General Chat

[AaronLad]

Yes, I completely agree with this. Antepost betting on the Festival is just about as straightforward as I remember with a significant number of winners likely to come from 4 stables, with perhaps another 3 or 4 stables with reasonable chances. Essentially twenty something winners are relatively easily found just by focusing on the right stables. Over the last 10 years it has become progressively more predictable. Go back prior to that it was much harder.

I see this statement and thought I would take a quick look at your ante post diary. I got no further than the first page and you state you've placed bets on 29 individual horses in just 3 races.
I know you're creating books on individual races but making statements like the one above is ludicrous considering the amount of horses you are backing, if you didn't find winners easy to come by backing everything I'd be flabbergasted.
Cheltenham has always and probably will always be our best chance to profit, but it's not quite as straightforward if you aren't backing every fucking horse!!!!

[Kevloaf]

If you take a bit more time AaronLad you'll see Spectre approaches it in two parts, and had explained it on more than one occasion.

In theory are you in disagreement?

Still making a profit from making a book is a skill in itself, its a different one than just picking one horse per race, but it's still not easy, or everyone would do it if they could. Building a bankroll to do it is a big hurdle.

[ToniC]

looks like we’re due a good bit of rain this weekend now, for those that had been worried about the prevailing ground conditions. Should be proper NH ground for the royal bond meeting now which will hopefully be reflected in the entries later today, be good to see some of willies get out

[DeeBee]

What is the general consensus on level stakes? I am a little OCD and always work back from what I want as a return so that my stake might be 0.345 in order to get back 50 points from a big priced double say. My stake would then adjust to be higher on a shorter odds double to return the same 50 points.

however, If I were to continually ignore the odds and simply adjust my stake to be the same regardless of price - how would my returns likely fare. I get that this is almost possible to say unless I were to review all my bets for this year and attempt to evaluate and adjust. Even then the opposite could happen next year (shorter odds double wins)

so I was intrigued as to how everyone approached a staking pattern

[robith]

What is the general consensus on level stakes? I am a little OCD and always work back from what I want as a return so that my stake might be 0.345 in order to get back 50 points from a big priced double say. My stake would then adjust to be higher on a shorter odds double to return the same 50 points.

however, If I were to continually ignore the odds and simply adjust my stake to be the same regardless of price - how would my returns likely fare. I get that this is almost possible to say unless I were to review all my bets for this year and attempt to evaluate and adjust. Even then the opposite could happen next year (shorter odds double wins)

so I was intrigued as to how everyone approached a staking pattern

I start by trying to work to building my singles returns to get to a minimum of 50pts return, but if 1pt-ish stake takes it over that level, all the better.

Then later in the year I'll try to work to get the ones I really fancy up to 100

[AaronLad]

If you take a bit more time AaronLad you'll see Spectre approaches it in two parts, and had explained it on more than one occasion.

In theory are you in disagreement?

Still making a profit from making a book is a skill in itself, its a different one than just picking one horse per race, but it's still not easy, or everyone would do it if they could. Building a bankroll to do it is a big hurdle.

I disagree with how his post could potentially mislead people in to thinking gambling is easy.
making a book is a skill, one which requires a lot of time and capital, not everyone has this.

From what I've seen Spectre post he is very knowledgeable and can certainly pick one out. Happygolucky was brilliant.

[The Fellow]

Kabongo scores again , 5 clear at the top on 17 goals

[Many Clouds]

Kabongo scores again , 5 clear at the top on 17 goals

Cheek scored again for Bromley so still only 4 clear unfortunately. Still take it though!

[Odin]

Kabongo scores again , 5 clear at the top on 17 goals

Come on the Kabongo-Fred double!!!

[Fouroverthrutwo]

Cheek scored again for Bromley so still only 4 clear unfortunately. Still take it though!

Chesterfield need to sign him.

And put him on the bench.

[Spectre]

I disagree with how his post could potentially mislead people in to thinking gambling is easy.
making a book is a skill, one which requires a lot of time and capital, not everyone has this.

From what I've seen Spectre post he is very knowledgeable and can certainly pick one out. Happygolucky was brilliant.

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!

[charlie]

I think a FJ podcast on betting approaches would be interesting. How to build a book, selective betting, leaving it late etc. Approach would need to be well planned and perhaps it would be more something more suitable for after the festival, but I think people would find it beneficial. I've tried building a book in the RSA for the first time this year and reading Spectres above post I have a lot to learn about what building a successful book looks like, and the strategies needed to make it successful.

[nortonscoin200]

Great explanation of your amazing system Spectre - hugely admire the mental agility , hard graft, dedication and encyclopaediac knowledge you bring to punting on the Festival.

It requires a huge level of skill and is without doubt simply awesome in my book.

Your system/strategy reminds me of when I used to play a bit of online poker with very mixed and largely non profitable results. Then one day I was given a tutorial by someone who had made a comfortable 7-figure profit from poker.

I can only liken that tutorial to being in the middle of a jungle unable to find a path out - and then suddenly finding a bloody great motorway leading back to civilisation. All of a sudden all the luck was taken out of the game by this guy and I understood why he was nailing it day in day out and I was struggling.

Sadly, once my tutor left I found it very difficult to implement his system and I soon went back to my bad old ways surrounded by impenetrable jungle creepers.

He’d made the game look simple but only because he brought a massive invisible skill level to the table which was way beyond my ability to achieve.

I believe Spectre provides us FJs with a similar tutorial on the Festival. For various reasons it’s going to be very difficult for most of us to mimic him - but we can all take advantage of his expertise in different ways and raise our hat to a rare talent.

Bring on the next Naiad - I can’t wait.

[Odin]

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!

I don't know if the original post was meant to come across quite how it did but regardless, this post is so much more than it deserved. You're a good man Spectre who's shown a serious amount of skill, and hard work, to get to where you are now (and it's very nice having watched the podcasts that I can see you're a good man without worrying about offending you!).

[Atlantic Viking]

'Dark Horse' has just popped up on netflix, it's a documentary about a horse some might remember called Dream Allianceand his Welsh syndicate. Think it was first on Channel 4 around 2015. Anyway, it's a decent watch if you haven't already.