- This topic has 180 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
Jackane
Not sure whether its your burgeoning maturity, or my approaching senility, but, for once, I agree with every word you say!:biggrin:
(Apart from your little faux pas with Seabird and Trackside, of course.:) )
Well I’d like to think it’s the former, but more likely the latter…..;)
I just think it’s very sad when people bring ratings into messages of condolences, when people bicker over who ran to merit when you get great races like the Nassau and King George this year. Anybody that felt no sentiment or emotion when Ouija Board won the Nassau is simply not human as far as I’m concerned! :biggrin:
Heck I was crying! And still found time to start the ‘3 Cheers for Ouija Board!’ (yes folks, that was me who started that chant)
We’ll ,if ratings mean NOTHING, looks like a fair few looking for new employment, HRA best start sacking a all their Handicappers, just think of money they’ve conned out of racing over years:o
EW, like I said in my post, show me more than 30 races a year that are EXACTLY run in order of ratings. And how many of yesterday’s winners were top rated?
In Bath’s 2nd race, a 12/1 shot beat a 10/1 shot, with another 10/1 in 3rd. The 7/4favourite came 10th. Apparently, based on ORs, the 3rd placed horse (75) should have won. Oh, and if ratings matter, then why was the 7/4favourite only rated 65?
And what on earth was the top rated horse in the 5th doing!?! Finished 4th! :o
In the 6th, the favourite was the top-rated. Based on you saying that ratings do matter EW, would you like to explain why he finished 7th?
At Hamilton in the 1st, why was the 2nd highest rated horse favourite? In the 2nd, the top rated came 3rd. Top rated favourite in the 3rd finished 2nd. A 40/1 shot won the 4th with a rating of 43. The top rated 67 horse finished 10th.
In the 5th, the favourite was rated 4 points behind the winner. The winner still wasn’t top rated. In the 6th, there were 7 rivals in the field that were rated higher or equal to the winner. And in the last, a horse of OR 55 won at 14/1. the favourite was also rated 55, but still no match for the top rated 59 horse.
Yes, it’s very obvious that ratings matter………if you backed the top rated horse in all 14 races at Bath and Brighton today, a profit of -£5.62 awaited you.
Anyway, it’s not the handicapper I’m having a go at. It’s the ratings that everyone argues about all the time. What’s the point? Do RPRs determine what weight the 30 runners carry in the Cambridgeshire? Does it really matter what rating George Washington is given for his QE2 win? Ratings change every single time a horse runs.
I’ll tell you what I needed to work out George Washington was special – my eyes. I WATCHED him in the Railway, the Phoenix, the National, etc – I didn’t look at no damn ratings, I didn’t muck around with who had the best topspeed figure or RPR. I didn’t care about ratings then, and I’m not going to care about them now.
(Edited by jackane24 at 3:03 am on Sep. 26, 2006)
Jackane
<br>There are many factors that effect the outcome of a race, and if a Top rated horse won every race then there would be no point to betting on racing. <br>If you believe ratings no good,then fine, but don’t diss people who work hard to produce em (but by all means query them if you think they’re wrong) and make it pay using em, espescially when you have no evidence of the opposite
People like (now banned) EC flag up horses that achieve good speedfigures, not all these horse go to win, but a fair few do, and so do some of the horses behind.
You mention Cav Okay’s failure but fail to mention Just Dust, who has been out of the frame once since being flagged up on this forum, today it won and you could have got 30.0+ on BF, others like Road to Love etc
Commercial ratings also make money
The Sportsman a month or two back published they were over 1k up to £10 stakes with thier Top rated, Timeform regularly claim monthly profits for their Top rated
Whether they make long term profits, i, like you probably, don’t know
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 5:19 am on Sep. 26, 2006)
Posted on 2:01 am on Sep. 26, 2006 <br>Well I’d like to think it’s the former, but more likely the latter…..
I just think it’s very sad when people bring ratings into messages of condolences, when people bicker over who ran to merit when you get great races like the Nassau and King George this year. Anybody that felt no sentiment or emotion when Ouija Board won the Nassau is simply not human as far as I’m concerned!
