Yes I wasn't trading it just got notified automatically so don't know. Turned it on out of curiousity and didn't see anything.
Today's Horse Racing
Wasn't trading it either but just had a quick look at the data and while it went from 5.3 to 16.5 in final 2 mins
The short price fav only went 2.52 to 2.58 in the same time
It was the 3rd and 4th fav that came in 5.4 to 4.1 and 5.1 to 3.7 which hoovered the slack
Decent card at one of my fav tracks Market Rasen with a listed bumper with nearly £20,000 added prize money and a class 2 chase .. plus some competitive races
Good day for the trainer J G M O'Shea... 2 wins from 4 runners... and even his 50/1 gave the 1/3 fav a real scare in the 1.25pm before finishing 2nd (and they were jumping over each other to back it in the last 2mins pre-off).. only one that was eclipsed drifted like a barge in the markets...
-
SeaHorseRacing
- Posts: 2896
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 7:06 pm
Two features tomorrow both have 4 runners. It would be a decent card IF there was less racing. Less is more. we need less racing. Better prize money, bigger liquidity/volume per race. Bigger turn outs at each meetingr. Only one downfall... less turnover for the bookies.
Sorry Halliday, I forgot Market Rasen is no longer a low grade racetrack, and I did quite well trading on it last time, so I'll probably focus on Market Rasen and Newbury.
Here is the result for the race I had a stab at yesterday in estimating the race times. Mercers won the race in 1m 12.76s v 1m 13.46s estimated. A difference 0f 0.7s which I think is a reasonable result.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
When I was last betting and studying form, I was getting frustrated with the sheer volume of racing to keep on top of. When I was a kid (probably giving away my age) you'd get just two six-race cards on a weekday.SeaHorseRacing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:27 pmTwo features tomorrow both have 4 runners. It would be a decent card IF there was less racing. Less is more. we need less racing. Better prize money, bigger liquidity/volume per race. Bigger turn outs at each meetingr. Only one downfall... less turnover for the bookies.
The problem is, the racehorse population is growing and they have to put on enough races to accommodate them. One of the biggest problems is in the novices' chasing department. They've tried and tinkered with all sorts of things but still haven't got it right. I remember Nicky Henderson considering running two of his novices in the grade 1 Henry VIII at Sandown, because there was absolutely nothing else in the calendar suitable.
-
ShaunWhite
- Posts: 10576
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
A book? Can you sort, filter, pivot and subtotal a book?
Sorry to be so negative, but you would need a sample of a few hundred to prove the obvious, that times are incomparable, for the reasons already mentioned.
The round mile at Ascot is uphill nearly all the way, whereas the 8.5 furlongs at Epsom is downhill most of the way - how can you compare ?
Don't forget that when the winner of the Charlie Hall chase broke the course record by over 20 seconds, Timeform provided evidence that it was run a distance of over a furlong shorter than advertised. It later emerged that race distances are measured from the centre of the track, despite the fact that no jockey goes round bends 15 horse-widths wide! So if a race is advertised as 5 furlongs and 21 yards, I wouldn't have much confidence that that's the distance being run.
No.ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:50 pmA book? Can you sort, filter, pivot and subtotal a book?
Actually, Timeform used to provide, and may still do, a statistic service that allows you to search and analyse their database with selection criteria, but it's probably not worth paying the subscription, which isn't cheap, if that's all you want if for.