General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
18 Jun 13
01:51
Joined:
Date Joined:
26 Aug 07
Alex Bird is a name that some readers will know. Back in the 1940s he was turning over some TWO MILLION POUNDS a year! He made a fortune from betting on photo-finishes when the film took five minutes to develop. Bird discovered a way of standing at the finishing line and by keeping his head perfectly still and closing one eye he could, with astonishing accuracy, predict the outcome.
When he believed the unfavoured and longer-priced near side had won he would back it. Rapid film development, of course, torpedoed this approach eventually but by that time Bird had amassed a fortune with his photo-finish bets.
But he had an all-round knowledge of racing and some of the principles he adhered to are worth noting today, some 60 years after he began his stunningly successful betting life.
In fact, Bird was still landing plunges until close to his death in 1990. One of his last plunges was on a horse called Final Shot, which he backed at 40/1 when it won the Ayr Gold Cup, starting at 12/1.
ALEX BIRD’S ANGLES
Don’t bet when the going changes. If the going changes from firm to soft, keep your money in your pocket. Nothing upsets form more than a major change in ground conditions.
Follow up-and-coming jockeys. Look out for promising apprentices.
Bet each way in non-handicaps with 8-10 runners. Pick races where there are a limited number of form horses, oppose the favourite and combine your second and third fancies in each way combination bets.
Don’t bet “first show”. The bookmakers’ profit is higher when they are “shadow boxing” for an opening. Almost all runners increase in price, especially when the market is weak. Second show prices usually give you an extra 10 per cent on your winnings over a season.
Another British pro with whom we are well acquainted in Australia is Phil Bull, the man who founded Timeform and made an absolute FORTUNE as a punter.
He was a lesson in having the right temperament to be a punter, something which many punters lack. They have the skills to pick winners but lack the temperament to back them properly.
Bull regarded all races as being the same. Each race was an entity and required examination. If after his study he reckoned there was no standout, then so be it. There was no bet. He treated each race on its individual merits.
Here are some of his sage pieces of advice:
PHIL BULL’S ANGLES
Don’t bet unless the odds are good value . . . a matter of individual judgement. Bull said: “If I’m offered only evens about what I judge to be a 6/4 chance, I do not bet. If I can get 2/1, I bet. And 3/1 about the same horse is a bet with a capital B.”
Don’t bet beyond your means or try to make your fortune in a day.
Don’t bet each way in handicaps or other races with big fields.
Paul Copper is a British professional who specialises in “miracle bets” like Yankees, accumulators and one called Lucky 15, a Yankee with four win singles where the punter can secure double the odds if only one of the four wins.
Cooper says that studying trainers underpins his whole business operation. He says: “There are certainly some trainers I much prefer to back . . . what I really look for is someone who is perhaps underestimated and as a result their horses start at bigger prices than they should do.”
PAUL COOPER’S ANGLES
Stay cool, calm and collected when making a selection and don’t go in head-down. Weigh up all the possibilities and then have the nerve to go through with it.
Bet only when you are getting good value . . . shop around for the best early prices.
Back horses that have winning form. Keep away from maidens – the form is unpredictable.
Bet in sprints. The form is usually more reliable than in longer distance races.
Find a small, well-run stable to follow; because it isn’t a glamour yard, you’ll mostly get a value price on their horses.
Bet within your means. Reduce your bets when you strike a bad run and increase them when things are going well.
Don’t back short-priced favourites. The returns simply are not good enough, and most of them lose anyway.
Don’t chase your losses. There’s always another day.
Don’t bet heavily when there’s been a sudden change in the track condition.
Don’t back out of form trainers or jockeys.
Clive Holt is a UK professional who reckons “caution” is his watchword.
Not that it’s stopped him earning a very good living by backing racehorses. This is what he says:
“Early on I saw that betting in singles was the way forward. This was the first business principle I learned. By March 1975, I was ready to earn my living as a full-time punter. I started betting simply because I needed more money to go along with all the commitments one takes on with getting married and having a family.
“Initially, I used to bet in doubles, trebles and it was a haphazard approach dictated by my pocket but nevertheless I was sure I was well in front. In the beginning I had no proper record of my bets. I worked on a week to week basis; that is, being paid weekly and having regular outgoings and I was left with about the same amount every week to bet with.
“There was no way I could work out what sort of percentage return I was achieving, so I decided to do the job properly and record all my bets. This was the first application of a business technique to my emerging betting enterprise and it was to point me in the right direction.
“Looking back, it probably had the greatest influence on my future success. As the figures and the percentages built up before me, it was clear I was becoming more and more analytical. Having the figures before me allowed the easy calculation that betting in multiples had yielded me nearly 50 per cent clear profit on total outlay, whilst betting in singles would have yielded slightly over 60 per cent profit.
“As there were fewer single bets compared with doubles, trebles and so on, increasing the outlay on single bets seemed a more lucrative and less time consuming option. Importantly, the losing runs were shorter and I was more in control of my money.
“Setting up a betting bank was the second business technique that I applied to my betting that made a real difference to profits. Seven years on from the first day that I stepped inside Haydock Park, I eventually felt confident enough to go full time and gave my notice to quit my day job.
“My first bet was £67 to £30 on Western Jewel and it won by two lengths and was never in any danger. That good start got even better and I made more money in six weeks than I would have earned in a year working with the Electricity Board.
“Betting has been a rewarding career for me. I’ve never been a big hitter; even now I rarely win more than £1,000 at one go, but from the modest start I’ve derived enormous satisfaction from being successful in such a high risk occupation. The trappings of success seem almost incidental to that, but hard work has to be rewarded. After all, why work in the first place – you only have one go at life and it’s a short one.
“The betting game has provided me with the pick of fast, luxury cars, Lotus, Jaguar, De Tomaso, Pantera, BMWs . . . winter holidays in the Caribbean, Africa, Australia, America, Israel, Hong Kong, Singapore and the Canaries, plus the Mediterranean, of course. It has provided my wife and four children with a Listed Georgian Country House complete with Coach House and stables, set in acres of parkland, close to the north’s major training centre.
“None of that would have come my way if I was still jointing electricity cables for a living. This is much harder work obviously, but first past the post, predicted in advance still gives me a buzz and easily outweighs the disappointments that are part and parcel of the operation.
“I’ve never felt the urge to bet purely to have an interest in a race per say. I bet purely for profit only when that’s possible and it wouldn’t bother me one bit if I never had another bet – provided I found another suitably rewarding challenge.
“What advice can I give my fellow punters? Well, one vital ingredient for successful punting is that you’ve got to be confident that your selection can win. Horses with good recent form, preferably winning form, running against limited opposition within their class, when at their peak, progressing or improving, do win most races, all year round.
“They are a constant source of winners for anyone to exploit. Almost every winner worth backing falls into this category which is broadened even further by the four pros: PROVEN, PROGRESSIVE, PROMISING and PROFITABLE.”
Nick Mordin has built up a big name for himself with several books, which have sold well. One of them is Winning Without Thinking, in which he explains in some detail his betting philosophy.
