Forum Replies Created
- Posts
The 6yo and 7yo stats are ceratinly interesting.
Is it not possible that not many 10-year-olds run in the Champion because they are chasing instead? <br>It is also possible that not many 10yo’s run because they are too slow at that age. That’s not to say Istabraq will be though – he didn’t look slow on his comeback this season.
<br>But if all the bookies went 3/1 and Esc’s book told him the horse he liked should be 8/1, would he bet?
Esc, you certainly got good value about Streamstown but if your ratings put him as clear top-rated then what difference does producing a book make?
Streamstown was top-rated and 14/1 – don’t need a book to tell you that the value there is excellent. That’s how i see it anyway.
Poor animal, 11 days straight in his box. Did they not even let him out?
In terms of being an animal it isn’t nice to couped up for that long. He’ll be red hot though when he gets to Cheltenham. He’ll be going to the Champion hurdle a fresh and – if he’s locked in his box! – a bit mental!
He’ll be fine come Champion hurdle day as O’Brien knows what he’s doing 99% of the time.
Hi Razeen,
I think there’s a reason for favourites having bad record in some races: There are many big, competitive races about where favourites have bad records. Like the recent Gold Cup’s. Plenty of favourites have lost the Gold Cup in the last 10 years – i think only one has won the Gold Cup, Master Oats. Punters will back the favourites in competetive races (like the Gold Cup) and the horse’s price will shorten. However, the punters seem to get it wrong a lot of times with favourites in big, competitve races.
Favourite backers are going to back the favourite in big races rather than go for a longer priced outsider. The favourite shortens. A longer priced horse comes in because the punters have got the wrong one.
Sometimes the favourites win if the punters get it right but in the competitive popular betting heats it is possible that many favourites are bad value.
(i don’t have any statistics to back this up though…just a simple theory that many have thought of)
I think your on to something there Esc (must be the cup-a-soup)…
The rain has definately helped out Gun’N Roses. Harfdecent won a 2m4f race round Musselburgh and the trainers rep said that the horse wouldn’t want to go any further than that trip – especially on soft.
I liked Merry Path but the rain came and might have ruined that one’s chances.
Hi Esc :wave:
Do you come to your ratings by taking into account form and trainer form etc?
Tooting :wave: <br>Interesting book and i’d share your confidence about Nosam. I think perhaps he’s at his absolute best when racing after a short break. Need to check stats but i think he’s only won once after a break similar to todays and he only just got home that day.
So would you lay Samakaan if you were a bookie?
It was Razeen yes.
I think he wanted only the serious gamblers to go for his competition or something like that. He didn’t want people that just wanted to give it a go – they had to be serious.
Still, three people isn’t many and, as a few people thought at the time, it was (and is) a good idea. It would good to see people try it out and interesting to see the results.
Of course, we all have losing runs. I see how you have come to the conclusion that Esc was ripped off in his bet – sadly though the bookies are not going to be nice in giving us perfectly round and even bets. They want to keep some (a lot) for themselves.
I think it would be interesting to see how win only punters and each-way punters records compare over a long period of time.
The bookies have the odds in their favour most of the time (nearly all the time i think) because if they didn’t, they’d go out of business!
When you bet on a race you want to come away with more than you started. You can do this with each-way betting.
You’ve shown that each-way punters don’t have much in their favour when it boils down to figures and allsorts which suggests that a lot of the time each-way betting is not value. There are times when it is though – Esc’s example: Yep, he should have recieved better odds than he did (in an ideal world he would have) but the bookies aren’t going to let him get away with that. He still won more than if he’d have backed the winner and he still pocketed a profit.
This game, for me, is about making a profit – i can understand how you feel when you say that each-way bets are a bookies benefit but the bookies make the odds: if a profit is made and money is taken from the bookie’s satchel, i’m happy.
You bet to make a profit do you not DL? You bet because you want to win money do you not? Well Esc’s example shows you that, with e/w betting, you CAN in fact bet to win money.
Why should Esc care if he was ripped off £20 or £60 or whatever….the FACT is he was able to win MORE money by using each-way betting than he would if he’d back the winner to win. So his example shows that each-way betting can be a profitable venture.
Regarding your earlier question – if i was to back a horse and give 10% of my winnings to the bookie – i’d be mad right? yeah i would be. Stir crazy. However, with each-way betting you aren’t giving any winnings to the bookie are you?
If you back 50/50 (and your horse finishes 2nd) you lose half your original stake but gain money from the place.
How about a 7 runner race (1/4 odds) where you find a 20/1 shot to finish second – surely if you’ve done an each-way bet you’ll be getting back more than you put it, which is making profit…which is the whole idea.
What i don’t understand is that you are prepared to lose your whole stake (say £50) by backing a 10/1 shot to win but you could actually make a few quid by going each-way.
At least when you go each-way you get something back if the horse is placed whilst if you go to win and it’s second you lose your whole stake.
That table you put up DL – it seems as though Esc’s example was wrong because he was sure to lose based on those figures because ONLY 16+ runners are good races to back e/w in – but Esc WON on his example. He came back with more than he went in with – THAT is the idea. To make a profit…and he did. Pure and simple.
This winnings thing – you’ll have to explain it to me. You said that you are donating 68% of winnings back to the bookie in a 7-runner race – surely if your e/w horse wins you are getting 100% winnings from the bet and if it loses (out of the frame) you are making a 100% loss?
so you see, e.w. betting can be MORE profitable than betting to win….you just have to make sure you pick the right horses…..
How can this not be true? Esc gave a good example where e/w betting was more profitable than betting to win. There are plenty of that kind of scenario around – there ARE times when betting e/w can be more profitable than betting to win.
I was just trying to suggest that in my scenario the 10/1 e/w was better value than the 1/2 win if the latter won and the 10/1 shot was placed. This kind of thing does happen and this is where I think each-way betting can be value.
Jjimps – yes, if you back 10/1 shots each-way blindly you are going to make a loss. I wouldn’t want to back them blindly though – i’d want to be selective and find the 10/1 shots who are better value each-way than the 1/2 shots who may not be good value to win.
I wouldn’t want to back 1/2 shots blindly either – you’d need a good strike-rate and sizeable stakes to make a profit.
I tend to agree with what you said earlier DL – the ‘comfort blanket’ theory. Perhaps many punters like to seek out each-way bets to hold off losing runs.
If you backed every 10/1+ shot you came across to win i wonder what the profit would be compared to backing every 10/1+ you came across each-way. Would be interesting to see the results.
When i say every 10/1+ i should have said every 10/1+ shot that meets your criteria or your way of picking horses.
(Edited by robgomm at 3:08 pm on Jan. 22, 2002)
Let’s call it £50 win on the 1/2 shot – if it wins, we make a profit of £25 (please tell me if my Maths goes wrong!).
If we have £25 e/w on the 10/1 shot (1/4 odds) and it is second we make a profit of £37.50.
Let’s say each bet came from a bank of £100.
After the 1/2 win our bank would read £125
After the 10/1 e/w second our bank would read £137.5
If all the above is correct (still awake out there guys?) then surely the 10/1 e/w second was better value than the 1/2 win bet.
I don’t understand the problem with each-way betting?
Each-way betting can be a value bet. If i had the choice to back a 1/2 fav or a 10/1 shot each-way, i’d go for the 10/1 shot e/w.
Red Striker was certainly good value at 8/1. Just because its forecast was 12/1 or 14 or whatever, does not mean that the forecast was his true price.
He’d run well last time before making a mistake (something he’s prone to do) but won pretty nicely yesterday. Before the race 12/1 looked very good value (in my eyes) and 8/1 was still value (again in my eyes).
