Forum Replies Created
- Posts
No I was talking Champion Hurdles. If he ran like he did in his last race he wouldn’t be placed. But I take your point that he has run to form in the interim (on occasion not).
Unfortunately it is not quite as simple as that.
[/list]If he runs and bursts (again) he won’t win, whatever McCririck has to say about it.
- If he runs and doesn’t burst he is still far from certain to win on recent form.
If he runs as he did two years ago then he will very likely win.
I’m inclined to think there is more to this whole thing than meets the eye.
For some time now a few of us have suspected that there is something seriously amiss with the horse and I see Raceform Update has put forward the view I expressed weeks ago (which was rubbished at the time)that JP will not risk him unless he is certain the horse is okay.
Regrettably this all adds up to his not taking part. Expect the prices to shorten up on the three or four other main contenders – they are reportedly taking nothing for Istabraq at 9/4, even in Ireland.<br>
No it is not something that is factored in by bookmakers as 5-y-os can start the race as favourite or near favourite, when in effect they have no chance. In other words it is worth knowing that 5-y-os just don’t win.
And yes you can tell if it is statistically significant without looking at the whole population. It becomes statistically significant for that sample. The bigger the sample the better sure, but the sample for runners in the Stayers Hurdle is large.
The reasons 5-y-os don’t win the Stayers is I suspect to do with them not being strong enough in relation to those that are older, even when they have shown great promise in their own age group or at shorter distances against older horses.
alsoran, what you say is true. The sophistication needed to improve your system would be one that gives weighting to the parameters.<br>
If you have a statistic that no blue colt has won the Derby since records began, it is a meaningless statistic (as there are no blue colts, or at least none that have run in the Derby).
If you have another that fillies are not prone to winning the Derby, it is virtually meaningless as so few run in it. Therefore you would have to perform an analysis of whether in percentage terms fillies were any less likely to win the Derby than they are any other all sex race.
However, if you have another statistic which tells you that it is virtually impossible for a 5-y-o to win the Stayers Hurdle, you ought to take note, as many run in it and they invariably fail. So there are likely to be very good reasons why they don’t win.
This is what I mean Razeen.<br>
Statistics are of tremendous importance, the trick is in having the sense to realise which ones are meaninful and which are not.
Ante-post each-way betting is invariably a waste of time. It is often better to back more than one horse to win. There are exceptions, such as races like the Gold Cup and Grand National where a price is much bigger than it ought to be and when the horse looks certain to run in the race. However big a price is, if it is doubtful that the race is the true target then keep the money in your pocket.
On the day, each-way betting can be part of an effective hedging strategy. Not necessarily hoping to see a clear profit from a single bet, but to limit the downside.
You may weight it so that you have a "free" win bet, by aiming only to get your money back if it is placed.
I would certainly advocate place betting (where you don’t throw half your money away), in this way you could back three (or four) horses in any given race and have three (or four winners). In some races in which you had a good valued even money shot, it might be better to have it all on that one alone (to win) though.
Finally, remember you need to get 16/1 about a horse to ensure a 2/1 return (exclusive of outlay). If you are betting for pure upside (rather than as a defence tactic) you would not want to take shorter prices than this on a reasonably certain each-way bet. These sort of odds are naturally not freely available on many decent prospects.
Pentre Celebre indeed ran to an easily higher rating (136+) than Galileo or Sakhee. He was one of the great racehorses and should be rated above either of these. He was a relatively unexposed horse and ran a brilliant race in the Arc, which was his best performance. Only Dancing Brave, Montjeu and El Condor Pasa recorded higher/equal ratings in the race in recent times (Helissio was up there too).
I am also saying that Sakhee (133) deserves to be top-rated this season on the stength of his Arc run.
But I also believe that it is a little unfair not to rate Galileo on his King George run, which was officially rated (never mind Postmark) at 130. Galileo’s rating has since been downgrade to 129 by the IC. This was due to Fantastc Light gaining revenge on him in the Irish Champion Stakes. But most of us know that Galileo’s real trip was 12f rather than 10f.
Therefore Galileo has not been rated on his best run (i.e. The King George), whereas PC and Sakhee were.
I am not saying it is wrong to rate a horse on his best performance. But there seems no reason not to be consistent about this for Galileo.
Razeen’s single minded defence of Sakhee (when Sakhee doesn’t in fact need defending), to the exclusion of all others, refusing to believe that Galileo or Fantastic Light were very close to him in terms of ability is naive in the extreme.
Good to hear it Aidan. I backed him again for the Guineas today at 9/2 with Hills.
Razeen, Galileo also ran to Postmark ratings of 132 twice (at Ascot and Leopardstown) as well as the 129 he achieved in the Irish Derby.
