Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 145 comments are related to the topic:
Lochinge Group 1
Lochinge Group 1
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 145
|
By:
That's right it is a betting forum. Someone asked about the race and I answered. Whether they take any notice of wht I put matters not thst is up to them. But you are one of those on here who attack the poster not post. If you disagree that it was a weak Group 1 then say so.
You really should listen to yourself 'don't post on here if you don't bet very often' 'you don't have the right credentials'. You really should listen to yourself. No wonder this forum is falling to bits with pompous, arrogany know alls like you on here. Ffs pull yourself together. |
|
By:
I would treat the result with a great deal of caution.
Ok, let's analyse the message of your post. So you would treat the result with caution. What does this mean exactly? It wasn't the right result? There would be a different result on another day? |
|
By:
Figgis if I remember the post was the 3rd horse AOBs horse. With it running next in the QueennAnne Stakes and the usual hype surrounding some of these horses ignore the fact it was 3rd in a Group 1 and remember it was beaten by a horse who was beaten in the Lincoln.
|
|
By:
a load of mud lovers masquerading as fast ground animals,
|
|
By:
You mean a horse that was beaten in the Lincoln first time out. It's funny, as when Australia was beaten first time out you used that as an excuse.
|
|
By:
Tulius is a 6 year old. He won 1st time out in 2 of his last three seasons. The race he last won the 2nd horse got beaten today along with the 4th horse. The 3rd horse was well beaten in Ireland in the week.
|
|
By:
It doesn't mean the AOB horse cannot win the Queen Anne only that his price is likely to be shorter thsn I think it should be.
|
|
By:
Tulius is a 6 year old. He won 1st time out in 2 of his last three seasons. The race he last won the 2nd horse got beaten today along with the 4th horse. The 3rd horse was well beaten in Ireland in the week.
Must take a hell of a long time to find a good bet then if you're waiting for all form to be franked afterwards, and when they do appear I can't imagine they'd be much of a price. I think a lot of people who can read the form book without requiring such rigorous testing would've thought Tullius a good bet at the price at Sandown. |
|
By:
Can you listen to yourself? What does it matter to you when or where I have a bet? In fact I wasn't even in the country.
I don't like backing horses that haven't already run unless I know they are fully fit. I said at the time I backed Australia against my normal style. If I think I would be surprised if something got beaten then I will have a bet if I wouldn't be surprisedvthen I don't bet. Simple really. |
|
By:
I'm off to bed.
|
|
By:
If I think I would be surprised if something got beaten then I will have a bet if I wouldn't be surprisedvthen I don't bet.
That has to be the most rigidly limited betting strategy I've ever heard from somebody who has claimed they're a successful punter. I don't think anybody would say they'd be surprised if a 6/4 chance got beaten, after all, in theory it should win only 4 times in every 10 runnings. I also don't know of any decent punter who would turn up the opportunity of backing a 6/4 chance at 3/1. |
|
By:
And that is coming from someone who has to write a number down beside a horse before they have a bet. You use your strategy and I will use mine. If I need to ask your advice about betting be sure I will let you know.
So far in the major Group races I never bet Treve because I didn't know she was race fit and the ground may not have suited. In the 2000 gns, as I said many times it was against my normal betting, I backedAustralia even though there was a fitness question. In theLockinge I never backed Olympic Glory because there were fitness and ground questions. You may think I have a strange betting strategy but it works fine for me. I do not NEED to have a bet and I bet to win throughout the year. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
brigust,montiridge looks a decent call,I would consider Producer if it was rattling,ok all 7f form ,but ground proven more than most,the chill the kite form would see it in the places.
|
|
By:
Olympic Glory ridden by the excellent Frankie Dettori,haven`t heard from Pedro.
 Ruby gets on Long Run, never thought you`d see it Brigust did you? |
|
By:
So why do you feel the need to criticise me for deciding not to bet on this particular occasion?
Wtf are you talking about now? I couldn't give a sh1te if you have a bet or not, or if you win or lose. I'm just sick and tired of you not offering any worthwhile betting opinions pre-race, then jumping in on threads post-race to peddle your tiresome twaddle about your imagined deterioration of the breed. |
|
By:
You are the original pompous tw at Figgis. You really are up yourself aren't you? Can you tell me pray what threads I have been on where I never had a bet? Not that I knew that was a pre-requisite. Perhaps I should bother to read through the threads you have been on to see exactly where you are coming from? But then again I couldn't give a crap. And incidently I wasn't talking to you so why not keep your nose out eh?
|
|
By:
think tullius was entiltled to run a big race, an easy winner at group 2 level LTO, obviuosly thriving at the moment, olympic glory was 4th top rated as a european 2yo, best piece of form IM0 from last year. that liked was the shd 2nd to moolight cloud at group1 level.
