Spotlight in the Racing Post . . .

[Posts: 429Joined: 26 Nov 2011, 22:29]

. . . although it is the last thing I look at if at all, I do tend to check out comments on longshots. A few times I have let myself be swayed by them which has resulted in my losing out on some inspired wagers.
This story will get no sympathy here and does not deserve it but it is worth noting.
Dandy Boy was the first horse I ticked after a shufti through the Wokingham form. He was rated 106, the mark on which it won a £46,000 101-110 7f handicap in Meydan in January 2011. It had been exercising itself in high class mile races; acts on circa good ground. Good enough for me.
I noted a few other horses, went on to the next races. Had a wash, came back and was about to put my bets on when I went back through for a last look. My second tick was Dungannon. I looked at Spotlight for Dandy Boy: 'Won a big 7f handicap on good going here but 11lb higher these days and though he won his maiden on soft, tends to give slow ground a miss these days'.
11lb higher? That sparked negative thoughts, but I could have sworn he was on the same mark as the Meydan race. Yes, I should have gone back, checked and thought for myself.
Question is: was he 11 lb higher in some bit of handicap esoterica I am not aware of? I didn't think so.
Question two: are the spotlighters only looking at UK form? Surely not?
I backed Dungannon each way and got the fifth place on bet365 (good on em). As for Dandy Boy, he raced far side, settled in rear, headway to chase leaders over 2f out, ran on to lead inside final furlong, stayed on strongly touched 50/1 £10000-£200 Each Way £5000-£100 Each Way £6600-£200 Each Way (x2)

C'mon, you can see why I get irritated. Can't you?

[Posts: 1583Joined: 31 May 2004, 16:59Location: Warwick]

The exact comment was "Won a big 7f handicap on good going here two years ago but 11lb higher these days". It referred to his 2010 Victoria Cup win off 95; he was running off 106 today.

He had won at Meydan off 106, but the writer was referring to Ascot form.

Mike

[Posts: 1583Joined: 31 May 2004, 16:59Location: Warwick]

I noted a few other horses, went on to the next races. Had a wash, came back

Maybe you just get irritated because gambling makes you feel dirty.

Mike

[Posts: 429Joined: 26 Nov 2011, 22:29]

The exact comment was "Won a big 7f handicap on good going here two years ago but 11lb higher these days". It referred to his 2010 Victoria Cup win off 95; he was running off 106 today.

He had won at Meydan off 106, but the writer was referring to Ascot form.

Mike

Yes but putting 'but' before 11lb higher signals a but. You agree there was no mention of Meydan to balance this.

[Posts: 36Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 05:43Location: London]

I've been there before! That's why i don't take a single other 'professional' opinion on board these days (although i do read them) - they're just opinions that carry no more weight than your own. Ignoring them is the best way to cultivate a sound knowledge base that's all yours. You need a good instinct, logic and a sprinkling of luck - perfectly demonstrated in you choosing Dandy Boy, yet you were dissuaded by a dime-a-dozen analyst.

I don't mean to after-time, but a perfect example is Eton Forever's win on Friday. If i had taken the RP Spotlight, Timeform etc. onboard, i wouldn't have touched him with a barge pole. Just to prove their counterproductive attitudes (and factual failings) from a betting perspective, i can't remembering seeing a single mention of how Eton Forever showed an astonishing turn of foot in his last race, that was quickly (and most unfortunately) blocked off - add to this that he clipped heels earlier on the run-in. He finished 8th, to Imperial Djay no less. Eton was cold-shouldered by all (even though that run would have left Djay standing if he had been afforded some room), and Djay ended up being the one who shortened all day. Eton was first past the post for me at 16-1.

No amount of 'professional' opinion will get anywhere near your own research, instinct, knowledge and basic judgement. You had picked the winner, straight off. All credit to you for that inspired choice, but you didn't back him, and i know how frustrating that can be!