Heck I was crying! And still found time to start the ‘3 Cheers for Ouija Board!’ (yes folks, that was me who started that chant)
I am human and i was personally gutted when a 9/2 Alexander goldrun went down by a nose to an even money "nations favorite" ouija board in (wait for it) *THE NASSAU STAKES*, but was made up when a below par dylan thomas put her firmly in her place at leopardstown. Still, with plenty of spare phone credit and the absence of Popidol etc. the race watching sector of the nations muppetry voted the Nassau the highlight of the season on channel 4 recently, wasnt for me though…
But, i suppose if I dont love the much hyped and over publicised ouija board or Sgt Cecil (was jumping up and down when an 8/1 yeats routed him at ascot) then i probably dont love racing. Personally, I beleive that when a horse a horse gets a 3 or 4 big write ups and a 10 minute mini-documentary everytime they race, they’ll never be value for the task they are about to attempt.
I do not totally follow ratings and make most of my money in maidens, 2yo races etc. where there is more value available. But as a lover of great races i like to see a horse get a good honest rating which reflects their performance, eg if a horse wins an average QE2 in great style then i think he should get a great rating, if a horse wins a poor sussex or a poor derby then i think they should get a reflective rating as i hate picking up the racing post to see an overhyped horse splattered over the front page, but if they dont i can still capitalise in on the hype, and so its swings and roundabouts.
There are many factors which have an impact on a horse race and knowledge is power, so the more you take into consideration at the better prepped you will be, however, in group races it pays to give horses ratings thats how you know when they are out of their depth, like CM, Librettist and Proclamation on saturday, i have bet on librettist and Proclamation before but the fact that i had rated each horse told me that they werent likely to win, as there were two clearly better (and pretty consistant) horses in the field. And while those who dont care for ratings threw their money at the weaker horses all last week the better ones drifted.
Its these ratings that tell me that if george can run to form in the breeders cup mile that hes the cert of the competition.
We all have different ways of sorrting the weak from the tough for betting purposes, and i generally find that in debates and varying opinions on here you can think about things which you may have not already considered, and so to me it is not really sad to enter into discussion with people of different opinions on the merits of various top level horses.
"It’s the ratings that everyone argues about all the time. What’s the point?"
<br>Sorry missed this first time jackane, some people debate what they think a horse rating should be, the same way they debate who is the best commentator, the same as which jockey is best
Personally i don’t give a toss about which commentator/jockey is best, but do like to discuss races/ratings with like minded people, even if they don’t agree with me
<br>This is what these forums should be used for imo
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 4:18 am on Sep. 26, 2006)
My messages arent working EW, what did EC get banned for?
Is it easy to get thrown off here?
I find that many discussions see very strong opinions on here but its horse racing and strong views are part and parcel of any horse racing forum ive been on. Theres never any malice in it though.
Quote: from Bulwark on 4:48 am on Sep. 26, 2006[br]My messages arent working EW, what did EC get banned for?
Is it easy to get thrown off here?<br>.
1,<br>Summat to do with Books for Christmas thread i believe
2,
Think yer get a couple of warnings before being banned
<br>i’ve not seen any get banned for strong opinions Bulwark, they’re welcomed here as long as they’re conducted while showing respect to the other members your debating with and no abuse takes place
(Edited by empty wallet at 5:21 am on Sep. 26, 2006)
empty wallet Posted on 4:59 am on Sep. 26, 2006
——————————————————————————–<br>Quote: from Bulwark on 4:48 am on Sep. 26, 2006<br>My messages arent working EW, what did EC get banned for?
Is it easy to get thrown off here? <br>.<br>——————————————————————————–
1, <br>Summat to do with Books for Christmas thread i believe
2,
Think yer get a couple of warnings before being banned
<br>i’ve not seen any get banned for strong opinions Bulwark, they’re welcomed here as long as they’re conducted while showing respect to the other members your debating with and no abuse takes place <br> <br>Just read that thread, can agree with everyone on there, and thnk its all got out of hand, however i am new and dont know of any previous history, but found EC to be a very interesting forum member. Have been following the discussion with grasshopper and yourself about nh timings and as someone who doesnt usually follow the nh it was an interesting debate.
Quote: from Bulwark on 3:55 am on Sep. 26, 2006[br] Posted on 2:01 am on Sep. 26, 2006
But, i suppose if I dont love the much hyped and over publicised ouija board or Sgt Cecil (was jumping up and down when an 8/1 yeats routed him at ascot) then i probably dont love racing.  Personally, I beleive that when a horse a horse gets a 3 or 4 big write ups and a 10 minute mini-documentary everytime they race, they’ll never be value for the task they are about to attempt.
