- This topic has 115 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 22 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Good point well made Luke – if you had 33’s about Valiramix you would be happy but 11/4 is a scandalous price for a horse who was readliy put in his place by LL last season, and whose best form is on Flat tracks. Surely he will drift on the day a la Copeland.
Something doesn’t make sense to me there: if 11/4 is no good about a horse "who was readliy put in his place by LL last season, and whose best form is on Flat tracks" why is 33/1 any better? If the horses chance is as bad as you make out (which im not agreeing or disagreeing with) it doesn’t matter what price you’d get – you’d be losing your money.
robgomm! Shame on you!
Gimme a V, gimme an A, gimme an L, gimme a U, gimme an E – what’ve you got?
At 33/1 Valiramix is overpriced; at 11/4 Valiramix is underpriced. You owe it to yourself to take the thirty-threes and to resist the measly two-and-three-quarters.
My view (and it’s easier said than done) is that you should never back a horse unless you truly believe its chances have been underestimated by our bookmaker friends.
Because 33/1 was never a true reflection of his chance – the majority of the Western world were under the impression that the horse was going novice chasing and Mr Pipe and his merry band clearly had other ideas. And I can assure you Rob that if you frequently get 33/1 about an 11/4 shot you will make plenty of money in the long term.
I don’t think the horse will win, but I would gleefully snap up a price that was 10 times bigger – after all, there aren’t that many that have a realistic chance.
Escorial,you won’t have to wait long to see about Londoner. He runs at Taunton tomorrow with Mr McCoy on board. Methinks a trip to the Betting Exchanges is in order.:cool:
I agree, 33/1 was by no means a true reflection of his chances.
But from what you said Valiramix will have it tough making the THREE never mind first so why back him at 33/1?
If you don’t think a horse will win but you think it is overpriced at 33/1 – why would you back it to win? Seems mad to me.
Was that word ALVUE rm?
…yes, something like that, Rob. The parable of Valueramix, maybe.
Every horse has its chance. Every horse, therefore, has its price. As Smithy says, if you are lucky or skillful enough consistently to find 33/1 about a horse whose true chance is more like 7/1 you will in the long-term do very nicely thank you. Sometimes, of course, they will lose. But sometimes they will win (even if you don’t think so!).
<br>escorial
"the concensous of opinion was that valrimix would have beaten landing light both times"
sorry but i have not heard that before neither at sandown in discussions on various forums and nor did commentators in chaseform or perspective claim this or from memory did either ratings review or the rp race reviewer claim this
he did make mistakes but one should not go overboard
esc
sorry esc i forgot to type it i was actually referring to the word unlucky in your prior comment (the word might not being as emphatic as unlucky) however a different summary to perspective whilst acknowledging his poor jumping "briefly looked a danger until finding no extra" but never claiming his jumping affected the result. similar to chaseform (they did comment on what a wonderfull novice chaser he would make)
still it would be boring if all had the same opinion
167
some simple facts :
1) valiramix got soundly beat off a mark of 143 in a handciap last year. yet just 2 runs later he is supposed to have improved enough to warrant a mark of 167!!
2) make a stand won less impressively off a mark of 140 before running away with with the CH on his VERY NEXT RUN
3) landing light won the race last year off a mark of just 133 beating rooster booster 3L getting 1lb and yet was fancied for the CH had it gone ahead and was rated 162 after just 2 more runs
4) copeland won off 142 very easily beating rooster booster 6L GIVING HIM 17LBs!!!! In pure figures that run was 21lbs BETTER than landing lights run in the race last year
is it really implausible to suggest this horse isnt up to CH form in his next 1 or 2 races given the above facts??
i really dont see what people have against this horse and if he was in the CH and i was assured impartiallity of the connections i really couldnt see him losing <br>
whereas valiramixs last handicp run was so much better wasnt it esc?!?!
i have NO problems with the fact valiramix MIGHT have improved this year.. i thought it too at first but given that his ONLY race is hard to assess ( and i dont see how you could possibly try and base it on hors la loi who hasnt exactly been the model of consistency in the past couple of years as the RP wrote "This should have been run to suit Hors La Loi III, but he failed dismally to confirm the promise he had shown against Baracouda at Ascot and remains one to have reservations about") i remain to be convinced
the relative slowness of the race is a concern but not conclusive and the ease with which he won goes some way to negating that anyway
Valiramix is friendless on Betfair – 5/1 available. Anything more to this than just reflecting his true chances ?
Dario – It could be considered fair to say that Landing Light, Copeland and Valiramix are NOT Champion Hurdle contenders AT ALL.
Personally I think the Champion hurdle is not great this year and that Landing Light has a decent chance. Copeland would certainly be on my list if he were running as he has the C/D form and the impressive Tote win (albeit on testing ground and stuffing a consistent loser).
Istabraq is the best horse in the race, although that doesn’t mean he’s a cert as we all know.
Maybe Bilboa will go close. After all, she beat Rodock at Sandown who previously hammered The French Furze who was previously defeated by Valiramix and Landing Light….form can be so damn complicated!
Well said Rob form is so complicated if it was a simple case of !lb = 1 length and work out the numbers I would be sending this e-mail from my Carribbean villa not my office !!!
Rodocks easy cantering win over TFF and subsequent defeat by Bilboa show the danger for me of Valiramix’s similar win ie What will happen when he has to stop cantering and actually battle for a victory ?? The 5/1 on betfair is a much more realistc price than the 11/4
Escorial you must be the only one who could consider Hor La Loi to be consistant this season???!Comparing the two races with Baracouda and Valiramix is pointless.Baracouda is a three miler and that run was on good ground where opposed to g/s against Valiramix.If you honestly believe he ran the same race against both you need your head examined.I aint even going to comment on you thinking he again ran the same race against Landing Light its pointless.<br>
I should start by saying my 2m hurdle ratings are looking at least as accurate as ever this season (since I abandoned the ne median race times as an element in the calculations and reverted to the old standard times) and have concluded the following, after the TGT.
Valiramix is now rated 158++ with Copeland improving to 156+p.
I did not see Valiramix’s Newbury race but the Raceform comment says ‘hard held’, so the ‘++’ would represent whatever the seasoned observer would reasonably interpret him as having in hand.
I had doubted Copeland’s Cheltenham win – wrongly, obviously – and his form last Saturday stands up to the closest inspection. I susoect the form is marginally better than my bare ratings, hence the ‘+’ and the horse is clearly improving, hence the ‘p’.
The two factors together normally account for an average of 7 or 8lbs up next time, so Copeland could well hit 164 should he run in the Champion (he’s a possible for the stayers’, apparently) while only those who saw Valiramix can guess at what he had in reserve: 10 lengths? More? at 1lb = 1l you can work it out for yourself.
Istabraq, at his very best, would be capable of well over 170, to put things into perspective. Having said that, he hasn’t hit a mark anywhere near that recently.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.