22nd May 2006, 03:29 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 578
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KennyVictor
With the greatest of respect I think you misunderstand me. I would not suggest that you change your selection strategy merely that this selection strategy is aimed at making place bets. Thus to conjecture what would have happened had you placed win bets instead is not of any value. Maybe I'm wrong and you have a magic pin which would have stabbed the newspaper in exactly the same place whichever type of bets you had made. But I think not, you strike me as a successful punter who would tailor his selections to his bets.
Why can't anyone on this forum understand me? Is it only misinterpretation of other peoples posts that keeps us going? Am I an imbecile posing as a very clever person in the disguise of an idiot?
|
Well, Kenny have a good luck in the mirror & if you see an imbecile posing as a very clever person in the disguise of an idiot shake hands with yourself, you've found out who you really are. What's that old saying, if it looks like duck, walks like a duck & quacks like a duck, it's a duck. :-)
But jokes aside, I don't think anyone on this forum thinks that in all honesty that you not a thinking person & your views are not respected, if not always agreed with.
There is an old saying, "Pick 'em to win, back 'em a place" & that is very much the heart of my selection strategy. Actually, it's a rating process & the place selections I referred to earlier were all rated to win, e.g. top-rated, but backed for a place. In fact, I rated about eleven races on Saturday but bet in five of them because either there was a lack value or for some other reason, such as the top-rated horse being a backmarker which is normally a no-no for me.
So your assumption that the selection strategy is aimed at place betting is not correct - it's my style of betting that is aimed at place betting, not the selection process.
|