- This topic has 57 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
I take on board what everyone has said.
However he should not make public comments like he did, pessimistic or not as they would have been punters up and down the country put off by what he said. (By the way I was not one of them as I backed the horse).
This will only help to alienate new people from getting involved in the sport as racing as a reputation for skull duggery as it is without trainers misleading the public,which I beleive he did.
It is other peoples right to defend him or not and everyone as there opinions on what you should or should not listen to when trainers and jockeys make comments.
I learnt a long time go to listen to no one and follow your own instinct and it does work.Must admit I don’t fully understand why a horse shouldn’t be as fit as possible when appearing on a racecourse.
Peaking them for certain times. Certain trainers know how to win certain handicaps and if a horse is 100% and ridden to win on each run prior to that race, they’re highly unlikely to win it.
Some horses will also need a run, no matter how well they are trained. So if they have a big race as a target they will need a run first.
I’ve always loved racing. In it’s purest form it is the sport of kings. It has become the sport of vermin, the sport of liars, cheats, low life. I will not abandon racing, I will point out what I believe is sharp practice, waiting with an animal, curbing the natural animal instinct. That is racing today, to hide and obfuscate, to confound race readers and racing fanatics.
Perestroika is a Russian word meaning ”openess”, we need to campaign for more of it.
Quality Sir indeed
lets not forget one thing though folks , before we all head for the high moral ground , its a fundamental
The chief exec of the Bha , has a report on his computer , directly relating into the Zarooni doping affair …which will never be made public …in the best interests of the sport apparently ….
what message does that send out to the supporters of the game ??
not good sadly
yep we need a lot more openness
imo
I’ve always loved racing. In it’s purest form it is the sport of kings. It has become the sport of vermin, the sport of liars, cheats, low life. I will not abandon racing, I will point out what I believe is sharp practice, waiting with an animal, curbing the natural animal instinct. That is racing today, to hide and obfuscate, to confound race readers and racing fanatics.
Perestroika is a Russian word meaning ”openess”, we need to campaign for more of it.
You certainly know how to put your opinion across Woolf and your above post is bang on…………..But
most
of us know that.By the very rules laid out to Trainers of Racehorses the idea of being honest and up front about a horses chance is just not the done thing.Its part of our job to assess a horses chance,its also nescessary to establish by various means as to whether its appropriate for any particular horse to be trained to run to its merits in any given race.The top and bottom line is all about Handicapping and you wont see a better example of that than from those who train Sprinters,their marks go up and down like rollercoasters and Masters of their art like Mick Easterby and Dandy Nichols play the system laid out for them perfectly.Remember
Master Pokey
??.To name but one!
I’ve always loved racing.
Really??
How many posts have you made on subjects other than your perceived notions of corruption? How many posts on all the wonderful races, horses, personalities and myriad other topics that compose the fabric of this fantastic sport?
Frankel, Kauto Star, Denman, Sprinter Sacre, Treve, Hurricane Fly – none of these mean anything to you. I remember asking you to name some of your favourite horses and you said you didn’t have any!!
Just the most recent threads on this page include Sire De Grugy, hotels in Newmarket, genetic engineering, a new injured jockeys rehab centre, Terry Biddlecombe, Big Bucks, IFHA ratings, graded races and a wide variety of others. Yet you never contribute to any other discussion about the sport you’ve ‘always loved’?? Not one single post about any subject other than your insistence that every race is bent.
Mind, the fact that you repeatedly refer to us punters as ‘peasants’ and ‘the great unwashed’ probably explains a lot.
Mike
Its nice to have a devils advocate though …it opens up good debate
carry on wolf , these other guys think they know …but we know you know more
whats the matter with having polarised views folks , or are we that cliquey we cannot stand it !!!!
gee whizz
Ricky
Agree, there should certainly be room for "polarised views" Ricky. Do think No Idea generally puts the case of the racing skeptic very well. Just my opinion, but Woolfie tends to go too far in his accusations without any evidence. Bordering on the libellous.
Value Is EverythingIf you love racing as I do, you must want to clean it up, there is ample evidence that it needs to be cleaned up. We don’t help the sport by turning a blind eye to sharp practice. We must question results where ”sudden improvers” bolt up at 16/1 on a daily basis, sure this is bound to happen once in a while but the frequency of these shock results is simply laughable. Who do they think they’re kidding? I carried out an exercise in trying to explain some victories at 10/1 and much bigger prices, even the regulars on TRF were lost for an answer to some inexplicable outcomes ‘though I give them credit for trying.
There are forums and message boards where questions can be asked, conversations can be started. It’s not libellous to ask where a big priced winner found the improvement, where was the evidence of a horse’s ability last demonstrated in a race?
I accept the point made above about sprinters and fluctuations in a sprinters mark. I’ve fought shy of betting in sprints for that very reason.
Betlarge tries to imply that I regard punters as peasants, we are outside the walls of the racing fortress and those on the inside see us as the great unwashed who are constantly trying to spoil their plots.
I have said before that no one on our side of the fence is making a penny out of racing, we are all left with a questioning expression etched on our faces ‘where the heck did that come from’?
Mike , the trouble is that corruption or the perception of it clouds all other aspects of the sport , unless that is put right , then the wonderful side tends to be pushed into the sidings
lets start with the BHA publishing the full report on the doping scandal , lets get that one clear , then you will find folks will approach racing with a different viewpoint
you cant just brush it under the table and hope it goes away Mike
Ginger agree mostly , we do have to be careful what we say , Wolfie/s last post was pretty darn good though
imo
Ricky
Most horses won’t be 100% fit in their first race after a lay off, just as most footballers won’t be fully fit until they have had a game or two.
