Forum Replies Created
- Posts
You know the season has really started when Boss Doyle wins at Wetherby on Charlie Hall day.
But you’ll know it’s time to give up the game if Boss Doyle wins at Cheltenham on Gold Cup day.
(Edited by remittance man at 10:59 am on Feb. 26, 2002)
Well Esc, I’m aware of all the negatives against the champ, which is why his price is so unappealing, but no-one (not even your esteemed self) is going to convince me that Valiramix is going to beat a geriatric Istabraq in his own backyard.
Cheers Escorial; appreciate your efforts.
No need for me to dig out the thick black pen though. I won’t be having a bet in the race, even though I believe Istabraq will win.
I was at Kempton and was ashamed to be English at the complete lack of sporting reception given to Florida Pearl in the winner’s enclosure.
All those reserved types who’d done their dough on First Gold and Best Mate couldn’t find it in themselves to muster a bit of collective enthusiasm for a grand old horse and multiple grade 1 winner. Thank God this couldn’t happen at Cheltenmham, I remember saying to myself. And it couldn’t – largely because of the Irish.
I hope to God there are more things in life than being an unblinkered punter; like a true and unabashed love for the sport, which the Irish have in spades.
See you in a couple of weeks boys.
oh right, so by pace you mean the business end of the race; and we’re also talking about good ground here.
I thought I said Ned Kelly had some serious questions to answer on both these fronts.
After referring to bumper horses as chasing types, we’ve moved on to the relative merits of Flat/NF bred horses. Yes, the stats are there and the recent ones certainly support your statement about "good" Flat horses and "very good" jumps horses.
But Escorial, before I concede your point I need the full picture. You know what stats are like; I wouldn’t like to think they’re being used on an unduly selective basis. I don’t follow these stats so closely, so can you give me the overall numbers on Champion Hurdle Flat v NF bred winners? I’m probably wrong, but I read somewhere (was it John Randall?) that they’re about equal. <br>
There are question marks about how Ned Kelly will act on quick ground; about how he will cope with the track; and about what he can find in a battling finish.
There is absolutely no question mark about his pace; he travels ominously well and has all the tactical speed you could possibly hope for. Why base an argument about the horse’s pace on a wacky generalisation about bumper horses, when you can base it on the evidence of the horse’s own performances over timber?<br>
Sorry, I thought "invariably" meant "always". That’s some system you’ve got there; no wonder you always sound so pleased with yourself!
How do, Escorial.
I’m sorry, but use of formlines/stats will not invariably lead to value unless you factor price into your final analysis. If someone as intelligent and discriminating as you does not factor price into your analysis, I’d be amazed.
Of course your form study will throw up horses that go off at value prices, and Streamstown is a very good example. But not invariably, surely. Don’t you ever find yourself saying, "Well, my analysis suggests X is the likeliest winner, but at Y price I’m not prepared to back it."
Yes, Ned Kelly’s run in the Bumper is a big negative. I’m allowed to say, aren’t I, even though that form is more than 12 months old. Here we have a race in which the principals have been so lightly raced, and you question the wisdom of taking account of last season’s form?
The wonder of this game is that no two people look at form/value in the same way.
No, it means that I think 7/2 is a poor assessment of Valiramix’s chances. Every horse has its chance, and at 8/1 even I would consider backing him.
Now it gets really boring answering questions like, "But if you don’t think a horse will win, why back it?", and all I can say is this: racing is unpredictable; fancied horses don’t always win.
Let’s just leave at this Esc. You’re a form man. I’m a value man.
A form man relies on his assessment of a horse’s form working out; a value man relies on identifying horses whose chances have been underestimated by the bookmaker/market.
I may be a value man, but that doesn’t mean I don’t take form seriously, or come to my own conclusions about which horse on form is likely to win a particular race. As a form man, I wouldn’t expect you to back Valiramix for the Champion Hurdle regardless of its price.
Hopefully the form works out often enough for you to get ahead, and bookies get their prices wrong often enough for me to get ahead.
But in answer to your question, if a bookmaker offered 8/1 about Valiramix, I’d say he was underestimating his chances. The bookmakers who are currently offering him at 7/2 or worse are, in my view, overestimataing his chances. I reckon his chances lie somewhere in between – something like 11/2.
Talking of chances, I would put Istabraq and Landing Light ahead of Valiramix and possibly Ned Kelly as well. But I haven’t had a bet in the race and don’t expect to.
If Valiramix was 8/1 or longer I might start taking an interest. At 7/2 I’d say he is the worst value in the race, bearing in mind the conditions of the race.
Yes we’ll find out soon enough. The manner of that win in the Bula was certainly impressive. I’m a bit surprised Ned Kelly’s win is regarded as somehow inferior to Valiramix’s. To my eyes, the race in Ireland seemed more competitive than the Bula, which was a poor renewal really. If only it had been run at Cheltenham. The Bula we got was a bit like the race Rodock subsequently won.
