What are the most MEANINGFUL stats of the festival iyo.

What some people who dont like stats overlook is the fact they often point towards how a horse needs to be prepared in order to win a specific race. So for example, the RSA one is a stat that should be stuck to until it's broken or the race looks weak. Prep is everything in Grade 1 company. I've backed Le Bec and Many Clouds for the race but Le Bec's chance has been compromised because he has not raced for nearly 3 months! No good.

I think he means bad in the context of his bets? Otherwise I dont see how!

A young age is not a negative for a french bred.

The last 50 winners have all had a prep run during the calendar year . Which unfortunately rules out my fancy ,  MORNING ASSEMBLY .

MA's last race was 29 December. There are better things to worry about than missing a calendar deadline by three days.

made u chuckle ? are you a knob .. sounds like it to me .

They are called criteria --- what about laying LTO winners ?     but it only won by a hd ?

Ramruma & Jasey, you are missing the point. Plenty of horses have tried it before and failed. A horse needs to have a race closer to the RSA for mental and physical sharpness.

Zealot have you backed MA and if so have you laid off

Jasey is correct. You cannot make statistically valid assessments based only on winners, this is a standard failing of retrofitting data. I am not doubting that this RSA stat may have validity, but without knowing whether the number of runners that did not "qualify" is a reasonable/statistically valid sample it is not proven.

As an example, 80% of Coral Cup Winners carried less than 11-2 and about 80% of CC Runners carried that weight or less.

Grans Crus = Feltham

I THINK 50 IS A NICE NUMBER

Agreed Zealot, but it is not much of an argument if say only 5% of RSA runners over the last 50 years had not had a run that year.

You may be right Zealot, but you don't know!  5% = 1/20, so 0/50 is not that much of a stretch. The 5% for the RSA could of course be more or less. Heads vs tails is 1/2, but 0/10 is not uncommon.

In the last 12 years only 9 horses have gone to post not having had a run in that calendar year.

In 5 of the last 12 years every horse had run in calendar year.

So there is only 7 years that had horses who fit the bill running in it

Of those 9 horses, First Lieutenant came 2nd and Back in Front was in with every chance in 2006 before he unseated.


Now if you take those 9 horses and their sp and work out the implied win % (ie 1/ decimal odds) then adjust for a 120% overround book we'll get the chances each horse had of winning based on betting

We can then get 100% - their chances of winning = the chances they don't win. Now we can multiply those together to get the % chance that they all didn't win.

It's 33% chance. Hardly a very unlikely event now is it!!!


Now take into account First Lieutenant & Grands Crus were beaten by Bobs Worth, would the result have been different if it was Bobs going there Fresh and not the other two.

Ming_the_Merciless 08 Mar 14 07:18 Joined: 22 May 09 | Topic/replies: 2,319 | Blogger: Ming_the_Merciless's blog
Best hurdler wins the Arkle..... certainly +ev
Rate reply:
| report block user

Year.          Winner.                 Highest rated hurdler
2013.          Simonsig.             Overturn
2012.          Sprinter sacre.      Menorah
2011.          Captain chris.       Medermit
2010.          Sizing Europe.      Sizing Europe.
2009.           Forpady.               Forpady.
2008.           Tidal bay.              Tidal bay
2007.           Mywaydesolzen.   Mywaydesolzen
2006.           Voy por.                Monets garden
2005.            Contraband.         Ned Kelly
2004.           Well chief.             Thisthatandtother

Stats are useful up to a point. Take the "must have raced in the same calendar year" stat -- if that is all it is, then 3 days for Morning Assembly is neither here nor there.

It's a warning light, not a stop sign. Why did the losers not race in the same year? Some will have been injured, which seems like a valid enough reason for losing at Cheltenham. This year, especially in Britain, it may have more to do with the appalling weather, so I'd be less worried (actually I'd be more concerned about missed work through flooded gallops). In Morning Assembly's case, it seems to have been a deliberate decision to keep him fresh.

Another factor that might lie behind this stat is experience, and here I'd be more concerned. Chances are that if a horse has not raced in the same year, it will not have raced much at all, so will have less experience of jumping at racing pace amidst other horses. Look at Ballycasey's schooling fall the other day -- was he unnerved by schooling companions being around him? He looked great jumping on his own before and afterwards.

judo didn't alderwood and at fishers cross start favourites last year and both won???