Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Excellent stuff non vintage.
I know it’s bending the facts, but assume for a moment that Sulamani had won that Listed race over 10 furlongs. Non vintage’s figures would then have been a very helpful tool in deciding whether or not he’d be as effective over the classic distance.
Connections of Act One said they felt their colt didn’t quite get home. I’m not so sure I go along with that (bearing in mind the gap back to Simeon in third) but the brilliant winner saw out the trip that bit better – and non vintage’s figures would have given you the necessary confidence. Not that you’d have needed every i dotted and every t crossed at 12/1!
With the Epsom Derby, of course, these colts are (more or less) taking on 12f for the first time. I’d certainly consider looking at reliable dosage figures in a race like this – not so much, perhaps, a day or two before the race; maybe a month or two before the race when the ante post markets still offer a bit more in the way of value.
No problems, Esc. I just recall you saying something on the lines that if ROG beat Hawk Wing again you’d give up the game; and then later mildly rebuking me and others for getting all excited about ROG’s demolition job in the Irish Guineas. What a great game horse racing is, eh?
Esc, are you playing devil’s advocate?
I thought you said directly after the Guineas that ROG was second best on the day…
Steve, I look forward to seeing Hawk Wing line up in the Breeders’ Cup Classic, having found the 12/1 at Coral irresistable!
If 10 furlongs is his trip, and if he acts on the dirt (he’s a son of Woodman so he should, shouldn’t he?) and if he can find the speed of his Guineas form, perhaps he can run even War Emblem close.
The O’Brien yard is almost certain to take its strongest possible team to Arlington, and at this stage of the game Hawk Wing looks their obvious Classic horse.
Surely dosage analysis is something to take into account alongside analysis of all known form. In a race like this, where these colts are to some extent going into the unknown, I suspect dosage (a subject I know next to nothing about) is an especially helpful consideration.
Your interpretation of the form book, Esc, has identified High Chaparral. Steve M’s work has identified High Chaparral. Non Vintage’s helpful analysis, which appears to take into account dosage and form, has identified High Chaparral. Even the ground seems to be going the way of High Chaparral. (My own way of punting requires me to go "against the crowd" which is why I’m on Fight your Corner, even though I believe High Chaparral is the likeliest winner on all known form.)
As far as the French Derby is concerned, hadn’t Sulamani already proved himself over the classic distance before the big race?
What about the old boy from the States who covered the last Breeder’s Cup?
"AAAAAAAAAAAnnnnnd the fiiieeeeeeeeeeeld turnnnnnnnns for home…"
I thought he was quality. The way he called home Unbridled Elaine, Banks Hill, Johannesburg and Tiznow – superb. All good commentators should be able to enhance the experience of the race, and this old timer certainly knows how to do it.
Shall we all calm down.
If Hawk Wing had followed the Redback pace, 9 punters out of 10 agree he would have won.
It is possible that Jamie Spencer was given no orders, that he cocked up and simply took the wrong option.
It is also entirely posible that he was following orders to stay on the near side (with the Stoute horse and Godolphin’s main hope).  We now see with the benefit of hindsight that, if given, this was a foolish instruction.  Even so, he might still have won the race if Spencer had committed the remarkable Hawk Wing just a half furlong or so earlier.
If Jamie was told to stay on the near side, it almost certainly had nothing to do with some sordid plot to land a gamble on the longer priced Rock Of Gibraltar. ÂÂÂ
(Edited by remittance man at 1:02 am on May 8, 2002)
Luke, Down To The Woods has never been a non-trier; his poor runs last season were due to viral and/or bleeding problems.
He wasn’t knocked about at Ascot that time because he didn’t need to be: with a clear run he’d have won very nicely.
A talented horse whose problems presumably remain unsolved, given that connections let him go for £12,000 after yesterday’s canter in a Wolverhampton claimer.
Perfectly justifiable to ask questions, but I don’t personally see how connections can be taken to task too much on this occasion. They’d made it clear that he had his going days and his non-going days and that it would be a miracle if he managed to pull it off.
From my vantage point in Tatts (ha ha ha) even I could see without binoculars that Istabraq wasn’t travelling on the run to the second flight. Furthermore, in the parade he was ominously laid back, and nowhere near the boiling point we associate with Istabraq on his big days at Prestbury Park.
