Cheltenham Festival
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
19 Feb 15
16:27
Joined:
Date Joined:
18 Mar 14
Would have to defy following stats :
A 6yo when 7yo or 8yo have won 18 of last 21
20 of last 21 ran 3 or more times over fences - he has ran twice
The last 50 ran in the same calendar year - he last ran in December
6/1??
A 6yo when 7yo or 8yo have won 18 of last 21
20 of last 21 ran 3 or more times over fences - he has ran twice
The last 50 ran in the same calendar year - he last ran in December
6/1??
Show More
I don't think there's much 6/1 about. Very interesting stats - Willie will be emailing these to the O'Learys!
Just go on form records are there to be broken. I remember Hurricane's Fly's 1st year "Montjeu's dont get up the hill" that worked well
Florida Pearl was a 6YO when he won it and he had only 2 previous runs over fences though he did win the Moriarty on the 2nd of those. Don Poli's lack of a run since the Topaz is the main concern for me. He must possess the strength and maturity for an RSA if his alternative engagement is the NH Chase.
I take the age stat with a pinch of salt,6 y olds at the head of the market run well in this race.
The lack of a prep is a negative and I would be worried if I backed him antepost.
The lack of a prep is a negative and I would be worried if I backed him antepost.
everywhere I look on this forum there are stats getting banded about......
There is a 10% increase in stats in this year! 
Don Poli doesn't have any stats to overcome. If he's good enough he'll win and he looks an RSA horse all over.
The worry as mentioned is the break. If he is beaten its not because he's a 6yo or because he didnt run in the same calendar year. nonsense.
The worry as mentioned is the break. If he is beaten its not because he's a 6yo or because he didnt run in the same calendar year. nonsense.
btw by the worry is the break, i mean in terms of his fitness. if he's fit the fact he hasnt run in the same year has no bearing.
he misses that stat by a few days
, some stats are crazy.
, some stats are crazy.
It is crazy but the prep is important,novices improve with racing
Some stats are crazy but some are not - what is crazy is how they are sometimes interpreted and how people become dogmatic about them.
The three stats mentioned by the OP have validity - however they do not alone say that Don Poli can't win. Of course he can, as can all the runners to a greater or lesser extent, it's just that his odds may overplay his real chance.
The age stat has validity because horses are still maturing both mentally and physically and the RSA is a big ask for a young horse. Since the turn of the century 34 horses aged less than 7 have run in the RSA, with only 5yo Star De Mohaison winning (although with today's reduced weight allowance it's arguable whether he would have won). The odds of those 23 horses implied that they should have won 3 renewals so they are under performing as a group. This does not say they can't win. Of course Florida Pearl and Young Hustler both won the RSA as 6yo in the last 30 years so it can be done (and others have run well in it too) - though again one could argue that these renewals were relatively weak (Florida Pearl's certainly was although he went on to prove himself an above average winner).
Having only 2 runs over fences also has some logic behind it. These horses are novices so they need practice - and they need practice at racing pace. 23 horses since the turn of the century have run with less than 3 chase runs behind them without winning. Again their odds implied that they should have picked up 3 renewals as a group so again they are under performing their odds. Florida Pearl again proved that this could be done (as have a number of Arkle winners although they do have less fences to jump) but the impact of this is often under assessed.
The number of days since a run stat is one that seems to cause most division. Of course it doesn't really matter if a horse has been off the track for 60 or 61 days, the one day does not make a significant difference. However, it does not take a lot to believe that a novice, with little experience and who has not had match practice relatively recently could be at a slight disadvantage and again the market might not be assessing that accurately. Since the turn of the century the biggest break by a winner is actually 53 days. To pick an arbitrary number of 60 days, there have been 35 such runners, none who have won even though their odds imply they should have again won 3 renewals. Up to 60 days horses are generally winning in line with their perceived chances (except for horses who ran very recently (e.g. Within 20 days) who can't even muster a place - probably impacted by having a gruelling race close to the RSA itself). So again this says that horses off a long break are simply underperforming as a group.
One other stat for Don Poli backers to consider. 110 British trained horses have run in the RSA since the turn of the century. 9 have fallen (about 8%). 47 Irish horses have run but 15 have fallen (32%), almost 4x as likely (and Willie Mullins provided a fair few of these). I don't think Irish horses don't jump as well (fall rates for experienced horses don't support that) and I don't think the fences in Ireland are softer (Geraghty actually thinks their stiffer). My opinion (and its only that) is that Irish novice races tend to be a lot more slowly run and on much softer ground. The combination of better ground, faster pace, undulations (jumping uphill and downhill) and stiff fences tends to find a few out at that early stage of their careers. Of course 32 didn't fall so it's not black and white, just another thing to consider in weighing up chances.
