- This topic has 88 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 19 years ago by
.
- Posts
Reet Hard I never said all Group 1’s are the same, what I question is how relevant is identifying a "strong group 1" to future betting success.
For example if Nijinsky won a "weak group 1 event" it wouldn’t stop him winning a Group 1 against horses that had run in a "strong group 1" would it?
Anyone understand me or am I talking in riddles lol?
Regarding stable contemplation, RH, Stoute once campaigned Ajdal as a potential Derby horse before realising it was a sprinter. (Or having Tony Kimberley realise it for him).
But I don’t think we’ll ever be sure as most of the opportunities now are no longer than 1m 4f.
Flash, using the comparison with the World Cup, who would you back in the Quarter Final between the winners of these groups.<br><br>Group A                   Group B<br>Argentina                  South Korea<br>Germany                   Papua New Guinea<br>Brazil                     England<br>Italy                      Andorra
Theoretically, the stronger the race, the better the future opportunity.
Theory and practice are different though Max. I notice you put England in the "weak group", crafty ;) but I’m not falling for it. :biggrin:
Swap England with Germany and Germany are still capable of winning that World Cup despite coming from the weaker group.
That’s true, Flash. LOL. Was a bit sneaky.
It’s not an exact science, as you can see from the Derby analysis thread.
It’s just a guide really, one which sometimes works. This years Guineas is already proving a decent guide, so horses coming from it may pay to follow. There was a Wood Ditton run a few years ago which had about twelve subsequent winners in the same season – unfortunately, I spotted it too late.:biggrin:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.