Forum Replies Created
- Posts
It seems the major problem with effective systems is the inability to apply common sense within a system when a selection represents poor value due to market forces (Keith the Teeth made a valid point about profitability within price ranges).<br> <br>I believe an effective system should provide not a selection, but a market for the event in question.  What you then bet on depends on the "live" market on the race.  The ideal system will highlight horses which should be underbet, and mathematical analysis of the market will determine if the selection is a definite bet or not – for example you may determine that a selection merits a bet if its "true" odds are 20% better than those offered in the ring.
The other thing to remember is that the tissue prices supplied to bookies are simply the result of particular scoring systems, the most basic of which divides the number of positive scoring factors exhibited by a single runner in a race by the total number of positive factors added across the entire field.
With regards to comments made about the quality of horses running in the National:  there is now a minimum rating which horses must attain to get a run in the race and inexperienced  or unsuccessful jockeys are also banned from competing (most recent example was Tony Coyle who had been booked by Ginger McCain, no less).  The most recent fatalities over the fences were  The Outback Way and Eudipe, who were both Championship class animals.  The Outback Way was actually killed while jumping around loose in the John Hughes. ÂÂÂ
Some years ago it was de rigeur for horses with appalling completion records to be entered (who remembers Hattinger – form read FUFPFF – sometimes in sellers!!  I believe Ray "Iron Man" Goldstein rode – he fell.)
I have to stand up for the NH Chase (the 4miler); it’s been responsible for my first ever Cheltenham bet when Lorcan Wyer made his English debut on Omerta, and my best result when I lumped on Relaxation a couple of years back at a juicy 9/1!
It’s interesting to note the comments of the RSPCA’s Bernard Donigan on this year’s National; He thought the race was perfectly safe, and deserved to go ahead, as did ALL the trainers there on the day (including those without runners in the big race).
While the race might have turned out to be a farce for most punters, as a PR exercise it was quite successful (featuring on "Magic TV moments of 2001"). In regard to the stats about horses finishing in heavy ground, it’s more appropriate to look at injury rates on different ground types, and I believe Heavy groud at Aintree produces very few injuries.
Personally, I think the rate of fatalities on Aintree’s hurdles course is far more worrying (and we’re not looking at poor horses here). I’d be interested to hear the views of others.
