EXCUSES – EXCUSES …

The Trainers Book of Excuses

This is not a great time of year. Seemingly, without warning everything has changed – principally that applies to the weather, which has a knock-on effect on our metabolisms. Whereas a month ago I leapt out of bed with the first shafts of morning light, ready and eager to work from about 7.00am onwards, now I am struggling to surface before lunchtime.

Is it me? The answer to that is probably. But it is my experience that this seasonal change results in an unwelcome dose of sluggishness.

After all, in the true spirit invoked by all gamblers (dress it up how you like, but that is what those us that follow this game are at heart) this was supposed to be a life-changing year. Of course it ended up like all the others and now the dream is running down in true Tom Petty-style. It is a shame but a reminder that nothing changes.

Racing rumbles on relentlessly. Day in, day out, up to and in excess of one hundred horses journey to each racetrack in order to supply a minimum of seven winners on each card. (Whatever happened to the six-race card by the way? Anyone know?)

Mathematically that means we should get the old fraction of 100/7 about picking one of these winners. But of course it does not work that way. The men that fix the odds decide that some horses have a greater chance than others do, tweaking the true odds of any one horse running across a field and reaching the finishing point ahead of the rest. Evidently, we have form to go on and that changes everything. At least it does before the races start. However, it often appears irrelevant. The one that Aunty Dot picked out because she liked the name seems to win just as often as the most carefully analysed selection.

Sometimes the task of backing winners seems too great. Seismic changes in the ground create a new and unforeseen draw-emphasis. Then there is a late jockey substitution (the stable jockey stuck on the motorway doing a mile every ten minutes in his Audi that is capable of doing 175 MPH), the horse all but doing a backward flip in its horsebox or in the paddock – the list of excuses for failure seems endless.

I often suspect, once they embark on their chosen career, in addition to the usual essential accoutrements, trainers are issued with a manual in which there is a section containing feasible reasons why the 6/4 chance that represented them has been beaten out of sight.

Listed alphabetically to avoid repetition, these excuses (forget left-handed/right-handed preferences, lost a racing shoe – this elevates mitigation to a different level) are to be used in rotation. A brief cross-section – taken at random – is included below:

Under ‘A’ we have agoraphobia – the fear of open spaces – handy for those hundred-yard defeats at Newmarket. Phobias are good because nobody can dispute their impact on a so-called sufferer, particularly in the case of horses who, you may have noticed, have not yet mastered the art of speech. At least if they have they are keeping it quiet. So arachnophobia – fear of spiders – is sure to be included. After all, if horses can be ‘gay’, why can’t they be afraid of little eight-legged insects crawling across their beds of straw, sending them into fits of anxiety that last the duration of a journey to the races and the race itself.

‘B’: Black Bess-factor: Believed to be a relative of Dick Turpin’s famous mare, so assuming she may have another 199 miles to cover, filly was merely pacing herself in race at York. Bird: One flew too close to horse, distracting it – relevant for Ayr with all those seagulls skittering across the course.

‘C’: Curse: This smacks of desperation, but if cornered and unable to locate said manual, this is such an outlandish never-to-be-forgotten excuse that it can be used just the once as a standby to dig trainer out of the deepest hole. A soothsayer foretold the horse would never win a race on a Tuesday/Friday or in Wales, Scotland or within sight of Wembley stadium (any or all conveniently rule out Chepstow, Ffos Las, all the Scottish courses and, in the shape of the last feeble excuse, Epsom and Sandown – not to mention any given day of the week). Only to be used in the direst of circumstances!

‘D’: Dusk: Runs all his best races at night. Note to trainer: make sure you can back this up with a record that shows he has performed creditably at Wolverhampton and Kempton.

‘E’: Earplugs: Forgot to put them in/take them out. Got stirred-up by noise of fairground (good one for Epsom or Yarmouth); lacklustre performance explained as horse thought it had died when mistakenly inserted.

‘F’: Floodlights: Their dazzle proved off-putting for horse (might sound obvious – but only applicable during all-weather night meetings). Flyover: Distracted by traffic travelling across flyover – ideal for Pontefract.

‘G’: Gum: Swallowed a piece of chewing-gum that appears to have lodged in throat, affecting breathing. Grand Theft Auto: Horse unnerved by the computer game played in the horsebox by stable staff on the way to the races.

‘J’: Jekyll and Hyde: As in has two personalities. Those assuming they were backing ‘Jekyll’ to run to his best form, discovering they had in fact backed the reluctant and bad-tempered ‘Hyde’.

‘K’: Knacker Yard: In a reversal of most excuses, used to explain vastly improved form, in that horse overheard an ominous conversation between trainer and owner of said beast, stating this would be his next destination if he failed to show a semblance of ability at Catterick.

‘L’: Lunatic: Influenced by the movements of the moon – a new moon therefore responsible for poor/improved showing. Useful for those winter evening meetings when trainer has supplied a big-priced winner inexplicably backed from 20’s to 10’s in the last few minutes before the ‘off’.

‘P’: Pacemaker: Has been used as one on a regular basis and assumed his role in racing was to make the running for a mile then drop away and finish tailed-off.

‘R’: Rumpy-Pumpy: Distracted by pretty secretary, trainer entered horse wrongly in error. The decorative culprit, on secondment from university where she studied ancient cultures, later decided to make her placement permanent, deciding she wanted to work for a horserace trainer – meaning her academia was not entirely wasted.

‘S’: Shakespeare influence. Horse overhead the call, “My Kingdom For A Horse,” and was hesitant at obstacles, awaiting a better offer than jumping eight flights at Stratford.

‘W’: The horse lost all concentration, apparently consumed by an impulse to throw itself into the nearest river. Effective at Windsor.

That’s enough already. I must conclude this. Why, I do believe a spaceship is about to land in my back garden.

Australia. The Best Racehorse

Aiden O’Brien has ever trained?

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

According to Yorkshire folklore, the last horse home in the St Leger has snow on its tail. In view of the subsequent disqualification of last year’s disgraced winner on doping grounds – given the obvious double meaning of the word ‘snow’, I cannot help but feel there is a cheap joke concealed there.

However, I will let that be; to almost quote Bernard Cribbens: You never get nowhere by being too hasty (substitute cheap in this instance); besides, this whole premise is becoming too convoluted (you never get nowhere by being too convoluted).

Undeniably the weather is turning. By the end of Saturday we will be drifting away from summer, in racing terms that leaves us with the Autumn Double, the Prix de L’arc De Triomphe, The Racing Post and the Breeders’ Cup. Then it is Cheltenham, the Charlie Hall, the Tingle Creek and the slide to Christmas.

Forget those terminal places in Switzerland, following racing is one way of getting through your life quickly.

Why, it seems only a few months ago we were here last year attempting to crack the autumn nuggets, and only a month or two since we embarked on the Classic merry-go-round back in the spring.

Strangely, time plays a similar trick during holidays, when a fortnight in new surroundings invariably seems to last longer than the same period spent undertaking the old tired routine at home.

Whether we accept it or not, this is where we are right now: on the verge of the last two months of the 2013 Flat Racing Season. Naturally, in between the big grandstand events, we have the odd wisp of promise alluding to next year’s Classics and beyond.

One such moment came last Saturday evening when no doubt quite a few of us were getting them in at the local. All right, at a few minutes after 5.15pm, it was a little early; but I am aware that for some – with family obligations, or just a wife that must be obeyed stalking the kitchen at home with a timer in her hand – a pint has to be squeezed in when possible. No such worries this end, he said with one eye on the other room!

