Juddmonte International York

I don't rate on the 140 scale, metro john. I use a lower scale and it's not exactly comparing like with like, as I believe these 140 scales generally exaggerate differences in ability. All I can say is I thought it was a figure that was good enough to take most of the King George's in my time.

So many methods for self destruction we can use? The official did use the 3rd horse ,always a good choice for many.

the issue with a horse like Harbinger is that ridden to challenge and to make it's effort at about the 2 furlong pole it is only ever going to build up a winning lead of a certain distance  - regardless of the opposition - and a lot will depend on haow hard tthe jockey pushes the horse out. it's a very inexact science.

He did travel so sweet in the Hardwick, on reflection you can see why nearly all in Halifax were on.

http://youtu.be/FXC4sgGDYQY

I firmly believe that what we saw from Harbinger in the KG was the real deal. He had problems at 3 and as a colt in his 4yo summer was entitled to be at the peak of his powers. Workforce ran below form - probably bottomed at Epsom and needed longer to recover. The rest all ran to form IMO and the idea that they all ran below par makes no sense. It's a shame we never saw him on a rcaecourse again.

The remarkable thing about what we do is how well we measure horses' abilities given the margins involved.

When talking about the effect of 1 lb we overlook the fact that an average mature thoroughbred can weigh 1100-1200  lbs plus weight carried so in reality the scale is not 0-140 it is 0-1250 or thereabouts.

In time terms, 1/5 th of a second is really on a scale of 0-500 over a mile (100 secs roughly to run x 5 fifths to a second) and 1/1000 fifths over 2 miles.

Its no wonder that we don't always agree. What is truly remarkable is how often we can agree within a margin of error that is quite small say 7lb or 2-3 fifths of a second.

In theory, any horse in training without a jockey or any equipment should be able to beat Frankel carrying 9 stone if the said horse was able to be encouraged to run his heart out and paced evenly over the distance.

Figgis did a pretty good job on the inadequacy of taking selected beaten horses into account when assessing races with his post on Dancing Brave but just to add another swipe at the brigust1 "selective race " school of form assessment, myself.

The Premiership is only 3 matches old and this may have been done elsewhere in the past, but it's worth using the example from football again.  Collateral form can lead to very silly conclusions. Take this set of results from the current Premiership.

Stoke City win at Man City 1-0.

Man City beat Liverpool 3-1 at home.

Liverpool beat Spurs away 3-0.

Spurs beat West Ham 1-0 away.

Brigust1 conclusions:1. Stoke City must be the best team out of these so far. 2. Stoke City will finish above the other 4 teams.

Good morning Sandown,

 
brigust uses a much more reflective process than the one you suggest, and much more thought and tracking goes into the process than actual form figure ratings.

I've just had a little bet, only £100, in true Brig style, on Stoke to win the prem at 1000/1. They win. Form is rock solid whatever way you dish the variables.

hull drew with stoke and villa beat stoke and hull, so many variables

Metro john

I'm not really knocking brigust1 more the methodology, which to be fair can lead to the same conclusions arrived at using other methods. Its just that he insists that "all the clues are there" which ignores the part that chance plays. Stoke were 20/1 to win at Man C. and  man c 2/11. It's the randomness that makes for uncertainty. All the clues are not there and never will be.

Sandown,

    I understand your point,but your thoughts on chance would provide to many bets on selections you believe to be value?,I much prefer the brigust method of finding horses that you believe can win the race or get the desired result,(not betting value for values sake).

I think even people who don't like the methodology would be more accepting of someone else using it if that person just offered it as their own viewpoint, instead of trying to state it as the truth and the light, 'the clues are all there but not everyone else can see them' nonsense. Whenever somebody puts up a high opinion of a horse, he doesn't just say he disagrees, the opinion is belittled by saying things such as 'some people are easily pleased', 'people are being led by the nose by Timeform', and other patronising remarks. Then starts squawking when that methodology is challenged.

