Tweet
Originally posted by Spectre
View Post
I'm a bit confused about what you're pulling me up on Aaron?
Going by recent history, focusing on a handful of trainers will find you most of the winners. Going back a decade or more the winners were shared around a much larger number of trainers. Surely my statement is just factual, so I don't know why you want to pick me up on it. Those trainers will still run maybe a hundred or more horses between them, so you've still got to find the winners amongst them, which makes the task harder. But from something like 20% of all the horses running over the four days, they will potentially win 60-70% of the races. Form and the market is a pretty good guide to narrow the list of potential winners down, and by applying a few additional stats and trends the shortlist usually isn't overly long, so you have a fairly good chance of finding a few winners. Making a profit is an entirely different matter.
On the other subject you raise (which is completely unrelated to the subject), the reason I make a book is not just to find the winners from those handful of stables. I attempt to find all the winners and the places available at the best possible odds. I start very early, with some bets being more than a year in advance, and a high percentage of the rest in the month immediately after the Festival. I then use a combination of cash out to get rid of horses I don't want, and BF to lay horses and take the difference in the price I backed at and the best price i can lay at. That process continues all through the year, and come the Festival itself I hope to have the right horses in my book to fill the places, and that will include adjusting my book to account for extra places that bookmakers will offer. You talk about me having 27 horses backed in the first three races, but that's exactly the point at this stage. I want the possibles backed at the best possible prices, and by doing so I have options, none of which are bad. I won't have that number backed still in March, but I will possibly have 60% of that still, many of which I'll have laid the win part for a profit, leaving good odds on some just running for the place. I'll use the Arkle and my current bets to try and demonstrate. All hypothetically at this stage.
My current bets are:
Appreciate It 4/1 - 20 points win
Appreciate It 4/1 - 10 points win
Appreciate It r/u (USA Ryder, Aus Ash) 8.07/1 - 6 points win
Ferny Hollow 16/1 - 6 points ew
Ferny Hollow 14/1 - 2 points ew
Third Time Luckki 50/1 - 1.5 points ew
Third Time Luckki 16/1 - 5 points ew
Boothill 50/1 - 1.5 points ew
Elixir D'ainay 40/1 - 2 points ew
Saint Roi 33/1 - 2.5 points ew
Dusart 25/1 - 3 points ew
Blue Lord 33/1 - 2.25 points ew
Mister Coffey - 1.5 points ew
Magic Daze 50/1 - 2.5 points ew
Let's say my final book looks like this:
Green - Full stake running
Amber - Win part laid for profit and place still running
Purple - Laid
Blue - Cashed Out
Red - Lost points from non runner
Appreciate It 4/1 - 20 points win
Appreciate It 4/1 - 10 points win
Appreciate It r/u (USA Ryder, Aus Ash) 8.07/1 - 6 points win
Ferny Hollow 16/1 - 6 points ew
Ferny Hollow 14/1 - 2 points ew
Third Time Luckki 50/1 - 1.5 points ew
Third Time Luckki 16/1 - 5 points ew
Boothill 50/1 - 1.5 points ew
Elixir D'ainay 40/1 - 2 points ew
Saint Roi 33/1 - 2.5 points ew
Dusart 25/1 - 3 points ew
Blue Lord 33/1 - 2.25 points ew
Mister Coffey - 1.5 points ew
Magic Daze 50/1 - 2.5 points ew
So in this example, which is entirely feasible given the Arkle often only has 5-8 runners. I have kept a firm position on Appreciate It after Ferny Hollow has gone elsewhere, although I've laid some of Appreiciate It to ensure I have a balanced book. I've taken a small win position on Third Time Luckki just in case, and I have place positions on Third Time Luckki at 10/1, Boothill at 10/1, Magic Daze at 10/1, and Dusart at 5/1, having already take a very nice profit out of the win bets. Hopefully I've been smart or lucky enough to be holding on to the only real contenders for the three places, and I'm in a very good postion with a guaranteed profit. I've perhaps had a downside on getting caught with 5 or 6 points that are already down, but that's par for the course. If Appreciate It wins, then it's happy days. If he doesn't one of the others do, and couple more place. In which case still win on the bets that come in, and I've made a further profit because of the win and place parts of bets that I've laid.
I work hard 28 times every year to try and create this kind of position on every race. In some races I'll pull it off, in others I'll take a profit of some kind, and I might have some races where I've had to work on damage limitation. But one thing I'm certain of is that I will make far more using this method, than trying to back 28 individual winners. That said I've put in significantly more than 28 times the effort to do it, and I've been putting that effort in all year to stay on top of every part of it.
