Cheltenham 2021 Antepost

Morgans

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Numerous respected judges including Andy Holding, Andy Gibson, Gavan Lynch, Kevin Blake and (divides opinion) Simon Rowlands have all now referenced the time at the weekend in an indifferent or negative manner. The finishing speed of all horses was sub 100% of race average which strongly suggests Navajo Pass and the field went off too fast, as does the 7 seconds quicker for the first mile and subsequent slow finish compared to the novice race. The race ran immediately after, which was supposed to be a competitive handicap, finished in the same manner with exaggerated winning distances and 6 of 11 not finishing at all.

Incidentally, Goshen's triumph hurdle time wasn't fantastic either. By all reasonable metrics he'd have finished slightly behind Saint Roi's (carried 2lb less) county hurdle time, or slightly ahead of Aramon (carried 6lb more) for a better comparison with last year's open company animals.

It's hard to quantify how good wide margin heavy ground victories actually are, which is why people lean on times in cases like this with unknowns over how good the bare form is. Theres plenty of examples of excellent times in strung out heavy ground wins that were great indicators going forward. Faugheen and Sprinter Sacre are two easy examples of horses who ran insanely fast as novices and gained a mini fan club early on in doing so. Goshen may well be a monster but its not been proven on the clock whatsoever as yet

Isn't the point that even using time analysis, that Goshen didn't drop far below 100% for the final furlongs (the graph is on the attheraces website) while Navajo pass fell in a hole. So, while the pace was so strong that it burst 156 rated Navajo Pass, Goshen finished the race pulling a cart, and ran relatively consistently high fractions for the final five furlongs. Yet to those who want to knock the form, it's viewed as evidence. Anyone relying on their eyes will tell you that Goshen didn't stop galloping despite being patted town the neck a half furlong from home.

Hulk Hands

Morgans wrote: »

Time analysis gives the impression of intelligence but is only one, and in my view, very flimsy aspect of form study. Usually it is used to decry form and gives people whatever they want to hear.

There was no one claiming that the novices should be in the supreme despite their performances in the clock being on a par with song for someone.

It does make people sound intelligent, but are essentially straw man arguements.

Grand yeah, it's all nonsense. All those pundits are completely wasting their time with their analysis.

Didn't you have another long argument last year that it's more important to back winners rather than backing horses at odds bigger than their true price? Again, every pro gambler in history and indeed, mathematics, are wrong, and you are correct.

Morgans

Morgans wrote: »

Isn't the point that even using time analysis, that Goshen didn't drop far below 100% for the final furlongs (the graph is on the attheraces website) while Navajo pass fell in a hole. So, while the pace was so strong that it burst 156 rated Navajo Pass, Goshen finished the race pulling a cart, and ran relatively consistently high fractions for the final five furlongs. Yet to those who want to knock the form, it's viewed as evidence. Anyone relying on their eyes will tell you that Goshen didn't stop galloping despite being patted town the neck a half furlong from home.

So, sing for someone, rated 156, Navajo pass rated 154 go too strong a pace. Goshen maintains that pace that was deemed too strong and it's somehow a negative for Goshen.

Morgans

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Grand yeah, it's all nonsense. All those pundits are completely wasting their time with their analysis.

Didn't you have another long argument last year that it's more important to back winners rather than backing horses at odds bigger than their true price? Again, every pro gambler in history and indeed, mathematics, are wrong, and you are correct.

I remember that. The point was that if you had a target to win 500 euro in a day. You would find it far easier to do so with a bank of 10000 to play with than 50 euro. Anyone thinking different is a fool.

Yes, derail away.

Morgans

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Grand yeah, it's all nonsense. All those pundits are completely wasting their time with their analysis.

Didn't you have another long argument last year that it's more important to back winners rather than backing horses at odds bigger than their true price? Again, every pro gambler in history and indeed, mathematics, are wrong, and you are correct.

No, none of those pundits use time alone. All of them would admit that it is sometimes useful and less useful on turf and less useful for national hunt. But it sounds intelligent and impresses plenty.

Morgans

Morgans wrote: »

So, sing for someone, rated 156, Navajo pass rated 154 go too strong a pace. Goshen maintains that pace that was deemed too strong and it's somehow a negative for Goshen.

I'll wait for your explanation on this one.