So, to rewind to last Saturday and to Leopardstown and the Icon Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Trial Stakes (Group 3), where we saw the reappearance of the 2014 Derby favourite, Free Eagle. This was a strange event in many ways.

Only four runners turned out and after his impressive debut in a race that worked out and a reputation that preceded him, including an endorsement from his legendary trainer, Dermot Weld – stating Free Eagle was the best he had trained – the son of High Chaparral was sent off at 2/5. Looking all set to pounce on hapless opponents, he strode to the lead early in the straight only to be burned-off in the exhaust of new kid in town, Australia.

Kingfisher (beaten eight lengths by Free Eagle on debut) was only beaten three-and-half this time. Either he has improved by at least four lengths or Free Eagle has regressed by that amount.

Australia is almost certainly the better horse, but Free Eagle deserves another opportunity to justify the hype.

Aidan O’Brien was quick to dub Australia as possibly the best horse he has trained. Therefore his star ascends beyond that of his predecessors of this homage: George Washington, Kingsbarns and Camelot. The king is dead – long live the king!

Australia looks the part. Athletic and a good mover, it appears he won on merit on Saturday without being rousted so to do.

That said there are just the three niggles to address – one (the Kingfisher form line) I have touched on; the other two are worth mentioning, even though one of them is fragile at best.

If Australia is the racing machine we are led to believe, why then was Free Eagle allowed to start at such a short price and he to win at such a comparatively big one? It is not as if they conduct work at Ballydoyle under the cover of darkness. Time will tell on that score. For now, like the continent, Australia is a partly submerged huge chunk of reality. Clearly, it is not worth trying to find one to beat him in the Group 1 Racing Post at Doncaster.

My other reservation is probably peculiar to me alone. Sue Magnier is responsible for naming most of the inmates from Ballydoyle and I presume she decided here.

Given her track record with titles as rich as Ernest Hemingway, Stravinsky, Yeats and Soldier Of Fortune to name but four, how on earth did she come up with Australia for a colt that is by Galileo and out of Ouija Board? The trick when naming horses is to try and incorporate the sire and dam into a name that is both witty and pertinent.

Australia fails on both counts. Any number of permutations exists with such parentage as Galileo and Ouija Board. Australia would not appear to be the most obvious.

Mrs Magnier could have gone the See The Future, Distant Planet or Navigate The Stars route – to sound more learned she could have tried Telescopium or Piscis Austrinus. But Australia?

This epithet may prove a millstone round the collar of this son of Galileo. In a piece littered with ye olde sayings: That way madness lies…

Friday 6th Sept

STILL STANDING…

I have been ruminating this week. I doubt this will send me blind. The things is, having strayed from home for a few days, I developed a  nasty cold and have been lurching round the house with a ringing head, feeling as if I were in a giant hollow hall.

Comments rattle around in your empty skull like ball bearings in a tunnel. No doubt you will be familiar with the sensation – if not, with the onset of winter, you soon will be. Having a cold is hardly akin to contracting black water fever, but it does turn you into a zombie for a while and make you so awfully irritable. When you are ill, normally tolerated minor annoyances become major issues.

The drone of RUK in the background has presented a challenge. There really is too much racing. When firing on all cylinders you notice this with a resigned acceptance. When under the weather you capitulate under a deluge of superlative.

On busy days, RUK have the habit of informing you (in the style of the Two Ronnies) they and you face a packed program. Racing will come up thick and fast – mostly thick, but certainly fast -so fast you barely have a chance to check where it is coming from.

Occasionally, with a suitably sombre expression, the presenter will announce the cancellation of a meeting. Again, this is something we will have to become accustomed to in the coming months – the recent ‘sad’ cancellation of Redcar’s program being a dress rehearsal. The news Redcar is abandoned is many things – as a racing fan, I would not claim ‘sad’ to be one of them.

This week has not been especially ‘packed’ – perhaps it just felt like it. I noticed Broxbourne got beat and saw a few maidens that looked impressive; but, to be honest, it all eventually became a background wash on a painter’s canvas.

Poor old James Willoughby continues to re-invent the jet engine. He will come in handy if the Russians decide to invade. He is too clever for comfort and should be on Mastermind.

With the sort of bosom that sculptors used to carve on the prow of ships, Lydia Hislop is beautifully distracting in a matronly sort of way. Crackly sharp and intelligent with an infectious enthusiasm for racing, she is a serious all-rounder.

On Thursday, she and Steve Mellish tackled two current issues.

First up was the decision by Prince Khalid Abdullah to employ James Doyle as his contracted jockey.

I know James Doyle sounds less like a jockey and more like a character out of Brighton Rock – or more recently, I suppose Eastenders – but he is in fact quite a good rider. Scaling the ranks, he is not far behind the likes of much-improved Tom Queally, the stylish William Buick and the immovable object that is Ryan Moore. Err … now – hang on a minute … Conversation shifted to news that in 2014, racing will take place on Good Friday. So 362 days of racing becomes 363, leaving Christmas Eve and Christmas Day currently blank – for how long one wonders. To quote First World War terminology: it becomes less a situation of Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition – more Praise the Lord and pass the betting slip.

As Steve Mellish warned, cards on Good Friday ought not to be littered with sellers and claimers, but you can bet mediocrity will creep in.

If you grant Hamilton, Musselburgh, Catterick or Sedgefield the rights to race then what else would you expect – a Derby trial?

Right now, we are between York and the St Leger Doncaster meeting – often an uninteresting little period for all except the accountants of the big betting firms.

Rather like well fed eagles observing their kingdoms for the sanctuary of distant eyries, most punters are only opening one wary eye – more to check on results than to actually bet.

No one in their right mind is going to be tempted by the vagaries of the ante post market at present – though talking of such, and the reference to eagles – it does seem that is a name worth bearing in mind.

Great White Eagle and Free Eagle (both trained in Ireland) have so far impressed in their respective juvenile events, outshining anything seen on this side of the water.

Tomorrow we have Ascot and Kempton, and at Haydock, the Betfred Sprint – thank Fred – although the line-up for that looks tired. To be fair the cards should be interesting. Who knows, we might even find a winner…[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Regular postings from ‘Spy’…

Spy is Horse Racing Pro’s Resident Racing Journalist. He’s an ex odds compiler with over 20 years experience working or one of the big firms and has a wealth of racing knowledge which he loves to share in a weekly, often mildly provocative chat! …

How Was It For You?

Hindsight is something we can either learn from or deny. Sometimes denial is the easier option. After all, life is a constant learning process – it becomes tiresome; there is a limit to how much we wish to learn.

However, if wishing to progress as individuals it is necessary to scrutinise our actions, if only to see how we can avoid making the same mistakes next time.

The thing with life is that we don’t always accord the appropriate timescale to deliberate over important decisions. Sometimes we just grab an idea out of thin air and run with it. That way it sometimes works, just as often it will blow up like a bag of wind.

Betting on horses means playing the percentages

As with life, racing/betting is a percentage game. The percentages are important because they are stacked against us before we start. By design we are expected to lose. The only way we can reverse that is to tilt the percentages in our favour, and we only do that with careful and precise thought. The trouble is, betting is a complex business. Unlike a conventional test of one’s ability, it requires the backer to invest in his judgement. Unless we literally put our money where our mouths are, there are no prizes for being right. Working through a race and solving it in theory is only part of the process. Once achieved, to whatever level, the next decision is how to react, and that can be the hardest decision of all. To bet or not to bet – that is the question …

I guess we have all experienced this. Sometimes we reach a perfectly sound solution to a problem on paper, only to discover the problem is bigger than the solution.

