I guess we have all been tempted.
That odds on looks a certainty. It only needs to go up and down and the money is in your pocket.
It's money without work!
When did you last take the plunge betting odds on? Today, yesterday, last year, a decade ago...or never ever (I promise).
Was it a good or a bad bet? I suppose that depends on whether it won or lost. Because, let's face it, betting on a short-priced favourite you need it to be numero uno. There's no hiding place. But you know the score.
Fill your boots.
Odds on shots are one of those subjects which sways your thoughts from one extreme to the other. We know the horse has ability, it's fancied by the majority of punter and probably 70% of all placed bets on the given race. That in itself it is a positive. If it was a popularity contest it would be a winner. From a statistical point of view, it is likely to cross the finishing line in first place.
I don't know about you, but every time I don't bet on an odds on fancy they win and when I do they are weighed down by the burden of my pocket money and it all goes tragically wrong.
Perhaps that is a little bit hyperbolic (I'm sure many a punter has shouted bollocks as Tommo takes pride in announcing your horse is struggling like a rag).
You know exactly what I'm talking about.
Generally, these days, I never bet odds on. I'm not saying I wouldn't because the whole point about an astute gambler is that you are open to any bet because working to a mandatory rule only comes back to bite you on the arse. I'm sure if we went back to the 1970s a few red-faced punters have the tooth print of Red Rum on their derriere. I'm not sure if he ever won or lost at odds on but you get the idea.
It sounds painful in every sense: physically and emotionally.
Following the two-year-old horse racing season, it seems to me a lot of odds on priced horses get beaten. Certainly, those priced from 10/11 - 1/3f. I think when you get to the realm of horses priced 1/4 or shorter it is difficult to get those on the back foot (although it does happen).
The problem with betting odds on is that by definition you need over a 50% strike rate to be level. So cranking the odds to 4/9f you need a strike rate of what? (I'm terrible at maths but I know it is an incredibly high rate).
I know a lot of people say: ''You're buying money''.
It's probably better than putting your money in the bank! You get 5% on a 1/20f that cruises home.
If you can make your betting pay then you have no need to grumble. That is and always will be the answer to the question.
The problem comes into play when you hit a loser. God forbid a couple of losers. All of a sudden you are counting the number of winners you need to be back to even. How many losers can you afford?
In this day and age of betting in-running, we have gone into a new dimension of odds on gambler. People who are happy to bet 1/100. When you consider someone betting 1/10 in-running you may think they are crazy, mad, foolish, idiots.
The losers are exactly that. But what about the winners?
Because you can guarantee there are many punters (backers/layers) who are making a tidy profit by doing just that.
How would you consider them? Perhaps they are simply delaying the inevitable when they get caught by a truly costly decision.
It's an interesting question.
Those who make money betting/laying odds on are correct. Well, as correct as they can be for the moment in time they are in profit. Who knows what tomorrow brings.
I, personally, am very wary of betting odds on because I feel there are better options. However, it is probably foolish to tar every odds on punter with a brush which says it's a mug's game.
Have you ever bet odds on? More important was it a good bet and are you looking to bet again anytime soon?