Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 1069 comments are related to the topic:
Juddmonte International York
Juddmonte International York
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 1,069
|
By:
If you truly believed that you would jump at the opportunity to prove the point.
Seemed a bit much having to repeat the same thing for the third time, but for the third time I believe he was a lay at 4/6 as the race stood. |
|
By:
'would I back Australia at 1/5 given optimum conditions the answer is yes.
wouldn't one of these high interest accounts be wiser brig ? |
|
By:
I think australias 8f form is much stronger than his 12f form, so this should be his optimum trip in reality, but no way do I make him a 1-5 shot, more like 8/11 - 4/6 and even then you are backing him on potential rather than what he has done on the track.
|
|
By:
No it wouldn't All22. And he won't be 1/5 unless nothing of note runs in which case it will be virtually buying money. So it was hypothetical. However I have said I will follow the horse and even at that price I would have a small wager.
You don't have to lose it just to answer simple question Fig. That was days ago and things do change. But it doesn't matter it's good to exchange views without being judgemental. It is likely we will both have a bet on the day and win or lose. I will win or lose at the best price I can get and you will win or lose also at the best price available. The difference being I won't know or care if the price was an imaginary true reflection of his odds but you will. |
|
By:
Alleged22, brigust thinks he's a bet at 1/5 so he must think his true chance is even shorter. I know what Australia can do at 8f and I know what he can do at 12f, I can only estimate his ability over 10f. In my view it's going to be somewhere between the two and I agree with you that his 8f is stronger so I'd expect it to be closer to that. He has to be the favourite but I don't believe he'll have more than a couple of pounds in hand if the 4yos run to their best. An advantage he has over them is he's been kept for the race whereas they've been busy recently, which can be crucial and sometimes becomes a big advantage. Nevertheless, I still wouldn't have him any shorter than evens. I hope there's an Australia winning distance market
 |
|
By:
Do not waste your time reading Nevison. He is living proof that any fool can make a small fortune at horse racing........................just as long as you have a large fortune in the first place.
|
|
By:
The difference being I won't know or care if the price was an imaginary true reflection of his odds but you will.
Bookmakers used to make fortunes out of punters willing to believe 'racing certs' should be backed at any price, not too many punters got rich by backing at any price |
|
By:
I think it was the exchanges that killed the Nevison style punters, or at least made things very difficult for them.
|
|
By:
Mind reading as well as price guessing. I will tell you what I think All22 but I won't tell you what Fig thinks because I don't know what he thinks.
I think Australia will win. I think the market will provide a price based on conditions and runners. No-one on here will have any input in that price. And I will back Australia at the best price I can get. I guess that is what almost everyone on here will be doing. Some will bet to win and some will bet to lose. Some, a few, will bet because they think they know what price is a true reflection of his chances but they don't because there is no scale of probabilities that can provide them with that price. In reality they will bet based upon their personal opinion just like everyone else. There is nothing wrong with that unless they start to think they are superior by reaching the same conclusion as us only using a different map. Me, I go by the form book and I am quite happy to point out in detail why I think (a) should beat (b). It would be nice if those who calculate their prices and openly look down on those who do not then pointed out in detail how they reached that decision. But I suggest they won't. Not everyone is a mug punter Fig so assuming everyone else is does you a disservice. |
|
By:
Mind reading as well as price guessing.
Not mind reading at all, just assuming you're not a complete fool, as only a complete fool would back a horse at 1/5 if he thought it had a 1/5 chance |
|
By:
Bookies also used to make fortunes out of massive over rounds but the exchanges have put paid to that golden goose. If you read Nevison you will find out he didn't make his money betting at the 'right price'. It just allowed him to bet more often and satisfy his craving. In the end he was betting almost everything in the race and lost his ability to make a selection without a massive safety net.
|
|
By:
I think Australia will win
Some, a few, will bet because they think they know what price is a true reflection of his chances but they don't because there is no scale of probabilities that can provide them with that price. Yes, they think they can put a price on a horse's chance, just like you think Australia will win, but you don't know it. |
|
By:
I think the market will provide a price based on conditions and runners.
What does this mean, the market will provide a price based on conditions and runners? The market has to be wrong in order for any punter to profit in the long term. |
|
By:
That is absolutely true but the difference is I don't think you are a complete fool for thinking you can imagine what price he should be. I try to talk to you as an equal, (shiver down your spine), even though you continually copy what I write and try to pull it apart and then suggest to others what I think.