He is keen on correct money management, something he says seems to occur to very few people.
Mordin writes: “I have to confess that, for a long time, I personally never bothered even to think about it. I figured that the whole point of betting was to try and pick winners. If you picked enough winners, you’d make money. End of story.
“In reality, picking winners is only half the equation; and, somewhat grudgingly, I have to concede it is the least important half. The other half, picking winners which start at longer odds than their chance seems to represent, is much more important.
“Without it, profits are much harder to come by. US professional gambler Frank Romano summed up the situation in a quote published in the book The New Expert Handicapper. He said: PICKING WINNERS IS EASY, MAKING MONEY IS HARD.”
Mordin’s book contains an interesting staking angle from one of his pals. It’s a simplification of the Kelly Criterion.
Work out the chance, in percentage terms, that you think the horse has of winning.
Multiply this by the horse’s actual odds.
Subtract the probability, again in percentage terms, you believe the horse has of losing.
Divide the result of the above by the horse’s actual odds. The answer is the percentage of your betting capital you should risk.
Mordin’s example: Let’s say you think a horse has a 25 per cent (3/1) chance of winning and its actual odds are 4/1. That’s all you need to know to work out the Kelly Criterion.
Firstly, you multiply the chance you think the horse has (25 per cent) by its actual odds, in this case 4/1. That is, 25 per cent multiplied by four equals 100 per cent.
Now you must deduct from this the probability you think the horse has of losing. This is 755. So you deduct this figure from the 100 and you are left with 25 per cent. The final step is to divide this by the horse’s actual odds, which are 4/1. So, 25 per cent divided by four equals 6.25 per cent. Therefore, that is the correct percentage if your bankroll to bet.
Mordin is also keen on the idea that you must bet AGAINST the crowd to be able to win.
He writes: “It follows that if you want to avoid betting with the crowd, you need to avoid thinking like the crowd. It’s not easy but I think I have one rather obvious idea on how to go about pursuing this ideal. My suggestion is very simple: don’t tell anyone what you’re betting.
“One important advantage you’ll gain by keeping your opinion to yourself is that you’ll be free to change it.”
When he believed the unfavoured and longer-priced near side had won he would back it. Rapid film development, of course, torpedoed this approach eventually but by that time Bird had amassed a fortune with his photo-finish bets.
But he had an all-round knowledge of racing and some of the principles he adhered to are worth noting today, some 60 years after he began his stunningly successful betting life.
In fact, Bird was still landing plunges until close to his death in 1990. One of his last plunges was on a horse called Final Shot, which he backed at 40/1 when it won the Ayr Gold Cup, starting at 12/1.
ALEX BIRD’S ANGLES
Don’t bet when the going changes. If the going changes from firm to soft, keep your money in your pocket. Nothing upsets form more than a major change in ground conditions.
Follow up-and-coming jockeys. Look out for promising apprentices.
Bet each way in non-handicaps with 8-10 runners. Pick races where there are a limited number of form horses, oppose the favourite and combine your second and third fancies in each way combination bets.
Don’t bet “first show”. The bookmakers’ profit is higher when they are “shadow boxing” for an opening. Almost all runners increase in price, especially when the market is weak. Second show prices usually give you an extra 10 per cent on your winnings over a season.
Another British pro with whom we are well acquainted in Australia is Phil Bull, the man who founded Timeform and made an absolute FORTUNE as a punter.
He was a lesson in having the right temperament to be a punter, something which many punters lack. They have the skills to pick winners but lack the temperament to back them properly.
Bull regarded all races as being the same. Each race was an entity and required examination. If after his study he reckoned there was no standout, then so be it. There was no bet. He treated each race on its individual merits.
Here are some of his sage pieces of advice:
PHIL BULL’S ANGLES
Don’t bet unless the odds are good value . . . a matter of individual judgement. Bull said: “If I’m offered only evens about what I judge to be a 6/4 chance, I do not bet. If I can get 2/1, I bet. And 3/1 about the same horse is a bet with a capital B.”
Don’t bet beyond your means or try to make your fortune in a day.
Don’t bet each way in handicaps or other races with big fields.
Paul Copper is a British professional who specialises in “miracle bets” like Yankees, accumulators and one called Lucky 15, a Yankee with four win singles where the punter can secure double the odds if only one of the four wins.
Cooper says that studying trainers underpins his whole business operation. He says: “There are certainly some trainers I much prefer to back . . . what I really look for is someone who is perhaps underestimated and as a result their horses start at bigger prices than they should do.”
PAUL COOPER’S ANGLES
Stay cool, calm and collected when making a selection and don’t go in head-down. Weigh up all the possibilities and then have the nerve to go through with it.
Bet only when you are getting good value . . . shop around for the best early prices.
Back horses that have winning form. Keep away from maidens – the form is unpredictable.
Bet in sprints. The form is usually more reliable than in longer distance races.
Find a small, well-run stable to follow; because it isn’t a glamour yard, you’ll mostly get a value price on their horses.
Bet within your means. Reduce your bets when you strike a bad run and increase them when things are going well.
Don’t back short-priced favourites. The returns simply are not good enough, and most of them lose anyway.
Don’t chase your losses. There’s always another day.
Don’t bet heavily when there’s been a sudden change in the track condition.
Don’t back out of form trainers or jockeys.
Clive Holt is a UK professional who reckons “caution” is his watchword.
Not that it’s stopped him earning a very good living by backing racehorses. This is what he says:
“Early on I saw that betting in singles was the way forward. This was the first business principle I learned. By March 1975, I was ready to earn my living as a full-time punter. I started betting simply because I needed more money to go along with all the commitments one takes on with getting married and having a family.
“Initially, I used to bet in doubles, trebles and it was a haphazard approach dictated by my pocket but nevertheless I was sure I was well in front. In the beginning I had no proper record of my bets. I worked on a week to week basis; that is, being paid weekly and having regular outgoings and I was left with about the same amount every week to bet with.
“There was no way I could work out what sort of percentage return I was achieving, so I decided to do the job properly and record all my bets. This was the first application of a business technique to my emerging betting enterprise and it was to point me in the right direction.
“Looking back, it probably had the greatest influence on my future success. As the figures and the percentages built up before me, it was clear I was becoming more and more analytical. Having the figures before me allowed the easy calculation that betting in multiples had yielded me nearly 50 per cent clear profit on total outlay, whilst betting in singles would have yielded slightly over 60 per cent profit.
“As there were fewer single bets compared with doubles, trebles and so on, increasing the outlay on single bets seemed a more lucrative and less time consuming option. Importantly, the losing runs were shorter and I was more in control of my money.
“Setting up a betting bank was the second business technique that I applied to my betting that made a real difference to profits. Seven years on from the first day that I stepped inside Haydock Park, I eventually felt confident enough to go full time and gave my notice to quit my day job.
“My first bet was £67 to £30 on Western Jewel and it won by two lengths and was never in any danger. That good start got even better and I made more money in six weeks than I would have earned in a year working with the Electricity Board.
