There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 87 comments are related to the topic:
THE MORNING LINE - CULL WHICH ONES ? Vote now !
THE MORNING LINE - CULL WHICH ONES ? Vote now !
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 87
|
By:
I reckon I'd beat you for that
 PS - at least he can RECITE it...the others are PAID to do so and have ZERO interest in it! Obviously apart from the women, I think John Francome was the laziest pundit EVER though his opinions & experience of horses brought a different angle to the debate - I can't say that about Mick Fitz  |
|
By:
Lord Windermere was missing LOADS of trends, I did not pick him because of the trends
he had not won a race this year, not achieved a top 2 placing, not a high enough RPR and so on it was about profiles |
|
By:
The only things in his favour was that he was clearly far from exposed and had improvement in him, as well as winning the championship race for novices the year before at the meeting.
His overall profile was a poor one in my opinion but you called it right so fcuk me  I thought I'd save you a profanity or two  |
|
By:
totally disagree, he had a perfect profile and breeding most importantly which most of the field did not, read this (on page 7)
http://www.narrowing-the-field.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Free-Cheltenham-Taster-Guide....pdf#sthash.q8qsqgiu.dpuf only 3 that ran had the ideal dosage and they finished 1st 3rd and 5th and Bobs Worth was attempting to defend and TGB had been beaten twice in the race - both statistically difficult to overcome so 50/1 was massive |
|
By:
I'm sure you'll disagree but the emphasis of breeding is nowhere near as important over jumps in my opinion and consequently, something I've never really been THAT much interested in, whereas on the flat I readily recall the pedigrees of all the best horses over the years...and plenty of their siblings too!
FWIW I backed The Giant Bolster but only after Flight Lieutenant was withdrawn. |
|
By:
read the report I linked
|
|
By:
its not about pedigree it's about the dosage system lining up with the typical winners not the names of the parents
anyway, you keep looking at the form I also backed First Lieutenant who also passed the dosage test, but nrnb only |
|
By:
I already did...you put a lot of work into it (some telling stats) as I used to do but I haven't got that time or even as much inclination nowadays
Maybe that's why I don't win as much as I used to?  |
|
By:
I didnt write the report, I just used the info to form an opinion
|
|
By:
JR - I'm not manacled to FORM...I regularly pick plenty of rags in the frame at Cheltenham and I consider many different angles though 90% of stats really don't interest me at all as they're just rough guidelines in my view.
As I've said, if it works for you then you get the wedge for it |
|
By:
I was under the impression you formulated your own stats/spreadsheets well in advance of the Festival
|
|
By:
yes but I didn't write that 'narrowing the field' report
like with LW I make value based judgements, it's rare you can say one stands alone and when they do they are short prices and I don't bet short prices very often |
|
By:
Whose work is that and how did you find it?
I'm always interested in racing matters...even though it's very rare I'll take anyone's advice. Sometimes another's view might sway me to pick the right one when trying to separate two selections though at the prices I back at I'll invariably do both. |
|
By:
it's a balance of probability method, you see
so for the Gold Cup,the method says on balance the winner will be or have: younger than 10 a Grade 1 winner achieved a top 2 finish at the Festival run less than 15 times over fences not the defending champion not beaten in the race before fit the dosage profile a winner at 3 miles not a winner at 3 miles 2 or more run in the Lexus or King George I only really use these methods for Cheltenham, Aintree and Royal Ascot, I have totally different methods for flat handicaps mainly revolving around RPRs vs BHA ratings |
|
By:
it's a balance of probability method, you see
so for the Gold Cup,the method says on balance the winner will be or have: younger than 10 a Grade 1 winner achieved a top 2 finish at the Festival run less than 15 times over fences not the defending champion not beaten in the race before fit the dosage profile a winner at 3 miles not a winner at 3 miles 2 or more run in the Lexus or King George I only really use these methods for Cheltenham, Aintree and Royal Ascot, I have totally different methods for flat handicaps mainly revolving around RPRs vs BHA ratings |
|
By:
Each to their own squire...fro example, home gallops for NH horses are far less informative than for flat horses as I see things - just how many trainers run their horses at home in a 3M chase?
 Conversely, on the flat a trainer can replicate conditions better and get a true gauge...I always remember Mark Prescott reckoning that Pasternak was about 3/4 of a length better than Rudimentary (at the weights) just before the Cambridgeshire and that's exactly how they were separated - I might add that I was on the runner-up at 33/1 |
|
By:
the guy who wrote it is called Ben Aitken, you should check his blog http://www.narrowing-the-field.co.uk/
there is always scope to improve your methods, for everyone that is, to see if you can find new insight I have changed methods many times, or rather, incorporated new methods and ways of finding edges in markets many times over the last 20+ years |
|
By:
Sack.Tanya , Sam Thomas and Mattie B. Bring back Francome and employ Ted Walsh. Keep Fitz, GC, Rishi, Jimbo and Simon Holt. Shoot McCririck and feed him to the Pig. To make it better? Simply stick to evaluating the days televised races in full. I would also like to see a section of the programme given to pinpointing and highlighting the iffy rides. Particularly on the AW. Trouble is the programme would last three hours. It will never happen but I would love to have them talk freely and honestly about the sport instead of sitting on the fence. Now that I would watch!!
