Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 1069 comments are related to the topic:
Juddmonte International York
Juddmonte International York
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 1,069
|
By:
I don't really understand this, as the price is absolutely vital in betting. No it isn't.
It's only rarely I think a horse cannot win, I prefer not to think in those terms, even if a horse has a 25/1 chance it can win. As a punter you must think certain horses cannot win. Noble Mission is exposed but he is being judged unduly harshly because of his form when younger. Whichever way you look at it, on his best form this year he's beaten horses far better than the moderate horses Kingston Hill has beaten in his whole career so far. I don't agree with this. NM beat Magician and Telescope who it is well documented never ran to form on ground they hated. If you take them out of their races then he has beaten Danadana (114), Euphrasia (100), Contributor (106), Rawaki (99), Siljans Saga and Calyxa who at best are Listed class. None you would expect to find in the same field as Kingston Hill (120). Official ratings in brackets. Even the horses he has beaten in his races are better than the horses NM has beaten. And you can only beat what they put in front of you. I hope TGG runs. Anything to help the price will be warmly accepted. |
|
By:
I don't really understand this, as the price is absolutely vital in betting. No it isn't.
im with figgis on this one. every horse has its price |
|
By:
I don't really understand this, as the price is absolutely vital in betting. No it isn't.
You must've found a whole new strategy, as every successful backer/layer I've known, heard or read about has been price sensitive. I don't agree with this. NM beat Magician and Telescope who it is well documented never ran to form on ground they hated. It depends how much you believe they ran below form, by my reckoning it wasn't a lot. I won't mind at all if Australia does hand out a thrashing to the rest of them, it's always enjoyable to see a good horse. It's just another bet as far as I'm concerned and the way I see it is that laying these kind of odds about these kind of horses can only lead to profit for the layer in the long term. People called Australia a hype horse even after the Guineas. In my view he wasn't with regards to his Derby prospects. However he very much becomes a hype horse when he's priced up like this against older horses who, while not being superstars, have achieved a typical level in Gp1 10f races. If he's beaten by any of them I do hope they will be recognised as worthy winners, as people seem confident enough that Australia is a very good horse before the race. |
|
By:
You don't believe Magician ran below form when narrowly beating Euphrasia by a head? Is that correct?
Alleged when I look for a bet the last thing I look at is the price. I check the form, fitness, going etc then when I have found something worth having a bet on I look at the price. I can recommend it. When you are confident your selection has a blinding chance imagine the joy of finding its 8 or 10 to one. Of course in reality it's probably 2s or less. But hey ho. I don't doubt laying odds on shots could be profitable that is why so many do it. The clever bit is recognising those that cannot win. They are there as you say almost half of the odds on shots get beaten. So there are plenty to choose from. That's the clever bit. Of course I don't know Australia will win but given this looks like an above average group of 3 three year olds and the older horses are distinctly below average then the writing is on the wall. Seize the opportunity. As you say it is only a bet. |
|
By:
Brandyontherocks
I do not think the wfa scale is very wrong. The only race I think there is a big advantage is in the Nunthrope where 2yos get about 6 lbs too much. I remember very well the race of the century when Bustino lost to Grundy. If the wfa scale had been then like it is now, Bustino might well have won. However I personally cannot think of a race where a 3yo beat an older horse against the ratings in a major way since Roberto beat the mighty Brigadier, and he was found to be a sick horse after the race. Good Derby winning 3yo's have been regularly stuffed by the stronger more mature older horses in most of the wfa all age races at group level. Put it this way, can you begin to imagine how any 3yo ever would have beaten Frankel at level weights? If they had they would have had a rating in the 160's with Timeform. The wag system has stood the test of time very well and produces fair races between the age groups. Even now you |
|
By:
See trainers like the trainer of. Hot Streak, moaning that 3yo sprinters are at a disadvantage with their older contemps.
|
|
By:
The point about this years crop of 3yo's is fair. Australia was IMO a bit unlucky not to win the Guineas and it was certainly a good edition this year albeit a funny race. He is a very likely winner but before anyone goes mad and plunges. The weather is probably quite important. Oz would not run on anything like testing and maybe not even on good to soft ground and the 14 day forecast is far from promising.
|
|
By:
You don't believe Magician ran below form when narrowly beating Euphrasia by a head? Is that correct?