So, of course Don Poli can win. The question is whether his odds reflect all of the risks that come with the package. One may feel it is a weak renewal (like Florida Pearl) and he is simply better than the rest (although Coneygree has posted the highest pre RSA RPR of any runner this century (even higher than Denman)). One may feel that his form entitles him to be shorter than 7/2 and that this is a good price. Whatever, there are some valid statistics to consider here - it's folly to ignore them but it's equally folly to treat them as 'fact'.
Sorry - that went on a lot longer than I intended!
The three stats mentioned by the OP have validity - however they do not alone say that Don Poli can't win. Of course he can, as can all the runners to a greater or lesser extent, it's just that his odds may overplay his real chance.
The age stat has validity because horses are still maturing both mentally and physically and the RSA is a big ask for a young horse. Since the turn of the century 34 horses aged less than 7 have run in the RSA, with only 5yo Star De Mohaison winning (although with today's reduced weight allowance it's arguable whether he would have won). The odds of those 23 horses implied that they should have won 3 renewals so they are under performing as a group. This does not say they can't win. Of course Florida Pearl and Young Hustler both won the RSA as 6yo in the last 30 years so it can be done (and others have run well in it too) - though again one could argue that these renewals were relatively weak (Florida Pearl's certainly was although he went on to prove himself an above average winner).
Having only 2 runs over fences also has some logic behind it. These horses are novices so they need practice - and they need practice at racing pace. 23 horses since the turn of the century have run with less than 3 chase runs behind them without winning. Again their odds implied that they should have picked up 3 renewals as a group so again they are under performing their odds. Florida Pearl again proved that this could be done (as have a number of Arkle winners although they do have less fences to jump) but the impact of this is often under assessed.
The number of days since a run stat is one that seems to cause most division. Of course it doesn't really matter if a horse has been off the track for 60 or 61 days, the one day does not make a significant difference. However, it does not take a lot to believe that a novice, with little experience and who has not had match practice relatively recently could be at a slight disadvantage and again the market might not be assessing that accurately. Since the turn of the century the biggest break by a winner is actually 53 days. To pick an arbitrary number of 60 days, there have been 35 such runners, none who have won even though their odds imply they should have again won 3 renewals. Up to 60 days horses are generally winning in line with their perceived chances (except for horses who ran very recently (e.g. Within 20 days) who can't even muster a place - probably impacted by having a gruelling race close to the RSA itself). So again this says that horses off a long break are simply underperforming as a group.
One other stat for Don Poli backers to consider. 110 British trained horses have run in the RSA since the turn of the century. 9 have fallen (about 8%). 47 Irish horses have run but 15 have fallen (32%), almost 4x as likely (and Willie Mullins provided a fair few of these). I don't think Irish horses don't jump as well (fall rates for experienced horses don't support that) and I don't think the fences in Ireland are softer (Geraghty actually thinks their stiffer). My opinion (and its only that) is that Irish novice races tend to be a lot more slowly run and on much softer ground. The combination of better ground, faster pace, undulations (jumping uphill and downhill) and stiff fences tends to find a few out at that early stage of their careers. Of course 32 didn't fall so it's not black and white, just another thing to consider in weighing up chances.
So, of course Don Poli can win. The question is whether his odds reflect all of the risks that come with the package. One may feel it is a weak renewal (like Florida Pearl) and he is simply better than the rest (although Coneygree has posted the highest pre RSA RPR of any runner this century (even higher than Denman)). One may feel that his form entitles him to be shorter than 7/2 and that this is a good price. Whatever, there are some valid statistics to consider here - it's folly to ignore them but it's equally folly to treat them as 'fact'.
Sorry - that went on a lot longer than I intended!
Why don't betfair have a 'like' button for situations like this? 
Hear hear! As good a post as you're likely to see on here.
Stats polarise opinion, but the nay-sayers need to appreciate that some stats are better than others (about 61% a recent study has shown
). Not considering stats that have a quantifiable 'reason' behind them, such as these, in your decision making process is like trying to play a round of golf with only 6 clubs.
Stats polarise opinion, but the nay-sayers need to appreciate that some stats are better than others (about 61% a recent study has shown
). Not considering stats that have a quantifiable 'reason' behind them, such as these, in your decision making process is like trying to play a round of golf with only 6 clubs.
