Black Arthur

I express my opinion and some one calls me a C**T

admin does nothing about it ?

Bob Brogan wrote:

Gambler wrote: Craig with all due respect you don't understand how bookmakers work

bookies will make more money shortening the horse

example If black arthur was 25/1 it would have gotten less support

by shortening the odds 25/1 20/1 16/1 12/1 8/1 6/1 5/1

the betting public follows thinking it must have a good chance since money is coming for the horse.

bookies will shorten odds without accepting any bets just to get the attention of punters.

that's why you hear some connections are left wondering where the money came from since the horses shortened but they wasn't aware of it.

bookies will always manipulate the odds to attract the bets

no one will play a first timer 50/1

but they will play the first timer if it shortens 50/1 to 10/1

Nonsense

I fully agree with Gambler, substitute Black Arthur and replace it with Marinaresco. Wasn't this horse trading at 4/1 or 9/2 in the early ante-post betting. Ultimately, the shortening or drifting of a horse in the betting has a huge psychological effect on punters, no doubt.

Gambler wrote: I express my opinion and some one calls me a C**T

admin does nothing about it ?

you should take it as a compliment as they are useful

bayern wrote:

Bob Brogan wrote:

Gambler wrote: Craig with all due respect you don't understand how bookmakers work

bookies will make more money shortening the horse

example If black arthur was 25/1 it would have gotten less support

by shortening the odds 25/1 20/1 16/1 12/1 8/1 6/1 5/1

the betting public follows thinking it must have a good chance since money is coming for the horse.

bookies will shorten odds without accepting any bets just to get the attention of punters.

that's why you hear some connections are left wondering where the money came from since the horses shortened but they wasn't aware of it.

bookies will always manipulate the odds to attract the bets

no one will play a first timer 50/1

but they will play the first timer if it shortens 50/1 to 10/1

Nonsense

I fully agree with Gambler, substitute Black Arthur and replace it with Marinaresco. Wasn't this horse trading at 4/1 or 9/2 in the early ante-post betting. Ultimately, the shortening or drifting of a horse in the betting has a huge psychological effect on punters, no doubt.

Such rubbish and propagating this opinion does nothing helpful. Although bookmakers are not allowed to punt, they do. If opinionated bookmakers have shorter prices, their clients go elsewhere, and if they offer bigger prices stick-ins will sort them out properly.

Like anyone in any market, if you step out of line your only salvation is being spot on. But most of the time the crowd is as right as anyone and over more time the percentages work out and turnover is king. By that I mean the even money favorite converges as close to 50% better than anything else does.

So for example since I kept records of even money shots at the vaal non-classic meetings. I have 39 runners that started officially at even money. Up to the 29th where Mathew Lips (beat) and American Indian (won) both at even money, 20 have won. Tarry had 9 of the 1/1 shots and 5 won. 20 were in Maiden Plates, 11 won. 14 were 1200m, and 8 won.

Anyone who thinks they are bigger than the game needs to check the facts again, bookmakers live and die by their percentages. Only idiots put money on horses which have shortened because they have shortened because by definition you are at the wrong end and the people who initiated are significantly ahead of you. Horses shorten because the money comes and as the example above shows that the market is astoundingly accurate, as a whole, and over time.

that's the problem with people

bookmakers create the book

but we don't have bookmakers , just a bunch of accountants that copy of each other

the bookmakers are spineless

Mini Tycoon wrote:

bayern wrote:

Bob Brogan wrote:

Gambler wrote: Craig with all due respect you don't understand how bookmakers work

bookies will make more money shortening the horse

example If black arthur was 25/1 it would have gotten less support

by shortening the odds 25/1 20/1 16/1 12/1 8/1 6/1 5/1

the betting public follows thinking it must have a good chance since money is coming for the horse.

bookies will shorten odds without accepting any bets just to get the attention of punters.

that's why you hear some connections are left wondering where the money came from since the horses shortened but they wasn't aware of it.

bookies will always manipulate the odds to attract the bets

no one will play a first timer 50/1

but they will play the first timer if it shortens 50/1 to 10/1

Nonsense

I fully agree with Gambler, substitute Black Arthur and replace it with Marinaresco. Wasn't this horse trading at 4/1 or 9/2 in the early ante-post betting. Ultimately, the shortening or drifting of a horse in the betting has a huge psychological effect on punters, no doubt.

