Cheltenham Festival
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Hi all,
Salsify is set to be my biggest bet of the festival, as long as the ground is good.
I see that a fair few people are fancying Tammy's Hill and though he has beaten Salsify twice this season, both races were on heavy ground which Salsify doesn't go a yard on.
Are people taking those 2 races literally when making a case for Tammy's Hill or am I missing something?
Should Chapoturgeon really be favourite when he was beaten fair and square last year?
Cheers
Salsify is set to be my biggest bet of the festival, as long as the ground is good.
I see that a fair few people are fancying Tammy's Hill and though he has beaten Salsify twice this season, both races were on heavy ground which Salsify doesn't go a yard on.
Are people taking those 2 races literally when making a case for Tammy's Hill or am I missing something?
Should Chapoturgeon really be favourite when he was beaten fair and square last year?
Cheers
Show More
Salsify WILL beat Tammy on good ground,not sure id want it as my biggest bet of the meet though,Chpoturgeon def not worthy fav,big question marks on his jumping for me the best lay bet of the festival
I don't reslly see why Chapoturgeon should beat Salsify, particularly with the latter being the younger horse. Don't know a lot about Tammy's Hill but I have noticed his rider claims 7. My read is that Salsify will be 4lbs better off against him (Sweeney usually claims 3?) as there are no claims in the Foxhunter.
I have split my stake and backed both at 10/1.Tammy's hill is a winning machine and has won on good ground,winning back to back foxhunters is a big ask.
salsifys jockey will have to ride a lot smarter than he has in the two races this season so far
Rider experience round Cheltenham, particularly in a big field is invaluable. Has Tammy's jockey ever ridden at Cheltenham? Big negative if he is a Festival virgin!
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539