I have him running 4lbs behind his best 4yo form. He isn't a brilliant 4yo, but then Australia isn't a brilliant 3yo, imo. I don't doubt laying odds on shots could be profitable that is why so many do it Some kind of laying odds on strategy has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm talking about laying horses at shorter odds than they should be, as is the case with Australia. this looks like an above average group of 3 three year olds and the older horses are distinctly below average then the writing is on the wall. And if he gets beat what will be your verdict? That you were wrong about the 3yos being above average, or you were wrong about the older horses being distinctly below average? I'll bet odds on for the former  |
|
By:
Good Derby winning 3yo's have been regularly stuffed by the stronger more mature older horses in most of the wfa all age races at group level
I can't agree with this, cryoftruth. When the good ones were beaten they didn't quite run to form, as with Authorized in the Eclipse, and he wasn't beaten far anyway. Or they were over the top later in the year. Most of the ones that were well beaten with no excuses were very moderate or crap. |
|
By:
I find the Magician comment weird to say the least when you consider he beat Mukhadram this season and similarly with Noble Mission and Telescope because if you believe any of that then Australia is an even better bet.
If Australia gets beaten by Mukhadram fair and square I will have to revise my opinion of him. Not the older horses as a group. After all he was supposedly ridden wrong at Ascot, won the Eclipse and ran well over probably too long a trip at Ascot. Noble Mission won't beat him. It's odd isn't it? I really want this bunch of three year olds to be progress yet you still get a dig in. It is not my fault the 4 year olds look an average bunch. And I am far from alone in believing that. If they do manage, as a group, to be better than the 3 year olds then that doesn't alter the fact that they are an average bunch of 4 year olds. And neither should it. 0 If you think this bunch of 4 year olds is above average that's up to you. And if they prove better than the 3 year olds it should not elevate their status because that would be a disservice to past groups. |
|
By:
kingman tagroodha and possibly Australia aside which other 3 year olds do you think would win a group 1 against their elders brig?
|
|
By:
I have Mukhadram running below form when he was beaten in the POW, I expect most people would. Unfortunately for me, Telescope wasn't as good as I thought and his Chester run isn't much below his best, in my view.
It's odd isn't it? I really want this bunch of three year olds to be progress yet you still get a dig in. Placing a bet isn't about wanting, you believe he's a good bet at odds on so I would expect it to be your opinion that the 3yos are good, although why people talk about them having to be a good crop or a bad crop as though quality comes in a bundle I have no idea. What is interesting is that when your opinion isn't backed up by a result you never say afterwards that the winner was better than you thought i.e the older horses, instead it will always be that the 3yos weren't as good as you'd hoped. I'd say that as you were proved wrong that the 3yos were a good bunch it is just as likely that you could be wrong that the older horses are distinctly below average. |
|
By:
Brigust thinks the odds of a horse are not important. Every single successful punter who has ever lived would laugh at this comment. Every, single, one.
 |
|
By:
Still think Treve was value at 4/6 in the POW, then Brig? If the race was run again tomorrow would you back her at 4/6 again?
|
|
By:
Figgis all you are doing is listing exactly why this bunch of older horses is at best average. Magician hasn't done anything this season in fact his form is only 4lb better than Euphrasia ffs. Add to that Telescope isn't as good as you thought and he beat Mukhadram at Ascot. So all you are saying is that this bunch of older horses isn't up to much. I agree with that point.
Which opinion wasn't backed up by a result? How many 3 year olds have I backed against the older horses? And kindly explain where I was proved wrong about the 3 year olds? Show me how interesting that is. Sin try not to speak for every punter can you. And if you read the reason why I backed Treve you would understand why. As it was I ended up with a good bet on Australia for the Arc and a good bet on Treve. A lot better than she was in the POW. You have to try to think ahead if you can. Ask any punter. |
|
By:
*A lot better than she was before the POW.
|
|
By:
I was a huge Treve fan last season and backed her for the Arc accordingly and it is possible that she could recover her best form. However, history is littered with 4yo. fillies that never repeat their 3yo. form so I will not be backing her again unless she is at double figure odds. The Ascot form has to be viewed as if Treve was not in the race and in that context it was not that strong. The only 3yo that I feel is open to big improvement is Eagle Top but he is not a 10 furlong horse.
|
|
By:
I still think Treve is the best older horse likely to run. Of course she has disappointed this season but probably not by all that much. First time out she was meeting a race fit CDA on his favoured ground when she was supposedly in need of the race. At Ascot the run against The Fugue was also a little below her best but wasn't catastrophic. Apparently she pulled muscles so I still think she represents the older horses.
