Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Woah, Thistlecrack is a fine animal and I think he may well win on Monday,but all this talk of a rating of 197 and being one of the greatest of all time is jumping the gun just a tad!
Kauto Star was only given a rating of 193 for winning the King George by a distance for gawds sake!
My 197 is weight adjusted for carrying 4lbs less than 12 stone so the actual rating would be 193. Having won a World Hurdle smoking a cigar & waving to the crowd recording 178 (to continue an improvement/progression in ratings) it’s likely Thistlecrack could do 183 if pushed to over Hurdles and most horses who take to chasing record at least 10 better over fences, hence 193 – potentially.
But has the leeway of about a stone in hand if jumping anywhere near adequately.
GoldenMiller, sorry i dont get this bit. What does Thistlecrack have a stone in hand on ?
Cue Card. I reckon Thistlecrack has the capability of running to a weight adjusted rating of 197 if putting in a faultless round of jumping whereas I predict Cue Card will run to a weight adjusted 182 at the conditions. I theorise, therefore, that Thistlecrack could make errors costing him 14 lengths and win by 1 length!
If GM had said that, Joe; he’d have been right. But he didn’t.
There was no mention of “most likely to win”.GM said “Apparently 35% of favourites win over Jumps. That means the odds compilers are wrong in their assessment of which horse will win 65% of the time.
Bookmakers do not assess the favourite as it “will win”, they only assess its probability of winning or to put it another way – yes, the horse “most likely to win”.
What I am saying is: Just because the odds compiler assesses the favourite as the horse most likely of all runners to win – if losing it does not mean they were wrong in assessing it as the horse “most likely to win”.
GM here.
Yes, ‘most likely’ would have been the better term. But, and the point I was originally trying to make is, in assessing probability of how much likely is each horse to win they are as a by-product creating a ranking order (or maybe they do rate & rank the horses before assessing the probabilities and forming an over-round market) and this ranking order in the case of the No.1/favourite/horse most likely to win is proven incorrect 65% of the time, so if a punter, by whatever method, creates a ranking order that has a different horse No.1 he/she should not be put off by it not being favourite. I was just trying to say go for your horse, it’s not as if the bookies’ most likely to win triumphs 75% of the time or something. Don’t be a slave to the odds or wary if your horse is a big price.
And, if I apply certain principles to my betting I must stick to them, surely? If when I have a clear top-rated I back it whatever the price why would it be right to abandon that principle because the horse is 1/66? Unrealistic example is 1/66 but I backed Thistlecrack at 1/6 this season.
Every race is fascinating. My weight adjusted predicted performance ratings for this one:
? = -10 to 20
Thistlecrack 197? Progressive & won World Hurdle easily earning 178, suspect could do 183. Most hurdlers who improve for chasing do so initially by about 10 and no reason he won’t improve for chasing so 193 before adjustment. Will go the pace no problem & could be interested in leading. It’s all about how his jumping holds up in his first competitive Chase, not only competitive but at the highest level. The trainer would not have run the horse (who has been given a gentle introduction to chasing where he has only had to record 164 in winning comfortably), he has had to defer to owner. So could be 10 to 20 below my rating depending upon the severity of any error/s. But has the leeway of about a stone in hand if jumping anywhere near adequately.
Cue Card 182. Would rate him at 187 if softer ground or if trip was 26f+. However, all out to do 180 on G to S in this last year so on what seems likely to be essentially Good I’ve marked him down a couple.
Silviniaco Conti 172. Possible front-runner. Would have needed reappearance (161) at same conditions (going/trip) and didn’t act first time encountering Heavy at Haydock. 168 is his best mark at 3 miles on Good. Easy to think he is on the downgrade but risky to assume that based on his 174 in last season’s Ascot Chase at a trip short of best (albeit in first time blinkers). But to do 168 needs not to have any of the myriad of niggles and problems that have affected him in the last couple of years, will give benefit of doubt.
