Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I am very strongly against it. However, I’ll contradict myself by saying that if I can get 10/1 or more on the place bet only then I’ll have a very small amount on.
I’ve looked at my records and there’s no way that I could show a comparable return backing each way to what I do with my win bets. A few weeks ago I was going through a losing spell and on a Saturday afternoon backed Warnes Way (2nd @35) and Burntoakboy (2nd @12), followed by Border Tale (2nd @24) on the Sunday, I think I’d backed about 18 consecutive losers at that stage – and funnily enough that was when I thought about each-way betting.
A few days later (Herecomestanley @ 17, and Arrayou @37) my mood was somewhat different.
You hear so many times "well a 16/1 place is a 4/1 winner, really", and yet most people will know the return on your total stake is the equivalent of a 6/4 shot. Is your 16/1 chance really a 6/4 shot to get placed?
Obvously people can play around iwth the win and place part of betting but last year someone made a point about each-way betting that has stuck with me.
"It gives you a false impression of how good you are." I think this person meant that just because you’re getting a return on a number of bets it doesn’t really mean that much unless there’s a significant profit in it.
…now if only I had enough confidence to stop it altogether!
When the new owner took control of the RP he appeared on Radio 5’s business programme. (Can you actually appear on the radio? You know what I mean..)
Anyway, I contacted the programme and asked if the site and resources would remain free.
He said that future changes to the site and improvements may result in a charge.
I think it’s inevitable.
Interesting topic!
I actually think you need to have some understanding of the race before the event than after. I’m not talking about a crystal ball to help you either.
What I mean is that some knowledge of the horses before they run is a great aid. Watching a race over and over again on a video (do people still have videos?) may well help you identifiy horses unlucky in running, short of room, given too much to do etc. However, unless you’re familiar with the horse’s previous record I’m not certain how advantageous your highlighting of said horse is.
It always surprises me those punters who make lists of horses and note that horse x requires 7f on his next outing to show best form. Punter then waits for horse x to be entered in a 7f race and backs it. Well, that’s all very interesting but unless you have an understanding of all the runners in a race I’m struggling to fathom out the logic in your approach.
Watching horse-racing in isolation, out of context, with no knowledge of the horse’s journey (metaphorically speaking) beforehand is unlikely to yield desired results.
But then I lost a fair amount yesterday, so what do I know!
I forgot another one…
references to ‘Chelters’!
I’m sorry folks, but I’d imprison everybody who uses that term.
Not looking forward to missing so much of it!
Work demands are such that it’s impossible for me to get time off. My holidays are fairly generous so I’m fairly lucky – but that week in March? No chance!
However, I’ll be able to get home early for at least Tuesday and Friday.
I hope to go to Cheltenham again one year. My last visit was seeing See You Then win his third Champion Hurdle; but to be honest, I’m worried I’d be let-down by the whole experience. People who have gone regularly tell me it’s a totally different event now.
Aye, nostalgia isn’t what it used to be!
The amount I bet in each race will not increase for Cheltenham, but given the quality of races I’ll be having a lot more bets during the week than I would normally.
It’s just the issue of time that drives me round the bend. I’d prefer 48 hour decs, but that’s another discussion.
I must be honest and say this doesn’t worry me at all. I’m one of those who creates my own book for a race, and when assessing a horse running in a hurdle race after competing over fences I always rate the horse on hurdle form. In the event of the opposite then vice-versa….
All I would say is that this practice appears to be on the increase. Whether there’s a profit to be made by backing horses exploiting favourable marks I’m unsure. In my opinion, these horses are invariably over-bet. For every horse that appears to be ‘well-in’ there’s a Vodka Bleu who gets walloped.
I’m of the view that the hurdling and chasing game are very different. If trainers want to switch horses regularly between the two codes that’s their right. But I think there are many more trainers getting it wrong than getting it right.
I suppose this all depends on when you got interested in the game doesn’t it? Or does it?
