Cheltenham Festival
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Most interesting stat I read about was all of the last 48 runners have ran in the same calendar year prior to the festival. That stat would rule Grands Crus out. Although it would be hard to believe the fact he last ran boxing day would rule him out.
Also Feltham winners have never gone on to win the race in 17 attempts and thats another stat against Grands Crus
I quite like Invictus but 6 year olds have a terrible record with just 2 wins since 1978.
Also Feltham winners have never gone on to win the race in 17 attempts and thats another stat against Grands Crus
I quite like Invictus but 6 year olds have a terrible record with just 2 wins since 1978.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 26
|
By:
Bobs Worth
|
|
By:
Another interesting stat for the festival as a whole. In the past 2 years only 1 horse has won without running since Boxing Day and that is Quevega.
|
|
By:
Sir Des Champs. Everyone connected with the horse purrs when interviewed: I know we don't read too much into it. But.....we all watch connections for clues, and no-one involved with this horse has been able to hide their admiration. Will Willy convince Mr Giggy that this is the winner of the Gold Cup next year?? And does SDC, repaying confidence, stroll the RSA? Yes. Emulating Denman and shouldering it lightly. All thoughts of the RSA bottoming horses banished, as Sir Des Champs wins 2 Gold Cups. C'mon!
|
|
By:
Man lands on the moon.....in all seriousnesss though,wont be winning the RSA
|
|
By:
andy85
Wasn't Imperial Commander's win following a lay off since boxing day and hasn't Kauto and Best Mate also done it in the recent past? I do take your general point though. You wouldn't really want a novice going there with so little experience after such a long break. |
|
By:
His owner wanting to have a runner on every day of the Festival so he can 'stave off the boredom(?!)' (Good interview, ATEER), might well influence whether Sir Des Champs wins the RSA this year...as he might not run, obv...BUT, I think he's well capable of winning it. Yes, the Jewson would be a stroll and they'd have themselves a horse, but I reckon this fella is better than that. Willie knows. A tenner says it's RSA...
|
|
By:
I was at the festival last year and some guy was telling us SDC was a cert and he'd had £20k on it lol. Must think highly of him or he'd drunk too much. One of the two!
|
|
By:
I just get SERIOUS real deal vibes.
|
|
By:
@andy 85
First Lieutenant won at the festival last year not having a run since Christmas. These are interesting stats but they are there to be broken...No Montjieu had won at the festival before but that didn't stop Hurricane Fly winning did it?!? |
|
By:
Stats can be broken im sure. Probably best to concentrate on form and ignore these stats
|
|
By:
long run never won his rsa either, and he,s a serious horse, i think grand crus will get beat and come back better for the experience, but hey thats just my opinion...
|
|
By:
Grands Crus is my NAP lay of the Festival for very similar reasons to the OP
|
|
By:
Run run in the same calander year is misleading stat because most of the fancied horses have run in the same calender year as they need experience, plus until recent times you needed to run to get fit. While there are many good novice chase prizes there and someone has to run in them and win them. So I tested this stat as it applies to fancied runners in the past 10 years.
So here's the stat as it applies to horses in the top 5 in the betting in the past 10 years. Winner - Fancied runners Bostons Angel - Time for Rupert 7/4f (6l 5th when horse was sick) Weapons Amnesty - None Cooldine - What a Friend 13/2, Gone To Lunch 7/1 Albertas Run - None Denman - None Star de Mohaison - Darkness 11/2 Trabolgan - Comply or Die 3/1 (came 2nd was off track since bad fall in nov 04) Rule Supreme - None One Knight - None Hussard Collonges - None So we exclude TFR as he did very well given he was sick. We include the bonkers fav Comply or Die who'd been off the track since a very heavy fall in Nov yet still went off fav. We convert odds into % chance of winning to get 0.133 + 0.125 + 0.15 + 0.25 = 0.658 We take the fact it's not a 100% book the sps of horses so this 65.8% is more likely under 50% and we say that no, there is nothing but randomness to this stat as it applies to the past 10 year. Fin |
|
By:
Absolutely stats can be broken but 48 years? Long time that...Bobs Worth the only runner thats pretty much got all stats in its favour.
|
|
By:
Apart from the one which says they don't win if they jump with clogs on.
|
|
By:
Only 4 of the last 10 years had horses in the top 5 in the betting that hadn't run that calendar year. So in times before that I'd be surprised if it wasn't 1 or 2 in ten years as horses raced more and needed racing to get fit. Stat is totally misleading in its statment as the vast majority of horses race in the calendar year.
To actually look at the stat you should look at the sample of horses who hadn't run in the calendar year and their sps and see if the fared worse or better than their odds would suggest. I've already proven that stat has no statistical merit when applied to the last 10 years. ie, ignore the stat totally from your decision making. |
|
By:
Yeah but its last 48 years mate, not 10.
Then there is the Feltham stat Then, I believe, there is the stat that says it has had 2 seasons over hurdles and they don't win this either. Then there is the non-stat that Ruby Walsh and Barry Geraghty, to name but two, think it is there for the taking. It's not good enough for the Gold Cup so should end all the overhype media nonsense sooner rather than later and put it in here. |
|
By:
For example 6 of the last 10 years had all the horses with chances racing in the calendar year, so how can these races give any info on horses who hadn't raced in the year.
Think of it as in, are blond people faster than red heads? If you have 10 blond people running against 0 red heads how can you learn info from it? You can't How many years of the 48 had horses in top 5 in betting not run in the same year. Could be as very low indeed. |
|
By:
I'm not arguing a case for Grand Crus, I'm simply pointing out the stat has no statistical merit.
|
|
By:
My missus is a blonde and I can confirm that a blonde is definitely slower than a red head!
|
|
By:
Applying narrow trends race by race isn't for me to be honest, however many years they apply to. I have a cut off point for absence fro the track for all the top non-handicaps at the festival which is 84 days. Would eliminate Quevega every year but then I have no interest in that race whatsoever, and it is a Grade 2 not a Grade 1, one of the only 2 winners to be eliminated in the last 8 years was in the Albert before it was even the Albert yet and was still a Grade 2 (BJK at evens). The other was Captain Cee Bee 17/2 in the Supreme. Across the 4 novice/juvenile hurdles, the 4 championship races+ Ryanair, 2 now 3 pro rider novice chases 107 runners in 8 years with over 84 days absence, just those 2 winners. 33 of those losers were 10/1 or under and a further 22 at over 10/1 but under 20/1.
|
|
By:
useful thieves
|
|
By:
I remember when Motjeu's didnt get up the hill
 Come on we can do better than a calender year stat |
|
By:
The stats don't lie
 |
|
By:
We get this cr@p every year and they end up winning nowt every time.
|
|
By:
Time For Rupert last year ... it is becoming the kiss of death for a novice it being talked up for a Gold Cup.
|