Strange game this

Muhtiman wrote:

......Roccapina had plenty in hand and was eating up the ground all be it on that rather tight inside rail....and do not believe that that jock cocked it on purpose as he was thinking that the horses in front were rolling out off the rail and he almost ran up an arse trying to take a gap that was never there.....a hard luck story and not a bush job.....

That inside rail is like a magnet to the detriment of many punters, not saying it was a "job?, after that race the next two races the favourites were too short for punter to recover money, so they backed something to beat the favourites. Ante post on the two favourites worked out to 9/10 at worse odds, 4/10 and 4/10, i know i took that double.

The ultimate question, irrespective of the odds, is how much do i want to win at the odds?

Smallpunter wrote:

What fascinates me is that an odds on shot that drifts never wins and often misses the places. How do the bookmakers get it right every single time? Personally I never rely on odds on shots in multis or to banker maybe in the pa you can banker one somewhere. If a horse trades at less than 5/2 ante post I ignore it completely and look at another horse or another race. It's not just the odds it's a trainer with multiple horses but comes with his 10/1 or most of these top jocks that will miss the pa with an odds on on the card at least once today it was twice. I prefer loosing my money backing higher priced horses with the less preferred jocks who always try thier best. I've seen many a top jock on an odds on shot give up when they think they can't win.

Betting is all about supply and demand. It is just someone's opinion, there's never a right or wrong price in the ante post market. It's very seldom an odds on shot shortens come race time. Likewise, if there is no demand for the odds on shot, the bookies drift it to make it backable. If (say) the odds on drifts without pressure for another horse in the race, that's because punters do not see value at the current odds, hence the drift. Conversely, punters have found value in another runner at a bigger price which invariably shortens in the market.

My opinion when a trainer has more that one horse in a race, they don't mind which one wins as long as they win the race.  You must remember, trainers don't price up for the race, that's why it appears the wrong one from the stable wins. Sometimes the "wrong one" was always a stand out, ala, Let It Be Said on Met Day, opened 8/1, jumped at 5/2, whereas the stable companion, The Grey King opened 7/2 and jumped at 11/2 (ran a creditable second conceding 8.5 kg to Let It Be Said.

What i believe, the drifts are a lot more complex than we imagine and the bookies gauge this from the betting (the demand for a runner/s).


 

durbs wrote:

I fully understand what you saying Bayern.
But....let's take See It Again as an example yesterday.
From 6-10 to 2-1.Best handicapped horse in the race by a country mile.Sure there was massive support for the winner but should a proverbial good thing on paper drift to triple it's odds if alll was well with the horse?Remember places also with the fixed odds.So sure the backed horse could beat the favourite but it should still run a place on paper and 3-10 a place sounds good for a horse that is weighted to actually win by a good distance.
So here something tells me the bookies knew a bit more than what is written on paper.
Striker was of the opinion that it wasn't a 6-10 because of the draw.Could be too far back and might not make up the ground as it's a stayer.
It broke well was up with the pace and had every chance and still failed to run a place.
The horse wasn't right on the day and the bookies knew it.

My opinion regards See It Again, yes it was the best rated horse in the race, however he's last win was in November 2024 in a Plated race, and before that, was in December 2023, when at he's peak. For me, he has reached his maximum and is now on a downward curve, whereas the younger horses are closing the MR gap on him. Most agreed the distance (1600m) was now the bottom of his range and as horses get older they become unreliable. Could be wrong and i'll apologise in advance, towards the end of his career, they could never be confident which Pocket Power would turn up, despite the MR. For me, the same thing is happening to See It Again.

Will he win again, yes, justs needs to "bump the right kind of field".

bayern wrote:

Smallpunter wrote:

What fascinates me is that an odds on shot that drifts never wins and often misses the places. How do the bookmakers get it right every single time? Personally I never rely on odds on shots in multis or to banker maybe in the pa you can banker one somewhere. If a horse trades at less than 5/2 ante post I ignore it completely and look at another horse or another race. It's not just the odds it's a trainer with multiple horses but comes with his 10/1 or most of these top jocks that will miss the pa with an odds on on the card at least once today it was twice. I prefer loosing my money backing higher priced horses with the less preferred jocks who always try thier best. I've seen many a top jock on an odds on shot give up when they think they can't win.

Betting is all about supply and demand. It is just someone's opinion, there's never a right or wrong price in the ante post market. It's very seldom an odds on shot shortens come race time. Likewise, if there is no demand for the odds on shot, the bookies drift it to make it backable. If (say) the odds on drifts without pressure for another horse in the race, that's because punters do not see value at the current odds, hence the drift. Conversely, punters have found value in another runner at a bigger price which invariably shortens in the market.

My opinion when a trainer has more that one horse in a race, they don't mind which one wins as long as they win the race.  You must remember, trainers don't price up for the race, that's why it appears the wrong one from the stable wins. Sometimes the "wrong one" was always a stand out, ala, Let It Be Said on Met Day, opened 8/1, jumped at 5/2, whereas the stable companion, The Grey King opened 7/2 and jumped at 11/2 (ran a creditable second conceding 8.5 kg to Let It Be Said.

What i believe, the drifts are a lot more complex than we imagine and the bookies gauge this from the betting (the demand for a runner/s).

Whilst I agree a trainer doesn't mind which one wins surley a trainer knows that his 50/1 shot at the same stable as his odds on shot is close enough to it at work and could let the public know. Instead they will say needs to improve or needs the run and give a comment about the odds on being well at home etc. I understand once in a while but we get greeted quite alot and the trainer can't always be surprised otherwise how much does he actually know about his horses?