“Betting has been a rewarding career for me. I’ve never been a big hitter; even now I rarely win more than £1,000 at one go, but from the modest start I’ve derived enormous satisfaction from being successful in such a high risk occupation. The trappings of success seem almost incidental to that, but hard work has to be rewarded. After all, why work in the first place – you only have one go at life and it’s a short one.
“The betting game has provided me with the pick of fast, luxury cars, Lotus, Jaguar, De Tomaso, Pantera, BMWs . . . winter holidays in the Caribbean, Africa, Australia, America, Israel, Hong Kong, Singapore and the Canaries, plus the Mediterranean, of course. It has provided my wife and four children with a Listed Georgian Country House complete with Coach House and stables, set in acres of parkland, close to the north’s major training centre.
“None of that would have come my way if I was still jointing electricity cables for a living. This is much harder work obviously, but first past the post, predicted in advance still gives me a buzz and easily outweighs the disappointments that are part and parcel of the operation.
“I’ve never felt the urge to bet purely to have an interest in a race per say. I bet purely for profit only when that’s possible and it wouldn’t bother me one bit if I never had another bet – provided I found another suitably rewarding challenge.
“What advice can I give my fellow punters? Well, one vital ingredient for successful punting is that you’ve got to be confident that your selection can win. Horses with good recent form, preferably winning form, running against limited opposition within their class, when at their peak, progressing or improving, do win most races, all year round.
“They are a constant source of winners for anyone to exploit. Almost every winner worth backing falls into this category which is broadened even further by the four pros: PROVEN, PROGRESSIVE, PROMISING and PROFITABLE.”
Nick Mordin has built up a big name for himself with several books, which have sold well. One of them is Winning Without Thinking, in which he explains in some detail his betting philosophy.
He is keen on correct money management, something he says seems to occur to very few people.
Mordin writes: “I have to confess that, for a long time, I personally never bothered even to think about it. I figured that the whole point of betting was to try and pick winners. If you picked enough winners, you’d make money. End of story.
“In reality, picking winners is only half the equation; and, somewhat grudgingly, I have to concede it is the least important half. The other half, picking winners which start at longer odds than their chance seems to represent, is much more important.
“Without it, profits are much harder to come by. US professional gambler Frank Romano summed up the situation in a quote published in the book The New Expert Handicapper. He said: PICKING WINNERS IS EASY, MAKING MONEY IS HARD.”
Mordin’s book contains an interesting staking angle from one of his pals. It’s a simplification of the Kelly Criterion.
Work out the chance, in percentage terms, that you think the horse has of winning.
Multiply this by the horse’s actual odds.
Subtract the probability, again in percentage terms, you believe the horse has of losing.
Divide the result of the above by the horse’s actual odds. The answer is the percentage of your betting capital you should risk.
Mordin’s example: Let’s say you think a horse has a 25 per cent (3/1) chance of winning and its actual odds are 4/1. That’s all you need to know to work out the Kelly Criterion.
Firstly, you multiply the chance you think the horse has (25 per cent) by its actual odds, in this case 4/1. That is, 25 per cent multiplied by four equals 100 per cent.
Now you must deduct from this the probability you think the horse has of losing. This is 755. So you deduct this figure from the 100 and you are left with 25 per cent. The final step is to divide this by the horse’s actual odds, which are 4/1. So, 25 per cent divided by four equals 6.25 per cent. Therefore, that is the correct percentage if your bankroll to bet.
Mordin is also keen on the idea that you must bet AGAINST the crowd to be able to win.
He writes: “It follows that if you want to avoid betting with the crowd, you need to avoid thinking like the crowd. It’s not easy but I think I have one rather obvious idea on how to go about pursuing this ideal. My suggestion is very simple: don’t tell anyone what you’re betting.
“One important advantage you’ll gain by keeping your opinion to yourself is that you’ll be free to change it.”
Show More
Interesting post, sweetchildofmine.
I still have several books written by Clive Holt so much of what's posted above rings a bell.
The Bird, Bull and Cooper info I'm also familiar with as it was contained in a book called 'THE DAILY EXPRESS HOW TO WIN ON THE HORSES' published in 1994 and written by Danny Hall, the Daily Express Racing Editor at the time.
Chapter 7 of that book is entitled 'The Search For Value' and it explains how to calculate the 'expected value' of a bet based on the formula.....
For example, if your selection was available to back at 6/1 and you assessed it as having a 20% chance of winning the calculation, to a notional £10 stake, would look like this.....
On the other hand, if you had assessed the horse as having only a 10% chance of winning the resultant Expected Value figure would have been negative, namely -£3; a bad bet.
It's not an approach I've ever followed but I might do some research using historical race ratings to get at the 'probability of winning' figure. The words 'can' and 'worms' immediately spring to mind.
PS
sweetchildofmine - I think you've posted what was Part 1 of a two part article.
Part 2 of that article featured an interesting interview with Jon Gibby. Won't post it here but here's the link if anyone's interested.......
http://practicalpunting.com.au/pp-online/professional-betting/professional-punting/betting-strategies/article/the-importance-of-being-different-part-2-20080404.html
I still have several books written by Clive Holt so much of what's posted above rings a bell.
The Bird, Bull and Cooper info I'm also familiar with as it was contained in a book called 'THE DAILY EXPRESS HOW TO WIN ON THE HORSES' published in 1994 and written by Danny Hall, the Daily Express Racing Editor at the time.
Chapter 7 of that book is entitled 'The Search For Value' and it explains how to calculate the 'expected value' of a bet based on the formula.....
amount to be won X probability of winning
MINUS
amount that can be lost X probability of losing
For example, if your selection was available to back at 6/1 and you assessed it as having a 20% chance of winning the calculation, to a notional £10 stake, would look like this.....
amount to be won (£60) X probability of winning (0.2)
MINUS
amount that can be lost (£10) X probability of losing (0.8)
Expected Value = £4
On the other hand, if you had assessed the horse as having only a 10% chance of winning the resultant Expected Value figure would have been negative, namely -£3; a bad bet.
It's not an approach I've ever followed but I might do some research using historical race ratings to get at the 'probability of winning' figure. The words 'can' and 'worms' immediately spring to mind.
PS
sweetchildofmine - I think you've posted what was Part 1 of a two part article.
Part 2 of that article featured an interesting interview with Jon Gibby. Won't post it here but here's the link if anyone's interested.......
http://practicalpunting.com.au/pp-online/professional-betting/professional-punting/betting-strategies/article/the-importance-of-being-different-part-2-20080404.html
i still have clive holts fineform books..theres a huge thread on here by fastbearform thats based around his system
Very good post.....only point I'd make is that when they say -
Don’t bet when the going changes. If the going changes from firm to soft, keep your money in your pocket. Nothing upsets form more than a major change in ground conditions.
I think they mean if you have a selection in mind for FIRM going...and going changes to soft, then don't back that horse!
