You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

** BLUE MOON JACKPOT CLUB ** REFLECTION ON THE 12/08/18 ATTEMPT AT WINDSOR **

StayOrGoStayOrGo Member Posts: 12,125
Hi guys.

Firstly thank you all for the support in the various roles that you have all under-taken.

I thought as this was our first BLUE MOON attempt that I would do a little "write up" of how I think things went.

Feel free to add your comments/thoughts to this thread.

Whilst I am sure we won't always agree on everything, I will take on board any constructive comments.

So we had a reasonable start, the odds on "banker" doing enough to keep us in all perms.

So we get to LEG 5 still in Perms A and B. Unfortunately the favourite in LEG 5 (MADAME BOUNTY) which six of us NAP'd including myself could only manage 2nd.

This left us in Perm B only with only two horses in the last leg. STAY IN THE LIGHT and DUBAI LANDMARK (Between the two receiving 7 NAP's)

The last leg (as Misty said despite Napping the winner. VWP btw) was always going to be tough, and it was really a shame that the favourite hadn't won the previous leg which would have left us with all the runners except for three that were 25/1+

I don't think we did too much wrong tbh, just quite unlucky again. Sounds like a broken record I know. :=)

I hope despite not winning the Jackpot, that you enjoyed the ride once again and at least we had a good sweat.

Here are some of my thoughts/observations, feel free to reply with your comments if you wish.

1) When we have an odds on banker that is NAP'd by 9 out of the 10 of us, do you think it would have been better to have that as the sole banker in every perm? (Obviously it's easy to be results orientated because it won, but should we "risk" busting first leg to enable us greater flexibility in other legs) we still had 75% of our equity on GALLOVIE, but there is an argument for making that 100%. In this circumstance we may or may not have won the Jackpot by doing that, although it's possible we would have.

2) I did a (Vaigret Special Perm) as an extra. PERM F was a separate perm combining all horses that received multiple NAP's. I won't always be able to do this, but what are people's thoughts on having it as an extra perm when possible?

3) Incidentally, today someone NAP'd the winner in every leg. So if we had done a full coverage perm we would have won the Jackpot. I don't think this is a good idea tbh in the long run, and most times would be too expensive, but will monitor the P&L out of interest. The perm would have cost £900.00 (too much for us anyway) and the return would have been £3,951.90 so just over £3K profit.

4) Regarding the NAP/NB process, I thought it seemed to work OK. What are people's thoughts?

5) I mentioned this on another thread, but would just like to highlight re-checking your NAP's two hours or so before the off and amending if you want to based on market moves etc, especially if you selected them the night before.

Thanks again to all who have participated.

Cheers,

G
«1

Comments

  • rabdenirorabdeniro Member Posts: 4,212
    Another good job G, we were unlucky again, on the points youve made,

    1: I think we should lump it all on the banker unless its drifting or there is other horses close in the betting.
    2: I think we should stick with that if possible.
    3: Yep far too much cash.
    4: like the process of the Nap/NBs, I think its a more involved system, and hopefully it will reap rewards.
    5: Valid point there if its possible to re-check the next day (I am guilty of just leaving it and not looking at the movers the next day if I do it the night before).

    Well thats ma two bobs worth, I am sure we will have better luck in the future.
  • zadoczadoc Member Posts: 3,402
    rabdeniro said:

    Another good job G, we were unlucky again, on the points youve made,

    1: I think we should lump it all on the banker unless its drifting or there is other horses close in the betting.
    2: I think we should stick with that if possible.
    3: Yep far too much cash.
    4: like the process of the Nap/NBs, I think its a more involved system, and hopefully it will reap rewards.
    5: Valid point there if its possible to re-check the next day (I am guilty of just leaving it and not looking at the movers the next day if I do it the night before).

    Well thats ma two bobs worth, I am sure we will have better luck in the future.

