TV coverage

Anyone else underwhelmed by Being AP last night ?

Incidentally plans for a second film, Being Ruby Walsh, fell at the final hurdle.
 
I listened to it next door as I typed up my stuff but didn't find myself rushing in to see anything exciting. Watched it all again later and thought it was very lightweight.

Luke Harvey has to go. He just isn't good enough. He's an ex-jockey and now a trainer. His insight should be far more telling.

Chapman isn't getting any better. He's toned down his initial histrionics but he came away with a few ridiculous comments the other day, eg the decision for Coleman to take over the Native River ride was along the lines of one of the most significant jockey changes in the history of racing? Seriously. Seriously? It probably wasn't the most significant jockey change on the day.

I've got the programme recorded. I could go back and watch it again to pick up other simply stupid comments he made but it would be time I'd never get back.

He needs tied to a rocket and sent to fvck up his own arse. He's halfway there already anyway.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
I listened to it next door as I typed up my stuff but didn't find myself rushing in to see anything exciting. Watched it all again later and thought it was very lightweight.

Luke Harvey has to go. He just isn't good enough. He's an ex-jockey and now a trainer. His insight should be far more telling.

Chapman isn't getting any better. He's toned down his initial histrionics but he came away with a few ridiculous comments the other day, eg the decision for Coleman to take over the Native River ride was along the lines of one of the most significant jockey changes in the history of racing? Seriously. Seriously? It probably wasn't the most significant jockey change on the day.

I've got the programme recorded. I could go back and watch it again to pick up other simply stupid comments he made but it would be time I'd never get back.

He needs tied to a rocket and sent to fvck up his own arse. He's halfway there already anyway.
Click to expand...

I thought one of ITV's key objectives was to educate - in the hope of appealing to a new generation - as well as entertain so it was excruciatingly painful to see the regular "expert" Harvey argue (with Millington) that we should be aiming to back a winner regardless of price and it doesn't matter whether it's value.

I appreciate people have differing views on this subject but he just came across as a tit.
 
I think the average punter would rather back a 6/4 winner whose form should have had it at 5/2 than a 20/1 loser whose form should have had it at 10/1. There is no​ value in a losing bet.
 
Not sure what your point is there.

That was exactly the problem, Harvey was suggesting that if you think the horse is going to win you should back it regardless of it's price and value (i.e. it's true %age chance vs it's odds) has nothing to do with it.

Which is not the way to educate beginners to the sport.
 
It's true percentage chance is a subjective measure. If everyone is offering 6/4 and you think the horse will win, a beginner will not understand being advised not to back it because it should be 5/2. The notion of value may be interesting as an intellectual exercise but is essentially irrelevant.
 
I must say value Vs winners is something I have struggled with in recent years. Ever since joining this forum, I began to understand value much more. However I went through a long spell of 'moral victories' where I was continually on at a great price, but none of them were winning. In the same period, I'd watch a lot of the racing with my Dad and see him mindlessly 'follow the money' , getting terrible 'value', but strike a lot more winners than me. I found it exceptionally frustrating. FWIW , my own opinion now is that you need to be placing a certain (high) volume of bets for the value to take its toll. I think someone here once told me that if you are continually getting on at the right price, long term you do well. But for the casual Saturday punter, winners are everything.
 
That's fine but he should say fcuk all then as opposed to saying the opposite. You may not have seen the program but Millington suggested a horse was "value" and Harvey contradicted him saying along the lines of it's only value if it's going to win.

I don't want to get into the age old argument as I'm fairly ambivalent towards it but the young/new audience are going to be more susceptible and it's at best irresponsible on Harvey's part.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, Lee, novice punters are not going to understand 'value' in its truest sense - and it's not a subject that can be done justice anyway, in the short 'educational' segments they have on ITVR.

The target should be backing 2/1 shots at 9/4, 11/4 shots at 3/1.....or 16/1 shots at 25/1. Do that consistently, and you will consistently have value, and will (should) win money over the long-term.

This is rarely a consideration for the casual Saturday punter, but that's largely why they are net-losers - no matter if they snag the occassional winning 6/4 fave in a Saturday race.
 
Last edited:
I agree Grass - and with the earlier comments - but as I said in my previous post, why use the line "a winner is a winner" at all ?. Everybody knows that.

and I wasn't expecting him to start explaining perceived probability versus odds but I wasn't expecting him to argue against it's logic either.
 
The Value v Winners argument has always fascinated me.

For me it's all about circumstances.

On the Cheltenham threads I've been talking about backing the likes of Sceau Royal, Brain Power and Bristol De Mai etc as value bets. I've never really convinced myself they were likely to win [yet!] but felt the prices had to be taken. In the back of my mind is the possibility that I can lay off the bet(s) at much shorter (as I have already done with BP - took 25s, laid off at 10s) and have one or more of them running for me to no risk.

Last year I started backing Altior quite early (if not before the Christmas meeting then definitely at that stage). Regardless of whatever was being said about Min, my figures were telling me Altior would only have to reproduce his form to win something like 9 out of the previous 10 Supreme Hurdles. And he was 8/1.

On Saturday there I thought Beyond Conceit should have been odds-on yet it was 7/4 on the Friday evening and went off at 5/2. He may only have scraped home but he ran with the choke out most of the way and was value for far more than the neck margin. But I wouldn't back him singly at 7/4 because I just don't like backing singles to normal stakes at that price. He was the anchor leg of multiples but the others got beat. I was happy for him to boost the prices I had about the others and the 5/2 was a very pleasant surprise. Had I known he'd be 5/2 I might have got involved as 9/4 is usually my cut-off point for singles.

I know I should have backed him regardless and even mentioned in my synopsis that he'd be a bet for professionals.

I can't remember whether LH was talking about Yanworth or Native River when when the discussion arose but he was wrong, wrong and wrong again in his argument. He thought the horse was a cert. It wasn't. Yanworth looked like being second or third at best for long enough and Native River only beat the 160-rated Le Mercurey by a few lengths. The money was saying BDM was going to beat it but it failed to run its race.

So the two short shots won and LH can crow all he wants but he won't win in the long term with that approach.
 
Last edited:
archie said:
I think the average punter would rather back a 6/4 winner whose form should have had it at 5/2 than a 20/1 loser whose form should have had it at 10/1. There is no​ value in a losing bet.
Click to expand...


Maybe that's why the average punter loses long term.
 
Saturdays show listed as being on ITV1. I thought they'd said it was ITV4 until Cheltenham?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think the new show is fast losing whatever initial charm it may have had.

How many times on Saturday (between the two shows) did they work the Adonis joke?

Chapman is trying too hard to make the betting side interesting but he couldn't muster up interest in a four-in-a-bed romp with Rachel Riley, Carol Kirkwood and Jacqueline Bisset at their peak.
 
Back
Top