Going changes are when there are opportunities to reap benefits of odds at value......so the above is the meaning I take out of what both BIRD and COOPER make their point!
Don’t bet when the going changes. If the going changes from firm to soft, keep your money in your pocket. Nothing upsets form more than a major change in ground conditions.
I think they mean if you have a selection in mind for FIRM going...and going changes to soft, then don't back that horse!
Going changes are when there are opportunities to reap benefits of odds at value......so the above is the meaning I take out of what both BIRD and COOPER make their point!
i agree ..some of the best opportunities come about when theres a sudden going change
thought Bird was in with the judges rather than 20 20 vision
Clive Holt's published method doesn't work and his phone lines were up there with Thommo's.
on the face of it the published method didnt work but was okay as a starting point to add certain criteria to it
thin and crispy
Clive Holt's published method doesn't work and his phone lines were up there with Thommo's.
you could not lace his shoes if you ever met the man on the racecourse at every meeting and being a betting shop losing punter I don't think you have I think you have form knocking any good tipster
Clive Holt's published method doesn't work and his phone lines were up there with Thommo's.
you could not lace his shoes if you ever met the man on the racecourse at every meeting and being a betting shop losing punter I don't think you have I think you have form knocking any good tipster
I have the utmost espect for the chap. It takes a great deal of talent to make a lot of money selling a method that doesn't work and get people to call premium rate lines to back losers.
clive holt is no longer with us,passed away a few years back
him, phil bull and alex bird..add dodger mac to the mix and it seems a hazardous occupation..although to be fair they all reached a ripe old age
Thin and Crispy
21 Jun 13 16:19
Joined:
11 Oct 00
| Topic/replies: 721 | Blogger: Thin and Crispy's blog
Clive Holt's published method doesn't work and his phone lines were up there with Thommo's.
If you are talking about his 'Fineform formula' then I would say it's a bit steep to come out and say it 'doesn't work'. NOTHING is certain in racing but Holt's method of quickly assessing a race proves to be damn good if you apply it to the right races, ie, stick to the better quality races. Just saying.
21 Jun 13 16:19
Joined:
11 Oct 00
| Topic/replies: 721 | Blogger: Thin and Crispy's blog
Clive Holt's published method doesn't work and his phone lines were up there with Thommo's.
If you are talking about his 'Fineform formula' then I would say it's a bit steep to come out and say it 'doesn't work'. NOTHING is certain in racing but Holt's method of quickly assessing a race proves to be damn good if you apply it to the right races, ie, stick to the better quality races. Just saying.
exactly..if you apply his formula without adding your own criteria then it doesnt work, but it is an excellent starting point and he published his results on a regular basis....i mean its no good applying the points system to a decent handicapper, with 2 course and distance wins in his last 2 wins, when next up against a top group horse with two solid seconds to his name...you just had to use common sense
Here's a method that's equally effective as Holt's and a lot quicker. Back the 2nd and 3rd fav. There you go, free and no fifty pages of guff to wade through.
Re Alex Bird's photo finish winnings. Who or whom did
he win it from, time after time after time etc. Who did
he win it from?
I read his book a long time ago and put it down after
about 50 pages, it was so full of nonsense, especially
about the photo finish betting.
All the other advice was/is common knowledge, not even
a good read, as poorly written.
I went racing when the bookmakers depended on the tic tac
showing out the winner of a photo finish, and they made
very few mistakes, in 9 out of 10 races a camera was not
needed. Probably a good story for the naïve but no more
than that.
he win it from, time after time after time etc. Who did
he win it from?
I read his book a long time ago and put it down after
about 50 pages, it was so full of nonsense, especially
about the photo finish betting.
All the other advice was/is common knowledge, not even
a good read, as poorly written.
I went racing when the bookmakers depended on the tic tac
showing out the winner of a photo finish, and they made
very few mistakes, in 9 out of 10 races a camera was not
needed. Probably a good story for the naïve but no more
than that.
Herbert that's the most pretencious, ill-informed drivel I've heard in a long time - and you consistently set the bar pretty high with your pompous hackneyed nonsense
yeah in the good old days they didn't need cameras they could feel it in their bones which horse won and they could check this by reading their tealeaves, you really are the bf village idiot
yeah in the good old days they didn't need cameras they could feel it in their bones which horse won and they could check this by reading their tealeaves, you really are the bf village idiot
You just stand in line with the winning post and see which
horse crosses it first, very seldom did the tic tac get it
wrong, therefore the bookmakers, and no offers the winner.
horse crosses it first, very seldom did the tic tac get it
wrong, therefore the bookmakers, and no offers the winner.
yeah and close one eye hahahaha - great stuff herbert
So he stands on the line with one eye covered, waiting for something
that hardly ever happened (a very close photo finish), and when it does
happen, he backs the winner with naïve bookmakers... Easy money, you
couldn't make it up!
that hardly ever happened (a very close photo finish), and when it does
happen, he backs the winner with naïve bookmakers... Easy money, you
couldn't make it up!
I cant tell when you're being serious Herbert but its great stuff - you're light years ahead of ricky gervais
the bookies often offered odds on both runners in a photo !
Donny, in 99 cases from a 100, the bookies only ever offered the loser.
i remember a fair few times when both were offered at newcastle , but as you said the tic tac always seemed to know the winner.
extel sometimes quoted the price in a photo, and it seemed as good a sign as any as to what had won
extel sometimes quoted the price in a photo, and it seemed as good a sign as any as to what had won
Donny, I remember, as a boy aged about 11, being at the races with my father and his bet was
involved in a photo. Straight away, the bookmakers chalked up around 1/3 and I thought his
horse had won, after all 1/3 only two horses involved etc He shook his head and in seconds his
pick, went 2/5, 1/2, 4/6, 1/1 and they were calling 3/1 when the result was called, the wrong
one of course. Same story betting on the distance, no offers 'a head' 6/4 a 'neck' etc.
As McCririck would say 'They knew'...
involved in a photo. Straight away, the bookmakers chalked up around 1/3 and I thought his
horse had won, after all 1/3 only two horses involved etc He shook his head and in seconds his
pick, went 2/5, 1/2, 4/6, 1/1 and they were calling 3/1 when the result was called, the wrong
one of course. Same story betting on the distance, no offers 'a head' 6/4 a 'neck' etc.
As McCririck would say 'They knew'...
they knew alright ken, cos in those days there was no such thing as a teabag, just proper tealeaves , and some of the bookies were so good they could literally smell the winner, and these days its all digital cameras , and that's progress ?, they don't know they're born etc etc
I agree with Kenilworth - the Bird story just doesn't add up. He'd have stood there at one meeting a day, week after week just to get a handful of opportunities in a year and then as discussed he apparently kept getting on the winner.......hmmmmmmm I don't think so.
green army Joined: 15 Oct 05
Replies: 1371 27 Jun 13 09:31
Herbert that's the most pretencious, ill-informed drivel I've heard in a long time - and you consistently set the bar pretty high with your pompous hackneyed nonsense
yeah in the good old days they didn't need cameras they could feel it in their bones which horse won and they could check this by reading their tealeaves, you really are the bf village idiot
-----------------------------------------------------------
TheVis Joined: 10 Feb 11
Replies: 12714 27 Jun 13 16:27
I agree with Kenilworth - the Bird story just doesn't add up. He'd have stood there at one meeting a day, week after week just to get a handful of opportunities in a year and then as discussed he apparently kept getting on the winner.......hmmmmmmm I don't think so.
thanks vis, lol What a thicko that green army is.