A pleasure to read. So much better than the oft heard Will win/Can't win arguments that disfigure the forum.
A tremendous appraisal and one that will certainly influence my thinking about this race. Thanks, Ormonde, can you do the same with the Ryanair, with particular reference to Don Cossack?!
A tremendous appraisal and one that will certainly influence my thinking about this race. Thanks, Ormonde, can you do the same with the Ryanair, with particular reference to Don Cossack?!
Excellent Post Ormonde.
The biggest negative for backers IMO is simply will he run?
Whether he can beat Coneygree or Kings Palace or whoever else is the question?
If for arguments sake he loses a length to Coneygree(can be any other horse) with 30L back to the 3rd all the stats boys will say he couldn't win (calender year, 6yo, 2runs over fences). Take Coneygree out cos he's NR for whatever reason all stats bust.
WP Mullins knows if he's fit enough, knows the horses age and knows if is a good enough jumper.
He will win or lose on form!!!!
The biggest negative for backers IMO is simply will he run?
Whether he can beat Coneygree or Kings Palace or whoever else is the question?
If for arguments sake he loses a length to Coneygree(can be any other horse) with 30L back to the 3rd all the stats boys will say he couldn't win (calender year, 6yo, 2runs over fences). Take Coneygree out cos he's NR for whatever reason all stats bust.
WP Mullins knows if he's fit enough, knows the horses age and knows if is a good enough jumper.
He will win or lose on form!!!!
Any stats boys who crow that he "couldn't win" would be as misguided as those who dismiss Ormondes stats as inconsequential.
best post ive read in a long time and no B S in it.
I still cant have the hasnt ran in calender year stat.
Good luck.
I still cant have the hasnt ran in calender year stat.
Good luck.
My opinion (and its only that) is that Irish novice races tend to be a lot more slowly run and on much softer ground. The combination of better ground, faster pace, undulations (jumping uphill and downhill) and stiff fences tends to find a few out at that early stage of their careers.
Great point this, real food for thought.
Great point this, real food for thought.
Inchcailloch...well, if you have 0 from last 50 years and can't have it then you never will lol
It amazes me sometimes how people just plain ignore statistics as whole. SOMETIMES, they give you a clear insight into how a horse needs to be prepared for specific conditions. The RSA is one such race. DP is up against it. He's been poorly prepared for such as test just like Ballycasey was last year, and Boston Bob the year before. 2 chase runs is not enough and you can point to Florida Pearl til the cows come home but he turned out to be a multiple Grade 1 chaser in open company who ran against poor horses.
Ballycasey didnt win cos he doesnt stay. You're being very harsh on Boston Bob who if he jumps the last(I know that the name of the game) wins the race.
I know SJ, but the point is, if he had had more practice he would not have fell at a crucial part of the race when pressure was at a maximum. Novices need to race.
If you back Don Poli for the RSA at anywhere near the current odds of 4/1 then you need your head testing in my opinion.
The RSA is the best trends race at the whole festival and whilst they are there to be broken, and no doubt will be at some stage, you want some juice in the price if backing a horse with the prep that DP has had.
If he were 8/1+ then I could understand someone taking a chance, but for him to be the price he is and people to back him is off the hook!
The RSA is the best trends race at the whole festival and whilst they are there to be broken, and no doubt will be at some stage, you want some juice in the price if backing a horse with the prep that DP has had.
If he were 8/1+ then I could understand someone taking a chance, but for him to be the price he is and people to back him is off the hook!
There is one MASSIVE STAT against CONEYGREE .
The last 19 winners of the Feltham/kauto star novice chase run on boxing day , have all been beaten when taking their chance in the RSA .
DYNASTE & LONG RUN being 2 of the most recent ones
The last 19 winners of the Feltham/kauto star novice chase run on boxing day , have all been beaten when taking their chance in the RSA .
DYNASTE & LONG RUN being 2 of the most recent ones
That is the one thing which is stopping me backing Coneygree at the moment.
I've backed champagne west and Southfield theatre so I'm down to one now.
I do wonder though this year Coneygree might just be too good for the rest of them
I've backed champagne west and Southfield theatre so I'm down to one now.
I do wonder though this year Coneygree might just be too good for the rest of them
the market leaders all have stats to overcome , at the moment I like the form of don poli . Wounded warrior too big at 33s
I wouldn't let the Feltham stat put you off - I'd be more concerned about the ground and undulations given his past leg problems.
