Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/01/revealed-tipsters-deliberately-recommend-losing-bets-to-punters
Show More
The writer of this article - from the guardian ... left University THIS year
Work Experience
Guardian News & Media
July 2017 – July 2017 (1 month)
Education
Goldsmiths, University of London
Master of Arts (MA), Journalism
2016 – 2017
Work Experience
Guardian News & Media
July 2017 – July 2017 (1 month)
Education
Goldsmiths, University of London
Master of Arts (MA), Journalism
2016 – 2017
Does the article really justify the headline?
1) There is a clear conflict of interest because the tipsters make more in commission if punters lose.
2) Most tips lose.
But it is not proven that (2) is due to (1).
It is a bit like some of the pocket talk on here. Yes, Flying Dancer got boxed in when 2s on, but that does not prove the jockey was at it; he could have been unlucky or even just not very good.
It might be that some tipsters are deliberately picking losers (although not too many or they'd run out of subscribers) but no proof is shown: there is no smoking gun; no confession.
That said, I'd welcome a proper investigation and even regulation all the way to banning affiliate links.
1) There is a clear conflict of interest because the tipsters make more in commission if punters lose.
2) Most tips lose.
But it is not proven that (2) is due to (1).
It is a bit like some of the pocket talk on here. Yes, Flying Dancer got boxed in when 2s on, but that does not prove the jockey was at it; he could have been unlucky or even just not very good.
It might be that some tipsters are deliberately picking losers (although not too many or they'd run out of subscribers) but no proof is shown: there is no smoking gun; no confession.
That said, I'd welcome a proper investigation and even regulation all the way to banning affiliate links.
I've just remembered that back in the 1980s I dissuaded a colleague from subscribing to a tipping service operated by a bookmaker for a similar but far more direct conflict of interest.
Linked story from that one:-
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/31/former-gambler-free-bets-would-lure-me-back-in
It is very hard to define a problem gambler as an example the other day suggested that a person who placed 20 bets a day or spent 3 hours gambling, was a problem gambler! Are you only a problem gambler if you lose?
There needs to be some greater defining factors and affordability should always be the main criteria but I would not be happy supplying all my financial affairs to each bookmaker to set an acceptable "gambling" level. Perhaps some self-certification of liquid net worth in ranges 250k could determine your risk factor?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/31/former-gambler-free-bets-would-lure-me-back-in
It is very hard to define a problem gambler as an example the other day suggested that a person who placed 20 bets a day or spent 3 hours gambling, was a problem gambler! Are you only a problem gambler if you lose?
There needs to be some greater defining factors and affordability should always be the main criteria but I would not be happy supplying all my financial affairs to each bookmaker to set an acceptable "gambling" level. Perhaps some self-certification of liquid net worth in ranges 250k could determine your risk factor?
for some reason the ranges disappeared from the last paragraph:
less than 10k
10k to 50k
50k to 250k
more than 250k
less than 10k
10k to 50k
50k to 250k
more than 250k
I think our gambling industry is a bit out of control. We expect adverts in horseracing because it funds the sport but Ray Winstone in evey fackin advert during the US Open Tennis? Your havin a fackin laugh, Ray.
I suspected Dave Yates (Daily Mirror's Newsboy) had been doing this for years. There was no other explanation as to why he failed to make a profit year after year.
So, In 2014 I introduced a totally random selection, The Pin, into my tipster tables, to prove that a pin was better at picking winners.
After 1,142 selections, The :Pin has a ROI of minus 3.64%.
Dave Yates, after 3,471 selections has a ROI of minus 9.32%.
So, the question is, is Dave Yates really that bad (nearly 3 times worse than the next worst newspaper tipster), or as the article suggests, is he getting paid to pick losers ?
It might also explain why he often gets the tipster gig on RUK so often.
So, In 2014 I introduced a totally random selection, The Pin, into my tipster tables, to prove that a pin was better at picking winners.
After 1,142 selections, The :Pin has a ROI of minus 3.64%.
Dave Yates, after 3,471 selections has a ROI of minus 9.32%.
So, the question is, is Dave Yates really that bad (nearly 3 times worse than the next worst newspaper tipster), or as the article suggests, is he getting paid to pick losers ?