Replies: 1371 27 Jun 13 09:31
Herbert that's the most pretencious, ill-informed drivel I've heard in a long time - and you consistently set the bar pretty high with your pompous hackneyed nonsense
yeah in the good old days they didn't need cameras they could feel it in their bones which horse won and they could check this by reading their tealeaves, you really are the bf village idiot
-----------------------------------------------------------
TheVis Joined: 10 Feb 11
Replies: 12714 27 Jun 13 16:27
I agree with Kenilworth - the Bird story just doesn't add up. He'd have stood there at one meeting a day, week after week just to get a handful of opportunities in a year and then as discussed he apparently kept getting on the winner.......hmmmmmmm I don't think so.
thanks vis, lol What a thicko that green army is.
If kenilworth had been able to read beyond the first 50 pages of Bird's excellent autobiography, he would have discovered how Bird himself knew his photo system had a limited shelf life, and the day would come when the bookies' men worked out his method. Until then he travelled the length and breadth of the country to ensure he got what he could while he could.
There was, believe it or not, horse racing before you went with your dad, and bookmakers took the view that if the judge couldn't split them with the naked eye, then neither could Alex Bird. He describes how eventually he was taking prices like 50s ON, but, with the aid of colleagues looking out for possible stewards enquiries, he rightly considered it to be buying money.
There was, believe it or not, horse racing before you went with your dad, and bookmakers took the view that if the judge couldn't split them with the naked eye, then neither could Alex Bird. He describes how eventually he was taking prices like 50s ON, but, with the aid of colleagues looking out for possible stewards enquiries, he rightly considered it to be buying money.
And he wasn't looking for "something which hardly ever happens - a close photo finish". He was looking for something which often happens - a photo finish of any sort.
This will come as another shock to you - there used to be horse racing without TV coverage, and without it, watching live, there is a genuine optical illusion as to which horse has prevailed depending on whether it's the nearer or further one of a pair.
Bird describes quite plausibly his recognition and exploitation of this fact before the rest of the ring woke up to it.
This will come as another shock to you - there used to be horse racing without TV coverage, and without it, watching live, there is a genuine optical illusion as to which horse has prevailed depending on whether it's the nearer or further one of a pair.
Bird describes quite plausibly his recognition and exploitation of this fact before the rest of the ring woke up to it.
screaming, you seem to have a very fertile imagination.
whatever anyone says about him, betting on photo finishes IS how he made his initial fortune...that was very much his edge, he would often back a horse at say 4/1 in a photo, especially where the angle was notoriously bad, and of course that meant he didnt need to be correct every single time
there was a 1.01 gubbed in a photo on here the other week !
sweety, you are so naïve, you shouldn't be allowed
out by yourself after 6 o'clock.
out by yourself after 6 o'clock.
birds technique in more detail
Alex Bird
Alex Bird was the original professional gambler who made a fortune after the war at Britain�s racecourses. He learned his trade working for his father who was a bookmaker but soon decided that it would be more profitable to be on the other side.
He had many different ways of beating the bookmaker, but probably his most famous was his success on betting on the result of photo finishes. Unlike today photo finishes would take about 5 minutes to develop so there was always an active betting market on the outcome. Bird very early on noticed that when horses crossed the line together an optical illusion meant that the horse on the far side invariably looked like he had won.
He also discovered a simple technique which meant the illusion didn�t occur. He stood at an elevated vantage point as near to the winning post as possible, he would keep very still, close his left eye and create an imaginary line across the track at the finishing line. He used this simple system for the next 20 years to make himself a fortune. With a reported 500 consecutive successful bets.
Another favoured method he used to make money was to use his influence in the ring to create a false favourite. He often placed huge bets often as much as £50K at a time however he couldn�t get these sort of bets laid in the betting ring so he would employ an army of helpers around the country placing bets in off-course bookmakers. If Bird fancied a horse but felt the odds were to short he would place a bet of up to £10K on another horse in the race. He would then ensure that it was "leaked" that he had placed the bet. Prices would then dramatically alter as the "mug" money poured onto his horse. This meant that the price of the horse that he wanted to back heavily and clandestinely off the course would drift out in the market. His army of helpers would then back the horse off course all over the country.
Alex Bird like Phil Bull was also a keen student of race times unlike the majority of the betting public. It was this interest which alerted him to the ability of Mill Reef. As Bird explains �Mill Reef broke the clock on firm ground and won the Gimcrack Stakes in the mud. That�s the mark of a great horse.� This prompted Bird to have his biggest ever bet of £60k on Mill Reef in the Gimcrack at 4/6. He won easily by 4 lengths and the following season became the seventh Derby winner in eight years backed by Bird. During Mill Reefs career Bird won over £100K on the horse.
Alex Bird
Alex Bird was the original professional gambler who made a fortune after the war at Britain�s racecourses. He learned his trade working for his father who was a bookmaker but soon decided that it would be more profitable to be on the other side.
He had many different ways of beating the bookmaker, but probably his most famous was his success on betting on the result of photo finishes. Unlike today photo finishes would take about 5 minutes to develop so there was always an active betting market on the outcome. Bird very early on noticed that when horses crossed the line together an optical illusion meant that the horse on the far side invariably looked like he had won.
He also discovered a simple technique which meant the illusion didn�t occur. He stood at an elevated vantage point as near to the winning post as possible, he would keep very still, close his left eye and create an imaginary line across the track at the finishing line. He used this simple system for the next 20 years to make himself a fortune. With a reported 500 consecutive successful bets.
Another favoured method he used to make money was to use his influence in the ring to create a false favourite. He often placed huge bets often as much as £50K at a time however he couldn�t get these sort of bets laid in the betting ring so he would employ an army of helpers around the country placing bets in off-course bookmakers. If Bird fancied a horse but felt the odds were to short he would place a bet of up to £10K on another horse in the race. He would then ensure that it was "leaked" that he had placed the bet. Prices would then dramatically alter as the "mug" money poured onto his horse. This meant that the price of the horse that he wanted to back heavily and clandestinely off the course would drift out in the market. His army of helpers would then back the horse off course all over the country.
