- This topic has 137 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Fran the man wrote:</div>
Eddie o leary confirms both Don Poli and Very wood go here.Swings and roundabouts. Plenty of punters will be happy with the Don Poli decision but a fair few will have done their money on Very Wood in the National Hunt Chase.
You might as well have put a picture of me with this post as that’s exactly how I feel!
Nightmare scenario is Very Wood beating Don Poli, I don’t think he will but he should run well. On the plus side my Don Poli/Wounded Warrior double is back from the dead
Steve,
It is you who criticised Kings Palace because…Nothing that ran behind Kings Palace in his first two races this season has won and he landed a farce of a match at 2/13 Fav next time. I just can’t have him.
Of course you can work out races how you like. If you’re only taking in to account winners and not interested in form, that’s your prerogative. I thought you were interested in form; my mistake. But if you’re going to diss a horse using your own WINS method, then expect someone else who studies form to counter.
You don’t have to “buy form guides”, all the information I gave is on the Racing Post free site.
Value Is EverythingGetting back to Kings Palace, I just don’t think he’s done enough to make him a horse I fancy for the RSA.
I prefer Don Poli’s form in terms of solidity and it will not surprise me if he proves the ratings that have him 2 lbs behind Kings Palace on 154 to be incorrect. He is half the odds of the Pipe horse with some firms, so some people must agree with the notion. Of course we could all be wrong but that’s what the game is all about.
I take your point about the Coneygree bet being all in, rather than NRNB but thought I had made it clear that I fully expect that sense will prevail and that he will run here. For me that is a better risk/reward ratio than backing Don Poli at the increasingly skinny odds.
Coneygree for me and if he doesn’t line up I won’t have another bet in the race.
Am on Kings Palace @ 12/1, but although we disagree on the horse’s ability Steve, I agree Don Poli has a better chance and also that the Irish horse is too short. My hopes for the Pipe horse will be lessened further if Coneygree runs here, not only because I believe the Bradstock horse is (at this stage) better, but also that he’s a similar type. I’ve backed Coneygree for the Blue Riband, so that tells you what I think of him. If they all stand their ground I’d have Coneygree as having the best chance, then Don Poli and only then (unfortunately) Kings Palace.
Value Is EverythingEddie o leary confirms both Don Poli and Very wood go here.
Surprised Very Wood goes for this. Only did so well in the Albert Bartlett last year because others went off too quickly. He’s all about stamina and the 4 miler would’ve suited well. Likely to get outpaced in RSA and will imo only have any chance if pace is once more overly strong.
Value Is EverythingBy the sound of the Bradstocks, only a week of Mediterranean sunshine will keep Coneygree out of the Gold Cup
Steve,
I thought you were interested in form; my mistake.You don’t have to “buy form guides”, all the information I gave is on the Racing Post free site.
That is a load of insulting crap and you well know it.
How dare you make that statement about another user of the forum.
I am sick of this running down of my opinions and your attempts to devalue my methodology.
Bugger off and leave me alone you tedious arsehole.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Hush, Steve, you’ll probably be given a lecture on how ‘vile’ you are in a minute. Disagreeing with the man who says Time For Rupert was a good horse=blasphemy.
BlueSky @pghenn.bsky.social
So don't run, just like the others always do
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gingertipster wrote:</div>
Steve,
I thought you were interested in form; my mistake.You don’t have to “buy form guides”, all the information I gave is on the Racing Post free site.
That is a load of insulting crap and you well know it.
How dare you make that statement about another user of the forum.
I am sick of this running down of my opinions and your attempts to devalue my methodology.
Bugger off and leave me alone you tedious arsehole.
You’ve totally misunderstood Steve.
I’ll get back to you about the “form” issue.
If you look, it was you who said in response to my explanation of the Kings Palace form that you “don’t buy form guides”. I am just letting you know that everything in my explanation is available for free on the Racing Post site IF YOU WANT IT. If not wanting it then that’s obviously up to you.Why is that wrong?
Value Is EverythingYou said Steve:
Nothing that ran behind Kings Palace in his first two races this season has won and he landed a farce of a match at 2/13 Fav next time. I just can’t have him.
So it was you who first brought the form of the horses beaten by wide margins in to the form of Kings Palace. Not me. It is very confusing, either you are interested in the form of those that “ran behind Kings Palace” or you are not. Which is why I said…
Steve,
Of course you can work out races how you like. If you’re only taking in to account winners and not interested in form, that’s your prerogative. I thought you were interested in form; my mistake. But if you’re going to diss a horse using your own WINS method, then expect someone else who studies form to counter.“Form” in this context means ALL form, not just WINNING form.
Value Is Everything“I thought you were interested in form; my mistake”. Is a factual statement, not a criticism.
Value Is Everything<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gingertipster wrote:</div>
Steve,
I thought you were interested in form; my mistake.You don’t have to “buy form guides”, all the information I gave is on the Racing Post free site.
That is a load of insulting crap and you well know it.
How dare you make that statement about another user of the forum.
I am sick of this running down of my opinions and your attempts to devalue my methodology.
Bugger off and leave me alone you tedious arsehole.
You’ve totally misunderstood Steve.
I’ll get back to you about the “form” issue.
If you look, it was you who said in response to my explanation of the Kings Palace form that you “don’t buy form guides”. I am just letting you know that everything in my explanation is available for free on the Racing Post site IF YOU WANT IT. If not wanting it then that’s obviously up to you.Why is that wrong?
Don’t bother getting back to me. Period.
