Backing every runner in every race at BSP.

Cheltenham? I’m guessing it would’ve made a profit seeing this thread has been made.

What are the figures?

I guess this year you are correct. I believe that in recent years this has been the case with perhaps 2 exceptions. Has anybody actually done it ?

Mar 13, 2026 -- 9:34PM, Celeric wrote:

I guess this year you are correct. I believe that in recent years this has been the case with perhaps 2 exceptions. Has anybody actually done it ?

there was a thread that I bumped earlier today

before this year it was 5 of the last 7 years a profit
all of the previous 7 years a loss
for a loss across the 14 years

the problem with this type of approach is 8 years ago you could have made a similar video saying lay every runner @ BSP its profitable but fair play to anyone if they have scooped the big rags

Good morning, wonders. Could you give a link to the thread you bumped, because I can't seem to find it. Thanks.

I think the problem with this sort of strategy these days will be the losing runs. If you are doing anything close to level stakes, you will be affordability-checked out of the game long before a random sequence of outsiders wins to put you in front.

https://www.simonnott.co.uk/blog-racing/andrews-cheltenham-angles-part-1

[b]Courtsey of horseracebase.com..../b]

Thanks.

Courtesy of horseracebase.com

For there to be any hope of success for the system every horse would have to be over-priced* (obviously untrue with 100% book) or outsiders would have to be overpriced (possible). With bfsp 20 as a definition of outsider how does that pan out over the years?

*I suppose you could try to assert that the winners are always overpriced

For the second successive year, the secret to profit at the Cheltenham Festival was just backing all 475 runners on Betfair

The 28 winners returned +166.38

t2r's list...all runners 8774 bets ROI -0.19% since 2008

had a look dave if looking horses bigger than 25/1 that has been profitable
but so has horses shorter than 5/1
or market positions its favs & then horses not in the 1st 10 in the betting (correlates with above)

unless you can confidently explain why its largely meaningless imo

for 2027 I'd be happy to lay
backing all runners @ BSP profitable no 8/11, yes 11/10
laying all runners @ BSP profitable no 8/11, yes 11/10

with comm yes can be losers for both

walofs

wondersobright14 Mar 26 18:33Joined: 13 Jun 06 | Topic/replies: 116,294 | Blogger: wondersobright's blog
unless you can confidently explain why its largely meaningless imo

This is spot on. If you go looking for "winning systems" (without any rationale) you will find plenty of them if you look hard enough! - but they will all be utterly meaningless -  even if you can back-fit a "rationale".

Pretty much anything you "search" will have an element of variance or deviation; So it will nearly always show either a profit or a loss, therefore pretty much every (even completely random and senseless) "search" criteria can be justified afterwards as either a winning back-system (if it makes a profit) or a winning-lay system (if it makes a loss)!

If you work out the rationale/reasoning before doing the search, that's a slightly different exercise and may have some merit - but even then, who is to say your rationale/reasoning is actually has any merit, as it is still a coin-toss as to whether any search criteria will show a profit or a loss.

What about the rationale that the hype horses get over bet and all of the outsiders are trying ?

Johnny - Via the table that T2R has posted above (looking at the past 19 years) that rationale doesn't work as it produces a cumulative loss of -16.17

You could claim that your stated rationale about outsiders is a modern phenomena; as the earliest 10 years posted by T2R show a combined loss of -531.81 whereas the most recent 10 years show a profit of + 450.34. But that would be clutching at straws (imo).

The reality is that backing every runner at BFSP will return a result each year in the range of approx -200 to approx +200! Guessing which might happen each year, would be, er, just guessing (imo)!

If you were determined to back-fit some "rationale" - I guess the move to 28 races (and the nature of the additional races) might be a good (back-fitted!) rationale.

It shows a cumulative profit of +231.63 - but you'd have lost 218.71 in the very first year of trying it (so probably have given up!) and you'd only have actually realised a rolling profit in the last 2 years - so that's probably a load of randomised back-fitted b0llocks as well!

it is still a coin-toss as to whether any search criteria will show a profit or a loss
this is the point I was making in march 14 6.35pm post

some good points tm

my best guess is that in the last decade some of the bigger syndicates have looked over previous festival data (presumably back to when BSP started circa 2008) & discovered that rags weren't winning in line with market expectations
drew the conclusion that horses that were going off @ 25 should be 50, horses going off @ 100 should be 200 etc

probably an over-reaction based off small sample sizes

I'm not back fitting anything.

Hype horses , spring ground after a wet winter , Mullins second and third strings less exposed than normal  - all positives for the bet this year.

The hype around the festival increases every year. There are now dozens of preview nights / videos  available to all over the internet with the same horses tipped up over and over again. Big outsiders rarely get a mention.
The concept that the BSP is always right is a little blinkered imo , especially at the festival. Many of the races can have a large number of huge priced outsiders , all trying and trained to run to the best of their abilities, maybe on ground drier than previous months.

Anyway it is all theories and whether they are right or wrong it has been a cracking fun bet which is easy to place and gives you a shout in the finish of every race.  "Who've you backed in this Johnny ? "   "I've backed them all !"

"Nobody could back Martator !! "  "Oh I had a little tickle"

Oh - I'm realistic as well - Lulamba beats Poniros (226)  last year and Jazzy Matty pips Martator (229) this year and this thread wouldn't exist.

he's not saying you're back fitting jtg he's saying the concept in this thread has been arrived at by back fitting (as in its only since 2019 that its been hugely profitable)

yes if poniros or martator doesn't win its different picture as 1 treble figure price winner skews everything
but its also likely in 2008-2018 there were near misses

you can read into things that aren't really there imo because the sample size isn't anywhere near big enough

the front of market isn't overbet either btw
less than 5/1 has been profitable @ BSP since it came in but not 3 of the last 4 years

Of course the sample size isn't big enough - I understand that. I'm not advocating it as winning long term system. We'll never know that.

It's a fun way to play the festival with , in my opinion , some logic and rationale behind it.

It's really just a glorified spread bet - total SP's made up at 378 over the meeting , about 100 above the pre-meeting quote. (Bigger priced outsiders won more races than was expected).  The difference is we are buying at the number of runners (475) but getting paid at BSP.

We can bring this thread back next year and whatever the results will still conclude that it proves nothing either way.

I agree with much of that jtg

should have been more for spread buyers because martator returned 229 on here but only 66/1 SP

Has Andrew Mount got any more bright ideas?