Cheltenham Ante Post Pick

UrbanSea

kiers47 wrote: »

http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/pique-sous-cheltenham-festival-unaccompanied-to-skip-festival-says-weld/987009/

Unaccompanied out of Champion Hurdle to concentrate on a flat campaign. What you guys think?

Not really surprised

Huntey

Smart cookie is Weld.

She wasn't going to win the CH and wouldn't beat Quevega in the DN. Only four and if they aren't going the broodmare route than no rush in sending her over this year.

hucklebuck

hucklebuck wrote: »

Can't help but notice that you always put the burden of proof on the other person you disagree with.

Huntey wrote: »

This may be the case but observations mean little without examples, can you provide some?

hucklebuck wrote: »

Lol, so the burden of proof is on me
Not off the top of my head but I will return if I see where you did it.

In the "Flappin aka horse and pony racing query" thread you commented that ft9's jockey must be scraping the bottom of the barrell, he said not at all and you asked him who the jockey is.

You have stated

Huntey wrote: »

I have already stated numerous times that I have no interest in discussing the who or how I am aware that the info was misleading.

I just think it's funny that you are not willing to say but try to find out who others are talking about.

Don't worry you can ask away I won't repost on the matter just an example when I saw it.

hucklebuck

ste2010 wrote: »

Got on at 33's a while back :-) wrote him off since to be honest and had a sneaky smirk on my face today!
Still not to sure about him winning in chelt though. Hopefully...better ground...still think sous les cieux will do well at chelt

I layed him at 21, so now I have my stake back and a free bet @ 34.

hucklebuck

sting60 wrote: »

Well gargled frinds over for the rugby last night wrote this post,just saw it this morning.

You must have been trashed, the rugby was postponed

Colonel Sanders

Just thinking, this thread is very cluttered

Maybe an idea to start a few threads
- one for the championship races
- one for the novices
- one for the handicaps

Huntey

Do you know what putting the burden of proof on somebody means? I asked ft9 a question, not to put the burden of proof on him to show that the jockey wasn't scrapping the barrel but because I was just interested in knowing who would travel without expenses.

hucklebuck wrote: »

I just think it's funny that you are not willing to say but try to find out who others are talking about.

Ft9 declined to say on thread which I respected and did not question, I declined to mention how I knew the info on thread and you and others questioned me! Can you not see the irony in suggesting I am the one who asks for proof?

Me stating that he must have been scrapping the barrel was just an assumption, I never requested anybody to prove me wrong and thus didn't put any burden of proof on anybody.

hucklebuck wrote: »

Don't worry you can ask away I won't repost on the matter just an example when I saw it.

I certainly am not worried, but your example is completely flawed anyway as I have just proven.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now before we go off in another roundabout I want to finally clarify my position on that incident and put it to bed.

Ste posted information that he said was from a source. The information stated that Minsk was going to the Triumph without a prep and that he was a definite for the Triumph (meaning he was going to run in it as Ste later clarified)

I told Ste his source hadn't a clue and was misleading. I believe a direct quote would be me suggesting that he was incorrect about the horses "preparation and prospects."

I continuously stated that I had no interest in getting involved in discussing how I knew it was misleading, I just stated that it was misleading and people could take it how they wanted.

After Ste's source was proven to be incorrect about the horses preparation, you posted saying you believed his source. I highlighted to you that his info was already proven false, which you seemed to ignore and question where I got this info. Seemingly, me previously stating I had no interest in discussing that issue hadn't sank in with you yet.

Yesterday, Barry O'Connell said that Minsk is not a definite to run in the Triumph.

So Ste's source was completely wrong in both departments when he said the horse was a definite for the Triumph and would go there without a prep run.

I was 100% correct when I said his information was misleading. It does not matter where it came from, I was giving people a heads up who may have followed blindly relying on this info. Would you rather I said nothing and people may be following that false info blindly?

I don't have time to be discussing needless arguments because you want to question me, I told people the info was false which was correct. I do not under any circumstances need to provide proof of the who and how I knew it was incorrect. I was trying to do yourself, Ste and others a favour. I do not need the aggravation which you are persisting with.

Slattsy

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Just thinking, this thread is very cluttered

Maybe an idea to start a few threads
- one for the championship races
- one for the novices
- one for the handicaps

Yeah i totally agree, i'd start one or two now myself if i wasnt too busy eating a thai red curry and having a beer !!

