- This topic has 57 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
It’s what makes you who you are Ginge! We all know you and love you! Well I do anyway
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I agree with GT. I wonder if all you after-timers were begging, borrowing and stealing everything you could get your hands on and laying DA at Epsom?
My dear PC – we are being asked for the biggest training error of a year that has passed. Surely we are ALL after-timing?
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
My dear rubber johnny. Try after-timing one where the horse didn’t win the ST James Palace Stakes very shortly afterwards?
Anyone who thinks the Derby ”Ruined” Dawn Approach needs their head testing.
The horse looked far from ”Ruined” when winning the St James Palace next time out, If I’d have owned him, I’d have ran him in the Derby to, you only live once and a horse only gets to run in the Derby once, It’s better to regret something you do, rather than something you don’t do, as the old cliche goes if you don’t buy a ticket you can’t win the raffle!
I agree with Ginger more people would be on here complaining had DA not run, different set of circumstances but someone put the biggest mistake being Magician not going for the Derby …
I personally can’t think of a training decision so bad that it springs to mind over all others.
I would have thought a training error would have to be based on the information prior to the race rather than after.
No one would run Dawn Approach in the Derby if they knew how he ran in it.
It makes little difference to Dawn Approach or his owners however, he’s still worth millions.The more good horses run in the good races, the better for us all.
Agreed Danny and Yeats.
Nothing, NOTHING, will ever be a worse training decision than George Margarson running Young Mick at the bloody Shergar Cup (!) and getting an extra 4b for The Ebor he was beat a couple of short heads in!
Me being on in a big way for about 4 months in 2006 is merely a coincidence. 7 years has healed nothing. The Shergar Bloody Cup George? How could you?
I would have thought a training error would have to be based on the information prior to the race rather than after.
No one would run Dawn Approach in the Derby if they knew how he ran in it.
It makes little difference to Dawn Approach or his owners however, he’s still worth millions.The more good horses run in the good races, the better for us all.
It is pretty pointless saying that no one would have run Dawn Approach in the Derby if they knew how he ran in it. That is self explanatory and is just the same as saying that EVERY trainer would run their horse in the Derby if they knew it was going to win.
What we are talking about is whether it was a good idea to run him based on what we KNEW before the race. It is all very well talking hindsight and after-timing but some of us thought it was a bad idea BEFORE the race.
The trainer not entering the horse for the race is the ultimate evidence regarding what he thought about the horse being a Derby contender. The trainer also said a mile was as far as they would want to go with the horse. I don’t believe for one minute that an eleventh hour volte-face on the part of Jim Bolger was due to the owner suddenly knowing more about the horse and the training of him than the trainer himself.
You say it matters little to the owners because the horse is worth millions. Sheikh Mohammed said before the Derby that if Dawn Approach won he would be the best horse in the world and if he didn’t he would be the best miler in the world. We now know that neither statement is true and I don’t think a man with as much money as the Sheikh could draw a lot of comfort out of the fact that his non-stayer is still worth a few quid.
I agree that it is good to see top horses compete in class races, but surely it is best if they have a chance of being fully effective under race conditions. Dawn Approach’s contribution to this years Derby was almost entirely in the build up to the race and the anticipation of how he would perform. Shortly after the stalls opened he was an also ran.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Have you ever noticed that some people have an excuse for EVERY run that doesn’t back up their argument, yet every horse they point to ran in a race where EVERY runner gave their exact running?
Marvelous stuff!
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I’ve just thought of one and it is certainly far more meritorious, if that’s the right word than those discussed so far.
Aurora’s Encore
The bleating about a 15lb rise in the handicap and then running the horse off the higher mark only 2 weeks after his National victory in the Scottish National (no surprise he was pulled up) when they could have waited a further 7 days and run in the Whitbread off a 4lb lower mark than he ran in the National and 15lb lower than he ran off in the Scottish National would take some beating.
I did wonder whether the temptation to record a first Aintree/Scottish National double in the same season since the year dot overtook more rational thought where Auroras Encore was concerned.
Mind, with at least one of the co-owners hailing from Scotland, you do wonder whether Douglas Pryde, Jim Beaumont and David van der Hoeven had at least as much say in the matter as the Smiths, if not more.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
It is pretty pointless saying that no one would have run Dawn Approach in the Derby if they knew how he ran in it. That is self explanatory and is just the same as saying that EVERY trainer would run their horse in the Derby if they knew it was going to win.
What we are talking about is whether it was a good idea to run him based on what we KNEW before the race. It is all very well talking hindsight and after-timing but some of us thought it was a bad idea BEFORE the race.