In addition to this approach, which borders on obsession, what you perhaps haven't read from posts I've made previously, is that completely separate from my book I back my individual fancies in the immediate lead up as normal bets. Just the same way any other punter would do. They are my horses for each race, not my book horses, and they're the ones that I cheer up the hill whatever is in my book. It's what normalises the Festival for me, and allows me to enjoy it the way I always have. To do that I use the same processes that everyone does. Form, racereading, trends, statistics, etc, etc. I work hard at those things too. Essentially I enjoy the Festival the same way everyone else does, and I deliberately do so. My book is put to bed and not touched again from the time the tapes go up for the Supreme to when the last horse crosses the line in the last race. I'm just 'Joe Punter' for four days, and the next guy in the crowd that's there for the love of the racing.
Your post implies that because I make a book I shouldn't talk about other angles, methods, or facts that may potentially make finding winners easy. I may use a method that works for me and diarise it, but freely admit it is far from the only way of making a profit, it's just a very effective method that works for me. One that I work hard on, and certainly not something I feel the need to apologise for. Because I make a book my diary does mask those horses I have a strong opinion on, of which there are plenty. I usually express those opinions on the individual threads, and more recently on the podcasts too though. I'll have a very strong opinion when we talk about the Stayers Hurdle this week for example. These are the horses I back as individual bets and are nothing to do with my book. I don't record them in my diary at all. If you or anyone feel I should record these separate bets I have no problem with that, because I certainly don't want to imply that betting is easy, and you can use a simple method to back 28 winners. Although I suspect you don't believe for one second that's what I was suggesting.
You also mention the capital it takes to follow the approach I do. All of it has come from methodically going about the business of winning. I've been doing it for 20 odd years. I take it seriously, I devote a considerable amount of time to it, and I've done every hard yard necessary to get to where I am today. All of my betting funds have been built organically and don't get topped up from other sources. I haven't tried to run before I can walk, and I haven't taken any unnecessary risks, and most important of all I've never used money I either don't have or can't afford. Again I have no intention of apologising for that, particularly as since I started posting on Fat Jockey I have been completely open about everything I do, how I do it, how long I've been doing it for, and what it's taken to get where I am today. Unfortunately you've taken one post completely out of context, then referred to my diary which has nothing to do with the post I made, and was in response to a post from another member who I happened to agree with the point he was making. I agreed because it's a fact.
Hopefully you respect that fact that I have more than gone out of my way to provide a full response to what you said below, and I hope it allays your concerns that I claim finding winners is easy. You probably haven't seen much of what I've previously written given when you joined, so hopefully what I've written above will give you that context. And perhaps it's helped with some understanding with just how many years and how much effort each year it takes to get to the point where I can run a successful book strategy. And that it isn't just about having a bunch of cash to throw away 'backing every fucking horse!!!!' as you seem to think is all I do.
Anyway, on a lighter note, you'll be pleased to know I'm already looking forward to starting this seasons 'Doing A Naiad' thread, and this time I'll be all out to go one better, which I'm sure will be far more interesting than anything I've written in this post, and will take a fraction of the time to read!
Firstly I want to thank AaronLad as without his? Post we would not have seen Spectres. If I try and put myself in AL position the key para in Spectres response for me would be the para that begins ‘in addition to this approach’ ..... for me this changes the perspective fundamentally. Originally I was attracted to gambling because of the rather unique blend of art and science. It’s extraordinary pull on both left side and right side of the brain. My personal leaning and preference is slightly in favour of art. The notion of pitting my wits against another, David v Goliath etc etc is a romantic notion that has always appealed. As my personal circumstances have changed so has my attitude to gambling. I have been forced to shift away from art and romance to book building which however we want to describe it to ourselves, to an outsider is simply accountancy. Not simple accountancy as there is enormous complexity around the edges as Spectre has eloquently described but accountancy nevertheless. What I mean about the edges is the extra things that Spectre and others do to build the most profitable book possible. Of course this takes skill and knowledge and hours and hours of dedication. Anybody willing to invest so much of their lives to master this skill should be applauded and supported imo.
Without the para beginning ‘In addition to’ I would however have a little sympathy with AL’s post. As book building does fly against the original philosophy of gambling. It is designed to remove risk and safeguard which it can be argued is the very antithesis of gambling. This year I built a book and made a profit on nearly every race and enjoyed it less than any other year. I have very few bookmakers available to me and do not have cash out available to me. I also dislike laying as it takes me far too far away from the original philosophy of gambling. There are certain principles I am personally not prepared to abandon and David v Goliath is one such principle. I have no desire to win money off fellow punters, punters who may well be in financial difficulty or may well be addicted. I don’t know they are but I know it is possible and so I will never go down that path.
As I say it was heart warming to read the para beginning ‘In addition to’ as this is the racing lover, this is the fanatic, this is the gambler and my advice to AL is embrace this para and embrace the fact that Spectre has found an extraordinary way of financing his passion. He is talented, gifted but most of all he loves racing and we need more Spectres.
On a personal note Spectre...I am more interested in your ‘personal fancies’ than I am in your book building but many others may see it the other way round. Saying there is value in both is an understatement.
GL Spectre and GL AL.....and Thanks to you both for bringing this incredibly important discussion to the forefront.
Comment