Maybe a thread for each grade One race going forward, or is that too many ? possibly just the novice Grade One's then ?

Slattsy

Huntey wrote: »

Do you know what putting the burden of proof on somebody means? I asked ft9 a question, not to put the burden of proof on him to show that the jockey wasn't scrapping the barrel but because I was just interested in knowing who would travel without expenses.



Ft9 declined to say on thread which I respected and did not question, I declined to mention how I knew the info on thread and you and others questioned me! Can you not see the irony in suggesting I am the one who asks for proof?

Me stating that he must have been scrapping the barrel was just an assumption, I never requested anybody to prove me wrong and thus didn't put any burden of proof on anybody.


I certainly am not worried, but your example is completely flawed anyway as I have just proven.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now before we go off in another roundabout I want to finally clarify my position on that incident and put it to bed.

Ste posted information that he said was from a source. The information stated that Minsk was going to the Triumph without a prep and that he was a definite for the Triumph (meaning he was going to run in it as Ste later clarified)

I told Ste his source hadn't a clue and was misleading. I believe a direct quote would be me suggesting that he was incorrect about the horses "preparation and prospects."

I continuously stated that I had no interest in getting involved in discussing how I knew it was misleading, I just stated that it was misleading and people could take it how they wanted.

After Ste's source was proven to be incorrect about the horses preparation, you posted saying you believed his source. I highlighted to you that his info was already proven false, which you seemed to ignore and question where I got this info. Seemingly, me previously stating I had no interest in discussing that issue hadn't sank in with you yet.

Yesterday, Barry O'Connell said that Minsk is not a definite to run in the Triumph.

So Ste's source was completely wrong in both departments when he said the horse was a definite for the Triumph and would go there without a prep run.

I was 100% correct when I said his information was misleading. It does not matter where it came from, I was giving people a heads up who may have followed blindly relying on this info. Would you rather I said nothing and people may be following that false info blindly?

I don't have time to be discussing needless arguments because you want to question me, I told people the info was false which was correct. I do not under any circumstances need to provide proof of the who and how I knew it was incorrect. I was trying to do yourself, Ste and others a favour. I do not need the aggravation which you are persisting with.

Have to agree with Huntey here. Was following the flow of that topic with interest and Huntey called it correctly.

Im not saying Ste was trying to cod a few people with his posts on Minsk, but it has made him look a bit silly, even if his 'source' was leading him up the garden path, it comes back upon who posted it up.

kiers47

On this Minsk topic. Even if ste was right and he is going straight to cheltenham (which isnt the case). You'd have to be absolutely bonkers to back a horse that was never seen jumping a hurdle in public at 10/1 in the triumh. I dont care who trains him or how good he was on the flat its the wrong price. He is at best a lay until more is publicly known!!

hucklebuck

Huntey wrote: »

Do you know what putting the burden of proof on somebody means? I asked ft9 a question, not to put the burden of proof on him to show that the jockey wasn't scrapping the barrel but because I was just interested in knowing who would travel without expenses.

I do, you asked who the jockey was, by asking this question you wanted ft9 to prove his claim, therefore the the burden of proof is on ft9.

Huntey wrote: »

Ft9 declined to say on thread which I respected and did not question

He didn't decline he said it was irrelevant.

Huntey wrote: »

I declined to mention how I knew the info on thread and you and others questioned me! Can you not see the irony in suggesting I am the one who asks for proof?

The irony is lost on you, I asked you as you were saying Ste's mate "either hasn't a clue or is lying", Ste made a comment he received from a mate that he believed was correct and you shot down without substantiating it and you said "I have already stated numerous times that I have no interest in discussing the who or how I am aware that the info was misleading", yet if someone else states something you are the first to ask who or how do you know.

Huntey wrote: »

Me stating that he must have been scrapping the barrel was just an assumption, I never requested anybody to prove me wrong and thus didn't put any burden of proof on anybody.

You asked who the jockey was.

Huntey wrote: »

Now before we go off in another roundabout I want to finally clarify my position on that incident and put it to bed.