But I will copy this as a reminder of what reality is: Yes, they think they can put a price on a horse's chance, just like you think Australia will win, but you don't know it. That is what I have been saying all along. It is what you and others THINK. I THINK Australia will win and you THINK you can put a price on his chance. |
|
By:
It would be nice if those who calculate their prices and openly look down on those who do not then pointed out in detail how they reached that decision. But I suggest they won't.
This is bollocks. Nobody has said every punter has to price up every single horse in a race, some do it, I rarely do it myself. The point is that any punter backing a horse has to have some idea of what kind of chance the horse has in order to be able to tell if its worth taking the price they're being offered. To simply say this horse is a racing cert and I'll back it at the best price, whatever that may be, is amateur in the extreme. |
|
By:
Pity about the last comment but hey ho.
I think I have said a number of times I do my research and decide whether or not there is a bet in that particular race. I will bet on what I believe the horse's chances are NOT on the price. In fact the bigger the price often the larger the bet. And I advise everyone it is a good thing to do. Do your research and if you are convinced a horse will win bet it accordingly. A horse will not win or lose because of it's price. That will have absolutely no effect on the result of the race. Importantly the amount you bet should be based on the horses chance of winning and NOT it's price. Just try to get the best price you can. I think Australia, given optimum conditions, is a great bet and I will back him accordingly. I don't know what price he will be but I hope to get a good one. He will not win or lose because of his price. To say something is a racing cert without doing your research is amateurish I agree but saying it if you believe it after you have done your research and then trying to get the best price you can, well, that's gambling and that's life. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise. For every backer there is a layer |
|
By:
I will bet on what I believe the horse's chances are NOT on the price
What is a horse's chance if it can't be expressed as a price? Have you come up with a new way of expressing a chance that isn't mathematical? Please share it. A horse will not win or lose because of it's price. Again, a horse will win or lose depending on its chance (apart from unexpected influences) which are expressed by odds. |
|
By:
To say something is a racing cert without doing your research is amateurish I agree but saying it if you believe it after you have done your research and then trying to get the best price you can, well, that's gambling and that's life. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
How would you compare Australia's chance to Treve's in the POW? a) more of a cert b) less of a cert c) equally a cert |
|
By:
Could you please clarify, is the question related to this year`s POW or next years? If the latter could you indicate whether it is on good to firm,good,good to soft or heavy. Does it assume they are both still in training and the current jockeys remain unchanged etc etc?
 |
|
By:
Answer - Pass
|
|
By:
Sorry Fig I had to go to bed. I had an early telephone conference this morning. So much for BST.
To answer your first point, and I hope this is the last time. The price is important BUT only after I have decided what I want to back. The price has absolutely no influence on what I want to back. That is the point I want you to remember. Your second point is also wrong. If you believe a horse's price is correctly expressed in it's odds then this would be easy because half of all even money shot would win and half would lose. That does not happen. Whereas in my opinion better than half win IF you do your research correctly. The research comes BEFORE the odds. And remember you cannot really have any effect on the odds or manipulate them. Unlike the bookies who send money to the tracks etc. On your third point about Treve you really should have read my post. I backed Treve because I had backed Australia for the Arc. My thinking was that if Treve won then her chance in the Arc would improve and the chance of Australia winning would therefore become harder. Treve was 4/1 for the Arc at the time and I had backed Australia at 8s and 10s. Are you with me? So I backed Treve small and only to cover my stake on Australia for the Arc. On the other hand if Treve lost my bet on Australia would look better and it did. He went from 10s to 9/2. Now I should have laid off my Australia bet at that moment and recovered my stake and a bit morev on Treve in the POW. But I didn't. Instead I waited and backed Treve for the Arc at 8s. I did think if Treve turned up in the POW she would win. And I was far from alone in that fact so I never only backed her because of the Arc BUT I did make it absolutely abundantly clear why I backed Treve BEFORE the race. So unlike the Queen Anne Stakes where I thought Toronado was a good bet and he won. And unlike the SJP where I thought it was between Kingman and Night of Thunder and it was. My reason for backing Treve was with ulterior motives. Good morning Felt. |
|
By:
Roll Up, Roll Up, behold for the umpteenth time, no the millionth time, the GREAT DEBATE. Is it the UK in or out? Is it Scotland yes or no?