Sadly I have done so well in pointing out that daylight will be second to Australia that the bookies have just shortened him to 4/7. |
|
By:
Joined:
07 Dec 01 | Topic/replies: 8,638 | Blogger: brigust1's blog I don't really understand this, as the price is absolutely vital in betting. No it isn't. It's only rarely I think a horse cannot win, I prefer not to think in those terms, even if a horse has a 25/1 chance it can win. As a punter you must think certain horses cannot win. Rarely can one find such a clear and concise illustration of the difference between two opposite views about betting. On the one hand, we have Figgis stating what to my mind are two basic but hugely important principles (i.e price is vital, and everything has some sort of chance) and brigust1 who disagrees with that. It always surprises me that there are people who bet good money without displaying any understanding of the mathematics of gambling but who insist that they don't need to know in order to succeed. I have a friend who has always insisted that he can come out ahead playing roulette. No amount of rudimentary maths can persuade him otherwise. The fact that it is impossible for everyone to profit but some might, and those who do so have done so purely because chance has favoured them, not skill or astuteness. Having said that, putting it into practice is an entirely different matter. I have been equally astounded by the difference in opinion that knowledgeable players can have about pricing up. Figgis and I have differed markedly in our opinions several times, both convinced that we were right.What I do know is that putting a price up is as good a discipline as you can find. It gives you a bearing by which to set your betting compass by. And who would knowingly set out to sea without some sort of compass? |
|
By:
You are so wrong Sandown. The single most important thing with gambling is to concentrate on where you are successful. If I was an athlete who could sprint but couldn't jump do you think it would be wise concentrating on sprinting or jumping?
The single most important thing with gambling is finding your strengths and weaknesses. Concentrate on your strengths and avoid your weaknesses. If your strengths enable you to make money then continue if not just bet for fun. Horse racing is not roulette and don't let anyone tell you it is. Every ball has an equal chance in roulette but all horses do not have an equal chance. Of course every horse has a chance but, unlike roulette balls, with some the chance is virtually irrelevant. It is unlikely you will be able to bet every horse in a race so you have to eliminate those who you think cannot win. That's why it's called gambling. Your ability to do so will reflect on your success. 1)Please don't waste your time pricing up races. The bookies employ enough people and this exchange will provide you with all the information you need. You will not beat a price because of it's price you will only beat a price because the horse is better than the others and that is where your time should be spent. After you have decided upon the best horse then, and only then,look for the best price. Do not do it the other way round. 2)Please don't waste your time working on times. John Gosden spent his formative years in the US and has openly stated that times in this country, except maybe at Kempton on occasion, are meaningless. Setting out to sea without a compass is silly but setting out to sea without a boat is even sillier. Spend your time getting the right boat first then plot the course of action correctly. Without a good boat you are going nowhere. And if the boat sinks then you have chosen the wrong boat no matter how good the compass is. |
|
By:
The market is now a true reflection of betting patterns(well close to the off anyway),we now have a Tote monopoly but in the form of exchanges,on course bookmakers follow the exchange betting patterns,(some whether taking cash or not), the betting offices are no more than casinos in the modern world,and because large bookmakers have lost the power to impact the market in quite the same way,racing is no longer top of their business interest. so brigust makes some valid comments about the market,and Figgiss and Sandown also make very valid points about pricing and value,the problem for many, is that many have similar approach in those methods - for finding value,the problem for the few is that the market is now impacted at a much earlier time by punters scrambling to get small money on bigger prices than they forecast. Opinions will always differ to the merit of approach.
