Punting the horses-Skill or Luck?

I say it starts out a skill but needs everything to fall together to get to the expected outcome..

Ofc the answer is Skill,but what do most of you guys say?

Bit of both, even if u pick the best horse you need luck in running, hard game imo

Common sense answer is : skill and form study etc gets you maybe 40-50% (optimistic estimate) strike rate
privelaged information about horses condition etc pushes up to much higher strike rate

Rest of the time it is a lucky dip and ALL punters know it ,whether they accept it is another question
As punters we all feel that we do have the particular skills etc to defy the odds...just human nature I suppose

Stats say only 5% of punters are winners ,can`t remember where i read it,but seemed very low to me?

Just remember how enormous the take out is to finance the game in the case of horse racing.

Even breaking even is equivalent to double the interest you would get from a bank.

If 5% make a profit, thats 1 in 20. I doubt that too.

the game is skill,,, homework, homework, homework,,,, the old saying no homework no win

its definately more skill than luck...but how many people actually keep a record of their bets...is there any stats on how much the "average" punter loses per month...

I think the real deal is to notice the value in the bet. Value is not just a long shot runner, if you think the horse is worth 5/10 and the market price is 8/10 then the bet is value, if not then no bet just like who would bet heads at 9/10 on a two sided coin? But the difficult trick is how to objectively determine that value. I would like to hear how other Clansmen may do it.

The funny thing is , every week people take 9/10 the pair in Rugby bets. This also excludes the chances of a draw. In theory you can not win these bets in the long term.

Mac Wrote:

---

> I think the real deal is to notice the value in
> the bet. Value is not just a long shot runner, if
> you think the horse is worth 5/10 and the market
> price is 8/10 then the bet is value, if not then
> no bet just like who would bet heads at 9/10 on a
> two sided coin? But the difficult trick is how to
> objectively determine that value. I would like to
> hear how other Clansmen may do it.


Valid points. Determining the value is of course subjective - what may seem value to me may not be seen as such to you; for myself the dilemma is that 'value' comes along far too seldom; so one has to make a distinction whether one is punting for fun or to make a living out of it. In order to make a living out of it (and I certainly don't), discipline seems to be the key word; you have to wait for that real 'value' opportunity to come along and the problem of course is that one gets impatient and convinces oneself that this really is the 'value' bet one has been waiting for (although deep down you know the reason why this seems like 'value' is only because you have not had a serious bet in 3 months). And then the 'value' bets tend to lose as well sometimes - there is often a valid reason why the horse is priced up at 'value' odds - but this does not mean that it was not 'value', it just did not win. So to echo what most of us know - punting professionally is a hard 'game'.

If one is punting for fun, it becomes slightly easier, you do not HAVE to make a profit (although it is of course nice to win something decent every now and then) - perhaps money lost should be seen as paying for entertainment. Almost like going to watch the Lions play, it is almost certain that they will lose, but they may just surprise you and win. 'Value' criteria is much more relaxed when punting for fun and I myself often use the 'value' horses as bankers in my excotics - which of course means that I lose many more times than I win (and even if I win it does not always make up for all those losses) - but although this irks me for a while, the feeling soon passes (normally as soon as I pick up the next meeting's Computaform). And if it's not 'fun' anymore, then stop - it's no use pursuing a 'hobby' if you don't get any 'fun' out of it - that's the theory anyway.As an example I will not take a bet at the Vaal meeting tomorrow, there is imo no 'relaible' form to work on, and I think I will have more success selecting the winners by throwing darts into the Computaform than by studying the runners closely; there is no challenge in it so rather stay out and wait for Friday or Saturday.

Just my opinion.

I do it for the thrill , nothing compares in my book
Winning at the casino is not half as exciting as backing a winner for me

That's it, rusty, it's the 'thrill' that keeps us coming back for more.

Back to the original question; I believe it is a combination of skill and luck; and if you have the 'skill' and no luck you will be more successful than having luck and no skill; some days one just makes silly mistakes and all the shortheads go against you and you lose a lot, other days you may execute your strategies perfectly but still the shortheads go against you and you lose a little, some days you make silly mistakes but you are lucky enough to break even as the one shorthead you needed goes your way - and then there are the days (few and far between in my case) when everything you touch turn to gold - and THAT is what makes me go and buy the next Computaform..