 

Smallpunter wrote:

bayern wrote:

Smallpunter wrote:

What fascinates me is that an odds on shot that drifts never wins and often misses the places. How do the bookmakers get it right every single time? Personally I never rely on odds on shots in multis or to banker maybe in the pa you can banker one somewhere. If a horse trades at less than 5/2 ante post I ignore it completely and look at another horse or another race. It's not just the odds it's a trainer with multiple horses but comes with his 10/1 or most of these top jocks that will miss the pa with an odds on on the card at least once today it was twice. I prefer loosing my money backing higher priced horses with the less preferred jocks who always try thier best. I've seen many a top jock on an odds on shot give up when they think they can't win.

Betting is all about supply and demand. It is just someone's opinion, there's never a right or wrong price in the ante post market. It's very seldom an odds on shot shortens come race time. Likewise, if there is no demand for the odds on shot, the bookies drift it to make it backable. If (say) the odds on drifts without pressure for another horse in the race, that's because punters do not see value at the current odds, hence the drift. Conversely, punters have found value in another runner at a bigger price which invariably shortens in the market.

My opinion when a trainer has more that one horse in a race, they don't mind which one wins as long as they win the race.  You must remember, trainers don't price up for the race, that's why it appears the wrong one from the stable wins. Sometimes the "wrong one" was always a stand out, ala, Let It Be Said on Met Day, opened 8/1, jumped at 5/2, whereas the stable companion, The Grey King opened 7/2 and jumped at 11/2 (ran a creditable second conceding 8.5 kg to Let It Be Said.

What i believe, the drifts are a lot more complex than we imagine and the bookies gauge this from the betting (the demand for a runner/s).

Whilst I agree a trainer doesn't mind which one wins surley a trainer knows that his 50/1 shot at the same stable as his odds on shot is close enough to it at work and could let the public know. Instead they will say needs to improve or needs the run and give a comment about the odds on being well at home etc. I understand once in a while but we get greeted quite alot and the trainer can't always be surprised otherwise how much does he actually know about his horses?

Accept the trainers don't price up, otherwise they would price up the right one at 50/1 and the coup follows. Bear in mind bookies are here to take our money and not run a benevolent organisation. Think Mr Hawaii, a long time back, posted an article about traders in England who deliberately drift horses they think can win, to put the punters off.

another thing o remember, bookies don't give money away - if he can sell a horse at 4/10, why would s/he be prepared to give away double the odds if they thought it would win. Conversely, horse do drift and win, very seldom alarmingly.

Trainers tend to cover themselves when they have two or more runners in a race, "they all working well and should give a good account of themselves", or, "can't seperate them on their work back home", when one is 15/10 and the other 7/1.




 

bayern post=894283 userid=1880

Smallpunter post=894281 userid=16745

bayern post=894269 userid=1880

Smallpunter post=894252 userid=16745What fascinates me is that an odds on shot that drifts never wins and often misses the places. How do the bookmakers get it right every single time? Personally I never rely on odds on shots in multis or to banker maybe in the pa you can banker one somewhere. If a horse trades at less than 5/2 ante post I ignore it completely and look at another horse or another race. It's not just the odds it's a trainer with multiple horses but comes with his 10/1 or most of these top jocks that will miss the pa with an odds on on the card at least once today it was twice. I prefer loosing my money backing higher priced horses with the less preferred jocks who always try thier best. I've seen many a top jock on an odds on shot give up when they think they can't win.

Betting is all about supply and demand. It is just someone's opinion, there's never a right or wrong price in the ante post market. It's very seldom an odds on shot shortens come race time. Likewise, if there is no demand for the odds on shot, the bookies drift it to make it backable. If (say) the odds on drifts without pressure for another horse in the race, that's because punters do not see value at the current odds, hence the drift. Conversely, punters have found value in another runner at a bigger price which invariably shortens in the market.

My opinion when a trainer has more that one horse in a race, they don't mind which one wins as long as they win the race.  You must remember, trainers don't price up for the race, that's why it appears the wrong one from the stable wins. Sometimes the "wrong one" was always a stand out, ala, Let It Be Said on Met Day, opened 8/1, jumped at 5/2, whereas the stable companion, The Grey King opened 7/2 and jumped at 11/2 (ran a creditable second conceding 8.5 kg to Let It Be Said.

What i believe, the drifts are a lot more complex than we imagine and the bookies gauge this from the betting (the demand for a runner/s).

Whilst I agree a trainer doesn't mind which one wins surley a trainer knows that his 50/1 shot at the same stable as his odds on shot is close enough to it at work and could let the public know. Instead they will say needs to improve or needs the run and give a comment about the odds on being well at home etc. I understand once in a while but we get greeted quite alot and the trainer can't always be surprised otherwise how much does he actually know about his horses?

Accept the trainers don't price up, otherwise they would price up the right one at 50/1 and the coup follows. Bear in mind bookies are here to take our money and not run a benevolent organisation. Think Mr Hawaii, a long time back, posted an article about traders in England who deliberately drift horses they think can win, to put the punters off.

another thing o remember, bookies don't give money away - if he can sell a horse at 4/10, why would s/he be prepared to give away double the odds if they thought it would win. Conversely, horse do drift and win, very seldom alarmingly.

Trainers tend to cover themselves when they have two or more runners in a race, "they all working well and should give a good account of themselves", or, "can't seperate them on their work back home", when one is 15/10 and the other 7/1.

....then again it is not not the trainer that is pricing them up is it....but many punters still believe that trainers are working with the bookies....trainers that like to have a tickle are more likely to hide their graft from the bookies and punters alike.... why would they want everyone to all share in the in the good times they not very often go through only to be ridiculed when the hard times are back again.... no one but them and a few loyal stable connections are paying their bills....