    +1
  • MAXALLYMAXALLY Member Posts: 17,483

    1. I will disagree with the lads above, and think we should have 'alternatives' in each Leg, regardless how much a banker a horse is. This is because
    a) Anything could happen in any given race, which is the whole idea of having different selections...ie NB's etc.
    b) If the banker does not win in that Leg, and we do have alternatives (which win), we are then in a position to win a bigger slice of the prize pool, with a lot of other perms going busto in that Leg.
    c) I also think that your reasoning is being a little 'results orientated' on this occasion.

    2. Where possible, and funds are available, I agree in having this perm.

    3. Too much to contemplate, and should only be used as a guide when doing the perms. However, if we start to win millions thousands, it would be nice to be able to consider.

    4. I do think the Naps/NB's process worked well and is an asset when compiling the perms.

    5. Within reason, and in a given time limit, Amended Naps and NB's is a fine idea which will hopefully also take in account of any market movers overnight. It will have to be a clear system though, and easy to implement.

    Overall, you do a brilliant job in putting the perms together Graham and I think we ALL realise that we can not guarantee a win every time, but appreciate the work you put into it.

    Cheers, Alan
  • MISTY4MEMISTY4ME Member Posts: 6,147
    edited August 2018
    I agree with Alan in always having an alternative to the banker...... particularly on the Flat where it's much easier to get boxed in, or not get a run and lose a race, particularly over the sprint distances....(and at Goodwood!!) If EMERALD APPROACH hadn't got boxed in as it was starting his run, I think he would have beaten GALLOVIE (the Banker). The jockey didn't want to go for the gap with whips flailing in the horses face, as it was EMERALD APPROACH's first ever race.... defo One to Follow in it's next couple of races imo.

    In the past I've always preferred a banker and more horses in trickier races, as per your original idea for the Jackpot Syndicate, and just the one perm, but having tried to do a virtual jackpot on several occasions this way (along with V. too), I've seen it doesn't seem to work and one perm containing all the selections is obviously much more expensive.

    You do a great job Graham, and I'm sure that Jackpot win won't be long coming..... and talking of doing a great job, how did you finish up in last night's Major?? I saw you were leading with just 7 players left at 1.55am break, but couldn't keep my eyes open any longer :( .....

    Hope it was a HAPPY DAYS finish :):)

    Are you going to SPT at Brighton?... would be great to meet up :pB)
  • SidV79SidV79 Member Posts: 4,010
    Hi G, a very near miss for the first attempt which shows, with a little more luck in running, this system works. As to the points you made...

    1. I agree with Alan, alternatives should be had in all races as we all know how often the odds-on jollies lose.

    2. Good idea, when possible of course.

    3. Under normal circumstances this would be a no-no as there would be far too many selections to cover but there may come a time when the range of selections from us all can be covered with a full coverage perm.

    4. Totally agree to NAPs/NBs.

    5. Also agree to changing selections the morning of should market forces dictate as with Ballet Red drifting as it did, from 2/1 JF out to 6/1. I was also guilty of not checking selections as I had posted the night before but will make sure it does not happen again.

    I think you did a great job with the perms and even though neither of our remaining two selections won for us we were still in with a chance in the last leg so keep up up the good work, thank you G and thanks to all who worked on this

    Andy

  • wynne1938wynne1938 Member Posts: 20,504
    Great thoughts from all.
    It is very hard to rely on a banker in my experience.
    You are certainly doing a great job in your perm selections.
    Lets give the current selections of Nap/NB a chance to succeed.
    I am sure you will land the jackpot soon.
  • vaigretvaigret Member Posts: 16,281
    To start answers to your points without looking at others comments first -

    1- YES, I would rather we bust on the first being brave rather than waste chances elsewhere.

    2- No need to do everytime especially if there are a lot of multiple bets but would do if say the multiples are say 1x 2 x 3 x 2 x 4 x 2 or such like.

    3- Full perm would be nice if we can afford anytime. Agree 99% of the time we probably wouldnt be able to.