MJ

I much prefer the brigust method of finding horses that you believe can win the race or get the desired result,(not betting value for values sake).

Any horse, if it runs, can win any race.  I think you mean the "most likely winner" strategy but only surely only if you believe that the price is acceptable.. to you. Which means that you think it is "value." Don't think anyone can disagree with that.

What Sandown has said has to be right. We have both had discussions and disagreements on here about pricing horses up and determining value. His method is to always price every runner and look for anything significantly bigger than his tissue price, therefore often leading to backing a few in a race. Whereas my method is actually closer to the brigust way of looking for a horse with a reasonably high chance of winning. I will often only price up what I consider to be the main contenders against a 'rest of the field' price. There is no doubt that his is the more thorough method and mine couldn't possibly work for him, or a bookmaker. However, I think both methods have their advantages and disadvantages and ultimately it's always best to work to suit yourself.

Many successful punters won't price up a race in the strict sense but surely what can't be disputed is that every winning punter must have an idea of the horse's chance and  be able to put it into odds before they place a bet, they have to know what price is acceptable to take and what isn't. To simply say I believe this horse will win and I will back it at the best price available, whatever that may be, makes no betting sense.

Good morning Sandown and figgis


My whole approach to prices is changed forever,price no longer key(far to many thieves at work early),I would rather wait until last minute for a bet,and even if under my price (which many too many are these days) play.

I think sometimes when people talk of making their own prices they do not accept that some of us struggle with this,I used to try but to be honest how do you price up something you believe can't win?(),I have yet to witness a decent ratings to prices conversion? and to be honest once you leave your ratings out of the equation,because you believe some of those not valid,or possibly improvement to come,,how can you price up such an obscure view? I am willing to learn if one of you would like to post your method of pricing up a race(please help)

Even though I compile my own ratings I've never been interested in a strict ratings to prices conversion, as for me there are other factors just as important, such as how likely I think the horse is going to repeat its best form. As I said before, not every punter prices up a race in the strict sense, but there aren't many who won't have a price in mind of what they'll accept in a given situation. Most people accept that the market is generally pretty accurate in the long run, but amongst the averages there are inaccuracies, knowing this, many punters will just look for the inaccuracies, where a horse looks bigger or shorter than they think it should be within that market. There is a world of difference between that and saying 'this horse will win and I'll back it at whatever best odds are available'.

MJ

There are many advantages to pricing up a race and it doesn't have to be difficult. I have a simple method which I started with which may help you but first the advantages of doing so.

1. It forces you to think about every horse instead of just locking in on one or two. Remember, if it runs, it can win.

2.It opens up alternative betting strategies apart from backing the "most likely" winner to win. eg EW, dutching,laying, making a book (especially useful with AP or big races), reverse forecasts, place betting, because it highlights where the value lies.

3. It helps you to adjust the driving/key factors that influence the race e.g when it comes up heavy, ability to act on the ground goes straight to the top, draw at certain tracks like Chester, Sandown 5f course

Word of advice- don't start with percentages - it's too complicated to keep adjusting. So, here's my method.

You will have a rough order of likelihood of winning for most horses in a race even if further down you have to put them in a group. You can do this with ratings using a conversion chart eventually(in fact its a good place to start) you can look at forecast prices (I'm not bothered by being influenced) and you can take other factors into account broadly such as improver, jockey/trainer, class.

Start with the horse you think most likely to win. Award it 10 points.

Take the next in the list and compare it with your first. How would you rate it against the first?. Close, say on a head to head 4/5, 5/4? OK award it 8 pts. Or maybe 1/2, 2/1 then give it 5 pts. Very little chance? Say 1/5, 5/1 . OK award it 2 pts.

As you work down your list you will give each a lower score. Eventually you will be giving 1 pt. Tip: Even apparent no-hopers deserve something say 1/2 pt.

Add up the points and divide the total by the number of points awarded. Say you have 30 pts then the favourite is 3.0 or 2/1. And so on.


