- This topic has 223 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi guys, first-time poster here.
I’ve been looking at the Arc market over the past couple of days and Fascinating Rock’s price is jumping out at me. He’s currently available at 70 on the Betfair Exchange which looks absolutely massive. Do you think this is an indication that he is unlikely to run in the race? I believe Weld had said earlier in the season that he was intending to run him in the Arc, but maybe his reluctance to put him in against Harzand at the weekend means this is now unlikely. I’ve had a nibble anyhow.
i dont put alot of substance on the figures attained in the epsom derby due to the idiosyncrasies of the track,same applies to chester(for me anyway)
Also i find it hard to pin down figures for races in france,due to the way lot of the french races are run.Hence way frankie nicks alot from the front in france.Final point at ascot and doncaster (since being relaid) i dont not put massive figures on wide margin winners at these tracks
just my take on it,but probably an old man talking b*llocks
Personal opinion is based on whether you believe that the figures awarded are accurate. One rating, based on one run can easily be inaccurate.
Handicappers tend to raise horses quickly and then downrate them very slowly.
Foundation was awarded 110 for the Royal Lodge and has pretty much stunk the place out, but it’s only now, after the connections have tried every trick in the book with the horse, that the handicappers have lowered him by 3 lbs to 107.
I don’t share your implicit belief in the handicappers getting it bang on. My gut feeling was that the Derby winner this year would be in the Ruler Of The World territory of 120, in fact I felt it was possible coming in that it might duck under the 120 mark.
For me, the possibility exists that US Army Ranger is simply showing that he is not really a group 1 horse.
What do you call “not really a Group 1 horse” Steve? If you mean not capable of winning a top Group 1 (eg Arc or Breeders Cup) without improving – I agree with you. Personally, “not really a Group 1 horse” means not capable of finishing in the first 3 of an ordinary Group 1 or first 6 in an Arc without improving – we disagree.
Handicappers don’t get it right every time and I like looking out for horses they get wrong. However, personally I can’t just believe something is wrong without good reason. I don’t go by “gut feeling”, or I’ll look for a reason why my gut feeling is correct. Yes, “one run in one race” can be flattering, but there needs to be good reason for thinking that run flattering. Has the form not worked out? When first and third go on to be first and second in the Irish Derby with daylight back to the rest – it franks the Epsom form. When Idaho goes on to be an easy winner of the Voltigeur it franks the Epsom form. Wings Of Desire was below his best in the Derby, but it doesn’t do the form any harm to run Highland Reel so close at Ascot in Britain’s premier all aged 12f race. So if USAR was flattered in the Derby there must be a reason why he was individually flattered. Did the pace suit? I know the pace was too fast – as I said at the time – favouring those coming from the rear (eg USAR) but was it really enough to be flattered so much? Possibly USAR could be rated as third best in the Derby, just behind Idaho – imo no more than that. Can you see another reason why he was individually flattered Steve? With doubts about temperament and a possibility of slightly favoured by pace at Epsom – I am not a great fan of USAR as a racehorse either. However, to put up a performance that good after only two runs in his life, it would not be surprising to see more improvement if his problems can be ironed out.
In Ruler Of The World’s case he beat Libertarian 1 1/2 lengths, with two short heads back to Galileo Rock and Battle Of marengo. Third beaten a similar distance in both Irish Derby (by Trading Leather) and St Leger (by Leading Light. Libertarian finished 1/2 a length behind Galileo Rock in latter, his best performance after Epsom. Battle Of Merengo beaten a length in King Ed by Hillstar on his only good run afterwards.
So, on “form” I’d say Ruler Of The World’s Derby is inferior to Harzand’s, although ROTW probably improved afterwards. Reputation not done any favours by inconsistency.
Ruler Of the World finished too bad to be true in Irish Derby (sweated). Then, winner got first run in a slowly run Prix Niel – fair second, beaten short head. Not a good 7th in Arc before a career best performance a close 3rd, beaten just a neck and 1/2 length by Farhh and Cirrus Des Aigles in Champion Stakes. (See Steve, career best performance in 3rd). Only good run the following year probably flattered – making all under Frankie in slowly run Foy and getting first run on subsequent Arc second Flintshire.
Value Is EverythingIt’s an interesting argument Steve makes about form and how some horses get overrated. I’ve long thought that myself. In fact this effects the prices of horses at stud as well. I’m sure a horse rated 115 rather than 105 can command much better stud fees. So handicappers have got a lot to answer for
Handicappers tend to raise horses quickly and then downrate them very slowly.
Foundation was awarded 110 for the Royal Lodge and has pretty much stunk the place out, but it’s only now, after the connections have tried every trick in the book with the horse, that the handicappers have lowered him by 3 lbs to 107.
What do you expect handicappers to do with Foundation?