    4 worked fine.

    5. Would never change my nap as never selected on price but on form, and also have changed my idea of winner too many times only for my original choice in race to win. Having said that wish I had done TYLERY WONDER as next best rather than VIMY RIDGE, toss up between them and went with Ridge as won race last year rather than the single travelling horse from sprint expert Paul midgeley. Had a quick check of results From Friday as had Saturday Racing Post and not one horse that was backed significantly won.

    Will now read others comments and give my other thoughts later.

    Thanks for all your hard work on this G , much appreciated.
  • vaigretvaigret Member Posts: 16,281
    Well having now read everybody else's comments it seems we all agree except on one banker. I still think if nine out of ten of us think there is only one winner then we go for it. Having said that a couple of perms with one other horse would not cause me great concern .

    I know it is easy after the event and take Alans point

    "c) I also think that your reasoning is being a little 'results orientated' on this occasion."

    and dont want you to feel I am having a go but when I saw the perms I was surprised re 4 horses in first race in Perm B . And of course sods law that was the perm that in the end we needed more horses in the last race!!!

    As it is we damned if we do and damned if we dont at the moment but the effort we all put in, not least yourself we deserve more.

    Signing off now for hour or so and will give other views on here later, if ok with you G

    V


  • StayOrGoStayOrGo Member Posts: 12,125
    edited August 2018
    vaigret said:

    Well having now read everybody else's comments it seems we all agree except on one banker. I still think if nine out of ten of us think there is only one winner then we go for it. Having said that a couple of perms with one other horse would not cause me great concern .

    I know it is easy after the event and take Alans point

    "c) I also think that your reasoning is being a little 'results orientated' on this occasion."

    and dont want you to feel I am having a go but when I saw the perms I was surprised re 4 horses in first race in Perm B . And of course sods law that was the perm that in the end we needed more horses in the last race!!!

    As it is we damned if we do and damned if we dont at the moment but the effort we all put in, not least yourself we deserve more.

    Signing off now for hour or so and will give other views on here later, if ok with you G

    V


    Yes mate, fire away, your views are always welcome Terry.

    And yes, it wasn't lost upon me, the irony of having the four in the first leg in the perm that got to LEG5, leaving us exposed in LEG 6. :=)

    Although as JEZ said. If EMERALD APPROACH had won the first, then we would have more than likely been the only one's left in the Jackpot come LEG 6 as most would have busted in the opener as MAXALLY intimated. Unfortunately, unless we win the Jackpot, and sometimes, even if we do, there'll always be if's and but's. It's a fine line between success and failure, a right tweek or a wrong tweek can have huge consequences.
  • StayOrGoStayOrGo Member Posts: 12,125
    edited August 2018
    Thanks all for the feedback.

    I won't reply to everyone's feedback individually, suffice to say there is agreement in most areas except perhaps the banker issue. That's probably going to be one where you can't please all the people all the time.

    I would "prefer" people in general to take notice of market moves etc when making your selections, although I also take Vaigret's point that his selections are based on form alone.

    All I would say is, do what the same as you would do if your were backing a horse in a race. If that is based on form, market moves or a combination of the two, that is your choice.

    Not everyone will want to amend their selections, but I'd encourage those that want to, to do so.

    So it doesn't make it too difficult for MAX, any changes must be made clear on the thread (by adding a new post as well as amending the old one) and amended on the sheet too. Or another option you may want to consider is not adding your selections until the day itself. You can always study the form the night before but don't post until the day of the race. As long as they are there before the 90 minute deadline, it's fine, this is what I tend to do.

    To set a time. I think we need to have a deadline of 90 minutes before the first race for any changes. I do appreciate further market moves may occur after that, but we have to draw a line somewhere.