Alex Bird like Phil Bull was also a keen student of race times unlike the majority of the betting public. It was this interest which alerted him to the ability of Mill Reef. As Bird explains �Mill Reef broke the clock on firm ground and won the Gimcrack Stakes in the mud. That�s the mark of a great horse.� This prompted Bird to have his biggest ever bet of £60k on Mill Reef in the Gimcrack at 4/6. He won easily by 4 lengths and the following season became the seventh Derby winner in eight years backed by Bird. During Mill Reefs career Bird won over £100K on the horse.
so he had 60 k on mill reef in the gimcrack after it had already won and was impressed by it winning ?
yeah think that was a typo..it was a totally different race in his book
Slightly off topic but it did irk me at Royal Ascot when Brian Gleeson was going on about a £20000 bet on one of the Coolemore Horses ( possible Michael Tabor's cash ?) saying now that's what you call a proper bet ... Yes it is a lot of money but you would think anyone backing in those figures has a decent size bank in the first place,so a proper bet for a smaller punter might be a couple of hundred ... It shouldn't imply they are any shrewder than a smaller stakes punter.
Anyway moving on ... aside from the Pro Punters named by the OP there must have been a few who "kept below the radar" who were very successful as well ... Anyone know of any who didn't court publicity ?
Anyway moving on ... aside from the Pro Punters named by the OP there must have been a few who "kept below the radar" who were very successful as well ... Anyone know of any who didn't court publicity ?
yeah imagine lets say say carlos tevez placing that bet..its not even a days wages for him
i dont know if you could exactly call him under the radar, but dodger mccartney never really courted publicity and his opinion was sought by owners, trainers and jockeys
Johnny Francome told a story about him once ... apparently Dodger had a decent bet on a horse in a NH race ... it was odds on ... apparently it scrambled home by the skin of it's teeth to which Dodger shouted "Hard held !! " 
he never showed an ounce of emotion, win or lose
pigott was a good judge, probably still is, i wonder if he managed to plaice a bet ?
John Inverdale on Radio 5 live at the Cheltenham Festival asking Jack Ramsden after he had a winner there ( Balding trained it I think ) ... "Did you have a bet ?" ... "Yes" came the reply ... "May I ask how much you had on ?" asked John ... "NO YOU MAY NOT" ... cue the end of the interview
I'm sure he had his people put cash on for him Donny 
didnt fallon use to ride all the ramsden horses?
at one time yes ... he was part of that Sproting Life case Top Cees ... in fact I'm sure that was the horse that won at the NH Festival ... got booed into the winners enclosure by some people apparently
any bloke that produces a filly like emma is fine by me 
Old time jockey Scobie Breasley had just retired and was guest of honour at a racecourse luncheon somewhere hosted by one of the Jockey Club's Senior Stewards ... Just before the 'off' to a race said Steward turned to Scobie's missus and asken if Scobie had had a bet on the race.To which Mrs B replied "Oh no Scobie hasn't had a bet since he stopped riding"
Franky Four Fingers
27 Jun 13 22:43
Joined:
06 Mar 06
| Topic/replies: 1,610 | Blogger: Franky Four Fingers's blog
Old time jockey Scobie Breasley had just retired and was guest of honour at a racecourse luncheon somewhere hosted by one of the Jockey Club's Senior Stewards ... Just before the 'off' to a race said Steward turned to Scobie's missus and asken if Scobie had had a bet on the race.To which Mrs B replied "Oh no Scobie hasn't had a bet since he stopped riding"
Priceless
27 Jun 13 22:43
Joined:
06 Mar 06
| Topic/replies: 1,610 | Blogger: Franky Four Fingers's blog
Old time jockey Scobie Breasley had just retired and was guest of honour at a racecourse luncheon somewhere hosted by one of the Jockey Club's Senior Stewards ... Just before the 'off' to a race said Steward turned to Scobie's missus and asken if Scobie had had a bet on the race.To which Mrs B replied "Oh no Scobie hasn't had a bet since he stopped riding"
Priceless
interesting OP. regarding Alex Bird though - aren't there only a few photo finishes a day?
in the days of no instant pics i would say average half of a flat meeting would need a foto, but he would only need one
but surely in many races you watch on tv, 80% you know the winner straight away from your own eyes
I guess I'm thinking from the perspective of television view so fair point
In the days of Bird a photo had to be produced if the distance was
thought to be a neck or less, but to be able to bet the winner in the
case of anything other than a short head or a dead heat, is fanciful.
thought to be a neck or less, but to be able to bet the winner in the
case of anything other than a short head or a dead heat, is fanciful.
The prototype photofinish camera - based on the notion of photographing moving objects through a slit onto a continuous strip of film - was first used to decide placings in the Grand Metropolitan Handicap at Epsom on 22 April 1947: the winner Star Song was a length to the good, but the Judge needed to consult the photo before deciding that Parhelion was second, a head in front of Salubrious. In the 1948 season a photograph was called upon to decide the outcome of horse races on 119 occasions, and the same year photofinish technology was used for the first time in the Olympic Games, held in London.
The following year a photo was first called upon to decide the outcome of a Classic race in England when Nimbus beat Abernant a short head in the 1949 Two Thousand Guineas at Newmarket. Later the same season it was first used to determine the outcome of the Derby, when the Judge called for the evidence of the camera before announcing Nimbus the winner by a head from Amour Drake, with Swallow Tail another head away in third. Before long the photofinish became an accepted - indeed, an essential - part of horse racing, and its regular use spread to other sports (notably greyhound racing, trotting, cycling, athletics, even speed skating) which involve the likelihood of very close finishes.
The following year a photo was first called upon to decide the outcome of a Classic race in England when Nimbus beat Abernant a short head in the 1949 Two Thousand Guineas at Newmarket. Later the same season it was first used to determine the outcome of the Derby, when the Judge called for the evidence of the camera before announcing Nimbus the winner by a head from Amour Drake, with Swallow Tail another head away in third. Before long the photofinish became an accepted - indeed, an essential - part of horse racing, and its regular use spread to other sports (notably greyhound racing, trotting, cycling, athletics, even speed skating) which involve the likelihood of very close finishes.
and for judges that like dead heats ...
the modern procedure for photographing horses as they cross the finish line is a far cry from the early methods, and it is only comparatively recently that the fully computerised photofinish system - Scan-O-Vision - has been in widespread use.
The fundamental principle is the same as before – photographing runners as they pass through a very narrow field of vision - but the technology, once based around a spool of continuous moving film, is now state-of-the-art. Two digital cameras are fixed in place in the photofinish booth high in the stand - one to cover the whole width of the track and the other to focus on that part of the course furthest away from the camera in order to make maximum use of the strip of mirror (1800 mm x 150 mm) attached to the winning post. This allows the Judge to see what is happening from the far side of the course if the horses are so close together that the view from the Judge's box does not afford enough information.
The pictures these cameras produce are made up of millions of tiny dots known as 'pixels', and a vertical line of these dots photographs the activity on the winning line up to 2,000 times a second, building up the photofinish picture as the horses go through.
To accommodate racecourses with wider home straights, in 2009 Racetech introduced a new photofinish system which utilises an infield camera to replace the mirror camera. This provides the Judge with a clearer image of finishing horses further away from his viewing position.