It might also explain why he often gets the tipster gig on RUK so often.
not strictly related - but you would be amazed at how much the in racing commentary changes the price of a horse
which is not strictly doing what the commentary says - on RUK - don't know who it was the other day but SDS was on fav - at back
& commentator said he was in all sorts of trouble - which he wasn't - traded 50's in running - like it didn't have a chance -
slipped out and hosed up going away -
which is not strictly doing what the commentary says - on RUK - don't know who it was the other day but SDS was on fav - at back
& commentator said he was in all sorts of trouble - which he wasn't - traded 50's in running - like it didn't have a chance -
slipped out and hosed up going away -
Tipsters, commentators........ but how about having your own opinion about a race?
Quite right - but my point was to send something to 50's in running or above - enables people to exploit that situation too
just a different form of diss information
just a different form of diss information
WFT....do you happen to have a record of Dave Yates ROI on his NAPS only for a this period?.....or even longer for that matter
anyone who pays heed to tipsters deserves to lose!
WFT....do you happen to have a record of Dave Yates ROI on his NAPS only for a this period?.....or even longer for that matter
The quoted figure is for his naps only, and the time period covered is the last 10 years.
I should also say that this -9.32% ROI is based on early prices. Using industry starting price, his ROI falls to -15.91%.
The quoted figure is for his naps only, and the time period covered is the last 10 years.
I should also say that this -9.32% ROI is based on early prices. Using industry starting price, his ROI falls to -15.91%.
WFT
Email your Dave Yates stats to Racing UK.
Thanks.
Email your Dave Yates stats to Racing UK.
Thanks.
In any other walk of life such a pitiful performance would result in Yates being shown the door...
Email your Dave Yates stats to Racing UK.
I may have mentioned it once or twice in the past. They simply don't care.
I may have mentioned it once or twice in the past. They simply don't care.
Cheers for that WFT....I honestly thought his ROI would be worse
I would imagine it's 1.01 he's just absolutely clueless..
The Racing Post reports that Sky has dropped its affiliates programme.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/news/sky-bet-end-affiliate-programme-as-regulatory-pressure-mounts/299477
https://www.racingpost.com/news/news/sky-bet-end-affiliate-programme-as-regulatory-pressure-mounts/299477
Alex Hammond has been tipping losers for her employer for several years now. She became so good at it, they even got her to tip a daily double. The market she / they aim at appears to be young males who drool over her, and tweet her marriage proposals.
Laying everything she has "tipped" for the past 5 years has been very profitable.
Laying everything she has "tipped" for the past 5 years has been very profitable.
A lot of these free tippers twitter facebook and the like are connected to the others a little cartel they buy in users so it looks impressive to have 50,000 followers mostly paid for
Alex Hammond has been tipping losers for her employer for several years now.
She's so bad, she's actually worse than Dave Yates.
Her ROI is -12.71%, compared to Yates' -9.17%.
Her supporters can't count, obviously.
She's so bad, she's actually worse than Dave Yates.
Her ROI is -12.71%, compared to Yates' -9.17%.
Her supporters can't count, obviously.
I follow 5 closely
Spill the beans, and I'll see if I have them in my tables.
Spill the beans, and I'll see if I have them in my tables.
I'm sure most of us, including Hammond and Yates too can choose a selection in every race of the day and find several winners but that's not the same as then being asked to nominate one from all of your selections as your NAP and still being on a winner. Also in the case of newspaper tipsters, they are giving their selections the night before when a lot can change in the mean time.
How did The Pin nominate which race to use for its NAP though, just out of interest?
How did The Pin nominate which race to use for its NAP though, just out of interest?
How did The Pin nominate which race to use for its NAP though, just out of interest?
By paging down a list of runners, a random number of pages, and then picking the horse at the bottom, or the top, as the fancy takes me.
As for your other point, picking one selection the day before, doesn't seem to effect other newspaper tipsters to the same extent. The next worst English newspaper tipster, The Guardian, only has a ROI of -2.0%, whilst the best, The Telegraph, has a ROI of +6.55%.
Yates and Hammond stand out, and this is a very large data sample.
By paging down a list of runners, a random number of pages, and then picking the horse at the bottom, or the top, as the fancy takes me.
