Cheltenham Festival
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I have noticed that the page readers and calculator holders get a little bit ruffled when people who actually know about horse racing go against one of their horses. As a punter who doesn't rely on statistics, it is satisfying to know that the synethtic cycle of gambling chaos and punting destruction can be ended by those of us who punt the true way, in a war between statos and visionaries. No race has already ran in a future time by equine cyborgs. Nothing is set in stone, yet some seem to think a bunch of historical data or figures can act as a pre-requisite in finding tomorrows winner. It may be the case that the randomness of their information has got them the winner by coincedence anyway, as just because some think certain information has helped them, it doesn't mean it actually did. For example, if i said something like Real Madrid will beat Man Utd, because Man Utd do not have a good record against teams wearing white in Europe, it doesn't mean that if Madrid won that my statistics carrys any weight. I therefore think statistical analysis and data is indeed the coincedence theory.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 129
|
By:
"coincidence theory"...
Ok...let me see... Why is it a Challow Hurdle winner has never won a Neptune out of 13 tried? Why have 18 Feltham winners ran in RSA and all failed to win? Why is it that the last 49 winners of an RSA all ran in calendar year? Why is it that only one horse has won a Gold Cup with less than 6 chase starts? Why has a 5yo never won a World Hurdle? Why is it that it is 20 years for a horse who has finished unplaced in a previous season's Champion Hurdle then went on and won it the following year? Why has a Supreme winner not followed up in a Champion Hurdle since 1971? Why do 5yos have an awful record in the Champion Hurdle? Why do 6yos have a poor record in an RSA? Why are Irish breds better in RSA than French breds (13 out of last 15)? Why do ex-Champion Hurdle challengers have a shocking record in the World Hurdle? I could go on but I don't think the above is sheer coincidence and if you are a fan of Taquin Du Sueil, Dynaste, Zarkandar, Cinders & Ashes, Hadrians Approach, Unioniste, Oscar Whisky then the best of luck to you. I don't use stats as a be-all and end-all but I'd rather have them on my side than not. |
|
By:
I was just about to say...oh dear!! Prepare for the onslaught!
What knowledge do you have of racing then graeme when it comes to cheltenhham? |
|
By:
Would be interested in seeing your ante-post portfolio Graeme with explanations instead of spending every thread trying to slag off those that have done very well indeed linking stats with form
|
|
By:
in my experience, a good blend of both stats/trends mixed with a good understanding of form gives you the best chance of succeeding at the festival. to dismiss one of these two elements out of hand limits your chances of making the festival profitable. IMO of course.
as ballydoyle has stated above, there are many stats/trends that hold up year on year. this is despite the fact that every year there are horses that go into races holding obvious form chances, whilst trying to overcome negative stats/trends. i have only been following for about 10 years, but in my experience this type of horse tends not to win. |
|
By:
Graeme just like Joci and Judo let us have your picks so.
|
|
By:
Can I just say thanks to Joci and Hudo for their in-depth previews and I hope they are right with most of them
 |
|
By:
Hudo???Judo!!
 |
|
By:
the two are not exclusive, they actually complement each other
the best way is to take the most significant information whether it be statistical, ratings, form, visual impression, market moves, trainers comments, form or whatever you find useful and to form an opinion I certainly would never rely on trends alone and have not because if I had my bets would be different. For instance, Rock On Ruby probably marginally edges it on trends but I can't see how he reverses form with Zarkandar so he is my bet. Both horses made it onto my final short list based on trends and I've made a judgement call. I also would not go back to relying solely on form analysis which is what I did for about 15 Festivals until I twigged that a lot of the horses I was backing were struggling in the face of shocking statistics. It's a bit like being a golfer, you need lots of different clubs in your bag to negotiate a golf course. I am currently going through every single horse entered in the handicaps and assessing their potential against their handicap marks based on form. Some will be utterly dismissed, the rest will be short listed and then I will apply the trends to shorten even further and then it will be a case of deciding on some bets. |
|
By:
By 'organic' I take it you mean that you choose your selections by which colours you like most?
