Forum Replies Created
- Posts
robgomm! Shame on you!
Gimme a V, gimme an A, gimme an L, gimme a U, gimme an E – what’ve you got?
At 33/1 Valiramix is overpriced; at 11/4 Valiramix is underpriced. You owe it to yourself to take the thirty-threes and to resist the measly two-and-three-quarters.
My view (and it’s easier said than done) is that you should never back a horse unless you truly believe its chances have been underestimated by our bookmaker friends.
The Pipe yard’s decision to set Copeland’s sail for home earlier in a race has worked like a charm.
When Copeland refused to pass Majlis in the Lanzarote, I thought: "Here we go again – hold tight for another frustrating season for Copeland!" But then McCoy took the initiative early in that race at Cheltenham, and then repeated the dose at Newbury. Clearly a good tactical move.
Florida Pearl ran well below par in Trouble’s James Nicholson. Even so, that race was all about Looks Like Trouble. Having won a Gold Cup, he came back after his summer break and put in an astonishingly assured performance. It was probably the first time he got a bit of overdue credit (he won his SunAlliance, remember, because Nick Dundee fell, and only won a Gold Cup, we were told, because other more worthy sorts fell or ran below par).
Maybe Florida’s off-day at Down Royal made Trouble’s run look better than it was. But Noel Chance said he thought his horse had improved, and I for one agreed.
The Wincanton run is a tricky one to assess. Whitenzo was running well before his fall, and yet he was then well held by Upgrade (although I think Upgrade was well treated at the weights).
What was really encouraging (and this has been said before) was the champion’s relish for racing that day. (This enthusiasm could be a double-edged sword; there is a danger of him overjumping at Cheltenham and aggravating his injured leg.) The fact that he won so well over a trip too short was an added bonus.
As long as we get the good quick ground we expect, I agree that Looks Like Trouble stands tall. Of course there has to be a question mark, because there was the usual touch of hype about his winning reappearance. But IF he can recover the form of old, he has all the necessary qualities to win it again. He loves the track (is it 3 out of 3? Two grade 1s and a Pillar), cruises and jumps – and he stays.
I know there are some who (rightly) question the quality of the 2000 Gold Cup. My theory is that Trouble improved between then and Down Royal. His runaway win in the James Nicholson seemed to me the performance of a real star.
When Marlborough drifted out to 13/2 on betfair, I had to back him. Turning into the straight, I thought he might win.
Improved fitness, quicker ground and the Cheltenham track should help Marlborough on Gold Cup day. My nagging concern is whether he’ll get that final furlong up the hill.
Daylight,
While we’re on the subject of anoraks – don’t get me started!
This time last year Istabraq was big odds-on.
You may recall that all the usual rumours kicked-in just before the AIG, and yes a few days before the race he was eased in the market to a general evens; and yes, just before the race the Tote went 11/8.
But then he won yet another AIG unextended. Everyone wondered what the fuss was all about (not for the first, and hopefully not the last, time) and that fleeting 11/8 was quickly rubbed off the boards. From then on he was big odds-on.
Perhaps there’s a lesson here. About taking rumours at face value? Hope so, anyway.
Steve M, I don’t see anyone on here saying that stats don’t matter. What matters is how you manipulate the stats to arrive at your conclusions.
You have made a compelling case against the champ, and used stats to back this up. And everything you say is perfectly vaild, and indeed reflected in the market (this time last year he was big odds-on).
But you can also use stats to make a plausible case for the champ. His track record round Prestbury Park, for example.
Anyway, just a few weeks now before we are put out of our misery…
Steve, this is indeed a very very tired debate. The same points are being made over and over again ad nauseum, and it looks like no-one’s ready to stop! There’s another thread going strong in the forum, just picking over the same old points.
Here we have an uneasy favourite, and the reasons are there for all to see. Forget the stats about 10 year olds; trying to bottle Istabraq into some statistical "norm" fails to take into account the relative ability of all those other 10 year olds. Of course younger horses tend to win it. Of course he’ll have to be special to pull it off. And we know he’s special. Hatton’s Grace and Sea Pigeon were special too, "late maturing" or not.
Tell us something we don’t already know.
The Champion is a race I’m happy to watch without a punt.
This tired debate seems destined to stutter on for a few more weeks yet.
I just hope he turns up on the day, and if he wins I’ll consider myself privileged to have witnessed it. Sometimes the sport transcends all else (including the sacred punt).
What is the point of these stats? If he loses in March, we’ll all know the reasons why.
The position is clear enough: if he’s retained his ability, he wins; if he hasn’t retained his ability, he’ll have a battle – and yet may still win.
The question, for me, is this: do I think he can reproduce the form of his last run of last season? Sentimentality clouds my judgement. But if he can (and he was galloping all over Moscow Flyer when he fell) then of course he’s capable of winning again.
I just hope he can scale the heights, and that’ll do for me.
Full marks Manny!:cheesy:
12/1 shots do win races!
There is a curious mentality in racing about 10/1, 12/1, 14/1, 16/1 shots etc. They can only ever be "each way value" (horrible phrase) because people tend to believe their odds reflect their true chances in the race. This is simply not the case. If you find a 12/1 shot that you really think should be around the 4/1 mark, you owe it to yourself to lump on. On the nose.
Hi Escorial,
I have absolutely no problem with the example you quoted. You weighed up the race and found a big priced horse you felt was nailed-on for a place. You also felt it had little chance of winning – so an each way bet was the only option for you. The fact that there were, what was it, 13 runners is irrelevant because you had confidently excluded 10 of them!
Apart from the number of runners, the example is similar to the one I quoted, because presumably Jericho III and The Matrix, two good horses, took out a big chunk of the book, leaving your selection nicely positioned in the market at a fancy price.
I have to admit, though – it’s not the sort of bet I look out for. But it was a good bet all the same. I’d have probably bypassed the race.
Did you consider a buy on the spreads? Especially if there was a 50:30:20:10 index available. Depending on your horse’s quote, you might have made a bit more than the traditional each way terms, which I find woefully unattractive. And with a bet on the spreads, there’s no losing win bet to worry about!
All the best,
RM;)
There are probably no hard-and-fast rules, but I have to say I’m with Daylight all the way on this one.
There are occasions when an each way bet = a value bet. I’m thinking in particular of a smallish field where the market is dominated by one or two horses. A recent example that springs to mind is the Xmas Hurdle, in which Bust Out proved each way value at 20/1. Only 6 ran in that race; an 8 runner field with a similar profile would be ideal.
Having said that, I don’t like each way betting at all, and steer well clear as much as possible. I know there are plenty of shrewd punters who include each way betting in their armoury. I know there are others who swear by win-only betting. I’m in the latter camp.
I tend to look for winners in the 8/1 or above bracket, so I’m always going to have to live with a pretty low strike rate. If I think my selection has more chance of running into a place than winning, I do consider buying it low on the spreads. I’ve carried out no detailed research, but it seems to me that the place terms are much more attractive on the spreads than with a traditional bookie.
