THE COUCH

[yeats]

Cheers Yeats, and apologies if what I quoted him as saying was incorrect.

However, depending on what his betting strategy is (does he prefer laying horses) then I don’t think there is a significant difference at all.

If he did say ‘ran’ and not ‘won’ then it still means he would have opposed (and possibly had a lay) on short priced horses such as Inglis Drever, Kauto Star, Celestial Halo, Franchoek, Alberta’s Run, Master Minded, Captain Cee Bee. The only short priced horse that he would have got wrong would have been Binocular.

So that makes him not a bad judge in my opinion.

How many other so called experts said they would be opposing all of the above before the event?

Mike

Don’t think even his best friend would claim it’s been a successful strategy, out of 14 races at Aintree, 8 winners ran at Cheltenham, at prices of 20’s, 9’s, 7’s,6’s and a couple of 5’s.
Of the shorties you highlighted, 5 were beaten by fellow Cheltenham runners at much bigger prices leading to much bigger losses dependant on stakes of course than if the shorties had been successful, as you know much bigger prices need to be laid for the outsiders, you don’t need many losers at them prices.
Of course you would have had a number of losers from Cheltenham but only one horse can win each race.
The significant difference if winners from Cheltenham had been used was that it only yielded one winner though with it being 9/1 it would more than wipe out the profit from the others.

Rather than him being not a bad judge Mikky Mo just be grateful you didn’t follow his advice

[MikkyMo73]

I did follow his advice, well, what I thought was his advice anyway – and that was to oppose all Cheltenham winners (not runners)

Unfortunately though, even though I opposed many of the shorties, I backed against them with the wrong horse rather than lay the favs, and I’ve had a terrible Aintree so far

Mike

[Author]

Posts