Forum Replies Created
- Posts
The marketing for ‘Regional Racing’ has been misplaced from the outset. The name ‘Regional Racing’ should not apply to these horses. They still have four legs, somebody is still paying the bills for these horses and they should compete in Horse-Racing not Regional Racing….
If you are a 10% trainer: 35% of your string are likely to be rated under 52. The numbers competing in these races clearly suggest their is a demand: as a punter I would rather be supplied this than Virtual Racing from Brushwood or Portman Park.
To knock all-weather racing, would be no different than American’s knocking the ‘TURF’ in the US. Horses are bred for a surface and should be allow to compete.
From – Raceform
Top 15 sires on Firm
Nureyev 24.8%<br>Storm Cat 23.6%<br>Kahyasi 22.5%<br>Kingmambo 21.5%<br>Silver Hawk 20.2%<br>Zafonic 19.95%<br>Royal Applause18.8%<br>Caerleon 18.7%<br>Darshaan 16.8%<br>Danehill Dancer 16.5%<br>Grand Lodge 16.4%<br>Nashwan 16.3%<br>Rahy 16.2%<br>Red Ransom 16.1%<br>Sadlers Wells 15.8%
Top 15 sires on heavy ground
Miswaki 60%<br>Storm Cat 50%<br>Zilzal 37.5%<br>THeatrical 36.4%<br>Batshoof 35%<br>Hector Protector 30%<br>Silver Hawk 27.3%<br>Celtic Swing 26.7%<br>Makbul 25%<br>KIngmambo 25%<br>Phardante 25%<br>Atraf 22.2%<br>Hernando 22.2%<br>Diesis 20.6%<br>Emerati 20%
<br>Sires with nil record on heavy ground
Alleged<br>Anshan<br>Danehill Dancer<br>Danzig Connection<br>Dayjur<br>Dilum<br>Distant View<br>Entrepenur<br>Factual<br>Flying Spur<br>Formidable<br>General Monash<br>Goldmark<br>Greensmith<br>Highest Honour<br>Keen<br>Kings Signet<br>Kris<br>Last Tycoon<br>Magic Ring<br>Pennekamp<br>Pharly<br>Pivotal<br>Prince of Birds<br>Prince Sabo<br>Project Manager<br>Rahy<br>Red Ransom<br>River Falls<br>Rock Hopper<br>Royal Abjar<br>Royal Applause<br>Shareef Dancer<br>Shirley heights<br>So Factual<br>Superlative<br>SuperPower<br>Then Again<br>Tina’s Pet<br>Whittingham<br>Woodborough
I think the best named horse was put in place by the Late breeder Paul Mellon.
He named his chestnut by Seeking The Gold out of You’d Be Surprised –
WAIT FOR THE WILL
I like the way John Magnier name their horse and also another favourite is LET THE LION ROAR although its tedious listening to Derek Thompson call them home especially when playing upon horses names.
They should have been given the benefit of the doubt on the first occasion with their horse but maybe a fine should beckon now.
I have put firmly in my notebook one of Kevin Ryan’s named Uhoomagoo. This horse happens to be owned by Platinum Racing Club however he caught my eye sufficient to say as a non trier last time and question his previus efforts which resemble similar circumstances to this last run.
At Chester last year he was given an ordinary ride from stall eleven and was very easy to back on the exchanges , he manged to claim a well beaten 8th although next time out the trainer changed to visor’s from blinkers and scooted home by 2l and was heavily punted ino 11/2. On his latest start this season he ran down the field , in fact finished 8th although as again never found any real running room (as intended). To my eyes Kevin Ryan will use the same ploy to change back to visor’s after running him in blinkers last time. I noticed him amongst the entries for Goodwood later this week which they may need to win to ensure him getting a run for his Royal Ascot engagements.
That book is approx 107% and would say it would be fair. <br>I don’t think Looks Like Trouble willl need to be much more than 85% fit to beat his field tomorrow.
The racing post forecast you have included adds to approx 100%
In the last 14 days, 8 runners of JonJo O Neil string have been PULLED UP. <br>For me this is quite a worrying fact from Jackdaws Castle yard owned by big time gambler J P McManus. <br>Every winner from Jonjo stable has been supported including Miros and Quazar the latter PU on his previous start. Quazar nibbled from 14/1 to 12/1 was only a small little tickle whereas Patsy Byne animal Miros form is interested as he pulled up beleive it or not on his British debut before being punted from 10/1 into 3/1 next time out. <br>Several others came across which were pulled up from JJ yard and won next time out over the last year. <br>WATER FONT – WON 4/1<br>PLATONIC MY EYE – WON 10/1<br>OCEAN LINE – WON 14/1<br>HULLA HOOP – UNP – THEN WON AFTER AT 20/1<br>THANKS KEITH – WON 6/1<br>NATIVE EMPEROR – UNP – THEN WON AFTER AT 14/1<br>ROSETA – WON 7/1<br>ATLANTIC CHARTER – WON 7/4<br>FOLLOW ME – UNP THEN WON AFTER AT 5/1<br>DUSHAAN – WON 20/1<br>KING OF THE CASTLE – WON 11/4<br>MORDON BOY – WON 10/3<br>RADIATION – WON 4/1 & 11/2 BUT FINISHED 2ND AT 11/1<br>COPE WITH REALITY – WON – 12/1
If memory serves me right not many of JP’S horses in that list. Strange. Could be worth following. <br>Good Luck<br>James
Alan Swinbank use to be a former bookmaker many many years ago. The family was involved in greyhounds a few years back and I know Anne Cairs arranges syndicates for Alan. They certainly like a touch.