proving the promise showed as a 2yo now, gaining more wins at group 1 level. |
|
By:
And I have never adopted AOBs view as my own
Well the swing from this I don't know who is the best horse and I have no view as yet. But what I do know is that AOB's comments clearly indicate his view. Is that clear enough? to this I have been scratching my head why he was beaten very much suggests otherwise. |
|
By:
Absolutely he was. I think he had already beaten the majority of the other runners last time out. So he was literally confirming the form. The winner bolted up and looked different class, time will tell. My point was it wasn't a very strong race excluding the winner so the run of the AOB horse should be taken into context. If he progresses from this he may make a mark at Group 1 level but I suggest the 2nd and 3rd are not Group 1 horses. That's all. If the AOB horse bolts up in the Queen Anne I will have been wrong considering Declaration of War progressed to win last season.
|
|
By:
It was a soft Group 1 on paper but at the same time you can see Tullius is in the form of his life at the moment, and we know very little about the horse in 3rd. Who knows how he'll progress. We do know that the Hannons rate Toronado a better horse than OG hence why he is being tee'd up for the Queen Anne, a far more prestigious and sort after Group 1.
|
|
By:
Figgis do you think just because I believed what AOB was saying about a horse in his yard means I cannot wonder what happened to it in a race? Do you? Wierd! And if you read all of the commens afterwards almost everyone said the race was unsatifactory . And most people on here had differing views.
|
|
By:
I had OG 1lb ahead of Toronado at the end of last season, although it has to be taken into account that Toronado's ratings were based on form earlier in the season. I've rated OG's win yesterday just 1lb better than his QE2 win, so no significant improvement. Even though it was his first run of the year and further improvement is possible, I think it's highly likely he was primed yesterday. As for the future, I prefer to stay with 4yos that have showed improvement from 3 to 4, he's going to be vulnerable I reckon.
|
|
By:
Brigust, going into the Guineas you said you had no firm view about how good Australia was, you were simply betting him as you believed O'Brien had faith in the horse and would run him, which was a good call. However, after the race you are scratching your head as to why he was beaten. That has nothing whatsoever to do with how the race panned out, that is you being unwilling to accept Australia's run at face value, a massive shift.
|
|
By:
No. I was scratching my head as to why he was beaten. I never saw the race live, only a recording. Was he fit enough? Did the race splitting give him a disadvatage? Did JOB give him a good ride? Was he running on the slowest part of the track? These were among the very reasonable questions that needed to be answered. And there was a wide range of reasons put forward on this forum. As it was he had a cough, a point o-one raised, and was slightly below full fitness so there was obviously a very good reason for me to scratch my head because the reasons put forward just did not add up. Now they do.
What a strange view on ife you have Figgis. Now I am not even allowed to wonder why a horse I had backed was beaten. As I said, wierd. |
|
By:
the reasons put forward just did not add up
What reasons were they exactly? As the only one I saw put forward was that he just wasn't the best horse over the mile on the day, he wasn't quite the wonder horse he'd been made out to be. A very plausible reason I would think, and one that certainly "adds up". Of course there has been no mention of the winner making his own task harder by wandering across the track. I'm quite sure it would have been though if it was Australia doing the wandering. |
|
By:
Firstly whether the going was faster or slower on the near side. Different views were offered. Second was why they chose to go down either side when in all of the othrr races they had raced down the middle. There were many views put forward including the one you think. Subsequently AOB has said his horses had been coughing and, knowing how this an be a setback, plus the form of his horses confirming that view then this time I will ignore your view Figgis and believe AOB.
|
|
By:
"The reality is we've never had a horse like this, including everything. Camelot was, I thought, the best horse we've had for the Derby, that's the way he came along. This horse is another step up. Whether that's going to happen I don't know, but I'd imagine that time will say that the Guineas was a lot better Guineas than Camelot's Guineas.
O'Brien thought Camelot was their best Derby horse, he also managed to win a poor Guineas. He thinks Australia is a better Derby horse, but that this year's Guineas was better than Camelot's. I'm also inclined to believe O'Brien on this occasion, I imagine you will choose to ignore his views in this instance. |
|
By:
He never said Australia wouldn't have won had he had an untroubled preparation. I believe he would have won had he had a prep run and had he had an untroubled preparation. So at this moment in time I think NOT was a fortunate winner as a result of good fortune.
|
|
By:
Well, like most of the opinions you choose to post, it's one that will not get the opportunity to be proved either way in future.
|
|
By:
You really should try to deal with the post and not the poster. In fact I suggest many peoples opinions, including yours, will never be proven such is the nature of horse racing. You will have to live with that Figgis.
|
|
By:
Yes, but you're full of it, brig, even when Australia (a horse who you had no opinion of your own on) is beaten fair and square to most people's eyes you have excuses. Ruler of the World being the "moral" winner of last year's Champion Stakes is also still fresh in the mind
 |
|
By:
In fact I don't think it is unreasonable to believe if they ran the 2000 guineas again next week that Australia would be favourite and very likely the winner. It isn't something I can prove obviously but I don't think it is unreasonable.