Tea For Two 170. This the target, usually has just one per season. Grade & conditions fine. 161 in last year’s Kauto Star & can improve upon that by 5 based on improvement apparent comparing two slightly off-peak runs at virtually identical circumstances (20f, GS): 153 in last season’s Scilly Isles & 157 last time in Peterborough.
Josses Hill 169. Possible front-runner as it would be wrong to change the style that suits him so well because, having decided to take the plunge, of tentativeness regarding trip. 165 in Peterborough horse’s best run, is progressing. Fundamentally I believe he will not only stay 3 miles on Good but will improve 5 for the extra 4f to 170. I also think that as a horse he could possibly improve about a further 5, so 170 & possibly 175. However, looking at his previous performances in Grade 1 I’m of the opinion he gets found out and is exposed at the highest level (e.g. 155 in Ryanair compared to 161 in runs either side of it) so I would knock off 5 from the predicted 170 and rule out any possible improvement as a horse coming in Grade 1. Thus 165.
I think Thistlecrack has enough in hand that it’s worth hoping he will jump at least reasonably adequately so I backed him to Win. Price happens to be 11/8.
I’ve been hooked on jump racing for as long as I can remember. One of my earliest memories is going to the old bookies in St Andrews with my dad. It was hidden away behind a wall and down steps and I remember the extel blowers on the wall. It’s now a house called the hurdles.
My earliest race memories are watching those great hurdlers at Cheltenham in the late seventies. I also have vague memories of Ben Nevis’s national Katie and National day soon came to rival Christmas day as my favourite day of the year.
So in answer to your question Bachelors there was no moment for me, just a lifelong passion.
Ps, did anyone else create racecourses with their toys or make up fake commentaries using the racecards in newspapers? Oh, just me then
When I was quite young I had about thirty different coloured marbles each of which I named after a horse and pretend-raced around my nan’s flat, jumping them over things like the stretchers (horizontal support element joining the legs) of wooden chairs!
My predictions of adjusted ratings for this race are:
(+) = 5
The New One 175. RPR had it 165 for last time, me 168, the handicapper 167. With another well-judged front running ride I think he can reproduce that form on less testing going if pushed to.
My Tent Or Yours 167. I rated him 157 last time. Supposedly likes this going better so I will give him the benefit of doubt he can get a bit closer to TNO but has become awfully one-paced on softer and doesn’t appear to be the horse he was, Geraghty deserts.
Yanworth 160(+) so possibly 165. I can see why Barry would go for the horse with scope to improve but I wonder if that may be more a comment on MTOY. Yanworth looked unlimited in a couple of races last season but was exposed for pace on Good in the Neptune as he had been on the same going in the ’15 Champion Bumper (possible excuses: poor ride and met trouble respectively). These are the only two times he has run on Good and his only two previous Grade 1 contests. After his reappearance at Ascot all the talk was of going up in trip. Due to the continued progression of Unowhatimeanharry connections have decided to see whether the horse is a viable Champion Hurdle contender – they may as well find out. Playing around with figures from other ground/trip combinations I have tried to find a figure for the horse’s first Hurdles run at the combination of 2 miles & Good. I came up with 153, however, his reappearance run was about 4 better than I would have expected at that day’s conditions which suggests he may have improved for a summer break and the trainer was adamant he would come on for his reappearance so maybe 158 but ultimately I’m just not sure the horse will be quick enough at class/trip/ground hence my (+).
Ch’Tibello 153. Horse is showing no progression at 2 miles on ground ranging from Heavy to Good. Last four RPRs: 144, 145, 146, 146 none of them in Grade 1.
The New One is my clear choice so I backed him to Win, price happens to be 2/1.
Yes, a very merry Christmas to everyone. I have really enjoyed all aspects of this forum since I joined several weeks ago.
Yes, outstanding by O’Hehir.
The Fossa: 1966 – 4th, 1967 – Fell, 1968 – 5th, 1969 – 11th, 1970 – Ref.