As for your other point, picking one selection the day before, doesn't seem to effect other newspaper tipsters to the same extent. The next worst English newspaper tipster, The Guardian, only has a ROI of -2.0%, whilst the best, The Telegraph, has a ROI of +6.55%.
Yates and Hammond stand out, and this is a very large data sample.
Cheers for your answer WTF.
Doesn't the fact other newspaper tipsters make a small profit (or less of a loss) despite giving numerous selections over several weeks or months just mean they are a bit less worse than others though?
My main point though was on the NAPs thing and I know myself when I have done several multiple bets and had winners in all of them but would have made far more had I correctly grouped them all in the same bet, in the same way it must be annoying for newspaper tipsters to have several winners on the day but then their NAP loses.
Doesn't the fact other newspaper tipsters make a small profit (or less of a loss) despite giving numerous selections over several weeks or months just mean they are a bit less worse than others though?
My main point though was on the NAPs thing and I know myself when I have done several multiple bets and had winners in all of them but would have made far more had I correctly grouped them all in the same bet, in the same way it must be annoying for newspaper tipsters to have several winners on the day but then their NAP loses.
Maybe they'd lay their tips and get free bets and commission. How privileged and rewarding that is? Full proof to a positive return irrespective of result.
it must be annoying for newspaper tipsters to have several winners on the day but then their NAP loses.
But their NAP is their best bet of the day, and seeing as the sample above is over 10 years you would have to think that it is a pretty fair overall picture of said abilities (NAP).
But their NAP is their best bet of the day, and seeing as the sample above is over 10 years you would have to think that it is a pretty fair overall picture of said abilities (NAP).
Dave Yates the punters pal, giving us all a bomb-proof laying system for free.
It's a bit naive to think that just because a newspaper tipster gives a selection as their NAP, that it's therefore their best bet of the day.
Dave Yates gave two 7/1 winners today, as well as winners at 1/4, 8/11, 13/8, 5/2 and 7/2, with his NAP not making the frame when priced at 8/1, in a 7 runner race that the fav won at 15/8 and three others went off shorter than his NAP, so it's hardly to believe he thought that was more likely to win than his two odds-on winners.
Dave Yates gave two 7/1 winners today, as well as winners at 1/4, 8/11, 13/8, 5/2 and 7/2, with his NAP not making the frame when priced at 8/1, in a 7 runner race that the fav won at 15/8 and three others went off shorter than his NAP, so it's hardly to believe he thought that was more likely to win than his two odds-on winners.
Doesn't the fact other newspaper tipsters make a small profit (or less of a loss) despite giving numerous selections over several weeks or months just mean they are a bit less worse than others though?
My point was that Dave Yates is a lot worse than the other newspaper tipsters, who have exactly the same conditions and opportunities.
Dave Yates has always been 3/4 worse than the next worst, and it leads me to the conclusion that it's not only incompetence at play here. Surely, anyone with his experience and contacts should be better than a random selection?
It doesn't take a great leap of deduction to figure out who he is benefiting, does it?
My point was that Dave Yates is a lot worse than the other newspaper tipsters, who have exactly the same conditions and opportunities.
Dave Yates has always been 3/4 worse than the next worst, and it leads me to the conclusion that it's not only incompetence at play here. Surely, anyone with his experience and contacts should be better than a random selection?
It doesn't take a great leap of deduction to figure out who he is benefiting, does it?
WFT 05 Sep 17 13:51
I follow 5 closely
Spill the beans, and I'll see if I have them in my tables.
if I told you I'd ,have to kill you
I follow 5 closely
Spill the beans, and I'll see if I have them in my tables.
if I told you I'd ,have to kill you
Dave Yates gave two 7/1 winners today, as well as winners at 1/4, 8/11, 13/8, 5/2 and 7/2, with his NAP not making the frame when priced at 8/1, in a 7 runner race that the fav won at 15/8 and three others went off shorter than his NAP, so it's hardly to believe he thought that was more likely to win than his two odds-on winners.
We all know a sample of one day is nonsense, but your point emphasises the point I'm making. His nap lost, and that was what he was aiming for. It's not incompetence, he is deliberately leading his readers down the wrong path, and therefore keeping bookmakers happy. Readers are much more likely to follow his nap, not every selection.
