Antepost strategies

[Another Value Loser]

What are people's views on having "saver" bets on horses they don't have covered?

I got stung a few times this year where I had most of the prominent horses covered in the market however ended up with one uncovered who sure enough went on to win (Monkfish, Champ and Samcro).

I can often end up backing 3-5 horses in a race but don't try to form my own book with races, so often end up with a few uncovered. Will use "money back" offers on uncovered horses if I can get them but more often than not, these returns will be smaller than returns for horses I've had a proper antepost bet on.

It was one thing I wanted to review heading into next season but reluctant to start consistently placing "savers" on the back of a small sample size of being caught out by uncovered horses.

[Kevloaf]

What are people's views on having "saver" bets on horses they don't have covered?

I got stung a few times this year where I had most of the prominent horses covered in the market however ended up with one uncovered who sure enough went on to win (Monkfish, Champ and Samcro).

I can often end up backing 3-5 horses in a race but don't try to form my own book with races, so often end up with a few uncovered. Will use "money back" offers on uncovered horses if I can get them but more often than not, these returns will be smaller than returns for horses I've had a proper antepost bet on.

It was one thing I wanted to review heading into next season but reluctant to start consistently placing "savers" on the back of a small sample size of being caught out by uncovered horses.

It's a really tough thing to answer because every bet would be on a case by case basis really.


Personally I don't like the idea of a saver bet. I feel like you should only back a horse that you think is value OR you commit to a book approach where you have planned to cover every horse you think is value.

I feel like 'saver bets' are to back something just in case it wins, rather than when something is good value.



What some people class as a 'saver' may vary too.... I know some people back a horse to win their stake back (heard podcast punters say similar) but for me you're just adding to losses essentially.

There is a difference between missing a price and not betting on it, and missing a price and backing it as a saver.... the latter is a long term losing strategy I'd guess. I'd rather miss a winner than get paid at the wrong price as in the long run the value is more important than the winner.



Working out ROI for each race is something you could look at?


The term "uncovered horses" and "savers" is dangerous if you're committed to not making a book IMO

[Kautostar]

What are people's views on having "saver" bets on horses they don't have covered?

I got stung a few times this year where I had most of the prominent horses covered in the market however ended up with one uncovered who sure enough went on to win (Monkfish, Champ and Samcro).

I can often end up backing 3-5 horses in a race but don't try to form my own book with races, so often end up with a few uncovered. Will use "money back" offers on uncovered horses if I can get them but more often than not, these returns will be smaller than returns for horses I've had a proper antepost bet on.

It was one thing I wanted to review heading into next season but reluctant to start consistently placing "savers" on the back of a small sample size of being caught out by uncovered horses.

I think a lot depends on how much value you’ve got on the 3-5 horses you’ve already backed for the race. Are they big priced ante post or just 3-5 horses on the day? If you’ve got 3-5 at big prices that are now at head of the market and there’s maybe a big danger that’s uncovered then I would have a saver to break even on that danger horse. Like Kev said it’s a case by case scenario but if you don’t intend on making a book then it depends on the value you have already and how much you’re willing to give up.

[Saxon Warrior]

I think a lot depends on how much value you’ve got on the 3-5 horses you’ve already backed for the race. Are they big priced ante post or just 3-5 horses on the day? If you’ve got 3-5 at big prices that are now at head of the market and there’s maybe a big danger that’s uncovered then I would have a saver to break even on that danger horse. Like Kev said it’s a case by case scenario but if you don’t intend on making a book then it depends on the value you have already and how much you’re willing to give up.

I can see if you are heavily into 3 to 5 horses in a race, even at big prices, that not losing it all is a good plan.

I think that type of bet isnt a "Saver" bet, its probably better to call it a "Survivor" bet.

[Quevega]

What are people's views on having "saver" bets on horses they don't have covered?

I got stung a few times this year where I had most of the prominent horses covered in the market however ended up with one uncovered who sure enough went on to win (Monkfish, Champ and Samcro).