|
|
By:
brigust1
After 40 odd years I haven't been able to persuade my friend about the maths of roulette and I certainly don't expect to change your views after an exchange of views on here. If I was to say to you that horse racing gambling is roughly speaking about one third what you know, one third what you don't know and one third chance, would you agree or disagree? And of the one third that we know, there is a considerable amount of disagreement on what that actually means in any event. All in all, plenty of room for differences of opinion. And easy to understand why it is that wherever you go in the horse racing world and whatever period of history you care to look at, we have never been able to find the market favourite winning more than about 1/3 races. It may not be roulette but it certainly isn't chess either.Nor is it a crossword puzzle where there must be a correct answer. Inciedently, John Gosden may be a great trainer but he has never had to make his living out of backing horses so I don't rate his opinion on the usefulness or otherwise of times to form assessment. Likewise Cumani. |
|
By:
Sandown,Gosden is correct,without sectional timing the subject is pretty dull.
|
|
By:
metro john
Imo, after ability , pace (and tactics) is of equal importance in assessing chances as are distance & going preferences and fitness. For that, studying sectional times helps a lot. |
|
By:
Good morning MJ, and of course, Good morning S.
Looking at it another way S. What percentage is the right horse? What percentage is the right price? And what percentage is chance? If I cannot find the right horse to back I couldn't care less about the price. Or the fact that chance may intervene at some stage. With so many opportunities for betting on a 24 hour and 7 day a week basis now, more than ever, is the time to concentrate on a section that suits. I have very strict rules within which I try to remain. It makes betting easier and resting easier. A race is a crossword and there is a correct answer. All the clues are there and there will be a final result. Completing the crossword is, however, fraught with problems. |
|
By:
The answer to the Eclipse crossword was Mukhadram. It may not have been the answer most predicted but it was the right answer. And the reason for most people getting it wrong was because they never read the clue: 'What happens if the front three horses are ignored by the following pack and Mukhadram is the best horse in the front three'?
|
|
By:
If I was an athlete who could sprint but couldn't jump do you think it would be wise concentrating on sprinting or jumping? if you were an athlete who could sprint its odds on you could jump further than someone who cannot sprint
 I was a huge Treve fan last season and backed her for the Arc accordingly and it is possible that she could recover her best form. However, history is littered with 4yo. fillies that never repeat their 3yo. form so I will not be backing her again unless she is at double figure odds. this is what I mean about price, he cant back her but if the price keeps going out to a price he cant refuse, every horse has a price regardless of form, fitness etc etc |
|
By:
Figgis all you are doing is listing exactly why this bunch of older horses is at best average.
I am indeed saying that some of them are average. That is average for the class, there is a difference between average and 'distinctly below average'. There is nothing wrong with being an average Gp1 winner, although some seem to use average as meaning mediocre. I still don't get why horses are judged in a bunch? This bunch of 3yos, this bunch of 4yos. Horses are individuals and whether one is any good or not doesn't depend on the rest of its age group. Although I guess if you're limiting your reading of form to who beats who then that's all you're left with. I am also saying that Australia is an average Gp1 3yo. Ignoring all the talk, he finished 3rd in a moderate Guineas (apart from Kingman who ran below his best) and ran just to a typical level in winning the Derby. Which opinion wasn't backed up by a result? How many 3 year olds have I backed against the older horses? And kindly explain where I was proved wrong about the 3 year olds? Show me how interesting that is. From memory you backed the 3yos in the Eclipse. If I remember rightly your pre-race statement was something along the lines of 'If the 3yos can't win then heaven help us'. My point is that if you are proved wrong at York, then it's already crystal clear what your post race analysis is going to be, that Australia wasn't as good as you 'hoped', it couldn't possibly be that you were wrong about any of the older horses. |
|
By:
Brigust, why do you preach to people about the rights and wrongs of betting when you don't even make a profit?
|
|
By:
Good morning Figgis. You cannot get away from the fact you pushed the point that the older horses are not stars. You then said that if the 4 year olds beat the 3 year olds I will say the 4 year olds are not stars. In fact agreeing with the point you have been pushing. The 4 year olds will not suddenly be elevated to good horses by beating horses they already have a history of beating (Eclipse) before you wrote the above posts. You cannot have it both ways!
