Grand National / Jack Houghton / 12 April 2012 /

A look back over the in-play stories of previous Grand Nationals tells us to focus our attentions on laying the short ones, writes Jack Houghton.

In betting terms, the 2009 Grand National provided the biggest betting story for a generation. Mon Mome, at 100-1, became only the fifth horse to win the race at such a gargantuan starting price.

However, as the old-school broadcasters and press pack demonstrated their Luddite tendencies by focusing on this relatively inconsequential numerical occurrence, more savvy betting commentators realised that the real story had been on Betfair. Mon Mome went off at a Betfair SP of [143.0], before hitting the maximum price of [1000.0] on three separate occasions in-play.

The story would be less notable had Mon Mome staged a remarkable recovery from some significant early mishap on its way to winning the race. However, apart from being towards the rear in the early stages, Liam Treadwell had a near faultless round on the horse, slowly creeping into contention on the second circuit. If nothing else, this teaches us that, if your eye is keen enough, there is value to be had in the in-play markets, especially on those horses that are ridden more conservatively early on.

Having said that, for a race renowned for its unpredictability, Mon Mome remains the only horse to trade at a really big price in-play on Betfair in the last decade. Even when Amberleigh House won the race in 2004 - having been matched in Betfair's ante-post market at a high of [90.0] and being available at a solid [28.0] pre-race - he reached a high of just [36.0] in-play, despite coming from a long way back to snatch the lead in the last 75 yards.

There are a couple of potential reasons for this. First, Mon Mome and Amberleigh House are unusual in recent renewals of the race, as, typically, winners have tended to race much more prominently. Second, perhaps punters, unable to confidently assess fully what is happening beyond what they are shown by the naturally limited televised coverage, are just unwilling to get involved in backing and laying horses unless they feel they have had a clear and uninterrupted view of their progress in the race up to that point.

If it's unrealistic to think we are going to find juicy in-play odds on a held-up winner, then, where is the Grand National in-play value to be had? Well, a look back through the in-play betting archives tells us that, whilst big-priced winners are a rarity, there are plenty of stories of horses trading at short prices who go on to lose.

In 2005, thousands were punted on Clan Royal in-play - at prices as low as [3.0] - despite a slipped saddle, his relentless early pace, and the fact that he had a third of the race yet to run when he was taken out by two loose horses approaching Becher's.

In 2007, whilst Silver Birch - matched at a high of [320.0] in the ante-post market and a [60.0] chance at the off - went on to win the race, runner-up Mckelvey traded at a low of [1.50] in-play and third-placed Slim Pickings at a low of [2.0].

In 2008, with Comply Or Die rounding off a dream day for this punter, a remarkable nine horses traded at [7.0] or lower in-play, with five of those horses trading at [3.05] and lower.

In 2010, Don't Push It, sporting a Betfair SP of [19.2], nearly double that of the industry, went on to win the race, even though both Black Apalachi and Big Fella Thanks had traded at an in-play low of [3.0].

In 2011, Big Fella Thanks was at it again, trading at an in-play low of [2.54], whilst eventual runner-up Oscar Time hit a hard-to-understand low of [1.20]. Neither of them, of course, challenged eventual winner Ballabriggs, who traded at an in-play high of [21.0].

What this brief potted history tells us is that, whilst punters might be unwilling to take bigger prices about those out of camera shot, they are more than willing to lump on horses taking temporary centre stage at, what hindsight will show, are ridiculously short in-play prices.

For the budding in-play punter, then, it seems that the angle is obvious: lay those horses that seem to be going well, but are clearly underpriced. Just make sure you don't end up laying the eventual winner.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: