Tips for Tikay

[Junior Senior]

Shouldn't Fred just be piling into Tiger for the Masters.?  Yeah he is short priced but he will win it.

[Nico29]

I see some horses that have been withdrawn are still quoted in the gn betting, absolutely disgraceful seeing as some of these books are not non runner no bet.

http://www.grand-national.me.uk/7499/latest-withdrawals/

I guess a way of steering clear-thus not to tie up money even if it's non runner no bet, or if it's with a book that is ante-post-of this is to check betfair, tolfino bay 40-1 vc is 160s on bf and magnamity is 440's despite being a 50-1 shot.

[Nico29]

Shouldn't Fred just be piling into Tiger for the Masters.?  Yeah he is short priced but he will win it.

Not exactly the way to gain value.

[Junior Senior]

Shouldn't Fred just be piling into Tiger for the Masters.?  Yeah he is short priced but he will win it.

Not exactly the way to gain value.

The value is derived from the fact that he will win it.

[aaron1867]

Shouldn't Fred just be piling into Tiger for the Masters.?  Yeah he is short priced but he will win it.

Not exactly the way to gain value.

The value is derived from the fact that he will win it.

Fantastic stuff.

[Nico29]

Shouldn't Fred just be piling into Tiger for the Masters.?  Yeah he is short priced but he will win it.

Not exactly the way to gain value.

The value is derived from the fact that he will win it.

That's no value.

If he's a bigger price than you think he should be back him, if he's not don't.

Backing 'dead certs' blindly despite their prices being prohibitive is probably the quickest way to the poor house.

Price is king, don't be the mug that keeps the bookies going.

[Junior Senior]

Shouldn't Fred just be piling into Tiger for the Masters.?  Yeah he is short priced but he will win it.

Not exactly the way to gain value.

The value is derived from the fact that he will win it.

That's no value.

If he's a bigger price than you think he should be back him, if he's not don't.

Backing 'dead certs' blindly despite their prices being prohibitive is probably the quickest way to the poor house.

Price is king, don't be the mug that keeps the bookies going.

I saw a bet made on here recently that was 80/1 and Fred fired in on one persons recommendation because the true price was more like 50/1. I just don't get it. Unless we are going to lay it off elsewhere i cant see the sense in punting a 80/1 shot just because it should have been 50/1. At the end of the day its still a 50/1 shot that had so little chance of winning. Surely their is a balance here of finding bets that have a genuine chance but are value at the same time.  I was being a bit facetious with the Tiger bet tbh. I really fancy him to win but correct the prices i have seen mean he shouldn't be backed.

[rfgqqabc]

Shouldn't Fred just be piling into Tiger for the Masters.?  Yeah he is short priced but he will win it.

Not exactly the way to gain value.

The value is derived from the fact that he will win it.

That's no value.

If he's a bigger price than you think he should be back him, if he's not don't.

Backing 'dead certs' blindly despite their prices being prohibitive is probably the quickest way to the poor house.

Price is king, don't be the mug that keeps the bookies going.

I saw a bet made on here recently that was 80/1 and Fred fired in on one persons recommendation because the true price was more like 50/1. I just don't get it. Unless we are going to lay it off elsewhere i cant see the sense in punting a 80/1 shot just because it should have been 50/1. At the end of the day its still a 50/1 shot that had so little chance of winning. Surely their is a balance here of finding bets that have a genuine chance but are value at the same time.  I was being a bit facetious with the Tiger bet tbh. I really fancy him to win but correct the prices i have seen mean he shouldn't be backed.

Stake accordingly, hope to run good and ride the variance train. It is +ev.

[Nico29]

Ridic idea that we shouldn't be backing 80-1 shots because although they are really 50-1 shots-they won't win.

They will win once in 50, whereas we have 80-1 odds, it's just simple maths.

I backed a 1-100 shot the other day because at best it was a 1-1000.

It's all about price, like said above you stake accordingly and you will make money this way.

You don't back things because they have a good chance regardless of price*

*Just seen yr tiger facetious comment-fair do's.

Obviously things that are value and have a decent chance are good bets, but so are rags that are overpriced, it's not a sprint.

[tikay]

Shouldn't Fred just be piling into Tiger for the Masters.?  Yeah he is short priced but he will win it.

Not exactly the way to gain value.

The value is derived from the fact that he will win it.

That's no value.

If he's a bigger price than you think he should be back him, if he's not don't.

Backing 'dead certs' blindly despite their prices being prohibitive is probably the quickest way to the poor house.

Price is king, don't be the mug that keeps the bookies going.

I saw a bet made on here recently that was 80/1 and Fred fired in on one persons recommendation because the true price was more like 50/1. I just don't get it. Unless we are going to lay it off elsewhere i cant see the sense in punting a 80/1 shot just because it should have been 50/1. At the end of the day its still a 50/1 shot that had so little chance of winning. Surely their is a balance here of finding bets that have a genuine chance but are value at the same time.  I was being a bit facetious with the Tiger bet tbh. I really fancy him to win but correct the prices i have seen mean he shouldn't be backed.