Such rubbish and propagating this opinion does nothing helpful. Although bookmakers are not allowed to punt, they do. If opinionated bookmakers have shorter prices, their clients go elsewhere, and if they offer bigger prices stick-ins will sort them out properly.

Like anyone in any market, if you step out of line your only salvation is being spot on. But most of the time the crowd is as right as anyone and over more time the percentages work out and turnover is king. By that I mean the even money favorite converges as close to 50% better than anything else does.

So for example since I kept records of even money shots at the vaal non-classic meetings. I have 39 runners that started officially at even money. Up to the 29th where Mathew Lips (beat) and American Indian (won) both at even money, 20 have won. Tarry had 9 of the 1/1 shots and 5 won. 20 were in Maiden Plates, 11 won. 14 were 1200m, and 8 won.

Anyone who thinks they are bigger than the game needs to check the facts again, bookmakers live and die by their percentages. Only idiots put money on horses which have shortened because they have shortened because by definition you are at the wrong end and the people who initiated are significantly ahead of you. Horses shorten because the money comes and as the example above shows that the market is astoundingly accurate, as a whole, and over time.

When it comes to horse racing in particular, most punters have a herd-ish mentality. The post is not accusing anyone of thinking that they are bigger than the game, just the effect shortening or drifting horses have on the public. Oddly enough Mr H linked a programme on bookmaking in the UK wherein the odds maker admitted they drift a horse in order not to attract money/attention, and that's exactly what Gambler is saying. Where is the rule that prohibits one bookmaker not shortening (say) Black Arthur from 20/1 into 5/1 - if you brave enough, don't shorten like the rest of the market especially if you feel it cannot win. Or conversely, how many on this site kept putting more money on Marinaresco as it drifted - if not, why not? Read the article properly with understanding and then pass comment.

i remember that there is used to be an old indian book maker on course.
if the bookies around him were shortening a horse he would drift the same horse and the punters used to flock for the "better" price. But guess what? That old ballie got it right almost everytime. its a shame that i cant remember his name at this point in time...

High Tide wrote: i remember that there is used to be an old indian book maker on course.
if the bookies around him were shortening a horse he would drift the same horse and the punters used to flock for the "better" price. But guess what? That old ballie got it right almost everytime. its a shame that i cant remember his name at this point in time...

som singh?

pirates wrote:

High Tide wrote: i remember that there is used to be an old indian book maker on course.
if the bookies around him were shortening a horse he would drift the same horse and the punters used to flock for the "better" price. But guess what? That old ballie got it right almost everytime. its a shame that i cant remember his name at this point in time...

som singh?

Yes, it was. thanks.

Gambler wrote: Craig with all due respect you don't understand how bookmakers work

bookies will make more money shortening the horse

the betting public follows thinking it must have a good chance since money is coming for the horse.

bookies will shorten odds without accepting any bets just to get the attention of punters.


bookies will always manipulate the odds to attract the bets

Judging by your comments, I’m considering that bookmakers actually make their money because the vast majority of punters are clueless

ICE MACHINE wrote:

Gambler wrote: Craig with all due respect you don't understand how bookmakers work

bookies will make more money shortening the horse

the betting public follows thinking it must have a good chance since money is coming for the horse.

bookies will shorten odds without accepting any bets just to get the attention of punters.


bookies will always manipulate the odds to attract the bets

Judging by your comments, I’m considering that bookmakers actually make their money because the vast majority of punters are clueless

Punters are not clueless, the odds are invariably against the punter. Let's say you an on-the- nose punter, in a field of 12 runners, the bookie already has 11 "running" for him, your selection MUST win for you to collect. The bookies main aim is to take your money, and vice versa, the parameters will always be in their favour hence the percentages people are referring too. Let's just say they have all the tricks, and always will. How many bookmakers have you heard of going bust, despite the number of punters out there?

Wasn’t referring to all punters B – just 1 Gambler in particular