Alleged everyone knows about those problems when having a bet, don't they? Surely I don't have to list them? It's like breathing in and out. Not everything wins you know. I do back losers like Australia in the 2000 Gns. Like Treve. That goes with the territory. The idea is to make more off the winners than you lose on the losers. That's the challenge.

Fig it's a mindset. Of course not everything wins but if I have done my homework properly then how confident I feel will be reflected in the bet. With J Wonder it was the only considered proper Gr1 horse in the race. It ran a blinder, compared with this race, at Ascot. It met two of its opponents in France and they were outsiders. And they had run since in lower grade races and were beaten.

What trainer said after Fred Darling win:

BRIAN MEEHAN is so pleased with the latest work of J Wonder that he is seriously considering switching the Newbury trial winner to Sunday's Qipco 1,000 Guineas, rather than adhere to the original plan to contest the equivalent Classic in France.

Meehan is based at the historic Manton estate, which will be put up for sale at the end of the month, but he could try and add to the list of Classic winners to have come from the training centre with the Fred Darling victor.

J Wonder took Thursday's six-furlong work session under Jimmy Fortune at Manton in her stride, and Meehan said: "We're expecting a big run after that. She looked tremendous and has improved for Newbury. We were favouring the French race but are now seriously considering the 1,000 Guineas."

In this race they dropped her back to 7f and Group 3. The favourite, which you laid, had only won a Listed handicap at Ascot while J Wonder had been beaten 3 lengths in the Coronation Stakes.
It seemed like a reasonable bet to met.

Those points are obvious, aren't they All22. Like breathing in and out. I do back losers as well as most on here can confirm. I just hope to win more off the winners than I lose on the losers. Confidence is very important.

I thought she was a good bet Fig. What the trainer said after the Fred Darling:

BRIAN MEEHAN is so pleased with the latest work of J Wonder that he is seriously considering switching the Newbury trial winner to Sunday's Qipco 1,000 Guineas, rather than adhere to the original plan to contest the equivalent Classic in France.
Meehan is based at the historic Manton estate, which will be put up for sale at the end of the month, but he could try and add to the list of Classic winners to have come from the training centre with the Fred Darling victor.

J Wonder took Thursday's six-furlong work session under Jimmy Fortune at Manton in her stride, and Meehan said: "We're expecting a big run after that. She looked tremendous and has improved for Newbury. We were favouring the French race but are now seriously considering the 1,000 Guineas."BRIAN MEEHAN is so pleased with the latest work of J Wonder that he is seriously considering switching the Newbury trial winner to Sunday's Qipco 1,000 Guineas, rather than adhere to the original plan to contest the equivalent Classic in France.

She had since been beaten in the French Guineas and then by 3 lengths in the Coronation while the favourite, which you laid, had only narrowly won a Listed handicap beating a horse who had finished behind J Wonder in France.

It just looked a good bet to me.

Those points are obvious, aren't they All22. Like breathing in and out. I do back losers as well as most on here can confirm. I just hope to win more off the winners than I lose on the losers. Confidence is very important.

I thought she was a good bet Fig. What the trainer said after the Fred Darling he was thinking about switching her to the 1000 Gns. She went to France for theirs instead.

She had since been beaten in the French Guineas and then by 3 lengths in the Coronation while the favourite, which you laid, had only narrowly won a Listed handicap beating a horse who had finished behind J Wonder in France.

It just looked a good bet to me.

there are too many negatives than positives for me to risk hard earned, so will prob be a non event for me.

will hope the older generation prevail espesh mukha who seems so consistant and diverse, will prob throw a few sheckles at noble mission, who if they let him dicatate could scoop the pot now they know how to ride him, and its a race the owner likes to win.

That's OK. Not every race is a betting race for me by any means.