When looking at these "jinx" races you have to look at the logical reasons behind them. The Reynoldstown also used to be thrown out - races were often run on stamina sapping ground and close to the Festival with winners often leaving their race behind. After over 30 years of drought, there has been a couple of winners recently, largely thanks to improved drainage at Ascot meaning the track doesn't resemble the Somme any longer (the Challow Hurdle in relation to the Neptune has a similar reputation on account of the ground but I would be wary of discounting this year's winner, Parlour Games, on that particular score (though there are other reasons to have doubts) given he won in spite of the ground and would prefer a better surface.
With respect to the Feltham, I think there are three things to consider: i) whilst there are winners like Long Run and Grand Crus who were well fancied for the RSA, there are also a large number that were not so well thought of (Annacotty last year for example) so the sample size is not massive - though I grant they should have won at least one by now. Ii) the argument goes that the difference nature of the track (right handed, flat, sharp) at Kempton and often the softer going mean it's impossible to win at both venues. If so why is there such a long list of King George/Gold Cup winners, the closest corollary (Long Run, Kauto Star, Kicking King, Best Mate this century and more going back to Desert Orchid and even Arkle) ? Florida Pearl also won the RSA and then went on to win the King George over the same trip as the Feltham. III) since the turn of the century Jair Du Cochet ran second in the RSA after winning the Feltham and Trabolgan won the RSA after being short headed in the Feltham - it's highly dubious to suggest that if the photo had gone his way at Kempton that would have scuppered his chance in the RSA.
It's important to understand whether the Feltham winner is capable of showing the same if not better form at the Festival (and whether that form would be good enough to actually win the race anyway). In the case of Coneygree his form is certainly good enough to win an RSA and he has excellent form over hurdles at Cheltenham. The doubts are the potential (likely?) going and whether, after his leg problems, the Cheltenham undulations will still be as suitable for him. Remember the market still says he probably won't win (at NRNB he still only has a 25% chance) but whilst other things might sway me I wouldn't let the fact that he won at Kempton be one of them.
By the way, thanks to everyone for their kind responses.
Cyclops - I find that Championship races such as the Ryanair lend themselves less to stats/trends analysis as most of the form is out there. It is also difficult with the Ryanair because the field make up is still a little murky. With regard to Don Cossack, if I was sitting on an 8/1+ voucher then I would be feeling pretty happy. Personally though I am not a backer at a short price given a lot of his form is in small field, soft ground races and he fell on his visit here last year. He is one of the most viable winners but if he wins at 5/2 I will just have to shrug my shoulders!
When looking at these "jinx" races you have to look at the logical reasons behind them. The Reynoldstown also used to be thrown out - races were often run on stamina sapping ground and close to the Festival with winners often leaving their race behind. After over 30 years of drought, there has been a couple of winners recently, largely thanks to improved drainage at Ascot meaning the track doesn't resemble the Somme any longer (the Challow Hurdle in relation to the Neptune has a similar reputation on account of the ground but I would be wary of discounting this year's winner, Parlour Games, on that particular score (though there are other reasons to have doubts) given he won in spite of the ground and would prefer a better surface.
With respect to the Feltham, I think there are three things to consider: i) whilst there are winners like Long Run and Grand Crus who were well fancied for the RSA, there are also a large number that were not so well thought of (Annacotty last year for example) so the sample size is not massive - though I grant they should have won at least one by now. Ii) the argument goes that the difference nature of the track (right handed, flat, sharp) at Kempton and often the softer going mean it's impossible to win at both venues. If so why is there such a long list of King George/Gold Cup winners, the closest corollary (Long Run, Kauto Star, Kicking King, Best Mate this century and more going back to Desert Orchid and even Arkle) ? Florida Pearl also won the RSA and then went on to win the King George over the same trip as the Feltham. III) since the turn of the century Jair Du Cochet ran second in the RSA after winning the Feltham and Trabolgan won the RSA after being short headed in the Feltham - it's highly dubious to suggest that if the photo had gone his way at Kempton that would have scuppered his chance in the RSA.
It's important to understand whether the Feltham winner is capable of showing the same if not better form at the Festival (and whether that form would be good enough to actually win the race anyway). In the case of Coneygree his form is certainly good enough to win an RSA and he has excellent form over hurdles at Cheltenham. The doubts are the potential (likely?) going and whether, after his leg problems, the Cheltenham undulations will still be as suitable for him. Remember the market still says he probably won't win (at NRNB he still only has a 25% chance) but whilst other things might sway me I wouldn't let the fact that he won at Kempton be one of them.
