- This topic has 203 replies, 69 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Some fascinating betting patterns in the 4.30 at Taunton today in light of the ride that Pacha D’Oudairies received on it’s previous run.
Some fascinating betting patterns in the 4.30 at Taunton today in light of the ride that Pacha D’Oudairies received on it’s previous run.
THE stewards at Taunton have referred comments made by trainer Paul Nicholls to the BHA after Pacha D’Oudairies beat stablemate Ocean Du Moulin in the 2m3½f novice hurdle.
The comments were referred under Instruction H19 1(b) which deals with the examination of previous runs.
Pacha D’Oudaries,ridden by Sam Thomas, was backed down to 2-1 on course to beat Ocean Du Moulin who was sent off the 10-11 favourite under Ruby Walsh.
Nicholls said that slowish ground had not suited the favourite while it "had taken a long time for the penny to drop"for the winner.
is comments regarding Gungadu were entirely reasonable and sensible from a handicapping point of view.
The idea that a trainer "knows" whether any of his horses will win is laughable . If anything they are probably too close to their horses and are less likely to be objective than the average punter.
.
I think thats a great point. A trainer can tell a horses wellbeing, whether it seems to be improving in itself, is in form etc but it can’t know whether or not it’ll win a race. Its like asking a football manager to do a fixed odds coupon they’d be no better at it than most guys in the street.
I think you are both being a little bit to general and naive. I do agree some trainers are biased towards their own horses but mainly with the more exposed ones.
If they are placing a young hurdlers they think can win and he’s got several options, they are on the phone to jockeys they know, other trainers or whoever. By the time the horse is placed they know prety much for certain what his chances are……..the racing grapevine stretches from John O’Groats to lands end……..no one is fixing races but they pass info among each other…….obviouslly some are unapproachable and some they don’t know well enough………..but if there’s specail horses going about half the jockeys in the country will know about it very quickly.
But as I say with saesoned horses they wouldn’t have a clue half the time if he will win or finished last……….some of these moderate animals will make a complete fool of a trainer by storming home at 33/1 and the trainer still wont knw how he manged to win
I don’t want to buy into this issue re Paul Nicholls, as I think it’s more likely he is trying to protect his owners’ betting profit potential, than maximise it by baldly making misleading statements. I think I saw the word "probably" in the context quoted upthread.
What does tickle me is when a trainer talks pessimistically about a horse acting on the likely going, and then thinks perhaps he’s overdone it, and then feverishly backtracks the next day, as I believe Charlie Mann did the other week. I cited his first pronouncement, and someone on here laid off bets he’d put on it and, understandably, a little bitterly reproached me by the message function on here, when Charlie back-tracked.
It must have been frustrating and baffling to him. Acting on prices can be "the quick and the dead", but to be beggared about like that would be pretty stressfuul. I can’t remember who it, but he was very gracious when I explained I was only quoting the SL, and he seemed in very good spirits again. Anyway, it turned out that it lost, anyway! So, maybe I did him a small favour, albeit inadvertently. I think he’ gone off it anyway by the time it went to post.
But that business about volumes of money and commensurate price changes, Clivex, is interesting, because I strongly suspect the big gamblers have a kind of symbiotic relationship with the bookies. I don’t expect it applied in the case cited, but I suspect that bookies might see it in their interest to keep the price of a particular horse higher in the sight of the general public, to deter the many who like to follow money more than form or anything else. In which case, it would presumably pay for them to give favourable terms to "connections" who provide them with inside info, without shortening the price, as they would have normally.
Why is it a sign of skulduggery if a second string wins?
Why shouldn’t the true second string be backed by the trainer, owners or stable lads?Say there are two horses working on the gallops.
Horse (A) beats horse (B) in a mile gallop by a length.