You see Fig I could easily say I weighed it up about value and odds etc but I don't. I look at a race to see how many have a chance to win it. Remove those that cannot then look at the rest. If I cannot split them I look to see how I can make money from them. If I strongly favour one I will look at the remainder to see what savers there are. If I cannot find any I look at the main bet to see how it might run as far as laying off in running is concerned. With J Wonder it seemed obvious they would hold her up and challenge late so there was the likelihood she would trade a lot shorter in running. I based my bet around that.
There are other types of bets I could use but that seemed like giving the best return.

That's gambling isn't it Fig. You back a horse because you think it will win and you lay a horse because you think it will lose. Of course I am not right all of the time but thankfully my accounts tell me I am making money. I do post some of my bets on here before they run so you can get an idea of what I'm thinking.
If I find a race where more than one can win, for one reason or another, then I use another method. In the SJP I thought Kingman was the best horse but because I personally have stamina doubts there was a possibility he could lose. The only horse I thought could beat him was Night of Thunder. I couldn't have anything else. So I backed both against the field.
Not every race I look at, and these are limited by my rules, will have a clear winner. In J Wonders I thought it was either a win or lose situation. The race the favourite had just won she had only narrowly beaten another horse in the race so that meant two possible winners if JW failed to perform. And the French horse in the race had beaten the horse the favourite had just beaten by even further. So that meant three possible winners. It then became too skinny to back all of them so that was no good. I could have backed JW for a place but I thought if she failed to perform she might not even be placed. So a single win bet it was. And don't forget on form she was the best horse and on pre race targets she was the best horse. In fact the only real potential Gr1 horse in the race.

I'm not sure about that Fig. Most if not all of the people I know and meet back horses because they think they can win. If you worked in stables you would see that the lads look at the decs and that decides what chance their horse has. They then earmark the funds for the bet and as the day arrives they obviously hope they can get a really good price. Or when I get a phone call about a horse for tomorrow or the weekend it's to tell me this horse or that horse has a great chance of winning. There are times they might say so-and-so is running and he is 20/1 so you might want to throw a few quid at it at that price. Tipsters in the newspapers have to make their selections without knowing the price. When Hughsie does his column he almost never mentions a price. He just details their chances based on form and the opposition.
The price only becomes important when you have to work out your stake. But in my opinion the selection and its chances come first by a long way. Even reading Pricewise he tends to emphasise the form etc. as a reason to back it. 

Because my week is punctuated by lack of races to bet in I am able to do my homework well in hand without the price so I determine the chance the horse has then decide how much to bet on it when I see the price it is. If I think the horse has an outstanding chance then it is sometime an agonising wait for the race to be priced up and the bigger the price the better. 

I might throw a pony at something if it is a big price on here and I have been waiting for it to get into a race it could win and don't want to sit by and watch it win at a big price. Seismos is one example and Excellent Result is another but they are not my main bets just punts.

Most if not all of the people I know and meet back horses because they think they [b]can win[/b]

Thinking a horse can win is completely different than will win, which is the point being referred to.

If you worked in stables you would see that the lads look at the decs and that decides what chance their horse has. They then earmark the funds for the bet and as the day arrives they obviously hope they can get a really good price.

I doubt that all stable staff bet consistently profitably.

Tipsters in the newspapers have to make their selections without knowing the price

Most tipsters do not make a profit on their tips.

When Hughsie does his column he almost never mentions a price.

He's a jockey not a punter.

The price only becomes important when you have to work out your stake

How can you work out your stake relevant to the price when you don't know the horse's chance relevant to it's price?

Back to the race at hand .
It would seem that Telescope is going for this, if the RUK reports are correct 2day.
Don't agree with the prices on here tho 5.00 to the 9.4 about Mukhadram ??
Imo, I would not fancy Telescope to bt Mukhadram over 10f.

Figs and Brig actually have a good debate here... What Figgs is saying is exactly what I try to explain to people with regards to what I do.. ie; beat SP .. My belief is that if I am constantly beating SP I will make a long term profit, therefore I don't care if individual horses win or lose in a particular race.

