Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I won’t pretend i am a fan of the seemingly ever lasting words come out of anus machine, but this seems like a bizarre complaint.
The overweight wouldn’t have altered the result (or at least, it is impossible to prove beyond doubt that it did).
Secondly, the team is entitled to run their horses where they like as much as they are entitled to what they say. Do i ever listen? Nah, but then i am sure some poor schmohawk does.
Lastly, AOB is more than just an employee. Plus, this implication would warrant more respect if the team were struggling and not producing the "expected" results relative to the invesment and financial clout (i,e Godolphin). This isn’t the case.
Joseph O’Brien is a good jockey. Are there better options out there? Absolutely. Are they entitled to employ whomever they wish? Absolutely. Does he have the job because of nepotism … absolutely, but welcome to the real world and again, it’s their choice. If you as punters don’t like it, then avoid gambling money when they are involved. Moaning about any greater justice or self-entitlement beyond that is idiotic.
Toronado at peak ability would be a champion miler in nearly any given year. Consistency is an issue, but Toormore still has along way to and develop before that is true of himself in peak ability terms (naturally, given his age).
Diabetes is a valid defence J17, if not an "excuse". I am type 2 (on 2 gliclazide tablets a day). When not fully controlled emotions are over-exaggerated without always knowing there’s anything wrong. I am never violent (as some can be) but looking back I know before diagnosed my character changed, went from being placid to losing my temper at something trivial. Blood-sugar level should’ve been between 4 and 7, when diagnosed mine was 23! Thankfully it is fairly well controlled thanks to my Diabetic Nurse, but has led to Glaucoma. Hope you are testing yourself Steve and taking regular exercise.
All the best.
Mark
I am aware you have Diabetes, since i recall a similar instance which ended up in "I HAS TEH DIABETES!". Hence my reference.
Excluding the fact that esculating handbags to emotional spats on an internet forum is a bizarre but humerous affair to watch, an internet forum is a controlled environment not like interactive life experiences. So it’s funny to read "I didn’t mean to say that, i have Diabetes".
"I didn’t mean to racially abuse you, but i have a cold you see, and i feel angry".
Steve, i look forward to Oscar defending himself with that
Can only imagine the Hitler trial if he hadn’t shot himself.
"You see, a Jewish doctor told me i had Diabetes … and the rest is history".
Action you are not proud of?
>>>>>
SAY YOU HAVE DIABETES.
Next time i fail to reach a deadline, or the police come knocking …. D
Toronado is an extremely high class horse. His abilities get lost in the shuffle of inconsistency.
Toormore won really well today and his form has a solid complexion to it. Still, whilst they clearly think a considerable amount of him, it won’t be before next year where we get an idea of his true ability. I suspect he isn’t at the same level of Toronado.
It is quite telling that since his defeat at Ascot, we have heard nothing from connections. Hype has all but disappeared. Instead the hype has been placed elsewhere. The best 2 yr old ever they say ….
I’d be suprised if we saw him race again, outside of possibly the Arc. He obviously doesn’t have a hope of hell in winning the Arc.
Ballydoyle are a great racing outfit in all respects. O’Brien is clearly an exceptional trainer. It’s just a shame they all have an anus for a mouth.
If you were having intercourse with Scarlett Johansson, and consequentially dating, but your mother disapproved of the whole affair, would you care?
TAPK reads nothing more than a merry fun drunk in a particular brand of pub. So why Ginger feels the need to defend himself to such extents, i do not understand.
If you’re successful in a field, generally you shouldn’t feel the need to be so critically defensive. Especially in a gambling sphere, where it is inheritantly more subjective and temperamental.
As for the thread, there isn’t much between Toronado and Dawn Approach, although the Guineas should be largely removed when analysing their respective abilities. I suspect Toronado may consolidate the result from here on in, but for now, we can only summarise that both are excellent horses with very similar abilities over a mile.
Trust me if I ever feel I need to ask your permission to post on a thread I’ll be sure to ask.
As usual you seem to be suffering from small goat syndrome.
You are free to post as much as you want. Alas, it likely won’t exclude the inevitably of a reply that points out clear faults.
Let me know when you are ready to commence a friendship and we can wine and dine ourselves into even more stupidity.
A post that sums up in a nutshell why I have no understanding of race horse ratings. (And little interest either.) How in the name of god you can have Toronado 2 lbs in front of Dawn Approach, a classic winner -in fact a classic winner who has previously beaten the former twice before- is completely beyond me Ginge.
If you have no understanding of them and have no desire to discuss their merit, why bother posting about them?
Assessing horses has no room for prestige, heritage and perceptions tags. Whether he won a classic or not is somewhat irrelevant. It’s the performance within the race, not the tag, that is important.