We all know a sample of one day is nonsense, but your point emphasises the point I'm making. His nap lost, and that was what he was aiming for. It's not incompetence, he is deliberately leading his readers down the wrong path, and therefore keeping bookmakers happy. Readers are much more likely to follow his nap, not every selection.
a few months ago a sun tipster went thru the card 6 or 7 races
headline next day something like
star tipster thru the card
prob is 5 other meeting same day where he did badly
headline next day something like
star tipster thru the card
prob is 5 other meeting same day where he did badly
It's a bit naive to think that just because a newspaper tipster gives a selection as their NAP, that it's therefore their best bet of the day.
Ok then.... Maybe worth looking up the name "nap" and get the definition.
Ok then.... Maybe worth looking up the name "nap" and get the definition.
Knowing what it means isn't the same as arriving at the conclusion that it therefore must be the tipster's best bet of the day. What is the case and what should be the case are often two different things.
If one tipster trails the leader in the NAPs table by say 9pts and rather than NAP a 1/4f that he has actually selected anyway, he NAPs a 10/1 shot in order to make up ground, do you really think that 10/1 shot was his best bet?
If one tipster trails the leader in the NAPs table by say 9pts and rather than NAP a 1/4f that he has actually selected anyway, he NAPs a 10/1 shot in order to make up ground, do you really think that 10/1 shot was his best bet?
If he makes it a 6/1 shot, then yes it probably is his best bet.
I might think Man City should be 8/11 on saturday (around 5/6), but might make Watford 5/2 (who are 5/1), therefore my NAP would be Watford. It is plainly obvious that Man City are the more likely winners, but it doesn't mean they are the best bet imo.
I might think Man City should be 8/11 on saturday (around 5/6), but might make Watford 5/2 (who are 5/1), therefore my NAP would be Watford. It is plainly obvious that Man City are the more likely winners, but it doesn't mean they are the best bet imo.
OK so now define "best bet" and is it the one deemed most likely to win or the best value?
I would have thought from what you were saying earlier in the thread that it would be the former.
I would have thought from what you were saying earlier in the thread that it would be the former.
If you cannot work out what is the best bet from what I have posted above I better leave it at that.
Translation = Oops, I see ima has a point there and it looks like I have just contradicted myself and so I will post a message, saying something like..."
"If you cannot work out what is the best bet from what I have posted above I better leave it at that."
"If you cannot work out what is the best bet from what I have posted above I better leave it at that."
WTF?? What is your point?
My 1628 post says what, and how I would class the best bet (in simplistic terms), is it the most likely winner out of the 2 - NO it isn't. But longterm if I knew what I was doing and knew what prices should be, I would be 'tipping' what I would class as my best bets, and longterm will tell you how good you are (or not).
My 1628 post says what, and how I would class the best bet (in simplistic terms), is it the most likely winner out of the 2 - NO it isn't. But longterm if I knew what I was doing and knew what prices should be, I would be 'tipping' what I would class as my best bets, and longterm will tell you how good you are (or not).
Plainly obvious to me to be fair
But I'm as fick as shyte
But I'm as fick as shyte
OK so I was advised that it might be worth looking up the definition of NAP (even though I already knew it) and so I did:
A tip that is considered to be a racing certainty, that is, almost completely certain to be true, is also called a nap and tipsters in newspapers will tend to indicate the "nap" or
Nap (derived from the card game Napoleon) indicates this is the tipster's most confident selection of the day.
On the other hand:
Some tipsters use statistical based estimations about the outcome of a game, and compare this estimation with the bookmaker's odds. If there is a gap between the estimate odds and the bookmakers odds, the tipster is said to identify "value", and a person who bets on such odds when they perceive not a certainty but a "gap in the book" is said to be a "value bettor". When value is found, the tipster is recommending the bettor to place a bet.
A tip that is considered to be a racing certainty, that is, almost completely certain to be true, is also called a nap and tipsters in newspapers will tend to indicate the "nap" or
Nap (derived from the card game Napoleon) indicates this is the tipster's most confident selection of the day.
On the other hand:
Some tipsters use statistical based estimations about the outcome of a game, and compare this estimation with the bookmaker's odds. If there is a gap between the estimate odds and the bookmakers odds, the tipster is said to identify "value", and a person who bets on such odds when they perceive not a certainty but a "gap in the book" is said to be a "value bettor". When value is found, the tipster is recommending the bettor to place a bet.