Fred backed Macclesfield on "one recommendation" because the guy who suggested it has a tremendous eye for these things (proven), specialises in lower league stuff, and is a scout for several Football League teams.

We don't expect his 80/1 shots to win very often, but at that price (which was value) they don't need to win very often.

It was a + ev bet, IMO.

[redarmi]

I think there is an argument for backing Tiger especially each way.  He is 15/4 with Bluesq and they are paying 6 places.  He has played The Masters 17 times and has won it 4 times and finished in the top ten 12 times and top six 11 times.  That includes a couple of appearances when you could probably expect him to play below par - his first appearance as an amateur and when he came back from the stuff with his wife and, iirc, it was his first major back and all of the focus was on him.  He comes into this off two really good wins in top class fields and yet he is still close to double the price he would have been in his pomp.  The firms that offer 6 places on the Masters make a mistake too imo because the field is limited to about 90 players but this includes all past champions most of which literally cannot compete.  The actual competitive field is more like 45 players and the length means a fair few of these are a fairly big price.  I cant really see a situation where he wins it less than about 25% of the time and I think he finishes top six probably 60+% of the time.  I haven't priced the rest of the field so those numbers could be a bit off but I would hate to lay him at 3/1+.  

[Nico29]

Funnily enough I'm really tempted to back Tiger ew if I can get 4-1+ and decent places terms, happily leave it at 3-1-7-2 and would be a layer at anything silly under 5-2.

But I'm also on Gmac as I don't believe he deserves to be amongst the 66-1 rags.

[Tal]

Shouldn't Fred just be piling into Tiger for the Masters.?  Yeah he is short priced but he will win it.

Not exactly the way to gain value.

The value is derived from the fact that he will win it.

That's no value.

If he's a bigger price than you think he should be back him, if he's not don't.

Backing 'dead certs' blindly despite their prices being prohibitive is probably the quickest way to the poor house.

Price is king, don't be the mug that keeps the bookies going.

I saw a bet made on here recently that was 80/1 and Fred fired in on one persons recommendation because the true price was more like 50/1. I just don't get it. Unless we are going to lay it off elsewhere i cant see the sense in punting a 80/1 shot just because it should have been 50/1. At the end of the day its still a 50/1 shot that had so little chance of winning. Surely their is a balance here of finding bets that have a genuine chance but are value at the same time.  I was being a bit facetious with the Tiger bet tbh. I really fancy him to win but correct the prices i have seen mean he shouldn't be backed.

Fred backed Macclesfield on "one recommendation" because the guy who suggested it has a tremendous eye for these things (proven), specialises in lower league stuff, and is a scout for several Football League teams.

We don't expect his 80/1 shots to win very often, but at that price (which was value) they don't need to win very often.

It was a + ev bet, IMO.

Would you back Tiger at even money?

Pretty sure you'd find a few people here happy to take your money if so.

No good me acting all pious here, as I'm frequently found betting things I think will happen (just not as frequently as I used to!).

In a cash game, if someone offers you 3-1 to call but you're 5-1 to hit, you fold, even if "you think it's coming" or you might as well post your money to charity and save the drive to the casino.

[Nico29]

I think there is an argument for backing Tiger especially each way.  He is 15/4 with Bluesq and they are paying 6 places.  He has played The Masters 17 times and has won it 4 times and finished in the top ten 12 times and top six 11 times.  That includes a couple of appearances when you could probably expect him to play below par - his first appearance as an amateur and when he came back from the stuff with his wife and, iirc, it was his first major back and all of the focus was on him.  He comes into this off two really good wins in top class fields and yet he is still close to double the price he would have been in his pomp.  The firms that offer 6 places on the Masters make a mistake too imo because the field is limited to about 90 players but this includes all past champions most of which literally cannot compete.  The actual competitive field is more like 45 players and the length means a fair few of these are a fairly big price.  I cant really see a situation where he wins it less than about 25% of the time and I think he finishes top six probably 60+% of the time.  I haven't priced the rest of the field so those numbers could be a bit off but I would hate to lay him at 3/1+.  

Basically this.

[tikay]

I think there is an argument for backing Tiger especially each way.  He is 15/4 with Bluesq and they are paying 6 places.  He has played The Masters 17 times and has won it 4 times and finished in the top ten 12 times and top six 11 times.  That includes a couple of appearances when you could probably expect him to play below par - his first appearance as an amateur and when he came back from the stuff with his wife and, iirc, it was his first major back and all of the focus was on him.  He comes into this off two really good wins in top class fields and yet he is still close to double the price he would have been in his pomp.  The firms that offer 6 places on the Masters make a mistake too imo because the field is limited to about 90 players but this includes all past champions most of which literally cannot compete.  The actual competitive field is more like 45 players and the length means a fair few of these are a fairly big price.  I cant really see a situation where he wins it less than about 25% of the time and I think he finishes top six probably 60+% of the time.  I haven't priced the rest of the field so those numbers could be a bit off but I would hate to lay him at 3/1+.  

Nice summary Stu.

Am working hard on the sub markets, there are so many of them on the Masters, have already invested several hours work, and there will be some pockets of value to be had there.