[Posts: 7355Joined: 31 May 2004, 16:52Location: Ubiquitous]

Eton was cold-shouldered by all

In the interests of accuracy, whilst Eton Forever may not have been the outright tip (Global Village was), he was nevertheless one of only about four animals (out of 30) which comprised the shortlist advised for consideration in the Post's Spotlight verdict. That leaves upwards of 26 rivals given a colder shoulder.

gc

[Posts: 12564Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 19:24]

I've been there before! That's why i don't take a single other 'professional' opinion on board these days (although i do read them) - they're just opinions that carry no more weight than your own. Ignoring them is the best way to cultivate a sound knowledge base that's all yours. You need a good instinct, logic and a sprinkling of luck - perfectly demonstrated in you choosing Dandy Boy, yet you were dissuaded by a dime-a-dozen analyst.

I don't mean to after-time, but a perfect example is Eton Forever's win on Friday. If i had taken the RP Spotlight, Timeform etc. onboard, i wouldn't have touched him with a barge pole. Just to prove their counterproductive attitudes (and factual failings) from a betting perspective, i can't remembering seeing a single mention of how Eton Forever showed an astonishing turn of foot in his last race, that was quickly (and most unfortunately) blocked off - add to this that he clipped heels earlier on the run-in. He finished 8th, to Imperial Djay no less. Eton was cold-shouldered by all (even though that run would have left Djay standing if he had been afforded some room), and Djay ended up being the one who shortened all day. Eton was first past the post for me at 16-1.

No amount of 'professional' opinion will get anywhere near your own research, instinct, knowledge and basic judgement. You had picked the winner, straight off. All credit to you for that inspired choice, but you didn't back him, and i know how frustrating that can be!

Also in the interests of accuracy...
Timeform "Perspective" comment on his "last run" was:

"Chester 7f Good-firm, timefigure 75, rating 99+.
ETON FOREVER (IRE) lightly raced for age, shaped much better than the bare result after 8 weeks off; close up, badly hampered when beginning his challenge 1f out, heavily eased off; one to bear in mind, will benefit from return to 1m".

"Lightly raced for age", means there's a fair chance the horse has a bit of improvement left in him.

By "badly hampered" read as you say "blocked off".

"One to bear in mind" Speaks for itself. Although there would've been others in the race to "bear in mind" too, certainly wasn't "cold-shouldered".

"Will benefit from return to 1m" may seem a big negative in a 7f race, but in truth it's not much of one. When comparing a slowly run 7f race at Chester on good-firm (timefigure 75 compared to form rating of 99+) to what is probably going to be a fast run race on the stiffer track at Ascot on more stamina sapping ground of good-soft... If we take "Will benefit from return to 1m" as meaning "will benefit from a stiffer test of stamina than he got at Chester", then it's quite possible Timeform customers would think Eton Forever had a better than 6% chance and backed it.

Well done JWildman for identifying this one horse Eton Forever, but do you really believe you (on your own) can identify every unlucky horse that runs? And "luck" does not come in to it when making an over all profit.

Unfortunately, I did not have a bet in the race. But anyone who thinks using Timeform (Along with their OWN knowledge) can not improve their betting... should take a look at the TRF Royal Ascot Tipping competition. (just had to get that one in now, didn't I?).

[Posts: 429Joined: 26 Nov 2011, 22:29]

I've been there before! That's why i don't take a single other 'professional' opinion on board these days (although i do read them) - they're just opinions that carry no more weight than your own. Ignoring them is the best way to cultivate a sound knowledge base that's all yours. You need a good instinct, logic and a sprinkling of luck - perfectly demonstrated in you choosing Dandy Boy, yet you were dissuaded by a dime-a-dozen analyst.

I don't mean to after-time, but a perfect example is Eton Forever's win on Friday. If i had taken the RP Spotlight, Timeform etc. onboard, i wouldn't have touched him with a barge pole. Just to prove their counterproductive attitudes (and factual failings) from a betting perspective, i can't remembering seeing a single mention of how Eton Forever showed an astonishing turn of foot in his last race, that was quickly (and most unfortunately) blocked off - add to this that he clipped heels earlier on the run-in. He finished 8th, to Imperial Djay no less. Eton was cold-shouldered by all (even though that run would have left Djay standing if he had been afforded some room), and Djay ended up being the one who shortened all day. Eton was first past the post for me at 16-1.