 |
|
By:
Stats are just coincidences composed into data form. The only way they are not coincidences is if there is a known outside factor involved. No one here knows why for example "the last 18 Feltham winners who ran in the RSA all failed to win". In saying that stats are definitely a tool that should be used when analyzing horse races. Personally i like to factor stats into the price of a horse before backing/laying it. A recent example would be Dynaste who had several negative stats when it was trading @ 5/1 (even 7/1) but i still felt it was overpriced. glta
|
|
By:
Think you have to take some stats with a pinch of salt, some are worth paying attention to, where as some you can dismiss due to a lack of runners over the years falling into that category.
For instance i'm pretty keen on Zarkander for the champion hurdle but against Dynaste for the RSA. I think the 5 year olds having a poor record in the champion hurdle is a good one to rely on as you know that across the years many 5 year olds will have tried to win to the champion hurdle and lots of them will have been short in the market and failed. The fact that no horse in the last 20 years finishing unplaced in the champion hurdle and then went on to win it the next year is a particular stat I will willing to ignore in Zarkander's case. I mean how many fancied horses have actually tried this? Most horses who disappoint in the race will then begin a chasing career or go down the handicap route or step up in trip. Looking at it simply its like saying no team finishing outside the top4 in the premier league have won it the following year - its quite simple the majority of teams simply arn't good enough one year and won't be good enough the following year. However with Zarkander I would be willing to ignore that stat, esp since it was a 5 year old last year running in the race, has improved this year and was reported to be not quite well in last year's race. They will have different tactics this year and can ride it with more confidence - for me it is the one to beat in the race and a decent bet at the odds. |
|
By:
The reason i'm opposing Dynaste is not the feltham stat (which I can't explain) but more the fact that it had a second season hurdling before going over fences. Punchestowns, Time for Rupert and Grands Crus all failed in the RSA recently and were all favourite to win. Simply if a horse is a natural chaser you send it over fences after its first season hurdling, look at Simonsig this year - I personally think it would have hacked up in the Champion Hurdle but they see it as a natural chaser and sent it straight over the larger obstacles.
This coupled with the fact that the RSA is such a dour staying test and I don't quite see Dynaste finishing the trip out is why I am against him and pretty keen on Boston Bob - who fits the mould for the race. |
|
By:
The Man U / Real Madrid comparison is just LOL. Kit colour obviously has no bearing on result. Things such as certain ages, i.e. 5 year olds in the Champion Hurdle, or other specifically relevant statistics have a more than coicnidental bearing on the results of a race over the years, which is why several of them are so resolute. I'm not even a big stats follower, but if you can't comprehend the link between many very relevant stats and the potential result then there isn't much hope imo.
Like Ballydoyle says, they aren't the be all and end all, and of course stats will get bucked every now and again, but on the whole I'd rather pay attention to them in tandem with my own form study, than ignore them totally. Why ignore a historically proven edge? |
|
By:
Statistics and trends are picked by people who are hand picking results and putting them into a boquet. They are also think heindsight is a deciding factor in the outcome of the future. Many other stats are ignored, and statistics beyond the original stat are not discussed i.e the horse never turned out to be the best anyway. Some people think the stat is the deciding factor, and some say a horse can't win because of statistics and trends dictate it to be the case. Stats also dissapear and never to be spoke of again, such as Montjeu. Statistics can be negated by using a breakdown of other facts and knowledge that compose the original statistics in the fist place. For example a 5y/o not winning the CH could be taken as none being good enough, or strong enough. Indeed, you have to wonder how many have tried ? and how many of any age win statistically anyway?
