Hugh cannot be serious!! Can He?

[Sporting Sam]

I'm open to criticism and have my tin hat on.

I know Hugh Taylor is a good guy.

But is there any real point in putting up selections at 9 am at odds which disappear soon after they are put up?

Great if they come in. Fair play to him.

But surely the bookmakers are loving it when people follow him at much lower odds than he put up and can only be value if they actually win.

I am not a better race reader than Hugh and I admire his rationale, every now and then he comes up with a stunner.  But I just think he is paid well and under pressure to be a Pricewise by 9 am every day. 

Surely in this day and age he could wait until the markets are formed, and a race actually takes shape, horses are withdrawn. I'd be happy to wait until five minutes before a race. That is when I get my best priced winners.

He could announce the races he was hoping to play in subject to developments an hour or two before. Of course bookmakers would not like that at all.

Otherwise I just see him as a bookies lackey good race reader or not.

Discuss.

[White Feather]

I followed Pricewise since the 1980s and up until 2 years ago the bookies held his prices for 15 min which was great for me a other followers of Pricewise as we got the value but now his tips, the odds are being slashed. I thought about joining the Racing post subscribing site to get Pricewise tips around 7pm on Friday but the bookies are all over that as well.

[Bang on]

1 hour ago, sporting sam said:

I'm open to criticism and have my tin hat on.

I know Hugh Taylor is a good guy.

But is there any real point in putting up selections at 9 am at odds which disappear soon after they are put up?

Great if they come in. Fair play to him.

But surely the bookmakers are loving it when people follow him at much lower odds than he put up and can only be value if they actually win.

I am not a better race reader than Hugh and I admire his rationale, every now and then he comes up with a stunner.  But I just think he is paid well and under pressure to be a Pricewise by 9 am every day. 

Surely in this day and age he could wait until the markets are formed, and a race actually takes shape, horses are withdrawn. I'd be happy to wait until five minutes before a race. That is when I get my best priced winners.

He could announce the races he was hoping to play in subject to developments an hour or two before. Of course bookmakers would not like that at all.

Otherwise I just see him as a bookies lackey good race reader or not.

Discuss.

Think Caan Berry on youtube did a video about his selections, he kept refreshing until the selections came up, at the same time he had windows with all major firms open, fact is, you just couldn't get on at the prices claimed. It was often much lower, and at prices available it made a loss.

[Valiant Thor]

A bit of due diligence should be taken before following Shysters my bad 'tipsters' I meant.
They fluff up there records (no surprise there then) thats if they even bother to update them (how difficult can that be 'cough cough')

Ive highlighted what no one seems to have noticed about Sir Hugh's results (more fluffing than on a gangbang porno)

He claims 17 points in Feb 2021 Hmmmmmm

Answers on a postcard to Alltipstersareshysters.com

NB
The pic above is just a sample of Feb 2021 results the full results for feb are HERE

Edited November 17, 2022 by Valiant Thor

[calva decoy]

Try backing your own picks & tips rather than relying on others it's far more enjoyable when they come in .

If I went in a bookies to back a horse & 9 others were all backing another in the same race I'd still back mine , others opinions are to be respected but personally I never have or never will follow anyone's tips no matter how bad I'm doing at the time albeit , I'm only a small stakes fun punter , each to their own I suppose .

Have you taken into account that Hugh Taylor may or may not being associated with At The Races gets some payments off some bookmakers ?

[MCLARKE]

I agree, it is much more enjoyable (and in my mind profitable) to follow your own judgement rather than anybody else's.

I am sure Hugh Taylor's tips are good but logic dictates that as soon as they are published they will become poor value.

[Sporting Sam]

Interesting comments.

My take on this? Obviously my sentiments are as my original post. I like Hugh's write ups. They are slightly cryptic. Yesterday for example he selected a horse which had course and distance but little chance of winning in the class of race. He even alluded to the fact that the eventual winner may have held a better chance. He gives sound reasoning to his selections which give an insight into the nub of the race. I'm not interested in his selections, but he opens up a race with his analysis,which helps my own choice and once in a while I agree with him. I had a winner in both of his races yesterday at 11/1 into 10s and the trifecta up in the nursery last night  (Wednesday). (Don't worry it isn't an aftertime, the bets are both posted in the racing forum.)

I do get the impression he puts up losers, then cocks a snook at his paymasters by slipping the real winner in there on the quiet. But a real challenge to him would be to move with the times and put up his selections "at the post" just before the off .

