Yep, that's all I meant and that's what we bet on, the next event. To use a well know phrase: 'Horses can be Pharlap one day, Radish the next' !

I've long time thought that the concept of odds quoted reflecting the actual chances of a horse winning a race are misleading.
It may just be semantics but I feel that most punters(if not all, unconciously)look at a race in light of all of the previous races they have looked at and determine that 2/1 is in fact a fair chance of a 200% return on their investment given the class of the opposition rather than a realistic 1 in 3 chance of winning that particular race.
If odds are a reliable predictor then why is it that only one in three favourites salute?
As far as getting unders on horse from strong stables..it can be likened to the stock market where a premium is paid for shares in a bluechip...the reduced dividend is accounted for in the greater surety of a return.
I look at odds more as market sentiment rather than a true measure of the horse's chance of winning a particular race.
Look at firmers and drifters and see if the return offered is worth the risk.
Interested to know if anyone has heard of any Technical Analysis (a la stockmarket) done on firmers/drifters?

Working on a system that I would greatly appreciate being tested by one of you blokes.
I looked at 4 and 5 year olds in Waterhouse, Hawkes(pre-Ingham split), Freedman and Hayes stables (as well as Mc Donald,Stokes-SA and Heathcote...might get rubbed out on EI move in Qld) and backing them every start from a spell until they win..then drop them until next prep.
Surprising how good the return is on these proven horses.

Based system on:
Eliminating 2 and 3 yo's as they are still being tested for ideal distance and 'placement' for a win by trainer more difficult given experimental nature of younger horses and vulnerability to growth injuries and undisclosed form of opponents;
top trainers won't persist/use up stable accommodation for 4 and 5 year olds that they think are not a good chance of winning a race;
owners won't shell out $30000 a year on training for a 4 or 5 year old that hasn't a very strong chance of winning a race;
top trainers use top jockeys, vets, feed, facilities;
top trainers use own facilities to get horses race fit and most 4 and 5 year olds win within 5 starts of a new prep with a lot getting up in first 3 starts of a new prep;
top trainers want to stay top trainers and;
experience with the horse allows top trainers to set a 4 or 5 year old for a particular race against horse with disclosed form.
Apprecite someone giving this a trial.
Level stakes or bet to clear a hundred on eventual win.

My experience is that trainers want to give owners value for their money and that they avoid situations where the horse in question is odds on (ruioning a chance for the owners to punt) and anything outside 8/1 indicates taht maybe the race in question is not the race it was set for.

Some really solid observations there waggamick.

As for firmers and drifters, I've read an article that says more drifters win overall than firmers [what is naturally assumed]. I can't confirm whether it's true or not [?]

4 and 5yr. olds are the best betting targets overall. They are in their prime, have established form and are not yet into the nagging small injuries and even getting sick of the whole game that often starts to appear in 6yr. olds.
Punters of course are the last to know when these older horses are in good all-over condition and 'set' for a race [like older athletes].

We start to see the word 'freshened' very often with horses over 5yrs. old. What that really means is that the horse was bugged-up from a run or had some injury or other health problem attended too [best to avoid these 'freshened' horses]. Generally, 6yr. olds are on their way down and 4yr. olds on their way up. Worth looking at the 4yr. olds in races against older horses, especially over sprint distances 1000m to 1600m.

Following 4 and 5yr.olds from good trainers until a 1st. prep. win only has a lot going for it as the odds stuff up after that. Things can be narrowed down by becoming familiar with the way trainers prep. most of their horses. Mick Price for instance presents horses forward in condt. so the early starts are the ones to be on with his horses.

Different tracks suit different trainers [and jockies] too. For instance, Hayes doesn't make the top 10 at the Valley but his runner's odds will be down regardless:

Bridget Flynn 25.0% [SR]
Price, M G 22.0%
Edwards, J W 22.0%
O'brien, D T 19.0%
Maher, P F 18.4%
Tom Hughes 18.4%
Freedman, D L 17.0%
Fox, Ms K 16.0%
Martin, T R 14.0%
Symons, J G

It's worth checking out who does well where. Punters could do a lot worse than following some good trainers. Some of the highest SR's come from trainers most punters have barely heard off and their runner's odds are not so affected like the big name trainers. They don't present a lot of starters but a punter wouldn't lose out by grabbing a fist full of the better but less know trainers with high SR's and following them and their generally better odds.

Your roulette analogy only applies given that there is a finite identifiable range of variations.
Red and Black would have to be a two horse race...the same two horses...race after race.
Even the roulette example doesn't stand up given that the House runs a '0'.
Ask yourself why Jamie Packer is selling newspaper businesses and buying casinos.Remember too that when you look at 'value' you have to take into account the %tax the TAb takes as well as the margin a bookie has to allow for their tax.
You never get the REAL ODDS and you cannot work them out given the vast array of tangible and intangible variables.
Insurance companies employ highly paid full time actuaries and pay millions for software and computers and still cannot predict any event with even close certainty...hence their rising premiums after any significant event.
The best we can do is use our experience to judge fair risk/return.Anything else is either us having ourselves on or being manipulated by those wanting to profit from our fears and ignorance.

I think this is the post your replying too waggamick. It wasn't my analogy.

Waggamick, some good stuff there mate, but just one thing you say that I don't agree with, i.e. QUOTE: If odds are a reliable predictor then why is it that only one in three favourites salute?

Well, to me if 1 in 3 Favs. salutes and after adding back the bookies take out, the exercise returns close to break even or even a profit, so I reckon that is an incredible prediction almost spot on in fact?? i.e. on ave. if 1 in 3 of 2-1 shots win isn't that the perfect prediction?

I recall Don Scott writing something in WINNING MORE about betting horses at 7/2 or thereabouts E/W.

Does anyone recall the actual wording?

Cheers.
darky.

Pretty much in that the Bookmakers in their haste to lay these animals, tend to bet over the odds.
And If they are at close to their true odds, then a quarter the win price would be good value as well for the place.

Darky, as far as I can remember he said that if you can get the best odds of every horse that starts between 1/1 - 7/2, then you need never do the form. Backing them e/w returns even more profit.

Thanks Mooee.

Wonder how many actually follow Dons advice here.?

Cheers.
darky.