In life some problems have to be tackled – a reaction is needed: The daughter brings home a goon of a boyfriend, the wife’s infidelity, to move house or not to move house – as participants in the game of life, we cannot always be inactive.

Aspire to a Professional Gambling Mindset

When gambling, although it is not a good idea to cultivate a ‘no-play’ mindset, we do have to ask some questions of our logic before pressing the betting button.

When striking a losing bet, the unanimous reaction from most gamblers is to apportion blame. This means in their eyes it is often the fault of the jockey, trainer, the watering system, the vagaries of the draw, or the bloody horse itself! It is rarely the fault of the person placing the bet. That’s okay, if you want to live in cloud cuckoo land, but if you want to improve your chances of getting it right next time, on occasion it is advisable to look inward.

So how did I do last week (a week well documented on this website) and what can I, and possibly readers, learn from our suggested bets.

Let’s go back in time to last Tuesday – Day One of the York Ebor meeting and take as unbiased and critical look as possible.

Not all races were reviewed in advance, only those I thought presented betting possibilities.

I correctly swerved the Acomb; however, my rationale soon hit the buffers. I thought out of the six that went to post there were four serious runners. This assessment did not include the winner. After a promising winning appearance at Newbury, First Flight was a Notebook horse. I admit to being in two minds before making him such as I thought the race he won after a slow start was (as has been proved) a poor one. Even so, I included what was a borderline prospect and paid the penalty when witnessing him run no race at all. The only thing I got right here was to leave the Acomb alone. I suspect the best horse [The Grey Gatsby] finished second.

Strong Bet Telescope wins

I was vindicated in correctly identifying Telescope as a strong bet in the Voltigeur, despite many sceptics wishing to lay the horse.

Glory was short-lived as I made the decision to be with Toronado in the Juddmonte International from the heart rather than the head. Dick Hern – a man that always consulted brain before engaging mouth – once said great horses have great constitutions. That is a piece of wisdom worth remembering. The International was dominated by tough, battle-hardened horses in the shape of Declaration Of War, Trading Leather and Al Kazeem. They don’t give Group 1s away and, sadly, on evidence to hand, Toronado is developing into an excuse horse – at least as far as punters are concerned. For those prepared to read it, the signpost was in place.

Broxbourne a 6/1 Beauty!

Broxbourne proved a good decision on several fronts when winning the two-mile handicap from what looked like an impossible position. She was a fair spot for the Notebook. It wasn’t difficult to pinpoint her as unlucky at Ascot, but that is not always what nominating Notebook horses is about. We are not simply looking for unlucky horses (the formbook is full of them), more to the point, we are in search of a horse that is likely to overturn this bad luck next time it runs. To that end, it helps if there is another component they can draw upon. In this case, Broxbourne is a lazy type that will pull out all the stops when she has to and then throttle back, making it difficult for the handicapper to assess her correctly. She also is a genuine long-distance racehorse, which stands her in good stead in these sorts of events. Even mentioning Suraj in the context of this race was a bad idea. He is temperamental, moody and unwilling. Horses such as he are a waste of time from a betting perspective.

Day One showed a profit with only a chink or two revealed in the reasoning. Although, note to myself: learn the Toronado lesson! Had there been no Telescope (as it turned out a wasted winner), I would have had a bad day.

I allowed Day Two to become clouded as I felt the card, littered as it was by four races confined to fillies, was ultra-tricky. Consequently, determined not to fall into any traps, I overlooked the obvious.

In the Lowther, I was probably a bit too quick to dismiss Lucky Kristale on account of her penalty. But I decided not to bet in the event – would not have backed her even if she had whispered in my ear – so there was no harm done.

Wentworth was a selection rather than a bet in the Class 2 Handicap full of exposed horses – the trend at this time of year. Of course he didn’t run, but what was I doing even mentioning a ghost horse like Validus in my summing up?

The Yorkshire Oaks revealed a couple of my weaknesses. Stubbornness meant I missed a trick with The Fugue. The ground swung in her favour and the stable were very confident. Even so, I could not bring myself to waver from one of my original objections to her: namely, that she had failed to win over the trip after three attempts. This was a weak Group 1 and she fully justified stable confidence at a backable price – presumably, because, like me, there were those that questioned her effectiveness at the trip. I knew I was wrong in sitting the race out before it started, but by this time I was concerned that if I backed against my original judgement, I would be spitting blood if she lost. That is a poor reason to decline a perfectly feasible bet!

It was fair enough to nominate Star Lahib in the Galtres as her claims were there for all to see. Uncomplicated and a real trier, she was guaranteed to run her race, but the suspicion was she was not quite good enough. So it proved, but sometimes horses like her are preferable to those that look good in their maidens but have it to prove. I was against Say on grounds of stamina. I got away with it but maybe for the wrong reasons.

I survived Day Two intact, but no prizes for missing an obvious winner in The Fugue.

Day Three: Having correctly assessed the Lonsdale Cup as resting between Ahzeemah and Simenon, I should have come out of the race on the right side. Once again, I hung back mainly because I could see Caucus puncturing my reasoning. No race is absolutely cut and dried. I had it narrowed down sufficiently well and should have taken the chance and backed one of the two preferred small, whilst covering on the other.

Pavlosk was a lazy tip in the Strensall Stakes. She was an eye-catcher at Goodwood. The trip and ground were now in her favour but this represented a step up in grade. With everyone and his dog clamouring to back her, common sense should have kicked in. She is probably worth another chance as she pulled much too hard early and was a spent force early in the straight.

Shea Shea may have been beaten in the Nunthorpe, but represented value and should have been backed. I narrowed the event down to a three-horse affair and allowed the vagaries of the draw and the ground to stand in my way. My betting record shows I was right not to play, but I contend I was wrong.

I did not back Notebook horse Golden Town in the Convivial because of prejudice against Godolphin – who appear to have lost the plot. Throwing money at this or any other enterprise won’t allow you to crack it, even if your funds are unlimited. To me, that is Godolphin’s present stance. After the appalling run of First Flight (a horse they admitted should not have run) I was not prepared to see another high-profile horse of theirs sink into the Knavesmire. It was a warm maiden, and to a degree, if you are not comfortable with a bet, you should leave it so I feel justified.

Day Three was a loss

Day Three was a losing one. I backed Pavlosk and left the trading floor with dust in my throat.

Day Four: I identified three bets at York and did back them all to varying degrees. Hawk High was, to my mind, a perfectly reasonable form selection in the handicap. As an exposed horse, the handicapper had presented him with a chance, but as an exposed contender against potentially better opposition, although a value alternative, it was always a tall order. Nevertheless, at 16/1, I felt a small bet was justified and he did not run badly.

I suppose Parbold was a fair enough selection in the Gimcrack. He ran about as well as could be expected. With a bit of luck (ie if Astaire and Wilshire Boulevard hadn’t turned up) he would have won. It was always going to be difficult but I felt he had a real chance of winning, particularly after his run at Goodwood, which suggested he would do better on a more conventional track.

But, to an extent I erred here. I felt I had identified a real betting prospect in Tiger Cliff in the Ebor. Greed, or an attempt to reduce stakes, meant I was looking for a couple of juicy-priced horses to accompany him in a miracle multiple. What I should have done was to concentrate on just backing my best bet of the day and having throwaway bets on the other two. As it was, I staked too much on the supporting act.