[jonjo]

Hugh Taylor is the best in the buisness, simple as, if he wasnt then his selections wouldnt shorten up so much and this thread wouldnt have appeared!!. 

[Bang on]

6 hours ago, jonjo said:

Hugh Taylor is the best in the buisness, simple as, if he wasnt then his selections wouldnt shorten up so much and this thread wouldnt have appeared!!. 

The 'best in the business' don't have to work for others - they have others work for them. The LAST THING that they would do is make their selections public. Believe me, I know plenty of people high up with the bookmakers, regularly interviewed on TV with their 'insight on the market moves', but they never ever give out the real live ones. 

[Pirate53]

Not sure what point the OP or VT are making. In the table the odds are advised as a decimal version of the original fractional odds.  Not decimal odds as we know.

For example 9/1 is shown as 9 with 9 returned, not 10  with 9 returned. The fault is with ATR for a crap table, not HT.

I follow several tipsters and the prices always bomb. Wait til the off and most rebound.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Pirate53

[Valiant Thor]

On 11/18/2022 at 12:13 PM, Pirate53 said:

Not sure what point the OP or VT are making. In the table the odds are advised as a decimal version of the original fractional odds.  Not decimal odds as we know.

For example 9/1 is shown as 9 with 9 returned, not 10  with 9 returned. The fault is with ATR for a crap table, not HT.

I follow several tipsters and the prices always bomb. Wait til the off and most rebound.

The point is the stake is added to the winnings  then the total winnings are classed as that.

decimal odds 6 wins is 6 returned not 6 profit which is included at the end of the month profit.

The actual profit for that month was 1 pt not 17 as stated .

Go through all the other months exactly the same , conning the stupid

Do the maths

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Valiant Thor

[Bang on]

On 11/18/2022 at 12:13 PM, Pirate53 said:

Not sure what point the OP or VT are making. In the table the odds are advised as a decimal version of the original fractional odds.  Not decimal odds as we know.

For example 9/1 is shown as 9 with 9 returned, not 10  with 9 returned. The fault is with ATR for a crap table, not HT.

I follow several tipsters and the prices always bomb. Wait til the off and most rebound.

(44) Hugh Taylor Tips: Fake or Real? (My Reaction to Comments) - YouTube

 

[Pirate53]

17 hours ago, Valiant Thor said:

The point is the stake is added to the winnings  then the total winnings are classed as that.

decimal odds 6 wins is 6 returned not 6 profit which is included at the end of the month profit.

The actual profit for that month was 1 pt not 17 as stated .

Go through all the other months exactly the same , conning the stupid

Do the maths

 

 

Which is what I said. The 9/1 was shown as 9 not 10 (I checked this particular price before I posted, though must admit I didn't check every one) Hence when it won it was shown as 9pts won. This is what happened, but the error was not showing the decimal price as 10. He did indeed tip it at 9/1 and it won 9pts. It therefore is the table that is incorrect as I said, not HT's fault. As you can see I'm perfectly able to 'Do the maths'.

The lack of availability of prices as the Caan Berry vid is a different kettle of fish, which I completely agree with and was not my point at all.

[Valiant Thor]

3 hours ago, Pirate53 said:

Which is what I said. The 9/1 was shown as 9 not 10 (I checked this particular price before I posted, though must admit I didn't check every one) Hence when it won it was shown as 9pts won. This is what happened, but the error was not showing the decimal price as 10. He did indeed tip it at 9/1 and it won 9pts. It therefore is the table that is incorrect as I said, not HT's fault. As you can see I'm perfectly able to 'Do the maths'.

The lack of availability of prices as the Caan Berry vid is a different kettle of fish, which I completely agree with and was not my point at all.

Just where is this mythical 9/1 as all the odds in the table are decimal.

So if you can do the math as you say why is the Monthly profit 17pts  when it should be 1pt

as posted on the table . (note the word profit not return)

Do the math

Or is that just an error .

Seems this error Has been going on since the tables were put up, cant have Sir Hugh looking like the usual crap tipster can we .

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Valiant Thor

[harry_rag]

Just had a quick look. Are they not just showing the odds without the divisor, e.g. 6/1 as 6 rather than the decimal odds of 7? (I saw one summary that heralded a particular horse at 6/1 as a "highlight" and showed it as 6 in the results). So a loser is shown as returning -1 (or 2 where appropriate) and a 6/1 winner is showing +6. So on that basis the results are correct but the price is expressed in an unusual way.

