Forum Replies Created
- Posts
But Drone (and Paul),
If – for some crazy reason – in 2012 they were scheduled to be staged at exactly the same time of the year, and you had to attend one or the other, which one would you attend?
You don’t want to compare them, and the situation above will never happen, but use your imagination for one second and pretend they are both staged during the same week for one year only, then serious question, which one would you attend?
And if it makes it easier (and fairer), let’s push Cheltenham back six week and bring Royal Ascot forward six week – so late April/early May it is.
Oh.. and I voted Cheltenham by the way. Cheltenham beats everything in my book, family birthdays, weddings, partner giving birth etc. Nothing gets a look in when Cheltenham is on.
Thank you for all your responses.
I know a lot of you swear by the ‘value’, the ‘backing winners at the right price’ approach, which is absolutely fine. My only question to that would be, who determines and how do you determine what is the right price?
The answer in most cases will be yourself, which means you will be using some sort of system to assess your tissue and determine whether a horse is ‘the right price’. But there isn’t one system in the world that is bomb proof, all your systems, all your workings out, how you give a horse a tissue of 4/1 and how you give another horse a tissue of 10/1 etc are just your own opinions. What if you get it wrong, what if you get it drastically wrong?
Backing horses at any price (and I don’t mean 12 bets a day, I’m talking one or two bets a week after your form study) puts an emphasis purely and simply on finding winners. Backing horses at a ‘value’ price puts an emphasis not only on finding winners, but also on a system you have derived to form a tissue.
If – like the old chap – you are very efficient at studying form and you are selecting more winners than losers (which isn’t incredibly difficult if you put some serious work in), then why not back every selection at any price.
I know I’m in the minority with the approach I use to finding winners, but I’m of a strong belief that it’s the right approach and one that doesn’t over complicate things.
I’m not convinced Keedy looks like McMahon, have you been drinking Nathan?
Actually, McMahon looks exactly what I’d expect Wayne Rooney to look like in 20 years or so, except with smaller ears.
Actor Andy Garcia and Dimitar Berbatov look very similar, that’s the best I can come up with.
I’m with you DB, thank you for that.
You’re right, I wouldn’t have backed Luke Donald at 2/1 or whatever because without forming a tissue, in my mind I had an idea he’d be somewhere close to the price he was. To be honest though, I thought he’d be 10/1 or even 12/1, so what I’m trying to say is that the ‘lesser’ price shouldn’t put us off. A winner is a winner after all.
But yes, I completely understand what you are saying and concur with it.
Be it 1/3, 1/4, or 1/5 you may as well stick Frankel in with anything you fancy, the horse can’t get beat can it?
Too short a price to back on its own for most people I guess but putting Frankel – say at 1/4 – in a double makes your Even money shot a 6/4 shot, your 3/1 shot a 4/1 shot, and your 7/1 shot a 9/1 shot for example.
Get on
Footballers and athletes have been banned upto nine months (if not more) for simply failing to give a urine sample, the punishments for testing positive have known to be far greater.
Here we have a racehorse trainer breaking the rules in this manner, and the worst that is going to happen to him is he will receive a few grand fine.
And people wonder why there is so much corruption in the sport
Ratings mean nothing, I’ve rated the winner 180, but the runner up 52. When they next meet off levels I will back the 52-rated runner because hey, anything can happen in this game as ratings mean absolutely diddly squat.
I noticed that when I posed the question how did Saddlers Bend, rated 72, beat Jacqueline Quest, rated 110, in receipt of just three pounds, not one person answered.
Ok, 99% of you will say that you don’t like replying to me, but then 99% of you would be telling a fib (that’s just my analytical thought process kicking in, just go with it) as the real reason not one of you ‘ratings’ experts answered is because you were all baffled as to that result. That result scrambled your brains didn’t it?
Of course, a few weeks after that race, some of you will say that one horse didn’t show it’s true form, the other horse is an improver, this horse is this, that horse is that etc. But what it all boils down to is that ratings mean nothing. Ratings always have been, and always will be, just one person’s opinion of how good a horse is.
Trainer Mark Johnston is the only sensible guy amongst us all, because he knows that handicapping is a load of – and pardon the pun – horse manure. Horses with an official rating inferior to their opposition prevail every single week when racing off levels, and always will. And that to me renders ‘ratings’ utterly pointless.
Are ratings calculated by a computer, are rules set in stone as to how a rating increases or decreases? No. Some fella will watch a horse race and give an animal an official rating based on what he has just seen with his very eyes. From then on, that animal can be raised or dropped in the ratings whenever the official handicapper sees fit. A horse can be raised x in the ratings for losing, whilst a horse can be raised less for winning. Why? Because it’s just some fella in an office with an opinion.
I have never had a bet on a horse race since a jockey – a personal friend at the time – told me how he got told to stop a horse from winning as the owners couldn’t get ‘enough’ on at the 50/1 price. The jockey deliberately stopped the horse, and hey presto, within the next 10 days it had landed two monster gambles.