Its these ratings that tell me that if george can run to form in the breeders cup mile that hes the cert of the competition.
I wasn’t a huge fan of him towards the start of last year, but to do what he has done is incredible. You think he’s hyped? He won the 3 biggest staying handicaps of the year! He’s won 2 Group 2 ‘Cups’ this year, and may well get a Group 1 on Arc day! I really don’t understand how you think he’s hyped.
I understand where you’re coming from, ie. you see a horse run a couple of times and you make a judgement. Maybe you backed him at a short price and he didn’t come in for you or something. But I can and will always admit when I’ve been wrong about a horse.
I never liked Phoenix Reach before last season, but just looking at his race record you have to admire him. Wasn’t an amazing horse in the UK, but to go on and win 3 Group 1s is phenonenal. I think it’s a shame he’s been retired.
And how on EARTH can you say Ouija Board is over-hyped? She’s won 6 Group 1s! I’ll list them for you….The Oaks, Irish Oaks, Nassau Stakes, Hong Kong Vase, Prince of Wales Stakes, Breeders’ Cup Filly & Mare.
And then her other high-profile finishes…….2nd Breeders’ Cup Filly & Mare, 5th Japan Cup, 3rd in the Arc (and quite frankly should have won), 4th in the Dubai Sheema Classic, 3rd in the Singapore Cup, 2nd in the Coronation Cup, 2nd in the Irish Champion Stakes…….you’re talking about a filly/mare that we may never see the likes of for another 20 years.
I am adamant that she would have won the Derby had she run – the North Light Derby was full of non-stayers plus only a handful of decent sorts.
As for the George Washington comment – See there you go. I don’t need any ratings to tell me that.
EC getting banned – it’s a damn shame for this forum. He provoked interesting conversations, and was an all-together decent guy. I don’t care whether other people on here liked him or hated him, but he helped me out quite a bit and I’m very thankful to him for that.
Edit – Also Bulwark, the horse by the same name as your username – compared to Sergeant Cecil, what has he done? He has won 1 race this year, a Class 2 H’Cap at Haydock………sent off joint favourite in the Northumberland Plate, subsequently finished 9th………has earned a little over £60k, compared to Cecil’s £608,000………Sergeant Cecil beat Bulwark comprehensively in the Lonsdale Cup by over 9 lengths……….
If old Cecil is over-hyped, (god knows what class you rate him) then you must really think Bulwark is a real rag……..(rolls eyes)
By the way, Ouija Board has amassed over £2.5million…….will Bulwark be reaching that figure, or even Cecil’s, anytime soon?
(Edited by jackane24 at 7:42 am on Sep. 26, 2006)<br>
(Edited by jackane24 at 7:52 am on Sep. 26, 2006)
Quote: from jackane24 on 1:24 am on Sep. 26, 2006[br]
Quote: from seabird on 8:34 am on Sep. 25, 2006[br]
<br>People that study Timeform ratings on here, tell me – how many races a YEAR actually work out in EXACTLY the same order as the ratings tell you? I’d be shocked if there were more than 30 (bearing in mind you get plenty of races with 4/5 runners). Hell, how many races end up with the top 3 rated horses filling the first 3 places in order?
Like Reet Hard I thought that generally a good post Jackane. The scepticism even cynicism of the hard-bitten punter is emerging.
Blind faith in ratings is fast-tracking to the workhouse but I’ve yet to meet anyone thwho punts seriously that ignores them.
Unadjusted third-party form ratings i.e. those that do not take into account the race day conditions such as going, shape and pace are no more than a starting point and a guide to the relative merits of the field to which you add your own input/interpretation.
Personally I’ve long tried to use third-party ratings in a ‘negative’ sense i.e. I try to question them rather than treat them as gospel.
Your love/admiration/respect for the thoroughbred and the great game of racing and your obvious emotional attachment to it is genuinely heart-warming but if you have set your sights on becoming a profitable punter (and perhaps you haven’t, nowt wrong with that) then it is crucial that you don’t let emotions colour your thought processes and like many on here – all of whom I’ve no doubt enjoy racing for it’s own sake as much as you do – be prepared to discuss soberly the merits of a supposedly ‘great’ performance such as GW’s on saturday.
It is the hallmark of a succesful punter who also loves the game in it’s own right that he/she can relish seeing a great race/horse but immediately get down to the boring and monochrome business of considering it’s true worth in the cold light of day.