Best Bet Tiger Cliff wins 7/1 to 5/1!

Tiger Cliff of course justified my comments and was a big result for me. He was backed at all rates down from 7/1 to 5/1; however, that is slightly misleading as there were non-runners to take into account.

Looking back on the week in hard print, it seems a lot better now than it did at the time. But committing my record to print means I can identify a couple of serious lessons that should be learned. This is not an attempt to beat myself up – none of us is perfect. It does pay though to be aware of our shortcomings.

In my case, I often gravitate to the flashy and sexy horses (Toronado) at the expense of the solid alternatives (The Fugue). At times, I am also an immovable object.

If I could guarantee every week would yield the same results as York, I could readily overlook my faults. As I can’t make that guarantee, I would do well to learn from this exercise. Without such naked exposure, my flaws may have been overlooked, leaving them free to rear their ugly heads next time!

---

Regular postings from ‘Spy’…

Spy is Horse Racing Pro’s Resident Racing Journalist. He’s an ex odds compiler with over 20 years experience working or one of the big firms and has a wealth of racing knowledge which he loves to share in a weekly, often mildly provocative chat! …

FIXING THE ODDS

Money talks; market forces prevail; in a free market prices find their own level… They are some of the remarks attributed to the way our capitalist society operates.

All correct in their own way but in any market the price-fixers are kings. They are the guys that determine the base line from which all transactions proceed. After their input, market forces take over, but only within the perimeter already set.

That is to say the consumer often has to make do with a deal that is not exactly the one he wishes, but is as close as he is going to get to the one he desires.

Shop in the high street, and by and large the stores lay down the terms. You want a Boss suit in the sale. You would like to pay £200 but the best you can secure it for is at £300 – or half its original price. As opposed to being your preferred plain blue, it has a faint stripe. The lapels are a bit wide. To make a purchase, a compromise is required. The bottom line is the most desirable Boss suit is £650. The retailers know the score – they set the deal.

Buy a car in a reputable garage and you will be forced to pay their price. Within a few quid, you will pay the going rate – the so-called book price. For that you will also get a warranty, possibly six months tax, a twelve month MOT and a set of car mats. You could well secure the same car on eBay or through a similar auction for anything up to two grand less. However, there is no warranty, it almost certainly will need a valet; maybe there is a scratch on the offside door and a chip on the wing mirror and the MOT runs out in four months time. If you are handy or know someone, you can easily rectify these shortcomings and end up with a bargain car. As consumer – the choice is yours.

It is the same in our business. Bookmakers work day and night to tempt you to bet. They want your business. It is their lifeblood. The problem is, as with the purveyors of high quality suits and second-hand car dealers, they set the prices. Well, someone has to, and, let’s face it, no business can afford to allow the consumer to put his own price-tag on the goods. Somewhere between the marked-up price and the one you want there is a reasonable compromise.

The Group 3 Hungerford Stakes at Newbury was a very interesting example of market forces in action. There was a jittery exchange between punters and bookmakers.

Clearly there were those that felt Soft Falling Rain was opposable. The favourite drifted, hitting 11/4 in places before hardening slightly as his supporters swooped, unable to resist the odds on offer. In the face of this see-sawing of Soft Falling Rain’s odds, there was a contraction and lengthening of those of his rivals.

First the market seemed convinced Caspar Netscher was the solid alternative. Late in the day, his odds drifted as support came for Tawhid and eventual winner Gregorian.

Through all this, you got the impression no one was sure of the outcome. Even opponents of the favourite wavered when asked what they thought would win. Not for the first time, prices became a genuine reflection of the outcome as post time loomed.

Caspar Netscher’s last minute drift proved accurate. The body language of his jockey, Shane Kelly, allied to his cautionary remarks that he hoped the run would not come too soon after Goodwood, proving more than a pessimistic statement. It was a difficult race to be emphatic about and the result reflected that.

Because they do a performance-rated job, odds-compilers put their money where their mouths are. Their employers require them to be right more often than they are wrong.

Whether the judges that make the odds bet or not is up to them. Most that I have known tend to bet to small stakes and, possibly most surprising of all, lose money. I say surprising because you would think they were odds-on to make the game pay.

The problem for them is that being so wrapped-up in the business side of what they do, they find this affects how they bet. So intent are they on looking for the perfect wager, they hardly ever play, and when they do are only picking off overpriced odds about horses unlikely to win.

To return to our earlier high street analogy, they walk the streets in their underpants waiting to snap up that Boss suit, and ride a bicycle to work whilst awaiting the purchase of that two-grand under-the-odds car.

A lot is said about value in betting. To a degree you have to be flexible. That is to say: know what odds you would like and what odds you are prepared to accept. Often this requires a balancing act. You are unlikely to get the odds you desire, but sometimes a compromise means you still get reasonable value for your money.

To that end, if you spend a little time looking at races that interest you, shuffling the odds around, you can pinpoint those occasions when you should act.

And remember, these days, it may be less exciting, but there are alternative ways to make betting and speculating on the markets pay. You don’t always have to back the winner.

If you have an accurate grasp of the true market, you will be surprised how often odds will swing in your favour and allow you to make a small profit by buying and selling. An ability to second-guess the way a market will move puts you in a strong position.

Therefore, it is York this week. Let us look at a couple of races and see if we can make any sense of them. I thought it might be beneficial if we analysed two races from two viewpoints – from the perspective of punters and bookmakers. That way we can pinpoint possible value.

The races I have chosen are the International Stakes and the Yorkshire Oaks. At least we have a good idea what is likely to run and, being Stakes events, they are easier to price than knotty handicaps with a host of non-runners included in the current lists.

Taking the International Stakes first. On the left, the prices I would offer to a bookmaker, including a built-in percentage profit, and on the right, prices for our benefit that operate to a 100% book only; therefore hold no percentage profit whatsoever.

Let’s see if this method will highlight a prospective bet or interesting angle to either event. In order to make this work, I have to take a view about what will run. I have assumed the Aidan O’ Brien runner will be Declaration Of War and that both Camelot and Kingsbarns will defect. You never quite know with the whispering genius from Ballydoyle, but essentially, even if this assessment is incorrect, my view is constant.

INTERNATIONAL STAKES

5/4         AL KAZEEM                         6/4

2/1         TORONADO                         6/4

7/1         TRADING LEATHER             12

9/1         HILLSTAR                           16

14          DECLARATION OF WAR      16

500        REWARDED                      1000

——————————–

So, with six runners, my commercial percentage is 106, or one percent a runner, which is about right for an event of this type.

At 5/4, Al Kazeem is competitively and fairly priced. If anything, I would expect that price to be taken.

You might find it confusing that my ‘true price’ for Toronado is lower than the price tendered when operating with a greater percentage in my favour. This is where opinion and market forces collide.

Firstly, it is my view that Toronado will win. A line through Declaration of War suggests that he can beat Al Kazeem if he gets the trip. I reckon he will stay but there has to be a doubt.

Of the two, Al Kazeem is the safer wager. We know he stays, we know this race has been his target for some time and we know he is a thoroughly tough and consistent racehorse. Of the two, he will be the more popular in the market.

However, I am prepared to back my opinion privately, whilst, to a degree hedging my bets publicly. Hopefully, I am still under Toranado in the book and ‘my firm’ will lay Al Kazeem, making him their loser.