If i take Ballydoyles questions, and i haven't been watch racing long enough to know the answer, i could then use counter questions to try and defunct some beliefs. Why is it a Challow Hurdle winner has never won a Neptune out of 13 tried? I to that would ask how many Challow Hurdle should have won the Neptune applying heindsight ? Why has a 5yo never won a World Hurdle? How many have tried, and how many were at their phsical optimum at 5 for a staying race. The answer is of course none. The answer isn't in a stat, it's in the knowledge of knowing horses stay better with age. |
|
By:
Long run not winning the rsa is proof that stats were against him , he surely was the best horse in the race and had gone on to prove by winning the gold cup , but all the stats were against him winning the rsa and as you know he lost when all the stas were against him
|
|
By:
The stats weren't against Long Run. The horse wasn't with Nicky Henderson long enough for him to run his best in that particular race. You could also say that Weapons Amnesty won because he may have been a better horse anyway, and as he was older he had more time to mature. There are facts behind statistics, and facts are more important in the 'long run'. One of the key reasons for Feltham winners not winnign the RSA is simply because Irish horses don't tend to travel for that particular race, and that conditions are different, from the weather, pace and gradients. In heidishgt, we can say that First Lieutenant and Bobs Worth are better than Grand Crus anyway, and that Long Run never got beat because he was French bred, but it's more likely he got beat because he wasn't as strong as Weapons Amnesty, who was a very good horse with Cheltenham form anyway.
|
|
By:
Every stat known to man was against Long Run in the RSA and he was a certainty to lose being 5yo,French and the Feltham winner.he didn't just get beat by Weapons,he got beat by Burtons too
|
|
By:
Trabolgan got nutted on the wire by Ollie Magern in the 2004 Feltham. Are we to believe that if Ollie had not got up, or that he'd fallen, or that he just hadn't run in the race...that Trabolgan wouldn't have won the RSA that season? Or that if the photo verdict had gone the other way then OM wouldn't have gone wrong and would have turned up in March, without the burden of being a Feltham winner, and won at the Festival?
I'm struggling to digest that tbh. You could make an argument to suggest Kempton's a very different track to Cheltenham....but the King George/Gold Cup double is not impossible to achieve and the Adonis roll of honour doesn't suggest horses have a problem in the Triumph. Many horses down the years have won at Kempton that season prior to winning at Cheltenham. So what could the Feltham/RSA 'stat' be about then? (I think it's widely acknowledged that Long Run had been pretty busy prior to coming over here and was over the top by the time his RSA came along) |
|
By:
"Trabolgan got nutted on the wire by Ollie Magern in the 2004 Feltham. Are we to believe that if Ollie had not got up, or that he'd fallen, or that he just hadn't run in the race...that Trabolgan wouldn't have won the RSA that season? Or that if the photo verdict had gone the other way then OM wouldn't have gone wrong and would have turned up in March, without the burden of being a Feltham winner, and won at the Festival?"
That's why they're coincidences, but some you can't ignore especially if they happen repeatedly. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff. imo. gltu |
|
By:
"The reason i'm opposing Dynaste is not the feltham stat (which I can't explain) but more the fact that it had a second season hurdling before going over fences."
The connections have always regarded him as a chaser and he was supposed to switch to chasing after his novice hurdle campaign but they changed plans at the very last minute. At the time it sounded like they thought he could beat BB. How wrong they were. Anyhow this is why i'm dismissing this particular stat. gltu |
|
By:
Each to their own,No need to find it offensive how others study or bet.
|
|
By:
Grands Crus was a trends horse last year.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Graeme have you ever had 13 winners at the festival?
|
|
By:
We'll see when he posts his form selections prior to the 12th.
|
|
By:
What i put up, or what i don't put up, whichever the case may be, has no relevance to the debate of statistics and trends. I like racing to find my own winners. Individual fact and strong probability will always be stronger than trends or statistics. How many stat users are putting up one horse per race ? horses should always be taken on a individual basis. Anyway, i will start tackling head on pre-requsite stats sometime soon on this thread. Forgive me for being a free thinker.
|
|
By:
Graeme what in winners is your best festival?