No, it s none of those. Its THE GREAT VALUE DEBATE, transferred for a season from its natural home on General Betting Forum (where it has been a regular feature since BF's inception) to its temporary home on Ante Post betting. See the argument go from coin tossing, to cards. See how "TRUE ODDS" will be referenced as some indisputable truth that exists but can never be known. Learn how "a winner is a winner" is an argument that beats all others. But be careful, for the GREAT VALUE DEBATE is poisonous to the unwary for like weedkiller it kills any other thread that it come into contact with. In the Against corner, we have brigust1,a man who has been betting for 50 years (1 year learning, 49 years just repeating never to learn anything new), with an A level in maths, who knows how to calculate weights and measures for building cathedrals, but who finds it impossible to put a number on an opinion for the chance of a horse in a race. Here is a man who no doubt wouldn't dream of undertaking a business venture without knowing the profit potential, the difference between cost and selling price, for any property that he builds yet who will willingly go unprotected into the viscious brutal world of gambling with a blindfold on and his ears closed , refusing to use anything so unnecessary as simple numbers. Here is a man who if on a jury would know whether something is "beyond reasonable doubt" or "on the balance of probabilities" without any problem whatsoever. In the For corner, we have Figgis, a man so gifted at argument that to enter into one with him is akin to entering a boxing ring with an octopus, who can come back at you time and time again, without seemingly sleeping or tiring. Figgis, not a man who you think might champion the cause of odds compiling but nevertheless one who knows the arguments for like the back of his hand. Watch the to and froing, the batting back and forth of an endless game of tennis. Back and forth. To and fro. Left to right. Right to left. On and on it goes, enthralling everyone foolish enough to tune in. When will it end? Will summer be over before it does? Will I live to see another thread? Is there hope for us at all? Aaarrghhh. |
|
By:
Thank you for misrepresenting me S. Who said you could be judge and jury? Can you please point out where I have insulted you without provocation and can you please explain why you need to insult me?
If you don't understand the difference between building something and betting on a horse race please don't make your ignorance public for everyone else to see. It does you a disservice. I find it very hard to believe, after some of your posts, that you could compile such a small, vicious, miscalculated and uninformed piece of bile as you have just written. The difference between me and you is that I have learned over the last 50 years that is why I don't insult you the way you have just insulted me. And I don't know how many businesses you have owned and run but I have owned and run a few, and still do, and I can assure you research is everything. And if you think in business you are in control of the profits you are naive in the extreme. Market forces will determine what profit or loss you make no matter how many hours you spend compiling prices. If no-one is prepared to buy at the price you have then you either don't sell or you drop the price. Try to stick to analogies you may know something about. If you read my posts and took just a minute to think about them instead of thrashing about wildly you will know I DO NOT COMPILE PRICES. I could spend hours of my life trying to compile prices but then be restricted to the prices available because I am unable to change them. If I built a house and wanted to sell it for £300,000, in my dream world, but then when I saw the market I could only get £150,000 what do I do? I have to live with market forces and so do you. What you and I do about them might be different but I am not going to waste my time trying to second guess market forces. The reason most people don't come onto these threads is because people like you and Fig do their utmost to put them down. They dissect everything they say as if they are in court. You are capable of having a sensible conversation without looking down on the other poster. You should try to do it more often and allow other possible posters the opportunity to join in with felling intimidated. The only reason I am still here because I refuse to be intimidated by people who I know are no better than me. |
|
By:
*without feeling intimidated
|
|
By:
"I could spend hours of my life trying to compile prices but then be restricted to the prices available because I am unable to change them"
But what if the prices available are better than the ones you've compiled? |
|
By:
have you lost your sense of humour brig? chill out
 |
|
By:
Anyway S to change the subject and move on perhaps you can explain this to me?
