April 7, 2019 at 22:28 #1416801GingertipsterParticipant
- Total Posts 26565
I agree, Patriot.
There are three horses I’d take out of the race: Tiger Roll, One For Arthur and Jury Duty. Latter hampered at the first which put him way back in a race that favoured those ridden prominently. Looked to have took to the course very well until unseating before Bechers on the second circuit. Still full of running but too far out to know how he’d have fared. Considering Jury Duty was well fancied this term could be worth forgiving.value is everythingApril 8, 2019 at 15:23 #1416849Red Rum 77Participant
- Total Posts 1379
A big hearty well done to Tiger Roll and hope some won on him, myself he was a saving bet this year.
However let’s not forget Up For Review.
Here is a snippet taken from Sporting Life Website written by Ed Chamberlin which reflects on Up For Review
It was easy to revel in his joy. The National creates these legends but sport at the highest level has risk and that trap door to despair is never far away.
The hardest part of my job is relaying the saddest news and Saturday saw a first fatality since 2012. It was hard to find words. My heart went out to Will Ingram who looked after Up For Review. Owner Graham Wylie has become a good friend and he and Andrea have had a torrid few weeks with their horses. I sincerely hope their luck will change and we can celebrate their successes with increased vigour.
Not many will appreciate or realise but unsung heroes were director Paul McNamara, vision mixer Marcus Read and the camera operators, whose skilful work did the sport an enormous turn as the field bypassed the first fence on the second circuit.
The fatality brings the inevitable negative headlines but we have no need to be defensive, no need to engage in arguments on high streets and social media. We need to inform and educate about our great sport.
Unfortunately, fatal injuries will occur – 0.22% of runners over the last five years – however, jump racing thrives on the longevity of its participants and our viewing figures reflect people’s love for familiar names.
Bless The Wings is a prime example. Much loved and finishing 13th at the grand age of 14 after appearing at eight consecutive Cheltenham Festivals. My favourite performance in the race was One For Arthur, lit up by a return to his favourite place and heroic in sixth.
As Richard Hoiles said: “would the sport’s critics really sacrifice the love and care of the other 99.78% horses and the benefits so many get through working with these beautiful equine athletes?”April 12, 2019 at 23:51 #1417217
‘Trends that mean something from our old TRFer Mr Pru:
Why do his trends mean something?(implying my personally researched 4 year trends dont mean anything)
The most recent trends are always the most relevant as racing and races are always evolving.
For the record the article by Simon Rowlands is awful and I stopped reading at the first part of his statistical analysis.
Because he wanted to make a case for Ramses De Thaille he showed the records of 9 year olds, the record of 10 year olds, yet grouped 8 and younger together which then gave that group the best record.
He ignored that no 7yo has won the race since 1940 and instead used the superior record of 8yos to justify betting a 7yo
Truly awful journalism from pru imo
Blatantly twisting the data to suit his selection’
I’m sorry potato but Simon’s analysis was far superior. To say it was awful shows a lack of understanding of proper analysis. Your trends analysis falls into the same trap as that which we see in many publications, in that it concentrates on winners only. Your analysis is flawed because by using winners only you don’t have any context. If we use age group as an example. A certain age group may have more wins but, it may also have many more runners. To illustrate 4yo’s may have won four of the last five running’s of a particular race but they may have had 95% of the runners, in that time if 5yo’s had won once and had two seconds from just 3 runners, which age group has performed better? You need to compare how well an age group has performed to how they should have performed at random. When doing trends analysis you should look at how well horses ran not purely who won. This is why Simon also looks at places and number of runners beaten so that you get a much better picture of what has happened in the past. In your post you criticise Simon for his representation of a 7yo but if you read his blog on ATR he explains that very few 7yo’s have ran in the National and that they have performed above expectation.
I am no expert on statistics and interpreting data but have learned an awful lot from Simon Rowlands articles which, not only have helped me profit from following his selections, but also improved my own ability to analyse a race.April 13, 2019 at 07:36 #1417248potatoBlocked
- Total Posts 832
7yos dont have many runners in the national because most trainers understand that this race is no place for an inexperienced horse a fact that is backed up by no 7yo winning in 79 years.
It is an awful article because Simon lists the record of 9yos, he lists the records of 10yos but chooses not to individually list the record of 7yos but instead lists the 7yos with the 8yos as one individual group as it supports his tip of a 7yo. Hes cooked the books to suit his tip.
Completely unsurprisingly Simon’s selection the 7yo was completely out of his comfort zone and was pulled up very early.
Simon may have helped you with your punting but I can help Simon with his.
Once upon a time Simon did used to make good points however as the years have passed I believe he has become confused with all these statistics in his head.April 13, 2019 at 13:23 #1417357GingertipsterParticipant
- Total Posts 26565
Few years ago I did my own look back at stats to do with both age and weights carried in the Grand National from 1983 onwards…
At that time the respected Trends analysis was pointing to ignoring those carring more than 11 stone. This was due to supposedly that group not winning many Nationals since Red Rum. However, it did not take in to account connections of most good horses keeping well away of a dangerous race… And included some automatic top weights (horses from czechoslavakia or France without a British handicap mark). Often Grand Nationals had 2 or 3horses carrying 11 st 1 lb + and 38 or 37 carrying less. Yes, 2 horses against 38! So of course they weren’t going to do as well as 11-00 and less. Guess what! When more good horses ran in the Grand National then more 11-01+ horses won.