Didn’t you back Foundation once for something ante-post Steve? So presumably you once saw something good in his form?Only in May, Foundation was only beaten a neck and 1 1/2 lengths by Wings Of Desire (who’s only beaten 1 1/4 lengths in the King George since) and Deauville (who’s since gone on to win a Grade 1 in America). Foundation probably ran right up to his Royal Lodge form there, so the handicapper is limited in the amount he can drop Foundation.
Handicappers do drop them sometimes when believing they got previous races wrong. But also drop horses if believing a horse no longer capable of his best form. Foundation has been gelded and still looks a right dog, increasingly temperamental and probably no longer capable of his best so has been dropped a few pounds.
Value Is EverythingHi guys, first-time poster here.
I’ve been looking at the Arc market over the past couple of days and Fascinating Rock’s price is jumping out at me. He’s currently available at 70 on the Betfair Exchange which looks absolutely massive. Do you think this is an indication that he is unlikely to run in the race? I believe Weld had said earlier in the season that he was intending to run him in the Arc, but maybe his reluctance to put him in against Harzand at the weekend means this is now unlikely. I’ve had a nibble anyhow.
Welcome to the forum TheGun.
Very much doubt Fascinating Rock will turn up in the Arc. Did Weld say the Arc was the target before he Harzand won the Derby? FR is only 7/1 for the Champion Stakes so makes sense for him to go there and Harzand Arc, unless that is – it looks like being firm at Ascot and soft in Chantilly (Fascinating Rock better on soft thn firm). Sorry TheGun, 70 does indeed represent the chance of running imo.Value Is EverythingI liked the 20-1 available for New Bay, and I would like to think he has an each way chance. I am hoping that will make it on the day, and along with the 8-1 I took on La Cressonniere I am hopeful of some sort of return.
I think ol’ Judge is missing Gore 🙂
That Stockholm Syndrome can strike even the sensible!
Handicappers tend to raise horses quickly and then downrate them very slowly.
Foundation was awarded 110 for the Royal Lodge and has pretty much stunk the place out, but it’s only now, after the connections have tried every trick in the book with the horse, that the handicappers have lowered him by 3 lbs to 107.
What do you expect handicappers to do with Foundation?
Didn’t you back Foundation once for something ante-post Steve? So presumably you once saw something good in his form?Only in May, Foundation was only beaten a neck and 1 1/2 lengths by Wings Of Desire (who’s only beaten 1 1/4 lengths in the King George since) and Deauville (who’s since gone on to win a Grade 1 in America). Foundation probably ran right up to his Royal Lodge form there, so the handicapper is limited in the amount he can drop Foundation.
Handicappers do drop them sometimes when believing they got previous races wrong. But also drop horses if believing a horse no longer capable of his best form. Foundation has been gelded and still looks a right dog, increasingly temperamental and probably no longer capable of his best so has been dropped a few pounds.
I backed Foundation ante-post before the Royal Lodge, at that stage he looked promising. He won the Royal Lodge but then got beaten in the Racing Post Trophy when Frankie was less than stellar in the saddle.
Obviously when that happens, confidence is dented.
Come the spring of this season it seemed that there was some doubt as to whether Foundation would go for the 2000 Guineas. As I recall, you backed him for that race.
In the end they ran Foundation in the Craven. I was convinced even before they hot the winning line that day, that Foundation hadn’t trained on. He was immediately ruled out of the Guineas, which you felt was a mistake.
That’s where we differ in a big way, I simply accept that I backed a “Wrong un'”, whereas you seem to give excuses and then give the horse another chance.
As a former scientist, I look for the anomaly in a series of data. Just like US Army Ranger, with his Derby run sitting above the other efforts, Foundation’s run in the Dante looks like an anomaly in the context of his other runs this season.
When you see several poor runs and then only one that “might” be good, it sets alarm bells off for me. Why would a horse be something like its best on one occasion, in, particularly the middle, of a sequence of otherwise poor efforts?
I have noticed that this has a habit of happening in a highly rated races and it can’t be coincidence.
There seems this faith that because a race has a certain classification, it automatically means it must be a good standard. I have seen some awful group races over the years but people will insist it’s solid because it is a group 2 or whatever.
There is also a danger of getting over excited about some of the UK horses winning these big money US pots. I think the race Deauville won in America was bobbins. The runner up came in as a horse beaten in G3 company the time before.
Deauville went on to run third to Mondialiste in the Arlington Million. That was a race run on concrete and where a fag paper would have covered the bulk of the field in a series of necks and heads as the margins a worrying way down the finishing order, strongly suggesting mediocrity.
Anyway, I’ve put my case as far as I feel I can and it’s up to others to decide how they feel. For me, I feel that taking some of the ratings with a pinch of salt, it can lead to better odds on the opposition and I think we are all in agreement that value is essential in this game.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Nice to see So Mi Dar back on track such a shame about her setback as she could of been in the mix for this.