This debate is an old one: should tipsters put up the ones they think are best value, or the most likely winners regardless of price?
@xmoneyx
You prefer that as a definition or you prefer to be given tips that are very likely to win rather than tips that are value?
If the latter, I'd love to know why
You prefer that as a definition or you prefer to be given tips that are very likely to win rather than tips that are value?
If the latter, I'd love to know why
You can add trainers' affiliations to this, if the Gambling Commission is going to get serious for a change. What is in it for top trainers when writing blogs for bookmakers - or, more importantly, what do the bookies get in return from it? You might reply 'publicity' but any relationship that can be perceived as further undermining what is already a highly uneven playing field in favour of the bookmakers can only further undermine the already very dicey reputation of racing. There are plently of newspapers the top stables could write for if they really want publicity for themselves, thus lowering the currently raised eyebrows.
that a load of balls if they no the losers
they would pack there job in and play on betfair .....laying
they would pack there job in and play on betfair .....laying
AND THERE IT IS! As it happens I have great respect for the Hannon family but I'm now looking at the run of Dandiesque as well as the least likely of his five Salisbury runners to have won today - which has just done so at 40/1. I'm also looking at the trainer's relationship with Bookmaker, Stan James, and I'm wondering to myself who potentially knew what and how much was made as a result of that relationship? Chinese Walls apply to banking and the same is needed in horse racing to a greater degree, if we are serious about removing potentially damaging perceptions.
Northern Monkey Punter @copyright
16 Signs Of A Bad Tipster…
Tipsters who ‘Boom’ on social media when they have a winner.
Tipsters who don’t have a proper registered website or address for transparency. After all, if they don’t have the time and wherewithal to setup a website these days – how serious can they really be?
Tipsters with a short history of past bets. You need many hundreds, if not thousands of past bets to see if a tipster has a long-term edge. Otherwise they might have just got lucky!
Tipsters that post bets with bookmaker affiliate links. As the Guardian article outlines, this is a warning sign that they might be taking up to a 30% cut from any losing bets you place with the bookmaker they are recommending.
Tipsters who don’t proof their advice to a trusted third party (like SBC) who can verify them as a genuine expert. Also ensures losers can’t be conveniently deleted.
Tipsters that don’t put up their full history of results for you to view (not just the winners!).
Racing Tipsters who settle bets at prices available 5pm the night before racing. Several high-profile tipsters do it, yet these prices are not obtainable to punters staking more than £20. Even if you can get on, you will have your stakes restricted and accounts closed quickly.
Tipsters that settle bets with prices available with poorly rated firms who are quick to restrict punters with even a modicum of ability. The likes of Stan James, **** & Betfred are 3 notorious for this practice.
Tipsters that settle bets at one standout price with just one bookmaker. If following a popular tipster, the chance of you matching those odds are minimal.
Tipsters that contact you via post – where exactly have they got your details from? Some claim they will pay you if you the bet loses and request commission on winners should it win. Its total rubbish. The reality – they’ll run a mile if the bet loses and you’ll never hear from them again.
Tipsters that claim to have inside information. Many members of the public think racing is fixed and so some rogue tipsters try to play on that idea by claiming to have inside information. This information is almost always totally bogus and you are being taken for a ride.
Tipsters with no concept of value. They put up the most likely winner of the race (even if a 1/4 favourite) and never discuss odds.
Tipsters who give no reasoning behind their bets (system based tipsters can be excused here) but surely you want to know why a tipster fancies a bet before you place it?
Tipsters who post doctored images of winning bet slips from unproofed bets. It’s very easy these days to make up ‘winning bet’ slips and you can’t take them at face value as proof of success.
Tipsters who quote winning amounts totally out of context – for example ‘Service X has made £5000 during Ascot’ with no stakes given to put that figure into perspective. It’s just a headline grabbing exercise. What if you had to risk £500,000 to make that £5,000? That doesn’t look so good after all does it!
Tipsters who provide no advice or guidance on betting bank management and a staking plan to follow. If they are making up this as they go – chances are they are doing the same with their tips.
16 Signs Of A Bad Tipster…
Tipsters who ‘Boom’ on social media when they have a winner.
