Fairview Friday

Discuss Fridays racing from Fairview below

tough card if you ask me, would rather save the budget for greyville, however Bayard should be hard to beat, based upon frank liancourt rock formline, at equal weights as that run this time around. would not go wild at 9/10 thou, if anything just use as a start onto multiple bets into greyville. no horse deserves to be even money in PE!

Lately i have been thinking there is no honesty in our racing because you will find a 9/20 horse getting beaten which is rediculous the only place that can happen where such a betting is never worth taking is Flamingo park but really its unbelievable.
Princess Victoria should be priced up there on saterday and i strongly believe that is the way to go take doubles with that horse if it gets beaten than you should make an enquiry because then there is something wrong with our racing.

Gud luck guys will have a look at the cards today but dont think i will get involve today

How can you say a 9/20 shot getting beat is ridiculous , horses are flesh and blood and money on shots get beat plenty, if money on shots "have to win". The sport would be boring and all the punters would be loaded lol

Double
Sammy Jo x Bayard...

A 1/3 shot has a mathematical 25% chance of losing. A 1/5 shot has a mathematical 16% chance of losing. That's how odds work - my brain is too sleepy to work out what the percentages are for a 9/20 chance - but it shows a complete lack of understanding about how odds work to say that a very short priced horse should never lose.

True odds represent the probabibiluty of a certain event occurring. First of all, because of the unknown variables there can never be absolute odds in racing unlike say in a standard deck of cards, where to use a simple example the chances of any given card being a spade are exactly 3/1 (assuming the Jokers have been removed). That said, a horse which is priced up at 9/20 has nine chances in 29 of losing according to basic arithmetic - and that is using the simple laws olf probabibility, without factoring any possible skulduggery into the equation. Whether or not 9/20 is too short a price or a fair price is up to you to decide, because as I said there is room for opinion here unlike in my very basic card deck example.

I remember Mike Tyson getting beat at 1/44 glad to say I missed that hottie

magiclips Wrote:

---

> A 1/3 shot has a mathematical 25% chance of
> losing. A 1/5 shot has a mathematical 16% chance
> of losing. That's how odds work - my brain is too
> sleepy to work out what the percentages are for a
> 9/20 chance - but it shows a complete lack of
> understanding about how odds work to say that a
> very short priced horse should never lose.
>
> True odds represent the probabibiluty of a certain
> event occurring. First of all, because of the
> unknown variables there can never be absolute odds
> in racing unlike say in a standard deck of cards,
> where to use a simple example the chances of any
> given card being a spade are exactly 3/1 (assuming
> the Jokers have been removed). That said, a horse
> which is priced up at 9/20 has nine chances in 29
> of losing according to basic arithmetic - and that
> is using the simple laws olf probabibility,
> without factoring any possible skulduggery into
> the equation. Whether or not 9/20 is too short a
> price or a fair price is up to you to decide,
> because as I said there is room for opinion here
> unlike in my very basic card deck example.


Would be interesting to know what the percentage is of 1/3 shots losing - my gut tells me they get beat far less than 25% (1 in 4 times) - so if my 'gut feel' is correct, in theory you should come out ahead if you only bet on those 'certainties'.

I'm sure we could find out, Frodo, at any rate for races in SA, Zim, and Mauritius, which is all we have on our databases. We could further break it down by province, class of race, jockey ( K Neisius detractors may be surprised by the outcome), going - you name it. It would be an interesting exercise, but our man for the job has jetted off to America for the Breeders Cup. If I remember, I'll ask him when he returns.

It always amazes me how many people don't comprehend even the most basic of rules when it comes to odds and probabilities. To return to my deck of cards analogy. I remember a friend of mine who was a CA no less once remarking during a very informal poker game that the chances of the next card being of a particular suit were 4/1. So it doesn't surprise me at all that many people seem a bit lost when we get to the much more subjective and complex field of horse racing odds, where the chances of a pariucular result emerging can never be calculated with mathematical precision. After all, in a ten horse field you don't see every horse at 9/1, do you?

Camancho x Thorkildsen. Place Dble

PA - 9,11 x 3,10,15,13 x 7,8 x 1,5,10 x 2,7,8 x 4,8 x 2,12

Enjoy:)-D

frodo and magic i enjoy your informative inputs.....they racing is a leveller...its the only sport where u can rub shoulders and take on the oppenheimers of the world and pit your horse with theirs and come up trumps...thats why i enjoy the game....but what i think benitop is saying that 1/3 shots get beaten more often at minor centres.....but thats not surprising at all...in fact in overseas and austrlian harness racing...the hotties get beaten also more often at the minor tracks...and partly the reason is...that they are not priced up with their ability in mind....but more for the lack of form and ability of the others runners...and more often these horses race at the minor centers(kimberley)...is because they are problem horses....i think the %of bleeders in kimberley pro rata must be huge....and every now and then its the very same bleeder that is 1/3....no matter how week a field...if u know its a bleeder...never back it....so i think different centres need different planning options in betting.....

Tic Tack Toe's run in the Algoa cup should make him ahuge runner today.