Bloody Xcellent

Southern Rooster · Nov 4, 2005

Next year Xcellent will start near favourite with Leica Falcon if they maintain there form from this year. They were the big two runs from the cup for next year.

Manu Vatuvei · Nov 4, 2005

Mr Angry said:
:lol:

Spot the boy who does not understand bookmaking.

So Australian bookmakers like to lose money?

Fact of the matter is they underrated a very good horse because they didn't think NZ form proved anything, which is stupid, and they were proved wrong.

lockyno1 · Nov 4, 2005

Thierry Henry said:
So Australian bookmakers like to lose money?

Fact of the matter is they underrated a very good horse because they didn't think NZ form proved anything, which is stupid, and they were proved wrong.

I'd still favour Leica Falcon next year. Xellent still finished a good 1 and a half horse lengths behind the Diva! The Falcon will be better for the run and it was his/her first run over 3200m, so it should be favourite next year!

steaming stormer · Nov 4, 2005

Thierry Henry said:
So Australian bookmakers like to lose money?

Fact of the matter is they underrated a very good horse because they didn't think NZ form proved anything, which is stupid, and they were proved wrong.

why were they proved wrong?? Last time I looked, it didn't win!!

Mr Angry · Nov 4, 2005

Thierry Henry said:
So Australian bookmakers like to lose money?

Fact of the matter is they underrated a very good horse because they didn't think NZ form proved anything, which is stupid, and they were proved wrong.

No the facts are the bookies got hurt because they gave good odds for the champ and got burnt.

Xcellent they made money on.

You clearly do not understand betting.

Manu Vatuvei · Nov 4, 2005

steaming stormer said:
why were they proved wrong?? Last time I looked, it didn't win!!

It placed, and it paid a lot of money for a place.......

Manu Vatuvei · Nov 4, 2005

Mr Angry said:
No the facts are the bookies got hurt because they gave good odds for the champ and got burnt.

Xcellent they made money on.

You clearly do not understand betting.

I'm not a student of horse racing by any stretch of the imagination, but I have had an interest in it for 10 years or so.

If you would like to point out my error and not just follow me around making childless remarks (very unlikely), then go for your life.

OVP · Nov 4, 2005

Thierry Henry said:
I'm not a student of horse racing by any stretch of the imagination, but I have had an interest in it for 10 years or so.

If you would like to point out my error and not just follow me around making childless remarks (very unlikely), then go for your life.

The shorter the price means its BAD for bookies ... why ? Because more people have big money on that horse, and if they win, the bookies lose big time. Its really simple.

If you score a big win at big odds, then the bookies love you ... they have much less money to fork out.

Manu Vatuvei · Nov 5, 2005

But don't the bookies set the initial prices?

Manu Vatuvei · Nov 5, 2005

Anyway I wasn't even talking about bookies in the first place! I was saying that it smacked of bias/arrogance because obviously neither the bookies nor the punters (moreso the latter) rated Xcellent. Whereas in NZ the odds were much lower and as it turned out more realistic imo.

Nuffs · Nov 7, 2005

but the bookies were proved right in having Xcellents odds so large
the punters got it wrong as they didn't think beating distinctly secret and co. was good form. i know a few people that missed the tri becasue they didn't rate the horse

Manu Vatuvei · Nov 7, 2005

Exactly. The punters got it wrong. They didn't rate a horse that they should have rated. That's my point.

By the same token, if the punting public had been smart they would have all got on Xcellent for at least a place at those odds.

Nuffs · Nov 7, 2005

yep punters will always get it wrong. bookies sometimes are wrong, but most of the time they will have most bets covered.

i was at the races a couple of months ago and a mate of mine was working for a bookie and his job was to outlay a couple of thousand for the races where the bookie was going to lose. he was covering the bets. if the best backed won then the bookie would lose a heap of money to the punters but then would collect from the "covering" bet he had with a different bookie. it's a really interesting maths lesson if you really look at it

and as a punter i got it wrong by not rating xcellent a chance. but most aussie punters were the same. the kiwi's were the only people backing it

steaming stormer · Nov 7, 2005

but i repeat... it didn't win!!! End of story. The punters over here got it right because the favourite, that means the horse with the most money on it won.

Nuffs · Nov 7, 2005

but the punters were partly wrong about xcellent as a horse paying $40 odd shouldn't be so close. punter thought it had no chance. WRONG

and a $75 odd shot shouldn't be finishing second. punters thought it had no chance. they were WRONG

but hey, EVERY punter will be wrong many times in their lives. that's racing

and ps. i'm not trying to pick a fight. thierry was wrong with his first statement but his punters were wrong call is on the mark

Mr Angry · Nov 7, 2005

Stop stalking little children.

Responding to false posts means your 'following' someone.

Manu Vatuvei · Nov 7, 2005

You're geniused.

OVP · Nov 8, 2005

Thierry Henry said:
But don't the bookies set the initial prices?

Only because of the amount of people betting on that horse. They dont set the prices because they like them you know. They are bookies, they are there to make money. And if a favourite wins, they HATE IT because they have to pay out to thousands and thousands of people.

Foz · Nov 8, 2005

I always thought the bookies set markets at certain percentages and were guaranteed to win no matter which horse won.
Silly me.
Sure they take risks now and again but most try to make a race a winning one even if an odds on favourite wins.

Nuffs · Nov 8, 2005

OVP said:
Only because of the amount of people betting on that horse. They dont set the prices because they like them you know. They are bookies, they are there to make money. And if a favourite wins, they HATE IT because they have to pay out to thousands and thousands of people.

but the bookies have to set a price to start with

they could think a horse is a $2.00 hope but when nobody is backing it, they put the price up to $2.20. then the punters money continues to decide what the price will be

i was at gold coast races this year and a horse started at $21.00 with most bookies (one bookie had it at $9.00). it ended up starting at $4.40 or something and won by 2 or 3 lengths. the bookies didn't know how it'd run so they set the price high. the pounters thought it had a great hope so kept backing it

Foz said:
I always thought the bookies set markets at certain percentages and were guaranteed to win no matter which horse won.
Silly me.
Sure they take risks now and again but most try to make a race a winning one even if an odds on favourite wins.

which is basically right. but pure weight of money can mean that they can lose. in a bad example, if people only backed 2 horses in a race that were both paying $4 each, then the bookies would probably lose. highly unlikely but possible, especially in my above example

Bloody Xcellent

Bench

Coach

Post Whore

Juniors

Not a Referee

Coach

Coach

Coach

Coach

Coach

Bench

Coach

Bench

Juniors

Bench

Not a Referee

Coach

Coach

Bench

Bench