The two run in the same race and the word gets out “psssd, don’t tell anyone but (A) is the better horseâ€Value Is EverythingIn the opionated one’s column on page 8 of today’s Racing Post, Nicholls criticises the owners of the King George rag for entering a horse he used to train – Cerium, in the Gold Cup. He suggests that the minimum rating limit of 130 is too low and should be raised. On the same page he suggests that Rippling Ring will run in the Champion Hurdle as pacemaker for Celestial Halo.
This wouldn’t be the same Rippling Ring that has twice been stuffed in handicaps from a rating of 136 would it Paul?
Whilst he may not agree with the system as it is wouldn’t he be foolish not to use it to his advantage if he can? Why cut your nose off to spite your face?
For what it’s worth I agree with him regarding the current limited rating being too low surely no horse rated under 140 can be of any benefit to any Gold Cup?
In terms of Rippling Ring running as a pacemaker for Celestial Halo I think Nicholls is doing exactly the right thing for his horses benefit. I suggested a few weeks back in the Champion Hurdle thread that Nicholls may run a pacemaker and sit Celestial Halo in just behind the lead (Aidan O’Brien-esque) to ensure that Celestial Halo is finishing up the hill thus not enabling Binocular to pick him off as a beaten / tiring horse. Cheltenham’s hill saps stamina and Binocular ideally would want horses to be stopping slightly rather than powering up the hill infront of him.
Nicholl’s effectively is using a system he doesn’t like for his own benefit but why not? He’s not the person who makes the rules. I don’t see it as hypocrisy I see it as being smart and professional.
I agree with Paul Nicholls.
These 100-1 shots never win Gold Cups, do they? They shouldn’t be allowed to take part if they are only going to get in the way.
And while we are at it, maybe we should raise the minimum rating to 175 and restrict entry to the Championship races to horses trained by people with the initials PFN?
I agree with Paul Nicholls.
These 100-1 shots never win Gold Cups, do they? They shouldn’t be allowed to take part if they are only going to get in the way.
And while we are at it, maybe we should raise the minimum rating to 175 and restrict entry to the Championship races to horses trained by people with the initials PFN?
I think thats a bit harsh. Yes once in a blue moon you will get a Nortons Coin but how often? Is it of the overall benefit of the sport to allow rags to run and possibly creating an accident waiting to happen situation.
We had Foinavon win a national at 100/1 and Nortons Coin winning a Gold Cup but thats two in what 50 years? Isn’t it worth sacrificising the odd freak winner for the overall safety of the participants in an age where horses are genetically getting faster and faster which is innevitably likely to create less margin for error?
No.
Horses rated 130+ pose no greater risk to the other horses’ safety than any other participant.
Yes and while we’re at it why don’t we limit the Premier Division to Liverpool, Chelsea and Man Utd. Formula 1 can be reduced to McLaren and Ferrari and the next Rugby World Cup will have 4 teams. Why let sport ¨get in the way.¨
Give it a rest Mr Nicholls.
Would have thought a fancied horse in the County Hurdle was more likely to cause interference than a no hoper in the Gold Cup. Don’t see any problem at all, the safety limit covers that.
It seems I’m in the minority here in agreeing with Paul Nicholls which is fair enough its all about opinions.
I don’t think the Premiership parallel is an accurate one in that there is no safety aspect to consider.
I’m of the opinion that lower rated horses are more likely to be a danger to the safety of better class horses as they get in the way unless they’re held up at the back of the field. To be fair I don’t have any statistics to back up that view and I respect those whos views differ to my own.
Can you think of a horse whose chance has been seriously comprised by a no-hoper in any recent Cheltenham Championship race?
No – neither can I….
Can you think of a horse whose chance has been seriously comprised by a no-hoper in any recent Cheltenham Championship race?
No – neither can I….
No I can’t but the way things work is a gate usually gets locked after a horse has bolted. IF such an incident did occur there would be a major inquiry and people would be asking why something wasn’t done to prevent the catastrophe ever happening. Now obviously it isn’t possible to prevent every single problem but isn’t it visionary and sensible to prevent what you can?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.