|
|
By:
does it matter how many winners you get? if you trust your judgement pick the right horse at the right price antepost, it can pay for the whole festival, the stats trends don,t even come into play if you back a horse in nov/dec, some folk are on MTOY at big prices, fwiw i like to see a horse run in the flesh a few times so i missed the larger prices on MTOY, but still got him at 14,s and 10,s if it wins im in serious profit, and every other horse ive backed then becomes a bonus.
|
|
By:
I don't know, and the answer would have no relevance anyway. The only pertinance to your question jasey, is that it shows that you as a synthetic punter is all about the decorations and the wrapping paper, and not the 'made in tiawan' part that is written underneath the gift inside. Your question has no bearing on the point of statistics and trends. Funnily enough, many trends seem to kick out the horses that nobody is backing anyway.
|
|
By:
Your right m8.But this thread has been created to fuel nasty argument.So i would like to know how many winners Graeme the visionary expects
|
|
By:
It was created to get an opinion on an approach that many of this board seem to use. If you can't debate like an adult Jasey, then i suggest you take your opinions elsewhere. Nothing about this thread is remotely nasty, until your throw in your tuppence worth in. I think there is a discussion to be had with regards to stats and alternative approaches. Everyone else seems to have accepted my view, which was launched in reaction to people passing off stats and facts, and dismissing certain statistics whilst taking on board others. Sir Des Champs would be a prime example. He was fit stats and trends, but how many horses who have jumped poorly in 2 of their lastb 4 races prior to a gold cup then went on to win it ?
|
|
By:
Is that a trend
|
|
By:
Long run,not the best jumper but stayed on his feet
|
|
By:
FFS
 SDC, like many horses jumps fences much more effectively on better ground. That predicted improvement AND backed by trends is why many, myself included fancy him. Without the use of trends you are practically backing blind. |
|
By:
Yep really "adult" of you Graeme to create such a dichotomy between those "true" "knowledgeable" "organic" punters who "actually know about horse racing" and those damn philistines who have the gall to also factor selected relevant historical trends into their study.
In summary, put the rod away/do one |
|
By:
Joist, i think you are still mildly upset from our exchhange the other day, where lets just be kind and say your attempts to try and have a pop at me done a somersault and landed flat on their back. My thread was created for a bit of fun and insight. I suggest you and Jasey create an anti-Graeme club, and go and ruin other peoples threads. It's getting a bit tired now, and it has become obvious that some begrudgers are spreading ill will because they can't accept other peoples opinions.
JohnTucker - i think it's clutching st straws to blamme the ground. None of the other serious horses have any problems. I wasn't even impressed with SDC last time, and although he was carrying conidition, i want this horse to go well and do good things, but i think he has been too casual and doesn't jump in a manner i'd expect of a gold cup horse. I'm not a layer, but i'm giving consideration to place laying him. |
|
By:
you've got to be fishing with this thread Graeme?
|
|
By:
Moron. |
|
By:
I've blocked the OP ages ago so I don't know what he's claiming as this mystical knowledge he is supposed to have that others don't.
Is he talking about the kind of knowledge you gain when you sit down and go through the entire careers of every horse entered in every race of the Festival. And then check that form against a whole bunch of statistical trends that have persisted for years. And then look at the ratings and performances of those horses that ran in the key trial races for the Festivals and reading all the quotes (I have Google alerts set up for literally hundreds of horses so that any time a story appears about them, their trainers and the races they are entered in I get a link to the story and I do read them). This is real knowledge. It is gained by hard work, paying attention, gathering information, reflecting on what you've learnt and then observing again. I've been doing this work for a good 30 years and have accumulated a fair amount of knowledge, more than the vast majority of punters for sure. What I have also done is to work out how to apply that knowledge to betting on the Festival to give an edge. For the first 15 years or so I too thought I could just work out who the most likely winners were on form, ratings and visual impressions. I did fine and backed some nice winners along the way. However, when I started to add the statistical approach my profitability improved instantly mainly because I avoided lots of shorter priced losers, who it turned out were statistically unlikely despite their excellent form. |