Its fast, can be adjusted easily later say when more information comes in, including market strength. Eventually you will be able to do it in your head.

Hope that helps.

I don't formulate tissue prices in order to gauge whether the horses I'm backing are value or not, I'm not rubbishing the method it's just that it's not the way I work.  I have an excel spreadsheet of every flat turf performance over the last year with my speed ratings in it and from that I extract all the form lines of the days runners into a separate list and sort them form highest to lowest for each race.  I then look at each race and assess its competitiveness, I'm not interested in races where the top 4 or 5 performances are earned all by different horses I look for horses who have 2 or 3 performances in the top of the list and note those down on a sheet of paper, this is all bearing in mind field sizes of course, then I go through each one and judge whether its top performances were earned under certain conditions and whether those conditions are likely to be repeated today.  Lastly I go through and see where each one is in the betting and judge whether I think my findings are incorporated into the price and by how much without looking at any other individual horses credentials.  The way I look at it is that I'm happy backing this horse to either win or place in this race knowing that on average it will outperform its odds, I've come to realize that I can put myself off good value bets just as often as I can swerve bad value bets if I over complicate my selection process and my betting has improved a lot for it.

Like I said, I'm not preaching that this is the way, the truth and the light in any way, each and every one of us has their own methods of what works best for us.

When I was younger I did try to incorporate realistic prices that were available in the offices,so i would want to make a 115%  book, I found that if you try a 100% book,your prices are out to the prices available? I always found problems with method!


Thank You for the advice sandown ,figgis,grendel,but what % would you work too?

I've come to realize that I can put myself off good value bets just as often as I can swerve bad value bets if I over complicate my selection process

I agree with this. Some people think the more factors you throw into the mix the better, and it may work for them, but it's not for me, I prefer to concentrate on a small number of salient factors.

Each of us has to find their own path. There is no right or wrong method, right or wrong price. It's whatever you feel comfortable with, whatever works for you, whatever gives you a profit (or minimises a loss), whatever adds to your enjoyment.

I'd say most of us probably started betting with the idea that a race was a puzzle that could be solved and with thoughts like 'this horse should win' without worrying too much about the odds we were taking apart from trying to obtain the best price. I just don't see how anybody experiencing the ups and downs of punting, particularly in the early years, could continue with those ideas with the expectation of being successful.

Article by Simon Rowlands for those interested in this quite complex subject.   https://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/bloggers/simon-rowlands/post-222-040810.html


any articles you can post on the subject would be of interest to myself and newbies to the game

MJ

That's a good article & I use something like that myself. It uses the same method I suggested earlier but adapted for a spread sheet. The comments made are also useful and I have identified the same issues myself. The ratings you use are ultimately the most important single factor, followed by the adjustments that you make. I have been studying the effects of the market on the ratings used and that can be helpful but on an individual race basis the market can be very wrong.As can I when making my own adjustments.

You can end up identifying horses at bigger prices than they should be for a good reason- there is a problem usually spotted by the on-course market - which you are unaware of, so just backing all the biggest value isn't necessarily the way to go, nor is laying all horses which are shorter than you think they should be. They might be shorter for really positive reasons, so you have to adjust your own price. Complicated isn't it?

If you have a price in mind, it gives you the opportunity to ask the question about the price being offered. What is the market telling me that I don't know?

The trouble with having a strong opinion about a horse that varies a lot from the market is not everyone is looking at the race from your perspective and you can wonder why its price is so big when its chance is obvious and speculate and worry about factors you've missed. These are the situations where you have to trust your opinion and back accordingly and not worry about unknown factors to yourself as these factors will over time average out and not be as significant as the discrepancies suggest.  For example if you fancy a horse strongly on ratings but it has a historical poor draw, it's more than likely that the horse will have enough in hand to overcome the poor draw enough times that it will still be profitable to back such selections long term and nothing is more draining on your confidence than missing a winner.

nothing is more draining on your confidence than missing a winner.

