- This topic has 25 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
As a punter who backed Adagio in Saturday’s 2000 Guineas, I have no problem in admitting I got it wrong. However, what riles me is the fact that punters who backed the horse pretty much knew their fate before the stalls even opened.
On Friday afternoon, Adagio was generally a 3/1 shot for the race, with Ladbrokes ducking him slightly at 11/4. Indeed one could look upon that as a tip in itself as Ladbroke’s odds compilers tend to be the sharpest of the “Big 3â€ÂÂ
I tend to agree with TDK.
Adagio was very short at 3/1 in a very open race even though his form was probably the best on offer.
Stoute’s horses are invariably overbet on the strength of his reputation. Maybe one of the reasons for this is that his horses are usually fit enough to do themselves justice and are always there to win if they can. Much the same as Henry Cecil and John Dunlop.
There are obviously people close to the stable(faces) who know more than the general public and if these people have a bet/ do not have a bet with Ladbrokes, then this will affect how the magic sign price up the horses.
Nothing sinister, just inside information which as far as I know is perfectly OK as things stand at present.
I think Adagio was just bandwagonned after the Craven. His form was nowhere near Guineas winning form but the fact that he looked impressive to the eye and the fact that he was trained by Sir Michael Stoute meant people over-reacted. He was way too short in price so it was pretty much innevitable that there wouldn’t be any money for him on the day therefore a natural drift.
For what its worth I thought Adagio ran his race in the Guineas.
And the tipping of the horse by Pricewise wouldn’t have helped matters either, the Segal merchants blindly piling in on his say-so.
To be honest I think Stoute has a ‘strange relationship’ with both Guineas and I’d have been more confident in Adagio had Sir Michael been less upbeat about his chances. As TDK mentioned previously he was incredibly negative about Russian Rhythm and Golan, who both won impressively (Rhythm winning a very special 1000 Guineas in my eyes), showing a tendency to err on the side of caution with his better hopes.
I still think though that those who were fancied over Cockney Rebel will, on another day, prove more than a match for him. Whether the winter has been especially kind to Geoff Huffer’s charge I don’t know (his form last year certainly wasn’t great), but I can’t imagine that there’s much left to work with as regards fitness and the manner of victory was ‘too comfortable’ in my view.
It drifted because it was the wrong price. And Ladbrokes aren’t the sharpest its just they are the only high street bookmaker with the bottle to lay horses at standout prices.
Quote: from FlatSeasonLover on 8:53 pm on May 7, 2007[br]And Ladbrokes aren’t the sharpest its just they are the only high street bookmaker with the bottle to lay horses at standout prices.<br>
But, would you accept that this particular Bookmaker quite often "knows"?<br>Do you accept that Ladbrokes maintain no-risk accounts for certain trainers?<br>There is nothing libellous about this statement — because it has been freely admitted — but, I’m sure that you recall Papillon re the National some years ago. Ladbrokes were quite happy to lay 33’s for a £1,000 to Ted Walsh as they subsequently were confident to "short" their "best price" on the horse at 14’s while the rest were going 25 and 33.
I’m with Rock Hopper on this ……….. my personal rule is that a horse becomes a Lay for me if the Magic Sign opposes it. A rule that has served me well over the years!
What no-one seems to ever mention is that Ladbrokes often take a stance which turns out to be completely wrong. They don’t "know" then.
Shouldn’t listen quite so literally to John McCririck. ;) :biggrin:
backers who like to get on early, particularly those who follow the Stoute horses, might as well tear up their betting slips if their selections are being opposed on the exchanges and by on-course bookmakers. I would be very interested to hear the views of other racing followers on this topic.
My opinion?
I think you’re a ****
ing idiot.No … wait … let’s take a more positive tack.
If I understand corectly, you’re saying that you’ve observed that Stoute horses that are opposed by the on-course bookies don’t win?
If this is the case, if you fancy a Stoute horse, why not wait until the last moment before backing it?
Which takes us back to the "idiot" theory.
Steve
95% of stoute runners are too short in the betting for what ability they actually have. Look at any maiden over the next couple of months if Stoute has 1 in it then it’ll sure to be in the top 3 in the betting. If a trainer with less of a Rep had of won the Craven with Adagio they wudda been a 10/1 shot imo and this is why you tend to get Stoute drifts from time to time because layers realise when the horse is too short and is goin on hype more than ability.
quote hoofhearted:<br>"my personal rule is that a horse becomes a Lay for me if the Magic Sign opposes it. A rule that has served me well over the years! "
Absolutely hoofhearted (I like the name btw!). One of my golden rules is to be very circumspect about horses that Ladbrokes tend to oppose. They get it right far more often than they get it wrong. It can also work to your advantage to concentrate closely on the horses that Ladbrokes like to duck. It was one of the reasons why I backed Adagio in the first place, as a cursory glance at the ante post market immediately after Teofilo’s defection saw Ladbrokes going the shortest price.