By the way, thanks to everyone for their kind responses.
Cyclops - I find that Championship races such as the Ryanair lend themselves less to stats/trends analysis as most of the form is out there. It is also difficult with the Ryanair because the field make up is still a little murky. With regard to Don Cossack, if I was sitting on an 8/1+ voucher then I would be feeling pretty happy. Personally though I am not a backer at a short price given a lot of his form is in small field, soft ground races and he fell on his visit here last year. He is one of the most viable winners but if he wins at 5/2 I will just have to shrug my shoulders!
Its obviously not impossible to win the KG and GC in the same season as some have done it,but an awful lot have not.
Theres also been a fair few Gold Cup winners that would never have got anywhere near winning a KG imo.And a fair few KG winners that have not stayed well enough to win a Gold Cup.
The fact remains that the 2 races are chalk and cheese,left and right handed.different distances,flat and undulating,and often different going.Probably why trainers chance horses like Azertyuiop,Edredon Bleu etc etc in the KG but would never contemplate the GC with them.
If you have a class horse like in particular Kauto,Arkle and also Best Mate eg, probaly 3 of the best of all time,then that class can prevail over both races,and if circumstances go in favour than horses like Long Run can as well,but that wont happen too often.
Recently we have had Denman an impressive GC winner who hated Kempton,same with Bobsworth.Conti won the KG twice,failed in the Gold Cup twice,although he could still do the double.
I think its worth mentioning that the Feltham(and the KG)generally have fewer runners than the RSA and Gold Cup and far fewer Irish Runners,so the stat re Feltham and RSA can be looked at with that in mind.
Personally, I would not not back a horse in the RSA or Gold Cup,just cos its won the Feltham or KG. Equally I would not be thinking that an impressive performance at Kempton means the same will happen at Cheltenham.
Theres also been a fair few Gold Cup winners that would never have got anywhere near winning a KG imo.And a fair few KG winners that have not stayed well enough to win a Gold Cup.
The fact remains that the 2 races are chalk and cheese,left and right handed.different distances,flat and undulating,and often different going.Probably why trainers chance horses like Azertyuiop,Edredon Bleu etc etc in the KG but would never contemplate the GC with them.
If you have a class horse like in particular Kauto,Arkle and also Best Mate eg, probaly 3 of the best of all time,then that class can prevail over both races,and if circumstances go in favour than horses like Long Run can as well,but that wont happen too often.
Recently we have had Denman an impressive GC winner who hated Kempton,same with Bobsworth.Conti won the KG twice,failed in the Gold Cup twice,although he could still do the double.
I think its worth mentioning that the Feltham(and the KG)generally have fewer runners than the RSA and Gold Cup and far fewer Irish Runners,so the stat re Feltham and RSA can be looked at with that in mind.
Personally, I would not not back a horse in the RSA or Gold Cup,just cos its won the Feltham or KG. Equally I would not be thinking that an impressive performance at Kempton means the same will happen at Cheltenham.
2 excellent posts.
I agree with parts of both posts to be honest.
I like to judge each race on its merits, not on the name of the race. If a novice wins a Feltham and has already ran well at Cheltenham, then I see no reason why the Feltham would be a negative.
Eg Coneygree has already won around Cheltenham twice over hurdles and Grands Crus was placed in a World Hurdle before their Feltham runs, so clearly handled both tracks.
With the novices I like to give them the benefit of the doubt as there isn't usually a lot of evidence to suggest if they'll like one and not another, whereas you could see the likes of Imperial Commander etc hated Kempton.
Its also no coincidence that beaten KG horses have an excellent record in the Ryanair. As you say Budd, any stamina doubts you might as well test them in the KG.
That says to me that if the horse is good enough he can win a both, and maybe its the distance difference plus the hill, why some win the Feltham/KG and not RSA/GC, rather than the track conditions.
I agree with parts of both posts to be honest.
I like to judge each race on its merits, not on the name of the race. If a novice wins a Feltham and has already ran well at Cheltenham, then I see no reason why the Feltham would be a negative.
Eg Coneygree has already won around Cheltenham twice over hurdles and Grands Crus was placed in a World Hurdle before their Feltham runs, so clearly handled both tracks.
With the novices I like to give them the benefit of the doubt as there isn't usually a lot of evidence to suggest if they'll like one and not another, whereas you could see the likes of Imperial Commander etc hated Kempton.
Its also no coincidence that beaten KG horses have an excellent record in the Ryanair. As you say Budd, any stamina doubts you might as well test them in the KG.