I have no skin in the game (or insight) as to whether he's shaman or charlatan but I'm not convinced the results are actually wrong.

[Valiant Thor]

33 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

Just had a quick look. Are they not just showing the odds without the divisor, e.g. 6/1 as 6 rather than the decimal odds of 7? (I saw one summary that heralded a particular horse at 6/1 as a "highlight" and showed it as 6 in the results). So a loser is shown as returning -1 (or 2 where appropriate) and a 6/1 winner is showing +6. So on that basis the results are correct but the price is expressed in an unusual way.

I have no skin in the game (or insight) as to whether he's shaman or charlatan but I'm not convinced the results are actually wrong.

What does it say @ the top of the table , If I see decimal advised odds that is what they are advised at.( Sort of a giveaway is it not)
Or could it be Stake minus 1 etc etc etc , if you want to go down that route ?

Edited November 23, 2022 by Valiant Thor
grammar

[harry_rag]

14 minutes ago, Valiant Thor said:

What does it say @ the top of the table , If I see decimal advised odds that is what they are advised at

Well it doesn't say "decimal" odds! From a cursory glance I believe the explanation I've offered to be correct, that the odds are the x/1 without the 1 being shown, in which case the results are correct. (As I say, a 6/1 winner being shown as 6 and the return being correct.) My take is that the table shows the odds in an "odd" way (neither the true decimal odds as we understand them nor the fractional odds as we expect to see them).

As I alluded to, I don't care either way but my curiosity was piqued by the discussion and I believe the results may be correct for the reasons stated.

This being the page I referred to, comparing the odds mentioned for a month's highlights with the price contained in the results link.

https://www.attheraces.com/news/hugh-taylor---2022

Edited November 23, 2022 by harry_rag

[Valiant Thor]

11 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

Well it doesn't say "decimal" odds! From a cursory glance I believe the explanation I've offered to be correct, that the odds are the x/1 without the 1 being shown, in which case the results are correct. (As I say, a 6/1 winner being shown as 6 and the return being correct.) My take is that the table shows the odds in an "odd" way (neither the true decimal odds as we understand them nor the fractional odds as we expect to see them).

As I alluded to, I don't care either way but my curiosity was piqued by the discussion and I believe the results may be correct for the reasons stated.

"Well it doesn't say "decimal" odds!" .............Pedantic eh

Try reading about Occums Razor

Your explanation fits

So does Stake minus 1 (so why would this not be correct)

So do several other math equations you could concoct

No other site I have known or do know does it either way like that .

Edited November 23, 2022 by Valiant Thor

[harry_rag]

5 minutes ago, Valiant Thor said:

Pedantic eh

Well, if you will ask "what does it say" and employ a massive red arrow to reinforce your point! 

I agree it's an odd way to represent the price. 6/1 becoming 6 is one thing but 11/4 being shown as 2.75 (as in 2.75/1) is neither one thing nor the other.

Maybe the YTS trainee cobbled the spreadsheet together.

[MCLARKE]

YTS, do they still have them !

It's probably ageist these days.

[harry_rag]

9 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

YTS, do they still have them !

It's probably ageist these days.

I wondered that as I typed. At least I was PC enough to not put "YTS boy".

[MCLARKE]

I thought they were great, always had someone to make the teas / coffees and fetch my sandwich at lunchtime !

[Sporting Sam]

I'm pleased this topic has provoked some interesting debate.

What you can see in plain sight are facts.

Fact.you cannot ( often) get on at the advised odds.( If you wanted to).

If you cannot get those touted odds, surely the figures presented should reflect that.

Fact. Hugh Taylor's analysis is useful and offers a way in to the race especially if the conditions of the race are analysed. Fractions, other runners etc.

Fact. Hugh's selection affects the market significantly and is a massive help if you can find the actual value in the race.

It can be better and very advantageous to wait until very late in the day to see who pulls out of a race, and also to wait for genuine market moves which may back up your own assertion as to the outcome of a race.

If a massive amount of money is wagered on a horse who is not going to win because someone has suggested it might win, the bookmakers are in a no lose situation and it is in their interests that money goes onto a previously unfancied horse early as it puts their book in a no lose position.

I would be more interested in Hugh's selection if it came ten minutes before the start of a selected race. 

So Hugh, here is a challenge, do a race ten minutes before the off.

Would your paymasters ever allow that to happen?