As for the rest of the runners – I can see no reason for any of them to beat Al Kazeem. There is little between Trading Leather and Hillstar on Ascot running and Declaration Of War, whilst a justified runner, needs Al Kazeem to underperform to beat him. Obviously, Rewarded has no chance.

Now these are my thoughts. You may not agree and wish to tinker with these prices to suit your purposes and opinion. Please, help yourself…

YORKSHIRE OAKS

10/3              WILD COCO                   3/1

4/1                THE FUGUE                    9/2

5/1                VENUS DE MILO             5/1

8/1               AMBIVALENT                   8/1

10/1              EMIRATES QUEEN          16/1

14/1              RIPOSTE                         20/1

14/1              SECRET GESTURE          20/1

14/1              TALENT                           25/1

20/1              SCINTILLULA                  33/1

20/1              SHIROCCO STAR            25/1

25/1              MOMENT IN TIME           40/1

150               JATHABAH                      200

150               SOHO DANCER               200

Here, I have taken out Songbird on the basis that with the Cecil camp represented by Wild Coco and Riposte, it must be a doubtful runner.

I don’t have an especially strong view, but The Fugue was beaten in this last year and is not in current form. She is also dependent on fast ground. Perm any one of three possible negatives and I have to take her on.

Wild Coco makes most appeal and is the filly I wish to keep on side. I respect the improving Venus De Milo and Ambivalent but give little else a serious chance. We are dealing with fillies here and a turn-up is always possible. It could come with something like Emirates Queen, but if they all stand their ground, she shouldn’t win.

On my tissue, there are several potential ‘mistakes’.

The price boys will pinpoint Shirocco Star on ratings (doesn’t win though), Oaks winner Talent (won at Epsom because she outstayed moderate rivals) and Riposte.

But, with the exception of the unexposed Venus De Milo, I am prepared to overlook the three-year-olds. That said, chucking up those prices for general consumption would result in me being fired by any company I represented. As stated, the prices on the right-hand side are for our benefit only. It does not matter how they match up to industry prices – in fact to justify the work involved – the more variance the better.

Now I have created the framework, you might like to see whether your view coincides with mine – it is not obligatory! If not, that is what this game is all about. But hopefully you can see how, in compiling your own tissue, you can truly penetrate the cartel created by bookmakers.

This allows you to sniff out value and work and trade on an independent basis should you seriously wish to be involved in the market side of the business.

SPY STEPS OUT OF THE SHADOWS

SPIRIT OF THE LAW becomes his first runner from the lucrative Notebook feature, winning at AYR on Monday at odds of  7/2

This follows Saturday’s advice for Ahtoug at 11/2 – a strong word for Homeric at 9/2 [Broxbourne nominated as a big danger] – and a suggestion that War Command was an opposable 2/5 favourite in Sunday’s Group 1 feature at the Curragh.

Can you afford to be without his comments and advice in his free feature on this site?

see the Notebook tab above.

A RANT FROM Mr ANGRY…

(That’s Spy … not Bob!)

I thought I would write this while my tail is up. Also, today, (Tuesday) is a non event for me as far as racing is concerned.

I have touched on the subject of information before and felt the need to do so again – if only because, judging by the quality of many messages doing the rounds, some of you out there need protection.

If you think that sounds drastic or that I am over-hyping my importance, I ask you to hear me out.

Racing is awash with rumour and counter-rumour, whispers and half-truths. Some so-called Derby or Royal Ascot contenders in May are still maidens ploughing their way round Pontefract in September. We have heard the whisper that such-and-such yard has a better filly than the one that has just won the Cherry Hinton. Last year a notable Charlie Hills insider was busy telling me Just The Judge was only ordinary. He persisted with this right into autumn, despite my claims to the contrary based on evidence my own eyes provided. Far too many message-carriers give the impression of being in possession of the facts in question when only knowing half the story.

Frankly, these big mouths annoy me intensely. They seem to believe their kudos is such that they only have to mention the name of a horse for the rest of us to scuttle off in search of a bookmaker naïve enough to accept our money. If they know so much, why do they never seem able to answer the most obvious of questions?

Inside information is desirable; surviving without it in this business is difficult. I can live without it most of the time, but if someone is going to pass me a message – particularly if I have chased it up because of an interest in the race in question – I want the answer to be credible. I don’t just wish to be told the John Cleese (bleedin’ obvious). So would-be purveyors of such information – take stock: If I ask a question about a horse, don’t respond with the working-well-looks-a-million-dollars nonsense. I assume any horse deemed worthy of taking part in a race (unless it is not off) is working well enough to justify a place in the line-up. Let’s take it as red the horse looks well and is working adequately shall we?

How is it that once asked the salient question that is not readily available, these so-called informants don’t know the answer. If the horse hasn’t run for two months, I would like to know why. That’s when there is a lengthy and heavy pause. Actually, that is why I am asking in the first place. I know the horse can win if returning to that run at Ascot when beaten a neck in a sixty grand handicap – that ain’t what I want to know.

I want to know where it’s been since May. On its holidays? Been on jury service – had an offer of a screen test in Hollywood for a Seabiscuit remake – has there been a bereavement in the family?

Racehorses aren’t normally prevented from racing by design. Normally such an absence is a sign something has gone wrong – the plan has shifted from the A variety to the B version – flagging up a danger signal.

Look, if a city dealer told me to buy shares in, let us say, Talk Talk without stipulating why, I might take note, but keep my hand in my pocket. If he told me Talk Talk was about to take over Orange, now that would be a different matter. Obviously, such a move would mean an increase in Talk Talk shares and, armed with the full facts, I am now in a position to make a considered judgement.

Similarly, if wishing to know a piece of inside information on a horse, that is what I am after not a scrap of tittle-tattle I can read in the newspaper the next day. Okay, I accept a good deal of so-called information is a combination of what is doing the rounds in the pubs in Newmarket and Lambourn, or what the work riders swopped over breakfast after a morning’s gallop. That means it might be part fact, part opinion and part optimism. It can be useful but it is not the last word. It is merely a view based on a better set of facts than those available to the man just leaving his bathroom in Maida Vale.

I have been in this business long enough to risk upsetting people. I would rather upset them than waste my money on a half-chance. I can pick those out myself! As a result, I am not afraid to ask the hard questions, even if those supplying their version of the answers take umbrage when I cast doubt on their version of events.

You might deduce from this tirade that I have recently fallen victim to a Chinese Whisper of the most expensive kind. Actually, I have not but only because I was able to outsmart the messengers, all of whom thought they knew something yesterday that in hindsight they did not.

What they did was to take a collective flyer. They took the evidence at their disposal and drew the wrong conclusions, largely because (1) they were too lazy to check the information presented to them and (2) because they wanted it to be true so assumed it was, making two and two into five.

I guess I should rejoice that I am cleverer than the average bear this game attracts. I hung up my ego on a hook a long time ago. And, to a degree, the more idiots that populate this business the better my chance of cashing in on their laziness and inefficiency.

The purpose of this is to suggest that those of you similarly exposed in the future take stock, ask the obvious and don’t get caught up in the euphoria before a race that so often turns into sourness afterwards.

Always remember it is your money; therefore, the final decision whether to play or not should be yours. Don’t get swept away by the rumour-machine. Those that operate it will be back the next day and the one after that. And isn’t it funny how they are conspicuous by their absence when they have relayed a bad message?