Hulk Hands

Morgans wrote: »

So, sing for someone, rated 156, Navajo pass rated 154 go too strong a pace. Goshen maintains that pace that was deemed too strong and it's somehow a negative for Goshen.

Who said it was a negative? You said the below, which is hyperbolic simplistic nonsense of 'Goshen is a machine because my eyes tell me so'. He could be, and the visuals and bare results are very impressive. We've little other data to go on, so times are the obvious next small step of trying to piece together the strength of the performance.. You dismissed analysis of the time as 'completely pointless' and in doing so are calling the work done this week of all those respected pundits as completely pointless also.

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.

It's been pointed out to you multiple times that SFS was being scrubbed along after 6f. Do you think horses run up to their mark on every occasion? Friend or foe, rated 10lb inferior, could go that pace for the first mile. SFS couldn't. Something was clearly amiss.
Goshen didn't maintain that pace, the slow second half of the race told you that. He's a relentless galloper, loves the ground, and could clearly maintain his running far better than NP who fell in a hole, with the distance becomign exaggerated once tired.
If none of the 5 or so articles written this week can't convince you, nothing I say is going to.

Morgans wrote: »

There was no one claiming that the novices should be in the supreme despite their performances in the clock being on a par with song for someone

Nonsense like this shows you actually don't even understand the concept. At least you've changed from your original assertions that SFS wouldn't have been seen against the novices to being on a par. Did you do a bit of googling about how to calculate times?

Morgans wrote: »

No, none of those pundits use time alone. All of them would admit that it is sometimes useful and less useful on turf and less useful for national hunt. But it sounds intelligent and impresses plenty.

That's a few times now you've accused me of coming on a forum of strangers, on a section which ive barely posted in years, and attempting to sound intelligent. Perhaps that's how you get your kicks, acting superior on a forum of posters half your age and where you've repeatedly demeaned the standard of posting in the past

Morgans wrote: »

I remember that. The point was that if you had a target to win 500 euro in a day. You would find it far easier to do so with a bank of 10000 to play with than 50 euro. Anyone thinking different is a fool.

Yes, derail away.

This is complete gibberish. It's actually not worth getting into again. Google how to be a successful punter. Read Patrick Vietch's book or something. Ask yourself why you're still able to get bets on decades into your punting life. Literally every sucessful punter in history holds the oppposite view yet are 'fools' in your eyes

The Tetrarch

MOD NOTE

It is that time of year when excitable sorts come to the forum and educate the less knowledgeable.
The language in the above post is getting into the flaming area.
Another thing I do not like is multiquoting other posts and "correcting" other people.
If you want to put up your selection please do, and of course put up the reason(s) as required by the charter.

Keep it civil.

posturingpat

Just backed remastered in the National hunt chase ew. Surprised he's so big, race will suit perfect going on his last run and plenty ahead of him wont turn up.

Morgans

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Who said it was a negative? You said the below, which is hyperbolic simplistic nonsense of 'Goshen is a machine because my eyes tell me so'. He could be, and the visuals and bare results are very impressive. We've little other data to go on, so times are the obvious next small step of trying to piece together the strength of the performance.. You dismissed analysis of the time as 'completely pointless' and in doing so are calling the work done this week of all those respected pundits as completely pointless also.

It's been pointed out to you multiple times that SFS was being scrubbed along after 6f. Do you think horses run up to their mark on every occasion? Friend or foe, rated 10lb inferior, could go that pace for the first mile. SFS couldn't. Something was clearly amiss.
Goshen didn't maintain that pace, the slow second half of the race told you that. He's a relentless galloper, loves the ground, and could clearly maintain his running far better than NP who fell in a hole, with the distance becomign exaggerated once tired.
If none of the 5 or so articles written this week can't convince you, nothing I say is going to.

Nonsense like this shows you actually don't even understand the concept. At least you've changed from your original assertions that SFS wouldn't have been seen against the novices to being on a par. Did you do a bit of googling about how to calculate times?

That's a few times now you've accused me of coming on a forum of strangers, on a section which ive barely posted in years, and attempting to sound intelligent. Perhaps that's how you get your kicks, acting superior on a forum of posters half your age and where you've repeatedly demeaned the standard of posting in the past

This is complete gibberish. It's actually not worth getting into again. Google how to be a successful punter. Read Patrick Vietch's book or something. Ask yourself why you're still able to get bets on decades into your punting life. Literally every sucessful punter in history holds the oppposite view yet are 'fools' in your eyes

You quoted in post "Numerous respected judges including Andy Holding, Andy Gibson, Gavan Lynch, Kevin Blake and (divides opinion) Simon Rowlands have all now referenced the time at the weekend in an indifferent or negative manner."