 

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by sporting sam

[Sporting Sam]

Lingfield 3.25

 

Notice Hugh has put up a selection  in this race at big prices.

 

There is another interesting horse in here in my opinion ridden by David Probert.

 

I've checked the draw and the average winning stall from the first three home last year is 8.33. 

 

The winning stall from the last two years totals 18. Divide by two and you have stall 9.

 

Land of Eagles won over this trip at chepstow in June class 5 novice stakes.

 

Made all off a mark of 75.

Just got home after hanging badly in the straight the runner up city streak won a class four handicap soon after. If Probert can settle the horse upfront He may get home better today and on these terms.

 

 

Probert has not ridden the horse since and the horse returns to the trip on the aw for first time with additional headgear.

 

 

 

Just saying....

[Bang on]

1 hour ago, sporting sam said:

Lingfield 3.25

Notice Hugh has put up a selection  in this race at big prices.

There is another interesting horse in here in my opinion ridden by David Probert.

I've checked the draw and the average winning stall from the first three home last year is 8.33. 

The winning stall from the last two years totals 18. Divide by two and you have stall 9.

Land of Eagles won over this trip at chepstow in June class 5 novice stakes.

Made all off a mark of 75.

Just got home after hanging badly in the straight the runner up city streak won a class four handicap soon after. If Probert can settle the horse upfront He may get home better today and on these terms.

 

It's been backed, and trainer George Boughey is in decent form (6 wins, 7 placed, from last 26  runners).

[Zilzalian]

A wise old man once said to me. "if you can't pick a horse to back yourself, you are betting on the wrong sport."

[Sporting Sam]

5 hours ago, Bang on said:

It's been backed, and trainer George Boughey is in decent form (6 wins, 7 placed, from last 26  runners).

Thank you for putting that up, bang on.

I highlighted it because I knew on reading it up and the fact that DP was back onboard that it had a chance of running well. Hopefully someone somewhere backed it for a place on that basis.

[MCLARKE]

1 hour ago, Zilzalian said:

A wise old man once said to me. "if you can't pick a horse to back yourself, you are betting on the wrong sport."

Agreed, I started to make money when I ignored others tips and backed my own selections.

[Zilzalian]

2 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

Agreed, I started to make money when I ignored others tips and backed my own selections.

I started making money when i listened to a wise old man and all he had to say. R.I.P Lenny. ?

[Sporting Sam]

Bringing this one back to the top.

Yesterday's selection

Was desert miracle here is the write up.

Published 9.00 - all selections online

DESERT MIRACLE is by some way the most interesting runner in the 7f handicap at Wolverhampton (6.00) and he looks worth chancing despite his long absence.

This race largely consists of fully-exposed all-weather regulars, but Desert Miracle has a totally different profile to his rivals here. He’s had just three starts, the last of them nearly 16 months ago, and is making his handicap debut.

He didn’t show much on his first two outings, when trained by Darryll Holland, but on his third start, five weeks after he had joined Kevin De Foy, he left the impression he possessed a fair amount of ability despite finishing last of four at Brighton.

He took a fierce hold that day, but was still travelling well inside the final 3f and was only a length or two down at the furlong pole before weakening in the closing stages, his earlier exertions meaning he had little chance of getting home over a mile on testing ground.

He left the impression that, had he settled, he would have been very competitive, and he was racing against fair opposition that day - the winner hasn’t been seen subsequently, but the second and third are both currently rated around the 80 mark.

That means he has to come into consideration in this lowly 0-60 handicap. Obviously, his current well-being is the issue after his 482-day absence, but the only horse that her trainer has sent out following a longer absence than this was Evania, who returned from a 629-day absence to win at Kempton in September despite being very weak in the market.

It’s interesting that his trainer has persisted with him, albeit under a change of ownership, and although the key to his chance may be whether or not he settles, it shouldn’t be surprising if Desert Miracle turns out to be very well handicapped off a mark of 57.

Absolutely shocking selection based on the fact that the trainer sent out a winner off a long absence in September ( despite being weak in the market) tipping a horse at 9/1 and it going off near favourite puts thousands of pounds into bookmakers coffers. It had been last or near last all runs and was last again last night.

I'm flagging this up not because it lost but because that was a blatant bookie benefit selection. 

He has all the tools at his use sectionals speed ratings, everything. When he uses those methods he can be very good. But to make such a selection with no recourse to logic is very poor indeed.