- This topic has 57 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Woolfie , your going to have a field day ,….tasty gamble going on today on 4 horses prev connected to Barney Curley …3 have won so far
latest one just whizzed in after being off 700 days….returned at 4/6 with a row of duck eggs to his name …..if you0 landed from mars and looked at the form you would have priced him at 66/1 or maybe 660/1 …..
Bent ….of course not
Just random good luck perhaps
Yep a bit of skullduggery is brilliant , good luck to them
imo
The name Curley is a major clue when looking for a possible sudden improver, everybody and his brother pile in to grab whatever odds are available. If only such clues were more readily available.
In this case odds were compressed because of the Man involved, in most cases there will be little erosion of prices until near the off when whispers leak out.
good post Mike , whatever you decide , the best of Irish to you !!!
hopefully you will post updates …it was a cracking good read last time
I will be trying my luck this year on kempton park alone , heaven help me I will be assaulted with 0/55 beautiful racing
…..I must not use the D word , that is reserved for ATR postsI will post 2 reports half yearly
Cheers Ricky.
I don’t know where I stand at the moment but I doubt if I’ll be posting updates like last year, it’d look a bit egocentric!
Don’t worry about focusing on Kempton. One of the biggest myths (in my opinion) about racing is that higher grades are better to punt on. A few months ago, I posted some figures that showed that favourites did far better in lower-grade racing than they do in higher.
The problem is that when a long priced winner in a low-grade race goes in, it is often unfathomable. In quality racing, a winning outsider can still have perfectly decent form and so it looks more predictable. This creates the illusion that higher-grade racing is ‘easier’ to find the winners in. It isn’t.
Specialising at Kempton sounds like a perfectly reasonable strategy to me. Best of luck!
Mike
Woolfie , your going to have a field day ,….tasty gamble going on today on 4 horses prev connected to Barney Curley …3 have won so far
latest one just whizzed in after being off 700 days….returned at 4/6 with a row of duck eggs to his name …..if you0 landed from mars and looked at the form you would have priced him at 66/1 or maybe 660/1 …..
Bent ….of course not
Just random good luck perhaps
Yep a bit of skullduggery is brilliant , good luck to them
imo
Fantastic stuff today!
When looking at "form" Ricky, Indus Valley’s last four races have been poor. But judging it by the 3rd of 14 at Dundalk 30th September 2011 – Indus Valley was extremely well handicapped. Obviously on any of the last four runs I would not back the horse even at 20/1. However, had been given 700 days to get over whatever ailed him, so there’s obviously a chance of a return to form. A positive early market move means the likelihood is it would not run to its poor form. And when just a bit of money comes for this/these horses it shortens fast. And then the "followers" get on board at whatever price available and it shortens even further.These are poor quality handicaps, which I find impossible to work out and don’t bet in them. Good luck to them that do.
Absolutely delighted for connections.
Value Is EverythingOne of the biggest myths (in my opinion) about racing is that higher grades are better to punt on.
A few months ago, I posted some figures that showed that
favourites did far better in lower-grade racing
than they do in higher.
The problem is that when a long priced winner in a low-grade race goes in, it is often unfathomable. In quality racing, a winning outsider can still have perfectly decent form and so it looks more predictable. This creates the illusion that
higher-grade racing is ‘easier’
to find the winners in. It isn’t.
Mike
I do not believe it is a
"myth"
Mike, even if
"favourites did far better in lower-grade racing than they do in higher".
Obviously the fact these favourites win the amount of times they do means they are not as it were "false favourites", their chance is fairly associated with price. However…
In my opinion on
"form"
a lot of those favourites had no business being in that position (like the gambles today). It is often only market support by those in the know that makes them "favourite". Inside information having a greater influence on market
and result
– making it harder for most "form" students who are without that inside information.
When I was told by one that does them that I should put in for doing one or two Racing Post Stopwatch write ups/betting forecasts – it was made clear I’d need to start at the bottom/poorest grades. Although I seem to be fairly good at forecasts in medium/high grades – thought I’d do some trials. My betting forecasts were way out! Needless to say I did not put in for the job.
You are probably much better than I am at evaluating form in lower grades Mike, but for me it
is
far easier in higher grades, where inside information seems to have a lesser influence and therefore easier to find the
"form"
value.
Value Is EverythingInteresting that both
Indus Valley
and
Low Key
were lead in tonight by the same stable lad and yet the former is trained by Des Donovan and the latter John Butler.
I find the best confidence you can go into a bet with is knowing what was said about a horse by its trainer in the Stable Tours in all the trade papers.
They rarely say one thing and another happens in this media. Clive Cox about Lethal Force start of last years flat season in the Weekender "I’d be disapointed if he isnt a Group 1 winning horse" Well two were won in quick succession.And Dr Richard Newland in the RFO wrote in November we are aiming him for the Borders Grand National he wouldnt want it to heavy. That was Royale Knight the winner at Kelso three weeks later, the course riding Good to Soft. He also bigged up Mart Lane a winner also in December.
They are rarley wrong apart from a standout once from Paul Nichols when he said about Poungach "could be anything"
I find the best confidence you can go into a bet with is knowing what was said about a horse by its trainer
They are rarely wrong
apart from a standout once from Paul Nichols when he said about Poungach "could be anything"
You just can’t buy that sort of definitive information.
(Sorry Jibsa, not trying to be mean, it’s just that I hold a diametrically opposed view!)
Mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.