We are not supposed to shoot piano players or messengers. As far as I am concerned the first group is safe. The second better watch out …

 

note from Bob

Spy and I were not communicating regularly last summer and as you’ll recall our Hills man was max on Just the Judge when he won for us in Ireland!

Just serves to illustrate how many differing opinions there are in this game. As it happens I know Spy’s source he’s referring too. And he’s a solid man, good judge and you make money following him normally. Tricky game eh? But that’s what makes it fun and interesting!

Regular postings from ‘Spy’…

Spy is Horse Racing Pro’s Resident Racing Journalist. He’s an ex odds compiler with over 20 years experience working or one of the big firms and has a wealth of racing knowledge which he loves to share in a weekly, often mildly provocative chat! …

---

ANOTHER WEEK …

We are nearing the end of another racing week. Windsor and Pontefract came and went although Windsor returns tomorrow. Saving its best card for Saturday, Haydock is another track that seems reluctant to leave the stage.

In truth, apart from the impressive win of Moonlight Cloud in France on Sunday, not a lot has occurred. Even Newbury wheeled out a so-so card on Sunday, but the show goes on.

This weekend we have the Shergar Cup – the only race meeting where jockeys are according pride of place in the commentary. The event costs those wishing to attend in Premier Style over £40.

Admittance is free to under eighteens, although those dressed as Angus Young out of AC/DC will need to provide identification. Even so, taking into account the car park and then sundry expenses such as racecards, hamburgers and drinks – not to mention visits to the Tote windows to back those catchily-named horses – a party of four in search of ‘family fun’ at the Berkshire venue is liable to spend somewhere between two and four hundred pounds.

That’s a lot of money for an afternoon at the races. For that you could put the wife and kids in a kennel and jet off to Paris or to one of those all-inclusive weekend breaks in Spain.

The Shergar Cup is the brainchild of Sheikh Mohammed. Some say he dreamt up this scheme under the influence of too much mint tea. Racing professionals tend to shun this card; even certain trainers seem less than keen – presumably because they are unable to book a jockey of their choice.

Noticeably those most supportive are trainers with a vested interest. Jockeys don’t mind giving it a go if they have nothing better to do. Aged fifty, Rest Of The World Captain, Gary Stevens, returned from retirement this year, winning the Preakness Stakes at Pimlico (not the one in South London but in Maryland) in May on Oxbow.

A man with a history in this country for those old enough to remember it, he is a welcome visitor from America. Notable defectors from the home side and victims of the fixture list this year include Richard Hughes, Ryan Moore, Frankie Dettori, Jamie Spencer and William Buick.

By design the card comprises of tight Class 2 and 3 handicaps. Possibly the 1.30 and 2.05 present the best betting opportunities.

Improving Broxbourne returns to the scene of her Brown Jack triumph in the 1.30, where runner-up Homeric receives an 8lbs pull for just over three lengths. That form looks key. Broxbourne may be good enough to follow up but it is likely to be close.

Ahtoug (hardly a catchy name for the Tote punters) has a serious chance in the 2.05. Partnered by Brazilian-born Joao Moreira, who is the leading rider in Singapore, he will not lack assistance from the saddle.

The Shergar Cup presents racing stalwarts with the opportunity to complain. It is all a bit too much like fun and frivolity for their liking and, after all, racing should be serious!

The thing is, whether we like it or not, Ascot will be packed on Saturday, the bars and ice cream sellers will do good business and there is a concert after racing. So the bandstand will be rocking to the sounds of Bjorn Again and Waterloo as opposed to the strains of Rule Britannia at the Royal meeting.

As it could be argued the day offers something for everyone, it does sound a bit like a chance to sell racing to those that don’t usually follow the sport. The Grumpy Brothers will have to accept that for at least one day of the racing year, they take second place.

Elsewhere on Saturday, there is Group action at Haydock with the first serious test of the year for one-time Derby aspirant Telescope in the Rose Of Lancaster Stakes. This may not be a strong Group 3 contest but we will know a lot more about the son of Galileo after his appearance here.

Newmarket also stage a Group 3 event with the renewal of the Sweet Solera Stakes. After an impressive win last week at Goodwood, Amazing Maria turns out minus her regular jockey, Frankie Dettori. He is claimed by his retaining owner (Bin Hamad Al Thani) to ride Midnite Angel. This presents trainer Ed Dunlop with a jockey headache but could also result in his filly starting at too big a price. Clearly the absence of Dettori in the plate does not reflect the jockey’s personal opinion and, having stated after her victory last week that Amazing Maria was good enough to win the Fillies’ Mile at Ascot, punters could do worse than to take heed of the hint. It is likely that the reputedly highly strung Amazing Maria, effectively racing on home territory, will have less to be concerned about on Saturday than when asked to travel.

There is an abundance of Group action on Sunday although none of it takes place on these shores. There is a seller at Leicester and several Class 5 handicaps dotted about the domestic cards. It is a different story at the Curragh, where there are four Group races including the Group 1 Phoenix Stakes that sees the return of Coventry winner, War Command, one of five entries for Aidan O, Brien. Those of us left wondering after Royal Ascot if this War Chant colt really was the deal he was cracked up to be will find themselves better informed after Sunday.

However, France takes pride of place in the quality stakes when Deauville stages what promises to be a cracking Prix Jacques Le Marios.

Principle contenders are Dawn Approach (who had a hard race at Goodwood and whose participation is likely to be more a Sheik Mohammed mint tea decision than a Jim Bolger considered one), French Derby winner Intello (who may be better over further) and Moonlight Cloud (who may be better over shorter). Add the presence of ultra-tough Elusive Kate and Declaration Of War and we have the race of the week by an EU kilometre.

LIFE IS A GAMBLE …

The clue is in the title.

It is called gambling after all.

Those of us that try to minimise risk cannot hide behind formbooks or talk tactics on the phone forever. Although a professional approach to betting means you can severely reduce the risk you take, it is still prevalent in any transaction that involves a degree of gambling. Eventually, if you are to play, you have to walk the high wire without a safety net.

Most cutting-edge decisions necessitate an informed gamble. Buying a house, a car – even choosing a life partner contains an element of uncertainty. A surgeon once told me that they are not immune, considering themselves to be in the risk business.

If you wait for the perfect bet you will be waiting for a long time; and when you think you have unearthed it, chances are the selection in question will be 1/3.

As we all know, no one ever made a living backing horses – or anything else – at that sort of price.

So, after all the preliminary work and scrutiny, if we are to put our money down, we have to take a chance – become risk-takers. And as soon as we do that, the game changes. No longer the careful calculating analyst, we become a gambler, a punter that is at the whim of Fortune.

Those backing Sky Lantern in the Nassau at Goodwood on Saturday were required to do just that.

There were plenty of reasons to suppose Sky Lantern would win. For a start, she was the best horse in the race. Elusive Kate had endorsed the Falmouth form and, as a strong traveller, there was every possibility that Sky Lantern would stay the extra yardage. The price of 2/1 – or 7/4 at the death – was of course wrong, but if you had a strong view – did that matter?

Every horse, every proposition in life has its price. However, it is rarely unequivocally correct. Prices are a reflection of opinion. The only variance is the worth of those expressing such an opinion. When using market forces as a guide, such opinion succumbs to supply and demand.

There comes a point when layers will yield to weight of money even if it transgresses their own views; similarly, punters often have to accept their price is no longer relevant in the grand scheme of things. It is always possible that both sides on this particular divide can be mistaken.

