- This topic has 175 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Woolf
All valid considerations and by allowing a percentage for the unexpected then such eventualities can be covered in many races, but not all races. Sometimes the connections might want to win the race, but does the horse want to? As you rightly say in ”the end, I’m going to save my money” and you don’t have a bet. The backer has that prerogative, but in the main the bookmaker bets on all races.
I rather fancy that if the cup was 95% full you would say it was 5% empty! But that’s up to you. I do wonder why you apparently take an interest in a sport you have such a depressingly dim view of? But I suppose it takes all sorts!
Rob
I think people just have different experiences at the end of the day and that affects their views. I have always, and I mean always, been subject to the most terrible sods’ law. Certain punters on here, who clearly invest an awful lot of ego in their activities, say this is a mere excuse for ‘inadequacies’. I feel that because racing involves human beings and animals, the scope for luck, bad and good is huge.
Prof,
There are plenty of things that some punters see as "luck" that can be "predicted", or at least having a "good chance" of happening. Sometimes pace of a race can be predicted by looking at how many runners are usually ridden prominently and will those prominent runners be suited by a test of stamina. Therefore, a punter can often predict which horses may be (as you’d say) "lucky" to steal a lead in a slowly run affair, with those held up so called "unlucky" to finish fast but too late. Of course the opposites are true in a strongly run race.There are also many horses who run their best races able to lead, so predicting when these "dictators" will be able to lead is all part of a punter’s study.
This is what I said about the Grade 1 at Ascot:
Seemed a strongly run King George and Long Run probably both went for home too soon and idled badly once in front. Captain Chris came from further back and may be flattered by proximity to the winner. He also didn’t travel with the fluency you’d expect of one proven at 2 1/2 miles and even shorter. Under pressure some way out at Kempton.
In his two races this term has been able to (largely) get a rail position that suits him.
Can jump badly right. However, some of that is (imo) allowed for in his price and is my second choice. Might save on him if the price is right.
Prefur Cue Card who for one thing
didn’t stay in the King George, but also unsuited by being held up; with uncharachteristic early errors. Provided he goes back to front-running should leave that form well behind. Ghizao and Finians Rainbow can front-run, but neither needs to lead or be suited by a strongly-run 2m5f. I’d expect a slower run race than Kempton which should not place too much emhasis on stamina.
That again would be in favour of Cue card.
It may or may not be a coincidence Captain Chris made that bad mistake today soon after coming off the rail.
The make up of the race highly likely to suit Cue Card. Connections highly likely to go back to front running tactics after early mistakes in the King George. Best form from the front. But his own stamina was under question so how likely was he to be taken on (forced to go faster than ideal)? With even greater stamina doubts over both the other possible prominent runners – neither Finian’s Rainbow or Ghizao were likely to take Cue Card on up front as it wasn’t in their best interests to make it a test of stamina. Captain Chris being best racing on the rail also unlikely to hastle Cue Card until later on in the race (wouldn’t want to leave the rail to race alongside)… Which means Cue Card was always likely to get his own way in front.It’s also perfectly possible to predict horses likely to fall/jump poorly. But am sure I wouldn’t see as many things as "luck" as you Prof; more just "one of those things". eg. Had Well Refreshed today… I knew the horse isn’t the best jumper but considered the price worth the risk. Had he fallen at the last I would not have been happy, but even so it would’ve been just "one of those times it didn’t pay off", rather than "luck".
Sometimes the price makes it ok to back a horse unlikely to be favoured by the probable pace. Backed hold up horse The Bear Trap in the Ascot handicap hurdle today. Ran too bad to be true, pulled up. Backed Whitby Jack too who usually tracks pace, not much better. Also outsider Saddlers Risk, one of the few with form ridden prominently. Unfortunately, one who does not usually race prominently and apparently had no intention of leading made all at a slow pace, with nothing held up getting in to it. Winner just holding on from Saddlers Risk.
But I don’t like to think of it as "luck". It’s a mindset where I find it much easier to cope with a near miss. Had another big priced near miss last Saturday, Peckhamecho looked all over the winner only to get pipped. But it wasn’t "luck". I am confident of making a good over all profit, by backing horses at better prices than they should be. We all know racing is not always predictable Prof, but that in itself is a law of probabilities. It tells us "these things happen"; just "one of those things". Saddlers Risk and Peckhamecho just weren’t ones to contribute to my profit, end of.However, I can’t blame anyone for thinking "luck" has a hand. I know from past experience Prof, it is harder to dismiss "luck" in this way if a punter does not show a good over all profit.
Of course I’ve given examples where the race went largely how I predicted. There are many examples I could use where I’ve got pace and jumping ability wrong. That’s also in the basis of predictability/probability. ie I am not always going to get it right.
There are no aspects of racing a punter can not have a go at predicting the chance of.
Value Is EverythingThis thread has made me realise why I get so baffled by big prize racing at this point in the jumps season.
It has also made me realise why an afternoon of mid-low range action responds reasonably well to form study.So thanks for that.
Still don’t understand why Finian’s Rainbow was run on ground they know he cannot work with. Well, I can understand it but not in the context of the rules, at least as I understand them.
