Odds linked to wording descriptions

Out of additional interest, one event given that description in a write up has just been beaten...

"Believe nothing you hear & only one half of what you see!""! Edgar Allan Poe.

If you're a traditional punter/bookmaker, then 2/5.

If you're an in-play backer on Betfair, then 1.02. ("Completely certain" = 1.01; "completely certain, but failed owing to unforeseen circumstance" = what do you think the deposit button is there for, eh?)

Was thinking something around 1.1 or lower must admit as my estimate to go with 'highly likely'

It's the difference between decimal odds and traditional ones. With traditional odds the difference between 'likely' (odds on) and 'unlikely' (odds against) is clear. The balance tilts at evens. So, 2/5 is big odds on and therefore highly likely.

With decimal odds, that inflection point is not as clear at all. 1.01, 2.0, 3.0, etc. ... there's nothing in those numbers to suggest where something changes from likely to unlikely. It's not immediately clear that 1.4 is big odds on. To someone looking to back the winner in the final furlong, 1.4 sounds like 4/1 used to for a traditional backer.

Put it this way, I wonder whether in-play betting would have attracted so much action in the final furlong if backers had been shown 1/10 on their screens rather than 1.1.

Good points to ponder screaming.

Just for info, the 'highly likely' description I saw today was the Timeform's comment/verdict of the chance of Kilta winning again (following an easy previous win) today at Haydock.

Methinks they possibly exaggerated it's chance with that language. It was never 'highly likely' pre race, even though it had a 'good' chance of winning.

Timeform expert writers...

Some horses are "expected to be bang there" and those seem pretty good.

Years ago the Timeform Black Books would, very selectively, end an animals write up with the words “ Must not be missed next time”. These were generally backed down to odds far shorter than their true odds and would have been a layer’s paradise nowadays. For some reason I think of a Bill Watts trained, Charles Wacker owned horse called Précis, circa 1982.

I bet there's still a way to profit laying or backing based on nothing but timeform comments. You track the record for each phrase separately and then see patterns. The other day a longshot won and he had the word "shortlisted," that might be pretty good too.

or "not a forlorn hope" for a longshot

or likely to bounce back

The RP comments could also be a good hunting ground for these wording issues. Though not too sure exactly how much they influence the market or not.

The likely to bounce back type is interesting I agree - how does that influence price I wonder (it's basically suggesting a clue that it could be value, but at what price...)

There are many similar comments RP use e.g. 'Not written off', 'unexposed'.

from a layers point of view -lost loads on horses that flopped last time or regressed etc

Good points bob - layers get influenced too by wording especially like 'flopped' - makes it sound like it should be 100s etc

This horse is a racing certainty ,if there is such a thing,

I see horses with form 11x all the time, then they drift and win. Mugs think that 1 loss in a higher class suddenly makes it a bad horse.