July 31, 2009 at 01:37 #12235carvillshillParticipant
- Total Posts 2778
Anyone looking in Lays and Plays will know that I’m having a frustrating week here in Galway and one of the factors in my downfall is horses with no previous soft ground form popping up and winning after being confidently dismissed (Ballyholland). My question is this: jockeys and trainers this week keep referring to "summer soft ground" and making a distinction between it and winter soft going. Based on real scientific evidence (i.e. times) is there really a major difference? If there is should us punters be taking a more forgiving view of horses turning up for summer meetings on soft who have no soft ground form? Ballyholland would have been a cracking 16-1 shot ground concerns aside.July 31, 2009 at 01:55 #241873GeraldMember
- Total Posts 4293
Winter soft is 10-20 degrees celcius colder, and therefore more viscous?July 31, 2009 at 02:05 #241875CavParticipant
- Total Posts 4825
Dont know if there is a difference but I think any doubt should be factored into the price and 16/1 more than factors that doubt. Obviously being fairly certain of an outcome is a different matter and no bet would be the best policy in that scenario.
2 personal examples during rare delving into the formbook…..
Utmost Respect in The Duke Of York….Had him on the serious shortlist ability wise but didn’t bet because Fahey reckons he needs an easy surface to be at his best and I wasn’t sure myself. Ground that day was officially Good to Firm, more Good than Firm and he won at 16/1. Should have been a bet because the price factored the uncertainty.
Nacarat in The Racing Post Chase – Huge improver on his previous outing at Doncaster but uncertainty about whether he’d get the extra 5 furlongs at Kempton and again didn’t bet. Won at 10/1 again at a price big enough to factor any doubts I had.
If the horse has the ability and your uncertain about conditions have the bet at a price, the market very often overreacts in these circumstances imo.July 31, 2009 at 04:46 #241891AnonymousInactive
- Total Posts 17716
Anyone looking in Lays and Plays will know that I’m having a frustrating week here in Galway and one of the factors in my downfall is horses with no previous soft ground form popping up and winning after being confidently dismissed (Ballyholland). My question is this: jockeys and trainers this week keep referring to "summer soft ground" and making a distinction between it and winter soft going. Based on real scientific evidence (i.e. times) is there really a major difference? If there is should us punters be taking a more forgiving view of horses turning up for summer meetings on soft who have no soft ground form? Ballyholland would have been a cracking 16-1 shot ground concerns aside.
Even a walk no further than your own lawn will prove there’s a world of difference between ‘Summer’ soft and ‘Winter’ soft, as there is between flat and NH soft, Irish and English soft, French and UK soft, and what passes as soft in tropical countries compared to what is actually the case in more temperate climates – it’s an adjective, not scriven in stone.
For the past few weeks I’ve been trying to point out to our Antipodean cousins that their horses don’t stay as far on our ‘good’ ground as they do on theirs, and despite all the evidence, they still can’t accept that the error is in the terminology: their good’ ground is much faster than ours, simply because their norm is based on different standards.
Cav illustrates 2 horses to support this erroneous thinking, yet neither stands up in the cold light of day:
Utmost Respect won his York race on ‘good’ ground that is much different from the norm (In defence of my standpoint, something I did point out before the race), a point which was dealt with in some detail by Robert99’s post on the qualities of the new turf at that course, and Nacarat won his race by virtue of the step up in distance – rather than the ground – as was emphasised by his defeat on similar ground, but over shorter, in his next race.
There is a difference!July 31, 2009 at 14:32 #241920FriggoMember
- Total Posts 1593
Times seem to be suggesting that Galway is very much soft, at least prior to yesterday, regardless of what spin is put on it. AFAIK, "Summer Soft" is a song by Stevie Wonder, and it should remain that way to stop people calling the ground whatever they bloody well like.July 31, 2009 at 15:11 #241924CavParticipant
- Total Posts 4825
"Eroneous thinking" is correct Reet. The point I’m making with the Utmost Respect example is that the market over-factored the double negative of Faheys concerns about the ground as well as the official going description (Good to Firm) into its collective analysis of the race and let a horse with proven ability at this level go off at 16/1.
I was undecided about the ground for this horse and went with the market so ended up not betting on the winner. You were correct of course but I’m playing against the market not you individually. I wouldn’t have got 16/1 from you I’m sure! A good lesson and if I was punting this way on a regular basis anytime a "might" or "might not" came into any decision I was trying to make about suitability of conditions would be converted into a YES if the price was suitable. Anything over 9/1 – 10/1 feels about right.
Again your correct about Nacarat, but the markets concerns about the trip (along with Findlays bluster) let a very progressive animal go off at a huge price. Tripwise I wasn’t sure myself so went with the consensus again and lost out on a potential very decent bet.
All I’m trying to illustrate here is, if your happy with the horses ability but not sure about the conditions, don’t not have a bet if the price covers the uncertainty. A potential return of 1600% at SP means you dont always have to totally convinced.
Paralysis by analysis!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.