I am interested in long term profits rather than one horse winning or losing. <br>If I miss a winner because of the price, the question I must ask myself will the win cover defeats on losers which have not met the price criteria. <br>I am in search for big price selections which should be approx around that price range. Long Term I will not make a profit from backing below the price ranges I set. <br>Before the time in my life when I would be at Perry Barr in the morning, football match in the afternoon then onto Wolverhampton evening meeting it dawned on me it was no longer profitable backing in every race. <br>I am now backing one horse at the most each day so why take below what I feel is value.
"The scenario I want you to imagine is of three people walking into a room where different bets are on offer.<br>The first person sees a table where you can bet on the spin of a coin. The odds on offer are 10/11 for a correct choice.<br>He feels lucky and bets on heads, which comes up. So he has another bet, and this also wins. "I’m feeling lucky", he says, "I’m going to stay at this table all night".<br>The second person sees a table where you can bet on the correct number thrown with a dice. The odds on offer are 11/2.<br>He has a bet on ‘3’, which loses, then on ‘5’, which loses. But he’s not deterred; "I’m staying on this table", he says, "see you later".<br>The third person sees a table where you can bet on predicting a playing card randomly chosen from a pack. The odds on offer are 66/1.<br>He likes the prospect of a big win, so he has a go. In fact he has 10 goes, and none are correct. Luckily, he has brought plenty of cash with him, so he says "I’m staying here for the night".<br>The three agree to meet up again in 8 hours time, when they will compare how each has done.<br>Eight hours passed, and it was time for the three to go home.<br>The coin man was not happy: "I seemed to be winning regularly", he said, "I didn’t have any long losing runs, but I’m out of pocket!"<br>In fact he’d had 1,000 bets, and 500 of them had been correct. He’d been betting at £20 a time, as he knew he wouldn’t have long losing runs. So over the night he’d staked £20,000, and from his 500 winners paying £38.18 a time, he’d received a total of £19,090. He had lost £910 when he seemed to be doing so well. People had been remarking at how many winners he was having, but that didn’t matter to him now. He certainly wouldn’t play that game again.<br>The second arrived, with a smile on his face; "I started slowly", he said, "and my strike rate was not good all night – I had many losing runs well into double figures. I didn’t feel as if I was winning, but now that I’ve counted up I realise that I’ve done well."<br>In fact, he too had placed 1,000 bets over the night at £20 each. He had picked 166 winners and 834 losers. At his quoted odds of 11/2, each winner had paid him £130 – a total return of £21,580. He had won £1,580 on the night and was happy.<br>The third returned laughing; "I can’t believe it", he said, "I chose those cards terribly – I had massive losing runs which I thought would never end. In fact I had 1,000 bets at £20 each and only won 19 of them – good job my bank was big enough for the evening!" But at 66/1, the 19 winners had returned a total of £25,460, making him £5,460 – enough for the cruise he’d been planning.<br>Simple enough, and we can see why the coin man was attracted by the prospect of regular winners – it made him feel like he was doing well. The dice man had a strike rate of 16.67%, which was more than enough, given that he was offered the value odds of 11/2 each time. The odds were only quoted half a point too high, but that was enough for him and he took advantage. The card man was fortunate to have a big bank behind him – his losing runs were massive, only 19 winners from 1,000 at a strike rate of 1.9%. But the 66/1 he was given was far too high, and he made a lot of money.<br>If these people were to return every night for a year, betting on the same games and with the same stakes, the coin man would lose £332,150, the dice man would win £576,700 and the card man would win £1,992,900.<br>They were all winning as often as they were entitled to do – nobody was luckier or unluckier than the others. It all came down to the value their bets offered.<br>In that example, the value was easy to see. Mathematically, it could be determined exactly. But how do we know what value is in horse-racing? How do we know we won’t end up like the coin man?<br>The answer is that we need to determine, first of all, what the actual odds are of our horse winning. We can’t do this exactly, of course, but we can get fairly close.<br>Say for example the race we are studying has 10 runners, and we have decided that 4 of them have no chance whatsoever. We can confidently cross those 4 through, but we must be absolutely sure they can’t win. That leaves 6 runners, and we may decide that 3 of those can’t be dismissed completely even though we don’t think they can win. Maybe they have half a chance. Fine, that’s 3 runners with half a chance each, and the other 3 are the serious contenders (of which one is obviously our selection).