Ste posted information that he said was from a source. The information stated that Minsk was going to the Triumph without a prep and that he was a definite for the Triumph (meaning he was going to run in it as Ste later clarified)

I told Ste his source hadn't a clue and was misleading. I believe a direct quote would be me suggesting that he was incorrect about the horses "preparation and prospects."

I continuously stated that I had no interest in getting involved in discussing how I knew it was misleading, I just stated that it was misleading and people could take it how they wanted.

After Ste's source was proven to be incorrect about the horses preparation, you posted saying you believed his source. I highlighted to you that his info was already proven false, which you seemed to ignore and question where I got this info. Seemingly, me previously stating I had no interest in discussing that issue hadn't sank in with you yet.

I said I was going to back Minsk on the basis of Ste saying he was going in the Triumph.

I think you are talking about my other post where I was dawdling and Ste got his reply in while mine was still in draft. I deleted the content of this post 3 minutes later with the comment Ste replied before me.

You had already started replying to my post before I deleted it and I replied as you had posted and I stated I was replying out of courtesy. This post was now irrelevant and that was why I deleted it.

I already stated that I had no issue with you not saying who your source is nor did I call you a liar.

I only posted the comment about the flapping thread as you had asked me for an example of when you asked for proof.

ft9

This is ridiculous lads. I'm sick coming into this thread to read about ante post picks, and there actually being no discussion of it, instead a row over who said what.

Slattsy

ft9 wrote: »

This is ridiculous lads. I'm sick coming into this thread to read about ante post picks, and there actually being no discussion of it, instead a row over who said what.

You're dead right.

Want to start a breakaway faction from these pair of eejits

ft9

Im not calling them eejits but saying they should agree to disagree and move on with the thread.

Hurricane Fly has to be the banker. At around the 4/5 mark I still think he is incredible value.

Zarkander will be interesting to see On Friday, but imo Hurricane is out on his own.

hucklebuck

Slattsy wrote: »

Have to agree with Huntey here. Was following the flow of that topic with interest and Huntey called it correctly.

Im not saying Ste was trying to cod a few people with his posts on Minsk, but it has made him look a bit silly, even if his 'source' was leading him up the garden path, it comes back upon who posted it up.

Just to clarify I never said Huntey was wrong.

I am happy to draw a line under it in any case.

Slattsy wrote: »

You're dead right.

Want to start a breakaway faction from these pair of eejits

You gonna start a cozy corner?


For me Zarkandar in the w/o market is a standout bet @ 9/2, I expect him to be very close to Hurricane Fly going up the hill with Binocular about 3 lengths behind them.

ft9

I would imagine Rock On Ruby will go for the County Hurdle rather than the Champion?

Colonel Sanders

ft9 wrote: »

I would imagine Rock On Ruby will go for the County Hurdle rather than the Champion?

He's actually quite weak on Betfair in the champion market. Very little on the pink side & 21 to back.

He must be rated high 150s to low 160s after the Xmas hurdle, strange to run him in a handicap (not saying he won't, he's been backed on Betfair for the county). He'd keep the weights down for Empire Levant but seems a strange sacrifice to make seeing as their in different ownership

Huntey

hucklebuck wrote: »

I do, you asked who the jockey was, by asking this question you wanted ft9 to prove his claim, therefore the the burden of proof is on ft9.

I asked who he was because I was interested to know what jockey would travel without getting expenses. I never once asked ft9 to prove his claim so put an end to that junk you have contrived.

I asked to know who it was out of interest which I confirmed in my next post, although you have conveniently left it out.

"I was interested to know who would have gone to such lengths for a single ride without getting compensated."

hucklebuck wrote: »

He didn't decline he said it was irrelevant.

Thus declining to answer...

hucklebuck wrote: »

you shot down without substantiating it

Correct, I told people I wasn't going to substantiate it or delve further into the topic. I also stated that if people didn't want to believe me that was fine it was no skin off my back.

hucklebuck wrote: »

you said "I have already stated numerous times that I have no interest in discussing the who or how I am aware that the info was misleading"

1 week, and about 15 posts later and the penny finally drops. Take a bow.

hucklebuck wrote: »

yet if someone else states something you are the first to ask who or how do you know.

I don't recall ever doing that, I didn't ask Ste who his source was or how did he know.

hucklebuck wrote: »

I said I was going to back Minsk on the basis of Ste saying he was going in the Triumph.

