Pinatubo pyrotechnics show that inside info isn't a guaranteed path to profit

Pinatubo, as well as being an astonishingly fast two-year-old and a colt to keep Flat fans glowing throughout the winter, provides a compelling reminder of the sheer folly of over-emphasising the value of inside information.

Charlie Appleby, his brilliant trainer, has made it clear his sensational juvenile is a horse who saves his best efforts for the racecourse rather than the gallops, which explains why (a) he made his debut as early in the season as he did and (b) he was allowed to go off at 3-1 for that debut.

Two-year-olds that do what he did in the National Stakes at the Curragh on Sunday tend not to start off in races like the Myracing.com Free Tips Every Day Novice Stakes at Wolverhampton on a Friday evening in early May.

Such a contest is no more likely a launchpad for an autumn Guineas favourite than the Mildmay Of Flete, and yet that must have been the kind of level he was rated at by his trainer based on what he had seen at home.

Pinatubo wasn’t even that well backed at Wolverhampton and, while Appleby’s operation isn’t exactly in the Reg Akehurst bracket when it comes to legendary punting yards, you would have thought if he had shown on the Heath the merest glimmer of the kind of ability he has since displayed in five increasingly dazzling racecourse appearances he would have been a warm favourite for such a modest contest.

As an aside, one wonders to what extent starting his two-year-old campaign in the belief he was more Nissan Micra than Ferrari Testarossa has affected how Appleby goes on to hone him for the biggest targets.

The main point, however, is that Pinatubo’s languid attitude to gallops workouts shows how foolish it usually is to assume every horse’s connections know exactly how they are going to perform on the track.

I have been aware of, and lost money on, numerous examples of how different gallops form and track form can be down the years, and yet never have I noticed the slightest diminishment in punters’ appetite for a nod or a wink that will give them the chance to make a few quid without having to go through the rigmarole of studying form.

This is summed up perfectly by a professional punter I once met who spends his life studying form, watching videos and checking prices.

At the same social occasion, a few people who form that peculiar fringe 99.5 per cent of the population who don’t bet regularly asked him for a tip for the following day when they found out what he did for a living.

He duly delivered a horse and the race it was running in, whereupon he was asked for the origins of the information that it was a decent bet. He said that without boring them with details he thought on the balance of the competitors’ overall form it was extremely well handicapped and should run a big race on a suitable surface.

Their faces betrayed how underwhelmed they were, so I asked why that was not considered a solid enough reason to have their first little flutter since the National. “I was hoping you’d had ‘the word’ or something,” said one guy in a way that appeared to sum up how the others felt too.

This was not an isolated case. If anyone is ever daft enough to ask me for a winner I am often then asked if the tip came from a good source, as if anyone who genuinely felt they had a huge edge on the bookies was going to tell a mouthy Twitter addict who works for the Racing Post.

Inside info is not a complete myth. There are certain gambles that are so intense it is fairly clear connections knew they had a far better chance than the odds suggested, but generally the best way to find winners is to develop successful methods of form analysis or make friends with someone who has.

Yet that does not quell the desire to latch on to any kind of whisper for a live contender, be it a horse, dog, darts player or golfer. That’s why so many people are able to pass themselves off as worth listening to on social media or in the world of tipsters.

People are far more easily charmed into having a bet because someone has told them a tennis player has a knee injury and should be opposed than because a horse won off a 6lb higher mark the last time he ran on this course and ground.

And yet if I had noted every bet I have ever placed on the strength of ‘information’ it would form a sorry litany of losers.

The only exception that springs to mind came from my colleague Steve Palmer, who was passing the physio tent at the Open some years ago when he saw Scott Verplank emerge with a grimace on his face, shaking his shoulder.

Palmer followed him on to the range and watched him swinging clubs in clear discomfort as he prepared for his fourth round. He and his opponent were well off the lead and playing for fairly modest cheques and Verplank duly lost the 18-holer by a big margin.

On the whole, though, it is far better to heed the evidence of the formbook than the hushed words of someone who claims to have a reason why they know more than the bookies. Bet with your eyes, not your ears.

Punters are entitled to a two-way book

If there was a two-runner horserace and a bookmaker offered a price on only one of the competitors there would rightly be uproar. It would be illogical and ridiculous.

But away from racing it is not remotely rare to stumble across a two-outcome market for which only one option is priced up.

This usually concerns an event which you can back to happen but not to not happen. For example, customers can bet on a team to have five or more shots on target but are not offered a price on four or fewer.

It is baffling and, rightly or wrongly, gives the impression punters are getting a raw deal without the assurance of a two-way book.

If someone asks for a particular weird bet like Mo Salah to score twice, get booked and miss a penalty along with Liverpool having at least eight corners and five yellow cards I would not expect the odds provider to bother quoting 1-300 about it not happening, but for markets about a single element taking place it should be standard procedure to price it up not to happen as well.

Some firms have commendably upped their game in this regard and seldom if ever offer odds on just one of the two eventualities, but others need to realise that they are offering an incomplete service by failing to price up both possible outcomes.

Call a halt to unnecessary stoppages in play

Footballers are good at playing football. Few if any, to my knowledge, have ever undertaken the seven years of intensive training and study required to become a doctor. They should, therefore, stop making instant diagnoses on other players’ injuries.

It keeps happening. A player falls to the turf giving the impression he is in pain and an opponent decides to kick the ball out of play so he can receive treatment.

It sounds like a perfectly justifiable act of kindness, but it is almost always a bad piece of judgement and if I was a manager I would let it be known that any player doing it would risk being reacquainted with their tracksuit in a matter of seconds.

It is the referee’s job to stop games in such circumstances and players should, as they have been instructed since they were children, keep playing to the whistle.

Otherwise, an attacking situation that could conceivably lead to a goal might be halted only for the good samaritan to realise he has been hoodwinked by the player on the deck who has absolutely nothing wrong with him.

Match officials are the right people to judge if a match should be stopped when a player appears to be hurt. It is up to them to decide whether to blow the whistle, although a better solution would be for referees to wave on physios to tend to their wounded while allowing the game to continue.

Today's top sports betting stories

Follow us on Twitter @racingpostsport

Like us on Facebook RacingPostSport