There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 73 comments are related to the topic:
Jack Hobbs 1.9 for €1111
Jack Hobbs 1.9 for €1111
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 73
|
By:
a coin spin is static odds..a horse is opinion.
|
|
By:
Some punters these days have an unrealistic bloated sense of their own opinion (track players and arbers),they seem to forget that the critical component to them making money is dopes plying with delayed pictures. This is highlighted by your posts on long odds on shots, yes they can be value bets but over a significant sample size the variance between the odds available and the implied probability is negligible on long odds on shots.
You're correct in one sense about the odds being static in a coin toss but subjective on sports but if you look at P+l at BSP over a sample size then it shows that racing markets have become fairly efficient at race time. However I do say fair dues to anyone who makes the effort to courtside at tracks, it takes a lot of effort,discipline and an ability to withstand long periods of boredom due to travelling and passing time between races at naff meetings. However this thread is up there with three days,so any decent individual would comment before the race or keep schtum rather than putting the boot in after the race. |
|
By:
I guess the problem with the original posting was the pejorative 'boss this race'. Clearly Jack Hobbs had a favourite's chance, really the post should have been that 1.91 was too short, which was correct, then there wouldn't have been a problem post race, this is what winds people up.
|
|
By:
Boss the race certainly wasn't meant to be pejorative -in my opinion Ballydoyle have used team tactics in previous Irish classics.As it turned out none of their runners ever got competetive.
|
|
By:
I'm sure Ballydoyle had a plan but as you say none of their runners was good enough to trouble the first 2 at any stage. If Qualify ran anywhere near her form the fillies must be very weak this year.
|
|
By:
its pre race odds was down to a majority opinion....laying a t 1.9 something that canters in cant hardly be described as a good lay.
The point that I'm making, which you're either intentionally missing or are deliberately avoiding, is that the BSP has been shown to be very accurate. Therefore, laying 1.9 on a hoss that goes off 2.06 or whatever it was is, in my mind at least, a good lay. If you disagree, that's fine. What did you think that the price should have been before the race? |
|
By:
The price was crap because it lost Numb nutts
no matter how good a lay price you believe it to be the horse won making it a crap bet what ever way you look at it |
|
By:
The price was crap because it lost Numb nutts
no matter how good a lay price you believe it to be the horse won making it a crap bet what ever way you look at it A truly idiotic statement, which shows why you lose on here. I play Roger Federer at tennis. You back me at 1.01. I win. Would you consider your back of me at 1.01 a good bet because it won? |
|
By:
SIR_Bond
Date Joined: 14 Nov 07 Add contact | Send message 28 Jun 15 15:02 The price was crap because it lost Numb nutts no matter how good a lay price you believe it to be the horse won making it a crap bet what ever way you look at it No wonder you have to edit betting statements to try and make it look like you know something about betting. Clueless, absolutely clueless. |
|
By:
not 1 person in the world knew what the true odds were of jack hobbs winning...so people have to decide what odds 'looks' fair..but if the horse canters in the pre race odds were obviousy wrong..tis easy post race as we know.
|
|
By:
Okay, agreed on that, but you haven't answered the question. What odds did you make it pre race?
|
|
By:
2/5
|
|
By:
i didnt have a look at the race in depth as i was working at newcastle for 3 days so its of little interest to me.
|
|
By:
Ah, this is where I've become confused then. I thought that several replies to the thread, plus thinly veiled digs at the OP for his losing bet meant that you were interested. But you're not. You just feel the need to comment.
You seem remarkably well qualified to say that the SP was way too long given that you had no interest in the race. For races that you are interested in, you must be the best of the best. |
|
By:
if man utd are 1/33 at home to whitley bay but draw 1-1 im still qualified enough to make a comment post event such as 1/33 was still the correct price or 1/33 was ridic .
|
|
By:
I don't understand why people aren't understanding a simple fact. Nobody knows before the off what the result will be and so only a fool would say that because the horse won it was a stupid lay. The fact is that the OP layed the horse significantly shorter than it returned. Ergo at the point that they set off it was a good lay.
|
|
By:
Can I have 33k on Man Utd at the odds when they next play Whitley Bay please ?
 |
|
By:
Bondy - no doubt you had your full bank on then if you made it 2/5. The 80 pence will get you a few tins of beans from Lidls I expect - well done.
|
|
By:
yes andrew...pay on only tho..
|
|
By:
why in hindsight[ after the lay] because it goes off at a bigger price can you say it was a good lay
but using the same hindsight you cant say it was a terrible lay because none of those horses are ever likely to finish in front of jack hobbs,a good lay is when you have horses that can turn over the fav,none of these ever looked or will ever look like they,ll give this one a race think we,re confusing good lays with good arbs here |
|
By:
I take your point about arbing 1st timer. Allow me to approach it from a different direction. The price offered of 1.9 was an outlier given that it came before most other bets. Only at the time of the off when all bets were in could we say with any degree of objectivity or accuracy what the true chances were of the horse winning prior to the event. Of course we have to allow for the possibility that the mass of people taking a view get it wrong. Despite that we have what we have and that is as close to objective as we will get. So my point is it is both. Someone who lays at shorter than the off price has presented himself with an arbing opportunity but he has also made a good bet/lay because he has beaten the closest any of us can come to an objective analysis of what the price for any given horse is.
