As noted by Speediskey in the Merchant Navy (ret) thread they have determined that a limited 1000m English sprinter (Battaash 6w4p-12) is in their eyes the equal of some of our very best male sprinters, and only fractionally behind both Winx and Black Caviar after the girls' allowance. 

TF Au has always undervalued our horses imo, as much as TF UK overrates theirs perhaps? They've had historical ratings for years.

djebel wrote: Harry Angel 26 and Blue Point 51 would be value if you knew they were coming.

While I don't rate them that highly I do think the Everest is wide open to foreign incursion in 2018 as the locals are not great at the Everest distance. With one possible exception- TA- I can never get a handle on him.

It now reads 'see Timeform rating for Battaash'.

Lol Scamanda, Ithink you're being kind. I did have a very different title for the thread but thought I'd tone it down. I have no doubt they continually underrate our horses comparatively but even the dullest wit at Timeform UK should have seen how ridiculous the Battaash rating was in comparison to Winx for example.

I don't know what you mean by suitable race for Humidor. CC, CP, MC not suitable?

Are these good arguments for Winx ?

What you are saying is, She has not been the best horse in those wins ?

Of course he is Australian trained, He will still be unexposed after 28 starts.

Do not know if you have ever purchased any of their books but I can tell you it is not printed on good toilet paper.

$1.10 Winx in Winx Stakes is stupid.

Sorry, but what exactly is this based on? The last three Group 1 winning horses over 1200m to race overseas as far as I can remember are Redkirk Warrior, Merchant Navy and Chautauqua, cumulatively winning both races the three contested. (Chaut in HK, Merchant Navy obviously last week.)

Where are the foreigners that would stand a chance based on that? Merchant Navy was an honest horse, but on exposed form here he would of seriously struggled to run top 6 in an Everest. His last two starts were a 3rd behind Redkirk and Brave Smash while getting weight relief, and a 3rd to Super Cash and Flamberge, who admittedly are good horses.. but not even close to being Everest calibre.

I would definitely say that over 1200 Redzel, Trapeze Artist, In Her Time are proven to be superior. Then to add to those I would definitely back Kementari/Shoals/English to be either better than him or at least up there.

I'm not saying that it's impossible a foreigner or two could come here and be competitive, but no way in the world could you argue Merchant Navy is even close to being our best sprinter and he travelled and beat them on their own turf, so what makes you think anything (at least from that region in the world) would have a hope of coming here and racing our best all at once?

 

I'm calling for a stewards enquiry. Nothing he/she said was well put. Merchant Navy obviously improved on his form at Ascot with a big weight turnaround and beating of Redkirk Warrior. A point Speedy clearly neglected erroneously.

I'm working on a new punting system I call it the crash or crash through system. You pick one horse per year, put your entire bank on it. If it loses- no more bets that year. If it wins- no more bets that year. At the very least it saves you a lot of time.

I've test run it twice so far without putting any money on- $7.00 winner + $6.00 winner. Naturally. Bastards. We all know what happens when I put money on.

I'm vague on the details now but there was a story some time back about an Wagga bloke, pensioner iirc, who saved up his pennies for a similar thing. Plonked it all (about $10k) on Racing To Win in the Doncaster. Family didn't mind because (again iirc) he was slowing dying of cancer and he didn't have other vices to spend his readies on. Won $60+K.

You need to look at the parameters better. A so called "mug punter" will, as you point out, "fluke" (supposedly) a win every now and again. Pick any number you want - one in twenty say - and that's the number of years it will take before they (possibly) score in the one big annual bet stakes. 

If you and others think it's a winning strategy why haven't you done it? After all these "mug punters" have FAR less chance of hitting the jackpot than some of the supposedly great punters on here who sing their own praises. The answer is obvious. Putting all your eggs in one basket is a high risk strategy

If having one big bet annually isn't a good strategy for a supposedly educated punter how would it be better for someone with (supposedly) a dartboard? 

You've baffled me with "maths" though and I'm a bit slow at times so you'll need to explain this "simple probability" you speak of.. 

