Is Horse Racing -EV??? - Page 3

Thremp · #21 07-16-2007, 04:56 PM

ledders,

How much you expect to win each wager.

sharkstevie · #22 07-17-2007, 08:46 AM

I'm a lucksack when it comes to horse racing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It's +EV if you know your stuff and know people in the business IMO

BigHef · #23 07-26-2007, 02:00 AM

Horse racing is just like anything - if your edge is higher than the take, then yes you can beat it.

If you're reading the form for 10 minutes before the race - no you won't beat it. You need to be watching as many races as many times as you can - there is no substitute for hard work.

I would give more specific examples but I'm from Aus, and I'm sure the US scene would differ quite a bit - ie what works here is not going to work there.

Thremp · #24 07-26-2007, 02:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You need to be watching as many races as many times as you can - there is no substitute for hard work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this sentence ironic because while I totally agree with the 2nd half, I completely disagree with the first.

BigHef · #25 07-30-2007, 06:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need to be watching as many races as many times as you can - there is no substitute for hard work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this sentence ironic because while I totally agree with the 2nd half, I completely disagree with the first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to expand on how you completely disagree? Interested in whether it is a USA v Aus thing, or a horse racing in general thing.

Thremp · #26 07-30-2007, 02:23 PM

I don't think actually watching many events has much to do with a person's ability to handicap a sport. From brief talks with Bishop it appeared that he worked for a syndicate that ran solely on numbers. Numerous other sports are handicapped the same way. You'd probably be a much more effective baseball handicapper never watching a game as opposed to someone who spent him time watching games.

ledders07 · #27 07-30-2007, 03:33 PM

i'm from UK so i dont know if that makes a difference. i only go to big meetings so i have heard of nearly all the horses that are racing and who they've beaten in the past.

my knowledge isn't extensive but i know my [censored].

i'm also 16 so im just a kid luckbox really

BigHef · #28 07-30-2007, 10:06 PM

I tend to agree with sports Thremp, but with so much luck in running in horse racing I think its a totally different beast.

You could look at the form and see something ran last beaten 7 lengths but if you don't watch the race you might not notice it was hemmed in on the fence behind the leader with no room for the last 300m. So it's probably wise to disregard the run, rather than assume from the numbers its a few lengths below that class.

Throw in track bias (which is prevalent in Aus, and UK from what I saw at Royal Ascot) and poor jockey decisions and the printed form can often be more misleading than informative.

ledders07 · #29 07-31-2007, 06:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Throw in track bias (which is prevalent in Aus, and UK from what I saw at Royal Ascot) and poor jockey decisions and the printed form can often be more misleading than informative.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep, that [censored] happens everywhere, luckily i buy the proper timeform which tells you exactly what happened. although that doesnt stop the jockey from being a [censored] though