Tipsters who don’t have a proper registered website or address for transparency. After all, if they don’t have the time and wherewithal to setup a website these days – how serious can they really be?
Tipsters with a short history of past bets. You need many hundreds, if not thousands of past bets to see if a tipster has a long-term edge. Otherwise they might have just got lucky!
Tipsters that post bets with bookmaker affiliate links. As the Guardian article outlines, this is a warning sign that they might be taking up to a 30% cut from any losing bets you place with the bookmaker they are recommending.
Tipsters who don’t proof their advice to a trusted third party (like SBC) who can verify them as a genuine expert. Also ensures losers can’t be conveniently deleted.
Tipsters that don’t put up their full history of results for you to view (not just the winners!).
Racing Tipsters who settle bets at prices available 5pm the night before racing. Several high-profile tipsters do it, yet these prices are not obtainable to punters staking more than £20. Even if you can get on, you will have your stakes restricted and accounts closed quickly.
Tipsters that settle bets with prices available with poorly rated firms who are quick to restrict punters with even a modicum of ability. The likes of Stan James, **** & Betfred are 3 notorious for this practice.
Tipsters that settle bets at one standout price with just one bookmaker. If following a popular tipster, the chance of you matching those odds are minimal.
Tipsters that contact you via post – where exactly have they got your details from? Some claim they will pay you if you the bet loses and request commission on winners should it win. Its total rubbish. The reality – they’ll run a mile if the bet loses and you’ll never hear from them again.
Tipsters that claim to have inside information. Many members of the public think racing is fixed and so some rogue tipsters try to play on that idea by claiming to have inside information. This information is almost always totally bogus and you are being taken for a ride.
Tipsters with no concept of value. They put up the most likely winner of the race (even if a 1/4 favourite) and never discuss odds.
Tipsters who give no reasoning behind their bets (system based tipsters can be excused here) but surely you want to know why a tipster fancies a bet before you place it?
Tipsters who post doctored images of winning bet slips from unproofed bets. It’s very easy these days to make up ‘winning bet’ slips and you can’t take them at face value as proof of success.
Tipsters who quote winning amounts totally out of context – for example ‘Service X has made £5000 during Ascot’ with no stakes given to put that figure into perspective. It’s just a headline grabbing exercise. What if you had to risk £500,000 to make that £5,000? That doesn’t look so good after all does it!
Tipsters who provide no advice or guidance on betting bank management and a staking plan to follow. If they are making up this as they go – chances are they are doing the same with their tips.
Tipsters who regularly appear on a subscription racing channel and every time manage to prove just how clueless they are. Take a bow Peter Naughton.
Where does this place Timeform and their owners Betfair and Paddy Power...Timeform churn out myriads of tips and comment,some free,some charged for and a few of their experts are regularly seen on said subscription channel spouting the same or different tips whilst playing on their Timeform connection?
I ran a racing club for over ten years and in work we had a Nap a day comp, if you didn't pick a horse you were given Newsboy's Nap. Some people never picked a horse so had Newsboy every day for years. None of them ever won or from memory had a sniff in all those years.
RP.com Live are throwing them out for free now
RESULT
Perth 3:05
1st (4) Ebony Rose 15/2
2nd (8) Native Optimist 22/1
3rd (1) Dawerann 15/2
8 ran
By Pietro Innocenzi - 7 hours ago Pietro Innocenzi (Pre-race)
LATEST
Perth latest: Recommended bet
Ebony Rose
1pt win at 9-1 generally
BET NOW
So here it is. The first jumps bet - £30 each-way. I'm sure there's a lot more to come from this lightly raced mare, who has begun to get the hang of things since fitted with a hood three starts ago. All she did was stay when winning over 2m4f at this track early last month. Not much went right for her stepped up to 3m on her handicap debut at stiff Hexham last time. She jumped right throughout and took off with her jockey down the back straight on the final circuit. In the circumstances she did well to finish third. The return to this sharp, right-handed track is really going to suit her on that evidence.