Backing a sequence of losers?

backing a sequence of losers is an unavoidable aspect of gambling and learning to emotionally manage that is one of the most important things to do ... so, to a certain extent, is overcoming the disappointment of missing a winner but you have more say in that than losing runs

Losing affects your bank and therefore possibly the way that you play.The longer it goes on the worse it can get. Confidence can be badly affected. Merely missing a winner just leaves you with the same bank. Annoying, agreed, but much easier to handle as it doesn't really affect confidence in the same way that losing does. Imo.

It's not like for like though is it Sandown, missing one winner or a series of losers ... a bit like comparing what's worse for you, one Burger King meal or a week of eating Macdonalds.

If it's in the better races, which is where most of my bigger bets are, then I don't care if the market disagrees with my opinion. Since the exchanges, when dealing with the middle and particularly lower grade racing then I've learned from experience that it does matter, especially where certain yards are concerned. I'm not suggesting that the reason is always skulduggery, although sometimes I'm sure it is. At the lower end of the game yards will run their charges more often, whether the horses are ready to run for their lives or not, and I have no doubt that some yards have a better line on when they are and when they're not.

Fair point figgis, though I rarely find myself having as strong an opinion in low grade racing as higher grade racing especially beyond a mile

I think that lower grade horses are inherently less consistent and therefore more unpredictable, so making those races more subject to randomness.

I agree, but judging by market strength/weakness where some connections are concerned I'd say it is less random for some.

Not surprising that smaller trainers especially, need to gamble. Also, they are more elikely to have smaller ownners who likewise need to gamble.Plus the fact that handicappers probably don't put quite the same effort in to it as they do with better class horses.Add in the fact that horses are run more frquently, and evn without iffy activity, its much harder to make betting pay at that level. Doesn't stop me trying but like you my best results on both Flat and NH are/have been  in class races.

Markets are also harder to read. Lower turnover means larger fluctuations plus a lot of stable money goes over the counter spread around shops so as not to crash prices.

I'm back, just got in. Had a great week from bouillabaisse in the Port of Marseille to walking around the Monaco F1 circuit. On top of that I won three grand on the Scoop 6 placepot. You could not make it up. How lucky can you get? I haven't read the thread because it's late and I'm tired. G'night.

Good Morning brigust

Sounds like you are in the zone,looking forward to some discussions and right now some of your fancies

Hi MJ. Hows that for luck? I don't post my bets but this was just a punt. I wanted to back the French filly on Saturday but my mate who puts my bets on when I am away was going with me. So I guessed the likely races and spent a couple of hours with the form book. I had three winners, a second beatn a nose and two fourths. My daughter in law put it on for me and texted me after the races. Great fun.   

8/30/2014 1:40:48 PM589875Scoop6Scoop61 - Pearl BlueClosedC£288.00£2991.00Scoop6/14:053 - EcclestonClosedScoop6/14:0516 - Tagula NightClosedScoop6/14:205 - B Fifty TwoClosedScoop6/14:2011 - DungannonClosedScoop6/14:455 - HenryvilleClosedScoop6/15:507 - What About CarloClosedScoop6/14:551 - Ocean TempestClosedScoop6/14:556 - Foxtrot RomeoClosedScoop6/15:051 - Pea ShooterClosedScoop6/15:058 - Bronze BeauClosedScoop6/15:504 - Spa's DancerClosedScoop6/15:506 - Forgotten HeroClosedScoop6/14:457 - AzzaClosed

Anyway I have a busy couple of days so be good and keep smiling.

Not surprising that smaller trainers especially, need to gamble. Also, they are more elikely to have smaller ownners who likewise need to gamble.

It's not surprising no, and I'm not saying I blame them. However, should racing be turning out a product that caters more and more for these types of low end insider gambles? Is wall to wall weekday dross (apart from the big festival meetings) and jam packed Saturdays going to attract new punters to the game? I don't see how it is.

However, should racing be turning out a product that caters more and more for these types of low end insider gambles? Is wall to wall weekday dross (apart from the big festival meetings) and jam packed Saturdays going to attract new punters to the game?.

