And that's what I am pinning my hopes on Chief,that the owners are looking at last years race the same as me and thinking......you know we could have won that on better ground.cos like you I think he should be in the Gold Cup,and have him at nice odds,although I am trying to be objective!! and not let that rule my posts.

Same here mate, trying to be as objective as I can (although I took the plunge and put a few bets on him for the Ryanair).

The way I see it is, he's still a big price for the Gold Cup; it's 50/50 which race he goes in, he's just as good as either Don (even taking into account Punchestown), I think he'd place in a Gold Cup with Cue Card and Vautour, but I think he is the absolute stand out horse in the Ryanair field.

Until Valseur Lido got hammered by Djakadam, and then he got battered in the King George, I fully expected them to run three in the Gold Cup, but his below par performances have forced their hand a bit.

But....if he runs in the Gold Cup, I'll be cheering him on.  In fact, I might have a bit of 12's NRNB to the one I've already got on him.

If anyone on this forum doesn't like Cue Card (regardless of who you have backed) please leave!

I agree, everyone loves Cue Card don't they?  Even if you backed Vautour and got mugged on the line, you wouldn't have wanted to lose to anyone else.

Haha, to be fair I love Cue Card, but the only time I've backed him in one of his big wins was this year's Betfair.

I've always been loyal to Conti, and it felt weird deserting him this year.

It's like I've backed UDS for the QMCC, and I hope he wins, but I'd get just a big a buzz (or if not a bigger buzz) if Sprinter won.  Don't get me wrong though, jumping the last, I'd be screaming for Ruby, but if you're gonna lose, I'd rather lose to Sprinter.

I've not got a penny on Cue Card, but my lip will quiver if he does it.
I had something in my eye on Boxing day, as I recall!

DO - i havent done the research but i wonder how many returning GC runners that failed (on their return) did so under their ideal conditions having run very well the previous year under far from ideal conditions - i think whenever stats are spewed out they are by their nature a very high level summary and as with all such things the devil is very much in the detail - a little similar to the high level newspaper headline that once the whole article is read turns out to be a massive simplification or worse still quite misleading (not that i am still angry with the SL over their irresponsible yanworth headline or anything )

For me logic says that if a horse fails in its first attempt,not through lack of ability necessarily but because the conditions were far from ideal, then if he returns the following year in as good shape but under ideal conditions he is fully entitled to put up an improved showing and will not fail just because he did so the year before. Personally i cannot have it that if RTR runs this year under his ideal conditions that he will fail simply because he wasnt good enough to win last year on soft. But again its all about opinions

DO - so you are saying that any number of horses that ran as well as rtr did on unfavorable conditions also failed the following year under ideal conditions (of course he may not have them this year either) - personally i would like to know who these horses are rather than just take it as red - they may exist i am just saying i havent done the research and until i have it is not a stat i would want to give any credence to. Regards comparing with holywell - cant see this at all im afraid -  RTR has already posted a 169 rpr this season and although he had a minor disruption since i think its a real leap to use Holywells performances this season as a case against RTR. For me RTR might not be good enough and if he doesnt win the GC it will be for this reason and not because its his second attempt or because Holywells form indicates how RTR will run. I hope for the horses sake if connections suspect that he will never be the horse he was in last years GC again they will allow him to step down gracefully.

Lazy I know MS, but I can't be bothered analysing the preferences of every placed horse for the last 20 years. Presumably you think that none of them ran the following year and had ideal conditions? I've never claimed that horses getting their ideal conditions was a stat, by the way, just the headline. Although, of course if there were any, then they too would have failed.
It has long been my strategy to oppose horses beaten in their first attempt at a Gold Cup and it hasn't cost me yet, you'd be surprised how much of the book they can make up. Admittedly, this year it will be different as the market principals are mainly first timers.

DO - no thats not what i think - i am saying i dont know - if i knew the detail behind this one i would have a strong opinion either way but i dont thats all - i am pleased you have won money this way - perhaps because your theory is spot on or perhaps because the horses you opposed didnt lose because they had run in the race before but for other reasons. When i struggle a little is when a horse that seems to have good claims gets dismissed because of a stat more than for any other reason particularly if i or others dont know the detail behind the stat. In the end it is your strategy, its working for you and gl to you.

EO articulated it better, that's true. The point I was trying to make is that there always seems to be another one that's too good the next year too.
I hate being lazy, so I did have a quick scan back over the last ten runnings. Of course the ground is fairly consistent at the Festival and so most were run on good to soft and differences in conditions are not marked - which I suppose fuels your theory MS and if it came up good then there are not a huge number of examples to draw on to support my view.
However, Neptune Collonges ran his best Gold Cup on his least favourable ground in his first attempt on G/S, the second time it was G/S good in places and he got stuffed in his third attempt on good ground - which is what he wanted as demonstrated by winning the National under a big weight when it was like a road.
The Giant Bolster has run all his best races on soft/heavy yet was close second to Synchronised on good ground. The next year it was soft and he was beaten further.
Gods Own was touched off by a bollock hair by LW on unsuitable good ground but was well beaten last year on his favoured soft.

indeed we do and winning money is the aim of the game so as the saying goes if it aint broke dont fix it

Ah, the traditional response of those that don't use stats. I expected better of you Tim, it's nothing like that example at all. The colour of a horses legs (to the best of my knowledge) are not performance indicators - a previous run in the race could be.
As I stated in my first post on the subject, some stats are rubbish. However, if you examine at a stat and can give a reasonable explanation as to why that pattern might have emerged, then it's far from useless. If you're not considering the profile of the types of horses that tend to win a race, then you're going to war without a full arsenal, in my opinion.