Quote: from Drone on 9:45 am on Sep. 26, 2006[br]
Quote: from jackane24 on 1:24 am on Sep. 26, 2006[br]
Quote: from seabird on 8:34 am on Sep. 25, 2006[br]
<br>People that study Timeform ratings on here, tell me – how many races a YEAR actually work out in EXACTLY the same order as the ratings tell you? I’d be shocked if there were more than 30 (bearing in mind you get plenty of races with 4/5 runners). Hell, how many races end up with the top 3 rated horses filling the first 3 places in order?
Like Reet Hard I thought that generally a good post Jackane. The scepticism even cynicism of the hard-bitten punter is emerging.
Blind faith in ratings is fast-tracking to the workhouse but I’ve yet to meet anyone thwho punts seriously that ignores them.
Unadjusted third-party form ratings i.e. those that do not take into account the race day conditions such as going, shape and pace are no more than a starting point and a guide to the relative merits of the field to which you add your own input/interpretation.
Personally I’ve long tried to use third-party ratings in a ‘negative’ sense i.e. I try to question them rather than treat them as gospel.
Your love/admiration/respect for the thoroughbred and the great game of racing and your obvious emotional attachment to it is genuinely heart-warming but if you have set your sights on becoming a profitable punter (and perhaps you haven’t, nowt wrong with that) then it is crucial that you don’t let emotions colour your thought processes and like many on here – all of whom I’ve no doubt enjoy racing for it’s own sake as much as you do – be prepared to discuss soberly the merits of a supposedly ‘great’ performance such as GW’s on saturday.
It is the hallmark of a succesful punter who also loves the game in it’s own right that he/she can relish seeing a great race/horse but immediately get down to the boring and monochrome business of considering it’s true worth in the cold light of day.
Some very very true words there. For every person out there who somewhat blindly believes hype, believes the media and believes a visual performance there is one who blindly refuses to accept even when all the evidence is there. Its something engrained in there psyches the same way as the need for a hero is engrained in others.
As for the GW affair. If he is another Zilzal or Zafonic, ill leave that up to others to debate, I simply dont know and more to the point, Im not sure that no matter how good he is, he can prove it…or can he?
SHL
Your wrong sir harry, i bet on ouija board in the 2004 pretty polly (before her subsequent fame and fortune) and then in the breeders cup filly and mare. However, i am a realist and despite ouija boards overall acheivements, she is a consistant 123 horse, which is good for a filly (hence all the fillys races shes won) but she is not a great horse. I am sick of picking up the paper to read about people saying what ouija board is about to beat, people talk about her like she invincible. <br>Whenever she beat an under par david junior and electrocutionist at ascot i thought "oh god here we go again". <br>I think that most people with a brain know what ouija boards limits are, i couldnt beleive how many idiots were yakking that ouija board was going to route dylan thomas, (who subsequently beat her whilst not looking anywhere near 100%).
There only 3 (possibly 4) horses horses in training at the moment who i rate as being a bit special on what they are actually capable of. These are George Washington, Teofilo, Hurricane Run (possibly sir percy aswell, as im hoping he can be an exceptional 1m2f horse). If i pick up the paper and read a load of hype about tese horses i dont mind, because these horses are world beaters on their day. Oujia board may be a consistant 123 horse but she is not in the same bracket as these horses, although i get the impression that many would put her in there.
Bulwark on the otherhand is a horse who i have loved ever since he won me several bets including one at £1400 last year (which for me as a low stakes punter was quite good). Back then i never thought he had the potential which i now beleive he has.
Sgt cecil, IMHO is a more than competent 1m6f horse who can stay on in slowly run races over further and win because he has the best turn of foot. I see him as what he is and dont see him as being anything special. A quick look at all his efforts to date proves this as a true gallop always finds him out.
Bulwark is the younger horse than sgt cecil (and very highly strung), amanda perret threw bulwark in at the deep end in the goodwood cup, and knowing that he likes a fast gallop and his 40/1 price tag i thought id have a little go on him. Bulwark hung and threw away all chance of a place about a furlong out, but look at who he passes with ease before doing so, the bbc had it at a different angle than the one on the racing post site but in the last two furlongs bulwark and yeats were the two strongest travellers, he looked like getting 3rd place possibly 2nd if the incident hadnt occurred.
The racing post reckon, and i fully agree, that bulwark (with his ability to handle a fast gallop and his low current handicap rating) would be an ideal candidate for the melbourne cup (see lonsdale cup analysis on rp site).
