Cheltenham Festival
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I like the RSA novice chase one .
The last 50 winners have all had a prep run during the calendar year . Which unfortunately rules out my fancy , MORNING ASSEMBLY .
The last 50 winners have all had a prep run during the calendar year . Which unfortunately rules out my fancy , MORNING ASSEMBLY .
Show More
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!
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.
MA's last race was 29 December. There are better things to worry about than missing a calendar deadline by three days.
I love stats but this one makes me chuckle.
MA will now run like he has concrete boots on but if he had ran a three days later he would run like pegasus
What is the representation of first three in the betting horses,that have failed winning without a run in the calendar year,and where did they finish.
MA will now run like he has concrete boots on but if he had ran a three days later he would run like pegasus
What is the representation of first three in the betting horses,that have failed winning without a run in the calendar year,and where did they finish.
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 ?
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.
Thats a bit harsh.
I just want to know how many with no prep featured in the 1st three in the betting and where they came in the RSA thats all.
I just want to know how many with no prep featured in the 1st three in the betting and where they came in the RSA thats all.
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.
As an example, 80% of Coral Cup Winners carried less than 11-2 and about 80% of CC Runners carried that weight or less.
jasey is not correct .
Latest failures include TIME FOR RUPERT 7/4F grand crus 6/5F BOTH UNPLACED .
Latest failures include TIME FOR RUPERT 7/4F grand crus 6/5F BOTH UNPLACED .
Jasey IS correct in asking for data relating to those horse that did not hit your criteria.
He IS equally correct in saying that their is nothing magical about the turn of the year.
If you study the data you will probably find that for this race there is an optimal time period between its last run and its RSA run. To find this you would need to look at ALL RUNNERS (not just winners) and their subsequent performance.
He IS equally correct in saying that their is nothing magical about the turn of the year.
If you study the data you will probably find that for this race there is an optimal time period between its last run and its RSA run. To find this you would need to look at ALL RUNNERS (not just winners) and their subsequent performance.
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.
Its a strong stat for the race . I dont think it would be from a small sample
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.
Best hurdler wins the Arkle..... certainly +ev
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.
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.
good post brandy.
stats are for lazy people, each runner should be judged on form.
stats are for lazy people, each runner should be judged on form.
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
Ibrahima, I can not take the credit for that post. It was on a thread a while ago.
Some trends are good but you need to look deep into them to have a realistic outcome.
Some trends are good but you need to look deep into them to have a realistic outcome.
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.
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.
Neptune: D./M. Pipe combined 36 runners, 3 placed, 0 winners since 1990
RSA Chase: no horse that ran under flat rules ever won the race
Prep in a handicap for a non handicap Festival race: the last 194 to try this method provided 3 winners
Since 2008, AP McCoy has ridden 41 horses that returned SP fav, only one of them won
Byrne Plate: in the last 5 renewals, the first 3 finishers all carried 11 stone dead or lighter
RSA Chase: no horse that ran under flat rules ever won the race
Prep in a handicap for a non handicap Festival race: the last 194 to try this method provided 3 winners
Since 2008, AP McCoy has ridden 41 horses that returned SP fav, only one of them won
Byrne Plate: in the last 5 renewals, the first 3 finishers all carried 11 stone dead or lighter
judo didn't alderwood and at fishers cross start favourites last year and both won???
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539