- This topic has 83 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
I love Ian Davies, the man. I also love his posts under his other username, Marlingford. The more the merrier.
They are much better than that dastardly bounder Tank.
BUY THE SUN
Quality from TTC as usual.
But don’t forget my third alleged alter ego – “Cormack15” – yes, I actually acquired TRF many years ago.
It’s a bit like tuning into Dallas and finding Pam dreamed the entire last series, isn’t it!
Conspiracy theorists will believe anything and everything – except what’s under their own noses.
That’s dastardly bounders for you.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"I’ve also noticed if you rearrange the letters of “The Tatling Cheekily”, add a few others, and remove a few, you get “Ian Davies in Disguise”. Surely this is significant?!
Damn my conceit and fragile ego!
I just had to leave a clue – little knowing that Sherlock Marlingford would solve my egocentric riddle!
And I’d have got away with it too, if it hadn’t been for you meddling kids!
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"This link was supplied by Green yesterday:
Taking an unnuanced view, with ten 1/20 losers over the past 166 years one would have required 4,000 winners at the same price over the same time period just to break even.
One would also have to be unfeasibly old.
Anyway, that’s an average of twenty-four 1/20 winners per annum. I’m almost certain, but in reality guessing, that the average number of 1/20 winners per annum is far fewer than that. Therefore, in the long term, the inevitability of losses is almost inescapable.
Hopefully these primitive calculations help to confirm something we all knew anyway.
IMO there is a mindset held by a minority of punters that if a horse is 1/20 it will win simply because it is 1/20.
Sorry Green and Seasider – having named Tree Of Liberty correctly the first time I mentioned him, I then mistakenly called him Tree Of Life later on, which led to the continued use of the incorrect name.
Thanks for the further interesting replies. I’d agree that there will be more of a tendency to apply false logic with extreme and unfamiliar prices.
Anyway, that’s an average of twenty-four 1/20 winners per annum. I’m almost certain, but in reality guessing, that the average number of 1/20 winners per annum is far fewer than that. Therefore, in the long term, the inevitability of losses is almost inescapable.
Perhaps we should all start laying them in that case
Based on my internet searches and the thread above, I’ve summarised my understanding of the record shortest prices for the UK. This does not include horses whose prices were so short that no SP was returned back in the days of betting tax.
Thanks to everyone who has provided information. I’m pretty sure not all of these will be the actual records, so further information and corrections are both welcome.
SHORTEST-PRICED WINNERS
Flat – 25/05/1999 Victory Spin (1/66), 28/01/2014 Stand Guard (1/80 or 1/66 depending on source)
Hurdles – 12/05/2017 Mohaayed (1/33)
Chase – 08/10/2018 Jenkins (1/25)SHORTEST-PRICED LOSERS
Flat – 23/09/1948 Royal Forest (1/25)
Hurdles – 15/12/1988 Arum Lily (1/14), 17/02/1993 Suluk (1/14), 18/02/2010 Zaynar (1/14)
Chase – 06/12/1909 Jerry M (1/20), 22/03/2018 Tree Of Liberty (1/20)Saith Marlingford:
I’m pretty sure not all of these will be the actual records, so further information and corrections are both welcome.
Ormonde was victorious in the 1886 Champion Stakes at 1/100.
Thanks Seasider
Also a mention for Eglantine Du Seuil who got beaten at 1/12 in a novice chase as recently as last week.
Also a mention for Eglantine Du Seuil who got beaten at 1/12 in a novice chase as recently as last week.
Who was 1/33 the evening before when the prices came up !!!
These extremely short prices seem particularly crazy in Jumps races. I know the prices are an assessment of relative probability of winning compared to the other runners, but when jumping needs to be factored in they seem out of kilter to me. Perhaps there is an opportunity to start laying them as Salut A Toi says!
Perhaps there is an opportunity to start laying them as Salut A Toi says!
I did ! 2000 to 200 on the exchange.
Perhaps there is an opportunity to start laying them as Salut A Toi says!
I did ! 2000 to 200 on the exchange.
Well done indeed Father Jack, a nice result for you.
I’m not sure they come up often enough for it to be viable in Horse Racing but in something like Ladies Tennis which appears to be completely unpredictable there might be some scope. Perhaps I’ll look at in more detail next year, sort of punting resolution type thing
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.