Trainers To Follow For 2008: Part 3
The nose on your face, dear reader, can be pretty plain sometimes. Especially when you have a proboscis like mine.
And occasionally, just occasionally, there is a racing trend or statistic that is so blindingly standout obvious that we pretty much all know it. Why is it, then, that we choose to ignore such 'free money' information?
Typically, it's because we're lazy / indisciplined / stupid. At least, those are my most common excuses.
But there's no excuse for not backing this bloke. None whatsoever. Not a one. Who?
What do you mean., "who?"?!
Of course, I'm talking about the one and only indomitable Sir Mark Prescott. In a business where bookmakers and punters between them quickly squeeze the value life out of every profitable loophole and niche trend around (that's why the research in TFS is fresh each year), this guy remains calm and serene atop the throne of 'handicap king'.
If you blindly backed Prescott's horses in handicaps, you'd nigh on make a profit. With a little wit and wisdom, you can optimise your returns rather nicely.
This is what I did: of course, I'm only looking at male horses and, as I've said, I'm only looking in handicaps. Moreover, let's focus on 2-4 yo's (Sir Mark has a few older horses but they tend not to do the biz for some reason).
Pretty straightforward to this point, but now we get contrarian. It is my view that contrary wagering approaches are the best way to beat the book. So...
Let's ignore last time out winners as they are overbet for obvious reasons. Let's also forget about odds on shots: they are actually unprofitable for Prescott and backing at less than 1 is not a great habit to have anyway!
So, we're looking at 2-4yo male handicappers; evens to 14/1; didn't win last time out.
Apart from a blipette in 2005, there's been plenty of cash and a pleasingly high strike rate from taking a non-standard approach to a very established training pattern.
Do not ignore the mighty Sir Mark P: you have been warned!
Moving on, as we must, and after a few days with no flat turf action, grass speedsters return at Folkestone tomorrow. Two runners, one for each of our TrainerFlatStats trainers at the track, will give us a spot of entertainment.
Incidentally, I'd be against likely warm favourite Glorious Gift in the maiden: with no soft ground form and from a bad draw, 6/4 or thereabouts looks a layable price (usual egg on face possibilities here...)
Also incidentally, I've had a couple of emails along the lines of the below from eager beavers hungry for some TFS action last Saturday, when there were no qualifiers:
"Just a quick note to say i can see why Mr Ryan has such a good LSP in Doncaster handicaps, although not a qualifier, i took an ew punt on High Curragh in the 4.10 today which was a good 2nd @ 25/1. The fact i got on @33/1 ew in a 16 runner handicap meant i almost got my money back today, but it was a brilliant result in what for me was a disappointing day."
I know there were a few of you who backed this horse, and you'll be delighted that he placed at around 7/1, but over the course of the season I counsel discipline in sticking to the 14/1 rule. It's difficult and I occasionally fall foul of my own sermon, but best results will be achieved by following the letter of the TFS law.
If you want to know the nigh on certain qualifiers (barring a leg falling off!) tomorrow, get your copy here:
Finally, on the 'incidentally' incidentals front, one of my six trainers to follow (the darkest of the dark ones!) has a fancied runner at Folkestone tomorrow. He's not in TFS yet, but its only a matter of time: I reckon he must be drugging his horses to make them this good! As the incomparable Matt 'Chappers' Chapman might say, "They're doped up to the eyeballs!" [allegedly].
More on this later in the week.
That's all for now though...
Matt
And occasionally, just occasionally, there is a racing trend or statistic that is so blindingly standout obvious that we pretty much all know it. Why is it, then, that we choose to ignore such 'free money' information?
Typically, it's because we're lazy / indisciplined / stupid. At least, those are my most common excuses.
But there's no excuse for not backing this bloke. None whatsoever. Not a one. Who?
What do you mean., "who?"?!
Of course, I'm talking about the one and only indomitable Sir Mark Prescott. In a business where bookmakers and punters between them quickly squeeze the value life out of every profitable loophole and niche trend around (that's why the research in TFS is fresh each year), this guy remains calm and serene atop the throne of 'handicap king'.
If you blindly backed Prescott's horses in handicaps, you'd nigh on make a profit. With a little wit and wisdom, you can optimise your returns rather nicely.
This is what I did: of course, I'm only looking at male horses and, as I've said, I'm only looking in handicaps. Moreover, let's focus on 2-4 yo's (Sir Mark has a few older horses but they tend not to do the biz for some reason).
Pretty straightforward to this point, but now we get contrarian. It is my view that contrary wagering approaches are the best way to beat the book. So...
Let's ignore last time out winners as they are overbet for obvious reasons. Let's also forget about odds on shots: they are actually unprofitable for Prescott and backing at less than 1 is not a great habit to have anyway!
So, we're looking at 2-4yo male handicappers; evens to 14/1; didn't win last time out.
| YEAR | WINS | RUNS | STRIKE% | LSP | LSP% | VSP% | ||||||
| 2003 | 20 | 58 | 34.48 | 29.2 | 50.34 | 42.26 | ||||||
| 2004 | 13 | 45 | 28.89 | 26.13 | 58.07 | 27.89 | ||||||
| 2005 | 8 | 31 | 25.81 | -2.17 | -7 | 19.02 | ||||||
| 2006 | 13 | 50 | 26 | 31.75 | 63.5 | 7.22 | ||||||
| 2007 | 14 | 50 | 28 | 8.53 | 17.06 | 23.52 | ||||||
| 68 | 234 | 29.06 | 93.44 | 39.93 | 25.21 |
Apart from a blipette in 2005, there's been plenty of cash and a pleasingly high strike rate from taking a non-standard approach to a very established training pattern.
Do not ignore the mighty Sir Mark P: you have been warned!
********
Moving on, as we must, and after a few days with no flat turf action, grass speedsters return at Folkestone tomorrow. Two runners, one for each of our TrainerFlatStats trainers at the track, will give us a spot of entertainment.
Incidentally, I'd be against likely warm favourite Glorious Gift in the maiden: with no soft ground form and from a bad draw, 6/4 or thereabouts looks a layable price (usual egg on face possibilities here...)
Also incidentally, I've had a couple of emails along the lines of the below from eager beavers hungry for some TFS action last Saturday, when there were no qualifiers:
"Just a quick note to say i can see why Mr Ryan has such a good LSP in Doncaster handicaps, although not a qualifier, i took an ew punt on High Curragh in the 4.10 today which was a good 2nd @ 25/1. The fact i got on @33/1 ew in a 16 runner handicap meant i almost got my money back today, but it was a brilliant result in what for me was a disappointing day."
I know there were a few of you who backed this horse, and you'll be delighted that he placed at around 7/1, but over the course of the season I counsel discipline in sticking to the 14/1 rule. It's difficult and I occasionally fall foul of my own sermon, but best results will be achieved by following the letter of the TFS law.
If you want to know the nigh on certain qualifiers (barring a leg falling off!) tomorrow, get your copy here:
Finally, on the 'incidentally' incidentals front, one of my six trainers to follow (the darkest of the dark ones!) has a fancied runner at Folkestone tomorrow. He's not in TFS yet, but its only a matter of time: I reckon he must be drugging his horses to make them this good! As the incomparable Matt 'Chappers' Chapman might say, "They're doped up to the eyeballs!" [allegedly].
More on this later in the week.
That's all for now though...
Matt
posted by Matt at
21:48
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home