On The Bridle
At the Start
Agreed...cannot get excited about the NH when Dundalk on Fridays offers much better fodder...
Charlie Hall Chase
- Thread starter granger
- Start date
Agreed...cannot get excited about the NH when Dundalk on Fridays offers much better fodder...
Yes, but does it offer better racing?
BennyB
Senior Jockey
LSP is meaningless in this context - a horse with five odds on defeats and a 20-1 victory would have an LSP, but would still be a bookie's benefit.
On The Bridle
At the Start
The quality of the racing means relatively little to me when I'm betting to be honest. The higher the grade the more perfect the market generally.
S
SlimChance
Guest
True. In a good race you might get 11/2 about a 4/1 chance in the morning. But in a bad race you might get 20/1 about a 5/1 chance. I'm in it to make money not to be entertained.
Last edited:
fonz
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 2,401
Sure we all bet because we want to make money
But surely Slim your an avid sports bettor because your an avid sports fan??
Except that is not Long Run's record. Have a look again - he is far from a bookie's benefit.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
The higher the grade the less chance of cheating. And hype creates it's own ricks if that hype is misplaced.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Exactly.
This market efficiency is so much hogwash. It's based on this utopian theory that said market comes about via form/conditions on the day/stable form etc etc and yet you look at a race like the RSA at the Cheltenham Festival, the biggest meeting of the season with so much hype and discussion that you'd expect the sp's to be water tight with no room for value and you have a 5/2 favourite based almost exclusively on jockey choice.
This market efficiency is so much hogwash. It's based on this utopian theory that said market comes about via form/conditions on the day/stable form etc etc and yet you look at a race like the RSA at the Cheltenham Festival, the biggest meeting of the season with so much hype and discussion that you'd expect the sp's to be water tight with no room for value and you have a 5/2 favourite based almost exclusively on jockey choice.
On The Bridle
At the Start
On a pure transparency and form basis what you both say is correct. The general populous and bookmaking fraternity would generally be less well informed the lower the grade you go...there is a limit to the level of race which even I will stoop to. To say there are more ricks in Grade 1's than 47-65 handicaps is not correct or even close to it. In the age of nearing perfect information you have to look a little further down the line to make dough.
That's my opinion and I put my money where I make most. That's definitely in lower grade races.
That's my opinion and I put my money where I make most. That's definitely in lower grade races.
That's true. Not just hype but nationalistic betting and sentiment.
I suspect that those that actually do make a margin do not set out to do so but bet when they see a genuine opportunity rather than seeking to run a p and l. The key is less is more.
Also if you actually enjoy the sport for what it is and can have a fascination in races that are not backable as well as what is an enduring spectacle, you are again in a better position
I find it so strange that so many obsess about having a bet or "angle" in just about every race. It's just not there
I go racing 30 times a year and go to many meetings where it's just a couple of bets at most.
If its just about making money then the reward/effort ratio doesn't weigh up
The last pro punter I met was a nice bloke but lived at home with his mum. Said it all a bit
Last edited:
Bar the Bull
At the Start
Harry Findlay?
EC1
On a break
Over the years on every forum i've posted on..80% of those posting claimed to win at the game..thats incredible when the actual figure of people who win consistently is just 2 or 3%
Over the years on every forum i've posted on..80% of those posting claimed to win at the game..thats incredible when the actual figure of people who win consistently is just 2 or 3%
I'm not sure it's so surprising, EC
When you say 2 or 3%, you mean 2 or 3% of who exactly? Of everyone who bets, including the once a year punters on the National?
I have no problem believing a lot of people on here win more than they lose. Winning 'consistently' is another matter. What is meant by that? Very very few people (a few dozen?) do well enough to make a living solely from betting on horses but there must be a much larger number who make a profit of some sort most years and I'd expect plenty of people on here to be among them.
Last edited:
Good post Grey.
There is a thread on TRF from somebody who effectively posts a journal of their attempt to 'turn pro' and while they make a profit, it would not suffice as a sole income unless the punter had other means of living.
