Horse Racing Media Tipsters' Betting Tips

The other week we thought we'd listen for a while to what horse racing media tipsters tell their radio audience. It never ceases to amaze us how many punters seriously pay attention to what in our opinion is often nothing more than verbal diarrhea. Here is some of what we heard:

1. We had a Heavy track at a race meeting and so the radio tipster told us something along these lines:

"The key to this race is that none of the horses have any wet track form, so we have to virtually rely on pure form," upon which this media appointed "expert" gave us his selections with an air of confidence based on dry track form. What an absolute load of rubbish we were told. What on earth is "pure forum?" Is this a new term invented by that tipster - to mean dry track form? Who knows?

If this tipster was commenting correctly he should have started along the following lines:

"The key to this race is that none of the horses have any wet track form, so we have no form relevant for this wet track. How often do we see in the stewards' reports comments like "Failed to handle the track conditions." Well, based only on dry track form that could happen to any horse that I put on top. We are only guessing and when you have to rely on guesswork only the odds are heavily stacked against the punters."

2. A radio tipster put a $2.00 horse on top with comments along these lines:

"It will win. But it's no value. There's nothing special about putting a $2.00 horse on top. Anyone can tip a $2.00 winner. But this horse will win."

What an absolute load of contradictory waffle. If the radio tipster was so confident that his $2.00 tip "will win," then of course it's a special selection. There is something very special about backing a horse at $2.00 that should be $1.50. You see, if you can tip horses at $2.00 that win more than 50% of the time you make a long term profit. If you tip horses at $2.00 that win less than 50% of the time then you make a long term loss. Our best guess is the radio tipster didn't have a clue about the implications of what he was waffling on about. That he doesn't have a clue about the maths of betting on horses. That he doesn't have a clue about "value." Does he think its "value" backing horses at $10.00 and only getting a winner every 15 races when you need a winner every 10 races to break even? Does he think its "no value" backing horses at $2.00 and getting six winners every ten races and so making a profit when you need five winners every 10 races to break even?

As for the shallow comment that "Anyone can tip a $2.00 winner," well sure that's right. But how many punters can tip $2.00 winners that win more than 50% of the time over the long term and so make a profit? Do that radio tipsters' $2.00 horses that he confidently and "expertly" asserts "will win" when tipped on top win over 50% of the time long term and so make a profit? Odds on they don't and at best win nine times out of 20, so following them results in a 10% betting loss on turnover and more likely a higher loss on turnover.