I can often end up backing 3-5 horses in a race but don't try to form my own book with races, so often end up with a few uncovered. Will use "money back" offers on uncovered horses if I can get them but more often than not, these returns will be smaller than returns for horses I've had a proper antepost bet on.

It was one thing I wanted to review heading into next season but reluctant to start consistently placing "savers" on the back of a small sample size of being caught out by uncovered horses.

I’d say it’s a judgement call given the situation you’re in.

I tend to have saver bets when I feel I’m in a strong enough position (with most of the fancied horses already covered) or have a very strong fancy and have bet accordingly.

Then it’s a question of considering the other horses you’re not on, and if you believe they can win and the price you’re getting is value.

It’s swings and roundabouts though as if you’re not making a book. You’ll win some and lose some. Probably lose. More than win this way too in the long run.

[Outlaw]

What are people's views on having "saver" bets on horses they don't have covered?

I got stung a few times this year where I had most of the prominent horses covered in the market however ended up with one uncovered who sure enough went on to win (Monkfish, Champ and Samcro).

I can often end up backing 3-5 horses in a race but don't try to form my own book with races, so often end up with a few uncovered. Will use "money back" offers on uncovered horses if I can get them but more often than not, these returns will be smaller than returns for horses I've had a proper antepost bet on.

It was one thing I wanted to review heading into next season but reluctant to start consistently placing "savers" on the back of a small sample size of being caught out by uncovered horses.

The answer is in your head,what do you want to achieve really? Making money off your opinions and dying by the sword so to speak if wrong, or reducing your chances of losing and potential profit by covering everything you think can win.
This sort of method is similar to those e/w backers at prices paying back less than total stake, they will argue its about reducing the losses or chance of losing and keeping the betting bank as strong as possible. All subjective of course.

[Saxon Warrior]

The saver or survivor bet reminds me of a friend of mine betting on the 1994 World Cup finals tournament.

Bulgaria had beaten Germany in the Quarter Finals.

Semi-Final draw was
Brazil v Sweden
Italy v Bulgaria

He had got on Italy and Brazil at decent odds before the tournament, and they were both red-hot favourites to reach the final.

He had also backed Sweden as soon as the draw suggested potential for a favourable passage to the semis.

So he sat there with two strong favs and Sweden at big odds as the remaining outsider most likely to cause any upset (3rd Fav).

He asked me whether I thought he should back Bulgaria as cover.

My response was:- 'Do you think that they will win against Italy and then Brazil?'

He said 'No', and I replied
'There's your answer then............I don't either'

[Another Value Loser]

I suppose it's also easy to focus on instances where I got caught out, easy to forget times where it works in your favour, for example being strongly against Pentland Hills at the prices.

Will reassess and look at the numbers when I review my bets again.

[Istabraq]

Not all further bets as 'savers', when betting months ahead of the event there is obvious risk and the closer you get to that event the more information you have at your disposal.
For example, where were Epatante and Darver Star in the champion hurdle betting this time last year ?
So those who loaded up on Klassical Dream, Buveur D'Air and Espoir D'Allen were sitting on a horror book by November, but by Christmas they would have had the opportunity to use the latest info they had after key races/trials.

'Savers' for me are uneducated heart over head bets, cliff horses if you like...

[Kevloaf]

It was one thing I wanted to review heading into next season but reluctant to start consistently placing "savers" on the back of a small sample size of being caught out by uncovered horses.

I suppose it's also easy to focus on instances where I got caught out, easy to forget times where it works in your favour, for example being strongly against Pentland Hills at the prices.

Will reassess and look at the numbers when I review my bets again.

Just to clarify... do you mean start having 'saver' bets now on horses?

If that is the case then 100% NO.

A saver bet should only be when the markets are well formed really, definitely definitely definitely not this far out.

[Another Value Loser]

Just to clarify... do you mean start having 'saver' bets now on horses?

If that is the case then 100% NO.

A saver bet should only be when the markets are well formed really, definitely definitely definitely not this far out.

Oh no aha. I'm talking in the few days before the race, certainly not this far out.