I agree that it is good to see top horses compete in class races, but surely it is best if they have a chance of being fully effective under race conditions. Dawn Approach’s contribution to this years Derby was almost entirely in the build up to the race and the anticipation of how he would perform. Shortly after the stalls opened he was an also ran.
But you
are
"talking hindsight" Steve. Saying you
thought
Dawn Approach would not stay – is
not
the same as saying Dawn Approach has
no
chance of staying and should
not run
.
The SP was 5/4, considering it was a bookmakers price with a mark up – the market suggested Dawn Approach had around a 42% chance of winning, so around a 58% chance of not winning. If the horse BEFORE the race had so little chance to be not worth running – please answer these questions if you can Steve…
Without Hindsight, what percentage chance did you believe Dawn Approach had of winning the race?
Were all the punters (layers on exchanges as well as well as backers with bookmakers) so wrong that he had a…
a) 5% (fair 20/1) chance? So BEFORE the race – would you have gladly laid Dawn Approach @ say 14/1 if only available at 14/1?
b) 10% (fair 9/1) chance? So would you have laid it if only available @ say 7/1?
c) 15% (fair 11/2)? Would you have laid it @ around 9/2?
d) 20% (fair 4/1)? Laid @ 100/30? This half of what the betting market suggested!
e) 25% (fair 3/1)? Gladly laid it @ 5/2?
f) 30% (fair 9/4)? Laid @ 2/1?
g) 35% (fair 15/8) Laid @ 13/8?
So
how wrong
was the market?
7% wrong (g) (42 – 35 = 7)?
Or 12% (f)?
Or 17% (e)?
Or 22% (d)?
Or 27% (c)?
Or 32% (b)?
Or 37% (a)?At what
percentage chance
is Dawn Approach thought of as
"should not run"
?
Value Is EverythingGinger, I am only coming back into this as you are one of my favourites on here.
Sometimes in life you cannot express things as a percentage. Percentages can be very misleading. Often the media will state something that sounds totally shocking when given as, e.g., a 40% increase, when in fact it is a very small rise on an already low stat in reality. You can do a lot of funny things with numbers depending on how you frame the equation. As an example I would frame the equation as :-
"To what percentage did connections overrate the chance of Dawn Approach staying the Derby trip?"
The answer is, of course, 100%, because the horse ran like a kipper on a George Foreman grill.
I have watched nearly every Derby since tipping Grundy in 1975 as a tender schoolboy. I don’t claim to be the master of day in day out racing but I have a good Derby record over the years and have always thought the best value was in opposing "fast" horses who probably won’t get the trip at Epsom. Looking at Dawn Approach this year I thought that his running style did not cry out Derby, neither did his profile compared to his sire. Add in the fact that he was not even entered in the race and I had enough evidence for ME to go against him. If I need to express that as a percentage, then I am afraid I can’t and I am not sure that I really need to because the bookies paid me out and didn’t ask how I arrived at my selection.
I cannot understand why you are going on about hindsight all the time. I posted my opinions well before the race and it is obvious I wouldn’t have been right or wrong until AFTER the race was run. Everything is hindsight, if you want to express it that way. Every tip you ever posted yourself only became a good or bad tip in hindsight, no matter how much studying you did and how many sources you used to reach your conclusion.
A lot of the money invested in Horse Racing markets is placed by, dare I say it on this forum, MUGS. As we have seen, regular winners get their accounts closed by firms. There are the "a little knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance" punters and then we have to add in the once a year punters on the Derby, who would never influence a run of the mill race "book"
Guineas winner will always be popular in the Derby Betting for the reasons given above. I will not be able to put an exact percentage on it for those who need to see a number to believe in, but if I see another similar type to Dawn Approach in next year’s Derby and see him at short odds, I will probably post here why I am against him. If I collect on an alternative runner at bigger odds, I won’t sweat the fact that I didn’t rate him a 78% chance of being placed in the race.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I posted my opinions well before the race
Where did you say Dawn Approach should not run Steve?
Value Is EverythingThe point about "hindsight" Steve is you are judging the "biggest trainer error of the year" by hindsight. Something that was not available to the trainer at the time a decision had to be made whether to run or not.
If you can not see the unfairness of doing so – I suppose any trainer who’s horse died in a race should’ve known better too?
Value Is EverythingThe point about "hindsight" Steve is you are judging the "biggest trainer error of the year" by hindsight. Something that was not available to the trainer at the time a decision had to be made whether to run or not.
If you can not see the unfairness of doing so – I suppose any trainer who’s horse died in a race should’ve known better too?
I always used to get who’s and whose mixed up as well. Not that it matters… much.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.