    Regarding the banker question. It kind of seems split down the middle, so I will have to make a judgement call on a case by case basis, so please be understanding if one week is one way and another week another. Especially if it doesn't work out. :=)

    I think, to be fair, if I am really struggling for coverage in the other legs, I may go for an out and out banker, and if I feel I have more room then I'll do something similar to WINDSOR.

    Thanks again for your feedback and support. Hopefully it is more fun for everyone to be invested/engaged with in the process.

    Here's to the next attempt. :=)

    Cheers,

    G

    P.S. JEZ, unfortunately I busted 7th in the Roller. All went pear shaped after the Misty Magic abandoned me lol. :=) Can't make Brighton unfortunately. Best of luck!
  • MISTY4MEMISTY4ME Member Posts: 6,147
    So sorry G ..... but it must have still been an OK cash at least. WELL DONE.

    On the banker issue .....I used to think an outright banker was the best way, but with the perm structure, it allows you to have 2 or 3 perms with an outright banker, and 1, 2 or 3 with 1 or 2 alternative(s)..... so works both ways :)

    Are you going to Brighton with your winnings G.?
  • vaigretvaigret Member Posts: 16,281
    edited August 2018



    G thanks for that and your sum up above is good about the current situation.

    Now come to my other point and not trying to open old wounds but feel KNOWLEDGE IS POWER and the more info we have the better. Also returning to my intial feelings re NB's.

    As you know I suggested NB's only for races where people were undecided or fancied more than one horse rather than for all races but understood the point of a NB so that could be used if a NAP was a NR. However I still feel that doing NB's for all races as a good admin tool for NAPS TABLE might cause us probs if you put too much store to them.

    Also my other point re knowledge , I still think it would be useful for people if they want to explain why they have selected horses. Your feeling was that if people did this they were trying to influence others. I dont think they would either try to influence others or that our strong team would be influenced anyway.

    The best way to explain the above is to go through my reasons for selecting the horses I did for Sunday both naps and NB's. Hopefully I can remember most of it correctly, bear with me if I am slightly wrong on any. When read others might say de ja vu or say what an idiot, i really dont mind.

    Race 1-

    NAP- GALLOVIE - Very confident nap, as form looked good and last year race in two divisions and Archie Watson won one of them so he knew standard of horse needed to win it.

    NB- CHAINS OF LOVE - Bit worried about this as from up north , pretty useful form and might have been trainers only runner at meet. Would probably have included as a NB if we didnt have to do one for every race.

    RACE 2 -

    NAP- WEST END CHARMER - Confident and one of my horses in my daily treble which if a non jackpot day would have been one of my normal naps. Good form, single traveller from north for top trainer.

    NB -ROBERT FITZROY - Just put in because i had to have NB

    RACE 3-

    NAP- RESTLESS ROSE - Not confident but thought it would beat my

    NB - GOODNIGHT GIRL which i would have put in as a NB if a choice.

    Race 4-

    NAP- SALT WHISTLE BAY - Confident, what a mistake, form looked really good except for last race and his second to VIA SERENDERITY winner Ascot Saturday looked way above rest.

    NB- BULLINGDON - just put in to go with flow, not confident it would win at all, very bad value bet.

    RACE 5-

    NAP- LADWEB - Confident that Gallagher who is in good form knew he had the run on MADAME BOUNTY as another of his horses had beaten that one last time. As it was I was wrong MB beat Ladweb into 3rd.

    NB - VIMY RIDGE- As already said in earlier post above. In fact in this race I wish I could have done two NB's as also fancied Tylery Wonder. I had it in my own Jackpot attempt. Was never going to have MB as NB because as said above I was confident LADweb would beat MB.


    RACE 6 -

    NAP- DUBAI LANDMARK - Reasonably confident but was always going to have a

    NB - BALGOWAH because it looked like a plan dropped in class. Comletely wrong with both selections whi seemed to be running to reduce their handicap marks.