The short answer is No and No.

The long answer warrants it own thread, but no-one would listen anyway.

No vision, too much self-interest,inadequate business model, too much competition,too many alternatives,unsound economics...impossible for anyone to sort...will continue to lose enthusiasts to be replaced by fickle audience brought in by promotions...

Only answer is to use the remote more often.

I agree. Like you say, as individuals we can use the remote, avoid what we don't like and choose what we do, but there are many of us, and I'm sure you're included, who would like to see the game have a healthy future.  Bookmakers receive a lot of criticism, much of it justified, but I have to be honest and say that I wouldn't be at all interested in sticking my neck on the line and taking on some of these outfits as a layer in many of the day to day races. It isn't just the usual suspects anymore either.

I`m afraid racing is in decline alongside other leisure activities,the pub trade and golf club membership being just two examples.

Competition for family budgets are at an all time high and I would suggest horse racing is not high on the list of priorities.

Sadly it is us diehards who will continue to moan about it and come up with all the fixes but I`m afraid it is a case of seeing things how they are not how we would wish them to be.

I`m afraid racing is in decline alongside other leisure activities,the pub trade and golf club membership being just two examples.

This is true, and while some decline has to be expected, it is all the more reason for the racing authorities to make the game as attractive to the betting public as possible, they aren't.

The Middle and  more so, the not well paid(or bigger majority of people) are skint, yes they still try to get involved but they are for sure priced out of racetracks,the housing con is to blame for most of what we witnessed from the early 80s,once business grasped that they could exploit in the same way,we were all fecked,the pubs,the taxman,and every form of business is currently running in cuckoo land,people are forced or having to make changes to a lifestyle that is beyond reach,the it ain't that bad bollocks is a lie,just look around  I am sure most with eyes understand the truth.

Enough of the negativity,good morning all


Cougar Mountain takes the stage today in a cracking sprint,any views  folks?

I place laid Cougar Mountain last time and even though it could be argued this 6f will suit him better I think he is up against it again.

Two place tickets up on the Scoop6 again. All you need is luck. It won't be much this week though and I put on a lot less as well. Fort Bastion, Battersea, Santefissio, Normal Equilibrium, Long Awaited, Communicator and Gordon.

Looks like we could be in for an excellent result in Turkey today.

Was it an excellent result?

Once again it goes to show that it`s the horse and not the jockey that counts given that the "forum muppet" was in the plate or did all the other jockeys **** it up?

Not sure what this argument is about, but if it's always the horse and not the jockey that counts then comments like the ones we heard on RUK the other week, that Sole Power only won because of the ride, must be illogical. Some balance would be nice.

Felt the clues are all there my boy. Five's with Billies. Look at the date.

I`m not a mind reader Brig, help me with what you are saying.

I think you're talking about YESTERDAY's racing,FELTFAIR.

you think just because he won on this date last year that he'll win today brig?

Sorry I`m finally with it. Senior moment.

Well spotted Gren. Ahead of me. And yes I do.

Clearly jockey error.

Is he too tall?

R Moore riding Zoffany  almost got up to beat  Frankel  at Ascot three or four years ago , the rider  went for home to soon  that day
and almost paid the price close home  , today  J Obrien though to a lesser extent, may also have  got it wrong  by going for home a little early and was done close to the finnish  by Moore on a very,  very  , good Horse  ,  take nothing from TGG ,  a tremendously willing son of Mastercraftsman ridden  close to  perfection  .

I would trade out brigust,they will retire it after that,not  the same physical appearance today to my eyes regardless of ride!

If today's events don't make Coolmore tell Joseph to find a new job and ask Ryan Moore what his terms are to become stable jockey nothing will. On the other hand maybe The Grey Gatsby is the greatest horse ever.

To trade out of the Arc, currently 50 to lay. Hardly enticing.