You shouldn't have backed him on that basis, and I specifically remember telling you to "have your few bob each way but not on the basis of the above gargle". Can you guess why I told you not to back it on the back of that info? I'll give you a hint, the info was misleading.

hucklebuck wrote: »

I already stated that I had no issue with you not saying who your source is

Why did you continuously question how I knew the info so?

Anyway, I supplied information that was correct. There is nothing further to discuss.

It would probably be more productive to eat a box of chalk then to continue this clusterf*ck.

newuser89

I think nichols said rock on ruby is going for the champ hurdle in one of his questions and answer sessions on betfair

hucklebuck

Huntey wrote: »

1 week, and about 15 posts later and the penny finally drops. Take a bow.

Don't let the timeline get in the way of an Andy Gray quote...

I replied to the above statement with this the very same evening:

hucklebuck wrote: »

That's fine and your perogative but I don't think saying a guy in the yard knows a mate of mine and says he won't be running there or whatever would get back as you could be anyone that knows anyone in the yard.

Huntey wrote: »

It would probably be more productive to eat a box of chalk then to continue this clusterf*ck.

I was thinking glass, but at least we are agreed.

So who do you fancy for the festival?

Juwwi

With VLD looking very unlikely to travel over and Unacompanied ruled out there does'nt look like being any seious challenger to Quevega.
The 8/11 now will look big on the day I'd say.
When most bookies are going 8/11 HF she has to be a way better bet.

I dont like backing odds on especially at the festival but the Quevega Big Bucks double looks bombproof.

Colonel Sanders

VLV goes for the world hurdle according to reports today

Obviously means she's not taking Quevega on still

Colonel Sanders

robbie1977 wrote: »

I dont like backing odds on especially at the festival but the Quevega Big Bucks double looks bombproof.

The mares race in particular lacks strength in depth year after year

We might see a bit more opposition to Big Bucks but at the same time Oscar Whisky is surely the only real threat

The only problem I'd have with that double now is I'm not sure either horse will all that shorter come the day or at least NRNB time (barring big name defections, well what big names there are!) as competition for turnover at the big meetings is pretty intense

Juwwi

Oh I saw VLD was taken down from the prices for the Mares race I presumed she was'nt traveling over.

Yea your probably right about the odds not going much shorter Big Bucks surely wont anyway.

There is gona beat least 8 favoutites 5/2 or shorter looking at the odds now.

hucklebuck

The only problem is the Mares race seems to be Antepost, I don't remember hearing a peep about her either.

10/1 double Zarkandar and Oscar Whisky w/o, NRNB looks decent.

Hulk Hands

hucklebuck wrote: »

The only problem is the Mares race seems to be Antepost, I don't remember hearing a peep about her either.

10/1 double Zarkandar and Oscar Whisky w/o, NRNB looks decent.

Zarkandar is 9/2 without yeah? So Oscar Whiskey is only Evs w/o?

Too short imo

hucklebuck

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Zarkandar is 9/2 without yeah? So Oscar Whiskey is only Evs w/o?

Too short imo

10/3 and 7/4, it's 10.91. I think the only one that could beat Oscar Whisky is Thousand Stars but Oscar Whisky looks class.

Hulk Hands

hucklebuck wrote: »

10/3 and 7/4, it's 10.91. I think the only one that could beat Oscar Whisky is Thousand Stars but Oscar Whisky looks class.

Sorry forgot about the NRNB bits. Fair enough. Zarkandars price does have room for contraction. I think Oscar Whiskey might drift a bit, judging on the price Grand Crus was available at last year and my thinking that they won't let BB go near Evs again

hucklebuck

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Sorry forgot about the NRNB bits. Fair enough. Zarkandars price does have room for contraction. I think Oscar Whiskey might drift a bit, judging on the price Grand Crus was available at last year and my thinking that they won't let BB go near Evs again

Oscar Whisky is 5/1 in the real market, off memory Grands Crus was 4/1 and Big Buck went off 10/11 ish.

Currently the front two account for 83.4% probability of winning

Last year using the prices above they accounted for 72.4% so it may swing some on Oscar Whiskey but I think the bookies will ease Big Bucks some, maybe 4/6 on the day.

El Ninotorres

What do people think of Darlans chances in the Supreme Novices? I've been hearing mixed reports