No amount of 'professional' opinion will get anywhere near your own research, instinct, knowledge and basic judgement. You had picked the winner, straight off. All credit to you for that inspired choice, but you didn't back him, and i know how frustrating that can be!

Also in the interests of accuracy...
Timeform "Perspective" comment on his "last run" was:

"Chester 7f Good-firm, timefigure 75, rating 99+.
ETON FOREVER (IRE) lightly raced for age, shaped much better than the bare result after 8 weeks off; close up, badly hampered when beginning his challenge 1f out, heavily eased off; one to bear in mind, will benefit from return to 1m".

"Lightly raced for age", means there's a fair chance the horse has a bit of improvement left in him.

By "badly hampered" read as you say "blocked off".

"One to bear in mind" Speaks for itself. Although there would've been others in the race to "bear in mind" too, certainly wasn't "cold-shouldered".

"Will benefit from return to 1m" may seem a big negative in a 7f race, but in truth it's not much of one. When comparing a slowly run 7f race at Chester on good-firm (timefigure 75 compared to form rating of 99+) to what is probably going to be a fast run race on the stiffer track at Ascot on more stamina sapping ground of good-soft... If we take "Will benefit from return to 1m" as meaning "will benefit from a stiffer test of stamina than he got at Chester", then it's quite possible Timeform customers would think Eton Forever had a better than 6% chance and backed it.

Well done JWildman for identifying this one horse Eton Forever, but do you really believe you (on your own) can identify every unlucky horse that runs? And "luck" does not come in to it when making an over all profit.

Unfortunately, I did not have a bet in the race. But anyone who thinks using Timeform (Along with their OWN knowledge) can not improve their betting... should take a look at the TRF Royal Ascot Tipping competition. (just had to get that one in now, didn't I?).

Well done, Ginge. Good about me picking Dandy Boy, wasn't it? Shame I didn't back it . . .

[Posts: 36Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 05:43Location: London]

Also in the interests of accuracy...
Timeform "Perspective" comment on his "last run" was:

"Chester 7f Good-firm, timefigure 75, rating 99+.
ETON FOREVER (IRE) lightly raced for age, shaped much better than the bare result after 8 weeks off; close up, badly hampered when beginning his challenge 1f out, heavily eased off; one to bear in mind, will benefit from return to 1m".

"Lightly raced for age", means there's a fair chance the horse has a bit of improvement left in him.

By "badly hampered" read as you say "blocked off".

"One to bear in mind" Speaks for itself. Although there would've been others in the race to "bear in mind" too, certainly wasn't "cold-shouldered".

"Will benefit from return to 1m" may seem a big negative in a 7f race, but in truth it's not much of one. When comparing a slowly run 7f race at Chester on good-firm (timefigure 75 compared to form rating of 99+) to what is probably going to be a fast run race on the stiffer track at Ascot on more stamina sapping ground of good-soft... If we take "Will benefit from return to 1m" as meaning "will benefit from a stiffer test of stamina than he got at Chester", then it's quite possible Timeform customers would think Eton Forever had a better than 6% chance and backed it.

Well done JWildman for identifying this one horse Eton Forever, but do you really believe you (on your own) can identify every unlucky horse that runs? And "luck" does not come in to it when making an over all profit.

Hey Ginge,

I assume you're quoting the 'pay' section of Timeform? I only went on what the 'Free' blurb was, as i don't pay for any services. The short line-and-a-half or so on the Free website wasn't anywhere near as complimentary as that, so from what limited information i had (have) available to me, i couldn't take it into account as it seemed flawed. Would you recommend i do sign up for the paid service? As yes, i completely agree, the in-depth analysis/Timeform Rating you've quoted (alongside your reading of it) paints a much better picture for Eton. He was clearly not 'cold-shouldered' - i apologise for that statement - which aligns much more strongly with my own impression of his chances at Ascot. I guess that's the difference between scraps of Information and paying for real insight! I've essentially done all my betting this year off video/TF free data/Sporting Life results archives to be honest, so i'm very limited in scope (sorry for the pun). I'd saying i'm 'lucky' in the sense that i come across a runner like Eton every now and again. Although i'm definitely not capable of finding every unlucky runner off my own back, the string of big priced winners i've had this year does show i'm capable of picking out the more unlikely types.


