3.5 fav slips up at ascot......2077 traded at 1000

He says 'seems like a safe lay' in a post where he is stating that they should be much shorter, so to me he is saying it is not.

Thanks for making the point tobermoray.

FRANKEL obviously is an exceptional horse and would be TOP RATED in every race.....if I rated the race probably.

It would be odds on in every race....and would be likely to win.

Such extreme odds on shots IF THEY ARE TOP RATED........then I certainly would not back it to win at such low odds.......However, the SFC type bet would then be the bet choice with FRANKEL being the winner...and 2nd top and 3rd top rated horses being in SFC to be 2nd ( 2 bets etc ).

Most favourites are NOT odds on shots.....and not as good as FRANKEL.

I'll check to see if there was a race rated that had an odds on shot in it on 6th March 2009 to see how I rated it and what result was......

Next race where odds on shot on that day was :-

19:50   Handicap 4yo plus 7f Class 5  11 runners Standard

1,Romantic Verse   12 4TH F  BFSP17.5  LOW ODDS IR 18
2,Dancing Maite                   3RD 14-1SP 5TH F BFSP 20  LOW ODDS IR 4    1&3:£29.90 
3,Royal Challenge                 2ND 40-1 SP  BFSP 49 LOW ODDS IR 8.8    1&2:£12.40  WITH FAV  2&3 £0.00. WITH 2ND TR
4,Mr Macattack                           1ST 4-6FStraight Forecast: £53.65  Tricast: £264.60  Exacta: £29.80 
5,Kipchak             11-2 JT 2ND/3RD FAV
6,Tri Chara          11-2 JT 2ND/3RD FAV
------------------------------------------------------------
7,Misterisland    N/R
8,Albero di Giuda      50
9,Sarwin              16
10,Rubenstar              20
11,Dhhamaan              100
12,Kabeer             40




A bit similar to the previous race in that the odds on shot won.......and the first 3 home were all above the line....


Happy enough with standard of ratings....though again this would be a losing race.

tobermory 22 Jun 13 14:40 
The RANK position of a horse in a rated race will for example then indicate a horse's chance of winning.

A horse say rated 3rd top rated is a 2-1 shot for comparison purposes. If the horse is 3rd top rated and is at SP odds of 3-1, then it is a "value" back.


DFC ,with that system you would have decided the 2nd/ 3rd favs would always have been value backs against Frankel . They were usually double figure odds, and even that was poor value against such a horse.

It's very simple to look at the form and decide which order horses should be in the betting but the probability depends on precisely how much better the favourite is than the 2nd fav etc

=============================================================================================


Generally i don't care how better the fav is to that of 2nd and 3rd favs etc....I just go by what RATINGS indicate are the value bets.

The "probability" ....that is the measure I use is just the RANK position being the indicator of odds/chances of winning........You got to "trust" the system even when you "like" a horse's chances of winning that the system does not rate highly!

I remember a GRAND NATIONAL race I rated ( the only one taken on) where COMPLY OR DIE was rated BELOW the LINE! Just no way i would have layed that one as.....I liked the horse's chance to win BUT THE SYSTEM DIDN'T........However, the system is generally "correct" and i am generally "WRONG"

If I had layed COMPLY OR DIE , then using the RANK POSITION and odds.....the other horses that should be layed were ....

RANK NUMBER
14
16
26
31
37


So damage on a lay winning would help to negate the loss on winner.....

There are lots of simple systems out there that return small ROIs year in, year out. But 1% ROI is not enough for your average 'all-in' 'I want it now' punter. Patience, mindset & money management is just as important as finding something that works (an EDGE).

definition of an edge: 'Something that works after several thousand bets'

i have produced a form based system thatb has given me consistant profits over a three year system. last season i had a 74% ROI

all true i have no reason to lie

thanks sweet child all my results can be viewed on another forum since i do not post my tips on here anymore due to the abuse i had to suffer from a minority off ill informed and misguided individuals. i am hoping that my system will continue to give me a healthy profit in the forthcoming season

dragon, sorry about that dig of mine, as you didn't
deserve it considering your honesty. Mind you, 74% rpi,
is not possible IMO, perhaps you meant 7.4%

spot on scm the forum i go on has a smallnumber well informed individuals who share information and thoughts on all sorts of betting

gtfi runs been going for about 18mths now has about 70 members. main problem is getting a wide level of contribution but its defo worth a look i will addy it

no probs

thats a good shout zealot..the vast majority of unlucky horses are over bet

Zealot define 'unlucky' and there are hundreds of football matches 24/7, nearly every day of the year. That would take some managing.

each bet DOES NOT have to be judged on its merit .

no need to be rude is there Zealot?

I don't believe in luck so therefore don't believe in 'unlucky' horses. If you mean horses that find trouble invariably they will continue to find trouble - it's in their nature. So if you mean this - then yes - it is a generally well-known way of making money. Missing the break, falling, jockey mistiming his effort, etc is not 'unlucky' it's just bad performance in my eyes. Part & parcel of the sport if you like.

My account is in profit and ticking along nicely - not bad for a zombie. I use click and win systems btw. There are dozens out there. Like I said, people generally don't get a large enough sample size so give up at the first signs of trouble. Vice versa, they dive in headfirst after a small sample because it was looking good, only for the edge to be false and their money disappear. Poor bank management is another reason why most fail.

Finally, 1% ROI is not good enough for the 'want it now' punters. They don't have the mindset to be successful so ramble from one system to the next hoping to find a 'golden oak' that will give them 30%. You won't find it testing ten bets, it depends on the sport & potential turnover, but you need at least 500 in a sample IMO. Of course having the time and patience to test out systems is another factor in people failing.

It is incredibly boring, logging on and waiting for your selections all day long. There can be two hour breaks inbetween races. You can be watching some sh i te football all day long in Japan, Argentina or Turkey, etc. Then there is the rigmorale of getting matched at the price you want. So even if you do find the formula it doesn't mean you live a bed of roses.

I read a book on 'golden oaks' I forgot the author. I will dig it out sometime and post his 'golden oaks'. The fact he has written a book about it and potentially hundreds of readers using the same systems means they are probably useless now in all honesty. But I recommend reading it to give you an idea of how and why some simple things work.

The main thing for me is 'logic', is there a good reason why it's working and is it likely to continue? Backing your fourth best rated because it's the only way your sample returns a profit is obviously not logical and unlikely to continue. Similar to backing all horses beginning with R or something ridiculous. Is there sound logic? If so it could be an edge. Think outside the box and be prepared for the long haul.

A well known Golden Oak is laying short favs in heavy going. It works year in, year out, there is sound logic and will always continue. You won't make enough to retire but it all adds up and goes in the pot.

ROI is often confused for return on turnover, as seen here. My ROT was less than 2% last year but that represented a healthy 600% ROI :)

How about jockey taking wrong course near end of race when in lead.......this surely is just down to BAD LUCK if you backed it...and GOOD LUCK if you get the winner after such an occurrence or layed the one not taking correct course.


Generally such an occurrence should not prevent you being a long term winner ....but LUCK does exist IMO with racing .......

Odd occurrences are more likely to happen in FOOTBALL though....such as one LIVERPOOL player scoring a good goal to give team lead...then sticking hand up to give penalty away , then biting opponent late in match! For 1 player to be involved in all 3 occurrences in 1 match is not run of the mill ......you might say just part and parcel of FOOTBALL, and it is, but on that game LUCK has taken a hand to effect outcome, as it often does in FOOTBALL betting.