A bit dull perhaps, but I can see both sides of this.

I definitely think there is a case to be made that horses not good enough to win at their first attempt generally don't improve to win a subsequent renewal - and I'd be even stronger on the idea that the race is such a stern examination that it leaves its' mark (in fact the two factors are likely to be linked) - last year's renewal was a particularly attritional affair so the second factor could be even more pertinent this year.

On the other hand Djakadam was only 6 last year and I doubt there would be too many recent examples of 7yos making their second attempt in recent years. I would n't be keen on backing him based on his prep though.

I watched back Roads To Riches' reappearance at Clonmel this morning and he looked in rude health - if he were to bolt up on Sunday then I might be prepared to overlook the stat - incidentally I'm not oversold on the perceived wisdom that he'll be a lot better on better ground - he's only run once on officially Good ground, beating the 136 rated Burn and Turn 11 lengths with the assistance of a 7lb claimer in the Galway Plate two summers ago - I think Meade's assertion that the first two in last year's Gold Cup had their preferred ground last year is more realistic - I can see Vautour and even Cue Card getting more benefit from good ground than Road To Riches this time around. I know Cue Card acts on soft these days but I suspect the breathing correction plays a big part in that - both his impressive festival wins have been on decent ground.

Anyway, I digress - one more stat to throw into the equation is Meade's festival record - if I recall correctly it was highlighted as none too impressive for a trainer of his calibre a few years back. Have n't re-visited that recently though.

rease - fair point re RTR ground preference - it has been in the back of my mind that he has run so well in testing conditions that good ground may not bring about much/any improvement - but as i have no proof that this is the case, until proven otherwise i have no reason to dismiss connections repeatedly saying he will be better on better ground. No doubt if he disappoints on better ground connections will then tell us that as hes got older he needs more give - seems to be they always have an answer that precludes them from saying - sorry i was wrong

The main stat as I see it is a very simple one.  It's not fail proof but it works pretty well.  It's about the only stat I use for this sport.

Horses win the Gold Cup on their first attempt.

The whys and ifs don't really matter. Since 1990 & taking multiple winners out as there can't be one this year, only leaves Seemorebusiness (carried out prev year) and The Fellow who break the stat. To me only The Fellow counts.  Djakadam may be different as he was only 6 and not sure how many have tried but I'm happy to leave him out owing to the stat.

Everything else to me is down to the horses season long performances and Cheltenham Festival form.

This race to me is very difficult as I am swayed towards Cue Card, but Vautour left a lasting impression in the JLT.  Don Poli keeps winning but from a form perspective I don't see it. Don Cossack could easily win but his jumping leaves me looking elsewhere and his festival form is  below what is required.  Normally I have an outsider to look forward to, but nothing to me outside these makes any appeal.

That's my summing up but not had a bet yet. Probably favour Cue Card over Vautour as it's 7/1 v 4/1.

Having a hard race 1st time around and dealing with the new crop makes life difficult the following year/s

You are funny Tim, you dismiss hard empirical evidence "nonsense" and yet make statements like Cue Card 'would've been lapped last year'.
If it's not enough to put you off, then good luck to you. RTR will probably go off around 8/1 (should it run), not 100/1 so you're obviously not alone.

I'm obviously not that smart because I didn't do it but logic suggests that an each way bet at 20-1 was a very good option if you were willing to take a chance on ground and race with RTR. If he runs to the same level as last year, if the others aren't as good as Coneygree was, he could easily win and if one or a couple do show a level of form better he could still pick up a place and the odds would have been worth the effort. Academic now of course as the price is shorter.

On the issue of the ground he clearly goes on it but at the distance and seeing as it was only in the last fifty yards that he was the second best horse in the race you'd be happier to see some form of good in the description. On very soft you'd imagine Djakadam may outstay him again.

That's an interesting point even leading those who agree to different conclusions. I agree that last years renewal was a bit special won by an outstanding champ. The point being the first three were easily clear of the others. If there isn't an outstanding member of the new generation both RTR and Djakadam set a very good mark for anything less than a very good performance to better.

It's a shame that none of last years top three have raced against any of this years crop, to put the form in to some kind of context.

As I said on here on the last page, I think RTR best ground also plays into the hands of several of his main rivals too, so the benefit is offset.  Of the good ground brigade, I personally think one of Vautour, Cue Card, or a Don will finish ahead of him.

No particular form backs that up, but you have to make an objective opinion.  Yes, I know about Punchestown last year btw, I am talking about this National Hunt season.

Stats? I usually discount them.  It's 17 years since a 10yo won, but that hasn't stopped me backing Cue Card.