Your opening line is clearly a sarcastic reference made in order to devalue my opinion.
Give me some credit for knowing already that there is form available on The Racing Post and At The Races website.
It is clear that my reference was to paid for services, that give their interpretation of the form. It was as clear as day that I stated that I prefer to use my own methods of looking at the form. I don’t need pointed at a website like I am some sort of novice at the game.
You and I have crossed swords before and I thought we could put that behind us and move forward but it is now clear that we can’t.
You recently misquoted me and made out that I had said “Form never works out”. I was annoyed by that but accepted the apology. A couple of times since you have implied that you think I am wrong in my preferences and cannot interpret form properly. It was starting to wear thin and this last load of insulting crap is the final straw. I don’t like the look of Kings Palace’s form profile. That is my right to do and this nonsense about you claiming that I am “dissing” the horse is utterly ridiculous. I have never, in my life, heard anyone get het up about defending a horse’s reputation on a forum. To then insult the other person after it is unbelievable.
I have to say that I find your tone arrogant and not just with myself. You seem obsessed with having the last word and drawing up long dissertations packed with percentages in an effort to “prove” you are correct. I can largely deal with that but I am drawing the line at sarcastic insults to my methods and overall intelligence.
We are done conversing. End of. Just to clarify after your two pathetic posts above this one. You are indeed some complete sort of arsehole.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I don’t like the look of Kings Palace’s form profile. That is my right to do and this nonsense about you claiming that I am “dissing” the horse is utterly ridiculous. I have never, in my life, heard anyone get het up about defending a horse’s reputation on a forum. To then insult the other person after it is unbelievable.
It is not me getting “het up” Steve, lighten up lol. Be free to criticise Kings Palace’s chance all you like, it is indeed entirely up to you.
Definition of DISS = CRITICISE.
But this is a discussion forum and you should expect others to disagree. I have not “insulted you”.
Only given my opinion of the horse with reasoning.Value Is EverythingYou recently misquoted me and made out that I had said “Form never works out”. I was annoyed by that but accepted the apology. A couple of times since you have implied that you think I am wrong in my preferences and cannot interpret form properly.
You accepted my apology because you could see where the misunderstanding came from. In the past you’ve made out I’ve said things I haven’t, but have accepted it as a misunderstanding. It happens sometimes.
Punters have different opinions about things Steve.
Two punters have a difference of opinion, you believe I am wrong about a horse and I believe you are wrong. We all “interpret” horses differently.Generally think you know an awful lot about racing and interpret races very well Steve. But there’s obviously going to be occasions when I think you’ve made a mistake in interpretation and will explain why. Yes, usually about not taking enough notice about non-winning form! As indeed you’ve explained why when you think I’ve made a mistake; War Command being just one.
Now let’s get back to bashing those bookies!
Value Is EverythingGetting back to talking about this race then;
The Young Master – too young, last run too long ago, ran on the flat, not run in a graded chase, not been defeated, 2nd season hurdling. All killer stats, cannot win.
Discuss.
Getting back to talking about this race then;
The Young Master – too young, last run too long ago, ran on the flat, not run in a graded chase, not been defeated, 2nd season hurdling. All killer stats, cannot win.
Discuss.
The Young Master is progressing nicely but he needs Coneygree to be heading to The Gold Cup to have a realistic chance.
I know one poster thinks The Young Master is a terrific bet but there are several rated ahead of him here and Coneygree in particular.
Sometimes the form lines can be complex and open to a fair bit of analysis before reaching a conclusion about which horse comes out best but in the case of The Young Master and Coneygree it is really easy to read.
Both horses have beaten Houblon Des Obeaux, The Young Master by 2 and a half lengths and Coneygree by seven lengths. If that were not enough, the fact is that The Young Master was getting 17 lbs from Houblon Des Obeaux, while Coneygree received only 1 lb from the same horse.
Fair enough The Young Master is the younger horse, arguably open to a fair bit of improvement yet but if Coneygree does head to the RSA they will line up with that horse having a 15lb higher rating and both horses carrying 11st 4lbs.
That is largely why I went for Coneygree at 5/1 rather than The Young Master at 7/1. It may be that I won’t get a run but it seems like a bet with a great upside to it should they decide to take him to this race.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
All good stuff Steve. Does the Feltham stat worry you? 19 winners have tried to double up and none succeeded.
All good stuff Steve. Does the Feltham stat worry you? 19 winners have tried to double up and none succeeded.
My take on that type of stat is normally to look at the horses involved to see if there is a pattern that would explain failure in the second race after success in the first. If there is no obvious factor that can be identified then we need to consider what odds the horses in question went off at in the second race.
If horses are going off odds against in the race in question, the bookies obviously think they are more likely to lose than to win. If they are going off odds on and getting beat then it’s much more of a concern as to why they couldn’t win a race where their chance of success was deemed more likely than that of failure.
Nineteen is quite a decent sample size and, unless the odds have been large in most cases, you would have thought several might have pulled the double off from that may attempts.
Ultimately you can only assess the horse going for the double and see what he may offer that can buck the trend.
In Coneygree we have a horse a bit older than many Feltham winners, he has also beaten more experienced handicappers and earned a big enough 166 rating for a Novice. Most of all, he won his Feltham by 40 lengths and without having all the details to hand, I am assuming that is pretty rare.
On balance I am not worried about the stat but I have felt that way before in similar circumstances and been bitten on the backside by what comedian Micky Flanagan would call the “Kerrrrse” of the stats.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.