General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 103 comments are related to the topic:
Gambles on horses that are wrong
Gambles on horses that are wrong
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 103
|
By:
I think that if you are trying to get some financial benefit by studying the betting market.i.e. clues to what is expected to win etc.,you are wasting your time .
|
|
By:
This wasn't meant to be a strategy post per se - more a discussion of when masses of money goes missing, as I notice it enough to make me ask the question.
|
|
By:
Like I said, I'm surprised others don't find it so odd or notable.
|
|
By:
Guess my underlying question is what criteria the backers are using in these cases.
|
|
By:
Is that the question?
If you don't "know" why a gamble goes wrong, then do you know why a gamble wins? If you "know" why a gamble wins, then you would know why they lose.   |
|
By:
Obviously knowing for certain would mean that I'd be a millionaire
 Doesn't stop anyone discussing the reasons though (as some suggestions above)... |
|
By:
But to remind you, I mean only when they are 'wrong'.
|
|
By:
There was an interesting post in the horse forum one I put up above...suggested rumour-mongers influencing prices deliberately. I often wonder about that one.
|
|
By:
I've been surprised by the number of times I've seen horses backed on Betfair at points below what is available with Bookies, creating an Arb for £100+. Why would someone do this? Some have been gambles and won but I doubt if you would profit by following all of them.
I think that there are so few people operating in the early markets that false gambles can be created by bots jumping over each other to join in what they see as a gamble. |
|
By:
stu - I strongly suggest that you need to apply your mind as to why gambles that WIN.....WIN.
If you manage to puzzle that out, then you might be able to identify gambles which may lose. Why waste your time on the negatives....be positive on gambles that WIN, then you might learn more about factors that are important to a horse's chances of winning. Favourites lose roughly 66 % of races.....so they fall into the category of gambles that lose, and therefore "wrong". So it happens every day......so compare the WINNERS' factors against the losing favourites factors and perhaps this will take you on the road of enlightenment  |
|
By:
Well that's not really true is it - you can lay as well as back on here!
However, as I said above, I'm interested in these markets as indicators, so that's where my real interest lies currently. |
|
By:
* My first comment was in reply to your point that focussing on gambles that WIN is more important.
|
|
By:
But I take the point about making the comparison, yes
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
a horse significantly reducing in odds doesnt always mean a huge monetary gamble... today for example i looked at the graph for a horse that had come in from 45 to about 16 and it had only taken roughly 200 pounds to force that downward line
|
|
By:
Yep in small markets without much money it doesn't mean much.
|
|
By:
EW horses where there are a group of 'owners' can also plunge a price.
When 28 over 75's go to the ring two minutes before the off and put down a 5'er each on a 28/1 slot, the spike is as obvious as their hair colour. |
|
By:
gamble of the race only won one race so far today, 4/6 sp
 |
|
By:
when you have people trading ( not straight backing or laying ) in a near 100% market , it's easy for someone with market knowledge to manipulate the market in there favour , without even knowing if the horse is trying today or not
just my view |
|
By:
Brighton evening races were notorious for blocks being put up two ticks away from the betting to push the price in.
|
|
By:
I guess that is the other big factor in this question - which is the role of 'trading' moves rather than backing moves. I always think smashing a price down is risky though, even if you are trading, but some may see it otherwise.
|
|
By:
always found the horses that are not gambles the most interesting, the ones that win at big prices and are not backed in the markets.
|
|
By:
Yes, also interesting - you wonder how no-one knew in those cases...
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
LINE OF REASON 1st 18/1 won at the curragh last weekend, dont think that horse was slow, did have the lowest weight in the race, lots of clues in the form book as to why this horse had a good chance on the day, if you know what your looking at. guess sometimes slow horses can run the race of their lives, dont look out for slow horses myself.
|
|
By:
Maiden winners at big prices surprise me sometimes - wonder how the trainers must have known they were pretty decent at home, yet the books put up a big price for the same horse. Not sure how they would run the race of their lives yet never show it at home? Possible though I guess?
|
|
By:
You can rarely actually win a race while being 'slow'!
|
|
By:
Which is why the gambles don't make sense then...the bigger prices were correct as they factored that in.
|
|
By:
When I see a horse go from 4.0 to 2.8 (with exposed form) I assume that someone is very sure there is a gap in ability for that specific race. Any doubt in the animal, and it is very foolish to back it at 2.8
|
|
By:
I'm also talking about clearly weak runs in these cases - that's a long way short of just 'not winning' remember...
|
|
By:
That example I gave from higher up (4.0 into 2.8 with exposed form) ran only into a struggling 4th place.
|
|
By:
Beaten a short head and I would more understand them.
|
|
By:
I often put up a nap in competition at "good" odds when I post it........then , most of time, it is backed into shortened odds on BF......and the bookmakers follow the trawler.
Now and then they a selection will run a bad race.....2 days ago I posted a nap that was approximately 17.5-1 on BF. It reduced in last 5 mins before off from 15-1 SP to 7-1 SP..................finished last. I had already selected it before checking RPost and there were some favourable comments there about the horse. This might have been the "reason" why it shortened in odds. I had problems accessing my computer that day, and took me 25 mins before I could post a nap in comp........and the horse I wanted to post won at 6-1 SP, but I could not post it in time for comp....so quickly picked the 17.5 - 1 BF odds one. So I still suspect some punters are backing my selections , probably to trade, and it effects the odds on BF , then effects the bookies odds. I had a bad day re the 2nd selection.....it happens. Yesterday the nap won at 5-1 SP.....it actually increased in odds after I posted it ( very very unusual !)......perhaps the ones who backed my nap the day before ignored that one . |
|
By:
|
|
By:
DCF - with that record shouldn't you be massively ahead just by trading your own selections!
|
|
By:
My mindset is more "backer" orientated.........trading just does not appeal to me.
|
|
By:
Fair enough, it is a somewhat different game.
|
|
By:
Just to go back to that example King - I think it (and this whole issue) relates closely to your view of how inside/knowing/corrupt racing is in general.
|
|
By:
yesterday horse drits from 3.9 to 13s....cruises into lead and just ties up.....another race horse opens 22s into 8.....into 1.01
|
|
By:
2 different races
|