Seems to me that under the circumstances money was changing hands under conditions that defy the trades descriptions act*.*probably been abolished.
Still don’t understand why Finian’s Rainbow was run on ground they know he cannot work with. Well, I can understand it but not in the context of the rules, at least as I understand them.
Seems to me that under the circumstances money was changing hands under conditions that defy the trades descriptions act*.*probably been abolished.
Governments don’t do regulatory bodies anymore, hence Banking and Food crises.
Still don’t understand why Finian’s Rainbow was run on ground they know he cannot work with. Well, I can understand it but not in the context of the rules, at least as I understand them.
Seems to me that under the circumstances money was changing hands under conditions that defy the trades descriptions act*.*probably been abolished.
Governments don’t do regulatory bodies anymore, hence Banking and Food crises.
Er, food standards agency and the financial services authority. . . I mean yes, they have failed, but they do exist.
You know how this forum prides itself on strict accuracy.Still don’t understand why Finian’s Rainbow was run on ground they know he cannot work with.
Well, it has been a case of that or stay in his box all season. Where’s the good ground?!
Mike
Still don’t understand why Finian’s Rainbow was run on ground they know he cannot work with. Well, I can understand it but not in the context of the rules, at least as I understand them.
Seems to me that under the circumstances money was changing hands under conditions that defy the trades descriptions act*.*probably been abolished.
Governments don’t do regulatory bodies anymore, hence Banking and Food crises.
Er, food standards agency and the financial services authority. . . I mean yes, they have failed, but they do exist.
You know how this forum prides itself on strict accuracy.Still don’t understand why Finian’s Rainbow was run on ground they know he cannot work with. Well, I can understand it but not in the context of the rules, at least as I understand them.
Seems to me that under the circumstances money was changing hands under conditions that defy the trades descriptions act*.*probably been abolished.
Governments don’t do regulatory bodies anymore, hence Banking and Food crises.
Er, food standards agency and the financial services authority. . . I mean yes, they have failed, but they do exist.
You know how this forum prides itself on strict accuracy.They exist rather like stewardship of racing.
Still don’t understand why Finian’s Rainbow was run on ground they know he cannot work with.
Well, it has been a case of that or stay in his box all season. Where’s the good ground?!
Mike
They only leave the box to race, do they?
The bottom line on this thread is that if gambling debts were enforceable in law then racing would have been broken up a long time ago. I dare say gambling was kept out of courts for this reason.
Still don’t understand why Finian’s Rainbow was run on ground they know he cannot work with.
Well, it has been a case of that or stay in his box all season. Where’s the good ground?!
Mike
They only leave the box to race, do they?
Don’t be silly, you understand fully what I mean. He would not have been able to run anywhere this season if he could only race on good or better.
Mike
The bottom line on this thread is that if gambling debts were enforceable in law then racing would have been broken up a long time ago. I dare say gambling was kept out of courts for this reason.
Racing ‘broken up a long time ago’, honestly, more drivel!
Gambling debts have been enforceable in law since the 2005 Gambling Act.
Mike
The bottom line on this thread is that if gambling debts were enforceable in law then racing would have been broken up a long time ago. I dare say gambling was kept out of courts for this reason.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say again, this time in a loud voice just so you understand and maybe listen this time.
Please aquaint yourself with the gambling act before spouting more of your rubbishThe bottom line on this thread is that if gambling debts were enforceable in law then racing would have been broken up a long time ago. I dare say gambling was kept out of courts for this reason.
Racing ‘broken up a long time ago’, honestly, more drivel!
Gambling debts have been enforceable in law since the 2005 Gambling Act.
Mike
Yes but have there been any cases involving horse racing and which hinge on disputes about horses’ performance? Because English law is partly based on precedent, that is when it could get sticky.
It’s usually the case that threads that question the integrity of racing or, in this case, the wisdom of betting, are derided by the cognoscenti and allowed to drop out of the first page.
I wonder why this thread does not suffer the same fate as others
in similar vein.I think it’s entirely healthy in these generally cynical times
when honesty and integrity are rare commodities that we question our sport closely. It would be absurd to assert that racing, alone of all sport is clean and unpolluted by the kind of crooks we see in politics for example.On his retirement, one leading trainer is quoted as saying when asked about the future of racing ” Don’t police it too much, it needs a bit of skullduggery ”
No, Mr Hills, it does not need a ”bit of skullduggery”, the betting public need to know that their £20 bet is carried by an animal that is put in a race to try to win.
I would encourage others to complain and whinge at full volume, let the authorities know that regulation must be tougher, that deregulation will result in disaster as experienced in banking and food production.
But I don’t like to think of it as "luck". It’s a mindset where I find it much easier to cope with a near miss. Had another big priced near miss last Saturday, Peckhamecho looked all over the winner only to get pipped. But it wasn’t "luck". I am confident of making a good over all profit, by backing horses at better prices than they should be. We all know racing is not always predictable Prof, but that in itself is a law of probabilities. It tells us "these things happen"; just "one of those things". Saddlers Risk and Peckhamecho just weren’t ones to contribute to my profit, end of.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.