You just get wierder and wierder Figgis. At the time I posted thst I thought Australia would run in the Guineas it wasn't ased on anything I knew. It was solely based on AOB's words. That was what I hadn't an opinion on. Whether he would run in the 2000 gns. I also don't think a horse beaten narrowly having not had the run of the race could be concerned the moral winner. Wierd. You really do have problems don't you? I am wrong for not having an opinion, I'm wrong for having an opinion, my opinions are wrong, you really are only interested in me Figgis. You do have aproblem don't you. Be sure I will no go through your posts to highlight what you have said in the last 6 months or so. |
|
By:
Why not just continue this 'spat' in private message mode, rather than spoil the thread?
|
|
By:
The race is over, looks to me like all those who wanted to contribute to the Lockinge already have done.
|
|
By:
if they ran the 2000 guineas again next week that Australia would be favourite and very likely the winner. It isn't something I can prove obviously but I don't think it is unreasonable.
Unreasonable? No. Pointless? Yes. I also don't think a horse beaten narrowly having not had the run of the race could be concerned the moral winner. No idea what this means? I am wrong for not having an opinion, I'm wrong for having an opinion, my opinions are wrong Not at all, it would just be a welcome change to hear a pre-race opinion of the outcome of an event, or perceived value, instead of aftertiming posts about 'if this and if that', never ending posts about too many Gp1s, today's horses are overrated, the old days were the best, etc, and posts that schizophrenically switch from 'O'Brien doesn't know what he's doing and is bad for the game' to treating his statements as gospel. |
|
By:
It's called life Figgis, you should get one.
You really are screwed up. Do you really think that just because AOB is noted for hypeing his horses occasionally that he does it all of the time, and every time. Sometimes he will be right and sometimes he will be wrong. Just like you Figgis. Wierd isn't it? One moment you say I don't offer an opinion then you criticise me for having one. Wierd that, wouldn't you think? I do believe the Coolmore operation is bad for racing. It is only my opinion, don't let it bother you. I also believe AOB has made some high profile errors during his career with Coolmore but it is only my opinion. Don't let it bother you. You see this is a horseracing forum where different views about horse racing are discussed or not as the case may be. If that doesn't fit in with your plans why don't you do something about it? You see no-one forced you to respond to the occasional post I write. You chose to in some attempt to make my views look irrelevent because occasionally they differ from yours. Get a life Figgis. You brought up the Champion Stakes at Newmarket last season. One of the few threads I went onto. As far as I can remember I gave very clear views about what would win. I think the War Command thread and he 2000 gns thread are all I have been on since and only one ws about a particular race and I did have a bet. So praytell me what on earth you are talking about? |
|
By:
Do you really think that just because AOB is noted for hypeing his horses occasionally that he does it all of the time, and every time
Certainly not, I actually said I thought he genuinely believed Australia to be his best horse of last year's crop, there would've been no point in him saying what he had otherwise. Sometimes he will be right and sometimes he will be wrong Yes, but you pick and choose when he's right or wrong just on your say so, without providing any supporting evidence. Anyway, I'll leave you to proclaim Australia the winner of a hypothetical re-run of the Guineas, I'm off to study some races that are actually going to take place  |
|
By:
It isn't on my say so, as you say it is called an opinion. The good thing aboutvracing is that there are any number of opinions. I don, t know whether he is 'right or wrong' as you say it is just an opinion. Likewise if they ran the 2000 guineas again it is simply an opinion. You really should come to terms that some folk have different opnions to you sometimes it really isn't a difficult as it seems.You may then be able to address the content of their post without actually bothering from whence the post came. Becase it really doesn't matter.
Now I'm off out for a meal. I really can't be bothered trying to work out whether horse 'A' is a pond or two better than horse 'B' that represents a bigger waste of time and life than I can imagine. But that's only my opinion. |
|
By:
I really can't be bothered trying to work out whether horse 'A' is a pond or two better than horse 'B' that represents a bigger waste of time and life than I can imagine.
Coming from someone who argued until they were blue in the face (through hundreds of posts on here and countless letters to the Racing Post) during Frankel's career that Timeform had rated him, and others he ran against, too highly (not to mention virtually every Gp1 winner these day). Priceless |