On Friday afternoon I was perusing the periodicals on the station (railway not Police), in the town where I work, when my eye was caught by an article about horse racing. Was none to complimentary about the sport saying it was frequented solely by ‘toffs’ or ‘people up to something’. Anyway, after more mocking it ended by saying racing could be split into 2 halves those who made money (2%) and those who didn’t (98%). Those precise figures have been bandied around for years and are nothing new but it reckoned that those 2% are those who wager on the only profitable system around – it did detail quite impressive figures both in turns of winning percentages and ROI. Up until now the forum’s favourite and most profitable system has always been to back horses named after ‘Coronation Street’ characters (the likes of Deidre, Dev, Leanne, Barlow, Ginger Fizz, Hayley Cropper, Amazing Maria and Fair Eva are testament to this) but this publication stated the ‘top racing system’ was simply to back the outright (if there are joints leave the heat alone) top-weight in a claimer run in Britain. Simple as that. Is this really the elixir to a fortune, people?!? Thoughts please. In a claimer, of course, connections set the weights themselves so I’m sure the logic behind the system is that those allotted the highest impost are deemed by far the best runners with the remainder being animals connections are far less keen to keep (any horse running can, of course, be bought (‘claimed’) and less weight means a cheaper asking price) and seen as far, far less appealing prospects– the flip side is though that they do have to concede the weight! Think one might monitor this for a period of a couple of weeks to see if it has any merits.
There is actually a qualifier under the system running later on this afternoon. GILMER ‘oooooooooooooop’ at Hamilton Park (3.20).
Watch out for older horses dropped in class to a claimer race. Not many people are interested in buying older horses so they can get dropped in on a handy weight knowing they won't get bought.
These horses are either thrown in to get rid of at any price, or to bet on to win, or to get a decent price for them. It would be interesting to see Timeform ratings and comments for these races.
Would I be right in thinking that, based on official ratings In My Place is about 7lb well in cf to Gilmore (maybe cancelled out by the apprentice allowance) and 4lb well in with stablemate Bahamian Sunshine?
Backing Mr. Henderson's novice hurdlers on debut in November, December and January is one I like to keep on the right side of. Without exception they have been exceptionally schooled under the great man's tutelage and are ready to do themselves and Seven Barrows proud.
System starts with a winner! Gilmer obliges at 15/8. May be something in it afterall. More results will obviously be needed though before a definite conclusion can be drawn on its merits. Had a quick glance through the meetings up to Sunday though and from what I can see there are no more Claimers this week. Which is somewhat disappointing.
'System'. The key to any successful system is picking winners. If there was a way, bookies would be bankrupt. The end.
There's a claiming race in Fairyhouse the morrow for you to get stuck into Barney. The races are new on the Irish calendar.
I must say that to an extent I agree and disagree with this. There are systems in place that will produce a healthy percentage of winners (Oddy for instance has identified one) and these stand the test of time season after season. But the whole key from the punting perspective is the odds that these are going in at. If a system regularly averages, in the region of, 25% winners and the average starting price is 6/1 you are going to make big profits from this. However, bookies and punters will identify this and within a handful of seasons that 6/1 average will become 3/1 and then down to something like 6/4. A nice profitable system, because of its success, then becomes an unprofitable one. The strike rate remains the same but profits are totally eroded. So, I guess, like share trading the key to winning at systems is getting in, and also out, at the correct time. It’s a bit like the mantra ‘follow trainers when they are in form’. Yes, you may get a healthy percentage of winners but the odds you are getting in return are far lower than they would normally be. The classic example would be Charlie Longsdon from a few terms ago. For a couple of weeks he was operating at the ridiculous strike rate of something like 60%. However, there quickly became no value whatsoever about his runners as the 5/1 shots were going off at 9/4, the 9/4 shots at Even money and the 6/4 chances at 2’s on, etc. I don’t want to give the impression that I’ve totally been won over by the system detailed in the article I read (because I haven’t been yet) but feel it may have ‘legs’ due to punters thinking claiming races are an inconsistent betting medium or even swerving them totally and so full attention is not paid to them by bookies and punters alike. I’m prepared to sit back and see how things go with this one…
The article did say British races only. But cor blimey that HIGHLY TOXIC (5.05 Fairyhouse) looks short at 11/4 in a field of 15! In saying that though most of his rivals look unbelievably exposed and very poor.
This could be an example of an older horse (but still only 5) dropped in class to be sold. By Dalakhani out of the Sadler´s Wells mare Chiang Mai (IRE), this grey gelding is stoutly bred and could be of interest to a NH stable. Provided he acts on the heavy ground (has won on soft) and the jockey is half decent, the 11/4 could be generous.
