Oct 18 2019 @ 15:45
I hope you have been enjoying your racing this week.
Full members here have not had too terrible a time.
On Wednesday for example Guy analysed 7 races
with results of W W W L L W P
The highlight then of Thursday’s analysis was
an interesting 28/1 SP horse called Attention Seaker.
One possible bigger picture lesson to learn from that one may be the concept
of selective contrarianism. Contrarianism for the sake of it is not much use.
Better to pick ones battles and start with some solid reason and logic.
After that the market disagreeing with you is an extra value producing benefit.
A big loud mouth shouting disagreement to your opinion is a good thing
as this will influence supply and demand and result in bigger odds on one’s selection.
In this case the big loud influential mouth was the Racing Post.
BSP was apparently an amazing 55 in a nine runner race.
With value punting there are many ways to skin a cat.
Only the most pompous of arrogant fools would try and insist
there was only one way to go about it..their way of course.
Clients here may operate with the assistance of all the research,
knowledge and insight that Guy provides them.
Others may use ratings of sorts.
Others may have niche areas of focus such as following trainers.
Some will have no strategy at all and will trust to the pure luck of a magic pin.
Irrespective of precise selection approach all approaches will sink or swim
on the core fundamentals of average rate of winners and the average odds achieved.
Guy’s own methodology tends to revolve around
selecting certain races each day to analyse in depth.
Computerised alerts about past proven negative or favourable
stats and trends is one thing that may influence his choice
of certain races to spend his limited daily time on.
From there he identifies the more likely horse candidates for each race.
And from that point it is an assessment of value of not on individual horses.
It is one way to go about things.
But not the only possible way.
My above comments about the racing post have inspired in my
mind a Mad Mick theory.
As a theory / concept it would be rough and raw and without scientific proof.
You can judge for yourself however whether there may be any logic in it or not.
The rough idea might be to do the opposite of the way we work here.
Here it is typically form book first and value second.
So what about identifying possible value first and then bringing in the formbook second?
If we start with the idea that certain voices will have a disproportionate
impact on market odds. Spotlight in the Racing Post may possible be one such voice.
Bookie walls up and down the country are plastered with the Spotlight view of things.
I had a mate once who had the job of writing the spotlight comments.
Whilst knowledgeable enough about the horses he was far from infallible.
Certain elements of form he may put have put too much weight of opinion on.
Other elements not enough.
Add to that the fact that he had to cover quite a few races
and do them well in advance and under time pressure for publication deadlines.
Perhaps also bear in mind he was writing for a pay cheque
and not for his own racing investment purposes.
Yet..his personal words of wisdom published in Spotlight section
had potential to sway markets.
So let’s just say Spotlight is not 100% perfection.
According to Mad Mick theory then phase 1
of creating a list of horses to possible back
might be to do the complete opposite of the
great unwashed majority and look for Spotlight comments
one feels are going to seriously put the masses off backing a horse.
Supply and demand logic then suggests that prices may drift outwards.
But as per message top contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism
is not great. Better to be a selective contrarian.
That would then dictate taking your rawer list of unfavourable comments
and trying to thin it down. Sort of what you may be looking for may
be scenarios where you feel the likes of
“Fairish point about this aspect Mr Spotlight but you have failed to take account of
X, Y and Z and I feel your overall assessment of this horses chances is pretty harsh.
At the odds your great wisdom have now pushed market prices out to I feel there is value
in opposing your single person’s opinion with my own”
So a backwards than is normal approach.
You don’t have time to examine every single horse running each day.
So Mad Mick theory logic would be to create a small pool
that has decent potential to hold value fish due to the principles
of market influencers and supply and demand.
It may be one for the self thinkers and self workers
amongst you to run with and investigate yourselves.
Perhaps you will be creating for yourselves your own
Attention Seaker moments where you say “I can’t believe the price”
Or perhaps you may more smugly be saying..
“I do believe the price.
Lack of general market support for this horse was predicted and planned for.”
Who knows perhaps one of you reading the above
will in five years time pull out a bottle of fine scotch
from the boot of your Bentley and post it off to me
for planting the original raw seed of an idea in your head.
If so hats off to you as you will have taken a raw seed of semi decent
fundamentals theory and worked hard at it to create
a productive methodology for you.
Note the potential to swap out Spotlight and insert in your own choice of
signal that you feel may have disproportionate influence on market odds.
Anyhow enough sideways waffle.
I appear to have forgotten that I am supposed
to be drumming up a bit of business for us this Saturday.
It will be another interesting Saturday racing
with many racing puzzles to try and solve.
The Day Pass costs £3 and gets you Guy’s
detailed analysis for multiple races on Saturday.
Note you need to book in before 10 am Saturday morning.
Here is the link
Best of Luck