Cheltenham 2021 Antepost

Hulk Hands

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Prior to Goshen's win that price was tight enough. Since his win however she's out to near 3s on the exchange. You're safe enough waiting for the Tuesday morn and you'll likely get 11/4 or 3s.



I was eagerly awaiting the time analysis of Goshen's race as those wide margin victories in heavy are so hard to quantify. Turns out its nothing out of the ordinary, a couple of seconds faster than the poor novice hurdle carrying the same weight. Hes fascinating alright but i'll stay away now unless he drifts a couple of points at least. I think the very late start to the festival this year reduces the chances of a bog also,

as much as you can't predict a deluge of rain

Ya got there before me...

True about the being able to predict the weather.

Morgans

Deleted User wrote: »

3rd week in March for the first time in about 10 years it's on this year.. Ground was usually around good to soft generally (in that mid March period) back then.. Can only hope that the ground hasn't too much juice in it, if the both of them go that route. But he surely was beyond impressive before hitting the deck in that race which was on soft-gd to soft ground. I'd trust Honeysuckle far more myself to run her race in this..

Chances are that it will be good-soft, no firmer. A couple of rainy days beforehand changes things. Or even rain on watered ground, changes things. The likeliehood of heavy ground is far more likely that it was a decade ago.

On good ground, Goshen is far from out of it.

The week later is overstated - there have been plenty of Aintree's or even Punchestown's that have been in heavy ground. And plenty of early march meetings on good. Its down to weather not climate.

Well, I'm happy with the 9/4, and have taken it... Not gonna worry about 1 horse, who has question marks imo.

Hulk Hands

Morgans wrote: »

The time analysis is pointless. a) doesnt take into account any deterioration of the ground from the first race to Goshens and b) leads you to believe that Song For Someone wouldn't have won the novice race, when he would long long odds on to do should the horses ever meet.

If you want to find a reason to knock a performance, you'll find it.

How is it pointless? They carried the same weight and the races were 2 hours apart. Do you think all time analysis is pointless? Song for someone never travelled a yard and was double figures on the machine about half way through the race. He also carried a 6lb more than Goshen. I'm not even against Goshen, I just like to see some further analysis when its wide margin and tired horses stop quick in heavy ground. I also think Kilcrut is slightly underpriced because of it.

Given you think Goshen is a cert on Heavy, and 50/50 on good, you must think he should be odds on and are absolutely unloading on the 5s? The champion hurdle, one of the most analyzed races of the year. Well known for the market being wrong by 80% alright

Coneygree

Sure Energumene would have beaten CPS based off times in Leopardstown. Time analysis can be handy but I wouldn't be using it as a form of triangle theory.

Morgans

Hulk Hands wrote: »

How is it pointless? They carried the same weight and the races were 2 hours apart. Do you think all time analysis is pointless? Song for someone never travelled a yard and was double figures on the machine about half way through the race. He also carried a 6lb more than Goshen. I'm not even against Goshen, I just like to see some further analysis when its wide margin and tired horses stop quick in heavy ground. I also think Kilcrut is slightly underpriced because of it.

Given you think Goshen is a cert on Heavy, and 50/50 on good, you must think he should be odds on and are absolutely unloading on the 5s? The champion hurdle, one of the most analyzed races of the year. Well known for the market being wrong by 80% alright

I think time analysis can be useful. Time analysis does not account for deterioration of ground - and given how cut up the ground became - i think its valid to suspect that it was worse for those horses running 2 hours later and the third hurdle on the card. Even time anoraks recognise it.

Are you suggesting that the winner and second of the novice hurdle would start favourite vs Song for Someone or Navajo Pass in a 2m hurdle next week. Given the time analysis of their races? Most people would say no. Therefore the time analysis in this instance pointless. Trying to read what happened through the race is far more likely to get you closer to the truth.

Where did I say he should be odds on? You are just putting words into my mouth. Also, where is he 5s? Best priced yesterday was PP at 9/2 - cut into 100/30 today. Best priced 4s. I might "unload" on Goshen between now and Cheltenham, but I would prefer to wait, if that's ok, to get a sense of a) what the conditions on the day will be like b) the number of runners in the field and c) to leave some money to have a bet in running.

Hulk Hands

Song for someone cantered home once beaten and doesn't even come out that bad against the novice once weight is factored. Your entire analysis of the race boils down to Goshen hammering a horse than was in trouble after 6f. Yes the times aren't bombproof but given how the race turned out we've very little to go on so should factor in any information we can get, rather than blindly assuming a horse is out clear of rivals because tired horses stopped in a bog

Morgans wrote: »

Eventhough he was doing the same thing last March. If it is heavy, he wins by a street. On good, its a toss up. Promises to be the race of the festival.

