asking him?D21
Forget Fahey, try getting a word out of Tim Easterby
completely opposite to Mick. While we’re on Easterby, avoid his seasonal reappearance runners like the plague! For the month of April, his strike rate is just 4.76% overall and roughly this for the month of April at one hell of a loss. Still, not as bad as Tony Carrol, he strikes at 2.86% with 100+ day runners, unbelievable really I mean his horses barely seem to be trying on a return, just 26 winners from 908 bets.YEAH tbracing,
we have definitely got Tim Easterby common ground. I am also a big fan.
Two words “David Allan”
*going to put his boss under my microscope for sure
This book will help me create exposing filters
D21The latest chapter certainly chimes with me. It’s refreshing to hear such hard hitting talk.
Here are some of my thoughts…
*(Top class racing operates within a different business model dynamic)
I believe that the trainers loyalty lies with the bookmaker not the punter.
Without armies of losing betting fodder there would be NO RACING.
Trainers talk to each other, jockeys chat to their locker room pals and trainers & bookmakers share a mutual finacial interest.
Imagine yourself as a bookmaker. Lines of communicate must be opened up. Which horses are trying and which are NOT? You will take a bet off a trainer because its payoff for the previous “not off” info. Also you can back the winners and absorb the market effect. A nice reciprical arrangement thrives.
Otherwise you would be eaten alive in the BETTING JUNGLE
THE CRYSTAL BALL is now showing me that some horses line up to “race?” and have a 0% chance of winning.
D21
Good thread this – looking forward to seeing what comes out from under that microscope of yours D21
Thanks Keymaster,
the difficulty level is steadily increasing… scream if you want to go faster!
Look away now if you are on tablets.
“the yanks are coming”
Hate to be so negative Dynamite but…
First published in 1960 with your copy a 1972 reprint.
Thought as much with that racist “he’s got a chinaman’s chance of winning” comment. tbh Age means the Third Man chapter is significantly out of date. Think of how much more the stewards have in their armoury, cameras from every angle and clearer too. Even what still passes as legal is seen by the form writers and therefore bookmakers / exchange markets are fully aware of it. ie The author suggests the trainer pulling the wool over punters eyes by running horses under disadvantageous conditions resulting in being available at bigger odds than they should be next time. Truth is nowadays – because there’s so much information out there – markets are just as often over-estimating the chance these horses have as under-estimating them. Not only that, but in Britain and Ireland trainers making a habit of this kind of thing gets noticed. So not only do bookmakers shorten a trainer’s runners, but handicappers seem to add a few pounds too. Often counter-productive for the trainer’s interests. So yes, punters following this type of thing will have some nice winners; but the fact markets know more about them these days mean following horses trained/ridden this way blindly will not show an overall profit. ie Punters need to study the whole race and decide (given the circumstances of both its own form and rivals) what price each individual should be backed at. Being more selective than this book suggests.Value Is EverythingThe author suggests the trainer pulling the wool over punters eyes by running horses under disadvantageous conditions resulting in being available at bigger odds than they should be next time
Thing is the handicappers are not always as dumb as people think. Para Mio is a 12f winner, Durrack has been campaigning him this winter to as short as 6f. Obviously he struggled, and they kept turning him out at 6f and 7f. But initially the handicapper was very reluctant to move him down.
Would be great if everywhere could have a system like Hong Kong, but our environment and culture doesn’t work for it. You can not get away much over there.
Since I came back to the game lately I have noticed in the UK the stewards pull people in a lot more than they did 10 years ago or so. Trainers just fob them off with a limp explanation but at least they are asking the questions.
There was a race in the winter on AW. Leader went off 15 lengths in front of 2nd, who was 10 lengths minimum clear of rest of field. By 4 out is was clear the leader was going to win, the field misjudged it massively. It won by about 10 lengths eased down and the 2nd was about the same clear as the rest. They pulled just about every jockey into the stewards apart from the 1st and 2nd.
I think something a lot of punters forget is:
The chance one particular horse has of winning is just as much (if not more) about its rival’s form as it is the horse him/herself. So to know whether a horse is a good bet at the available price a punter must study the whole race.Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.