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.


Correct or not, that is just sick, end of story.

Not me john, I'm not getting into the stats/trends thing here, I'm just baulking at a touch of arrogance, simple as that.

It depends on the stats, if they have evidence to support them then it is often wise to take note of them. The old classic is backing a horse for the Grand National who has had several runs in the current season before the race - i think a huge % of winners over the last 20 years had run between 4-6 times in the current season before the Grand National itself (one exception from the top of my head was Ballabriggs who i think ran 3 times). If you actually consider those stats, then it arguably has substance to it as a horse needs to be very fit to win over such a long distance but doesn't want to have had too long a season so it's over cooked for the big one. Horses like State of Play and Cappa Bleu are their own worst enemy as they go well fresh but in my opinion lack peak fitness for such a long race which is why they are/were good place bets but i couldn't consider them for the win.

There are some stats which I think are pretty random and i don't consider at all when it comes to placing a bet but each and one to their own and all that

Ming_the_Merciless 28 Feb 13 17:14 
Sometimes though stats are weilded like light sabres on here to dismiss a horse with an excellent chance.... or to get excited about an average runner.


Bloody good point ming, that's it in a nutshell for me

Statistics and trends can not prevail, but merely provide coincedence. For example, if we look at the big races at the festival, we should be able to dismiss some horse without referring to pre-requsite trends. My argument is that knowledge is stronger than statistic, because knowledge will prevail, whereas stats and trends can fall and crumble. Stats can also be converted into knowledge. For example, someone who doesn't think Dynaste can win the RSA, should perhaps be more confident in their view, and say something like 'i don't think Dynaste can win because he shows too much finishing speed over 3 miles, and i'd prefer more of a slogger'. Instead someone will say 'I don't think he will win because he won the Feltham', as if there is some sort of Papa Shango curse on winning a top class race. It's the same as the 5y/o world hurdle trend. Perhaps someone should say "it's difficult to see this horse winnign as the other are older, stronger and have more experience, especially on this sort of track".

Duffy..
If Grands Crus was good enough he would have won feltham and rsa.
I am a trends man,but no  way would i dismiss a horse because he won a certain race.

I totally and utterly agree with crownbarman

Graeme83 has very strong opinions here but anyone calling him a w_nker for expressing them is totally out of order. He's just coming at this from the opposite angle to people like judorick, who has posted some excellent stuff on his own thread (albeit stuff I think you should take with a pinch of salt).

I think it is all too easy to label someone a guesser for using their own insight to put up a selection, especially if it gets beaten after falling down on a perceived long-standing trend that others have been championing. But to me, some of judorick's (not having a go by the way, it's just his thread is the best known for stats followers on here) stuff is totally illogical; why do so much work with backfitted data and then pick arbitrary means of dismissing certain horses. In that thread, and the other trends analyses I've seen on here, the posters have typically said that they "have to eliminate horses by some means" and have just chosen certain angles to do this.

Surely the strongest 'trends' are those that apply to the actual horses in question, rather than those that are superimposed from other horses? For example, rather than saying Oscar Whisky is an unlikely World Hurdle winner because he has not won a Grade One hurdle race with more than 15 runners before, surely he is an unlikely winner because he has tried to win three times at the Festival before and failed each time. Or, for the Graeme83's among us, why not just say he's an unlikely winner because he doesn't stay three miles?

Agree we can do without the abuse, but all this trends stuff strikes me as a bit clinical and dull.  But the way it is presented is that stats people win, everyone else loses, which I think we all can agree is not true, can we? Can you feel the love?

have to say i use trends to a degree but am not a huge fan as think i lose on the back of it as it hinders my ability to get to the root of the race and racing changes so much from year to year...

the feltham stat in my opinion is more to do with the horses being early season types... this is because of the preparation they have imo in regards to winning the race on boxing day...trained to win and thus hit there peak performance...someone mentioned the trabolgan race this is very relevant as the winner had been trained hard all winter and was ready to race for his life in the novice race where as trabolgan hadn't

a hard race in the feltham then the horse doesn't prep for cheltenham on the back of hitting his peak and thus on the back of such a hard early season are past there best come the festival, that isn't to say i would overlook him if i truly believed these affects wouldn't bare out...the trouble will be for dynaste this year is has he peaked and in which case can he peak again?? for the record i don't believe he will has his overall profile leads me to believe his best race is behind him and this makes it likely for me he will under perform...

personally i was told dodging bullets cannot win the other day because he hadn't run a speed figure which he had no right to do this season in the slowly run races he has ran in and on ground he wouldn't of liked...he may well not win and that is born out in the fact of his odds...for me he is trained by the top trainer and ridden by the top jockey plus has a progressive profile and he will get the better ground he desires...whether he is good enough we cannot make a firm judgement as he has been running on bottomless ground all winter...

There are good trends and bad ones,its up to the individual how they apply them.
I start my ante posts in October,so i have no idea if my selections will be trend horse's.
Following trends at the festival makes profit for me.

Nice one Graeme,  you don't half read some bollocks on these trands analysis threads.

Tho tbf there are a few trends that make you think about the game a bit differently.

I am not like that m8.I am sure it will be documented on here if the trends boys are taking a pounding.

if you read the opening post of my thread you might have noticed that the work I've done is MAINLY for the benefit of my own friends, family, punting mates and one poor guy in particular who suffered a massive stroke and is completely paralysed and unable to speak

I do this document for them every year but I don't need to do it for my own punting. I then choose to post my findings on here as it only takes a copy and paste from my Word Doc to do it. If you lot don't like it then fine, don't read it. Instead, why not put YOUR own bets up with full reasoning on your own thread more than two weeks out from the Festival so we can all see what you've backed.

Bunch of facking tw@ts most of you. I work phacking hard, think extremely deeply, watch hundreds of race replays, study ratings, have hundreds of horse alerts, montitor markets constantly and go over and over.

What the fack do you lot do? Most of you just want to post a winner to act the big man. The abuse you get on here for posting your hard work is ridiculous.

Bunch of facking tw@ts most of you. I work phacking hard, think extremely deeply, watch hundreds of race replays, study ratings, have hundreds of horse alerts, montitor markets constantly and go over and over.

What the fack do you lot do? Most of you just want to post a winner to act the big man. The abuse you get on here for posting your hard work is ridiculous.

I think people line up to have a pop at you for these arrogant comments, not because you put a lot of hard work in. It's especially galling that you assume most people don't put the work in because they don't post up long-winded analyses on here.

I work phacking hard, think extremely deeply, watch hundreds of race replays, study ratings, have hundreds of horse alerts, monitor markets constantly and go over and over as well. I just don't post threads about my thoughts...

jasey i know they are informative i was just trying to get an angle on what you were backing or do you just digest jonesy's book and judo and joci's analysis and make your own judgment?? or do you follow them in...

he would be proud lol... i'll tell him he has a follower on the forum his ego will grow even more...i hope to dim that a little when i relieve him of a hundred pounds sterling when silvi conti beats sir desmond in a match bet...

do you subscribe to his tipping line??

yes know him very well had dinner with him sunday...

he likes sir desmond

*Is