I suggested that you could select an arbitrary win ratio for said "mug punter" but I'll do it for you. Say his dartboard chances are 1 in 10 (nice round fig). Feel free to demonstrate mathematically how his chances of success are higher for 1 or for 100 bets (or any number of bets for that matter). The probability of a head/tail on a two sided penny might be a good starting point.

Let me state the obvious. The whole notion of the ubiquitous "mug punter" with particular habits and poor average strike rates etc is a nonsense. All we know is that many punters are losing in the long term. 

Nevertheless the one annual hit was raised in passing by Tlaz, and not because he wanted to have a cheap shot at anyone.

So I'm still interested in the maths surrounding yiur (collective) claims 9Sneck, EE/Pal, 3Bs). if we arbitrarily ascribe to them the (low - they're "mugs" after all) possibility of jagging a winner in any race as 1 in 10 (as I suggested above), I want to see the maths for your claim. Long time since I did probability but your "natural variance" played no part from my poor recollection. 

Your words exactly were:

Lol, thought that little prompt might ring a bell. The cock crowed on that a long time ago. Suffice to say that inside "knowledge" is a useful thing in both punting and on forums. 

It's basically a ludicrous argument but let's keep the hits going for the Mayor for a bit longer.

You still have the basic proposition incorrect, or perhaps we have different starting points for the "mug punter".  Your Excel ramble above ignores so many factors in race punting that it's not funny. My punting has got FAR better over the years after thousands of bets so your theory has hit a roadblock immediately. Experience, less focus on the recreational aspect, FAR better access to relays and data, and the oft mentioned hard work have no doubt played a part.

Well known among you and your aliases presumably E&E? 

It's not actually relevant to the original scenario proposed (a "mug punter" putting all his/her eggs in one basket rather than spreading his/her bets out over the year) but the obvious question from your Excel rambles is this. Why do you continue to bet if every bet reduces your chances of wining overall? 

Yes I alluded to the psychology, which is far more complex than that. Most horse punters bet for interest rather than a need for profit and obviously don't use all the tools available. If that was the basis for your original comment then in some cases I might agree. That larger sum might not only focus them but it might also put a handful on the path of realising the vaue of "doing the form" and what they are really risking over the longer term.

I'd need to refresh my memory on your aliases as well but with a 100% confidence level the answer is a number greater than 1, and >= 2. There have been no greater certainties in the history of betting - as we both well know. It could have been your dog or another family member I suppose but there's a greater chance of Trump being the messiah returned.

I didn't ask why "people" bet - that's been answered many times by far smarter people. I keep betting because I enjoy horses, horse racing and, thanks for yoor "concern", but  I'm travelling along comfortably since abandoning the fun and distractions of TAB agencies and racetracks. 

Assume 50% probability payout $2.

Longterm profit/loss is $0

However if you only have 1 bet your probability of 100% profit is 50%

your probability of 100% loss is also 50%

As the number of bets increases the probability of a overall win or loss approaches 0

Therefore 1 bet has the highest chance of being profitable (it also has the highest chance of being a loss)

Who do you bet with?

In fact maths is a strong suit. My bullgelati meter has a pretty good record also. Here's a life hint: it may be an anonymous forum but little lies easily turn into big ones.

I'm sure that attempt at English is as good as you're capable of but let me simplify for you to put you out of your pain. Tlaz raised the one bet strategy, you claimed it would be a good one for your so called mug punters, I called your claim rubbish and asked for the maths. In fact there is no maths available because there is no single definable entity as a "mug punter" and there are far too many variables  for any valid conclusion 

I'd be selling your system asap, before someone else cashes in. It has nothing whatsoever to do with race punting where prices fluctuate wildly, let alone the likehood of a so called "mug punter" being able to get a one-off selection correct.

Maybe at least change the thread title to "Bitch-fest" or something more relevant 

You seem to get many things confused so let me set you straight on yet another point. I didn't assume anything of the sort. Admittedly when I see your posts on particular topics I do take certain things into account but on this relatively simple point that wasn't required. 

Unless maths includes speculative waffle your so-called 'math' was nothing of the sort. Even the logic behind your original claim was at best tenuous, although you might have been expressing some concern for your poor mug punter as I suggested above.

At the risk of repeating something you've no doubt heard many times, Pavlov's dogs had nothing on you Pal.

Too true TJM. A bit of indulgence.