The formbook cannot tell me whether Valiramix acts on quick ground. The very little evidence suggests he doesn’t, but then that was a long time ago and he has matured out of all recognition apparently. The formbook doesn’t tell me whether he acts round Cheltenham. Again, given the time that’s passed it’s better to disregard his poor run in the 2000 Triumph, although you couldn’t draw any encouragement from it.
So what else is there? There’s the early and sustained confidence of the yard, which not surprisingly people have latched on to. But very little in the book, except the Bula. And a leap of faith.
Istabraq and probably Landing Light can handle a blistering gallop downhill on fast ground at the back end of a fast-run race. I’m told Ned Kelly could struggle (something to do with Be My Native’s offspring and Cheltenham).
Can Valiramix? Looking forward to finding out.<br>
jjimps, I’m not bracketing those horses together. People generalise about the game too much in my view. Of course Desert Orchid was a proper stayer. For him it was a left-handed thing, and even when struggling I’m told he always gave everything.
There are horses like One Man and Florida Pearl who have been found out on that hill. I don’t think Mick Fitz is denying the tracks aren’t very different in some ways. And I don’t think he’s denying that the Gold Cup trip is a more severe test. But I guess he would also say that they had to be stayers to win their respective King Georges. Didn’t One Man also win a Hennessy?
Hello Colin,
It’s not a bad read (I know what you mean about autobiographies). Fairly run of the mill but it does include a nice chapter about the season’s big meetings.
Clearly Kempton is flat and right-handed and Cheltenham isn’t! But I think Fitzgerald is on to something. He doesn’t agree with the received wisdom that Kempton is an "easy" track, or at least not in the few top class races there when the taps are full on. Here’s another quote from his book:
"People say that because Kempton is flat, the King George is suited to horses who only just stay three miles, but I don’t hold with that view – it is run at too strong a pace to suit non-stayers. The class of the horses mean that everything happens faster than in an ordinary race; the front runners really bowl along and because it is a tight track they are always turning the bend which tends to make them run close together to save ground. This in turn makes them work just that little bit harder… The whole race is a thorough test from start to finish and you must have stamina to last up the home straight. While people say the King George has little relevance to what might happen in the Gold Cup in March, I’m not so sure. True, the Gold Cup is run over a further two furlongs, on a left-handed undulating track with a stiff uphill finish. But the undulations do mean you can get a breather into your horse, particularly running downhill, which is not the case at Kempton."
I’m not really interested in comparing King George results with Gold Cup results to "prove" some point. In the last decade it seems to me that a fair number of Gold Cup winners didn’t go to Kempton (Cool Ground, Jodami, Master Oats, Imperial Call, Cool Dawn). Those who did, generally have a good King George record (The Fellow won it twice, Mr Mulligan ran well when falling at the last, See More Business won it twice, Look like Trouble’s run isn’t given to much useful analysis).
Now people will say, but what about Desert Orchid, One Man and Florida Pearl? This is fair enough, but it doesn’t really interest me that much. And to me it certainly doesn’t indicate that Best Mate will fail to stay the trip in March. Maybe he will, maybe he won’t.
What really interests me is this point about how Cheltenham is well suited to nimble types with the class and speed to keep position. Fitzgerald said something similar the other day – something about how Marlborough relishes "those tight turns". Prestbury Park is a stiff track alright, especially over the Gold Cup trip, but it’s not a galloping track like Newbury or Haydock. Mick’s views, if you agree with them, are perhaps more relevant when looking at the races, and especially the chases, run over shorter trips at the Festival. Which is why I like Fondmort’s chances in the Arkle, for example.<br> <br>Apologies for rambling.
On the question of the Cheltenham track, something Mick Fitzgerald said in his book (A Jump-Jockey’s Life) has always intrigued me:
"People have this image of Cheltenham being a real stamina test over a very stiff course and suiting stamina-laden horses, but nothing could be further from the truth – particularly at the Festival where big fields invariably mean you are tight for space and need a nimble horse who can jump quickly and has the speed to hold a position; exactly the type of horse that excels at Kempton. You rarely get big clumsy horses winning at Cheltenham but if they have a powerful engine they will have their day at Newbury and Haydock, where the long straights give them a chance to unleash full thrust. If a punter wants some advice from this jockey, it would be to follow Kempton form at Cheltenham."
Just thought I’d throw that one in!
I saw the race too, and Valiramix was different class. But then how many lengths would you say Rodock had in hand the day he beat The French Furze. I also remember being impressed by some of Dato Star’s performances.
Istabraq for me. And round Cheltenham, I expect Landing Light to beat Valiramix as well.
This Gold Cup is going to be fantastic. Although I think Trouble has the best credentials, I hope for the sake of the sport that Best Mate can get the extra quarter mile. Frankly I don’t know what will happen; he could stop in his tracks at the second last. But he wasn’t stopping at Kempton, and he’s always gone well at Cheltenham.
…yes, something like that, Rob. The parable of Valueramix, maybe.
Every horse has its chance. Every horse, therefore, has its price. As Smithy says, if you are lucky or skillful enough consistently to find 33/1 about a horse whose true chance is more like 7/1 you will in the long-term do very nicely thank you. Sometimes, of course, they will lose. But sometimes they will win (even if you don’t think so!).