I figure Australia ran to around 126 today (could have been bigger if given a tender  piggot ride held up last job?),but the horse continues to give the impression it does bugger all in-front,I was not impressed by his appearance today,looked a little weak again(just opinion). I do think they will retire it.

I thought Australia ran as well as he ever had, in my view the time was in keeping with previous efforts. A decent Derby winner but no more than that. Beaten today by a horse given a better ride and who improved to run the race of his life, with the fast pace suiting him better than the slower early pace at York. Thought the winner had a very hard race, though, and wouldn't be backing him to repeat that form in a hurry if he turns out again.

Figgis is about right. Australia gave away at least the 2 lengths he beat TGG at York and therefore the 'ease of his Juddmonte win' and 'he has improved again since York' comments from the stable are rubbish. Awful ride today by JOB.
Perhaps they will swerve Free Eagle in the Champion Stakes and head for Kingman. I hope so. Maybe he is more of a miler. Either that or go for the Arc.
I know, and have often said, the older horses are a poor lot but I find it very hard to think TGG is anywhere near real top class. Confused I am.

Yes ,you are! He has won the Dante,the French Derby and the race today and you say he is not top class!
BLOCKED,and not before time.

^^ you won't be reading this just as you never read what I wrote. I said 'I find it very hard to think TGG is anywhere near real top class' and not 'he is not top class'. There is a huge difference when you consider AOB has being saying all along Australia is his best ever horse. Something does not add up big time.

The figures aside,Australia visually is of excellent character,cruises in his races,but on every occasion,seems to take a while to find his gear(which is not electric),and then appears to idol. TGG did improve more from the Guineas than Australia, and to be honest I feel whichever one of the two gets the hold up tactics,or whoever makes their move last would be favored,TGG did that last night,and some great race tactics,I do not want to slag JOB to much ,I feel he was under pressure to show Austral;ia to better effect,AOB said his previous run was a practice gallop and he needed the run,everyone was looking for at least a 4 length victory or  to extend the winning margin over TGG. The truth I believe, is that Australia lacks the gears to put himself into good positions,it is all done late in the day,a great horse among his own  generation without doubt,but no superstar.

Now from a ratings viewpoint,nothing at all to be disappointed about, would have yesterdays performance at around 126 - 128,and taking into consideration he probably lost 3-4 lengths with a wide track,is not bad, this sort of figure would be plenty good enough to take the breeders at 10f +,tactically  Australia may be a little bit of a jockeys nightmare? he is never gonna win too easy,needs to held up late as is possible,and not quick to find a change of gear?But most would be happy to take the ride me thinks.You never know,but now he is beaten, they may even decide to keep him in training,he still looks weak to me with the possibility of more growth? suspect AOB may be on the spot a little and likely to retire him(but you never know)

we all saw yesterday  how not to judge a horse on one run , Muthmir  came into the portland a fresh horse  and showed his true ability
Australia did not show his true  brilliance yesterday. If they were to race again O'brien would sit in behind Moore  and outspeed him in the last furlong,  Kingman style . You have to admire TGG a tremendously enthusiastic and talented Horse .

We all  saw on Saturday*

I doubt they'll send Australia to the Arc or QEII for another beating - more likely Champion Stakes or retirement. Though Coolmore have shown willingness to campaign their Debry winners at 4 - especially when they haven't been able to send them to stud on a high at 3.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that A_T. I think Australia would beat Kingman in the QE11 and I also think he would win the Arc. I know others would disagree, that's racing, but had I said yesterday TGG would beat Australia others would have disagreed about that, and been wrong.
This years 3 year olds look much better than the older horses so I would fear nothing in the Arc.
My point about TGG not being real top class imo is pointed at AOB. According to him Australia has nothing left to prove and is among the best horses he has trained, or even the best. So I find yesterday's result incongruous with that statement.
In yesterday's race it is clear JOB used his horse up before the final furlong and that allowed RM to nab him because he had saved his horse. My only thought that would assist AOB in his view is that yesterday's race wasn't strong enough or run fast enough throughout. There is a saying that if you go a bad horse's pace a bad horse will beat you so the only answer for me would be to run in a strongly run end to end race where the best horse would prevail. To get that sort of strength in depth he would have to run in the ARC. The Champion Stakes could be another small runner race providing an inadequate result.

