- This topic has 54 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Nice win from a progessive animal.
Well done FSl on your work, good stuff on which more later.
Also well done Carlisle for pinpointing the winner and to all the Preacher Boy e/w mob.
Thanks RH and Cormack though getting 3rd isn’t what I was aiming for. The thing that did please me was that the first three home we all on my shortlist. However things clearly went wrong with regards to value. I’ll have a little ponder of the result.
FSL – the pressure is on here when you put one up but it’s one race and, in the context of your long term effectiveness as a punter, one result is meaningless.
What was interesting was your approach – many thanks for boldly putting your analysis up and for your obvious hard work.
Didn’t get much of a run for my money out of Bothar Na, and I am beginning to harbour serious reservations over his ability to jump with alacrity in classy, big-field handicaps. Worth keeping the faith for the Grand National after this performance? Not so sure just now.
gc<br>
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
Can’t say I’ve seen much of Botha Na since they switched him to handicaps but from watching him in hunters, I had him down as a weak finisher, found less than seemed likely at Cheltenham (possibly needed run), Aintree (badly hampered) and Punchestown (run out of excuses). Obiously he was beaten so far out today that this is no excuse for today’s performance
FSL – I thought that your analysis of the race was very good and the fact that first three were all on your shortlist means that you must be doing something right. Your process of eliminating horses because of certain factors such as going, distance etc is one that I often do.
One question – do you ever eliminate horses due to the trainer being out of form? I always take seriously the form of a trainer when considering bets but I am always unsure whether to ignore a horse solely because of it. Sod’s law states that the trainer will hit form as soon as I ignore one of their horses!
Trainer form is interesting. A factor I don’t really take into account properly but increasingly wonder whether I should give it more weight. You’d think twice before taking on any of Nicholls horses at the minute for example.
I wouldn’t eliminate a horse based on it, but it would certainly be taken into account when deriving prices for them.
FSL and Cormack.
After the Holy Trinity of form reading, (Going, Course and Distance), the recent form of the yard is THE key variable I take into account before striking a wager.
Under no circumstances would I bet on a horse if the stable had not had a recent winner, (say, two weeks), even if it looked like the re-incarnation of Sea Bird on paper.
There is one high profile stable on the sand who couldn’t win a seller with Shergar at the moment, and a couple over jumps.
It wouldn’t put me off backing an out of form stable provided the inmates at the yard are running to form and performing to the lollipop, whether winning or not the performance of the horse can often be misleading pending on the status of race the horse has been engaged into.
A good example – my bet tomorrow SALTRIO in the 2.20 at Wolverhampton. The stable of Mark Brisbourne haven’t had a winner since September. Saltrio runs over 15f however the horses running over middle distances have been running reasonably.
<br>May I suggest that the lesson to be taken from the Hennessy is not to under-rate the merit of wide margin victories at top grade tracks.
As our discussions on Detroit City and Kauto Star in recent weeks have shown, there are always people who look at a 15L win and argue – ‘what did he beat’. It almost seems that a horse gets more credit for a 5L success than for a 15L success.
State Of Play won by 16L at Aintree, but I’ve read several pundits this week in the press and online that dismissed that form as a ‘one-off’, or ‘out of line with his other form’. But that race stood the test of form, speed and competitiveness in my eyes, with Lacdoudal suggesting that State Of Play could have won the Betfred with similar ease.
Interestingly, the Aintree meeting produced two other wide margin winners – I’m using a definition of 4 lengths per mile – and they were Detroit City and Straw Bear!
One way I use to get a feeling for the merit of a race that can be usefully applied to this sort of performance, is to think about how I’d rate the race if the winner had been a non runner.
So if State Of Play hadn’t run at Aintree, how good would Lacdoudal have looked winning by 7L with top weight in a double figure field?
Looking ahead, Opera Mundi will get a hefty rise in the weights for winning by 22L yesterday – how will you assess him if he turns up in the big chase at Cheltenham in two weeks time?
AP
Quote: from Maxilon 5 on 10:25 am on Nov. 26, 2006[br]After the Holy Trinity of form reading, (Going, Course and Distance) <br>
<br>What happened to class/ability?
Excellent stuff apracing. Just the type of insight I ‘d hoped for when we started this series.
"State of Play could be the fly in the ointment but could have been flattered by margin of victory last time and stiff rise inflicted for that"
Re-reading my post on this thread I analysed what I said re State of Play. Utter, complete, illogical nonsense!
Why did I think he was ‘flattered by margin of victory last time’? I don’t know. Maybe he was but maybe he wasn’t. I didn’t really think about it, or analyse it, carefully enough. It was just a bland statement/conclusion made without really thinking which, I guess, is syptomatic of the type of muddled thought processes that a lot of us suffer from.
‘stiff rise inflicted’. So what? the ‘stiff rise’ should be judged on its context and its merits, using the mere fact that the horse has gone up a chunk in the weights is not evidence in itself to write it off.
There – slagged myself off but, hopefully learning!
Now, next week, I”ll back something which has gone up a stone for winning by twenty lengths and it’ll finish last!
<br>Corm,
I think it’s very easy to believe that when a horse you’ve never heard of beats a subsequent major race winner by a clear margin, that he must have been flattered.
One of the more difficult things to do when reviewing a race is to do so without being influenced by your pre-race perception of the likely outcome.
This oftens shows in the way that the majority will downgrade a race in which the favourite runs badly. In fact it happened on Friday when Boychuk beat Gungadu. The post race reaction on RUK was that Gungadu must have been below form and Boychuk was given little credit for winning the race.
AP
Quote: from cormack15 on 1:11 pm on Nov. 26, 2006[br]Why did I think he was ‘flattered by margin of victory last time’? I don’t know.
<br>cormack, it was perfectly ‘valid’ to take that stance – the race in question was at Aintree, a course which often gives rise to exaggerated winning distances.
nore
They are my three main factors which either propel me towards, or repel me from, a bet on a horse.
I think a couple of weeks back people were whacking up long lists of factors they take into account when making selections, but they are the first three I look for, rightly or wrongly.
Unless a horse has won over the distance on identical ground, I’ll more than likely throw it out regardless of class/ability. Course experience is highly important to my methods too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.