And now you say the 3 year olds actually are not up to much. So if the 4 year olds beat them I will be wrong in saying I have over rated the 3 year olds? You cannot have it both ways. Point 1. You have already stated the 4 year olds are average. Point 2. You have now stated the 3 year olds are also average. So if the 4 year olds win at York does that make them not average any more? Of course if doesn't but it does mean the 3 year olds are at best average. Something you made a pointed remark about me saying if a 4 year old wins the Juddmonte. Make your mind up Fig. I think the 3 year olds are above average. I think the 4 year olds are below average. I therefore think a 3 year old will win the Juddmonte, the St Leger (joke), Irish Champion Stakes, the Champion Stakes and the Arc. Sin if you don't understand the difference beating having a conversation and preaching then you obviously haven't been to church recently. Whether I make a profit or not is no business of anyone except me. Thank you for your concern. |
|
By:
*between
|
|
By:
Anyway guys much as I don't want to I will be leaving the pulpit for a few hours. The racing is rubbish today so no bets for me so I am off on a long cycle ride with a few enthusiasts. Make money and try to smile. You know it makes sense. Oz, Oz, Oz.
|
|
By:
You cannot get away from the fact you pushed the point that the older horses are not stars.
Why does a horse have to be a star to win an average Gp1? It simply needs to be of average Gp1 standard. You then said that if the 4 year olds beat the 3 year olds I will say the 4 year olds are not stars. No, read it again. I said if they win you will still be saying they are "distinctly below average". Average is what it says, average. An average Wimbledon final winner, an average World Cup winning team, etc, this is the norm. They are neither brilliant or poor, they are typical. Superstars come along rarely, a point which ought to be obvious. Just because every championship event doesn't contain a superstar doesn't mean it's "distinctly below average", but it seems to be the case in most of your posts. |
|
By:
They are neither brilliant
I should have said they aren't brilliant compared to past event winners, but they are still the best around. |
|
By:
Time has to have some relevance. If you line up 10 human sprinters, the fastest would be favourite, then the next fastest etc. Some allowance for recent form perhaps but basically true. The reasons why it does not always work with horses are:
1. They don't all run flat out all the way even over 5 or 6 furlongs. 2. Some horses only display their ability when given a lead for most of the way. 3. They don't run in lanes so interference can be a factor. 4. Some sprints are round a bend which can distort things. 5. Handicaps mean they are not all carrying the same weight. Despite all that, over a straight 5 furlongs on good ground, I would back the fastest horse at level weights every time. |
|
By:
You are a charlatan, Brigust, and have once again embarrassed yourself with your lack of knowledge, understanding and whimsical opinions. Fresh air on the bike is exactly what's required.
|
|
By:
Why do you both continue to entertain a clearly clueless form/race reader who expresses the naivety and freshness of a complete novice? It's not worth it!
For what it's worth, I agree Australia is far too short, but don't see value in the opposition. A no bet race for me. |
|
By:
That's better guys. Only 37km but well worth it and the weather is great.
Looking at the results I haven't missed anything. Tomorrow looks absolutely dreadful. I never bet in the Shergar Cup. Treat Haydock with a great deal of caution since they altered the course but the 3 year olds taking on Hillstar etc in the Lancaster will be worth a watch. No bets. Newmarket has only the Sweet Solera and that looks trappy, Redcar no betting races for me, too low grade so that only leaves Ayr where they have 6 handicaps and a Class 5 maiden. What a shocking Saturday with no bets at all. Wicketd may I remind you that this is a forum open to everyone. You should not talk about the other posters like that unless you can back it up with some examples. It isn't fair on them and it doesn't show whether you are bright enough to criticise anyone. Don't sit on the fence. Speak up. |
|
By:
I don't need to back it up with examples Brig, because I don't really care. I read this forum every few days, and it's constantly you debating nonsense with Sint & Fig. They know their stuff, you clearly do not. I don't need back it up or provide examples, it's a fact. :-) Some are just awful judges, and you are one of them unfortunately.
The fact that you think a horse shouldn't be laid based on price, if it is deemed to be poor value, sums everything up. Yet you cannot and will not grasp it. It's embarrassing really. |
|
By:
Back to the race itself Aus has been backed into 4/7 as I think the market is waking up to not many turning up;
Aus Mukhadram Arod The Grey Gatsby Remote Outside of pacemakers/rags I think this is the best we can hope for. |