Forum Replies Created
- Posts
You guys obviously think I’ve got a screw loose with my question but I’m convinced I’ve read somewhere that the final furlong is always run in a slower time than the penultimate furlong but I can’t find it anywhere on the net.
The reason I think it’s an important point is that it illustrates (if my point is correct) how difficult it is to read a race.
To everyone who has posted so far – re-read the opening post of this thread. My question was "Can we all agree that it is undisputed that ALL horses slow down at the end of a race?"
Are any of you saying that in the final 100yards of a race horses are accelerating?
If they go a slow gallop, then they can be compared to a marathon, where runners utilise aerobic fitness more than anaerobic capacity and they have the ability to speed up at the end of their races as they don’t have a high build up of lactic acid during their race.
Does anyone have any examples of sectional times where the final sectional is the fastest of the race?
It depends really on how fast they have gone during the race.
To say a horse doesn’t have the ability to quicken up at the end of a race is physiologically incorrect.
My point is that whatever the pace of the race horses are always slowing down at the end of it. I agree that in theory if they cantered for all but the final hundred yards then they could gallop the final hundred yards but I think it’s been shown that having run at racing pace ie a gallop horses are always slowing down at the end of a race.
FOF that is totally wrong. I for one would give a rats ass about racing and its integrity not everything in life is about money. You may want a closed doors / secret society but a good many of us don’t.
Punters / the public should be informed racing has to be customer friendly. Bite the hand that feeds you and soon the hand will disappear.
Time has moved on it isn’t the 1960’s / 70’s now, race fixing cannot be allowed to go on, neither can "illegal" gambles or those within the sports arrogance to and contempt of the public.
I do agree with you but I wonder where it all might end. If my horse has been running over what the trainer and I think is an inadequate trip or the wrong ground, do I have an obligation to make that opinion public before I have a penny on it myself? Surely, one of the benefits of owning horses is that you have access to very detailed information about your horse which can give you an edge?
I’m sure all of us who have any involvement with horses can recall circumstances where our horses have either been the subject of a gamble or drifted markedly in the betting without there being any actual reason behind it.
The first horse I was ever involved in was called Maravedi. She had a lovely temperament (in other words she was slow). One day we arrived at Wolverhapton to find she had been the subject of an early morning gamble and was favourite for her race. The was absolutely no reason for this. She duly finished down the track.
Elopement drifted on course the day she won at Ascot in the face of a sustained gamble on the stable’s other runner, Trafalgar Day. Again there was no inside information behind this (indeed Lottie was favourite when the ground was good/firm and as the rain fell she drifted which was bizarre considering how well she acted on soft). Lottie won by six lengths.
I would always beware of assuming that there is information behind movements in the markets. That’s not to say that when a horse drifts on Betfair that it might mean someone knows something. It may equally mean an unscrupulous and influential tipping service has advised punters to lay the animal to manipulate the market.
On the point well made by others about the duty of trainers to be honest for the benefit of the betting public I would only say that this can sometimes be a poisoned chalice. Trainers such as Nicholls will often say the horse will improve for the run which the average armchair punter interprets as meaning the horse won’t win. Denman for example would ‘come on for the run’ when he won the Hennessey. I’m sure many would have misinterpreted Nicholls honesty that day and fielded against him
"Fist of Fury 2k8":2qhklhwe wrote: That’s some list Bob’s Pride was an error as someone had to point out to you…………..Afsoun you can have at 33/1 and you missed out Katchit who would beat the majority of the above if he only had 3 legs.
I think you need a new Turfax stick
You say you make racing pay and you like to keep it simple………anyone can say that…….you’ve given us a list what are you going to do back them all?………at least give us your selection I would love to know which you think will win.
As I’m relatively new on here I’m not sure whether the form is to just try to ignore your posts but I’ll answer this one.
I’ve noticed that typos are severely punished on here
I wrote a list of the decs which had previous festival form and then copied the name Bob’s Pride down by mistake.If you’d read my post you would see that I clearly stated that the prices in brackets were the Stan James NRNB prices as they were the only ones offering NRNB when I posted.
Katchit doesn’t qualify as he won the Triumph Hurdle and I explained which festival form I was including
As for your doubting whether I make a profit from my betting, I don’t require validation from you or anyone else on that score.
If it’s a tip you’re looking for (which in view of your attitude I assume you’ll ignore anyway), I would say that if he turns up fit and well then Sublimity would be my selection
Looking at my racing favourites folder I have in addition to the ones already metioned:
Tattersalls and Doncaster Bloodstock sales as I like to look at the auction catalogues online
The BHA admin site for checking entries and declarations for my horses
And of course http://www.stratfordbardsracing.co.uk
They’re all different types of horses. Royal Gait was an out and out stayer, Alderbrook wasn’t.
