General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I'm so often really bemused by the horse markets on here - specifically seeing gambles that are totally wrong in terms of the results.
Just wondered if anyone else had noticed this a lot and considered it? See huge amounts sometimes pushing a horse into very short prices, then it runs like a dog. (On the other side, seen quite a lot of crazy drifts followed by horses winning).
I really wonder about these cases - in many ways completely counter to the usual conspiracy views of markets in racing. Many often suggest plots etc being behind gambles, and 'money always talks' etc etc....so why does this happen so much that the money is wrong?
Like to hear the views of experienced horse market players particularly, whether your a trader or a position taker.
Just wondered if anyone else had noticed this a lot and considered it? See huge amounts sometimes pushing a horse into very short prices, then it runs like a dog. (On the other side, seen quite a lot of crazy drifts followed by horses winning).
I really wonder about these cases - in many ways completely counter to the usual conspiracy views of markets in racing. Many often suggest plots etc being behind gambles, and 'money always talks' etc etc....so why does this happen so much that the money is wrong?
Like to hear the views of experienced horse market players particularly, whether your a trader or a position taker.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 103
|
By:
ps. should add, I understand some shorten in line with inrunning (e.g. early leader) but I'm really meaning gambles that aren't related to that issue.
|
|
By:
easy i suppose..connections think they have a horse thats very very good and should win...several other connections in the same race have better horses..gamble foiled
thats just one of many examples |
|
By:
It's the frequency I see weight of money that loses which gets me though - surely not so many connections that keep getting it wrong?
|
|
By:
Saw a horse other day with roughly level form with main opposition - backed all way into about 2.8 (from 4.0 which was about right) - ran about 4th I think in the race. Just could not get it. Was exposed form too.
|
|
By:
Maybe it just proves that racing isn't anywhere near as corrupt as people make it out to be. If every race was r1gged the "smart" money would be right every time, would it not?
Maybe the "smart" money isn't so "smart" after all? Punting markets aren't always logical. Horse players will back and lay horses for all sorts of reasons. A big player may back a horse because of a brilliant private track gallop, ignoring the fact that the jockey is a muppet or the horse is racing at an unsuitable distance. Other punters then follow the big punter's lead like lemmings off a cliff and hey presto ... another heavily backed favorite bites the dust. It's just human behaviour ... don't do your head in trying to work it out. |
|
By:
Agree with most of that PP - however it does do my head in a little, as I've been trying to use the BF markets for my operations elsewhere - having difficulty too!
|
|
By:
My main issue is whether BF markets are actually any good as indicators.
|
|
By:
A track that used to pay well following last minute money was Tampa on U.S. racing.
Every night there was racing, there would be one race where the price would collapse on the screen with money coming in, betfair usually following but still offering a %. I qould put a couple of quid on and it worked 75% of the time at the track. I mentioned it to a circle I know in the states and joked how the briefcases from Tampa to Atlantic city were being opened and slid under the glass a minute before the off. Several came back saying that Tampa was where all the 'old boys' from the east coast would make their money while retired in Florida and still had big touches. It didn't come down to corruption. Came down to old skool stop watches at training, getting the inside scoop then watching the conditions the first few races then, bam, they told their contacts to hit the shops. I don't follow it religiously as I did, but this was up until last fall I still noticed it. |
|
By:
THERES PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT HAVE LOADS AND LOADS OF MONEY AND KNOW WHAT THEIR DOING .LIKE THE PEOPLE ON THE STOCK MARKET.THEY CAN USE US MUGS AS CANNON FODDER AND TURN US INSIDE OUT
|
|
By:
THEY ARE MANIPULATORS .THAT CAN .ANIPULATE WHEN EVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT
|
|
By:
THEY ARE LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT MAKE EVERYONE BELIEVE THAT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO BUY SHARES IN DOT COM FIRMS .AND EVERYBODY BUYS THEM THEN WITH ALL THEIR MONEY.THEY SELL ALL THE SHARES AND MAKE BILLIONS.THEY DID THE SAME WITH THE PROPERTY MARKET THEY GOT EVERYBODY BUYING PROPERTIES WITH INFLATED PRICES THEN CRASHES THE MARKET .THEIR OUT THERE WAITING FOR THE MUGS TO FOLLOW. I KNOW BECAUSE IM A PRIZE MUG
|
|
By:
They also have so much money that their keyboard has both capital and lower case letters....
|
|
By:
Surely if your idea is right just back the horses who are going out needlessly and become a millionaire.