Honey End was 15/2F in 67. Here is the relevant (to the mayhem) part of ‘How They Ran’ from the ‘Results’ section of what I hope will be the ultimate GN history website which I aim to have up in 2 or 3 years time. Listed in finishing/got furthest order:
2 Honey End – 21st (of 28 remaining) BB 2C. Froze & refused 23rd, kept going.
3R Red Alligator – 11th BB 2C. Hampered & UR before fence 23rd, remounted.
4 Greek Scholar – 7th BB 2C. Hampered & landed on top of 23rd, retraced steps.
5 Packed Home – Last BB 2C. Baulked by loose horse & refused 23rd. Kept going.
6R Solbina – Mid-div until spooked, refused & UR 23rd. Remounted.
7 Aussie – Chased leaders in 16th BB 2C. Brought to a halt by mayhem 23rd, kept going.
8 Scottish Final – Towards rear BB 2C. Brought to a halt by mayhem 23rd, kept going.
9 What A Myth – In rear of mid-div when brought to a halt by mayhem 23rd, kept going.
10 Kapeno – 5th BB 2C. Baulked & refused 23rd, kept going at third attempt.
11 Quintin Bay – Chasing leaders in 15th BB 2C. Brought to a halt by mayhem 23rd, kept going.
12 Bob-A-Job – Rear of mid-div BB 2C. Brought to a halt by mayhem 23rd, kept going.
13 Steel Bridge – Towards rear until brought to a halt by mayhem 23rd, kept going.
14R Castle Falls – Led again 21st until hampered & fell onto 23rd. Pushed over by Aussie and landed on back. Remounted well behind.
15 Ross Sea – Towards rear until brought to a halt by mayhem 23rd, kept going.
16R Rutherfords – 4th BB 2C but first to be hampered by loose horses (Popham Down & April Rose) who veered left then right 23rd & UR before fence. Remounted.
17 Freddie – Rear of mid-div BB 2C. Brought to a halt by mayhem 23rd, kept going at fourth attempt.
18 Game Purston – Chased leaders in 14th BB 2C. Brought to a halt by mayhem 23rd, kept going in last.
R Barberyn – Towards rear when brought to a halt by mayhem 23rd, kept going. (NB Refused 27th (OD)).
R Kirtle-Lad – 8th BB 2C. Hampered 23rd, got stuck on top of fence & UR. Pulled over by jockey & first to remount. (NB Clear 2nd but had pulled muscle & Refused 24th (CT)).
U Rondetto – 2nd at BB 2C. Hampered, bad mistake & UR 23rd.
U Princeful – 3rd BB 2C & when hampered & UR 23rd.
F The Fossa – 6th BB 2C. Hampered, jinked right & Fell 23rd, depositing jockey onto fence.
F Norther – 9th BB 2C & still chasing when leaped fallen horse but landed on 23rd, sending jockey over.
U Different Class – 10th when hampered & UR before fence 23rd.
F Leedsy – Still chasing in 12th when hampered 23rd & Fell onto fence where briefly stuck. Rider fell backwards, horse climbed through & continued loose.
F Limeking – Chasing leaders in 13th when hampered & Fell 23rd. Stuck on fence until fell backwards, winded.
R Harry Black – Rear of mid-div when hampered & Refused 23rd.You would say that Ginger from your perspective/approach. Coming from completely the opposite direction, thinking radically and outside the traditionalists’ box, the same set of prices are taken by me to mean something very different. From your value-seeking approach you are bound to convert a price into a percentage chance and then see whether you think the horse has a better percentage chance in your opinion. And no doubt odds compilers think about percentage chance when they decide what price to allocate to each horse. But either before doing so or as a by-product of doing so they are effectively also ranking the horses. When I study a race to seek the winner I am also ranking the runners (by my ratings). When my top rated is not number 1 (i.e. the favourite) in their list that is great, it might be 6th in their list and 10/1+, what a bonus! So of course I’m hung up on true winner-seeking, I’m the polar opposite of a true value-seeker. Value comes into it accidentally, I do not seek it, I seek winners. We are continuing to go round in circles!
