- This topic has 41 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
All very good points stilvi. I suppose another way of looking at things is that personally, I don’t think you find too many unlucky losers in NH day to day races. Sure, some races can still turn into a sprint, but in the majority of NH races, I don’t believe their are too many hard luck stories.
As you have referred, the flat has draw biased, I would also throw weather in more with the flat due to our unpredictable british summer weather,unlucky in running, bad break from the stalls etc etc.All very frustrating additional reasons for possible defeat, but this also throws up far more hard luck stories. Some are very obvious and the next time that horse reappears ,they can be very over bet.Some slip through the net of the more obvious brigade, which is partly why I believe it is easier to find better price winners on the flat as opposed to NH, adding to this, the flat has greater depth of races.
I like both codes and not trying to claim one is better than the other. Just highlighting,in my opinion, why the flat has many detractors and I firmly believe this is due to some people not having much success, as I think it requires more work away from what the naked eye sees.Probably the most important factor for me in preferring to bet National Hunt rather than the Flat is the unreliability of the Flat jockeys. They are the worst bunch I can ever remember. I raised a glass to the departure of Spencer and even that small joy has been taken away. I don’t want a jock who rides the occasional brilliant race amongst a sea of duffers. God knows he has enough practice. The general level of incompetence makes the sport virtually impossible to police.
It’s normally after the National that I try to concentrate on the flat.
The Lincoln meeting does suffer as it’s at the same time as the Arab Sports Day in Meydaan but still competitive albeit without any real Group One horses taking part.
One thing that amazes me is that this week the next turf flat will be on Good Friday at Musselburgh, Easter Saturday only has four meetings with nothing scheduled in Yorkshire or the Midlands.
“One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other” – Jane Austen on the flat v the jumps.
More oldies on here than I thought :)
The Lincoln will always be dear to those racing fans who can remember the days of just 2 TV channels and many fewer ‘leisure’ choices.
On the other point, I rarely bet on the flat, and I’m always amazed at the people who consider it less risky than betting on jumps. When I do watch flat racing (and this is where it helps to watch without having had a bet), I invariably see runners in races up to a mile who lose the race through starting badly, or getting blocked while jockeys sit waiting in desperation for gaps.
Moohaarib was a classic example in yesterday’s Lincoln. Tracking the winner, he did not get the breaks Hamilton did on Gabrial who also had a rough passage. Moohaarib was travelling at least as well as the winner throughout the race, if not better. When he did get through (much too late) he then drifted across the width of the track. Most unlucky, and if I did flat betting he’d be one for my notebook.
Even in the days before these soft fences, I found NH betting much safer than flat. Another substantial benefit is having the time to build knowledge of a horse’s character, quirks and preferences.
But I still miss the days of Prince de Galles
Moohaarib was a classic example in yesterday’s Lincoln. Tracking the winner, he did not get the breaks Hamilton did on Gabrial who also had a rough passage. Moohaarib was travelling at least as well as the winner throughout the race, if not better. When he did get through (much too late) he then drifted across the width of the track. Most unlucky, and if I did flat betting he’d be one for my notebook.
Yes, but do you really want to punt a potential dodgepot who wanders across the track? Possibly, at double figures but I would want something that was prone to running in a straight line at the much more likely shorter odds. Add in the (very) unreliable Harley factor and I would be quite happy just to watch him win.
Watched a horse called Storm Rock at Doncaster yesterday. Came there seemingly swinging on the bridle but in a couple strides was beaten. Is that as good as he is, was he a non-stayer or was he unfit? The sort of unanswerable questions facing the punter, particularly at this time of year.
Moohaarib was a classic example in yesterday’s Lincoln. Tracking the winner, he did not get the breaks Hamilton did on Gabrial who also had a rough passage. Moohaarib was travelling at least as well as the winner throughout the race, if not better. When he did get through (much too late) he then drifted across the width of the track. Most unlucky, and if I did flat betting he’d be one for my notebook.
I felt Moohaarib’s drift across the track was pretty dramatic and was surprised, well actually not really surprised, more disbelieving, that the race report on the ATR website described the incident as “edged left inside final furlong”
What chance do punters have when a race report contains such a poor description of what actually happened?
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I backed Moohaarib and was considering myself unlucky when the gaps didn’t really appear. When the gap did appear he first seemed a little awkward on his feet as he picked up the pace and then said, as he wandered over the track “Where the f*** are you going?” So yes I would say it was a rather alarming drift rather than an “edged left”.
I have had my share of big winners at Donny, and I have come to believe that if I can find the Lincoln winner or have a decent winner at the meeting it is a bellwether for the rest of the season, rather like atmospheric conditions on St Swithun’s Day.
One of the more salutatory and educative experiences of my wagering career happened on the second day of the Lincoln a few years ago. I was on my way to work one Sunday when I decided to buy a Racing Post for the train journey and have trawl through the form. I found a horse called Colonel Mak who seemed to be a little well in, with an apprentice jockey claiming five precious pounds.
I did not even look at the newspaper odds for it, nor even the card. I think consulting the Racing Post’s Spotlight entries – an opinion on each runner – is a sign of weakness.
I looked at my watch. The race started at 3.20 and the train had just left Clapham Junction. It was 3.14. I needed to get off the train at Victoria, through the barriers and into the betting shop with great sharpness. I had about £50 on me. £25 each way. There was a Ladbrokes just the other side of the ticket barriers. As I walked forward on the train, I started to get a strong feeling about Colonel Mak.
At 3.18 the train pulled in. At 3.19 the doors opened. I ran. 20 seconds wasted at the barrier behind passengers who could not make their Oyster cards work. As I rushed into the betting shop I heard the announcer, and knew the race had started. No chance to get the bet on.
The form-book entry must tell the tale:
‘Chased leaders, ridden to lead over 1f out, ran on well’
He won it by 1¾ lengths, beating the other 21 horses easily.
Anyone who punts on the turf knows that feeling just after a race in a betting shop when things have not gone well. For everyone else it seems it is business as usual. Other players move around the shop evaluating the next race of dogs or horses, as oblivious to your travails as goldfish in a bowl. One feels like yelling: ‘How can you just act like nothing has happened, you bastards!’
But worse was to come. I had no idea of Colonel Mak’s odds. I had assumed he would be in the first four or five in the betting, which in a huge field like that would perhaps be 12/1. So my lamentations were only increased when the announcer said: ‘First, number 4, Colonel Mak. A massive price at 33/1. Well done if any of you found that.’
But I did! I did! I DID, you b*stards!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.