Sad thing is that Australia may win at 1/8 for example and people would slag Figgs and others off for raising question marks over it.

Didn't read his book...

But you're right, if it works for you then that's the main thing. At the end of the day it's all about making money for yourself.

fwiw I don't think Australia gets beaten here, unless they run him on soft. 10f on good ground looks his optimum. From a betting pov it may be worth looking at who's gonna come 2nd and 3rd for me

I prefer to bet the horse I believe has the best chance of winning not because it is a better price than it should be

Betting the horse that has the best chance of winning isn't the issue, even if it has the best chance of winning it can only be profitable to back it at a price that is better than that chance. I don't know how anybody can ignore that. You can bet Chelsea to win all their home matches, they have the best chance of winning, however, you're not going to make a profit unless you can get a better price than their chance.

The horse does not know it's price.

I've never understood why people say this as though it has any significance about anything.

Don't you think that to think only people who price up races make profits is a bit naive?

I've never said anything about only people who price up a race make profits, but it's a fact that only people backing horses higher than their true odds will.

Put it another way would you bet a horse you thought could not win just because his price was bigger than you thought?

"Could not win" isn't really relevant. In a hypothetical two horse race, if I thought the fav had a 1/2 chance, the second fav 2/1, then I would obviously think the fav had double the chance of the second fav, however, if the fav was priced 1/4, the second fav 4/1 I would have no hesitation in backing the second fav. From your methodology you would simply say the fav had the best chance of winning, but at what price would you know if it was a bet or not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ujv9aEUSyQ

That is not what you are saying Fig. You are saying only people who back horses at their true odds will make a profit. When in fact, as Julian Wilson eluded to, horses win at shorter than their supposed true odds and they also win a prices higher than their supposed true odds. So trying to make out the only people who profit from betting on horseracing are those who only bet when they know the true odds of a horse.
As I have reiterated before the market will often decide what the true price a horse should be. Sometimes the price is better and sometimes it is worse than it's true price I suppose but I am sure I would rather back a winner at the supposed, hypothetical wrong price than a loser at the supposed, hypothetical right price.
And that is what we are talking about here. The supposed, hypothetical right price. Because that is based upon the person who is calculating that price.

When playing roulette or cards you can calculated what the probabilities are because they are fixed. I don't believe that is possible, accurately with horse racing. Some may think it is and the very best of luck to them but I don't think that calculation is possible. So knowing what is the right and wrong price is largely, mostly personal opinion that cannot be proven one way or the other. If you make a profit it means you have worked out the form correctly and backed the right horse.

I like Mondays at Windsor

You are saying only people who back horses at their true odds will make a profit.

No I'm not, backing horses at their true odds results in breaking even long term.

I can believe that throwing dice or playing cards etc but I think horse racing is different because true odds is largely incalculable. In my opinion of course.

I haven't been racing at Windsor for ages now I think the races have become less interesting. I do remember on time though, I got blocked in at the pumps in the garage just outside the course and the bloke blocking me in was shopping the garage. I was a bit angry and went to say something to him when he came out. It was John Gorton. He was brilliant, we had a right chatter and he said he would buy me a drink if I met him at Sandown. I think it was the next day, I could be wrong, but I couldn't make it. I did meet him again at Newmarket some weeks later and he was a proper genuine sort of bloke.

Ah well I don't bet like that Fig. I simply bet on form and place my bets on what prices are available. I have seen the possible runners and think he will win by daylight. Obviously based upon optimum conditions. 

However as you are the person who bets on price perhaps you can tell me what price I should be betting at, assuming optimum conditions,  and I can then assess how accurate or otherwise that course of action is.

you can tell me what price I should be betting at

I would never tell anybody what bets they should be having or prices they should be taking.

I can then assess how accurate or otherwise that course of action is.

I can only assume you're joking, as somebody with your high understanding of probability and price would know only too well that one result could never be used to judge how accurate a probability was