What else should we take from this? He wins on heavy and is 50/50 on good? That would suggest odds on unless you were being hyperbolic. He's 5s on the exchange currently btw

Anniepowaaa

the only time matters is in the final furlong

Morgans

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Song for someone cantered home once beaten and doesn't even come out that bad against the novice once weight is factored. Your entire analysis of the race boils down to Goshen hammering a horse than was in trouble after 6f. Yes the times aren't bombproof but given how the race turned out we've very little to go on so should factor in any information we can get, rather than blindly assuming a horse is out clear of rivals because tired horses stopped in a bog

That's not my anaysis of the race. Assume away though. It wasnt just that he beat Song For Someone, 158 rated, by 22l, value for about 15 - Goshen was getting pats down the shoulder with half a furlong left. It was that Grade 2 winner, 156 rated Navajo Pass was 17l further back, that 146 rated Friend or Foe was another 7l back. None of which would have been sighted in the novice hurdle going by time analysis.

Song for Someone didn't lead and was being stoked along at half way. Had Goshen not been in the race, there would have been plenty of under the radar support for him for the Champion on the back of a 20l ish win this weekend. there was no sign that he was against Heavy ground before the weekend and his proven guts and stamina would have served him well. That the crude time analysis is telling you that they would have struggled in novice race is exactly the reason why time isn't reliable. You are treating it as if it is telling you something otherwise hidden.

The point is that Goshen's running style killed the horses. Navajo Pass, grade 2 winner on heavy stopped as if shot after trying to keep ahead of Goshen at about 6f out. And Song for Someone gutsed it out to come through for second. You can trust times all you want. Im happy to go with my experience watching races.

If you could guarantee that it was heavy ground and not ground on the fast side of good, then I would be "unloading".

Hulk Hands

Morgans wrote: »

That's not my anaysis of the race. Assume away though. It wasnt just that he beat Song For Someone, 158 rated, by 22l, value for about 15 - Goshen was getting pats down the shoulder with half a furlong left. It was that Grade 2 winner, 156 rated Navajo Pass was 17l further back, that 146 rated Friend or Foe was another 7l back. None of which would have been sighted in the novice hurdle going by time analysis.

Song for Someone didn't lead and was being stoked along at half way. Had Goshen not been in the race, there would have been plenty of under the radar support for him for the Champion on the back of a 20l ish win this weekend. there was no sign that he was against Heavy ground before the weekend and his proven guts and stamina would have served him well. That the crude time analysis is telling you that they would have struggled in novice race is exactly the reason why time isn't reliable. You are treating it as if it is telling you something otherwise hidden.

The point is that Goshen's running style killed the horses. Navajo Pass, grade 2 winner on heavy stopped as if shot after trying to keep ahead of Goshen at about 6f out. And Song for Someone gutsed it out to come through for second. You can trust times all you want. Im happy to go with my experience watching races.

If you could guarantee that it was heavy ground and not ground on the fast side of good, then I would be "unloading".

Was Goshen not in the race, Navajo pass would still have lead and SFS would still having been scrubbed along after a mile. You think people would've been encouraged by that performance? His goosed was cooked long before Goshen took it up.

Last point on this, given I only responded because of your aggressive response to my gentle opening post. Your first paragraph and your third are essentially saying what i've been saying all along, that tired horses empty quickly on heavy ground. Navajo pass completed the first mile a full 7 seconds quicker than the novice race (on the heavier ground), which suggest he went off far too fast and collapsed completely as Goshen took it up, with SFS already done at that point. Goshen's ability to sustain that from flight 5 home was impressive but it was still done a few seconds slower than the novices who didn't go off too quick.

Theres two data points on the race, the bare result and the time. While the former is far more important, its useful to reference the only other one we have. Professional gamblers like Andy Holding have also seen it as important, while Kevin Blake mentioned it also.

The ground hasn't been on the fast side of good for a Cheltenham Tuesday for over 20 years so you're safe enough on that score. I'd say G/S is about 1/6 at this point

Morgans

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Was Goshen not in the race, Navajo pass would still have lead and SFS would still having been scrubbed along after a mile. You think people would've been encouraged by that performance? His goosed was cooked long before Goshen took it up.

Last point on this, given I only responded because of your aggressive response to my gentle opening post. Your first paragraph and your third are essentially saying what i've been saying all along, that tired horses empty quickly on heavy ground. Navajo pass completed the first mile a full 7 seconds quicker than the novice race (on the heavier ground), which suggest he went off far too fast and collapsed completely as Goshen took it up, with SFS already done at that point. Goshen's ability to sustain that from flight 5 home was impressive but it was still done a few seconds slower than the novices who didn't go off too quick.

Theres two data points on the race, the bare result and the time. While the former is far more important, its useful to reference the only other one we have. Professional gamblers like Andy Holding have also seen it as important, while Kevin Blake mentioned it also.

The ground hasn't been on the fast side of good for a Cheltenham Tuesday for over 20 years so you're safe enough on that score. I'd say G/S is about 1/6 at this point

And it is Goshen's ability to keep going is why I said in my gentle opening post that he wins by a street on heavy ground. Graded horses seem to be unable to cope with him - Allmankind, Aspire Tower, Song For Someone and Navajo Pass.

I have never said time was pointess, just using time to downgrade Goshen's performance vis-a-vis the novice race on Saturday was pointless. At 1/6, I'd be a layer. It will be prepared to be good to soft but the wrong rain at the wrong time and it becomes Klassical Dream/Espoir d'Allen weather. At that stage, I would have wished that I would have unloaded. Id have it more a 2/5 shot. (It is more than likely to be declared good to soft in any case.)

