I watched a programme on the BBC last night regarding betting. There was a guy and his wife who went to Doncaster for the day and he proved that its more beneficial to be at the track. He picked out 3 winners on the day. One was a 7/2 favourite the other two a 20/1 shot and an 18/1 shot. He spotted that in the race where the 20/1 won that the owners and trainer where all huddled up with the jockey in the parade ring yet the jockey of their other horse in the race, 2/1 favourite, was ignored. He twigged on that something was on. If you were in a betting shop or sitting at home you would never have picked that up. The horse won pretty well. The 18/1 winner, Lulu the Zulu he noticed had the smallest hoofs. He said this and said because of the softness off the ground by having smaller feet this would help the horse. Don't know if it was a fluke or actual fact. It was extremely interesting to watch as they had interviews with traders whilst doing their job as well as punters in shops. The programme was shot in one day all with the focus on the meeting at the self same Doncaster where the punter who won was attending. These traders who make the price are extremely astute, well they have to be, and they won over 100k for Corals on the day at that meeting.
I occasionally study form and it rarely wins me cash. The best form horse in the race is mostly either not ready/ needing the run/jockey does not time the run etc etc. Often hear the excuses after the race.
Are you guys that are voting "occasionally" meaning that you occasionally studying form or are using the sheets to select your bets? like a glance to see who rides etc?
You are right Bob, is a possibility but if we look at a number of them daily it is a pretty solid picture to use as a base case.
If we further factor historical evidence into the equation form study is probably overrated. Considering that favourites win a third of all races and if we add second and third favourites in about 60% then form studying does seem to be an awful waste of time.
LSU wrote: You are right Bob, is a possibility but if we look at a number of them daily it is a pretty solid picture to use as a base case.
If we further factor historical evidence into the equation form study is probably overrated. Considering that favourites win a third of all races and if we add second and third favourites in about 60% then form studying does seem to be an awful waste of time.
so lsu how many blocks of flat have you bought from your winnings in racing?form studying a waste of time is like telling a doctor he shouldn't have to studyfor 7 years to become one ..the problem is you and many others don't actually know what form studying entails
I will spend 12+ hours on a card atleast when we have runners at a meeting and publications have about 1-2 hours from final fields are out until going to press to work and tip a whole card so they miss a lot of things. Their ratings is 99% based on where the horse finished and nobody consider what could/have went wrong in a race for a horse to run to his actual rating on that day.
best result you will ever have is to handicap every race by watching replay over and over of each race and get a true rating what the horse could have achieved that day .its very time consuming but very profitable
chicken n chips wrote: I watched a programme on the BBC last night regarding betting. There was a guy and his wife who went to Doncaster for the day and he proved that its more beneficial to be at the track. He picked out 3 winners on the day. One was a 7/2 favourite the other two a 20/1 shot and an 18/1 shot. He spotted that in the race where the 20/1 won that the owners and trainer where all huddled up with the jockey in the parade ring yet the jockey of their other horse in the race, 2/1 favourite, was ignored. He twigged on that something was on. If you were in a betting shop or sitting at home you would never have picked that up. The horse won pretty well. The 18/1 winner, Lulu the Zulu he noticed had the smallest hoofs. He said this and said because of the softness off the ground by having smaller feet this would help the horse. Don't know if it was a fluke or actual fact. It was extremely interesting to watch as they had interviews with traders whilst doing their job as well as punters in shops. The programme was shot in one day all with the focus on the meeting at the self same Doncaster where the punter who won was attending. These traders who make the price are extremely astute, well they have to be, and they won over 100k for Corals on the day at that meeting.
I read an article quite a few years back about two professional punters, one in the UK and the other in the US. Neither studied form, for them it was a case of how much do i want to win per race by backing more than one horse in the same race.
The same principle applies with in running betting in sport. You can back both teams and still make a profit.
I guess whatever method shows a profit for the individual is the method they will stick with, it shouldn't be a hard and fast rule in my opinion.
Guessing has never been widely acclaimed as a good gambling strategy.
Pirates, probably the same number that you have studying form.
The answer is obvious as very few people win at gambling but it is an interesting discussion and calls for further dissemination as time is often a scarce commodity for all of us. Personally I have often done better at gut feel than a few hours of solid studying. Having said that my studying habits are certainly short of scientific quality so the argument is perhaps best served by the opinion of people who do the right work together with the effort.
Nice topic though Bob and could help all of us to rethink our methods.
Topic Author
