after watching caulfield yesterday it was unlikely you could get away with a $1.70 bet with any reliability.
the track early favoured inside leaders. e.g. naden from wide barrier and super elegant from wide barriers led up as did earlier winners.

I agree with you Becareful [and Topsy].

I didn't take the $1.70 either, an underlay considering a short half head win [I would expect a win with a leg in the air for that price!]. Lost 12% of T/O Yesterday but picked it up+ today without the open fields and unwanted excitement.

I have no problems with short prices in general as I accepted $2.10 and $2.90 plus the place price for two of my winners today. A little experiment with the place that Divi+ is stuffing up! They pay more for the win but LESS for the Place. I was down $30 on winnings that I would have got back betting TAB for both Win and Place. Swings and bigger slides [?].

My original point was that it's very easy to get carried away with the big Saterday Races during the Spring, that are often very open affairs.

Cheers.










size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-08-24 18:36 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-08-24 18:50 ]

I have my doubts about there being any major bias at Caulfield yesterday. Just because a few leaders won early does not automatically make it a biased track and hard on the rails the place to be. Brief Embrace didn't have any problems making up lengths out wide in the straight to win. Or has the bias suddenly changed from hard on the rails to out wide in the straight?

Crash,
I disagree with your assertions Re taking short prices. The only important thing is whether or not $1.70 is longer than the horses real chance of winning. If yes then its a good bet.If no then it is as you say an underlay. But what I really want to know is how you get a 17% franked divi out of Telstra? Im only getting around 5%.

Mr. Logic, The sooner punters dismiss this track bias as absolute bull**** the sooner they will start backing more winners.The bias is caused by the speed of the leaders and has nothing whatsoever to do with the track.The bias experts failed to comment on the first and last races at Caulfield when both winners came from near last.No wonder 98% are losing.

Legion,Any punter who keeps backing short priced horses MUST go broke.The fact is that no more odds on favorites win than 5/1 favorites.I've been betting for 45 years and have never seen anyone who can win over a period of time backing short priced horses, although most have tried.As for these horses being overlays, the amount that are is zero due to public hype. Lonhro won but in my opinion his true price was 2/1 and the runner up Clangalang $22 was priced at 4/1, which was a much better each way bet than Lonhro straight out.

Legion,

Well there IS a shortener for you, 5% now ? Like I said, dont take underlays.

Did I say I had Telstra shares anywhere in my post?

As regard to the bias at Caufield, I think a lot of Jockies had the instruction..." don't return to scales without rail white on the side of your boot!".
They moved the rail back in from the last meeting on a rain affected and choped track which provided advantage until the later races when it was all choped and the quicker inside Alley was disappearing.

Generaly, I agree with the Late Mail, track Bias is an overated consideration [except on the strathair at M/V!].

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-08-24 22:14 ]

You are joking aren't you? Around 50% of odds-on runners win (higher if you only look at Saturday Metro) and the LOT is only around 2%. Less than 15% of 5/1 favourites win and the LOT is around 12% (from memory - cant be bothered running the stats this late on a Sunday). Whilst few of my bets are actually in odds-on territory the $2.00-$3.00 range is certainly a fertile "feeding ground" if you know what to look for.

You obviously haven't met me!
:smile:

value is coming our way punters.

spring is almost here.