|
|
By:
And aren't you also now guilty of what you accuse others of? I don't see how you can say with any degree of certainty that none of the others could have beaten Jack Hobbs. There were several different angles we could have approached it to arrive at a different conclusion. We could have taken the view that the French Derby form was better form that that displayed in the English which allows for one possible scenario. We could have concluded that the fillies were a better lot this year than the colts. We could have concluded for one of several reasons that the third and fourth at Epsom had valid reasons why they hadn't give of their best in that race. We could even have taken Gosden at his word and concluded that three races in quick succession followed by going to the well a fourth time may have been once too often.
|
|
By:
guilty as charged
but this reminds me of that loon richmond reading the formbook on the basis of what price a horse went in running on here,it must have gone close to winning because it reached a low of blah, blah on here |
|
By:
Fact is that if you consistently beat the SP, you win. Whether this was one of the times that the OP, and the market, got it wrong, who knows? As EE says, the BSP is as close to accuracy as you're likely to get. Therefore, it was a good lay even if it was a losing bet.
|
|
By:
^^^^ That's complete nonsense, beating the SP over a significant sample size is an indication of obtaining value,on an individual event when the winner wins doing handstands,it clearly isn't a value lay with the benefit of hindsight.
Also one can't waver between what's a play,a non event or a lay and feel vindicated due to small variations in the market,your opinion has to have conviction. Continuously beating the SP over a significant sample size you will be profitable, to say that beating the SP on an individual event is hence a value lay is trash talk when you have conclusive conflicting evidence. |
|
By:
I wouldn't go so far as to return the comment but surely you see the illogicality of applying post event rationalising and using it as evidence for what was happening prior to the event? We know what Jack Hobbs did. We didn't know what he was going to do prior to the race. The market gave a view and the OP beat the markets view. Whether it was value or not is like I said subjective but you don't come any closer in any individual race to objectivity than the weight of money from the market even allowing for sample size.
|
|
By:
Minimal fluctuations in the market shouldn't be seen as a verification of an opinion, there is an ocean of a gap for me in the differential between a back and a lay as there is a world of alternatives.
Many of the criteria that in your opinion should have been used to guesstimate the probability of the outcome have proven to be irrelevant noise rather than information by the manner of the victory. Yes probability is a subjective matter but one can not assert that value has been obtained on an individual market because of a contraction in price. The markets (ie BSP) have become more efficient but as of any market you have to take scale into context. No matter what criteria you use to estimate your subjective view of the probability,it's perspicuous that the range of price should have been shorter and implies that your range of varaiables included in the criteria or the weights attached were incorrect in this instance. |
|
By:
"you don't come any closer in any individual race to objectivity than the weight of money from the market even allowing for sample size."
This line is complete nonsense,the market in an individual event can not in any manner be taking as verification of an opinion. There are many races where the BSP is a distance away from their actual probability but on average if you beat the BSP over 100 races you will be profitable. Your own opinion should outweigh the market view or otherwise you shouldn't be involved which is the most basic betting principal of all. |
|
By:
Einstein once said that an intelligent man can explain difficult concepts simply. You seem to be seeking to turn simple concepts into impenetrable nonsense. Thankfully I have an eye for such things. Firstly, they weren't minimal fluctuations. He put up 1.9 and at one point it went to 2.18. That isn't minimal but in any event prior to the actual race how else can one verify? One can't is the simple answer to that. Verification comes with the event but the point is that there aren't a world of alternatives. There are three. It drifts. The price contracts or it stays the same.
Your second paragraph isn't any better because you are simple repeating yourself. We know the result and so of course any theories as to what may happen are obviously falsified or verified by the result. Which tells us nothing we didn't already know. Your third paragraph belongs in pseuds corner. |
|
By:
You don't understand betting,markets or probability but best of luck in your future endeavours.
|
|
By:
This line is complete nonsense,the market in an individual event can not in any manner be taking as verification of an opinion. There are many races where the BSP is a distance away from their actual probability but on average if you beat the BSP over 100 races you will be profitable.
Your own opinion should outweigh the market view or otherwise you shouldn't be involved which is the most basic betting principal of all. Outside of the running of the race there is currently no better verification of opinion than the BSP. The problem is that you are confusing this with the probability of an outcome when what it is verification of is simply the opinion of the mass of punters which is what I was alluding to earlier about the true chance of a specific horse in the collective minds of the punters. As I also said the mass of punters can get it wrong and as with anything that is when you can profit if your assessment doesn't coincide with that of your fellow punters. |
|
By:
That's complete nonsense, beating the SP over a significant sample size is an indication of obtaining value,on an individual event when the winner wins doing handstands,it clearly isn't a value lay with the benefit of hindsight...
...Continuously beating the SP over a significant sample size you will be profitable, to say that beating the SP on an individual event is hence a value lay is trash talk when you have conclusive conflicting evidence. It's easy enough to say that it wasn't a value lay after having seen the race, I agree. However, the market determined that the 'correct' price was 2.06. The OP laid at 1.9. If you play to bigger margins and win, fair dos, but I'd be more than happy laying 1.9 on a nag that I made a 2.06 shot. If we're talking about this one specific race and ignoring that fact that if you beat the SP over time you'll win, then fine, there's not a lot else to talk about. I'm applying the general principle of beating the price to this scenario and assuming that the OP tries to do this on all of his bets. |
|
By:
I understand perfectly well thanks.
|
|
By:
screaming from beneaththewaves 27 Jun 15 18:40 Joined: 30 Jan 05 | Topic/replies: 7,918 | Blogger: screaming from beneaththewaves's blog
2015-06-25 17:27 IRE Curr 27th Jun / 18:30 1m4f Grp1 / Jack Hobbs Back 1.90 106.75 Won 96.08 Not sure which of us was the mug considering the Betfair SP. __________________________________________________________________ I'm even less sure now.  |