Supreme Novice Hurdle 2019

[boopa]

I bet based on my own opinion also, but it's definitely based to a certain degree on other peoples opinions, which includes pundits, trainers, jockeys, ratings compilers, clerks of the course, weathermen, Handicappers, etc.

Which was my point.
If you don't use these other opinions Boopa, even to a small degree, then I'd say you're insane, or GOD

By opinion I mean what other punters write, say or tip. Some have implied they gather every punters opinion of a horse or race and the amalgamation of that is their final judgement. That's why some of you have huge books because you are betting many different opinions rather than your own. That's not how I work.

[JackieMoon33]

There's more than one way to a skin a cat. I bet my own opinion. I have been doing it for a living for 4-years now.

I’d agree. Having too many opinions becomes a distraction and at the end of the day, you’re betting with our own money, not the tipsters or pundits cash. It has to be objective information to be used effectively in my eyes.

I’m all about Due Dilligence and justifying each bet to myself based on the criteria I set. I used to get sucked into so called ‘tips’ but they are usually just noise.

[boopa]

I’d agree. Having too many opinions becomes a distraction and at the end of the day, you’re betting with our own money, not the tipsters or pundits cash. It has to be objective information to be used effectively in my eyes.

I’m all about Due Dilligence and justifying each bet to myself based on the criteria I set. I used to get sucked into so called ‘tips’ but they are usually just noise.

This is what I meant. If you want to be pedantic the odds themselves are just the amalgamation of opinion but that's not what I was referring to.

If you work in horse racing and backed every piece of inside info from trainers, jockeys etc you would go skint very quickly.

I'm not digging out anyone who does it differently. Do what works for you.

[Quevega]

This is what I meant. If you want to be pedantic the odds themselves are just the amalgamation of opinion but that's not what I was referring to.

If you work in horse racing and backed every piece of inside info from trainers, jockeys etc you would go skint very quickly.

I'm not digging out anyone who does it differently. Do what works for you.

I know what you meant mate, was just messing about.

[Kevloaf]

By opinion I mean what other punters write, say or tip. Some have implied they gather every punters opinion of a horse or race and the amalgamation of that is their final judgement. That's why some of you have huge books because you are betting many different opinions rather than your own. That's not how I work.

That isn't an accurate description of what I do at all boopa.

I think you've misunderstood when I've said I read as much as possible too...

[Quevega]

Anyone who follows tipsters probably saves a hell of a lot of time, but I enjoy spending time. Each to their own.

I started this brief conversation trying to get across the basic point that all of our opinions are based to some extent (some more than others) on other peoples opinions and thoughts. Whether you like it or not. It's a fact.

The more opinions the better for me as there's always someone who either knows more than you or has a better idea or viewpoint than you, at least sufficient enough to alter your own opinion (even slightly) on occasions.

[charlie]

By opinion I mean what other punters write, say or tip. Some have implied they gather every punters opinion of a horse or race and the amalgamation of that is their final judgement. That's why some of you have huge books because you are betting many different opinions rather than your own. That's not how I work.

In the context of what's been said on this thread, and in relation to Kev specifically, it is patently obvious that his book has been built on his own analysis and not just an amalgamation of other peoples opinions. To infer otherwise is inaccurate

[boopa]

I've just gone by what was said in the 'Your procedure in narrowing down the field?' thread. Maybe I misconstrued it. Doesn't matter anyway.

[BigChaang]

Why don't you think Aramon will run here anymore Kevloaf ??.

[archie]

They said they were going up in trip with Aramon, BC.

Going by Willie's comments, if Supreme have a runner in this race it will likely be Harrie. However, he does have over 20 plausible candidates for the 3 open novice hurdles so a last minute reshuffle is almost guaranteed.

[BigChaang]

O.k Thankyou Archie.. Do you think Ballymore most likely or further. I like the look of Aramon.

[archie]

Will depend how he goes in the Lawlors. With so many candidates, you'd have thought that Willie will have a top pick (or maybe two) for each novice race at Cheltenham and he'll then distribute the rest around as the mood takes him 5 minutes before declaration time.

On occasion, he's alleged to have made declarations on his way back to the hotel after an all-nighter but that might be apocryphal.

[Quevega]

Will depend how he goes in the Lawlors. With so many candidates, you'd have thought that Willie will have a top pick (or maybe two) for each novice race at Cheltenham and he'll then distribute the rest around as the mood takes him 5 minutes before declaration time.

On occasion, he's alleged to have made declarations on his way back to the hotel after an all-nighter but that might be apocryphal.

Apocryphal - brilliant vocab knowledge archie

[Kevloaf]

I've just gone by what was said in the 'Your procedure in narrowing down the field?' thread. Maybe I misconstrued it. Doesn't matter anyway.

That was in reply to somebody who joined the forum specifically to ask how pwople go about things...so I gave as simple an answer as I could

To try and answer that as simply as I can....

I narrow the field by listening to/reading as many opinions as I can and then compare that to my own opinion - if the price is right I'd place a bet.

The narrowing of the field includes podcasts,TV interviews and pundits, racing websites and replays of form, racecards ..... and then 'my own opinion' which is based on watching these horses in previous seasons etc?

Not sure that makes sense haha

You have said here:

"Some have implied they gather every punters opinion of a horse or race and the amalgamation of that is their final judgement. That's why some of you have huge books because you are betting many different opinions rather than your own. That's not how I work."

You've taken it literally that I take every PUNTERS opinion, and ignored that I also said "podcasts, TV interviews and pundits, racing websites and replays of form, racecards" .....


You are right, it doesn't matter, but you clearly rattled my cage as I'm still responding

[Kevloaf]

I’d agree. Having too many opinions becomes a distraction and at the end of the day, you’re betting with our own money, not the tipsters or pundits cash. It has to be objective information to be used effectively in my eyes.

I’m all about Due Dilligence and justifying each bet to myself based on the criteria I set. I used to get sucked into so called ‘tips’ but they are usually just noise.

and I do agree with this too in the main.

I still listen though and just find myself disagreeing, or picking holes in what cliches and obvious comments people make (specifically on podcasts).... I think that also helps in analysis.

It's the same in any sport too, when I feel I KNOW my sport, I am able to debate other people's points... but you have to hear them to be able to do that....

Which hopefully helps explain why I still would think it's a positive to listen to as much as I can!