Besides that, the logic you use to make your argument is faulty. How can the odds compiler have it right when the favourite does not win, that’s incredible! He is most right when the longest-priced horse in his book does not win. The favourite using your example & perspective has a 67% chance of not winning, well anything else’s chance of not winning must be greater. Thus he is more wrong when anything else wins, least wrong when the favourite wins. But he is only least wrong (or most correct) 35% of the time!
Ginge just hates the idea of someone being successful at the game by not adopting or agreeing with his methods. Not a great characteristic
Well hardly as he’s just playing devil’s advocate here and in a sense not agreeing with Golden Miller is basically just doing what everyone else does as it’s such an unusual approach.
What I don’t get is Golden Miller says that prices are often far more wrong than they are right
But most races are priced up on the ratings of runners. And a few other elements like trainers ability and so on.
Either Golden is saying that these ratings are fundamentally wrong and the handicappers aren’t doing their job properly, or there’s some other factor that’s being consistently underrated. That’s the only logic to explain why he’s continually picking out 10-1 winners so regularly, as in theory any 10-1 shot should have as good as chance as another.
I suppose it’s about how one interprets the basic ratings and apply all other factors to predict how each horse will perform. Punters, pundits and bookies all do it. Apparently 35% of favourites win over Jumps. That means the odds compilers are wrong in their assessment of which horse will win 65% of the time. If you look at the ascending order of prices in a market as a predicted ranking order of the position in which each runner will finish, with the lowest priced horse predicted to win and so on to the highest priced horse predicted to be last, then I wonder how often the second favourite finishes 2nd, the eighth favourite finishes 8th. I expect it’s 35% or a lot less. That’s an awful lot that the bookie is predicting incorrectly!
Yes, RIP. I recently read his book ‘Tales From The Weighing Room’ which is very interesting. Most people remember him only for Foinavon’s National but there was a lot more to him. A backbone of NH racing for many years and highly valued by all who knew him as today’s tributes show.
It was the 67 GN that formed my lifelong love of Jumps racing. I was 6 and before that race too young to be able to store any more than brief grainy memories of infancy. However, this event left an indelible impression. I watched it with my grandparents, who liked a flutter, and recall black & white images of a seemingly endless stream of horses walking round the paddock. Pick one, they said, I knew what an alligator was so Red Alligator. Then they were racing. Suddenly utter chaos, mayhem, adults’ shocked excitement, the calm order that was all a child in the 1960s was meant to see disrupted, the first realisation things happen that grown ups can’t control. The look on John Buckingham’s face walking in, as if he, HE, had survived something no man had a right to.
That’s the Grand National my grandparents said. Foinavon became a hero to me. But next year a bob was put for me on Red Alligator!
Guys, we’re milling around at the start a bit (going round in circles).
I’ve conceded value plays a part in my selections, but a secondary part. A value-seeker primarily approaches a race looking for value and disregards their personal fancy to the extent of backing horses they don’t think will win just because they’re value. My approach is to rate/predict each horse to seek the winner then back it whatever the price if it’s clear top rated. Even if I feel dubious about its chances on gut instinct/reflection, e.g. Going Concern yesterday, I can’t go against the figures I produce. When there is little between 2 or more horses on my figures I step back, take a quick overview and try to find a secondary reason to split them. One of the secondary reasons is price. If I can’t split 2 any other way and only wish to back 1 (discipline, minimises risk!) it’s common sense to go for the bigger-priced horse. With the 6 fancies I put up yesterday I distinguished with each whether they were clear top rated or choices made on a secondary basis.
The discovery that my SR is similar at various odds is, I have to concede, surprising. But it just is. We will see if it continues. As it stands the fact that my SR is NO BETTER at shorter prices means virtually all the profit comes at 10/1+. That’s what the stats say.
What is a “personal fancy”, GM?
If I believe a horse has the best chance of winning (my “personal fancy”) but is not value, I don’t back it and look elsewhere.
You’ve just said, if you do not believe your “personal fancy” value, you don’t back it and look elsewhere.