How often do we hear McCririck shouting; “The Magic Sign knewâ€ÂÂ
Diss it all you wish, Flash, but quite seriously the "system" works for me! <br>Call me paranoid, but, I’m at the stage where I give equal consideration to Ladbroke’s prices as I do to form study. If they oppose a particular horse, I too am inclined to walk away from it. I’ve learned that lesson well (to my cost).
Nobody will ever convince me that Bookmakers DON’T have a "line" into certain stables……… and not necessarily just the small yards. IMHO, Bookmaker Intelligence ( as opposed to Army Intelligence) is not an oxymoron.:biggrin:
Quote: from hoofhearted on 9:39 pm on May 7, 2007[br]
Quote: from FlatSeasonLover on 8:53 pm on May 7, 2007[br]And Ladbrokes aren’t the sharpest its just they are the only high street bookmaker with the bottle to lay horses at standout prices.<br>
But, would you accept that this particular Bookmaker quite often "knows"?<br>Do you accept that Ladbrokes maintain no-risk accounts for certain trainers?<br>There is nothing libellous about this statement — because it has been freely admitted — but, I’m sure that you recall Papillon re the National some years ago. Ladbrokes were quite happy to lay 33’s for a £1,000 to Ted Walsh as they subsequently were confident to "short" their "best price" on the horse at 14’s while the rest were going 25 and 33.
I’m with Rock Hopper on this ……….. my personal rule is that a horse becomes a Lay for me if the Magic Sign opposes it. A rule that has served me well over the years!<br>
Well I work for this aforementioned bookmaker. And I’m not being funny, but when was the last time you saw Coral and Hills go stand out longest price on a horse? 15/8 about Take The Stand in October was the last time I remember Hills going longest (it won) on a horse. Thus, whatever Hills layers stance they may have on the race they always seem happy to fall inot line with other bookmakers. They never know, and they never get hammered either for the above reason. The difference with Ladbrokes is that, yes, the odds compiler take a view on the race and price it up accordingly. If these odds-compilers were pro-punters they would of quit the job years ago to bet solo instead. Sure, they get it right quite a few times, but I bet you have also heard "Big Mac" say "Ladbrokes have been hit hard on that one they got it wrong" or something to those effects; I certainly have. They fill their boots at a standout price then cut it, nothing strange about that.
I can neither accept or deny the fact Ladbrokes have no risk accounts for trainers because I don’t know, but to be quite frank that would make decent business sense. Trainers are just as likely to lose money as make it and it lets them know whats fancied and what’s not. Very shrewd imo.
At the end of the day I’m not going to be able to convice you one way or the other…… so I’m game for an experiment if you are. When I get a free day, I will look at the prices at 11:30 and make a note of every horse they are longest and shortest about and see what level stakes profit/loss you would make. Then we can decide one way or the other would you agree?
<br>Doesn’t always work out though – First Charter, Fallon, Stoute, owned by the Queen, was 7/2 fav at York for the Group 3 Lonsdale Stakes in the morning.
Pre-race, it drifted from an opening show of 4/1 to an SP of 7/1, with up to 13.5 offered on Betfair. Big Mac was shouting the odds on C4 – ‘Ladbrokes are leading the opposition to First Charter, this horse cannot possibly win’.
Result – won tidily by about two lengths.
AP
PS Stevedvg, some people have to work, so it’s not always possible to wait until the last minute to back the horse. We’re not ALL on government handouts
I didn’t realise that you were working at 3pm on Saturday afternoon.
Though, given that you said:
by Friday evening Ladbrokes were leading the opposition to Adagio, having pushed him out to 7/2
You were given a "wanring" well in advance and had plenty of time to (not) act.<br> <br>They are also very much clued in to the goings on at the Aidan O’Brien yard.
This I agree with.
I often use it as a barometer.
(e.g. in 2005 when it suggested Footsteps would be fit but Oratorio would need the race)
Steve
It doesn’t detract from your point, AP, but First Charter was owned by Saeed Suhail and not the Queen. I remember it well – it was the last winner I backed.
With regard to some bookmakers seeming to ‘be in the know’ about certain horses our own resident bookie Barry Dennis used to be quite easy to read with regarding some of the David Johnson runners!
I’ve seen him at many southern tracks and he normally ‘bets away’ between races.
Some of the time he used to been keen to offer half a point better than those around him and on other occasions he would be a bit slow to chalk up a Johnson runner and tend to be a bit short with his prices.
Those ones tended to do well!
His boy Pat keeps his knowledge in his head and never gave much away though.
Quote: from stevedvg on 8:17 am on May 8, 2007[br]They are also very much clued in to the goings on at the Aidan O’Brien yard. ÂÂÂ
This I agree with.
I often use it as a barometer.
Aha! Snap!!!<br>Adagio is owned by Coolmore, is it not?
So, coming from your opening statement to the Original Poster (quote: "I think you’re a f***ing idiot" ) you now seem to have turned full circle and appear to be agreeing with him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.