    Sorry but i had to get my feelings off my chest but I also understand that too much info could also be dangerous and too time consuming for other people let alone G having to take more in. I reinterate I will agree with G on any way he decides to go forward. My concern is that people might have info , really strong reasons ahy they pick a horse and also that some of their choices are pretty flimsy, I know mine are sometimes but g isnt to know what is what from the way we do at mo.

    anyway just in case we go for the Jackpot on a day when either of these horses run here are what Mark Johnston reckons are the two best 2 YEAR OLD horses in his stable. bEARING IN MIND HE HASNT had a bad season with these at mo I am hoping they are express trains, knowing my luck they will be shunters anyway here they are

    NAME THE WIND
    ASHBAAL

    neither has run yet

    Father V

  • StayOrGoStayOrGo Member Posts: 12,125
    MISTY4ME said:

    So sorry G ..... but it must have still been an OK cash at least. WELL DONE.

    On the banker issue .....I used to think an outright banker was the best way, but with the perm structure, it allows you to have 2 or 3 perms with an outright banker, and 1, 2 or 3 with 1 or 2 alternative(s)..... so works both ways :)

    Are you going to Brighton with your winnings G.?

    Yes, working both ways is the idea, spreading the equity in proportion without having only one perm with 4 selections and losing almost 75% equity if the favourite wins.

    Can't make Brighton, I am afraid. Best of luck! I am sure it'll be a blast. :=)
  • StayOrGoStayOrGo Member Posts: 12,125
    edited August 2018
    Hi V.

    I know you have strong opinions on the form and "reason for selection" point of view.

    However I still feel as before. If I want a guide as to who's the go to person for selections, I can look at the NAP's league tables.

    So Snuffer may often be the go to man in a tricky decision, for example. His P&L doesn't lie.

    I know this is not the response you would like, but it's one of those statistics over form issues that I know we have differing opinions of.

    Also, the NB information, whilst used, is very secondary to the NAP data, so doesn't affect is as much as you are suggesting, but will have some impact.

    Cheers,

    G

    P.S. On GO-LIVE days I tend to watch the replays of all the leading chances and this is how I form my decisions. I rarely go by tipsters or comments from the sporting press, I go by what I see. I do take time form ratings quite seriously in the context of the race. Ie very important in big field handicaps and not so much in small fields with no out and out front runner. However my choices are pretty much informed by watching replays of which I do countless ones assuming I have time. Probably about 40 video replays on GO-LIVE days. So my personal comments and "reasons" will always pretty much be, "My assessment from watching the various replays." Obviously I also consider, going, running style, draw bias and track suitability, C/D winners, trainers, jockey's etc. Although I feel to explain the reasons why I have my selections, would be self indulgent. Suffice to say people make their choices for their own reasons, and I can get an idea on how good a judge people are by their previous result history. Does doing all the above mean I am going to get it right, no it does not, that's just what I like to do. I do appreciate that what you are saying is allowing people to express which one's they are more confident about. I mean we could label them A,B,C,D,E,F in order of how much we fancy them, but then the whole process would just get rather complicated.
  • vaigretvaigret Member Posts: 16,281
    Hi G,

    I know we will never agree on the KNOWLEDGE IS POWER but on so many things we are the same, I never back a horse on what tipsters say I like to form my own opinion from studying form and watching races like yourself, however when I get info from stables i will use it. MJ knew MARIES DIAMOND was his best early two year old and that info has won me a lot , having said that MJ didnt realise it was going to end up this good and be one of leading fancies for 2000 guineas by now.

    That is probably why my naps are usually so different to everybody elses. something I dont know whether tolaugh or cry about sometimes.

    As to your comment re Snuffer , totally agree with you i would too, the form he is in. Would like to think however that i did pretty well last year. I think you would agree the naps and remover tables at year end didnt lie LOL.

    Anyway lets hope going forward we crack it time and again.