That may well still be the case Ken (ie most = over 50%) but that figure is getting less and less. Certainly a large minority of horses are 100% fit first time up. There’s even a significant number of horses nowadays I’d rather back on reappearance than any other time. At their best after long absences and subsequently regressing until another spell on the bench puts them right.
Alot depends on the type of race as well. Probably easier to get a 5 furlong sprinter ready than a 3 miler required to go on very heavy ground. You realistically cant reproduce the latter conditions if you try. Its also very horse dependent.
I know from experience that some really work hard and do there best to come out of morning gallops on top. Others couldn’t give a toss but thankfully this apathy tends to disappear on raceday.
I find very little wrong with Jeremy Scotts actions.
Incidentally, I find nothing at all wrong with Dunguibs ride on his return the other day. However, was he ridden to achieve the best possible place??? Was he even shown a whip??? Was he guilty of using the track as a schooling ground??? Technically, I feel there was a case to answer.
SHL
It may be a good idea to give examples on this thread of dubious performances both successful ”sudden improvers” and unsuccessful where little demand was made of a runner etc.
The heading is exactly right for an exchange of views.
We must question results where ”sudden improvers” bolt up at 16/1 on a daily basis, sure this is bound to happen once in a while but the frequency of these shock results is simply laughable.
If the frequency of these 16-1 winners is higher than it should be, why don’t you just back them all and make a fortune?
Mike
Mike , the trouble is that corruption or the perception of it clouds all other aspects of the sport
Well it’s very unwelcome I agree, but even so I absolutely love racing and a certain amount of skulduggery will not put me off it.
Another sport I love, cricket, has had some serious cases of match-fixing and spot-fixing in recent times, but I’ll still go to matches because, like racing, it’s in my blood.
In both cases I am very keen for corruption to be stamped out as much as possible. The Al-Zarooni and Butler cases in particular were appalling and the handling of the former by the authorities simply ridiculous. However, I said last week that I believe most horses are running on their merits most of the time and as such i find it acceptable as a betting medium.
Mike
One of the reasons I enjoy unravelling the gordian knot that is a horse race is that I choose to regard everyone involved in it, bar the horses, as being rather dim, self-serving and somewhat dubious; therefore my race analysis revolves around what the horse has done and is likely to do without paying the slightest attention to what jockeys do, what trainers say, what stable cats mew, what dogs bark or what legions of stable lads grown wealthy on ‘insider’ gambles
nudge and winkA tad unfair admittedly as many of the human participants in our great sport are actually relatively intelligent, try to be helpful and are individuals you’d be comfortable lending a tenner to; but as Betlarge has repeatedly pointed out until he’s blue in the face they by-and-large don’t have much of a clue so should be collectively shunned
en-masse
It’s my fault when a bet goes down, or sometimes the horse’s fault as they’re not machines; but never the connections’ fault
A maxim that does, I think, preserve sanity if choosing to bet on horse races
many of the human participants in our great sport are…individuals you’d be comfortable lending a tenner to
Have just PM’d you my address.
Cheque or cash.
Let’s call it twenty…
Mike
We must question results where ”sudden improvers” bolt up at 16/1 on a daily basis, sure this is bound to happen once in a while but the frequency of these shock results is simply laughable.
If the frequency of these 16-1 winners is higher than it should be, why don’t you just back them all and make a fortune?
Mike
Nail head hit Mike. If Woolfie understood odds then he would not make a stupid statement like that.
Look away now everyone bar Woolfie…
Woolfie…
To make a profit with 16/1 shots from level stakes betting… all a punter needs to do is win more than 5.88235% of his/her bets at that price. Let’s call it 5.9 (but remember it is really 5.88235%).
5.9% means on average 5.9 winners in 100 bets, or 59 winners in 1000 bets.ie If a punter won 59 one pound bets and lost 941 one pound bets… staking £1000 in all (59 + 941 = 1000 bets).
Returning £17 for every winner (£16 winnings + £1 stake = £17 return).
59 x 17 = 1003
£1000 invested in £1 bets @ 16/1 and with a strike rate of 5.9% a return of £1003. It is only above the 1000 because we rounded the figure up, if it were 5.88235 it would be 99.99995How much goes on a horse changes prices, but if we go back to before any bet is struck on the market…
Bookmakers make a profit through their over-round.
If in a competitive betting market a bookmaker’s odds compiler believes a horse to have a 4.8% chance of winning (fair 20/1) he will put a bookmaker’s mark up on it and offer 16/1. There might be a slightly bigger mark up at times, but the gap between what bookmakers believe the chance is… and their offered price isn’t much. In this case 5.9 – 4.8 = 1.1% difference.Now here is the thing…
You say"We must question results where ”sudden improvers” bolt up at 16/1 on a daily basis, sure this is bound to happen once in a while
but the frequency of these shock results is simply laughable
".
But this simply CAN NOT be true! If the
"freqencey"
of these 16/1 shots winning is
"simply laughable"
(ie much greater than a strike rate of 5.88235%), then as Mike says, "Why don’t you just back them all and make a fortune"?
But you never answer questions Woolfie.
You really do
not
understand what you are talking about. You might not like it, but percentages/odds PROVE you wrong. But you’re not interested in proof, just got an axe to grind and a misguided notion of skulduggery to fulfil.
Value Is Everything
nudge and wink- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.