<br>So our selection has 1 chance in 4.5 (3 serious plus 3 half chances). Its actual odds, as far as we can see are 7/2.<br>If we can get better than 7/2 for our selection we bet. The bigger the price above 7/2, the more we stake. It makes sense – if the dice man went back the following night he would stake much higher at that price. If our horse, however, is quoted at less than 7/2 we cannot bet – not ever.<br>It may well win, but if we continually take chances like that we will come unstuck eventually. If the odds are 3/1 we have to leave it alone and come back another day.<br>Again, that’s a simple example, and I’m sure most punters think along those lines. To get more of an exact figure we need to break our fractions down further – down to percentage chances.<br>If we say that the total chances of all the runners in a race is 100%, we need to then determine how much of that 100% is made up of our horse’s chance. In the above example the 100% was split between 6 runners that had either a chance or half a chance. There were a total of 4.5 chances, each one 22.22% of the overall 100%.<br>A 22.22% chance is equal to 7/2, so if we are right in our judgement (and we must stick to our judgement, as that is the whole point of betting), anything better than 7/2 offers value.<br>A friend of mine has the same approach, although he tackles it slightly differently. He allocates 100 points to a race (each point is a 1% chance). From those 100 points, he allocates to each horse a number, which he thinks represents it’s chance of winning. The important thing here is that all the points must come back to 100 when added at the end.<br>He may analyse a race like this: His selection 27pts, horse ‘B’ 20pts, horses ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, and ‘F’ 12pts each, and horse ‘G’ 5pts.<br>He has given his selection a 27% chance, which equals just over 11/4. So if my friend can get 11/4, or preferably 3/1 for his bet, he will be on. If not, he won’t.<br>To convert the points out of 100 you have awarded to each horse into odds, do the following:<br>Say you gave 28pts : divide 100 by 28 = 3.57, then deduct 1 = 2.57.<br>Those are the odds to one – 2.57/1. Given that 2.5/1 is the same as 5/2, you would need better than 5/2 for a horse to which you had awarded 28pts.<br>Please make sure you don’t totally discount a horse and give it 0pts unless you are sure that it can’t win. Make sure all your points figures total 100 exactly. You will have to change them many times before they do – and don’t bother if the points awarded are strange numbers, like 27 or 41. it doesn’t matter as long as you work out the true odds correctly afterwards.<br>You will find that you suddenly spend less time actually picking a winner, and more time picking a horse that is likely to run at a value price".
Quite a famous strategy, wo what I am saying why should I back a horse which in my view is 7/1 at odds of 4/1 ? Long term I will not make a profit I have already tried this and proved it to myself. I spent one year backing every horse I feel should win , spending weeks studying trainers and their ways , looking at jockeys merits etc.
Won or lost long term this would not remain profitable of my way of punting
After the event … always easier but certain I would not have had a shilling on this horse at 3/1. Go back two runs this very same horse was second favourite at 5-2 for a 0-85 because his previous run to this he won a seller. 5-2 without a shadow of a doubt did not represent value in my opinon. David Chapman is very shrewd yard and they certainly do not want to short a price winners. From my knowledge the stable like hitting their horses e/w and at big prices. From my own information from the yards I have a few hairs in horses this is quite common so from only a few years back now I will not take under 4-1.<br>
A horse running in the 4:30 is a perfect example for my backing.<br>His my only bet today my independent bookmaker offered 7/1 I forecast him being shorter. <br>Rickie Brisland sole ride, good draw.
led, ridden and headed 1f out, one pace
Over 7f, today drops in back to a more suitable 6f and drops in class.
C&D winner and this is the sort of selection I am looking for, will go into more detail later. <br>Cheers<br>James
<br>
Michael your right on all counts as some major bookmakers employ form students Barry Dennis included.<br>Overround on the percentage is what they are making out of every £100.
Percentages –
ODDS ON PRICE ODDS AGAINST<br>50% Evens 50%<br>52.38% 11/10 47.62%<br>54.55% 6-5 45.45%<br>55.56% 5-4 44.44%<br>57.89% 11-8 42.11% <br>60.00% 6-4 40.00% <br>61.90% 13-8 38.10%<br>63.64% 7-4 36.36%<br>65.22% 15-8 34.78%<br>66.67% 2-1 33.33%<br>68.00% 85-40 32.00%<br>69.23% 9-4 30.77%<br>71.43% 5-2 28.57%<br>73.33% 11-4 26.67%<br>75.00% 3-1 25.00%<br>76.92% 10-3 23.08%<br>77.78% 7-2 22.22%<br>80.00% 4-1 20.00%
ETC. <br>I hope this makes sense.
Professional gamblers such as SLH will forecast a market and when a horse is over his forecast price he will back it. Simple as that. <br>Good Luck<br>James<br>
