Sean Bartholomew

[Chrome Prince]

Anyone see his video interview?

I've even got the high rollers taking notice it seems ;)

Some very interesting comments, especially his art of arbing being both punter and bookmaker, which I suspect is why he is going back to bookmaking enterprises as well.

If a bookmaker knows that big bets are coming infor a certain horse early in the morning, he can back it heavily as a punter elsewhere and lay it at anything below. Having the knowledge from heavy punting clients in advance puts him at a distinct trading advantage.

I didn't agree with his Betfair comments at all, but then again it was in his own best interests to make those claims.

He certainly cleaned himself up well, he's looking pretty sharp these days.

I thought it was an incredibly candid interview, but the interviewer certainly dropped the ball along the way. A big punter like that so open to discussing things and his questions were very closed and hesitant.

The body language was something to tell a tale though wasn't it, the wry look at the cameraman revealed a multitude ;)

[JoeF]

CP is there a link to that somewhere?

[Wunfluova]

http://www.racenettv.com.au/

[crash]

He's backed Heavenly Glow for $100k the win at $2.70

[Mark]

Useless interviewer, looked disinterested most of the time, and too busy looking at the next question instead of listening to the replies and going from there.

[Wunfluova]

He's backed Heavenly Glow for $100k the win at $2.70Where did you read that Crash? (Welcome back Kotter :))

[JoeF]

Ta Wun.

[crash]

Where did you read that Crash? (Welcome back Kotter :))

Local sport's radio here in Vic. They were talking to him on the phone.

[reded]

The interviewer is Craig Tompson the randwick clocker ... he use to work at our local pub in the bottle shop when he was training to be a clocker ...he hasnt changed 1 bit ... we use to call him Lurch at the time

Im sure Sean will be having a saver bet or 2 on other horses if he can get the right price ..he normally does

[Wunfluova]

- I watched some of today's Rosehill preview on the same site - pretty painful stuff.

- Thanks Crash.

p.s. just watching Sky - someone has absolutely murdered the national anthem. They should be barred from all these personal interpretations

[Chrome Prince]

Actually I think Craig was not prepared for Sean to be so open, or is he always like that?

A very wasted opportunity imho, but a good interview all the same.

[Shaun]

- I watched some of today's Rosehill preview on the same site - pretty painful stuff.

- Thanks Crash.

p.s. just watching Sky - someone has absolutely murdered the national anthem. They should be barred from all these personal interpretations


I have sent an e-mail to the race club i suggest every one do the same, these so called singers that think they can personalise the anthem is just not on.

[crash]

He's backed Heavenly Glow for $100k the win at $2.70


He reckoned it was over the odds. Said who? Bookies ride in rollers because of short priced 'over the odds' [they think] horses mugs bet on. $100k down the drain. Nobody but nobody can decide that a short priced horse is 'over the odds'. Look at todays results for odds-on horses all states. Most of them lost.

[Chrome Prince]

He didn't say it would win, he said it was over the odds.

So if all odds on favourites won today, one would assume you'd endorse backing them?

One day does not a summer make.

[Shaun]

If he backed it at $2.70 he lost nothing, see what prices was on offer, he would have been laying it off on his bookie site for sure.

[Chrome Prince]

Yes, as he stated it was over the odds and he had a bet to nothing.
That's smart punting.

[crash]

He didn't say it would win, he said it was over the odds.

So if all odds on favourites won today, one would assume you'd endorse backing them?




No I wouldn't. The average SR for odds-on horses winning is around 50%. Runs of in's or outs for odds-on horses doesn't make any difference. Good for arbitrage betting maybe, but hardly a good profit making target by guessing if odds-on runners are overs or unders. LOL. LOL.

Looking at odds of say 2.70 [Bartholomew's bet odds for his $100k], when
converted to book % we are talking tiny %. To be able to say 2% chance of winning is about right but 3% is overs, is absurd. There will never be enough info available about a field of horses, or how a race will pan out in the running to calculate such tiny chance differences. It's an educated guess at best surely.

I think when Bartholomew says a horse is unders or overs he's talking about what odds he can bet at compared to what odds he can lay for. By his own admission in the interview he's no form student, but investor [an abridger]. Great if you have enough capital to make the small % profits meaningful. He said he went broke 50 times as a semi-pro punter until he gave it up and went into backing and laying when he was a small time bookmaker for a short period.