For these three runs he was given an Official Rating of 130 (just 3lb different from Sakhee’s rating judged on his best run), which has been downgraded to 129 by the IC.
It is on the strength of Sakhee’s Arc run that he is rated better than Galileo or Fantastic Light. I believe he just about deserves to shade it for this, but it is worth pointing out that the runner up in the Arc ran to just 120, which would not normally be good enough to be placed.
It is also a little unfair that Galileo has not been judged on his overall better level of performance than 129 suggests.
I believe 131 would have been a fair reflection of Galileo’s achievements, with Point Given on the same, or perhaps a pound higher.
Sakhee is very fortunate that he will not come up against either of these next season.
<br>
I was looking at page 10 of the IC review in today’s Post.
Older horses:
Sakhee 131<br>Fantastic Light 126<br>Hightori 120<br>etc.
But these were Topspeed figures. Apologies sb.
However the 3-y-o figures on page 8 were Postmark:
Galileo 132<br>Mozart 131<br>Milan 128<br>etc.
Hope this clears things up. The point remains there is not much in it.<br>
The Worlds thinnest book
Overated Ballydoyle horses By SteveM
That means I don’t overrate Ballydoyle horses Razeen, as it’s the "thinnest book". I’m sure that’s what you mean’t though.
And remember, Postmark rates Galileo 1lb better than Sakhee on absolutes. All I’m saying is there is not much between them, as the evidence of the form illustrates.<br>
(Edited by Steve M at 5:29 pm on Jan. 17, 2002)
Yes Razeen the ratings (at least those of the IC) show that Sakhee achieved a better absolute rating than Galileo as a racehorse, irrespective of age. Therefore he was the better racehorse on these ratings.
Personally I believe that Galileo would have progressed beyond Sakhee’s rating at four. But obviously I cannot prove that. I also think it is a little unfair that the best rating that Galileo ran to has been downgraded to his third best rating, while Sakhee has been judged on his best.
There is obviously very little difference between Sakhee, Galileo and Fantastic Light whichever way you look at it.
…when Vincent was in charge at Ballydoyle. Now that’s a different matter.<br>
(Edited by Steve M at 5:05 pm on Jan. 17, 2002)
If you look at the stats over any number of years ven, on the whole very few horses finish when it is heavy and most finish when the going is good or better.
I agree very fast ground is far from ideal either, but the ground in last year’s National was not just heavy it was actually unracable and would of been called off had it been any other day’s racing in this country or the rest of the world.<br>
The right sort of horses jump round year in year out – Red Rum, Corbiere, Greasepaint, West Tip, Durham Edition, Suny Bay to name a few off the top of my head.
The wrong sort of horses cause the problem and the fault is with owners and trainers for entering them. Horse which can’t jump properly to begin with have no right running in it.
There is nothing wrong with the race, it is a proper test of a steeplchaser – although I don’t think it should have been run last year. The ground was atrocious.
I’ve had enough. Infact I wonder why Jim agreed to answer questions at all. Perhaps the proviso should have been that he will answer questions, except difficult ones, in less than one sentence unless he could get away with one word.
So Jim thinks that Intikhab, Daylami and DM deserve their Timeform ratings. Intikhab is rated 135 by Timeform, yet the time figures he actually ran to were in the 120s. Let’s say he lined up against others deservingly rated by Timeform at 135 that were effective at at least a mile, in the past 50 years. The list looks something like: Dahlia, Known Fact, Kris, Le Moss, Match, Nashwan, Pebbles, Petoski, Right Royal, Royal Anthem, Sagace, Sassafras, Shadeed, Shahrastani, Shareef Dancer, Sir Ivor, St Jovite, Teenoso, The Minstrel, Trempolino.
Look at the races that these horses won with such authority – for example Sir Ivor won the Grand Criterium, 2,000 Guineas, Derby, Champion Stakes and the Washington DC International. Nashwan won the 2,000 Guineas, the Derby, the Eclipse and the King George. Dahlia won the Prix Saint-Alary, Grand Prix de Saint-Cloud, Irish Oaks, King George (twice), Benson & Hedges Gold Cup (twice), Washington International and the Man O’ War Stakes. There are a further assortment of Arc, King George, Derby, Oaks and Guineas winners all rated 135. And of course the mighty Intikhab – let’s remind ourselves what he won, oh yes, the Vodafone Diomed Stakes and the Queen Anne Stakes. Indeed highly commendable, but hardly anything to shout about in this sort of company. Had he lined up against this lot they would still be sending out the search parties!
Same goes for the other two both of which look very uncomfortable with horses rated exactly the same as them, as mentioned in my original question.
But I’ve had enough of this… I withdraw my question and remain particularly pleased that I don’t work for either Jimbo or Godolphin from their (I mean Timeform’s) Halifax base. <br>