On good ground, I worry that he jumps too slowly early in the race - less margin for error on that front, the quicker the ground is.

NaiveMelodies

Anyone have the handicap entries list?

Hulk Hands

NaiveMelodies wrote: »

Anyone have the handicap entries list?

https://twitter.com/ryanOTHx

He seems to have the main talking points covered

Anniepowaaa

Jamie moore looked like a clown looking around the whole race ,i have never seen a jockey look so unbalanced on a horse , jamie spencer he is not

RivetingRoger

Anniepowaaa wrote: »

Jamie moore looked like a clown looking around the whole race ,i have never seen a jockey look so unbalanced on a horse , jamie spencer he is not

MOD EDIT
Flaming
Posts containing personal attacks on another user will be edited/deleted. Attack the post, not the poster.

Dr. Bre

Anniepowaaa wrote: »

Jamie moore looked like a clown looking around the whole race ,i have never seen a jockey look so unbalanced on a horse , jamie spencer he is not

It was his fault he fell at the last at the festival last year. Doesn’t look comfortable

akelly02

RivetingRoger wrote: »

MOD EDIT
Flaming
Posts containing personal attacks on another user will be edited/deleted. Attack the post, not the poster.

i have to agree , he was doing an awful lot of looking around. no need for it

Labaik

Does it matter if he was looking around, id rather the jockey knowing how far ahead he is before easing off and getting done on the line which has happened an awful lot.

RivetingRoger

He was looking around to make sure the race was put to bed whilst easing up, hence the seemingly slow time on the clock.
Once he went over the last he was easing all the way to the line
Tis pretty simple stuff like lads!!!!

RivetingRoger

akelly02 wrote: »

i have to agree , he was doing an awful lot of looking around. no need for it

Didn't hear anyone complain about Patrick almost fellating himself on Kilcruit in the last 2F .............

Anniepowaaa

He did it a rip of times for one reason only he actually thought he looked cool and he's that ****e a jockey all he was doing was unbalancing the horse

akelly02

Labaik wrote: »

Does it matter if he was looking around, id rather the jockey knowing how far ahead he is before easing off and getting done on the line which has happened an awful lot.

yea , its happened so many times, me bollix

akelly02

RivetingRoger wrote: »

Didn't hear anyone complain about Patrick almost fellating himself on Kilcruit in the last 2F .............

theres looking around, and then doing what moore did.

moore looked nervous to be honest. he would fill the togs if he needed to throw goshen at the last with honeysuckle one side of him and epatante the other.

Slattsy

RivetingRoger wrote: »

Didn't hear anyone complain about Patrick almost fellating himself on Kilcruit in the last 2F .............

He didnt have any hurdles to jump though.

Morgans

akelly02 wrote: »

theres looking around, and then doing what moore did.

moore looked nervous to be honest. he would fill the togs if he needed to throw goshen at the last with honeysuckle one side of him and epatante the other.

I think that he is nervous, more about this horse than anything else but I think he was a little surprised that he was clear without having asked for anything, and had to make sure. Paddy Brennan is another who does it. I'd prefer to have a jockey who knows how their horse is traveling without checking with those around them. Carberry on Harchibald's Christmas Hurdle the epitome of it.

But if it is clear what Moore has to do, like jumping the last upsides two others, there won't be an issue.

I can remember the story when Sire de Grugy won the CHampion Chase, that he asked Ruby who was falling back through the field, where he should go running down the hill.

akelly02

Morgans wrote: »

I think that he is nervous, more about this horse than anything else but I think he was a little surprised that he was clear without having asked for anything, and had to make sure. Paddy Brennan is another who does it. I'd prefer to have a jockey who knows how their horse is traveling without checking with those around them. Carberry on Harchibald's Christmas Hurdle the epitome of it.

But if it is clear what Moore has to do, like jumping the last upsides two others, there won't be an issue.

I can remember the story when Sire de Grugy won the CHampion Chase, that he asked Ruby who was going back, where he should go running down the hill.

sire de grugy, by god i had that lad in every multiple alive that year, one of my favourite horses.

Labaik

akelly02 wrote: »

yea , its happened so many times, me bollix

Listen it feels often when your the one getting done for a few bob when it happens, happy diamond royston french comes to mind :pac:

Morgans

Labaik wrote: »

Listen it feels often when your the one getting done for a few bob when it happens, happy diamond royston french comes to mind :pac:

21 years ago.

NaiveMelodies

McShee not in the county. Pity the trainer didn't sell him.

NaiveMelodies

NaiveMelodies wrote: »

Anyone have the handicap entries list?

# Sad state of affairs when knowledgeable sounding :P folk ask this question every year.

# By that I mean these handicap lists are almost "eyes only" , and are either kept a secret until as late as possible; or are very hard to find. Why they can't be easily found in the Public Domain as soon as is beyond me.. It's almost exactly like how trainers operate, when they 'protect a horse's mark' for a 'race that's been the plan all year' . Rancid altogether :mad: