Cheltenham Betting trends

I was the same Harry but I have not bought it for past 3 years

its a method and book I have used for years and feel I need to buy it but good to know Im not the only person on here that uses it as a valuable tool.  I couldn't bring myself not to buy it that's for sure

Harry was just a question if anyone uses trends, didn't say it guarantees 28 winners over the week  ;-) Value your input and opinion thank you

Yes it was a fair question Hornet...

however when people use the word valuable tool as a selling point I disagree and find you’ll get put off more winners, than finding winners

People use them as a tick list to finding winners, it’ll cause more confusion in your mind than pin pointing your own bets

Of course if your not a form reader and you need help to pin point winners because of horses age and any other things a trends person needs to hang his hat on, I’m sure the trends book can lead you to some winners but long term I’d advise a younger form reader to just do his own homework...no offence by the way. Good luck

Still wouldn’t mind you telling me all the snapped trends last year?

probably very few another would be a relevant stat..

Prove

God knows what the stat would of been before Henderson’s horse won the triumph after running round fakenham

Anyway enjoy the book hope I haven’t put any off

Harry, the shish kin trend was a trend that didn't work yes, but the supreme DOES throw up a lot of correct trends, yes it isn't always going to be right and shish kin was an example but that race in particular does work out more often than not,  The thread was purely to see if people use trends as another way of punting, an angle if you may, In terms of your advice of looking at a form book, I've been punting properly for 25 years, I've a fair idea what a form book looks like.  Was just a question.  Like why people think times are so important? Personally I don't see how they are that accurate over jumps but that's for another thread entirely.

yet still the 1% that know what they are doing don't if your statistics are correct

Am getting this year for the first time since 2015 , purely for a good read .I still occasionally use the old one if its a race I cant be bothered analysing eg Foxhunters , then I take a few liberties with the concusions in search of a big price . They owe me nothing ,  Rule Supreme in 2004 ! Had to watch again , shame about the fallers but the horse ran twice as far as the rest .

How much are these books these days Paulo? Used to be a fiver when that Welsh bloke wrote it was it not?

sounds like a good read ,,,where can i get a copy ?

off topic ,,first year in 20 odd not got a racing post diary ,well got the pocket version but not same

Ah so you have previous convictions paulo

Yep cracking read indeed , different era mind .

Shall have to read it paulo thanks

There are trends, there are stats, and there are coincidences.

Horses who had a warm up race at Huntingdon not winning is no predictor that the next one who comes along won't, since running at Huntingdon doesn't make you not good enough.  It's just that most of the others who ran there weren't.  So it is a complete non starter and should be ignored.

On the other hand something along the lines of '90% of Cheltenham chae winners had previously won at one of the following tracks: (say) Newbury, Warwick, Punchestown blah blah' might be of some use because it might point you to some of the right form lines, or it might point you to the usefulness of proven jumping aptitude, for example.

Thirly, it might add something to your shortlisting process to known that, for example, the breeding profile of Supreme Novices hurdle winners seems to be changing.  Mill Reef lines used to do well, up to Champagne Fever and Vautour, but since then three of the six were by Sadlers Wells sires, two more were by Montjeu sires (and he was a Sadlers Wells) and the sixth was Summerville Boy who doesn't seem to fit any discernable pattern at all.

Now none of that makes Ballyadam a certainty for the Supreme, and no such information will be a license to print money, but it might be a jumping off point in considering the demands of the race, and the kind of pedigree that tends to do well.  One person might think Metier, being out of a dam from a Sadlers Wells line, might be suited to the job; another person might think the sire line looks more significant.  Another might think that none of the horses that fit the profile are good enough anyway so the information is useless; a fourth might think Appreciate It has a good enough jumping pedigree that the presence or not of Sadlers Wells in it is utterly irrelevant.  A fifth might think the whole thing is an irrelevant distraction from good old fashioned form study.


At their best, books like these might get you thinking about slightly different angles, maybe review the form of one you had underestimated, or raise a question about one you had overestimated.  You would need to be some kind of wally to think they are a golden goose, but I can't see why combined with some common sense they might not do some good.