Its not really a fair comparrison as the flat and hurdles are different codes.
I think its a case of trying to fit the stats to an opinion when as with most stats they can be manipulated in any way if you try hard enough.
The horses don’t know the trends. Osana and Sizing Europe have both won big, graded hurdles races against the best of the opposition, that is enough of a recommendation.
The great thing about racing is it’s all about opinions. From my point of view, opinions like yours make the market for me.
Newmill had never run at Cheltenham before his win two years ago.
Having said that, the record of winners of the arkle and previous champion chases is certainly impressive in recent years. I think if I was going to take this trend seriously, I would exclude winners of arkles in the distant past (contraband). MWDS won’t run so you’re left with Newmill and VPU. Newmill doesn’t look the same horse these days so VPU must be a model for this. If only it were that simple!
I would agree with that analysis. The trend produces a shortlist but you can then apply your other skills as a form student to reduce that shortlist to the one or two you want to bet. IMHO Newmill was a very lucky winner and was one of those surprising results that no amount of form study can cater for.
As for it being too simple to have a shortlist of one horse – some might say it was refreshingly simple
Try reading what i said
Regardless of that, it is "illogical" to completely dismiss horses chances simply because they do not have festival form. Thats horribly simplistic
Your posts so far indicate that is precisely what you do
What we are trying to do as punters is employ a strategy that produces consistent profits. All of us emply a variety of strategies with a greater or lesser degree of success.
For the Cheltenham festival I only bet in the Championship races and the handicap chases. Even then I only bet if I think I have an edge. Generally the problem with the Championship races is that they have been analysed to death so there tends to be very little value unless you can employ an approach that restores your edge. I happen to believe that the single most important factor in Championship races is previous Festival form. The stats would suggest that only looking at those runners with win or place form in Championship races would result in the winner being on your shortlist in the vast majority of years. I believe that this restores my edge in this year’s renewal of the Champion Hurdle because it enables me to oppose to of the top three in the betting.
This may be a simplistic approach but I’m a great believer in the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) approach. Whilst I am fascinated by the lengths some on here go to producing their own ratings I believe I can achieve a winning formula by keeping it simple.
The other factor which I think is crucial is the state of the going which is why I am so interested in the Turftrax Going Stick. Despite the criticism it receives from some quarters on here I am again convinced betting on the basis of the Going Stick rather than the official going gives me an edge over other punters Last year, following a conversation with the guy at Turftrax on the morning of the first day of the Festival, I was convinced that the going was good all the way round. This again gave me an edge over other punters and I was able to bet a good ground specialist in Joes Edge at very fancy prices as a result.
I don’t believe you should slavishly follow stats that have been back fitted to the historic data but I will continue restricting my betting in Championship races to those who have already shown they can handle the unique test these races produce.
So in effect you are saying that all of these have a better chance than Sizing Europe and Osana because of the "trends"?
No. What I am saying is that history tells us you need win or placed form at a previous festival to win the Champion Hurdle. Those two simply don’t have it. End of story. Therefore you need to look elsewhere for the winner and I’ve identified those entered that satisfy this crucial criterion
Like Alderbrook or Royal Gait?
To be honest its a silly stat.
I would acknowledge that the exception to the general rule is horses that are Group class on the flat – Sizing Europe and Osana are not
what absolute bllx
Apologies for replying to your comment on another thread. I didn’t realise you had no interest in a sensible discussion
Unless a "trend" or stat has strong logic behind it, then im not interested. Standard deviation can account for a lot.
So you wouldn’t consider the ability to show top class form in Championship races as logical?
I’m afraid I haven’t read all eight pages of this thread so apologies if this point has already been made but the fact is to win a Champion Chase you basically need to be either an Arkle Winner or a previous Champion Chase winner.
That gives us a shortlist of:
Contraband (1st 2005 Arkle)
My Way De Solzen (1st 2007 Arkle)
Newmill (1st 2006 Champion Chase)
Voy Por Ustedes (1st 2007 Champion Chase)I can find no evidence anywhere on the planet that makes my think Sublimity has a cat in hells chance of winning the Champion Hurdle.
Other than the fact he won the Champion Hurdle by 3 lengths last year. The comments in running for his win read "held up last, smooth progress before 3 out, stalked leading pair soon after, produced to lead last, driven and soon well in command"
As for his run behind Noland, he was certainly unlucky that day as he was hampered by a loose horse at a crucial moment.
So in effect you are saying that all of these have a better chance than Sizing Europe and Osana because of the "trends"?
No. What I am saying is that history tells us you need win or placed form at a previous festival to win the Champion Hurdle. Those two simply don’t have it. End of story. Therefore you need to look elsewhere for the winner and I’ve identified those entered that satisfy this crucial criterion
I wrote a list of the decs which had previous festival form and then copied the name Bob’s Pride down by mistake.