That says to me that if the horse is good enough he can win a both, and maybe its the distance difference plus the hill, why some win the Feltham/KG and not RSA/GC, rather than the track conditions.
Just another quick point I'd like to make is around The Christmas Hurdle and the Adonis.
Recent Adonis winners have an excellent record in the Triumph and the Christmas Hurdle winners like MTOY (plus TNO),Binocular, Darlan, Go Native etc all clearly handled both.
Maybe the different conditions are magnified over fences than hurdles?
Anyway, that only makes me think it is the distance of the KG and GC that is the major difference, rather than the characteristics about the tracks.
Recent Adonis winners have an excellent record in the Triumph and the Christmas Hurdle winners like MTOY (plus TNO),Binocular, Darlan, Go Native etc all clearly handled both.
Maybe the different conditions are magnified over fences than hurdles?
Anyway, that only makes me think it is the distance of the KG and GC that is the major difference, rather than the characteristics about the tracks.
Of the last 19 individual winners of the King George going back to 1980, 2 never ran in the Gold Cup and 9 of the remaining 17 actually won it, with a further 3 placing second (and one of the remainder won an RSA and a King George). That's a pretty impressive record, more so than most would probably have thought.
There are certainly horses that show their best form at one or other of the tracks but plenty who can win at both. This is why it's important to look at each race and its protagonists on its merits. To ignore the Feltham winner simply because he won the Feltham is short sighted In the same way as buddeleia points out of assuming an impressive performance will naturally be repeated at Cheltenham.
There are certainly horses that show their best form at one or other of the tracks but plenty who can win at both. This is why it's important to look at each race and its protagonists on its merits. To ignore the Feltham winner simply because he won the Feltham is short sighted In the same way as buddeleia points out of assuming an impressive performance will naturally be repeated at Cheltenham.
After the Gold Cup the George is the second most important steeplechase of the season ran in England. This will obviously attract the highest chasers around so of course it's a key race looking towards the Gold Cup.
The other option for a mid season target for the leading chasers is the Lexus. Again that form will be key looking a head to the Gold Cup as the same horses will meet again.
These two races are situated in the season at the perfect time, allowing trainers to get them to peak at Christmas, rest and the geared back up for the big day in March.
The other option for a mid season target for the leading chasers is the Lexus. Again that form will be key looking a head to the Gold Cup as the same horses will meet again.
These two races are situated in the season at the perfect time, allowing trainers to get them to peak at Christmas, rest and the geared back up for the big day in March.
What I would add to Ormonde's excellent initial post about the use (and misuse) of stats is that statisticians would still consider sample sizes as small as the ones we are using as vastly inadequate to support black and white ideas we use to make decisions about our betting.
Also, while I 100% agree that the importance in weighing up the likely usefulness of a stat is trying to understand why it exists (e.g. horses with two starts or fewer apparently struggling in the RSA - probably because this is a tough race and jumping experience is very important), it is so important to be humble enough to realise that the understanding might be completely wrong. It's very easy to come up with very believable, logical hypotheses to explain stats/trends, but we can never test these in the 'uncontrolled' experiments that are the races we all love.
And, most important of all, is the the seven-word addendum that rogerthebutler shared: and everything comes back to price too.
For all of these reasons I would not be rushing to back Don Poli at 7/2 but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he won the RSA as he looks a good jumper, who stays, has class, has Festival-winning form, and is being trained by a master and ridden by a superb jockey.
Also, while I 100% agree that the importance in weighing up the likely usefulness of a stat is trying to understand why it exists (e.g. horses with two starts or fewer apparently struggling in the RSA - probably because this is a tough race and jumping experience is very important), it is so important to be humble enough to realise that the understanding might be completely wrong. It's very easy to come up with very believable, logical hypotheses to explain stats/trends, but we can never test these in the 'uncontrolled' experiments that are the races we all love.
And, most important of all, is the the seven-word addendum that rogerthebutler shared: and everything comes back to price too.
For all of these reasons I would not be rushing to back Don Poli at 7/2 but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he won the RSA as he looks a good jumper, who stays, has class, has Festival-winning form, and is being trained by a master and ridden by a superb jockey.
All pre cheltenham books ive read, they all fancy Poli.
Howdi do ever get the feeling when seeing a horse win,and you think theatre's horse,jumps brilliantly,travels,and finds,this will win whatever race it goes for,then all roads for the gold cup next year !
could be pal. Although I remember thinking the same about Grand Crus about 3 years ago, never won another race , from what I recall.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539