The Guineas clearly shouldn’t be used as a measurement to compare DA and Toronado. Clearly, DA put up an excellent performance in the Guineas, which was a performance that indicated he was a top class horse. However, Toronado palpably failed to run anywhere near his best. His craven win and his two subsequent performances indicate he ran significantly below par.
I am not saying that he is or ever was a great horse just that he has lost his form since the Derby. Of course over 10 races there is only that one piece of "data" (if you want to call it that, most racing people would call it "form") but that only goes to support what I am saying. His 6 races since the Derby have been average to say the least. His 4 races up to and including the Derby showed a progressive horse and there was very much an upward curve to his career. In my opinion the Camelot of today would not have won the Derby like he did that day.
Form is data.
The halt of progression does not correlate with regression. Progression is not linear, and it will eventually halt. This "progression" can also be masked or bolstered in favourable circumstances (i.e weak races).
Your whole thesis is founded upon one piece of data, data that is questionable in it’s true merit. I will take 9 pieces of data over 1 piece of data all day long when analysing a situation.
His Guineas form has been murdered. His Derby form likewise. The difference between his Guineas win and Derby win was he showed greater seperation or dominance over his rivals. His Derby form isn’t worth much, but that naturally doesn’t consign a horse to mediocrity. Frankel won a poor Guineas. Visually stunning yes, but to know whether that was simply an aberration or false data was for him to do it on the race course again.
Camelot has not done this. We can agree or disagree on the merit of his Derby win, but the fact that the impression left in that race in the eyes of some has not come close to being re-produced would lead you to believe that impression was false. You may wish to believe that impression was valid, but subsequent decisions (Irish Derby, which frankly i found "LOL") intercepted his abilities, but the logical conclusion would be to say that the visual performance witnessed in the Derby was false.
Your entire opinion is predicated on conjecture and unsubstantiated impressions.
Well J17 perhaps when you have followed the sport a little longer you may come across a few more examples of horses who peak at a certain time in their careers but are then unable to reproduce it afterwards for whatever reason. Camelot is not the first and certainly won’t be the last. There have certainly been many good Derby winners who have not been the same after winning at Epsom.
If that experience ends up in picking strawberries and believing in all words of men … then i look forward to following the sport for longer. Thankyou for the insight of time.
His story is of progression from maiden to Racing Post to Guineas to brilliant Derby winner and it was at THIS point that things turned. This is reflected in his ratings and is clear to anyone with any racing rather than poker knowledge. That is not being lazy that is just seeing the obvious.
Poker has nothing to do with this topic. If you wish to try and belittle somebody, make sure you do it with panache and intelligence.
His Guineas win hasn’t worked out. His "brilliant" Derby win saw him beat a horse who has been beaten 5 times since, most recently in a listed race at Pontefract. Only one other horse has won a race since, Thought Worthy ; a 3 yr old St Ledger trial. No horse from this race has won in all aged company. Think about.
The above isn’t great racing knowledge. It should be relatively common knowledge, and somewhat explicity highlights the worth of his form.
That is not being lazy, that is just seeing the obvious, right?
I completely agree with those that say he was overrated by his trainer on what he actually achieved and that he was the best of a very poor bunch last year. AOB is indeed a terrible hype merchant but again most of us with experience take it with a pinch of salt. It is quite possible that even if he had maintained his Epsom form he would not have been able to beat Al Kazeem at Ascot but it is also very clear that the horse we are seeing now is not the same one as we saw at Epsom last year. Remember his Derby winning time was faster that St Nic’s after all.
A 10 race career founded upon one win in a race that has fallen apart form wise. The idea of regression based on one piece of data. Excluding the fact that it is absurd to base any conclusion on one piece of data, that piece of data itself isn’t particularly reliable.
Perhaps you confuse regression with lack of progression (arguable, but reasonable). Who knows.
blah blah blah blah Hasn’t regained his 3 yr old form.
Would you believe me if i said i have the ability to morph into a fridge?
How the words of delusion seem to change and manifest for the purposes of $$$. His classic form has been time and time again beaten into the ground. It’s not good. We’ve since heard positive statements time and time again predicated by "he’s the best horse we have ever trained". When the result doesn’t go to plan, an excuse is found.
The Irish Derby is such a cop out. It’s a lazy opinion preached by people who can’t think. His classic form hasn’t worked out (all 3 of them!) and in 5 races since he hasn’t produced anything to match the hype. Yet people insist of still believing that this hype was founded upon something existant, but has simply vanished due to a training mistake or heavy ground or an injury etc etc?
He’s aptly named at least.
Not sure I know what the question is exactly J17? Could you put it in to the language of horse racing please?
Sure. In the most common poker format, it is a common trend of thought that a player needs to play 100k hands (online) before their true win or loss rate can be determined with good accuracy. I don’t entirely agree with it, but that is a different debate.
It stands to reason that horse race betting will have a similar "principle". There will be a relative threshold of total number of bets before it’s reasonable to assume what a rough win/loss rate is. I am curious to know what that threshold is. How many bets, basically.