Yesterday there were two odds on favourites. As I have said I never compile prices but according to the RP odds compiler Zora Seas was a 1/3 chance and Loving Home was a 1/6 chance. On Bf in the morning ZS was 1.33 and LH was 1.08. From my research and rules Zora Seas wasn't a bet but Loving Spirit was. Zora Seas returned at 4/6 and Loving Spirit won at 1/20. If you work by obtaining the best price then you would have backed Zora Seas a potential 1/3 shot who returned 4/6. But you wouldn't have backed Loving Home a 1/6 shot who returned at 1/20. |
|
By:
Wickedt to say I never COMPILE prices is correct but like everyone else I have a small semblance of an idea what price it may be. For instance I know that Australia isn't going to b 6/1. However if he was 6/1 I would be having my nuts on. It's a bit of a loose analogy but I'm sure you know what I mean. There was a race recently where the horse I thought would win was 7/1. I thought it had a great chance and those odds which, I thought, were generous so I had a nice bet.
I do back losers as well. All22 if you knew me you would know I am extremely chilled. In fact I joke about too much sometimes. But when everything you say gets copied selectively, dissected and torn apart word for word in a clear attempt to discredit you it gets you down. I only come on here to express my views and say what I think will win, how I intend to back it and sometimes how much I will put on. Sometimes I go into detail why I have chosen that articular beast. I love to read other peoples reasoning and love to debate it. I like to think I am in a pub with a bunch of like minded individuals having a grown up conversation and after the debate hopefully we have all learned something then we can move on to the next debate. |
|
By:
I clearly didn't get close to your funny bone, brigust1.
 My apologies if you think that I misrepresented your views, that was not intentional. Your views do not need to be misrepresented as they are unmisrepresentable. Unlike you, I have had to treat backing horses as a business for many years and in my small way I was merely attempting to demonstrate to you that there is in principle no difference between being a housebuilder or whatever it is that you call yourself than a professional horse player (even though I am now in hohourable retirement from calling myself that.) This thread, and perhaps the forum generally, definitely takes itself too seriously, and I was just attempting to throw a little lightness into it, and certainly was not attempting to belittle you. You do a good enough job on that for yourself for me to want to add anything extra. It may surprise you to know that I do indeed have reasonably good business credentials both practically and academically but I have no wish to blow my own trumpet on that score. I have devoted a lot of time on researching the subject of making a profit out of gambling on horses and i would suggest that it is very unlikley that you would be able to match me on that. Surpisingly, you may think, I do not as yet know it all, as I learned a long time ago that that state of affairs is impossible to achieve. My outings on here are for entertainment and some education but are certainly not to put down contributors although some, like yourself, just seem to be begging for that. Anyway, crossing swords with you helps the day to pass but I mean no disrespect. My apologies if I have offended you. |
|
By:
brigust1
To respond to you specific questions. First though, a point about about about prices. Should Australia be 6/1 (for the International, I presume) you say you would have your nuts on it. That would be a very silly thing to do, because whilst the market can be over or under bet on any one horse on my/your opinion, the market is unlikely to be so wrong. It is telling you something that you don't know, which as I have said, can be about one third of the game. Most probably, if 6/1 was available it would be telling you that there is a very good chance it may be a non-runner, so you nuts might take a bit of a bashing. As to your example, if Zora Seas was forecast to be 1/3 and it went off 4/6, then caution would have been my reaction as per the Australia comment.What does the market know that I don't? Was it merely that the RP compilers were way out? Or the early market? The market would have been extremely thin for a Ffos Las maiden auction and potentially very unreliable. I was out yesterday so didn't price it up. Perhaps I may have priced it at 6/4 in which case it might have been a lay for me, although not that is my MO. As for Loving Home,well I can't say that I would have spend any more time than was necessary to glance at the race. Just how much was actually laid at 1/6? Anyway, that was a no betting race for me having found that it is unprofitable to play at that end of the price spectrum. |
|
By:
Good to see you are wearing your dancing shoes S. I am always wary of those who say 'no disrespect' then spend the rest of the post disrespecting you. Some people just cannot get out of the 'holier than thou' world they live in. It is a pity.
Did I ask you for business credentials or your ability to make a profit? The answer to that question is 'no'. Did I call you any of the multitude of offensive names I have been called by other posters? The answer to that question is 'no'. This forum used to be frequented by many people including TV pundits and tipsters. They no longer bother because too many people think the only way forward is to insult and abuse. And the forum is all the worse for it. Your point about Australia revolves entirely around what I do and that is 'research'. If, as some say, you should price things up in order to 'beat the market' it fails if you do not do the research in my opinion. So a big price as that about Australia would have been picked up immediately because of research. I am not saying you shouldn't price up races, what I am saying is I don't. Your point about the time you have spent 'researching the subject of making a profit on gambling on horses' I certainly couldn't match you on. I have spent most of my time making and losing money in business and I am very thankful for that. It is something I certainly don't think you could match me on. Does that make you better than me or me better than you? Absolutely not. I do not think you are a 'know it all' but actions do speak louder than words. You will have learned that over the years I am sure. |
|
By:
Your second point is also wrong. If you believe a horse's price is correctly expressed in it's odds then this would be easy because half of all even money shot would win and half would lose.