Do we know if she goes for the Prix de l’Opera or will she be heading to Ascot on Champions Day…?Blackbeard to conquer the World
Us Army Ranger was beaten by
4 l behind Success Days OR 114 who was 11/12 23 l behind Almanzor in the IRE Champn. Stks. in his next and latest run.
3,25 l behind Fascinating Rock OR 123 (same race as above, 10 furlongs) his next run will probably be over 10 f again.
0,75 l behind Moonlight Magic OR 116 (same race as above, 10 furlongs) 6/12 6 l behind Almanzor in the IRE Champn. Stks. in his next and latest run.
USARs latest race was 20 days later than the above mentioned and over 12 f, so I would expect him to be racefit but this time he couldn’t beat a (I admit she is improving) 4-y-o filly giving him 6 lbs Zhukova OR 115 and USAR was only 2 l in front of OR 115 Bondi Beach 0.75 l behind Bondi Beach was OR 102 Tree Of Knowledge.
This all tells me the horse needs downrating, his currently 119 is still to much and the form from Epsom is unlikely to be reproduced soon. He peaked on the right day but finished runner up to Harzand.Best Wishes
SilkJC Rouget is having a brilliant season and I can’t help but feel that he will top it off with an arc win with La Cressoniere. It will only be a small wager as she has to prove she stays the trip but with Rouget in great group 1 winning form, I will follow him.
I love the boy Postponed though, he has progressed into a superb racehorse this year and I wouldn’t begrudge him a win in this race.
Nice to see So Mi Dar back on track such a shame about her setback as she could of been in the mix for this.
Do we know if she goes for the Prix de l’Opera or will she be heading to Ascot on Champions Day…?Connections hinted that the L’opera was her next target and that they will look to keep her in same sex races for the remainder of the season.
I’m glad she showed no ills from her injury today and hopefully she can progress into a nice one.Handicappers tend to raise horses quickly and then downrate them very slowly.
Foundation was awarded 110 for the Royal Lodge and has pretty much stunk the place out, but it’s only now, after the connections have tried every trick in the book with the horse, that the handicappers have lowered him by 3 lbs to 107.
What do you expect handicappers to do with Foundation?
Didn’t you back Foundation once for something ante-post Steve? So presumably you once saw something good in his form?Only in May, Foundation was only beaten a neck and 1 1/2 lengths by Wings Of Desire (who’s only beaten 1 1/4 lengths in the King George since) and Deauville (who’s since gone on to win a Grade 1 in America). Foundation probably ran right up to his Royal Lodge form there, so the handicapper is limited in the amount he can drop Foundation.
Handicappers do drop them sometimes when believing they got previous races wrong. But also drop horses if believing a horse no longer capable of his best form. Foundation has been gelded and still looks a right dog, increasingly temperamental and probably no longer capable of his best so has been dropped a few pounds.
I backed Foundation ante-post before the Royal Lodge, at that stage he looked promising. He won the Royal Lodge but then got beaten in the Racing Post Trophy when Frankie was less than stellar in the saddle.
Obviously when that happens, confidence is dented.
Come the spring of this season it seemed that there was some doubt as to whether Foundation would go for the 2000 Guineas. As I recall, you backed him for that race.
In the end they ran Foundation in the Craven. I was convinced even before they hot the winning line that day, that Foundation hadn’t trained on. He was immediately ruled out of the Guineas, which you felt was a mistake.
That’s where we differ in a big way, I simply accept that I backed a “Wrong un’”, whereas you seem to give excuses and then give the horse another chance.
As a former scientist, I look for the anomaly in a series of data. Just like US Army Ranger, with his Derby run sitting above the other efforts, Foundation’s run in the Dante looks like an anomaly in the context of his other runs this season.
When you see several poor runs and then only one that “might” be good, it sets alarm bells off for me. Why would a horse be something like its best on one occasion, in, particularly the middle, of a sequence of otherwise poor efforts?
I have noticed that this has a habit of happening in a highly rated races and it can’t be coincidence.
There seems this faith that because a race has a certain classification, it automatically means it must be a good standard. I have seen some awful group races over the years but people will insist it’s solid because it is a group 2 or whatever.
There is also a danger of getting over excited about some of the UK horses winning these big money US pots. I think the race Deauville won in America was bobbins. The runner up came in as a horse beaten in G3 company the time before.
Deauville went on to run third to Mondialiste in the Arlington Million. That was a race run on concrete and where a fag paper would have covered the bulk of the field in a series of necks and heads as the margins a worrying way down the finishing order, strongly suggesting mediocrity.
Anyway, I’ve put my case as far as I feel I can and it’s up to others to decide how they feel. For me, I feel that taking some of the ratings with a pinch of salt, it can lead to better odds on the opposition and I think we are all in agreement that value is essential in this game.
