Cheltenham Festival
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Am just thinking how incredible some prices look after races have been run (both good and bad). Most people base their ante-post portfolios on comparing the horses likely to take each other on in the races in which they are punting. This, clearly, is a massively important piece of the puzzle. But, I believe you can use the past a lot more than you might think to highlight where the value is in the markets at the moment.
For example, last year's talking horse was Dunguib. He'd romped home in the Bumper the previous year and won Grade One novice events without coming off the bridle. He was expected to start odds-on for the Supreme some time in advance of that race, and duly went off the well-backed 4-5 favourite. He actually ran a very solid race but came up short, finishing third, beaten two lengths by a very good horse in Menorah.
A little over 10 months on and we have another hugely exciting youngster in the shape of Cue Card, who is fancied to kick things off in style on the Tuesday. Unlike Dunguib, he jumps well, and, unlike Dunguib, has much more solid form having split a Champion Hurdle fancy (Menorah) and a high-class horse in Silviniaco Conti who has already been beating up smart elders this season. He has a official rating of 159, which puts him above just about any Supreme winner we have seen. And he has earned that before the Festival at a time when his connections have probably left a little room for improvement. He has not had any training setbacks and is going straight to the Festival. So, how is it that he can be backed at over 11/4 on here? There is the slight worry that connections are considering the Champion Hurdle instead, but that looks unlikely and you can take 5/2 nrnb if you would like the extra security.
My point here is that a horse who has proven Cheltenham form and has already recorded figures that would have won almost every Supreme ever run should be much, much shorter in the betting than he is. And that is without even considering the merit of what his likely opposition have achieved this year. Do we need to watch the potential improvers for signs of brilliance?
This approach might sound very risky, but I believe it helps you keep a much clearer mind in rating a horse's chance of success - and, thus, finding the value in a race, rather than allowing your own interpretation and/or emotion get in the way. Am interested to know other people's thoughts on this - are there any other horses you think are much too big or too short in the betting based on historical records of what is required to win the race they are going for?
For example, last year's talking horse was Dunguib. He'd romped home in the Bumper the previous year and won Grade One novice events without coming off the bridle. He was expected to start odds-on for the Supreme some time in advance of that race, and duly went off the well-backed 4-5 favourite. He actually ran a very solid race but came up short, finishing third, beaten two lengths by a very good horse in Menorah.
A little over 10 months on and we have another hugely exciting youngster in the shape of Cue Card, who is fancied to kick things off in style on the Tuesday. Unlike Dunguib, he jumps well, and, unlike Dunguib, has much more solid form having split a Champion Hurdle fancy (Menorah) and a high-class horse in Silviniaco Conti who has already been beating up smart elders this season. He has a official rating of 159, which puts him above just about any Supreme winner we have seen. And he has earned that before the Festival at a time when his connections have probably left a little room for improvement. He has not had any training setbacks and is going straight to the Festival. So, how is it that he can be backed at over 11/4 on here? There is the slight worry that connections are considering the Champion Hurdle instead, but that looks unlikely and you can take 5/2 nrnb if you would like the extra security.
My point here is that a horse who has proven Cheltenham form and has already recorded figures that would have won almost every Supreme ever run should be much, much shorter in the betting than he is. And that is without even considering the merit of what his likely opposition have achieved this year. Do we need to watch the potential improvers for signs of brilliance?
This approach might sound very risky, but I believe it helps you keep a much clearer mind in rating a horse's chance of success - and, thus, finding the value in a race, rather than allowing your own interpretation and/or emotion get in the way. Am interested to know other people's thoughts on this - are there any other horses you think are much too big or too short in the betting based on historical records of what is required to win the race they are going for?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 7
|
By:
Who is going nrnb for the Supreme ?
|
|
By:
Given the nature of the race, I am not sure anything below 2/1 with a run would represent value for the SN, even for Cue Card who does appear to be a solid enough favourite for the reasons you state. If you strip out the chances of Cue Card not making it to the Festival or taking up an engagement in one of the other two options he has, his current 11/4 ante-post price would probably fall below the equivalent 2/1 price with a run already.
As I said, I think he is a solid favourite for the SN, assuming that is his target, but horses with good flat speed often represent a danger in this race and there might be a case for saying the BB would suit Cue Card better. |
|
By:
tom
You are spot on with your comparison on Dunguib/ Cue Card, however I think this merely proves that the price Dunguib started at last year was ridiculous. If my memory is correct, a horse called Mole Board went off a 7/4 jolly in this race in the late 1980s only to finish unplaced. His credentials coming into the race were better than Cue Cards in that he had won a champion hurdle trial (at Haydock I think) and had also won in a canter on the course. His subsequent efforts (three 4ths in a champion) suggest he was well up to winning a supreme, but he failed on the day. Assuming he runs in the SN, he will have clearly the best form (unless something outstanding appears in the next few weeks) and will be shorter than 5/2 on the day; unfortunately even having the best form doesn't guarantee success. |
|
By:
Mole Board ran in the Sun Alliance Hurdle (now Neptune)
Coral's went a stand out 11/4. There was a queue about 100 yards long outside their shop on the Leckhampton Road that morning all trying to back the same horse. |
|
By:
Sorry flying you are right, but then you are clearly much older than me having won a division of the old Supreme in the mid-sixties and I am still running!!
I used to be quite involved with the Owen O'Neill yard (who trained him originally) having a share in a one-legged animal and also knowing the stable jock and Johnny G who "worked" there. Owen claims that if he had kept the horse he would have won a Champion with him. Flying, are you a local to the Cotswolds, or was that Lecky Road queue a "visitation"? |
|
By:
Sawyer.
From 1981 to 1994 inclusive I always stayed at the Beaumont Hotel just up the road from Corals for festival week.I was part of the queue  Simon Cowley, stable jock ? |
|
By:
The bloke I knew was a John Jones who was Owen’s jockey in the late 70s. He went on to work for Brian Chinn and was there when Mossy Moore won the Grand Annual.
I vaguely remember Simon Cowley as a young lad at the yard (good Catholic stock I think) and also regularly saw Peter Dever around the place. |