If their is a good profit potential through his arbitrage betting style, he can then calculate a horse's 'overs' or vis-a-vis 'unders' very accurately, but he's using those terms loosely for convenience, not in their accepted meaning to most punters.

Cheers.

[Chrome Prince]

You don't need to guess, it's right there before us all.
The percentage book has not a lot to do with it.
At 100% market a horse can move as much as 20% without the market percentage actually changing.

Bookies do it everyday ;)

For me it is dead easy to spot value on short horses, there are so many question marks on the others.

Apply one or two filters to these animals and you have a profit at tote prices, best tote or betfair returns close to 10% without raising a sweat.

[crash]

I agree with what your saying Chrome, but a horse's chances of winning is not decided by price moves, if they did denote winning chance %, all favorites would win, but 7 out of 10 don't. Why? Because of all the unknown factors involved.

Personally, I believe the way to profit is arbitrage betting [isn't that what you do?], but for most punter's with small banks, they would probably keel over from boredom using that betting style unless they were into accounting as well as their interest in horse racing [nothing wrong with that] and sure, that's what bookies do, but not punters.

For most punters the challenge and excitement is beating the bookie and the odd big win, even though the bookies will mostly win in the end.

Punting and arbitrage are two different animals serving two different endeavors.

[Crackone]

I agree with what your saying Chrome, but a horse's chances of winning is not decided by price moves, if they did denote winning chance %, all favorites would win, but 7 out of 10 don't. Why? Because of all the unknown factors involved. My 2 cents... A Fav. who has drifted in the market statistically lose more than those who firm.

The average SR for odds-on horses winning is around 50% small lose, but if you backed them at over the odds like he did 2.70 you would win, if he couldn't get that price (or one he thought was VALUE) then no bet. That is how he bets. In the interview he said he would keep backing a horse till it came down to certain price.

He works on small % on large turnover, that is why he said the average punter cann't win on betfair paying 5% Comm. (don't agree) thats the bookie coming out in him.

Agree with you about arbitrage betting, just need two big banks

Cheers

[Chrome Prince]

Well he gave you a clue in his interview, I was quite surprised by the points he made which weren't followed up. He was very open, except when it came to Betfair of course ;)

Firmers win more races than drifters as crackone says.

Sean said I have a price in mind and keep backing until it reaches that price.

What is apparent is that when the shorties move they continue to move in that direction as opposed to the longer priced horses which pogo stick all over the place. You'll probably get one horse that is smashed in price on the day, but the rest are all over the place before they reach their resting point or SP.

If a horse is $2.00 and it goes to $1.80, chances are it will go to $1.70.
If the horse goes to $2.20, chances are it will go to $2.40 or rest back at $2.20.

This is not just useful for arbers or traders, but useful for backing and laying at the best price.

If you can spot the moves, I've generally backed or layed then gone in for half the stake at a better price to bring it below or above the initial price.

So I've layed below the final price or bet at least 10% above the SP price.

I don't arb as such, I'd call it a half arb like a half kelly.

Perfect example was Kharsya in the UK.

Should have been $1.50 according to the openers.
Moved into $1.41.
No support for any other runner
Backed at $1.40 for $200
Firmed into $1.25 layed for $100

I've effectively got $100 @ $1.55 on a $1.25 shot ;)

[crash]

Well whatever your doing Chrome it sounds good. I just can't get my head around figures enough to do anything with that style of betting. I did give it a go once with Betfair, but got my backside kicked. It takes a certain talent I think and it's not one of mine:-)

[odericko]

Backed at $1.40 for $200
Firmed into $1.25 layed for $100
those figures are surley wrong why didnt you just lay 224@ 1.25 for a guaranteed profit of 24???
i could be wrong but if you back 200@1.40 you win 80
if you lay 100@1.25 you lose 100
iether way you lose????

[Mancunian]

Life sure gets complicated - don't it

[Crackone]

Backed at $1.40 for $200
Firmed into $1.25 layed for $100
those figures are surley wrong why didnt you just lay 224@ 1.25 for a guaranteed profit of 24???
i could be wrong but if you back 200@1.40 you win 80
if you lay 100@1.25 you lose 100
iether way you lose????odericko if you layed at $1.25 for $100 you would lose only $25 not $100
If it wins In $80 out $25 profit $55
If it loses In $100 out $200 lose of $100

[Chrome Prince]

Yes, so it's $100 @ $1.55 effectively instead of the $1.25 it jumped at.