For me:
Noddy’s Ryde
The Mighty Mac
Provideo
Lear Fan
Chief Singer
Pebbles
Hallo DandyWell as an owner of ‘council’ telly rather than satellite I can only comment on BBC (no, don’t laugh!) and Channel 4.
I don’t particularly like the ‘style’ of Channel 4, but I think McGrath is still a very, very good analyst.
BBC is woeful, but I think La Balding is a very good presenter.
Richard
My mistake. You’re right, I was thinking of the case last month.
However, your assertion that jockeys are now required to whack horses to appease punters is a surprising view.
I’ll use this week as a guide:
Monday – One raced studied, three horses backed.
Tuesday – One raced studied, two horses backed.
Wednesday – One race studied, three horses backed.
Today – Two races studied… don’t know yet!Probably a couple of races tomorrow and upto half a dozen on a Saturday. That probably constitutes a typical week for me. In terms of time spent on a race – somewhere in the region of 40mins – 1 hour.
Richard
The case you’re referring to – the banned jockey? Let’s be honest here. The lad wasn’t banned because he didn’t ‘thrash the horse’ or didn’t ‘hit the horse.’
It was a total embarrassment what happened that day. The horse’s SP is not relevant. Appearing to be comatose on a horse and forgetting you’re a jockey is showing ‘scant regard for punters.’
Effort is expected, thrashing the horse isn’t.
Ginger
I’ve read your posts with interest and I’m just curious about a few things. First of all, I’m genuinely curious, this is not a preface to me trying to be clever or pull you up about anything…
Anyway, I make my books less than 100%, simply because I want to make sure that every price which I mark up in a race is, in my opinion, worth taking. If you make a 100% book, do you look for horses bigger than your tissue. You’ve mentioned 1%, is that real? That really leaves you very little margin for error. However, I’m only using small stakes so perhaps I can afford to play about a bit more.
My other question is the type of races. I only concentrate on specific races. Today for example, only the 410 at Taunton, I was unsuccessful by the way! I work full-time and therefore have to ‘target’ my races. I also use a method to exclude contenders, specifically in handicap races as this also cuts down on the work. Anyway, I’m curious to know.
By the way, although I use the Post website as a starter for decs etc, I subscribe to Raceform’s Jumps Form Book.. I love it.
Best wishes.
RobbieYou beat me to it, Prufrock. I was going to post your piece last night but got turfed off the computer!
The comparison with athletes is an interesting one. I’ve coached athletes at county level and also competed and still compete myself. I want to stress that I’m a Class 6 type, rather than bold type but I’ll carry on…
If after a lay off I return to training, or indeed racing, there’s a rush of adrenalin and excitement that can sometimes get you through a session/race. When I look at the figures, I sometimes try and work out where I should be in a few weeks/months time. However, the second session back is often very, very difficult. The anticipated improvement after the initial session doesn’t often materialise. Now, maybe this is simply because of two races/sessions in a short space of time after a long lay off.
Planning your training sensibly should take this into account – but it’s hard working it out. I think it’s something to do with "expected" improvement. If you take a longer term view of things, maybe the improvement will come. However, a horse running after, let’s say, 400 days and then running again three weeks later has a great stress placed upon it. The pervious 399 days – no racing, just training. The next 21, training, probably intensively, and two races should take a lot out of the horse. Maybe it’s worthwhile looking at how a horse performs in the next three/four runs rather than the one after the comeback.
There’s a whole other discussion available about how horses are trained and, in my opinion, the lack of science behind the training, but that’s another thread.
Sorry, I’ve not really helped in this discussion!
Don’t want to be accused of stating the obvious here folks, but if you want to see the McManus horse then just type the name in the search box at At The Races and you can see his performance at Lingfield.
It’s something I’m aware of when I look at a race, but I have to say that it’s never, ever a factor for me. When I formulate my book on a race I can’t ever think of an occasion where I would alter my figures based on headgear.
If you look at the figures, there’s no real impact of horses in general wearing headgear for the first time. Whether specific trainers have better records than others … well, that’s possible.
If anyone runs a query and can identify those trainers I’d love to know.