And to be honest, i do feel i'm kind of lucky, as i can't explain how i'm up 186pts March-June just off my own back otherwise I have a lot of rules that i abide by (not systems), which have probably compensated for me not having access to something like Timeform proper.

[Posts: 12564Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 19:24]

JWildman,

Yes, my Timeform quote is from the stuff we subscribers pay for ("Race Passes"). It does show the difference between what you get for free. Although it's not really Timeform's fault.

With free material: If they're positive about too many horses in one race then punters criticise them. Which is probably why they concentrate on positives about just one or two individuals in each race. Their target audience is also wanting a definite "tip" (or at least a fairly short short list) whatever the price of the horse...

Where as with paid Timeform, customers can read it all and come to their own conclusions for the best bet/s.

If you're confident about maintaining your profit JWildman, there's no need for Timeform. It does take time to get to know how to use it, and some may never be capable of using it correctly. But it works for me.

If you're seriously thinking about it then why not try Race Passes for a day (think it's £10 for a day or two). £70 a month by direct debit. But don't just judge it by "top rated", there's a lot more to it than that, as am sure you know.

[Posts: 36Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 05:43Location: London]

JWildman,

Yes, my Timeform quote is from the stuff we subscribers pay for ("Race Passes"). It does show the difference between what you get for free. Although it's not really Timeform's fault.

With free material: If they're positive about too many horses in one race then punters criticise them. Which is probably why they concentrate on positives about just one or two individuals in each race. Their target audience is also wanting a definite "tip" (or at least a fairly short short list) whatever the price of the horse...

Where as with paid Timeform, customers can read it all and come to their own conclusions for the best bet/s.

If you're confident about maintaining your profit JWildman, there's no need for Timeform. It does take time to get to know how to use it, and some may never be capable of using it correctly. But it works for me.

If you're seriously thinking about it then why not try Race Passes for a day (think it's £10 for a day or two). £70 a month by direct debit. But don't just judge it by "top rated", there's a lot more to it than that, as am sure you know.

Thank you for the reply!

I absolutely love stats, data, all that malarkey, so i think i'd get on pretty well with the race passes. Maybe it doesn't work for people that don't like to get that deep. I could imagine juggling the amount of letters, numbers etc. on offer would be discouraging for some.

I agree with you opinion that the paid service offers a more level playing field - i checked out their taster card (one race each day i think it is), and found that i could pretty much get all the info i needed in one place, rather than having to hop between so many 'free' services to get the full picture. It looks more in-depth and time-saving (paying for convenience too, i guess), and i like the look of it. For really small stakes punters who struggle to make a profit, i imagine that it wouldn't be financially viable, but £70 per month seems like practically nothing if you calculate per day.

Thanks for the input. I'll hop in for a day or something and see how it works out, but as you say, i think perseverance is necessary to begin with as there's a lot of TF-specific 'language' to get to grips with. I doubt i'll be on top of it straight away. I suppose it could be easy to fall into the trap of reading it as Gospel, so i'll keep to my philosophy of having the last word before i put any money in danger

[Posts: 4182Joined: 20 Jan 2006, 11:28Location: The Ainsty of York]

Yes, my Timeform quote is from the stuff we subscribers pay for ("Race Passes").

Presumably Perspective is no more, so how are you getting on with the Race Passes replacement Ginger?

Still not tempted by Computer Timeform?

[Posts: 344Joined: 01 Jan 1970, 01:00]

£70 per month seems like practically nothing if you calculate per day.

I agree, it does. But from another perspective, if you pardon the timeform pun, at a respectable 10% profit margin, this product'll require £8400 per annum worth of betting turnover to pay it off before you start earning for yourself. A no brainer if that's where your angle/value lies, but at least some pause to consider otherwise.