Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I’m not saying only back your original selection if it’s over the price you expected. I can argue this point until I am blue , purple , red or any other colour in the face but I see little point.
To say I think Horse A will win and go off at 2/1 and Horse B is the only danger (that could be very close to only one going to get remotely close) and will go off at 4/1. If Horse A is actually 5/4 and Horse B 10/1 it makes no difference. You must still think Horse A is going to win , so as regard any logical thinking backing Horse B is daft. In terms of ‘value’ in the strictest sense , yes Horse B does offer value. But it is offering value for a reason – no bugger’s backing it (assuming strong support for other runners ).
Anyone making a profit over time is simply making money – betting to a positive margin. Doesn’t mean they’re good at finding ‘value.’
But basically it’s each to their own. Whatever works for you as a gambler.
I don’t necessarily employ the ‘value’ tactic in my own betting , within reason at least , but there is a vast difference betting because of the occasion and ‘betting to win.’
It is true to say that , if the horse you selected as the race winner is popular in the market and it’s price is rapidly contracting , the prices of the other horses will drift. It is also true to say , based on the basic ‘value’ idea (not accounting for personal preference) , these horses will be offering ‘value.’ But to say you will now back those instead makes very little sense. You have selected your horse for the race , it’s being backed so you will now back against it ? There is no justification in that logic , other than taking an each way stab at something very nicely priced in the hope of getting lucky.
We study form for a reason – to pick a horse (or possibly two) to back in any one race. If the price on the day is too short for any person to want to risk their original stake for the smaller return , then the race has to be a no bet (if employing the ‘value’ ideal of course). But a horse going off at a bigger price doesn’t suddenly have a better chance of winning , it’s form doesn’t improve – so what’s the logic behind putting your money down. The only advantage is a bigger possible return if it does happen to win. You leave your money where it is and hope your horse in the next race isn’t too short.
As far as ‘value’ goes in consistently making money – I don’t know. That’s just profit in my eyes. I can back 10 horses at Evens , £100 on each and come out £1000 up. If I perceived all as 2/1 chances , which would yield a £2000 profit , then my profit is not of ‘value.’ Yes , I have a psoitive return on my stake , but in betting and percentage terms it is merely profit , not ‘value.’
We all have our own ideas about ‘value.’ When you intend to back a horse , you should have in your mind a price at which you think said horse should go off. If the actual price you take (or the starting price) is bigger than you expected , then you are obtaining value – at least in your own mind : hence our own ideals. The bet is ‘value’ as you think the horse has a better chance than it’s odds would suggest. If the horse falls below the price you expected , you can choose to back it or leave it alone as the risk of placing the bet is not as attractive with the smaller return (if successful).
But it’s all about perception. What I may see as a 10/1 chance , somebody else may see as a 6/1 chance and if it opens at 8/1 , they would be getting value and I wouldn’t.
The one thing that does annoy me and the muppets ATR continually drag out are guilty as sin for it , is people saying ‘I think Horse A will win but the price is far too short for me , so at a bigger price I’ll side with Horse B.’ That sort of thing is complete nonsense. They’ve studied , picked out the likely winner but the odds dictate that they won’t back it. So , there is a horse who is at a bigger price and they choose that instead. Just because the favourite (or whichever horse they chose) is shorter than fits their ideals for the race , doesn’t mean something else will win instead.
If you ever hear that phrase , you know you’re talking to a complete plank. By all means they can say ‘Horse A is shorter than I would like and I won’t be backing it as a result.’ That makes sense. But changing your selection because the odds have fallen short of what they wanted , ridiculous.
I’m definitely anti-hunting and it’s a point that becomes a tiresome subject. I only have three comments on the subject :
1) A woman was quoted as saying ‘I am born and bred in the country and wish to be able to live the way I want to.’ Why can’t the fox have that choice ?
2) The fox population needs controlling ? Isn’t the human population following a similar increase ? Are we to appoint a crack team of snipers to start picking us off when the figures get a little too high ? I don’t think so.
3) How can it be a ‘sport’ when one side doesn’t know it’s playing ?
Yes, Watchtower is out of Balisada who won the Coronation Stakes and was second in the Falmouth. Over a mile – ten furlongs, he could be very smart.
