Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What makes them poor guides? The fact you dont make money using them, which seems to be the issue on your first post. Is that your criteria for judging the speed ratings you use?
If you want to get theoretical about speed ratings then why mention profit and loss?
Whats right and wrong in theory and what the market thinks is right or wrong are completely unrelated.
Sorry, I’m not trying to argue a point (I don’t know the answer to the question I raised), but to get a better understanding of the subject. In your first reply, you said:
Its not the ratings per se that are overated, its heavy use that makes them overrated in the context of making money from them.
But that wasn’t the problem here. There weren’t enough winners to make the issue of prices relevant; and it was only thanks to underbet horses at 14/1 and 25/1 that the returns got anywhere near the outlay.
As you say, profit and loss isn’t relevant to the argument. More relevant is the wins/losses ratio, which was 10/95. The speed ratings-based systems used by Artemis and me were poor guides to how horses performed.
Cavelino Rampante – I wasn’t talking about backing top-rated horses, but about following horses that appeared, according to speed ratings, to have put up good performances. Both Artemis and I found that the ratings were poor guides.
Robert – I think I have a vague idea of what you mean; but could you amplify?
I can see the sense of that, David. But a good many of the horses that entered my list didn’t manage to win again all season.
My opinion is worth a great deal less than AP’s, because I go racing far less often and do not watch the races with the care and attention he needs to employ. But, in my experience, it is quite difficult to hold the image steady if the binoculars have a magnification higher than 8. Also, while 10x and 12x bins may give larger images, they do not necessarily give clearer ones.
If you wear specs, and do not want to take them off while using the bins, look for models with long eye reliefs – 17mm and above.
Nick – there are three possibilities a) Coolmore were deliberately trying to play into Rip Van Winkle’s by setting a slow pace b) They didn’t want a slow pace and Colm O’Donoghue ignored orders c) they haven’t got a clue what they are doing when it comes to race tactics.
I’d price it about a)1-8 b)100-1 c)8-1
It certainly looks that way, tdk. What I don’t get is: why?
The implication of some of the comments here is that Coolmore wanted to win the Derby with their Galileo colt (Rip Van Winkle) rather than with their Montjeu one (Fame and Glory). Why? Because Montjeu is already established, but Galileo needs a boost? I am not sure that I buy this theory.
I think it may be the only track not laid out in a circular fashion. i.e the furthest you can go is abt1m4f starting at the top boundary of the track and the pull up area after the post is abt 200yds.
Newmarket; Epsom.
According to Greg Wood, the consultants say that 1 in 10 members of the population goes racing once a year. This figure seems too high to me. It certainly doesn’t hold good among the people I know. How have they arrived at it?
It was very surprising that Denman was 2 to 1 on in running. Perhaps punters were misled by Jim McGrath and Mick Fitzgerald, who were talking about how well the horse was travelling just as Sam Thomas started niggling.
Paul Nicholls’ column yesterday didn’t quite knock Alastair Down’s allegations on the head. Nicholls asserted that Hales didn’t say anything unsporting to him. He added:
John puts an awful lot into the sport; like many of us he wears his heart on his sleeve, and in the heat of the moment I’m sure he was disappointed that Neptune couldn’t finish closer than fourth in the Gold Cup.
Why write that, if Hales hadn’t said anything that could have been construed as graceless?
I made it clear that it was my opinion and not a fact. You cannot get in trouble for an opinion.
This is incorrect, as the Sporting Life discovered when the Ramsdens took it to court.
Apologies if you know this already: you can go further back at Pedigree Query by clicking on other horses’ names. For example, if you look up Duke of Marmalade’s pedigree, you can click on the sire five generations back (Nearco) and go back further, through Phalaris. And so on, back to Eclipse and the Darley Arabian.
I would suggest that anyone betting on the result of an objection and using a TV channel to esnure they have the most up to date info just about deserve all they got.
No one "deserves" to be ripped off. But we might feel more sympathy for some victims than others.
This action, if it took place, was fraudulent. The bookmaker took money from punters knowing that they could not win. I would not do business with anyone capable of such behaviour.
Lydia Hislop’s remarks were not jingoistic. If a British trainer — before the Arc, say, or the Melbourne Cup — had behaved as Jim Bolger has done, he or she would have offered a poor reflection of British racing.
Sorry, Artemis: I did not make myself clear. What I meant to suggest was that if you wanted to factor in weight to the Raceform ratings, you would adjust the original rating as well as the one assigned on the day of the race. So a horse earning a raw rating of 110 when carrying 9st would get 96 (adjusted to 10st); carrying 9st 4lb next time out, the horse would be rated 106. Or wouldn’t that work?