“Why would a horse be something like its best on one occasion, in, particularly the middle, of a sequence of otherwise poor efforts”?
Temperament – Foundation
Injury – US Army RangerYou’ve still not said for what possible reason you believe USAR was flattered in the Derby? Yes, when a horse has one stand out performance alarm bells can ring, but there still needs to be a reason for the horse to be flattered. If unable to find one and the fact form has worked out (what Harzand and Idaho did afterwards) then I always think it’s likely that – despite being a stand out – it is true form. I don’t just dismiss a run because it does not fit in with my thoughts/previous thoughts about a horse.
As far as Foundation is concerned:
I believe it a mistake for connections to miss the Guineas if they wanted Foundation to win an English Classic, because I did not believe he’d stay 1m4f. Where as mile and a quarter horses are often effective at a mile that early in the season. If wanting to take the French Derby route they could’ve easily gone there from the Guineas. My opinion of Foundation’s stamina seems to have been vindicated last time out; weakening badly in the final stages of a 1m4f race. Doubt he’ll ever race over that trip again.I think the Dante proves Foundation has “trained on” as such, the horse just has temperament issues (as I’ve said before) therefore inconsistent and suspect he’ll be rated by Timeform with a “d” in Racehorses Of 2016, for on the downgrade since York. Yes, I backed Foundation for the Guineas – looking back I do wonder why? We all make mistakes. But please don’t make out I haven’t changed my mind about the horse. As with all runners, I look to see if there was a reason for a horse not performing/flattered etc. Often getting a good price about one with a valid excuse. Remember Aurora’s Encore @ over 100/1? Had more than one poor run to ignore, but had the valid excuse of being a Spring horse.
Yes, the Belmont Derby 2nd Highland Sky had been beaten in a Group 3 race the time before, but had only three races in its life before, with non-stop progression. The third horse Beach Patrol went on to win the Grade 1 Secreteriat on his next start – but you don’t mention that. Deauville’s 3rd in the Grade 1 Arlington Million at least as good form as his win. Distances indicative of the modest pace in both races rather than poor form. But am not suggesting either Belmont Derby or Arlington Million were tip top Grade 1’s anyway. It just (again) highlights the Dante form to be not as bad as you like to portray.
Value Is EverythingThis is pointless.
I make a point about not all races living up to their grade and you come back at me with the Grade 1 Secretariat.
The third horse in Deauville’s race, Beach Patrol, is rated 107 by the Racing Post, he beat Long Island Sound, rated 106 and American Patriot rated 106 in the Secretariat race you mention. One Mean Man, half a length back in 4th is well enough exposed on a rating of 103.
There are plenty enough horses in these formlines whose ratings lie between the 100 and 110 band, to suggest the level of performance is what it is and not Group 1 level by a fair old way.
It’s not top class form, end of.
No point in arguing any further. The last word can be had and I will leave it with you.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
This is pointless.
I make a point about not all races living up to their grade and you come back at me with the Grade 1 Secretariat.
The third horse in Deauville’s race, Beach Patrol, is rated 107 by the Racing Post, he beat Long Island Sound, rated 106 and American Patriot rated 106 in the Secretariat race you mention. One Mean Man, half a length back in 4th is well enough exposed on a rating of 103.
There are plenty enough horses in these formlines whose ratings lie between the 100 and 110 band, to suggest the level of performance is what it is and not Group 1 level by a fair old way.
It’s not top class form, end of.
No point in arguing any further. The last word can be had and I will leave it with you.
Steve, I am sorry you’re finding it difficult to understand, probably my fault, I’ll give it one last try.
I agree that not all races live up to their grade, have made the same point myself on TRF many times. However, they are seldom massively below the grade.
The point I am trying to make is that you keep on about Foundation not training on from 2 to 3, and part of your arguement is what you see as a poor Group 2 Dante… And yet the 2nd – Deauville – has gone on to win the Grade 1 Belmont Derby, a race where the 3rd in that race next time out won the Grade 1 Secreteriat… Deauville also went on to be a close 3rd in the Grade 1 Arlington Million… And Dante winner Wings Of Desire has gone on to finish a good 2nd in Britain’s premier 3yo+ 1m4f Group 1.
I am not saying these performances are real “top class” Group/Grade 1 form, indeed I doubt whether Deauville improved much if at all to win/place in those two US Grade 1‘s. I am quite willing to believe Deauville a true Group 2 class animal and Wings Of Desire needs to improve to win an up to scratch Group 1 too.
So, although the Deauville/Wings Of Desire form may not be real “top class form”, I think it is stretching it somewhat for you to believe the Dante a poor 3yo Group 2. I am willing to believe the four Group/Grade 1’s are substandard, but for you to be correct all four have (it seems) all got to be massively substandard. One – probably, two – possible, three – unlikely, but four – ?
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.