If people think that a 10% ROI over each and every year would be a good return then to generate the equivalent of an 100k per year gross salary (given that gambling profit is tax free equating to c. 70k net) they would need to theoretically start with 700k - although that of course is a highly simplified analysis.
and if I had 700k that I could use as a starting bank then I wouldn't care about a measly 10% ROI
I would concur that there are many people who make a regular profit on here (I am not one of them !) but not many who can generate enough profit to provide a living for them and a family.
back to the original topic and while Long Run will probably need this, his form is head and shoulders above anything else (at least 11lb on OR) and surely odds against is a good bet considering that the 3rd horse in the market Harry Topper won't run unless there is a downpour leaving Cape Tribulation , Benefficient and Unioniste as the only other horses quoted at less than 20/1.
and admirable as they are should they really be able to beat Long Run over 3m1f on GS ?. Especially when they have all had an equally long break.
There is a thread on TRF from somebody who effectively posts a journal of their attempt to 'turn pro' and while they make a profit, it would not suffice as a sole income unless the punter had other means of living.
If people think that a 10% ROI over each and every year would be a good return then to generate the equivalent of an 100k per year gross salary (given that gambling profit is tax free equating to c. 70k net) they would need to theoretically start with 700k - although that of course is a highly simplified analysis.
and if I had 700k that I could use as a starting bank then I wouldn't care about a measly 10% ROI
I would concur that there are many people who make a regular profit on here (I am not one of them !) but not many who can generate enough profit to provide a living for them and a family.
back to the original topic and while Long Run will probably need this, his form is head and shoulders above anything else (at least 11lb on OR) and surely odds against is a good bet considering that the 3rd horse in the market Harry Topper won't run unless there is a downpour leaving Cape Tribulation , Benefficient and Unioniste as the only other horses quoted at less than 20/1.
and admirable as they are should they really be able to beat Long Run over 3m1f on GS ?. Especially when they have all had an equally long break.
Diamond Geezer
Gone But Not Forgotten
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 13,884
Sam Twiston Davies riding Unioniste and Tidal Bay on Saturday
Last edited:
I see you've edited and added the 30k caveat.
But I assume you're putting the 30k aside to cover a bad starting run of 3 or 4 weeks, it would however also be depreciating for general living costs without the 10% being returned.
I agree in principal but the higher the regular income that is being displaced then the higher the required starting bank (although I'm stating the obvious) and while my 700k example was extreme, the reality is that it would be closer to 100k and I'm sure my missus would be well happy if I decided to amass and risk that sort of money in my new venture...
But I assume you're putting the 30k aside to cover a bad starting run of 3 or 4 weeks, it would however also be depreciating for general living costs without the 10% being returned.
I agree in principal but the higher the regular income that is being displaced then the higher the required starting bank (although I'm stating the obvious) and while my 700k example was extreme, the reality is that it would be closer to 100k and I'm sure my missus would be well happy if I decided to amass and risk that sort of money in my new venture...
You would only need to have a partly bad month. Losing a third say. Then you would be clearly working with a diminished base which makes it harder etc etc
You are right. Reckon you would need a good four months capital
simmo
Senior Jockey
I've just checked my Betfair account - I'm a small stakes punter for my own amusement and solely use Betfair these days.
Over the past 6 years since I opened this particular account I am showing a loss of £90. Which I don't think is too bad - £15 a year and another win like Scatter Dice would see me in a decent amount of profit.
Over the past 6 years since I opened this particular account I am showing a loss of £90. Which I don't think is too bad - £15 a year and another win like Scatter Dice would see me in a decent amount of profit.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Makes sense. If only 1% of punters show a profit from betting, even a large proportion of that percentage will be punters who are at a level of it being a profitable hobby rather than it being an income to live off - that is still a lot of people when you think of the total number who bet. It stands to reason a lot of those punters will have enough of an interest in the sport to migrate to forums.