The thing is, the same jockey also told me that if the sport of horse racing wasn’t so ‘ratings’ orientated, such shenanigans wouldn’t go on. The same jockey won a valuable race not so long ago, inidentally on a horse who was winning off it’s highest ever mark having had close to 50 runs. Get that eh, a horse improving after 50 runs.
Only the horse hadn’t improved, only a number – a rating – leads us to believe it improved.
Ratings mean absolutely nothing, and no-one can prove otherwise.
We decided on a vet, doctor & the ambulance but
we couldn’t get our heads around a second ambulance for a four runner race
& the other two cars.
It’s just rules of racing Anthony.
For all jumps meetings at least three ambulances – or at least it used to be three – have to be on duty with two of those ambulances being classed as ‘frontline’ – meaning they go round following the runners in every race, regardless of whether there are four runners, 44 runners, or just two runners.
Imagine a two runner race; one horse falls in the home straight, jockey seriously injured needing urgent medical attention, and the other horse falling in the back straight, jockey needing medical attention.
Given the example above – albeit an example that rarely happens for real – it’s very simple to understand why two ambulances follow all races at jump meetings.
As for the other two cars I haven’t got a clue. I’m almost certain that stewards sometimes go round in a car, and I don’t think it’s against the rules that connections of a runner aren’t allowed to go round in a car. So perhaps one had stewards in, the other had a trainer in. Complete stab in the dark though mate.
Every horse is beatable though, especially with team tactics.
Who knows what will happen Frankel if he tries to do the same in the St James Palace and another horse stays with him by treating the race as a 5-furlong spoiler
That’s always a possibility David, granted.
Still, if Frankel tries to do what he did in the Guineas next week I believe the only horses that can stay with him for the first five furlongs will be otherwise engaged… hence at the top of the markets in the Kings Stand or Golden Jubilee markets
Frankel is 1-5 to win the St James’ Palace Stakes at Royal Ascot, next week. The second favourite is the Japanese horse, Grand Prix Boss and it’s 20-1 bar. It will be a complete non-event and I’m glad I won”t be able to listen to Willie Carson waffle on about how great he is. He beat Dubawi Gold and Native Khan by six lengths in the 2000 Guineas (a very poor race this year) and I fail to see how that makes him a great horse. If he can do the same to Canford Cliffs and Goldikova, I will be more than happy to jump on to the bandwagon.
It’s impossible to gauge the strength of the Guineas field at this stage of the season, all you can do is admire the way in which Frankel destroyed – and had them destroyed after a few furlongs – his rivals.
To counter your Dubawi Gold and Native Khan argument I can point to the fact that Frankel beat Roderic O’Connor a distance, and that horse came out and won a Group 1 next time.
And the reason Frankel is 1/5 next week (by the way, he’s only 1/3 on Betfair) is not because it’s a weak race or anything, it’s because Frankel is what he is – an extremely talented colt. You don’t get weak races at Royal Ascot.
Ginge, do me one favour please, and I will bow down and agree to you both.
Please show me where I said that Fallon not riding on Saturday increased the Derby day attendance. And also, please show me where I agreed that the TV attendances were up.
From my original post, these are the two things that Pinza – after his analystic process – thinks I said. Please show me where I said them.
If you can’t find them, then my advice to you both is not to assume what I say, but rather take what I type in black and white as what I say. You’ll both be on safe ground then.
I don’t give a toss what people think of me, never have done and never will do. I make a living out of being controversial; I express my opinions and thoughts in a very simple way, it’s the only way I know how. What I do give a toss about is people twisting what I do say and debating something that I actually didn’t say. I express opinions in a very simple way, in black and white, without the need for analysis. I don’t know how to write in riddles mate.
So if I say the best way to get to the number four is by adding two plus two, then that’s exactly what I mean. What I don’t mean is that the best way to get to the number four is by dividing 80 by 10, taking away five, and adding one.
So if I say that the Fallon story received more publicity (in my opinion) than the Queen story, then that’s exactly what I mean. What I don’t mean is that Fallon’s absence increased the Derby Day attendance.
So if I say I don’t know one non-racing fan who tuned into watch the Derby just because the Queen’s horse was fav, then that’s exactly what I mean. What I don’t mean is that I agree that TV audiences were up because of the Queen publicity thing.
Whether I’m right or wrong I don’t give a toss. Remember, you can always debate an opinion, but you can’t argue a fact.
It could easily be – and very likely is – that all the folk on here are too clever to simply read what is written in black and white, that’s maybe too simple for them. So the solution is to read what is written, analyse it, and come up with an assumption that they think is correct, but in fact is wrong.
I on the other hand just prefer to read what is written in black and white, and take it for what it says without the use of analysis.