He may be exposed now to many rivals who will feel the need to let Australia have first run?

I think he idols in-front(would not be on my own with that view)

I would have a mental problem betting Australia for the Arc,just think too much hustle and bustle in the race,whoever rode may be tempted to move earlier than needed?(a cool head needed)

Concerning taking on kingman,both trainers would now understand both need holding until last possible 12 seconds,kingman got a more natural reaction when asked to quicken?

The breeders would look easier target.

Australia would have no chance whatsoever of beating Kingman over a mile - just has not got that kind of speed - just as Gosden's horse would not beat it over 10 of 12 furlongs - horses for courses. On paper Aus might have a good chance in the Arc but Aiden has a very poor record in the race with 3yos and he's probably left his best form behind him this year now. Doubt he'll run.

You could be right about the Breeder's Cup but will they really swerve Ascot and France when they have prepared him for an autumn campaign? They have almost nothing to lose now. A bit like Camelot after he was beaten in the St Leger.
Australia clearly has top form at 12f but AOB and JOB have said he is better over shorter. I'm not convinced of that fact but they should know their horse.
So the choices are three fold. The QE11, the Champion Stakes and the Arc. If he went for the QE11, they have said they think he is better over shorter, then beating Kingman would provide some redemption plus Kingman has been beaten in the only strongly run mile race he has run in.
If they choose the Champion Stakes they could meet TGG and Free Eagle and completely lose everything they have left.
Or they can go for the Arc where even losing would not be the end but winning could be the fast track to retirement. Providing he lost justifiably that is.
And in the Arc I couldn't see Treve, Taghrooda, Iwanhowe, Ectot, Kingston Hill or Gallante beating him and the Japanese horses look a mixed bunch.

yes brigust,many choices for the horse,but AOB will feel more than a little pressured to find the easier race,the Kingman clash makes no practical sense on that score.He may need some time between races,he looked better physically in juddmonte than at any other point this year including yesterday,which would bother me lots.

Not sure headgear would help him?,but probably not?

I'm not sure he will feel pressured because he must know JOB rode a shocker and RM confirmed it in his comments. The question is whether or not he stays in training. If he does they need not do anything but if they are seriously considering retirement then their next move will be crucial.
Free Eagle was 2/5 to beat him last season and he was well beaten so why would AOB risk that positive mark by taking him on again? Plus JOB has looked vulnerable in a tactical race.
The QE11 would not be tactical and neither would the Arc. He only has one horse to beat in the QE11 and it could be argued he ran out of stamina yesterday. The Arc would be a better race to win but would be more difficult.
I would favour the QE11.

I think there's a good chance he will stay in training as Coolmore are likely to retire another Derby winner to stud this year in ROTW - although I know Qatar are now part-owners of that one so he may not stand in Tipperary.

You could be right A_T and I hope you are. ROTW looks to have a right good chance today and then go for either the Arc or the Champion Stakes like last season. Even more reason the QE11 looks a likelihood.

Would love to see him stay in training,a good yardstick with a big rating with much possible improvement to come,but life got a way of letting us down

The current crop of UK 2yrlds do not inspire,perhaps this will be taken into account?

Archangel Raphael and Aloft could prove useful for him.

Frankie has just said the going in France is good to firm. Perfect for ROTW and Flintshire both I backed in the King George. Looks like get money back time.

Perfect for ROTW ??

Australia would beat Ectot imo.

Kingman likely absentee in QE11.

Come on AOB I have 6s ffs.

5/1 that is before I get slaughtered.

Have lost faith with flintshire,Spiritjim improving if not for banned substances?,keep a eye on Au Revoir could be a little bit better than bare form?

Yeehah!!!!