    V
  • StayOrGoStayOrGo Member Posts: 12,125
    vaigret said:

    Hi G,

    I know we will never agree on the KNOWLEDGE IS POWER but on so many things we are the same, I never back a horse on what tipsters say I like to form my own opinion from studying form and watching races like yourself, however when I get info from stables i will use it. MJ knew MARIES DIAMOND was his best early two year old and that info has won me a lot , having said that MJ didnt realise it was going to end up this good and be one of leading fancies for 2000 guineas by now.

    That is probably why my naps are usually so different to everybody elses. something I dont know whether tolaugh or cry about sometimes.

    As to your comment re Snuffer , totally agree with you i would too, the form he is in. Would like to think however that i did pretty well last year. I think you would agree the naps and remover tables at year end didnt lie LOL.

    Anyway lets hope going forward we crack it time and again.

    V

    Yes indeed for what it's worth I changed BALLET RED to WEST END CHARMER in PERM B based on your NAP and the fact that BALLET RED drifted so much, so I do value your selections very much. WEST END CHARMER was in 3 of the 5 main perms and BALLET RED only in two despite it's 3 NAPS to your one. So I do take notice and rate your selections.
  • vaigretvaigret Member Posts: 16,281
    I know you do, wasnt suggesting anything else and my comments were not about me or my selections but they were for general discussion. Do people think giving more info would help us ?. However no one else seems interested and it is a no go so will go with the flow, not a problem.

    As to my naps I take them very seriuosly especially on live days but sometimes I cant spend the time I would like on them and sometimes what I do come up with might be the best of a bad lot. Others might be in the same position sometimes. The problem is only the individual knows that.

    No need for us to discuss further , right behind you and the team.

    Terry

    ps all checking tables done and all AOK
  • StayOrGoStayOrGo Member Posts: 12,125
    edited August 2018
    Just for interest purposes, I will keep a PLACEPOT P/L on our selections.

    IE, what our returns would be if we did Placepot instead/as well as Jackpot:

    In the case of WINDSOR we would have won it for £4.00 All from Perm A (8 lines)

    It paid £93.10 netting us a "would be" return of £372.40, so a modest £5.20 profit with our stake being £408 - £40.80 cash back = £367.20.

    Our "system" is not "optimal" for the Placepot bet, so it's just for fun really.

    Cheers,

    G
  • StayOrGoStayOrGo Member Posts: 12,125
    edited August 2018
    OK. I have been trying to work out a compromise for V's idea.

    Whilst I don't really want "reasons", I will allow members to OPTIONALLY do the following:

    Suffix up to a maximum of three of their selections with an A, B or C.

    The meaning will be as follows:

    A: I have studied this in depth and for whatever reason, I VERY strongly fancy this. I am going to have my house on it in a single bet. =)

    B: Studied in detail and feel that this is a great bet. Will have my car on it. :=)

    C: Quite confident in this one. Gunna have a chunk on myself. :=)

    The above will be completely optional, and if you haven't done much "homework" then don't add any suffix's.

    There will be a maximum of one A, one B and one C within your six selections. You can have just one B or an A and a C or any such combos, but no more than one of each.

    Any thoughts?

    Cheers,

    G

    P.S. This is for BLUE MOON days only and is completely optional. If you would rather just do them as you do now, that's absolutely fine.

    So in Vaigret's example in the posts above. He could give GALLOVIE an A, WEST END CHARMER a B and perhaps SALT WHISTLE BAY a C.

    P.P.S. I am not recommending people do put their house or car on it of course, it was tongue in cheek. #PLEASE_GAMBLE_RESPONSIBLY
  • StayOrGoStayOrGo Member Posts: 12,125
    edited August 2018
    Adding to the above, you can put a "Z" suffix against any of your selections.

    This will mean either, "Not confident. Just threw it in because I had to pick something in the race." or "Haven't had time too look at this race in any detail."

    Any suffix's will not affect the NAPS tables etc, purely for me to consider when doing the perms.

    Cheers,

    G
Sign In or Register to comment.