At a true pace bulwark is a far stronger horse than sgt cecil (and still improving), the fact that Sgt cecil has had two group2s set up for him this year doesnt really alter that opinion.
So, is it that i dont rate sgt cecil, no. In slow paced staying races sgt cecil is a very good horses and i would think that with the french style of running he would be very well suited to the prix cadran, but if the prix cadran was run at a decent clip (in the absence of yeats), i can almost guarantee that bulwark would do him at a far bigger price. They may both feature in the same races but both are horses with very different skills, the way i see it, one set is paying off better than the other at present, but a fast clip will happen sooner or later and bulwark will have a nice price beside him when it does.<br>
Quote: from Bulwark on 6:04 pm on Sep. 26, 2006[br]Your wrong sir harry, i bet on ouija board in the 2004 pretty polly (before her subsequent fame and fortune) and then in the breeders cup filly and mare. However, i am a realist and despite ouija boards overall acheivements, she is a consistant 123 horse, which is good for a filly (hence all the fillys races shes won) but she is not a great horse. I am sick of picking up the paper to read about people saying what ouija board is about to beat, people talk about her like she invincible.  <br>Whenever she beat an under par david junior and electrocutionist at ascot i thought "oh god here we go again". <br>I think that most people with a brain know what ouija boards limits are, i couldnt beleive how many idiots were yakking that ouija board was going to route dylan thomas, (who subsequently beat her whilst not looking anywhere near 100%).
There only 3 (possibly 4) horses horses in training at the moment who i rate as being a bit special on what they are actually capable of. These are George Washington, Teofilo, Hurricane Run (possibly sir percy aswell, as im hoping he can be an exceptional 1m2f horse). If i pick up the paper and read a load of hype about tese horses i dont mind, because these horses are world beaters on their day. Oujia board may be a consistant 123 horse but she is not in the same bracket as these horses, although i get the impression that many would put her in there.
<br>
<br>I have Ouija Board at 126 (peak) and I take your point completely. I don’t think Ouija Board is capable of running to a higher level than that, generally she runs at between 122 and 126. Dylan Thomas I have at 126+ based on his run in Ireland but I think he’s capable of running to 130 over twelve furlongs. Sir Percy you can’t really rate accurately because we’ve not seen enough of him and nothing at all against older horses. Teofilo is an excing horse who could be literally anything.
I’ve adusted my George Washington rating two pounds from Saturday (error) I have him 131+ and Hurricane Run at 132+. Both horses would have to run way, way below their peak for Ouija Board to beat them.
I understand what you say about Ouija Board – she was stuffed by Shirocco in the Coronation.
But let me ask you something – do you rate any of the following?……Acropolis, North Light, Warrsan, Valixir, Pride, Mamool, Tap Dance City or Grey Swallow?
Maybe you rate one or two of these…..Shamdala, Westerner, Reefscape, Cherry Mix or Norse Dancer?
You surely must rate one of the following…..Electrocutionist, Manduro, David Junior or Notnowcato?
And what do you think about Alexander Goldrun, Nannina, Echelon, Race For The Stars or Nasheej?
Well they are all horses that Ouija Board has BEATEN in the past couple of years, in top Group 1 events. Do you not find it incredible that she has travelled all over the world, and racked up so many Group 1s?
She runs her socks off EVERY single time she runs – she’s gallant, brave, brilliant, full of spirit……there are not enough words of praise for her IMO
She’s a 5yo that is still winning top class Group 1s – she has been running way below her optimum distance all year, and has done so well to step down to 10f from 12f.
And let me guess, every single horse she beat had excuses? So David Junior was not at his best? So Manduro was also not at his best? And what about Frankie on Electrocutionist, who set a fairly slow gallop, completely the opposite of what she wants.
At the end of the day, she should have won the Arc in 2004. At the end of the day, she should have won the Singapore Cup.
Frankie has ridden some incredible fillies, and I think he should know whether Ouija Board is a good one or not.
Maybe you could get some statistics on fillies/mares that run in the Hong Kong Vase? Perhaps also some stats on fillies/mares that run in the Prince of Wales?
Although what’s the point. You’ll most likely find statistics reporting that fillies/mares have a poor record – you won’t post your findings on here, and then you’ll start bickering and complaining that the renewals Ouija Board won were poor and weak…….
Let me ask you Bulwark, do you rate Alexandrova?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.