Say you’re profitable over 700 bets this year. As a sample size, it is minute. Do you have an idea of how many bets per year you make?
Well I suppose if you look at the Pipe’s, the Dunlop’s, the Hannon’s it is a similar situation. If it is at all possible to keep it in the family why not? Warren Place and the Cecil family go back longer than 40 years as Sir Henry took it over from his father in law having inherited his own string from his step father Cecil Boyd Rochfort. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of tradition is there? You see it in racing, you see it in business. A legacy is created and, in an ideal world, gets passed to another family member. Of course in the above examples you have ready made replacements in David, Ed and Richard junior. Perhaps that is not the case at Warren Place!
Of course you are right that just because someone shares the same surname it should not automatically give them more pull over a clearly hard working and dedicated man like Mike Marshall. But Ben Cecil IS a trainer himself and a pretty successful one at that. I am with you in that I have no idea how involved Lady Cecil is/was.
I agree that nobody wants to see the chapter artificially extended and I think we are all realistic enough to know that would not work anyway. If Ben is not interested and Lady Cecil is not qualified then it should obviously pass on to Mike or someone like him from outside the Cecil family. If it doesn’t the likelihood is the stable will not be successful and be forced to close as I pointed out in option 1. The right decision has to be made – it is just the hope of some of us that the right decision is also the romantic one as well!
There must be a LITTLE bit of romance in you somewhere J17!!!
I was born into an industrial estate in Bolton, where all i saw in my formative years were lines upon lines of tinned fish.
Who knows what will ensue after the summer/end of year. I just think rational thought is more useful than hollywood romanticism.
With some trainers they do have their son’s heavily involved from an early age. David Pipe, Charlie Hills, Nick Gifford, Richard Hannon Jnr (soon to be i imagine) etc. Though they were heavily involved for a long time and towards the end were likely more involved than their fathers. Cecil meanwhile has no such family cog. I don’t know anything about Ben Cecil, so i won’t meander down that road.
Frankly, i think it is more likely that the stable ceases to operate. Abdulla is winding down himself, the great man himself is no longer here and the allure and attraction of sending horses there thus also disppears for other owners.
We shall see.
I know the majority all enjoy a Hollywood romantic ending, but this idea that Lady Jane or Ben have more pull than Mike Marshall seems curious. Pull to what? That they happen to have the same surname to one of the greatest trainers of all time? I won’t profess to know how much involvement Lady Jane Cecil has in the training side, but i imagine few do.
I get that many people want to see the continuation of the name Cecil in horse racing. As a name it has dominated racing for 40 years and is something many of you grew up on (sadly not myself). The aeotic pump wants some link or relation to those memories. Still, that chapter in horse racing is now sadly over. Trying to artificially extend it seems false to me.
These streaks are inevitable, whether you are good, mediocre or bad at the betting medium.
At the stakes i play for poker, i would state confidently i am a top 5% player within the competition. Yet, in the past 4k hands (tiny sample size) i am down over 15 buy in’s. What is somewhat unusual is my all in expected value is actually around the same as my total loss over the sample size(usually long losing streaks are well below your expected winnings, naturally, and often a during a large losing streak i should have been profitable in expected value during that time frame). I feel i’ve played quite well outside of a very small stretch during those 4k hands inspite of my poor expected value. I just happened to run into the top % of opponents range regularly, just another form of variables (word luck sucks).
The point is, these streaks are unavoidable. Poker is a different medium to horse racing, but given the games i play it is possible to be all in pre-flop with the best possible starting hand and only have 55-60% equity versus one villain, it is vital to maintain perspective. I don’t gamble in horse racing, but i imagine you’ll have a few large losing streaks per year.
You need to dig much deeper analysis wise to understand whether this losing streak is due to fundamental issues or not.
I know GingerTipster prides himself (or at least his posts suggest!!) on being successful within this field, but i am curious to what he thinks is a time frame/quantity of bets before one can begin to accurately guage your "ability". It is thought that one needs 100k hands at No limit hold’em to truely understand your win/loss rate, and more for pot limit omaha.
I agree with you, Admiralofthefleet. The argument that many iffy jumpers have got away with their lives after running in the Grand National doesn’t hold much water. It’s like saying you’ve never worn a seatbelt in a car, but nothing bad has happened to you. That doesn’t make it right.
Fair points about Grands Crus though, J17, although there was a valid excuse for his RSA run. Could well be that he hasn’t been right for a while.
Well if many have done it before, thus the conclusion that this was the worst training mistake ever seems hilarious?
Personally i was vehemently against Grand Crus winning the RSA. Still, his form in the RSA and onwards is somewhat perplexing, though it is difficult to truely ascertain what the problem is. Could be a mistake they made at home or could just be variables they can’t control ; i.e the horse.
