Forum Replies Created
- Posts
(Sorry accidently posted twice somehow)
(Edited by The Market Man at 4:55 pm on Dec. 17, 2006)
I think what suits one doesn’t suit another. Nowadays I barely study the form book at all in order to find a bet I prefer instead to use my eyes and know the horses. The only time I usually look at the form book is for reference in helping to learn more about a particular horse.
In terms of number of bets, I’ll bet when I think there is something worth backing I’m happy going a week or two with no bet if neccessary.
I generally bet at level stakes or at least very close to levels.
PS! I agree there is nothing worse than not backing a horse and it wins. I did that last week with Exotic Dancer. I’d rather back loads of losers than miss out on one winner.
<br>
(Edited by The Market Man at 3:20 am on Dec. 17, 2006)
Reet, I just thought Mighty Man looked a bit lifeless last time didn’t ever really travel and just seemed a bit flat.
Agreed at his best he’ll probably win but I just think he’s worth taking on and i think Irish Wolf has better than his bare form to come and conditions will suit.
Time will tell. ;)
(Edited by The Market Man at 6:24 am on Dec. 16, 2006)
I agree too. I’ve had a small interest at 10/1 (Bet365). Irish Wolf is an improving horse, ran well last time and should be happy on good ground. Neptune Collonges has a big task reverting to hurdles and Mighty Man although over an inadequate trip last time was a bit disappointing.
Several horses in with a chance and Mighty Man at his best would probably win but 10/1 Irish Wolf looked too big to be ignored.
We all accept that Michael Dickinson / Martin Pipe changed the way racehorses are trained and therefore racehorses are now way fitter and healthier than they used to be.
Could the fact that Arkle was so far in front of his challengers be because he was trained differently / better than the rest? Maybe because he was a better athlete and therfore unlike others didn’t really need training for fitness?
Today – all horses are very fit is this why horses are arguably rated closer together?
Again Timeforms top three horse Arkle, Flyingbolt, Mill House all from the same era yet jump racing has been going on for yonks. I find it hard to believe that the best three just happened to be around at the same time.
Does seem a strange purchase. May become a decent sprinter but he’s not really what you’d expect Ballydoyle to go for.
Don’t like this buying other peoples horses lark though to be fair to Ballydoyle its not a policy they usually use.
Quote: from insomniac on 7:33 pm on Dec. 11, 2006[br] But I know  that  at least one other horse often beat Sea Bird’s rating but was downrated when it came to the annual for fear of "devaluing" the "gold standard" of Sea Bird. ÂÂÂ
<br>(Edited by insomniac at 7:35 pm on Dec. 11, 2006)<br>
<br>Which horse was this Insomniac?
Quote: from davidjohnson on 6:37 pm on Dec. 11, 2006[br]Three of the four you mention are a few years before my interest and knowledge of racing are what they are now so I only really feel confident enough talking about Hawk Wing. I think that horse will always divide opinion he also had an RPR of 134 so it doesn’t look to be awild figure. It could be even higher considering how the field were stretched out. He had bits of form at 3 as well that suggested that given his ideal conditions he was possibly capable of such a figure, namely the ground he made up in the Guineas and pulling 12 lengths clear of the Dubai World Cup winner in the Derby.  <br>
<br>I think in terms of assessing form its sometimes a little bit like using statistics you can often make out of it what you want to depending on your interpretation. I use my ratings to aid me with finding future winners. Generally horses usually when developed run reasonably consistantly. Sometimes they’ll run below form but when they run to form they usually run to between a few pounds of their rating. Of course this doesn’t apply always without exception horses aren’t machines so its a bit of a generalisation. However take last seasons 1m4f Group 1 horses. Pretty much every time they ran they all ran somewhere between 123 and 128. I can’t see how based on one performance a horse can shoot up over a stone on his other ten / twelve (whatever) runs, its just not realistic. It’s a figure that needs totally ignoring if you’re going to use figures to aid you in finding future winners. If a horse runs five times over (say) 1 mile and runs to 120-124 how can it suddenly run one race in (almost) identical conditions to a mark of 135? Usually its because either the race was run on ground that other horses didn’t handle, against horses that were relatively unfit or just didn’t run to form.
Quote: from davidjohnson on 6:00 pm on Dec. 11, 2006[br]Historically I know you have issues with Celtic Swing TMM. Any other specific ones that lead you to this opinion?
<br>Dubai Millennium 140 – (Though at this point I must emphasise I only deal with turf. I had him 133.
<br>Mark Of Esteem 137 – (puts him way higher for example than George Washington) (I get 129)
Hawk Wing 136 – (On the back of what? One run against mediocre opposition. I have 128)
Intikhab 135 – Almost as ridiculous as Celtic Swing’s rating. On the back of what? One win against again nothing better than average opposition. This horse could barely achieve a rating above 120 on any other performance yet one performance raises him to 135 which again puts him above the likes of George Washington). He wouldnt have beaten GW I’d’ve bet anyone my entire savings on that.
<br>You’re talking a master rating of half a stone more than I can understand. I don’t pretend to be any great brain but I use my own ratings which make far more sense to me and give me way better results than Timeforms do and yes I have compared them. They’re plain baffling. Their baffling ratings have Inktihab in a photo finish with El Gran Senor over a mile for example. LMAO absolutely not a cat in hells chance unless El Gran Senor carried at the very, very least half a stone more.
<br>and thats just their top rated horses. To go into detail on lesser horses would take way more time than I have.
Quote: from roland on 5:47 pm on Dec. 11, 2006[br]<br>My point being that only timeform seem to have applied fairly standard criteria for us to compare horses of different generations. Are they accurate? i dont know but like you say they have arlke and flyingbolt way out in front.
<br>Don’t get me started on Timeform. I’m sure Prufrock thinks I’m here to make his life a misery lol and I apologise to him for constant sniping at the organisation but Timeform just puzzle me for the most part I would never trust / use their ratings for anything despite Jim McGrath’s seemingly arrogant attitude towards anyone that ever has the bravery to question the accuracy of Timeform’s ratings.
Interesting topic.
I take your point about footballers and I suppose to a degree the same thing applies to racehorses they’re all fitter now than they were in Arkle’s day.
I wasn’t around in Arkle’s day but I’ve always been somewhat sceptical of just how brilliant Arkle was. Horse racing has been going on for years yet f you listen to general concensus the best two horses in history in either code were Arkle and Sea Bird – both in the 1960’s. It seems to me that the 60’s are the era everyone refers to. The music was best in the 60’s, the football was best, the horses were best etc etc.
Arkle beat Mill House, am I being naive in asking about the strength of the rest of Arkle’s opposition?
I don’t usualy like voicing an opinion on something I didn’t see or wasn’t around to judge for myself.
Quote: from flagship uberalles on 3:37 pm on Dec. 11, 2006[br]
Your reference to Kauto Star – Best Mate never won a Grade 1 over two miles. At three miles he was beaten 7 lengths by Beef Or Salmon at levels in Ireland, scraped home a short head ahead of the less than great Seebald giving only four pounds at Exeter. At two and a half miles he was firmly put in his place by Jair Du Cochet and even beaten by Wahiba Sands. Ok he gave six pounds that day but it was hardly the performance of a great.
Wahiba Sands was receiving 20lbs that day – definitely not 6!!
<br>
<br>Yeah just checked it you’re absolutely right. I stand corrected.
