I have been reading most of the threads in this forum and almost exclusively every system or every theory or for that matter every comment revolves around the horse, why is that so?

For a long time I have known that the 'ability' of the horse is constrained to whether or not 'they' are trying. A direct response of this thinking is that they are trying when the money goes on.

So why then isn't the amount of money wagered on a horse more important or at least just as important as the inherent ability of the horse? Why isn't more weight attributed to the correlation between losing/winning favourites and the amount that does or does not go on them?

Because humans control the horse, the ability of the horse can be zero if the jockey puts on the brakes. I am yet to know of a camp that willingly or knowingly put their hard earned on with no intention of trying to win!

It seems to me that trying to numerically quantify a horses ability via a myriad of other factors such as weight, barrier, weather and so on and so forth, it's just so much waste of time. To my mind, it would be easier to quantify a set of numbers i.e. the amounts invested that have come back to the 'camp' or gone missing...lost due to bad luck or bad judgement.

Isn't it easier to feed a dollar value (a number) into a system than some ideological value that evaluates to a horses ability against another horse? In this respect you are really measuring apples against oranges and we all know you can't really do that, despite some clever attempts at expressions :-)

A very clever punter once told me a 'track' statement that I believe is amongst the top of the immutable laws of the track i.e. "the horse doesn't know what price it is". I had to think about that for years, whilst I watched him amass his empire, and now in my old age I understand exactly what he meant.

It's all about following the money, not the horse. So I put it to you all, that focusing on the horse for the ultimate racing/wagering system is just a waste of time. You would be better served watching the money and following it, provided of course you formulated a sensible set of rules and stuck to it.

I dare say I might get flamed a bit here for suggesting the noble steed is to some degree irrelevant, but I am not saying that unreservedly, I am saying that its a very difficult thing to actually score to any degree of accuracy. Even the times a horse runs against a measured distance can't really accurately be relied on because of track conditions and the underlying assumption that a horse can repeat that 'life time best' which by definition can't be done, else it would have only been a 'life time near best' :-)

Anyway, that's something I wanted to get off my chest. I am not trying to provoke a fight, just provoke a thought or two, plus it helps clarify my mind by telling you all what I think.

Ciao
Tailwag

Following the money.....well thats an interesting idea......yes, there are those that can do this because they know where to look for the money that has gone on to a horse....or they follow several different places.

For most people they would rather look at the form and try to determine what the current or past form would sugest the horse capable of doing....i agree that you can find winners by following the money.....you just need to know where to look.....most times following the money also means sitting in front of the PC all day to see what is happening, this is something most people like myself, don't have the time to do....there for the form is the next best option.

You just about answered your own question.

More foolishness here, I fear.
Since we, who are not in the know, have to watch "the money", is that the early "smart" money which is than followed by the "uninformed" money chasing that early money? OR is that the late money taking advantage of the uninformed money chasing earlier uninformed money? OR is that the middle money hoping to sneak on "undiscovered" as it tries to get the best price? OR is that the money being drip-fed toward the end of betting as the false favourites get all the attention and the"real" favourite is ignored? OR is that a late plunge which brings the 20-1 shot into fives, which then fails 90% of the time? OR is there no way of knowing which is which in all this? Anyone care to hazard a guess?
Shaun. we agree on many things but not on the "utility" of form. Doing the form just means coming up with the "logical" favourite. Since the bookies/TAB odds do THIS for you with no effort at all, I can't see any point to bothering with it. It's like spending all night doing "the form" for "Wimbledon" and ending up with Federer #1, Roddick #2, Hewitt #3 etc when a quick glance at the seedings/rankings will show you EXACTLY the same thing (or the bookies odds), in FIVE SECONDS. Good luck and Good night.

just my 2cents worth, we are told and re-told that the ONLY way to win at this game is to obtain a BETTER price than the animals chance of winning, which is the oppopsite to following the money (i.e. shorteners) really isn't it?