Could there be a slight possibility that your theory is rubbish and the markets are efficient? Well its just about 100% certain that you are and they are. |
|
By:
Who stated this was a 'theory'? Do you have one? I am asking for opinions on heavily backed horses that run badly.
|
|
By:
If they were efficient, why would this happen?
|
|
By:
look for horses that habitually shorten significantly in price in play as opposed to their starting odds....a horse in example running yesterday in 14 runs only once failed to shorten more than 50% in all its races since debut
|
|
By:
It's another good example of inefficiency yes - the inrunning prices, although I was specifically meaning pre-race prices in my original point. But I agree some of the inrunning prices are even further off.
|
|
By:
i think you missed the point slightly
 |
|
By:
I suspect that some very good napsters in BF Competition Leagues may trigger market moves where odds reduce. Some people probably back them if odds are value, and get on before the odds reduce.
Bookmakers may also shorten odds for certain napsters selections,and based on other information they might have, which may well trigger reduction in odds on BF. Say one good napster gets good odds winners enough to scrape a profit at SP .....it does not mean they get it "right" with every selection.....more often they will get it "wrong", but they are probably betting at value odds well above what the BFSP is. Thus they can make a profit in Leagues at SP ....and further profit because they are probably getting far higher odds at BF SP. The over all market is generally "efficient" the way bookmakers operate.............the overround is in their favour. "When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." Many traders follow market moves.....and they get on at right time, then get out at right time well enough to get a sardine whether horse wins or loses. If you have the ability to recognise when odds are value, then you might be the one that gets on BEFORE the odds tumble. The selection might not win, but if you are backing them based on your view generally get it right enough to make a profit....that is all that counts. |
|
By:
Often connections start false gambles on horses to let all the mugs follow in, then back there's on the quiet without being noticed. Also doesn't help with the idiots on ATR say gamble landed when the winner goes 9/4 into 7/4 they make it seem like following the money always works.
|
|
By:
SHAPESHIFTER
SHAPESHIFTER 28 Jun 14 21:12 Joined: 04 Apr 03 | Topic/replies: 2,964 | Blogger: SHAPESHIFTER's blog They also have so much money that their keyboard has both capital and lower case letters....  |
|
By:
The assumption that when a horses's price tumbles it ALWAYS means "connections are on",is completely wrong.There can be several reasons for a price shrinkage.Perhaps a tipping service has given the horse,or maybe the Ladbrokes/Hills rep. has gone round the course bookmakers saying here's £200,get the price of that one down".Happens all the time.
|
|
By:
Unless you've got stats to prove otherwise surely the consensus is that the BF market is incredibly accurate? Especially the last ten minutes before a race. Some people think there isn't a "THEY" but have a listen to the Mulrennan and Dwyer tape and tell me this doesn't happen every single day - jockeys decide whose is most fancied and all on that one.
|
|
By:
Plus imo the sport is full of drugs and THEY can bet with more confidence when they know the electric carrots are available.
|
|
By:
An interesting post for the other type of market wronguns from today too:
http://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/30295531/sureness---drifters-do-win#flvWelcomeHeader |
|
By:
Ocean - I have certain stats yes, but not done a full analysis of this issue.
|
|
By:
The question is also not about the markets 'as a whole' but these specific cases...
|
|
By:
"Unless you've got stats to prove otherwise surely the consensus is that the BF market is incredibly accurate?"
This is surely correct! If the markets are wrong on a regular basis in an easily determinable way it would be a virtual license to become wealthy. |
|
By:
My guess would be late, sustained money = accurate. Any other type of money would depend on connections and all the other variables.
You must have other examples where the horse is backed all morning then drifts late on as it finds it's price. |
|
By:
It's an interesting distinction Ocean about the timing - however, I've observed a lot of these 'wrong money' moves coming late too.
|
|
By:
"I've observed a lot of these 'wrong money' moves coming late too." Stu.Why don't you start talking about numbers.Saying you've seen "a lot" etc. is meaningless.How many are you talking about 10,20,100,1,000 ? Lets have some figures.
|
|
By:
I'm not trying to 'prove' something here fellas, which some seem to think I am! I only care whether markets are correct in terms of using them as a guide.
I am just trying to understand why heavy money appears to be unrelated to how the animal runs. I find it slightly strange that others don't observe this as much as I do. |
|
By:
artie - it's sporadic but regular every day in the markets in my opinion, take a guess how often then about a couple of times a day for the very heavy moves that are unrelated to the strength of the horse's run.
|
|
By:
You're saying two horses a day ?
|
|
By:
It's a bit of guess - I'm only doing that because you asked, but maybe around that for very heavy moves that are unrelated.
|
|
By:
again, what you'd class as very heavy is of course subjective, but large amounts backing moving a price significantly.
|
|
By:
How many horses do you see per day that are backed and win,or nearly win ?
|
|
By:
I get your point artie - I'm asking about the subset where it's unrelated to running strength.
|
|
By:
Some have already suggested example reasons, and the post from the horse forum today is interesting too.
|