Tanzani of Clive Brittain’s, debuted behind Godolphin’s Personify recently, is a son of Giant’s Causeway who I think could be very, very good. His first run was a little indifferent, but when he’s stepped up next year and has grown fully – he’ll be some horse.
Dubai Millennium has made a good start – with 3 wins from 3 runs. There are 25+ other offspring of DM that could all be completely useless. Echo Of Light is the only one that I want to see. Saeed Bin Suroor thinks this is DM in every way. But, I have not been overly impressed by either Dubawi or Belenus. Of course it would be great to see the progeny of DM keep his memory alive, but I wont be going overboard about them. Im prepared to stand well and truly corrected.
We will only be able to say with any confidence at the end of the season. But just because Dubai Millennium was a top performer – doesnt mean his swimmers are.
The fact that someone has even the inclination, let alone the time, to write a piece on each bloody contestant says you have far too much time on your hands ! Yes, the first 3 series were entertaining to some degree – but the idea is worn and the contestants complete muppets. I watched I think for about 5 minutes and remembered I had to go wax my balls – so I had to miss it sadly !
Agreed that Formula One is getting monotonous now – but how in the hell do you handicap it ??!! Make Schumacher drive one handed ?? But lead in his helmet ?? Attach a caravan to his car ??
The idea of handicapping is to make all competitors evenly matched – can you imagine 22 cars level going in to the tunnel at Monaco ??!! Thats like saying handicap Liverpool so they dont slaughter Man Utd – oh wait …. our handicap is Gerard Houllier. Silly me !
The new F1 rules have eliminated all the helpful gizmo’s – but that doesnt take out the massive difference in the abilities of the cars.
All teams should carry more than 2 drivers and they can never use the same pairing of drivers in consecutive races. That stops Michael Schumacher whooping everyone and gives others a chance. But as with the every other sport in the world – money buys success. Maybe a budget should be introduced, meaning each team has the same max’ spend limit – what they do with it is up to them – would make the cars a little fairer maybe ???
All in all – the image of the sport can’t be done any good if the only thing to take out of it is the champion slamming into the tunnel wall.
LGR
I sign in here yesterday to read informative, sensible conversation regarding racing’s main issues and come on today to see – am I right ? – two people arguing over one’s racial prejudice’s ?? Have I logged on to http://www.thepoliticalcorrectnessforum.co.uk by mistake ??
I am in no way a racist and despise anyone who harbours any sort of prejudice (unless against the Welsh – just kidding :) ) and I sure as hell don’t want to read about it on here. Pety, pathetic arguments from people whose brains don’t outweigh a garden pea are not things I wish to see.
Mr. Davies, you seem to be the self-proclaimed guru on every other aspect of racing (based on your righteous posts on every other sodding topic on here). Whatever anybody says, you know better – gets irritating after a while. As such, I would have thought your pride and obvious racing high-standing would elevate you above this sort of childish behavious. So, for god’s sake keep your little tiffs for your own time or some other poor forum. Granted, you are not the only one involved here and the same goes for ACR1.
Sweet baby Jesus and the orphans – grow the hell up.
What an absolutely ridiculous post this is – all in all. Who gives a tiny rat’s ass what a horse is called ? The horses don’t know their name – they just get on the track and run (well, some of them).
Whether a horse is called ‘Nice One Old Bean’ or ‘ Ramtakafallakhani’ – I dont care ! If it’s got the form I will back it, if not then Ill leave it alone.
I am not offended by someone bringing over their horses to race in this country and using names which mean something to them. I guess the Arabic names do bare some relevance to something of meaning, rather than the English ‘Alastair Smellie.’ Bringing a bit of culture to racing never hurt anyone did it ?
I’d say – if you dont like the Hamdan’s naming their own horses how the hell they want, then sod off to a country where horses are only named according to the country they are in. Oh, wait a minute, no such place exists.
Jesus, if the biggest problem you can find is an Arab owner giving his horse an Arab name, then you need to get out a bit. Would you expect an Arab family to call their baby son ‘James’ because he was born in England. Don’t be such a muppet.
LGR.
