thats such a bollox post Chris...really surprised at you
there are many highly regarded odds on shots that lose
blanket support of any sire on a set going they are supposed to excel on is a one way street to the poor house..lazy punting at it's worse to boot
horses running off the same mark aren't exactly good bets either
thanking someone in that way for taking their money is awful arrogance
aftertiming..just thrown in as well..ouch
Only just seen this;
firstly if someone comes on claiming they are doing this that and tother and giving up, they are opening the door for people to throw in suggestions, I personally think NUmbersix took a defeative attutude into Monday's racing.
Three people at least can vouch for the day I had Monday as they read my work and a couple saw me betting on track.
Simply you go on about my comments on Prescription, but I would rather stay with a stallion with a majority of horses proven on the ground. secondly to take a horses debut into consideration is dangerous, especially from a yard hardly reknowned for first time out winners.
Next of all, horses often get beat off the same mark, that is true in some accounts but not normally winners of Apprentice handicaps, which are boxed in, only get out 1f from the line and win 2L without the jockey moving a musscle, that clearly show's the horse is ahead of the grader.
I agree some highly regarded odds on shots lose, I won't doubt that but those are mainly with horses with ground to make up on figures or perhaps flattering debut's into strong maidens. Prescription had won a stronger race a week earlier yet was a staggering 8/11 early doors, on ground she is bred to handle and off the same handicap mark she won off a week prior in an absolute canter. To me it would have been far harder to find a case to lay her than to back her. If you go out with an opinion a horse should be x price, then I agree if it's shorter you should lay, but for me I thought she would be about 1/4 next time she ran after her race at Lingfield.
Secondly the other two races are interesting ones, Number Six was probably right in assessment to take on Red Spider at 4/6 despite it winning on debut, however the place market probably would have shown him a better ew bet.
Ave's race was an awful lay for me, you have 3 horses in the betting, which tells you there are three triers. You have 2 badly drawn and one well drawn, one rode handily on debut, one held up , one unraced. You also have then the factor of one with Group 1 entries, 2 without. Kempton has consistantly shown you need to be ridden on the pace and with stalls 4 and 1, the 2nd and 3rd in the market would be unlikely to go handy, therefore I would say, the laying of Ave was a weird as she had so much in her favour.
You may call me arrogant EC1 and I probably wouldn't disagree with you, but I don't think there is anything wrong with arrogance. After all to speak your mind and believe in your own reasoning is in fact a form of arrogance, you say its wrong to thank someone for laying you a winner, but do you say ul to a loser in a poker game, yes you do and for that matter you have technically thanked them for money. It's the same, my point to Number 6 was I thought all three lays were desperate lays, ones had he spent time looking at the races he would have never done.
Today I was going to lay Purple Moon but I never because I was worried that he was the best horse in the race, this was although knowing he should come on for the run, need further and want slower ground.
To stand a bet you have to be brave, to stake a bet you have to be braver and feel you are getting value.
I chat to some people on here via email, facebook and Msn and all will tell you that I am very open, perhaps too open. I don't mislead people and I tell stuff as I see, but I have my own opinion, and I believe in my own opinion, which is why I may sound arrogant. I accept people's views and I'm keen to learn and respect those whom I feel are knowledgable and are worth knowing. There are alot of intelligent people on this forum who don't say much and come accross less intelligent than they are. For example, in the brief time I've known Rory he opened up a whole new concept of betting for me and a way of looking at races, I feel hs input in certain areas vital and rewarding at time. As do I value Shadow Leader's opinion on many aspects of racing as like me her history with horses is wide and knowledgable. There are others like Mounty who puts up constructive posts and in many regards Gallileo, David Johnson and Irish Stamp who all seem rather well connected or good form readers.
Ec1 your point that I was rude was wrong, I simply stated in a cheeky way, that if your going to lay a horse just because its odds on then in my opinion you deserve to lose. You have to study at this game and study hard. Everyone has losing days, some big some small. It doesn't matter though, its about learning from mistakes. From reading previous posts of Number 6's I have never considered him a rash gambler but from his post about Monday he sounded to use a rash approach to betting, which will leave most of the times in the creek without a paddle.