But then should I be surprised with how intelligent people think they are on here? When you get dozens and dozens of pages about a horse’s rating, everyone thinking they are correct and everyone else must be wrong, and then I start a thread to ask how a 70 rated animal beats a 110 rated animal of level weights, and I don’t get one reply. Then that tells me everything I need to know about the folk on here.
It’s like a playground for you all to try and out do each other with your use of words and opinions. There’s hardly ever a light-hearted moment shared or a smile raised; the most important thing about this forum is analysis as it seems – either trying to analyse what people write, or trying to analyse a horse’s rating. No one does it well, because quite frankly, neither needs analysing.
That’s me done on this thread, I won’t read it again so if there’s something you want me to see then I suggest a PM. So go ahead, twist away, just don’t get into a fight with Pinza when you’re trying to analyse which one of you is Chubby Checker
And yes, that is light-hearted.
The nag wasn’t good enough.
True.
I love this sentence on the BBC Sport website;
– The Queen’s horse Carlton House may have won the 2011 Derby if the race had been run differently, her team said.
Well so might every other horse in the race
Many of the people who are classing Carlton House as unlucky, or ‘didn’t get the run of the race’ etc, are failing to mention that the winner Pour Moi came from much further back, also had to race wide, hung left in the final furlong, yet won with the jockey stood up in the saddle crossing the line.
If the two – Pour Moi and Carlton House – ever met again over 12f, I know who I’d be backing. And it wouldn’t be the Queen’s horse that’s for certain.
There’s some misapprehension here. On this occasion, for once, many non-racing fans were tuning in to see The Derby. They were doing so simply because the Queen’s horse was favourite.
The publicity for this year’s race was massive
because of this fact
, and its profile correspondingly higher than usual.
Are you absolutely certain about these two points you make?
Attendance at Epsom was 120,000, up 16% on the previous year.
Fact.
Interviews with many punters at the gate produced the "We’ve come to see the Queen’s horse win" response.
Fact.
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra … bymeeting/
The Derby, not the England/Switzerland football qualifier, was top of the bill in every sports segment in the morning news programmes, on terrestrial, Sky and Radio 4.
Fact.
So yes, I am absolutely certain of those
facts
. The viewing figures for BBC1 will make interesting reading too, I have no doubt. For once, after decades of trailing in the Grand National’s wake, The Derby was a real focus of general public interest yesterday.
Quite how you think Fallon’s absence might have
increased
attendance baffles me, as that absence wasn’t decided until after most people would have set out for the course. Bizarre idea!
Curious how so many Racing fans (on TRF and elsewhere) seem determined to diss the importance of the event, none the less.
Do you do this on purpose Pinza?
Please, please, please. I’m begging you mate, I really am begging you. Please will you STOP twisting things that I actually said. Please stop responding to something that I didn’t actually say. It does my head in mate.
Where did I say Fallon’s absence increased attendance? Come on, please show me. And if you can’t find it (and you won’t), then can you actually give a response to something I actually do say in the future.
What I actually did do is question your two statements. Your first statment was about non-racing fans tuning in because the Queen’s horse was favourite, your second statement was about publicity.
You then gave an excellent response, which I accept. But you then also go on to talk gibberish about something I didn’t say. Why?
I never once mentioned attendance.
What I actually said was, that in the 48 hours leading up to the race, the Fallon story received more publicity than the Queen’s story.
I NEVER said that Fallon’s absence increased attendance.
So please Pinza, stop responding to something that I didn’t say. Stop twisting what I and others say. You’re a clever man, so please have the decency to reply to what people actually say rather than what they didn’t say.
It would be nice if you could reply with some sort of acknowledgement that I never once said Fallon’s absence would increase attendance.
Many thanks.
There’s some misapprehension here. On this occasion, for once, many non-racing fans were tuning in to see The Derby. They were doing so simply because the Queen’s horse was favourite.
The publicity for this year’s race was massive
because of this fact
, and its profile correspondingly higher than usual.
Are you absolutely certain about these two points you make?
I don’t know one non-racing fan who tuned in to watch yesterday’s Derby simply because the Queen’s horse was favourite. Ok, there may have been some, but relatively speaking, ‘many’ is an exaggeration in my opinion.
So I don’t think it’s ‘fact’ that this was the case do you?
And to your second point, you say the publicity for this year’s race was massive, again referring to the Queen’s horse as your reason.
But was the publicity massive just because the Queen’s horse was favourite? I’d say that the ‘Fallon’ story outweighed the ‘Queen’s horse’ story ten to one in the 48 hours that immediately preceded the Derby. And before that I didn’t notice any publicity that I wouldn’t have seen in any year ahead of the Derby – Queen’s horse or no Queen’s horse in the race.
Ah, Capello has just answered my questions as to why we were so crap today. Cos we were tired.
That’s a ready made excuse for next summer if I’ve ever heard one.
If they were so bloody tired, then why pick players who have played 25 games in the last three months – ie, Champions League/Europa League players like Lampard, Terry, Cole, Milner, Wiltshire, Glen Johnson etc.
****ing idiot.