What is this utter nonsense? If I believed the prices were all correct then there would be no point in having a bet, can you not comprehend that? |
|
By:
So I backed Treve small and only to cover my stake on Australia for the Arc.
Treve was odds on, so your bet on Australia must be for very small stakes, why feel the need to cover a small bet with an odds on poke? |
|
By:
brigust1
I have no interest in pursuing any debate along the lines of "mine is bigger than yours" but my experience across 40 years of gambling is that many people who have made fortunes in business or finance or who are successful in other spheres, come to horse racing and assume that they will be equally as good at it. Bookmakers love these people because they are the biggest mugs going and will always have them "top of the car" i.e lay them whatever they want, no need to put it in the book. I have come to have the greatest respect for the market knowing now that beating it is no easy task.Indeed, I would say that making money out of gambling has been harder than far at anything I have done in business or in my career. And it has got harder not easier with the advent of exchanges. Finding opportunities where the market knows less than me is rare compared to when the market knows more than me, and the time to be really cautious is when you think you have found a great big value play.Caveat emptor brigust1, caveat emptor. |
|
By:
"top of the card"
|
|
By:
^^Can't help yourself Figgis. Can you comprehend that?
I think I explained that quite well thank you. Read the post. But in case you need reminding: On your third point about Treve you really should have read my post. I backed Treve because I had backed Australia for the Arc. My thinking was that if Treve won then her chance in the Arc would improve and the chance of Australia winning would therefore become harder. Treve was 4/1 for the Arc at the time and I had backed Australia at 8s and 10s. Are you with me? So I backed Treve small and only to cover my stake on Australia for the Arc. On the other hand if Treve lost my bet on Australia would look better and it did. He went from 10s to 9/2. Now I should have laid off my Australia bet at that moment and recovered my stake and a bit morev on Treve in the POW. But I didn't. Instead I waited and backed Treve for the Arc at 8s. I did think if Treve turned up in the POW she would win. And I was far from alone in that fact so I never only backed her because of the Arc BUT I did make it absolutely abundantly clear why I backed Treve BEFORE the race. So unlike the Queen Anne Stakes where I thought Toronado was a good bet and he won. And unlike the SJP where I thought it was between Kingman and Night of Thunder and it was. My reason for backing Treve was with ulterior motives. Like Figgis you cannot help yourself S. It is such a pity. 'I won't get into the mine is bigger than yours' debate but bookies love mugs like you. You cannot help yourself. That is why this mug has accounts closed. If you have a memory left S you will know I have been involved with racing since I was a boy so I am not coming at it after years in business. Another misconception of yours. And maybe you may be finding it more difficult to make a profit since the advent of the exchanges is because you have spent you life doing the wrong thing 'trying to beat the market'. The exchanges have screwed that for you and the market is harder to beat. That is why I have taken the course I have taken. I feel sorry if you now find your 40 years have been wasted. Absit invidia |
|
By:
Your second point is also wrong. If you believe a horse's price is correctly expressed in it's odds then this would be easy because half of all even money shot would win and half would lose.
This is an example brigust1 of where your own comments show that your opinions on based on unsound reasoning. Far from being wrong, it is absolutely correct to state that half win and half lose "with the condition of "statistical significance" being applied." For example, of the 4448 horses priced at between 10/11 and 11/10 between the years 2004 to 2011 exactly 2110 won(47.4%) representing a loss at SP to level stakes of 6.3%. If adjusted for bookmakers margin that would be closer to 50%. Adjusting to BF prices the result would have been a loss of just 1.9%. close enough I would say. |
|
By:
you have spent you life doing the wrong thing 'trying to beat the market'
 |
|
By:
Add to that Figgis I have a 20/1 Derby/Arc double as well.
|
|
By:
. Bookmakers love these people because they are the biggest mugs going
Where in this statement do i refer to you brigust1? You see slights now where none exist. |