I think Lonhro started OVERS at $1.60!!!!

I know there is differing opinions on whether backing value runners instead of backing THE winner is better , but if YOU are sure a horse is going to win whether it be evens or 6/1 why wouldn't you back it OR stay out of the race altogether?

if you think a horse is a certainty then you are prepared to back it at any odds...so if you thought lohnro was an absolute certainty of winning the race then $1.60 is great value. A lot better than $1.00!

Testa your point is well made except to say that there is no such thing as an absolute certainty in racing. I wonder why you didnt quote a fair price for Lonhro before the race instead of saying he was overs at $1.60. Although I do admit I have under rated this great horse. As you will see I could not get my price for either Lonhro or Ha Ha and so stayed out of the race.Anyway good luck to all who took the short price. You never had cause to worry.As for those that said he cannot win or that others in the race were specials. I would suggest whatever handicapping method you are using is badly flawed.

As to Testa's question on whether betting in the red is clever or not - it depends on the number of runners in the race.
$1.60 is a fraction better than 4/7. If you take that bet with a bookie in a 12 horse race, it's equivalent to giving him 11 runners, all at 7/4 each and you have just one at 4/7. I don't like doing it 'cause too many odds on pops get beaten. There was a famous Syney punter in the 60's called the Fireman, whose specialty was large bets on odds on horses, especially St. Louis Blues. He only lasted about 2 seasons before the odds ground him down.
Try betting in the red on the footy (NRL or AFL) - at least it's only a two horse race! And the bookies margin is usually only about 10%.

[quote]
On 2002-08-05 01:06, Rain Lover wrote: too many odds on pops get beaten.

In answer to that comment , a lot of 3/1 shots get beaten to , so do 4/1 shots and 5/1 shots and so on..........does that mean you shouldn't back those either , i understand that the better the price the less amount of winners you need at that price to be in front , but if you are confident the odds on horse is going to win why back anything else in the race (even if they are at value!!!) Either back it or nothing at all.

If you like a horse in a race with a odds on fav then by all acounts back it , but if you like the odds on fav and you back something at better value and the fav gets up all you are doing is betting against yourself.

And even if the odds on fav doesn't win in a field of 10 , there are still 9 horses that can win with the majority being value.

Hi TestaRossa,
You may well be right about Lonhro being value - at top fluctuation in the race the Sydney bookies market was only 102%!

If Testa Rossa was value at $1.70 in a market of 102% it would also mean none of the other horses were value - despite the odds on offer.

That is also something we keep hammering away at on this site - double figure odds does not mean value.

We see it as a way of trapping punters into accepting poor odds about horses in the most difficult of races.

The more open a race, the harder it is to back a winner, yet punters are told by media commentators "Whatever you like you are going to get value."

To use the roulette example, if you are given $21.00 about a single number of your choice coming up on the next spin, we all know that is atrocious unders and not value.

[ This Message was edited by: Neil on 2002-08-05 14:52 ]

Odds On - Look On.
:eek:

Backing odds on favourites results in bankruptcy.

Equine investor,
Just as others on this forum have said. Value is relative.If a horse is 3s on and its real chance of winning in percentage terms is better than 80%(In other words its real chance expressed in odds is 4s on)then this horse represents value.This is an extreme example but is also valid for a 10/1 chance or any other price for that matter. Unless a punter understands that the ONLY way to win long term is to secure a price longer than a horses real chance he/she has no hope at all. This is why Testas asertion that if you are sure that a horse will win you can back it at any price does not stand up. Every horse has an actual chance and the art is being more accurate than the market at assessing that chance and acting accordingly.

Odds on, get on. I like a big winning strike rate. So for me its odds on, get on for the best wining strike rate. You feel real good backing them. And if you lose you know everone else loses with you. I also take the odds on favrite with the field in tris. Ive had plenty of big colects.

Legion,
I agree with your thoughts on value etc but odds-on horses are very costly commodities.

You are saying that based on PAST results and PAST form Lonhro had a 80% chance in the race for example. Well I can give thousands of examples of good horses which failed in their careers after being good horses early.

Lonhro would probably win 8 out of ten races but to keep taking those odds will result in a loss when he gets beaten a few times.(not if but when).