In the old days film had to be processed before the Judge could deliver his or her verdict. Now the Judge simply has to examine the image, which is instantly presented on the monitor, with a vertical white line added to represent the winning line. The aim is to announce the result of the photofinish within twenty seconds - compared with several minutes under the old system. Not that the old system did not enjoy a long and honourable life.
the modern procedure for photographing horses as they cross the finish line is a far cry from the early methods, and it is only comparatively recently that the fully computerised photofinish system - Scan-O-Vision - has been in widespread use.
The fundamental principle is the same as before – photographing runners as they pass through a very narrow field of vision - but the technology, once based around a spool of continuous moving film, is now state-of-the-art. Two digital cameras are fixed in place in the photofinish booth high in the stand - one to cover the whole width of the track and the other to focus on that part of the course furthest away from the camera in order to make maximum use of the strip of mirror (1800 mm x 150 mm) attached to the winning post. This allows the Judge to see what is happening from the far side of the course if the horses are so close together that the view from the Judge's box does not afford enough information.
The pictures these cameras produce are made up of millions of tiny dots known as 'pixels', and a vertical line of these dots photographs the activity on the winning line up to 2,000 times a second, building up the photofinish picture as the horses go through.
To accommodate racecourses with wider home straights, in 2009 Racetech introduced a new photofinish system which utilises an infield camera to replace the mirror camera. This provides the Judge with a clearer image of finishing horses further away from his viewing position.
In the old days film had to be processed before the Judge could deliver his or her verdict. Now the Judge simply has to examine the image, which is instantly presented on the monitor, with a vertical white line added to represent the winning line. The aim is to announce the result of the photofinish within twenty seconds - compared with several minutes under the old system. Not that the old system did not enjoy a long and honourable life.
I can't talk about the horses, but from my time on the dog tracks a photo finish could be very profitable to the one who had seen it properly. The point kenilworth misses is that even if the tic tac comes back to his boss and says something like, "The six has won by a head", if Trap 6 is a skinner in the book you could invariably get 1/5 offered up about something even the bookie thought had probably already won. The bigger the skinner, the closer the margin of victory, the better the odds available of course. This is where I'm sure Mr Bird prospered. Plus he also mentioned I remember about an anomaly which I agree on about the human eye favouring the runner furthest away. I invariably called out the trap of what I thought was the losing dog just to try and plant a seed of doubt in others around me.
The most bizarre time I remember to illustrate how much things could be mistaken was when I'd backed a winner at Hove (which didn't happen often enough, let me say, haven't bet on the dogs for an age)and was standing in front of the book and the guy was quite cheery with his workers. He looked at me and politely (they were a good bunch there I always thought)but questioningly offered: "You backed the 3". I informed him it had won. No action with the other books was happening either, the result of the photo was a formality to everyone, ie. the 3 had not won in people's minds. "Nah, 6 is the winner". I offered to bet a five for one on about the 3 dog, and just then they announce the winner. He was pretty shocked.
The most bizarre time I remember to illustrate how much things could be mistaken was when I'd backed a winner at Hove (which didn't happen often enough, let me say, haven't bet on the dogs for an age)and was standing in front of the book and the guy was quite cheery with his workers. He looked at me and politely (they were a good bunch there I always thought)but questioningly offered: "You backed the 3". I informed him it had won. No action with the other books was happening either, the result of the photo was a formality to everyone, ie. the 3 had not won in people's minds. "Nah, 6 is the winner". I offered to bet a five for one on about the 3 dog, and just then they announce the winner. He was pretty shocked.
Raf, I understand what you are saying, and accept what you say about betting, say
1/5 the rag in the photo, but bookmakers don't like giving money away even if the
result suits them. I used to work at the dogs and there were occasions, as you say
the winner could be backed but not often and usually to small money (£50 to win £10)
and swiftly wiped off! but Bird's book suggested hundreds of calls in favour of the
author, involving massive amounts of money, in pre war days, which IMO, was ridiculous.
1/5 the rag in the photo, but bookmakers don't like giving money away even if the
result suits them. I used to work at the dogs and there were occasions, as you say
the winner could be backed but not often and usually to small money (£50 to win £10)
and swiftly wiped off! but Bird's book suggested hundreds of calls in favour of the
author, involving massive amounts of money, in pre war days, which IMO, was ridiculous.
I just can't believe there were that many close calls in day's racing. If you go to any meeting and are anywhere near the finish line it is rare that you have more than a single race where you can't call the winner yourself in realtime.
In horseracing it too would strike me as significantly less likely, however, a different era I wasn't part of.
Crikey kenilworth, they were some jumpy books round your way, I hope they weren't laying £10/£50 after knocking them back from a £500 bet! I used to think a close one would come about every meet and a betting opportunity maybe every other on average.
Crikey kenilworth, they were some jumpy books round your way, I hope they weren't laying £10/£50 after knocking them back from a £500 bet! I used to think a close one would come about every meet and a betting opportunity maybe every other on average.
Raf, bookmakers get a bit jumpy when they are offering a price
about a dog that has almost certainly won, and they definitely
wouldn't be looking for £500 bets, just enough to clear their
liability on the bogie.
about a dog that has almost certainly won, and they definitely
wouldn't be looking for £500 bets, just enough to clear their
liability on the bogie.
donny osmond tells us:
The prototype photofinish camera - based on the notion of photographing moving objects through a slit onto a continuous strip of film - was first used to decide placings in the Grand Metropolitan Handicap at Epsom on 22 April 1947
So kenilworth comes back with:
Bird's book suggested hundreds of calls in favour of the
author, involving massive amounts of money, in pre war days, which IMO, was ridiculous.
Kenilworth, can you honestly not see who is being ridiculous here? Fair enough, you admit you couldn't be arsed to read Bird's book, but saw that as no obstacle to ridiculing its contents. But then to claim World War 2 started some time after 1947 really is straining your credibility a bit.
Just to repeat: sixty years ago there was no televised racing. Without TV the results of many photo finishes were not "obvious"; and, of those which apparently were, a significant number were wrongly judged by onlookers because of the optical illusion Bird alone had discovered. Hence the fact that for a limited period he could get large bets on the winners of certain photo finishes.
His book never claimed there were the "hundreds" of opportunities kenilworth invented off the top of his head; Bird describes arguing with his wife in order to interrupt holidays to fly to a course where the photo finish was operating, as he knew this cash cow was both rare and of limited shelf-life. He was fortunate to be operating in the immediate post-War period, when UK betting rings were awash with cash from demobbed servicemen and black marketeers.
And outside of the photo betting he was still a punter, commission agent and a pretty substantial owner, so it wasn't a case of implausibly going racing just to wait for photo finishes.
The prototype photofinish camera - based on the notion of photographing moving objects through a slit onto a continuous strip of film - was first used to decide placings in the Grand Metropolitan Handicap at Epsom on 22 April 1947
So kenilworth comes back with:
Bird's book suggested hundreds of calls in favour of the
author, involving massive amounts of money, in pre war days, which IMO, was ridiculous.