"It's all about following the money, not the horse. So I put it to you all, that focusing on the horse for the ultimate racing/wagering system is just a waste of time. "

First of all I'll will agree with your other quote "A horse doesnt know what price it is"

"Following the money" is full of traps. A crazed punter ,with more money than sense, backs the bjeezes out of a selection on a whim, or a parlay bet, or a catch up on past losses...the list goes on....

I like to consider prices that I think the connections would be happy about. Generally, the bigger the price the better, although with some horses entered in some races, the connections dont care about the starting price..they are looking for the prizemoney or breeding stats for future earnings...in this scenario they dont really give a damn about starting price..

Generally speaking though, a horse stating at long odds is a more attractive proposition for connections and that's why I never set a maximum starting price when making selections...because, as you state "the horse doesnt know what price it is"..it isnt going to try harder or give up because of price..short or long.

The temptation for connections to get the best price is to wait for another day, if todays price is too short....and they can achieve this more easily if the horse turns in an ordinary effort today...a short-priced horse may not be what the connections want..the horse doesnt know this yet, but external factors may come into play in the running...

I will go as far as to state that a short priced horse is often a far riskier proposition than a longer priced horse. A short priced horse may encounter problems in running that a longer priced horse just isnt going to find. The longer priced horse usually be counted upon to put in an honest effort, and when they dont, there is something wrong.....owners connections and bookies all want the longer horses to win. I cant say the same thing about shorter priced horses.

Following the money may work, but you will have a lot of factors going against you...and, to me, punting is all about putting as many factors in your favour as possible...Getting "overs" on a horse's rated chances of winning is not perfect, and it isnt the ONLY way to make money in the long term, but it is ONE time proven method, and it is pretty easy to work.

Yesterday, Brindabella was a 41.00 avail odds selection that gave me great run and went around at a price that the owners and connections would have been happy with. This horse was rated second on the QLD tab ratings, (all about the horse) , being only one point less than the top selection and it was not mentioned in the top four selections as per NSW tab selections and late mail.. The price on offer, (according to those ratings) was way way over the odds and it came up in two of my plans. Ok, it deadheated for first, halving my return...big deal The prizemoney and Group 3 status were also probably attractive to connections... following the money..in this case, would have been a waste of money...

Rather than argue too hard about the actual existence of "smart money", I'll state that it would be very very difficult for most punters to be able to make a living using "smart money" as their foundation. I wont say its impossible..just because I personally do not know of anyone who can make it work doesnt mean that nobody can... If you can make it work, you will certainly have an edge and I will take my hat off to you. You will have mastered the seemingly impossible..

all the best

Another major problem (about the 20th MAJOR one!!) with following the money is that there has to be a LOT of money to show a distinct movement in the odds. Is this a single $100,000 bet or many $10,000 bets, or what??? How many are "in the know"??? Since 80 or 90% of the total wagered is on the top 3 or 4 then the only way to easily see shorteners is if they were relatively long to begin with. Can someone who believes "money talks" give an example of how you identify what it's "saying". Thanks.P57

What's the quickest way to the poorhouse?, follow the money & therefore take unders on every bet.

Would it be fair to say that 95% of punters lose long term?, if so, then it's mostly dumb money rather than smart money.

Re the "horse doesnt know what price it is".
This wouldn't be right. Some of the longshots that i back i think win because the horse "knows what price it is".
of course this means that someone is acting for the horse.

yesterday i played golf so got to the computer late in the day.

i had my listed horses list printed on friday so picked it up.
the fist two races going down the list of listed horses i backed the first ones over 10/1.
race 8 caulfield was little chloe and brindabella and at belmont race 4 was stir park.
brindabella was a good thing not to win outright.
maybe we do try to be too fancy with our methods and maybe the horse does know what price it is.

__________________
laurie

would the fact that most winners drift in betting put an end to this?