And – like Simon Rowlands – found that although a 7 year old hadn’t won, there haven’t been many 7 year olds trying. So few in fact that had a 7 year old won just ONE renewal then 7 year olds would be statistically (percentage-wise) an excellent age group for the race. ie Having a better record than expectation. So I have a question for you, Potato…
Would just one renewal make an enormous difference with your trends? ie If a 7 year old were to win just ONE Grand National… Would your TRENDS analysis go from one year telling everyone NOT to back a 7 year old because they can’t win… To the very next year saying GET ON the 7 year old because the stats say they have a great chance of winning!?
Meaningful trends analysis must take in to account expectation.
Of course experience comes in to backing Grand National horses. If any horse of any age has not run well in big fields I’d be against them. But just because Ramses was a 7 year old, doesn’t mean he should’ve be dismissed. Ran one of his very best races when second in the Welsh Grand National. So not only proven in a big field, also proven over an extreme trip – something not many 7 year olds have on their cv.
Oh and you talk of Simon misleading people. Ramses was pulled up late-on in the Grand National, not early as you make out… And then only due to a tack problem.value is everythingApril 13, 2019 at 21:19 #1417430
Good post Ginge. The bit where you say ‘Meaningful trends analysis must take in to account expectation’ is absolutely spot on.
I would like to ask potato why just 4 running’s? Why not 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10? Is it because if you did your results on age would be skewed, after all before that no 8yo had won since 2002? The problem with your analysis is it such a small sample size, just 4 horses. This is why % rivals beaten is a superior method because even over a small sample of races it includes all the horses of an age group not just those who won. It takes into account those that didn’t run well which yours ignores. Again, as Ginge says you need to take into account expectation.
If you read Simon’s analysis you will see that on his analysis 8yo’s run well but, I would like to correct you. You say that he put 7yo’s and 8yo’s together to cook the books in fact the combined % rivals beaten for 7yo’s and 8yo’s was 52.5%. If you look at 7yo’s on their own their figure comes out at 53%.April 14, 2019 at 13:05 #1417522potatoBlocked
- Total Posts 832
The reason I went last 4 years and not last 10 years Is because the previous 5 years it was 10 and 11yos who won all 5.
Now the last 5 winners are 8 and 9yos.
There has been a shift in the dominant age group hence why I shifted with it.
Is it down to chance that the last 5 winners are now younger?
No the reason is because the fences and therefor the race is much easier now.
The race used to favour experience which tends to come with age hence older horses used to do better than there younger and fresher legged rivals.
Now however the race doesnt rely so much on chase experience as it used to and now the younger legs have an advantage.
This is why 8 year olds will continue to dominate though not necessarily next year as Tiger is a once every 50 years horse so the stats could be torn up with these types.
It’s unlikely you will see a 7yo winner anytime soon. The reason for this is the race is more high class than it used to be with better horses, if you have a high class staying 7yo then the owners would almost certainly want to go gold cup, king george etc ie a top class grade 1 chase as opposed to a handicap.
That’s not to say a 7yo couldn’t win the race but it remains unlikely and even if one did win it would still be an age to avoid.
You would need something like LOSTINTRANSLATION now and would have to make the decision you are going to send this horse to all the wrong races next season and train him with the grand national in mind.
No owner in there right mind would want this type of horse to be targeted at the national so it must go king george, gold cup, betway bowl etc. You have to chase the grade 1.
A lower class 7yo is likely to lack experience and the test and occasion will be to much for most horses that age.
If the horse isnt good enough for these races and you dont think it will get any better then you can campaign your horse as an 8yo with the national as the target.
Just no need whatsoever to send a decent 7yo to this race.April 14, 2019 at 16:57 #1417645He Didnt Like GroundParticipant
- Total Posts 364
Potato I’d say say lostintranslation is alot more likely to be running in the gold cup , looking currently at Tizzards horses , thistlecrack is getting on , doubt we,ll him at Cheltenham next year , native river needs a softer ground as his, speed been blunted , I’m hoping they have the courage to go to the grand national with him , elegant escape in my eyes is a handicapper , if he was mine it would be welsh national , 4 miler at Cheltenham then grand nationalApril 14, 2019 at 17:40 #1417647
potato: You have admitted here you have ignored the previous running’s to back up your own analysis, something you accused someone else of doing. 4 years is just not enough data, you say you looked at that because the fences have changed but they changed 6 years ago, so why not use 6 years? The problem though is by just using winners you have restricted your sample size to just those 4 horses. What would you have said if in 2018 the photo was reversed and Tiger Roll had lost by a head instead of winning by a head?
The issue isn’t about whether 8yo’s (who do run well, there’s no doubt about that) 7yo’s, 9yo’s etc are better suited it’s how you come up with that that is important. To do a meaningful trends analysis you need a large sample size and you have to take into account how all the horses ran, not just 4. As Ginge and myself have said you have to take into account how they are expected to run. Use something like impact values they are easy enough to calculate. I found this today take a look and take particular notice of the last two paragraphs. https://www.timeform.com/horse-racing/features/rowley/the-timeform-knowledge-measuring-trends-and-effects-2082015
Winners only is a flawed way of looking at things which is why so much draw analysis is poor. And remember ultimately trends analysis can be useful but cannot replace knowledge of individual horses.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.