Kenilworth, can you honestly not see who is being ridiculous here? Fair enough, you admit you couldn't be arsed to read Bird's book, but saw that as no obstacle to ridiculing its contents. But then to claim World War 2 started some time after 1947 really is straining your credibility a bit.
Just to repeat: sixty years ago there was no televised racing. Without TV the results of many photo finishes were not "obvious"; and, of those which apparently were, a significant number were wrongly judged by onlookers because of the optical illusion Bird alone had discovered. Hence the fact that for a limited period he could get large bets on the winners of certain photo finishes.
His book never claimed there were the "hundreds" of opportunities kenilworth invented off the top of his head; Bird describes arguing with his wife in order to interrupt holidays to fly to a course where the photo finish was operating, as he knew this cash cow was both rare and of limited shelf-life. He was fortunate to be operating in the immediate post-War period, when UK betting rings were awash with cash from demobbed servicemen and black marketeers.
And outside of the photo betting he was still a punter, commission agent and a pretty substantial owner, so it wasn't a case of implausibly going racing just to wait for photo finishes.
...probably his most famous was his success on betting on the result of photo
finishes. Unlike today, a photo finish would take about 5 minutes to develop, there
was always an active market on the outcome and very early on bird noticed when horses
finished close together, an optical illusion meant the horse on the far side
invariably looked like it had won. he also discovered a simple technique which meant
the illusion didn't occur. He stood at an elevated vantage point as near to the winning
post as possible, he would keep very still, close his left eye and create an imaginary
line across the track at the finishing line. He used this simple method for 20 years and
made himself a fortune, with a reported 500 consecutive successful bets.
500 consecutive successful bets...made himself a fortune... only Bird noticed...
When I reached that bit in the book, it coincided with me putting the book down,
as there was no point reading on, screaming, if you believe that, you will
believe anything.
finishes. Unlike today, a photo finish would take about 5 minutes to develop, there
was always an active market on the outcome and very early on bird noticed when horses
finished close together, an optical illusion meant the horse on the far side
invariably looked like it had won. he also discovered a simple technique which meant
the illusion didn't occur. He stood at an elevated vantage point as near to the winning
post as possible, he would keep very still, close his left eye and create an imaginary
line across the track at the finishing line. He used this simple method for 20 years and
made himself a fortune, with a reported 500 consecutive successful bets.
500 consecutive successful bets...made himself a fortune... only Bird noticed...
When I reached that bit in the book, it coincided with me putting the book down,
as there was no point reading on, screaming, if you believe that, you will
believe anything.
Show me where Bird himself claims that in the book. If you can, I take it back, but I can't find any reference by Bird himself to 500 consecutive winners.
He describes getting it wrong one day at Epsom, right in the middle of his run of winners, and losing £3,200. "Luckily, that was at the height of my success. If it had happened in the early months of my photo finish bets I would have lost the confidence to go on."
In the same passage in chapter 8 he also describes how the success tailed off: "Bookmakers, tired of my one-way traffic, put their own men on the line. They were photo finish experts at greyhound racing, where decisions were more difficult to make than in horse racing. They had learned the hard way and knew the importance of keeping one's head still. The betting market weakened from then on and as I was not prepared to bet for coppers, I called it a day."
And this, I suppose, is the state of the market with which you and most of the rest of us are familiar. But Bird's point was that it didn't settle down that way the very instant photo finishes were introduced. Like any betting innovation, there were initially one or two heavy winners and a lot of losers, but it doesn't go on for ever. Betfair's a modern example of that.
He describes getting it wrong one day at Epsom, right in the middle of his run of winners, and losing £3,200. "Luckily, that was at the height of my success. If it had happened in the early months of my photo finish bets I would have lost the confidence to go on."
In the same passage in chapter 8 he also describes how the success tailed off: "Bookmakers, tired of my one-way traffic, put their own men on the line. They were photo finish experts at greyhound racing, where decisions were more difficult to make than in horse racing. They had learned the hard way and knew the importance of keeping one's head still. The betting market weakened from then on and as I was not prepared to bet for coppers, I called it a day."
And this, I suppose, is the state of the market with which you and most of the rest of us are familiar. But Bird's point was that it didn't settle down that way the very instant photo finishes were introduced. Like any betting innovation, there were initially one or two heavy winners and a lot of losers, but it doesn't go on for ever. Betfair's a modern example of that.
I've never noticed any claim of 500 consecutive winners in Bird's autobiography and I couldn't find any reference when leafing through it again via references in the index to photo finishes. It made me suspicious of your assertion you put down the book at that point - maybe you hadn't picked it up in the first place.
Bird's long dead now and inevitably subject to all sorts of revisions and myths. I never met the man, but for what it's worth the criticism I heard from his contemporaries was that he downplayed the significance of his income from putting money on for wealthy owners. He appeared in the end to be using his network of helpers to act as a commission agent.
Nothing wrong with that - if you find a way of making money legitimately from the game, then well done. It's just not as exciting a story as winning via the clock, the form book or racereading.
But until this thread I'd never come across anyone who doubted the money he made from exploiting his understanding of the photo finish illusion.
Bird's long dead now and inevitably subject to all sorts of revisions and myths. I never met the man, but for what it's worth the criticism I heard from his contemporaries was that he downplayed the significance of his income from putting money on for wealthy owners. He appeared in the end to be using his network of helpers to act as a commission agent.
Nothing wrong with that - if you find a way of making money legitimately from the game, then well done. It's just not as exciting a story as winning via the clock, the form book or racereading.
But until this thread I'd never come across anyone who doubted the money he made from exploiting his understanding of the photo finish illusion.
if somebody had started a thread criticising alex bird, kenilworth would have leapt to birds defence and lauded his prowess
screaming, did you 'google' Alex Bird? If you had, you would
have seen it as first insertion, but obvious you chose not to
look for it. I'm wondering whether you actually have his book.
have seen it as first insertion, but obvious you chose not to
look for it. I'm wondering whether you actually have his book.
Sweetie, I believe nothing I am told, and about half of what
I see. It's paid me to do that, I assure you.
I see. It's paid me to do that, I assure you.
ken you believe nothing you're told cos your hearing aids not working and only half what you see cos of your cataracts , be fair
come on now , somebody winning hundreds of thousands on photo finishes ?
Dont you think the bookies would have been more cautious ?
Dont you think the bookies would have been more cautious ?
ZEALOT, there are fools on this thread who will believe
anything, especially Sweetchildofmine.(Sweety for short)
anything, especially Sweetchildofmine.(Sweety for short)
I just can't believe there were that many close calls in day's racing. If you go to any meeting and are anywhere near the finish line it is rare that you have more than a single race where you can't call the winner yourself in realtime.
this.
and Zealot is a douche imo
this.
and Zealot is a douche imo
The piece about Bird and his 500 consecutive, repeat consecutive photo finish bets
is there on google but as it doesn't suit certain peoples arguments it is ignored.
Some things never change.
is there on google but as it doesn't suit certain peoples arguments it is ignored.
Some things never change.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539