Therefore, if you thought Sky Lantern was a 7/2 chance to win the Nassau, were you justified in taking half those odds? Without being emphatic, the answer has to be – not really. The negatives obviously were the trip and the fact that as a filly, particularly after a busy season at the highest level, there was always the chance she would underperform. Then there were the logistics of winning from a high draw and the general problems associated with races run at the helter-skelter track this is Goodwood. But trying to quantify the odds of possible eventualities before the race is not an exact science. It has to be accepted that prices arrived at by both layers and players are open to interpretation.

Therefore, a price of 7/2 Sky Lantern probably swung too far in the favour of the punter – her final SP of 7/4, too far in the favour of the bookmaker. Of course, when it all boils down to liquid in the stew, what really matters is the result.

To that end, the race made painful viewing. Having walked on water all week, Richard Hughes may have found his own strike rate intoxicating.

A great jockey with such a perfect style that makes it all look silky smooth and easy, for a moment down the straight, he had the chance to remain in the clear on the outside, but chose instead to head for cover back in the pack, therefore riding into trouble that even he could not overcome.

In fairness, this is the sudden death dilemma jockeys face each riding day. Unlike the majority of mortals, they do not have the luxury of considered opinion. Their business demands instant decision-making. They are applauded when right, castigated when wrong.

I have no idea if Richard Hughes is being criticised by others for his ride on Sky Lantern. If he is, after all his triumphs this week, that is a shame. And in his defence, the filly did not look quite as bouncy as she had in previous races this year.

It is possible she remembered the whip that flew across her face last time and that Richard Hughes opted to shuffle her back in the pack to galvanise an interest he felt was on the wane.

Unfortunately, she hesitated for a fatal stride before committing and the race was lost in an instant. Whatever the reason, it is true to suppose we did not see the Sky Lantern we had seen at Newmarket, The Curragh or Royal Ascot.

Returning to any pre-race appraisal made: if you considered Sky Lantern likely to win and made her winning chance 7/2, is it reasonable to make her a lay because she trades at 7/4? It is my contention that it is not. If the win price fails to meet your criteria, surely the answer is not to bet. To turn all your logic on its head and make the filly a lay mocks your opinion. Some gamblers are price-driven, most of us are to a degree, but surely, your assessment stands whether or not you actually pull up your money.

You do have to let winners win in this business, just as you have to be grateful when a horse you did fancy but failed to back for whatever reason is beaten.

To use a high street analogy: buying a sales bargain you never wear is pointless; having the best value wardrobe in the country that never sees the light of day means those supposed bargains were a waste of money. If you want a Hugo Boss suit, it is probably best to pay the market price for it.

Sometimes you just have to play the odds even if they fail to come up to your expectations.

Those backing J Wonder at Newmarket were hardly rejoicing when they saw the morning line. However, armed with the knowledge they were backing a strongly fancied horse, were rewarded by the courage of their convictions when watching it burst clear.

Note From Bob

A typically self effacing tongue -in-cheek piece from “SPY” after not having the best Goodwood he’s ever had.

(But haven’t we all been there at some time?)

NO CIGAR, NO PORSCHE – NOT EVEN

AN ICE CREAM…

If we believe the marketing, this is supposed to be a glorious week. With a mizzle straight out of Wuthering Heights and a sea fret from Jamaica Inn, it started as anything but.

However, despite the rain, the ground, although on the easy side, was not soft. Anyway, I have a plan. I am taking a leaf out of one of those self-help manuals – you know the sort of thing – written by a know-it-all that charges £100 a shot for a seminar. He promises to reveal the secrets of success to those eager to listen. You and I could be part of this high-powered world with correct coaching, at least according to the speaker who seems to have it all wrapped up. Makes you wonder what he is doing targeting losers like us when he could be making inroads into his second million.

Without needing such assistance, I provide my own motivation. I set myself a betting target with a reward at its end. The target is to win between three and five thousand pounds on the week. The reward is to use the money to buy a Porsche offered in an eBay auction.

Owning a Porsche is top of many a list of things to do. This one is a 1999, 2.5 Roadster. Porsche have hardly tampered with the shape of this car over the years, so equipped with private plates the age of this particular model will not be evident. It is in turquoise with a black leather interior. It has only done 52,000 miles and has a year’s MOT. A year can be a lifetime in this game and I can picture myself rolling up to Kempton on a Wednesday evening, drawing admiring glances from those that know me. They will obviously conclude I am doing well and it could be good for business. That aside, it has always been an ambition to drive a Porsche – here is my chance …

Day One and I am enthusiastic. I am prepared to take on penalised Aljamaaheer with Producer who is a seven-furlong specialist, will like the ground and has solid overall form, including when beating the favourite at Leicester earlier in the year. Clearly I am on the right lines as they have withdrawn Aljamaaher. Richard Hannon (I am not sure which one), promptly sends out the first two winners.

He trains Producer. I don’t need to know that. It reminds me of a day at Newcastle when Willie Carson rode five winners, his only loser being the one I backed! This puts me in mind of how finite luck is. Producer goes to post calmly enough but takes a fierce hold on the way back, effectively losing his race in the first hundred yards. Now I remember him doing the same thing at Epsom. I have lost my money in cold blood. And why did I so readily overlook Garswood? This is not a good start.

When I think about it, a Porsche is a bit of an indulgence. I mean, it will be expensive to insure and is unlikely to better 30MPG. And it will probably spend most of its life outside the house making the drive look nice. It could be a temptation to burglars, and what about the likelihood of its soft top being slashed in Kingston’s car park? Still, it is a Porsche…

Day Two and, running off a penalty in the opener, I reckon Broxbourne could be well-in. She has the beating of chief rival Lieutenant Miller on their Doncaster form earlier in the season and won readily at Ascot last week. However, there is the question of the trip. We know she gets two miles, but this is 2m 5f. Backing her would be taking a bit of a chance. She is by Refuse To Bend and he won a Guineas. These races can be very hard to solve, best I stick to the bet of the day – if not the bet of the week – Excess Knowledge. I watch Joe Fanning conjure a winning burst from Broxbourne that sees the partnership mow down Lieutenant Miller inside the last furlong.

Excess Knowledge handles Goodwood like a drunken sailor on leave in Hong Kong. Gathered together he starts to find his stride. Then he is hampered by Spillway – a 33/1 chance; his jockey loses his reins, he gets going again but is beaten by a fast-closing head. Results like this leave you shell-shocked. You try to keep your composure but feel someone has it in for you.

Clearly Excess Knowledge should have won, but somehow didn’t. It’s as if someone up there doesn’t want you to get above yourself. Results like this make you question what you are doing.

I backed Toronado at Ascot where he should have won the St James’s Palace Stakes but for a crunching bump. Justice has been done; I cheer him home with misty eyes as if I have backed him again here. Then comes the realisation that such emotion is costly and I am left to wonder why I didn’t have the courage of my convictions.

I am intent on backing Ribbons in the handicap but she is reluctant to go down. Horses are implacable but she seems to have a just-been-stung-by-a-wasp expression on her face. I am beginning to feel an affinity with her. She consents to start and pricks her ears a furlong out before taking off, winning easily.

Let me tell you a little more about the Porsche. Indulge me; talking about it might be as close as I am liable to get. Did I mention its distinctive colour; that it is taxed and that according to the photographs is relatively free of scratches? It seems there is another significant Porsche fact to impart. Right now, someone other than me is going to own it. Perhaps they backed Garswood and Toronado.