The only difference is that if you can not see any value in your first three “best chances”… you don’t bet (you don’t look any further)… Which is fair enough, thousands of value seekers do the same. ie Only backing their value selections if they believe it has a good chance of winning.
Yes, personal fancy is the horse you believe has the best chance of winning. The whole point of this thread was meant to be that you’d better off backing 1 strong fancy than taking the value approach of not backing that horse because you don’t think it’s value, instead backing horse/s you don’t think will win because you think they’re value.
“You’ve just said, if you do not believe your “personal fancy” value, you don’t back it and look elsewhere.”
I did not say that, the opposite in fact. I back my clear top rated even if dubious about its chance, whatever price it is, because I can’t/won’t/don’t go against the figures I’ve produced that make it clear top rated – I make myself believe in the figures when they produce a clear best. That’s how I end up backing the likes of The Jugopolist at Huntingdon.
“The only difference is that if you can not see any value in your first three “best chances”… you don’t bet (you don’t look any further)”
I didn’t say that either! I always have a bet when I’ve gone to the trouble of working out the race. When my figures do not produce a clear top rated and it is very tight between 2 or more horses I seek a secondary way to decide upon which to place a bet. If all else fails I will go for the 1 at best odds. That’s the only way value plays a part.
In fact I prefer working out a race before any odds are put up on the RP card – or spotlights & trainer quotes – as all 3 things can inadvertently create bias in my thinking.
I appear to be one of the few who post a photo of themselves on here!
My status as the TRFfer with the longest hair has been wrested from me! Jealous now
gc
Let’s see it then! If anyone could tell me how to rotate an uploaded image on here I would put up a clearer one.
Of course! The peroxide fooled me
Esoteric odds compiling was always a natural progression for the Prof
‘I took this 33/1 rag, added a gallon of snake oil and it became the even money favourite’…bang!
Seriously folks: I like your attitude GM. No one ever beat the books by going with the flow
The more head scratching your methods seem to others and the greater the difficulty you have in explaining those methods the better
All the best with the venture
It’s Clairol! Thanks Drone. Is that really you? Ah, Johnny Winter – one of the 3 very best guitarists along with Frank Marino and the fantastic Uli Jon Roth.
The discovery that my SR is similar at various odds is, I have to concede, surprising. But it just is. We will see if it continues. As it stands the fact that my SR is NO BETTER at shorter prices means virtually all the profit comes at 10/1+. That’s what the stats say.
When betting level stakes, virtually all the “profit” will always come from 10/1+.
Because (believe it or not) if winning at Evens it only wins once the stake.
If winning at 16/1 the punter wins 16 times the stake.
And yet he/she loses the exact same stake whatever the price.Obviously. My point in the paragraph you quote is that, given the general view is an investor should have a higher SR the shorter the price because the odds compilers get it right most of the time, my SR is no better at shorter. If it was I would make a profit at 9/1 & under too, even at level stakes. But it’s not. Perhaps instead of incredulity about my relatively high SR at 10/1+ there should be disbelief over my relatively low SR at shorter. Why is it consistent at various prices? Could it be because the book formed is wrong much more often than generally thought? I think it is and for the reason that trying to predict accurately how each and every horse is going to perform in any given race is a task akin to trying to poke butter up a porcupine’s arse with a red hot needle.
Thanks everyone. Remember 10/1+ wagers are only 10% of my total bets and I didn’t get round to Bangor today (spending too much time on here!) Boxing Day should produce some.
Surely Ginger there’s little point putting up the 90% at 9/1 & under when virtually all the profit comes at 10/1+? If this thread proves the SR/profit continues similarly to what the stats I put up say at 10/1+ then I assume the 9/1 & under SR will also behave similarly and there’s little profit there.
I just don’t think I have the time to put up everything and keep a running total of everything. If I did then shouldn’t I also distinguish between which selections are because they’re clear top rated on my figures and which are fancies chosen, because I can’t split 2 or more horses, for a secondary reason (one secondary reason being bigger price) and state what reason that is? I would have less time to study form.
What do people think, I was just trying to keep this simple?
