Queen Anne Stakes

uncle goober

uncle goober

At the Start
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
1,277
In order that the rest of Royal Ascot is not overlooked, please can we get the following out of the way now.

Strong Suit is NOT value for the Queen Anne Stakes.
Excelebration is NOT value for the Queen Anne Stakes.

Hope this helps.
 
uncle goober said:
In order that the rest of Royal Ascot is not overlooked, please can we get the following out of the way now.

Strong Suit is NOT value for the Queen Anne Stakes.
Excelebration is NOT value for the Queen Anne Stakes.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Of course they can be value. If there are 8/9 runners declared, and Excelebration is 13/2 and Strong Suit 12/1, it's highly likely they are value each way.

And Farhh will probably be the value bet (again, each way) regardless.

Very strange view to take, stating there is no value against a long odds on favourite - of course there could be.
 
I've just seen Excelebration is 8/1 with William Hill - if he is an intended runner, this must be the best each way bet of the season.
 
Hamm said:
I've just seen Excelebration is 8/1 with William Hill - if he is an intended runner, this must be the best each way bet of the season.
Click to expand...
I'm sure uncle goober was being deliberately provocative, but I believe his gist is that anyone who claims X "is value to beat Frankel", or that "they all have to get beaten sometime" is a first class tit.
 
Last edited:
Hamm is correct that they're value if there are 8 runners plus as bookies will be betting 1/4 odds EW so you will probably be getting twice the true place price betting EW.

Farhh would be my idea to take him on with though rather than the same old faces.
 
Aidan O'Brien: "Excelebration will probably go for that [Queen Anne]".

8/1 is a corking EW price if he does run because his true place odds would be far shorter.

But as Rory says . . .
 
rorydelargy said:
I'm sure uncle goober was being deliberately provocative, but I believe his gist is that anyone who claims X "is value to beat Frankel", or that "they all have to get beaten sometime" is a first class tit.
Click to expand...

I know what his gist is, but he's wrong. Massively so with Excelebration at 8/1. This is a seriously sound investment, and whether anyone likes it or not, there IS the chance Frankel could have an off day. The place bet is as good a bet as you'll see.
 
If you could get 1/5 odds about the place only i'd agree but I would have to question how much more value there is in that bet than just backing Frankel to win. There's not a whole lot of difference as we stand now and i'd rather back Frankel as he'll be there and he'll win.
 
Aragorn said:
If you could get 1/5 odds about the place only i'd agree but I would have to question how much more value there is in that bet than just backing Frankel to win. There's not a whole lot of difference as we stand now and i'd rather back Frankel as he'll be there and he'll win.
Click to expand...

Most firms will bet 1/4 odds all races at the Royal meeting, meaning that pairing Excelebration with another solid place-only merchant in an each-way double would be a shrewd move, but that's NOT the point of the thread, is it?

In terms of value bets for the Queen Anne, may I remind people that Frankel isn't a great deal shorter to win this than Hawk Wing was. Chortle.
 
I think Goober was probably having a good dig at those like me who saw reasons why Frankel could get beat in the Lockinge.

In fact it was only me who thought Frankel could get beat in the Lockinge.

Thanks Goober.
 
Last edited:
On the face of it (some kind of injury in the spring and fto) he was vulnerable. But the normal rules don't apply to horses like Frankel.
 
rorydelargy said:
Backing horses on the "off chance" that the best horse will have an off day is the realm of the mug punter. I'd expect better from you.
Click to expand...

That's not what I am saying. I am saying the place part is incredible value, maybe 4 times the price it should be. Hence, you have a seriously large value bet, and I added that it is not impossible he could win (for all the fact I would not be betting with any hope of that happening). He may only have to beat Side Glance and Bullet Train to place.
 
EC1 said:
but surely everyone does that to a degree everyday or we would all just back the highest rated horse in each race
Click to expand...
Not if the highest rated horse is 4/5 when it should be 2/1, as I'm sure you'll agree. The primary aspect to finding value is to identify the "correct" price of the favourite as a starting point. Bad favourites should be opposed on the grounds that they are poorly priced - as you did with the jolly in the Perth bumper yesterday. Once you've established that a favourite is bombproof (cf Frankel), deciding to oppose it on the off chance it won't perform will lead you to penury. Would you agree.
 
rorydelargy said:
Not if the highest rated horse is 4/5 when it should be 2/1, as I'm sure you'll agree. The primary aspect to finding value is to identify the "correct" price of the favourite as a starting point. Bad favourites should be opposed on the grounds that they are poorly priced - as you did with the jolly in the Perth bumper yesterday. Once you've established that a favourite is bombproof (cf Frankel), deciding to oppose it on the off chance it won't perform will lead you to penury. Would you agree.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposing it in the win market, but the each way one - a rather big difference! :p
 
To illustrate Hamm's point, here is last year's QE2 betting:

http://form.horseracing.betfair.com/horse-racing/151011/Ascot-GB-Asc/1535

Excelebration was 6/1 at the off with bookmakers, at 1/4 odds that is 6/4 to place with the bookmakers yet to place on Betfair, he was 1.63 which is a shade above 8/13. Mathematically, this is a fantastic bet regardless of the amount of value you are giving away on the win part of the bet.

If a horse of Frankel's quality and record ran every year then you'd be much better off backing the second fav EW (providing there were 8 runners) at SP than Frankel or his equivalent, that's simply a mathematical fact which goes back to Pascal and Fermat rather than a horse's timeform rating.
 
Last edited:
Gamla Stan said:
To illustrate Hamm's point, here is last year's QE2 betting:

http://form.horseracing.betfair.com/horse-racing/151011/Ascot-GB-Asc/1535

Excelebration was 6/1 at the off with bookmakers, at 1/4 odds that is 6/4 to place with the bookmakers yet to place on Betfair, he was 1.63 which is a shade above 8/13. Mathematically, this is a fantastic bet regardless of the amount of value you are giving away on the win part of the bet.

If a horse of Frankel's quality and record ran every year then you'd be much better off backing the second fav EW (providing there were 8 runners) at SP than Frankel or his equivalent, that's simply a mathematical fact which goes back to Pascal and Fermat rather than a horse's timeform rating.
Click to expand...

Except this time you are getting 2/1. What a great bet.
 
Gamla Stan said:
To illustrate Hamm's point, here is last year's QE2 betting:

http://form.horseracing.betfair.com/horse-racing/151011/Ascot-GB-Asc/1535

Excelebration was 6/1 at the off with bookmakers, at 1/4 odds that is 6/4 to place with the bookmakers yet to place on Betfair, he was 1.63 which is a shade above 8/13. Mathematically, this is a fantastic bet regardless of the amount of value you are giving away on the win part of the bet.

If a horse of Frankel's quality and record ran every year then you'd be much better off backing the second fav EW (providing there were 8 runners) at SP than Frankel or his equivalent, that's simply a mathematical fact which goes back to Pascal and Fermat rather than a horse's timeform rating.
Click to expand...

Wow you have to explain that to me. At 6/1 a quarter the odds e/w you are most certainly not getting 6/4 for the place. You can't forget the win bet if it places 2nd. At that point you are getting 1/4 for a place bet hardly the value you think. The Betfair odds in your example above are reflecting of this. Your statement that Mathematically, this is a fantastic bet regardless of the amount of value you are giving away on the win part of the bet. is nonesense because if he does not win you have to factor that money into the bet as well.

At 8/1 e/w you are getting 1/2 on the place bet not 2/1.

However if you know of a bookmaker that will offer you those odds without the win portion let me know because then it becomes a very good bet. Obviously if he wins you are way ahead but won't happen in this case.
 
Back
Top