3:05 Perth
-
Ebony Rose
3:05 Perth
RESULT
Perth 3:05
1st (4) Ebony Rose 15/2
2nd (8) Native Optimist 22/1
3rd (1) Dawerann 15/2
8 ran
By Pietro Innocenzi - 7 hours ago Pietro Innocenzi (Pre-race)
LATEST
Perth latest: Recommended bet
Ebony Rose
1pt win at 9-1 generally
BET NOW
So here it is. The first jumps bet - £30 each-way. I'm sure there's a lot more to come from this lightly raced mare, who has begun to get the hang of things since fitted with a hood three starts ago. All she did was stay when winning over 2m4f at this track early last month. Not much went right for her stepped up to 3m on her handicap debut at stiff Hexham last time. She jumped right throughout and took off with her jockey down the back straight on the final circuit. In the circumstances she did well to finish third. The return to this sharp, right-handed track is really going to suit her on that evidence.
3:05 Perth
-
Ebony Rose
3:05 Perth
Balance the books a bit with these 2 @ Brighton
By Pietro Innocenzi - 6 hours ago Pietro Innocenzi
LATEST
Brighton latest: Recommended bet
Ronni Layne
1pt win at 15-2 generally
Although only modest, Ronni Layne has shaped okay on ground with cut on her last three starts and hopefully there will be more to come back over a mile. Beaten only three lengths at Lingfield and Nottingham in July, she clearly didn't get home in third in a similar race as this over 1m2f last time. The spate of non-runners has hit her price, but she should go well off 1lb lower.
BET NOW
4:55 Brighton
-
Ronni Layne
4:55 Brighton
5:25 Brighton
By Pietro Innocenzi - 6 hours ago Pietro Innocenzi
LATEST
Brighton latest: Recommended bet
Ede's The Mover
1pt each-way at 14-1 generally
Jade Seabourne asked which horse I thought had the best chance in this. I'm actually recommending backing Ede's The Mover each-way so I'm not going overboard, but I'm not one to follow market moves and short prices rarely do it for me.
World Record has been well backed to win this for the second year running, but the race is a lot more competitive than that five-runner affair and he will find it harder to dominate here. Despite her marked drift in the betting - 8-1 to 14-1 - I'm rowing in with Ede's The Mover mainly due to the ground. Her best efforts - albeit a couple of years ago - came on soft, including when placed at this track and although only sixth of six at Epsom last time, she finished on the heels of a couple of much higher-rated rivals in a 0-77. This is a 0-61.
BET NOW
5:25 Brighton
-
Ede´s The Mover
5:25 Brighton
By Pietro Innocenzi - 6 hours ago Pietro Innocenzi
LATEST
Brighton latest: Recommended bet
Ronni Layne
1pt win at 15-2 generally
Although only modest, Ronni Layne has shaped okay on ground with cut on her last three starts and hopefully there will be more to come back over a mile. Beaten only three lengths at Lingfield and Nottingham in July, she clearly didn't get home in third in a similar race as this over 1m2f last time. The spate of non-runners has hit her price, but she should go well off 1lb lower.
BET NOW
4:55 Brighton
-
Ronni Layne
4:55 Brighton
5:25 Brighton
By Pietro Innocenzi - 6 hours ago Pietro Innocenzi
LATEST
Brighton latest: Recommended bet
Ede's The Mover
1pt each-way at 14-1 generally
Jade Seabourne asked which horse I thought had the best chance in this. I'm actually recommending backing Ede's The Mover each-way so I'm not going overboard, but I'm not one to follow market moves and short prices rarely do it for me.
World Record has been well backed to win this for the second year running, but the race is a lot more competitive than that five-runner affair and he will find it harder to dominate here. Despite her marked drift in the betting - 8-1 to 14-1 - I'm rowing in with Ede's The Mover mainly due to the ground. Her best efforts - albeit a couple of years ago - came on soft, including when placed at this track and although only sixth of six at Epsom last time, she finished on the heels of a couple of much higher-rated rivals in a 0-77. This is a 0-61.
BET NOW
5:25 Brighton
-
Ede´s The Mover
5:25 Brighton
Virgin, on those three examples above the big BET NOW click bait would be the key to their motivation in offering these tips, imo...
Pietro used to cover for Mapletoft in the Weekender now and again
on the A/W.Hes not such a bad judge, for anyone who hasnt got the
time to study ,you could find plenty worse tipsters to follow
on the A/W.Hes not such a bad judge, for anyone who hasnt got the
time to study ,you could find plenty worse tipsters to follow
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539