Day Three looks like being quiet. The two with the best chances appear to be Figure Of Speech and Wild Coco but are short. I decide to let them run. It is hot and I have a cold lager in the sun.

Day Four and it is not too late to make amends. Another foot may be about to rev the pedal on the Porsche, but I have a strong fancy for Smoothtalkinrascal in the King George Stakes. I will spare you my reasoning. He is available at 10/1. The race is tough but, surely, Montiridge is an able back up in the second race. He looks primed to add to the Hannon tally and will pay for the day whatever happens. He wins but Smoothtalkinrascal is not keen at the start, fluffing his race as the stalls open. Once again, I am prepared to lose but there is no need to make me feel like a jerk!

Never mind a motor car, there is a coupon in the Racing Post that entitles me to a free ice cream. I am beginning to think I should take advantage of it while I can.

Day Five on Saturday looks impossible! If you haven’t won by now it is unlikely you are about to do so in races like the Stewards’ Cup or the sprint handicap that opens the card. I assume Sky Lantern will stay the ten furlongs of the Nassau, but have no desire to pay to find out.

The Porsche is sold. The hammer fell at £4,797. Someone is behind the wheel as I write. I bet the top is down and the driver has a big blonde in a short skirt sitting in the leather seat beside him. The pair of them will be listening to something like Fleetwood Mac or Tom Petty on the stereo.

What do I care? Sunday is Family Fun Day at Leicester. I could do with some fun. However, I don’t have a family and am not going to Leicester. I mean, without a car, how would I get there?

How this simple tactic can

Save You £5,777.72

After the seasonal celebrations last weekend my exhausted wife asked me to pick up a couple of items from the supermarket on the way home.

I’m not a shopper. I’d almost go as far as to say I hate shopping! I’m more of a buyer than shopper. If I need a new shirt I just go to a shirt shop and as soon as I see one I like I buy it.

My wife would visit the first shop in town … then no matter how much she liked the item she’d have to check just about every darned shop in town to see if there was anything better … 2 hours later we’d end up back in the first shop buying something we could have had 2 hours ago! Sound familiar?

So I dashed in and bunged the items in a basket ready to rush out. A sign caught my eye.

“Spend £60 or more and get 10p per litre off your next fuel”

Mmm … my wife drives a thirsty X5. It’s a mind boggling £100+ to fill it up! around 90 litres. I made a quick mental calculation and reckoned I’d already got about £50 quid’s worth of shopping in the basket! (it was supposed to be just a pint of milk and loaf of bread but when I saw the pack of beers on offer … and we needed some wine …)

It was a no brainer. Spend another £10 and I’d get £9 off the next fill up! In went a steak, bacon and eggs! Effectively the last tenner’s worth was free!

Would you drive a mile further to fill up at 30p per litre cheaper?

I chuckled to myself wondering why I was so bothered about getting 10p per litre off my petrol? And then I remembered. I just plain feel petrol is too expensive.! Do you remember it wasn’t that long ago it was under £1 per litre? When I was a kid it was under £1 per gallon! I could fill my first car up for around a tenner!

And so I started to think …

If there was a petrol station that was a little bit out of my way and fuel was always 10p per litre cheaper would I make a tiny detour to fill up there rather than the closest? mmm …

What if it was 20p cheaper? 30p?

You bet I would!

Are you flushing £50 notes down the toilet?

So what the heck has cheap petrol got to do with betting? Quite a lot actually. You see when you’re having a bet most of us think about the stake. I’ll have a £50 bet. or a £100. We don’t work out the PRICE of the win.

Let’s suppose you’d like to win £1,000

The odds are 4/1 with your bookie. You have to bet £250 to win £1000.

The Price of the bet is £250.

But what if a bookie down the road is offering 5/1?

To win the same £1,000 now only costs £200

The price with him is just £200!

If you bet with the bookie offering 4/1 instead of the bookie offering 5/1 you might as well take a £50 note and flush it down the toilet! You just paid £250 for something you can buy for £200! You paid 25% over the odds!

You wouldn’t pay 180p per litre for petrol and you should NOT pay £250 for a £200 bet!

30-65% discount in ONE race!

Here’s an example of a race where we bet the winner, Viscount Vert but ALL the horses placed were available at widely differing prices. I’m using this an illustration because the odds of the winner are not huge so it’s a fairly typical race.

I’ve seen races where you could get double the odds. Or half price bets!

Here’s a summary of the best and worse price for the winner, 2nd and 3rd. The difference is staggering … ranging from 30% to an enormous 65%! And a 65% difference is like paying £165 to fill a£100 petrol tank!

Best          worse     Difference
Price          price

• Winner     –       Viscount Vert           3/1            9/4        30%
• 2nd         –       My Lord                  20/1          14/1       43%
• 3rd          –      Calypso Magic         33/1          20/1       65%

Notice how Ladbrokes were the worse odds on 2 out of the 3 horses! It’s no coincidence they have the most betting shops in the country so it’s easier to find a Ladbrokes shop than any other.

They may even be the closest shop to you?

Stan James were best price on 2 horses and Betfred on one. This is a lttle unusual because very often thebest odds are with Bet365. They were even bigger but we’d hoovered up the bigger odds before I happened to take this screenshot!

So to bet Viscount Vert to win £1,000 would have cost you £444.44 with Ladbrokes but only £333.33 with Stan James.

That’s a lot more expensive. £111.11 more for the same bet to be precise.

Now multiply that up. Place one bet a week for 52 weeks of the year and if you pay £111.11 too much for each one that’s a staggering £5,777.72. Pays for your summer holiday!

If you’d bet the 3rd horse Calypso Magic with Sporting bet at 20/1 instead of the 33/1 at Stan James you’d have paid a staggering 65% more!

To put that in perspective petrol at my local garage is 131.9 p per litre. Pay65% more than you should and it’d be a staggering 217.63p per litre! At 65% less a frugal 79.9p

Best odds advised

Because it’s worth so much money to you whenever I advise clients of a horse to bet I’ll always specify which bookies are offering the best odds.So if you happen to beclosest to a Ladbrokes or hills or Corals you’ll know if their odds are worth taking or whether you should call your independent bookie.

And during January I’m offering a free trial of a service where I’ll tell you who has the best odds for any horse you’re betting whether you got it from me or not.

Just text me on 07797 800 655 the phrase Best Odds plus the horse’s name and I’ll text you back with where best to bet.This is NOT a premium rate text number and texts will be charged at your normal rate or included in your text bundle if you have one.

How to save that £5,777.72

The moral of the story is you simply must have a spread of bookies to bet with.

Many recreational investors will only bet with one of the major high street bookies like Ladbroke, hills or Corals. They tend to offer the worse prices and fleece the punters.

There are 3 reliable, solvent and trustworthy bookmakers who most often have better odds than the high street bookies. You should have an account with them. What’s more as a New Year’s Promotion they are offering a FREE bet worth up to £200 for anyone opening a new account.

It’s a New Year’s bargain not to be missed and a great way to start 2013 with some bookies cash in your pocket!

 

Warm Regards

 

Bob Rothman

Stacking the Odds in Your favour

PS Here’s the 3 best bookies who often offer better odds AND who are offering a FREE bet when you open an account this week!

Simply click on these links below

1.  Best         –   £200 FREE Bet365

2. Good        –    £50 Free Betfred

3.  Useful      –   £10 Free Stan James