PE favorites have the lowest strike rate in the country....

Over the years I found that if Greef has a strong favourite,the other one arrives so I use this to my advantage in my PA's and jackpots.Caught some awsome bets with this observation in the last few years,so please don't stop now Alan.lol

Englander Wrote:

---

> WESTERN EXPLORER Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Hey Englaner....have u got a day job? great
> > analysis and spot on in your
> assumptions.....often
> > very strange results from PE!
>
> I "study" SA racing WE, as I was making a healthy
> profit from it, including PE... in fact I may even
> go as far as to say 18 months ago it was my
> favourite centre. Now I am becoming disillusioned
> with it so considering packing it in, but my
> personal life is a little complicated so options
> are hugely restricted regarding work, shant bore
> you with the details
>
> Important point WE, I made no assumptions. In that
> little "epic" I scribbled there is nothing but
> fact.
>
> BP can tell me I am wrong, and I have nothing but
> respect for someone who captures a JP as he did
> yesterday, but it does seem to me it is only those
> with a fair amount of financial security that play
> such large exotics. Yes, some of us play for 1%
> occasionally but I have to say when I do so I
> often think that it is a pointless exercise. He
> won 25000 for a 2800 outlay. At 1% you win 250 for
> 28 which is nothing really, I would rather risk my
> R28 on a 10/1 shot. Now, I am in no way being
> detrimental to BP in saying that, he seems very
> good at doing the exotics and full credit to him
> but I don't have that amount of my money to stake
> on a "single" bet and the money I do have I would
> rather invest in patents etc, just the way
> different people operate with the amount they have
> to put down. And doing the exotics may well be the
> better bet now in PE as in many ways it covers you
> for the shocks. The P6 for eg allows you to cover
> the stablemate horses so a lot of the shocks above
> have less impact.
>
> Back to PE overall, the simple fact is that it is
> clear from my analysis above that punters are
> often struggling to choose the best horse from a
> stable (on a given day) let alone the winner from
> the other 14 or whatever runners. Not that it
> doesn't happen elsewhere., but it does seem to
> occur pretty regularly at PE. How much is due to
> dishonesty from any given party, who knows? Would
> things improve if the trainers etc were more
> transparent, who knows? Would things improve if
> trainers were only permitted one horse entry per
> race, probably, but who knows? Now I like the
> Shams and I would love to love PE racing again but
> the simple fact is that the message being screamed
> at us is... don't bet here!!! Depending on how
> lucky we feel or how stupid we are will determine
> how much we listen to that message. If we listen
> then PE racing is in trouble, if we don't then I
> suspect I'll be writing the same in 6-12 months
> time


ASSUMPTION-Definition: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; So promise i was being complimentary as to what you had written....:)o

Not uncommonly I may have been taken the wrong way... WE, did not think for a second you were "knocking" me, I just wasn't sure what assumptions I had made, but there were probably some in there somewhere! -D

Liquidity, I used to think the same (and not just with AG) but if you look back through results it actually doesn't happen as often as you might think, it is simply that the occasions it does happen, we notice. And it is not "rare" but in fairness it is not particularly frequent either. For eg, if you look at the previous meetings results, very few of the lesser fancied runners beat a stablemate, the fields were smaller though.

Nor do I think that Gav Smith was (necessarily) not being entirely honest when he said his 33/1 winner was simply a horse that you had to catch "perfect" on a particular day. With it generally being accepted that PE has, for the most part, average to poor horses, that may well be the case but my problem with it is, as a punter how am I meant to know that and even if I did know that, how do I know which day it is that will happen? I don't think I can know. And there are that many so-so horses in PE that you can't back them all and hope. But, someone seemingly knew because otherwise I can't see why that horse was backed from 66s to 33s shortly before the off, maybe just coincidence and a few saw something I didn't and in fairness, there were probably other outsiders who received support but ran nowhere. How often though do we hear that comment in a post-race interview? Isn't it just a little easy to say that when there is a "surprise" winner? How am I meant to have confidence in punting at a centre with little transparency (Shams aside) when there is always a horse that might be "perfect" on a given day and beat my 5/2 fav or even 20/1 idiot that I can't see getting beaten?

I use the word necessarily above not because I think GS is dishonest. I use it because I am honest and I can't say that I am 100% convinced that he did not know a little more than he was letting on. That is not to say he did know, just that I am not convinced. A little "transparency" would no doubt help a lot.

And a couple of people have mentioned it, Rob F for example on Friday, but that presenter has got to stop trying to be funny and ask the right questions in the post-race interviews... like, what do you think of your other runners? Maybe Yvette for example, as Agra said on the thread, would have mentioned her winner of the last had that happened.

I don't have the stats but would imagine PE fields are probably consistently bigger than in other centers, and there are also probably more "weak favourites" than in other centers. The big fields must reduce the chances of each horse, not just the favourite - besides having to beat off more rivals, luck in running must become more of a factor?

This type of competitive racing provides the ideal setting for trainers to "line one up" over a couple of runs - refer Englander's comments above - find the right race knowing full well it has the beating of it's stable companions with the better exposed form which are shorter in the betting - and then they pull the notorious "PE double shuffle" on the betting public, the insiders shrewdly backing the long priced improver. Unfortunately for us on the outside, it's not always easy to identify these runners by the form - sometimes the signs are there - but often it's only the support which would draw your attention to them, but this is generally only at race time mostly, so it makes the exotics especially, more difficult to catch.

I still personally enjoy PE racing despite this, but keep to small stakes - wins in exotics can be few and far between, but worthwhile when you it's your lucky day - some memorable wins I've had are a R 6 straight line PA for which I collected over R 10 000 (why didn't I take it 30 times...) and a R 20 win all to come on a Sylvester Naidoo double (20/1 + 25/1 shots) that returned R 10 000 as well (why didn't I put R50..!) - actually I sometimes do put more but only seem to win when I have the minimum stake on:S

Big punters can be cleaned out of pocket very quick these days in P.E. racing. Used to be some pretty good consistent horses once upon a long time ago down there.

Maybe Choppies McClachlan was the last to really bring on such a wonderful sprinter in Hear The Drums. Why does he not get the support with more horses?:S

Firstly the PE "cake" now has to be split among a lot more trainers than it used to....

Secondly apart from buying yearlings (and 2 yr olds) the only way of getting horses in was always the older or slightly less talented horses from the bigger provinces. However Mauritious is now paying so much more for those horses that most of the available horses are being exported which only leaves the either unsound or very untalented horses to fill up the yards.

Every trainer is trying to win as much as possible with whatever they can enter and get into races.

Sham Racing Wrote:

---

> Firstly the PE "cake" now has to be split among a
> lot more trainers than it used to....
>
> Secondly apart from buying yearlings (and 2 yr
> olds) the only way of getting horses in was always
> the older or slightly less talented horses from
> the bigger provinces. However Mauritious is now
> paying so much more for those horses that most of
> the available horses are being exported which only
> leaves the either unsound or very untalented
> horses to fill up the yards.
>
> Every trainer is trying to win as much as possible
> with whatever they can enter and get into races.


Dorrie,I am sure what you say is true ,BUT you manage to prove that dedication to the job defies those factors better than most, using your yard as the measure.Obviously you will also have horses that fool you but generally you have such a great grasp of how your horses will perform.