May 7, 2007 at 09:44 #1599Nor1Member
- Total Posts 384
Surely those goings on don’t happen at Newmarket on a showpiece day? Try one of the lesser meetings.May 7, 2007 at 11:47 #57432witParticipant
- Total Posts 2152
hmm, an interesting philosophy in there somewhere:
– "something didn’t happen yesterday, so it couldn’t have happened the day before" ?
– "nothing happens unless it always happens " ?
(Edited by wit at 12:48 pm on May 7, 2007)May 7, 2007 at 11:55 #57433
Quote: from wit on 12:47 pm on May 7, 2007[br]<br>- "nothing happens unless it always happens " ?
Agree with that one. I think some people blow the whole ‘racing’s bent’ line out of proportion. I hope TDK’s post was there to show that not every race is a puppet on a string for the bookies/crooks.May 7, 2007 at 12:34 #57436CavParticipant
- Total Posts 4809
something did happen at Beverley on Apr 26th aka The Beverley Heist, lesser track and all that….May 7, 2007 at 12:42 #57438witParticipant
- Total Posts 2152
i’d look at each event on its own and then look further Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â if common features were observed to recur with a high degree of frequency.
like it or not, everyday reasoning depends more on patterns of repeated experience rather than deductively valid arguments.
we might believe that food will nourish us because it has done so in the past.
that’s not a guarantee that it will always do so, but someone who insists on a sound deductive justification for it before accepting it will starve to death.
there’s a difference between approaching everything with unproductive scepticism, and having a practical scepticism based on common sense that recognises the place of inductive logic.
induction involves reaching conclusions about unobserved things on the basis of what has been observed.
your observations are made from a different perch to Glenn and doubtless as valid to you as his are to him.
but – from my perch at least – they’re not so obviously superior or disinterested to his, as to be a basis for decrying his.
in a gambling context, it seems reasonable to ask when something odd happens "who benefits?".
there are then always going to be more ways to join up the dots between event and outcome than Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â circumstances may justify Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â – but in dealing with the non-observed you’re always going to have to postulate wrong lines alongside right lines.
so, you reckon there’s absolutely nothing there to look for? Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
witMay 7, 2007 at 14:02 #57442Nor1Member
- Total Posts 384
thedarknight<br>Please do not make so many assumptions.<br>I hardly ever bet, and when I do it’s for fun with a maximum of Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£2 per race.<br>Therefore, I’m not a loser talking out of my pocket trying to find someone to blame who only ever notices………<br>I just question. Not all/none of them, just some of them.May 7, 2007 at 14:03 #57444
Looks like the betting tightened up as the realisation of ‘queens regulations’ looked more and more likely. I counted half a dozen horses being clipped in the last few minutes, with nothing being pushed out to compensate. Looks like its muck or nettles for punters these days. Risk getting done by NRs or wait until the last minute and get screwed by a corrupt SP mechanism put in place by a bribed Lord.
Look at the last two races:
4.55 – first five home all slashed from their opening show in this seven runner race
5.30 – four horses halved in price in the last ten minutes producing a 126% book in a ten runner race…and this on a decent handicap on a 1,000 guineas card!May 7, 2007 at 14:53 #57446
I’m not sure the point you are trying to make.
Are you claiming that there hasn’t been a conspiracy to reduce the number of four place handicaps? How do you account for the fact that they have reduced in number from 20% to 4% in the last five years?
Oh, and where can I get on place only at 383%?May 7, 2007 at 14:54 #57448
You seem to be omitting the fact that value was available at some point from the market opening until it’s close with the bookmakers. That’s right, ‘the scum’. In fact, <br>through working with Hills, who flag up these sorts of races to their staff, I can tell you that it happens a lot more than sceptics would like to believe.
Your argument (from your first post) merely told us that if you bet SP, you’re f**ked. We already know that, through our own experiences and via another thread on this very forum. We don’t need reminding. I notice you said:
Looks like its muck or nettles for punters these days. Risk getting done by NRs or wait until the last minute and get screwed by a corrupt SP mechanism put in place by a bribed Lord.
So what happened if you got on ‘before the last minute’ in this instance? Was it muck or was it nettles? I’ll tell you what it was: it was an example, albeit a very rare one, of punters getting value from bookmakers. It would appear not every race is at the mercy of corrupt connections and bookies.
TDK was pointing out that not all racing is crooked, a view that is scarcely publicised here, and one that I find quite refreshing. I applaud him for it. I know racing is crooked, but having people questioning the integrity of every race that shows the slightest variation from punter utopia is a slander that the sport could do without.
(Edited by Friggo at 3:54 pm on May 7, 2007)May 7, 2007 at 15:26 #57449
A couple of points:
1) It’s debatable whether there was any value to be had. In order to bet into a place book that was a few percentage points overbroke, you had to bet into a circa 125% win book early.
2) By betting early you risk NRs. Around 50% of these races are reduced to three places. In these instances the value is appalling in the place part, often several percentage points per runner.
So in order to get this great ‘value’ you have to typically make four bets: three bets would have an ROI of about 0.8 (if you’re no better than the crowd) and the fourth bet would have an ROI of 1.04.
Sorry, but such opportunities don’t excite me.May 7, 2007 at 15:43 #57452
Quote: from Glenn on 4:26 pm on May 7, 2007[br]
1) It’s debatable whether there was any value to be had. In order to bet into a place book that was a few percentage points overbroke, you had to bet into a circa 125% win book early.<br>
But initially you said that there was an SP of 126% after "half a dozen horses were cut in the final few minutes". Now, if it’s a 126% book after these cuts on more than a third of the field, it must have been closer to 110% or less if you were early, not 125%. Compare that to BF, allowing for commission, and you’re not doing too badly.
And your bottom point baffles me. Why would someone who simply wants an each-way bet on the 1.55 at Newmarket have to place FOUR bets in order to obtain the value that already exists in the book? Just in case three horses come out of the race? I know you said 50% of 16+ runner handicaps end up with 15 or less, but how many of that 50% had 18 runners? I’ve heard of covering yourself, but…
(Edited by Friggo at 4:44 pm on May 7, 2007)May 7, 2007 at 15:50 #57454
No, they won’t lose. They’ll break even as stakes will be refunded when the live one inevitably gets withdrawn because connections didn’t get their money down.:biggrin: :oMay 7, 2007 at 15:53 #57455
You place two each-way bets (that’s four bets, two win and two place). You get two dud win bets and one dud place bet, on average, for every marginal value place bet.May 7, 2007 at 16:01 #57457
I was aware that two each-way bets were insinuated. I still don’t see how there is a second each-way bet required to pick up value that is already available.May 7, 2007 at 16:23 #57458
Because you don’t know in the morning which races are going to hold up four places and which aren’t. So if you’re betting early you’re resigning yourself to around a 50% chance that you get left with a really bad place bet.
With Hills you have to make six bets, as you are typically offered half the stake to place! That’s if you’re lucky enough to get anything on……….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.