If I could see it was all a bit of a struggle from where I was, I can only guess how quickly Aidan O’Brien perceived it. Perhaps Charlie could have pushed for a while longer because, in retrospect, Valiramix’s terrible demise meant the race didn’t take as much winning as usual, but I’m afraid the punter must always come second to the welfare of any horse, let alone Istabraq.
Esc, have you ever followed the 10 Year Trends column in the Racing Post? I haven’t, but I’m worried that I might be missing valuable insights and future winners.
I think they look at certain key races and say something like, "Having regard to results over the last ten years, this race is usually won by a six or seven year old second season (usually bay) chaser which has already won over the distance, is flat-bred and trained in the north by a man with a lisp. Avoid greys because they have never won this race."<br> <br>This is pretty phenomenal stuff, so can you give me some statistics on how successful the column has been this season?
Just for you Esc, they let me out of the day centre today to do a quick research job.
I’ve had a look at 30 early price betting markets over the jumps since the Thomas Pink meeting. I compared the prices of the big three (Lads, Hills, Coral) and threw in the Tote for good measure.
Looking at the prices available against the winners of these races:
Ladbrokes were longest price (or equal longest) 13 times.
Coral and the Tote were longest price (or equal longest) 8 times.
Hill were longest price (or equal longest) 7 times.
(To be fair, Coral weren’t quoted in 3 of these markets, and Hill weren’t quoted in one.)
But hey. Everyone believes Ladbrokes tend to get it right, so the cliche is alive and well.
Ah sheeeeesh Escorial,
Are you saying you weren’t manipulating all those stats to support your argument? And to think you emphasised some of your discoveries in red highlighter too.
Do you know – I think Sal’s on to something.
The trick is to consider all the available stats, maybe even reflect for a moment, and then settle on a logical conclusion. You really shouldn’t blunder upon some pre-conceived fancy and rub salt in by blatantly cherry-picking the statistics for support.
Get a grip man. After all, you are the voice of reason.
Hey ratpack, there’s no need to get ratty.
I saw Valiramix win at Newbury that day, and I remember thinking, "Bloody hell, that was good."
But then I thought about the quality of that Bula. Forget for one moment that The French Furze is A Very Good Yardstick. Are you really telling me that this is the best form we can turn to as we go into this year’s Champion Hurdle? If so – what a sad indictment for the quality of hurdling in 2002.
(But wait! He Could Do No More Than Win It As He Pleased (Racing Cliche #48)).
Do you think Valiramix is athletic enough to cope with Cheltenham? Do you think he can quicken off a fast pace on fast ground?
Do you think he’s good enough to beat an arthritic, nervy, 10 year old let loose in his own private playground? Do you?
Hi Esc. Do you know what? I love stats. I really do. But this is weird – I don’t like yours much. I’ve never weighed up a race, settled on my selection, and suddenly bolted up in my seat and screamed, "No! The Magic Sign Are Longest Price About My Horse. I Haven’t Got A Prayer!" Either I’m unhinged or you need to get out more.
Ladbrokes. Who Tend To Get Most Things Right.
There’s another one! Care to back up this age-old cliche with some stats, Escorial?
I’m not a handicapper, ratpack, so I can’t help you on my idea of a "good yardstick". I suppose I tend to concentrate on the particular conditions of a race (track, ground, distance, class) rather than:
(1) the number of lengths The French Furze happened to toil home behind Valiramix or Ned Kelly or Rodock,
(2) whether 10 year olds have done it before and if so whether they were "late maturing types" because if they were that will help an argument against Istabraq,
(3) whether Ladbrokes are going low about the one I fancy,
and so on.
I’m not knocking handicappers and their ratings. It’s natural to look at past results, analyse them objectively and rate horse A against horse B. Thankfully, the game is complex and at times unpredictable, so there is room for different ways of making it pay (or trying to make it pay).
The French Furze. Very Good Yardstick. <br>This cliche is beginning to play havoc with my sides.
My spread on the number of times The French Furze is referred to as (wait for it) Averygoodyardstick over the next two weeks is 500-550, but I’m only going to be accommodating sellers.
How about:<br>The French Furze. One Paced.
