There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
And vice versa
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 15
|
By:
If they don't make their living from betting not sure why anybody would listen to them - and I can guarantee that NONE of the current collection of TV pundits makes their living from betting.
|
|
By:
Cunninghams great lay whatever he mutters
 |
|
By:
They work the form out scientifically, but the horses don't run scientifically, that quote is shamelessly stolen from sid james's character in "carry on at your convenience"
 |
|
By:
They're reading the form book!! Always a bad place to start.
|
|
By:
@bilbobaggins -- If they don't make their living from betting not sure why anybody would listen to them
Catch 22: any full-time pro who is signed up by the telly will from that point on make at least part of their living from punditry and not betting. And the reverse certainly doesn't follow. Many who make their living from betting are not worth listening to. What would you learn from an arber, trader or in-running punter, for instance? For two years, I made a living from betting -- backing horses pre-race, with bookmakers. Admittedly, it wasn't much of a living, as Nevison discusses in his book, but it paid the mortgage. So on the face of it, I'd seem like a great pundit but in fact, I'd be dire, even without being camera-shy. For a start, I'd often have no opinion in a race I'd stuck in the too-hard basket. (Come to think of it, wasn't pro-punter Alan Potts dropped for recommending "no bet" in too many races?) No, a good pundit needs to be interesting and engaging, and needs to tell me things I do not already know, or show me a new angle from which to examine a race. And I really do not care who signs the pay cheques. |
|
By:
I don't know whether that is supposed to justify the existence of the likes of Willo but how many useful 'angles' do you think there actually are? Each to is own but as far as I can see if you cannot put these angles to useful purpose then both the angles and the person providing them loses whatever credibility they might have had in the first place.
|
|
By:
To the OP's question: the paradox of inverse punditry and tipping skills.
Probably they require different personalities. The tipster (and punter) must be decisive, quickly ruling out horses on limited evidence, or even none. No shades of grey: Dawn Approach won't get the Derby trip, so cross him out and move on. The pundit, on the other hand, must admit that each runner has a chance, however slim, of winning, and must painstakingly examine every angle. |
|
By:
Many who make their living from betting are not worth listening to. What would you learn from an arber, trader or in-running punter, for instance?
Lots if you listen to the right ones i m o. Ok maybe not arber any muppet even skinto can arb but as for the other pair lots i would of thought. |
|
By:
Boat rockers, non-conformists, dissenters, free thinkers, iconoclasts just don't survive on the media gravy train, where the safety of back slapping consensus is the ticket to longevity.
Following the crowd in this way without ever stopping to question anything is obviously the last thing you would want to do if you are going to be a successful punter, imho... |
|
By:
To be a TV pundit firstly you have to pick up "1001 Horse Racing Puns" book - available in all bad newsagents. You also have to have no TV training whatsoever. Talking like you've got a mouthful of marbles or not being able to finish a complete sentence without at least one mistake - also a bonus. The ability to state the obvious will gain you extra points, along with an attitude that everything is rosey with the sport. You must think that every ride is great and under no circumstances must you criticise a jockey or trainer. Should some bad publicity for the sport arise that you must comment on, then you must give this important news no longer than 20 seconds air time. After that you can sweep it all away and cut to some women wearing hats.
|
|
By:
Pundits are NOT selected by the media channels on the basis of their ability to make long term punting profits. In fact on many channels if a pundit suddenly started spouting good betting advice he/she would probably get pulled. There have only been two TV pundits who I suspect could earn a living punting. In fact one of them does and is a friend of mine so I know it for a fact. Can it be a coincidence that both were removed from betting punditry and banished to paddock watching. The two in question are Richard Hoiles and Jon Babb. You have to realise that bookmakers run most aspects of the sport and they certainly run the media to their own ends and not yours as a punter. If you want to learn about successful punting then go elsewhere from the mainstream media. I have never met a pro who said they owe it all to channel 4 or the Racing papers, in fact they are more likely to say that the woeful insights keep the mugs in the dark and consequently help their cause.
|
|
By:
Nobody is saying that these pundits could make a living from gambling. Indeed if they could, they surely would.
|
|
By:
Richard Birch seems to have great racing/greyhound success.
|
|
By:
Excellent post by Olias
|
|
By:
Nobody is saying that these pundits could make a living from gambling. Indeed if they could, they surely would.
Would they? I did (as mentioned earlier in the thread) so I could, but I don't now. |