|
|
By:
Cheers for that...I've saved it in my racing favourites bookmarks - there is a fcukin' library in there
I assumed you wouldn't have wiped your arse on RPR or those of Timeform. PS - that Prescott horse was Rudimental, not Rudimentary who was Cecil's over a decade before  Can you tell me something notable about that Cecil horse? |
|
By:
I have a terrible memory for horses, always looking for the next big touch so no I cannot tell you anything although I clearly remember the horse running
I look at my punting like a golfer playing a course; he addresses the ball with a strategy in mind to get round in the fewest strokes and depending on the shot he has he chooses a different club that's what I have developed, or the equivalent, a set of 'punting golf clubs' - I pull out the one I consider most appropriate to the situation in hand and the methods are quite varied |
|
By:
He was bought by Lord Howard De Walden out of Robert Armstrong's stable to be used as a pacemaker for Slip Anchor (as a 4yo) but as you know, that colt was beaten on his only run.
Oh shííít! I've just realised that was Rakaposhi King Rudimentary was a different LHDW/Cecil horse from the late 80's early 90's...and you thought your memory was failing!!! |
|
By:
Rakaposhi King ended up a group performer yet he was only a handicapper at Armstrong's - typical Cecil...he even got the best out of Critique when even Vincent O'Brien couldn't.
|
|
By:
THEY'VE ALL GONE
|
|
By:
Whatever anyone says, racing does, and always will revolve around betting, so there are two things that need sorting.
1. Get someone on with the ability and knowledge to analyse races from a betting point of view, by that I mean in depth form, looking at times, comparing RPR ratings to official figures etc, and have the balls to acknowledge when a horse has had a quiet one!!! 2. Whenever there is a smug bookmaker representative on the programme, please ask the question " How can you say you took a £50,000 bet on line" when most punters get knocked back when wanting £10 ew on at a price, or have there account closed or restricted if they show any resemblance of someone who actually looks as though they know what they are doing!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We all know that this will never happen, but then channel 4 have to ask themselves why their viewing figures can be counted on one hand. |
|
By:
They are not doing anything for the viewing figures by having it on more4 this morning that's for sure.
|
|
By:
Nick Luck and Jim McGrath both do a great job. I never tire of those two.
|
|
By:
Oh no!
It was on More4 I looked for it but didn't think it was on |
|
By:
You were lucky
 |
|
By:
Lol Virgin.
Just found it on Catch up .http://www.channel4.com/programmes/channel-4-racing/4od#3662519 |
|
By:
That link was for yesterday's programme
|
|
By:
from the ones that went, Francome was probably the biggest loss. And maybe out of the question to get them but I would like to see Lydia Hyslop and Kate Miller on the show.
Trying to get it right to satisfy a wider audience I appreciate is not easy, but very easy to screw up on both fronts. I think generally they are doing a good job but they are lacking a strong personality on the team. And it has come a long way from these early days...  |
|
By:
Since Jamie Aitchison, Highflyer etc revamped it Channel 4 racing has all gone downhill.
Stop making excuses and time for another total revamp of presenters and format. Sorry but most of the current presenters have zero personality and they are just stuck in a portacabin with a huge IPAD. Listen to the racing community: viewers/forums/twitter to get feedback and start focusing on your audience. Until then Channel 4 racing are doomed. |
|
By:
one not on your list...richard hoiles..........should be on the show far more.....excellent bloke
|
|
By:
Kill the whole program most talk rubbish.
|
|
By:
too busy laughing at their own jokes , crap tipsters , be interesting too show a table off their naps , bet they make a loss ?
|
|
By:
Interesting how Nick Luck started saying things like, "Can you believe it's ten years since Best Mate won the Gold Cup?" etc. He was only 9 when that happened. Middle-aged admittedly but only 9.
|
|
By:
apparently in a bid to sex up their grand national coverage c4 will replace luck and balding with nick hewer and susie dent
|
|
By:
I don't know about you lot but I watch 90% on mute these days. Most of the period between races is filled with sentimental sh1te at best such as that provided by Alistair Down and cliched claptrap at worst. Months ago I switched on to discover Balding's eulogy on McCoy when he'd got his 4000 up. I thought it was an obituary and had to put up BBC News to check he wasn't dead. One day last week I fell upon a Morning Line at an odd time of day. I thought I might have a look as I haven't seen it for years. What you get with this programme is pure, undistilled **** without the interruption of a live race. I lasted 5 minutes.
|
|
By:
Tarnya's biggest Cheltenham contribution was to inform everyone that 8/1 about McCoy winning the top jockeys title at the meeting was a fabulous bet and that the Stephenson bankroll was already on!
 As for what is happening 'in the betting jungle', this is 2014, fyi Tarnya you don't need to be within sight of a tic-tac man to know the current odds. Sorry love. |
|
By:
as a side note....the c4 coverage of the gold cup post race was shambolic.....a taped recording of the enquiry then a cut back to Jim Culloty celebrating. jesus chist....their director is totally fcking useless.
1. Build the suspense. 2. Show the Enquiry LIVE 3. Build more suspense. 4. Show the Result being announced live. would've been excellent. |