So, to answer the question from your latest post "Who said it was a negative?" its above.

I posted up the attached from Simon Rowland's time analysis, which shows that Goshen maintained his pace as Navajo Pass and Friend or Foe folded.



Simon Rowlands added the caveat, and Kevin Blake mentioned it in Betfair podcast of how no allowance is taken for the deterioration of the ground in the time analysis.

Usually when a horses fall away off a strong pace its seen as a sign that they went too fast - something we can all agree on. This can be easily seen by eye, but backed up by time and official figures, all the better.

Both NP and SFS undoubtedly paid for going too fast for their own good. But what I can't see is how this is not a positive for Goshen. He maintained what was too strong a pace, as evidenced from Simon Rowlands analysis.

On the bare times, Navajo Pass wouldnt win the novice hurdle. This is what the initial time analysis was pointing out and was used to knock Goshen. SFS ran the same time as the novices. Those who dont understand time, would suggest that as a result they were of relative merit. It is what you, and the time analysis are doing to suggest it wasn't a stand out performance from Goshen.

Even when the sectionals came through a few days later from the time gods, 7 lengths clear in the first mile you say, rather than seeing what is clear, its still retrofitted to the initial argument.

In general, time analysis can shed some light on some aspects of horses performance, but it is far less likely to do so in cut up changing conditions, in heavy ground, where there are large margins of error. There is no way of knowing just how eased down Song For Someone was.

Those who use time effectively understand this - and give large health warnings. It is far better suited to all-weather flat races. People pay Simon Rowlands to talk about time. Andy Holding uses it, but not exclusively in his tipping. I dont think Gavin Lynch or Kevin Blake would ever say that they are time specialist tipsters/punters. I have read/listened to all speak on the subject and while i'd rate it one step above dosage as a prediction tool, I'm keen to see what could be learned from it. I am happier to trust my eyes and it has served me well.

But yes parrotting the same nonsense without the health warnings that they give or imply has the hallmarks of intelligence with none of the insight. My age, 42, your age, or the age of the readers is of no interest to me.

Same with the punting and your professional books and the gibberish. If you are tasked with winning 500 euro in a day to save your kids life, it is far easier to do by returning a 1% ROI rather than 100%. This is often lost while people search for value.

There is a sense that betting on a 10/1 shot that should be a 5/1 shot, but loses is preferable to betting on a 1/3 shot that should be 1/2, but still wins. A fetish.

I backed a horse called Eye Van at Naas a couple of weeks ago - backed at 10/1 went off 9/4. Lost, unplaced. I shouldnt be congratulating myself more than someone who backed a horse at 1/2 and drifted to 1/1 and won.

Horses don't run to form - however if you have a 1000 at 1/2 and the horse is 10% below form there still is a substantial chance that you will collect, even if your judgement is wrong. You have some margin for error. If you have your 50 euro on at 10/1, not only can you not afford to have your horse run below form, but in all likeliehood, you are hoping that some of those ahead of it in the market do not perform to 100%.

It doesn't have to be one or the other, but if someone came on here and every day for a month tipped an odds on winner there would be plenty claiming how it was too easy. You can take that to any matematician or gambling expert to clarify.

Darc19

The Shunter is entered in five different races including paddy power plate and county hurdle.

I presume it will only run in one. My current bet is on county hurdle (25's)

Is this the most likely race or do you think the plate is more likely?

zpehtsfd

Darc19 wrote: »

The Shunter is entered in five different races including paddy power plate and county hurdle.

I presume it will only run in one. My current bet is on county hurdle (25's)

Is this the most likely race or do you think the plate is more likely?

Was just looking at him. I see he's entered in the big 2m handicap hurdle in Kelso on Saturday week. They have the 100K bonus on offer if he wins that race and then wins at Cheltenham. He'll just have to carry a penalty if he wins at Kelso. Cat before the horse but should be interesting. I'd say he'll stick to hurdles if they go that route. At the moment i'm not sure if he would even get in off 134 in any of the handicaps?

abarkie

Darc19 wrote: »

The Shunter is entered in five different races including paddy power plate and county hurdle.

I presume it will only run in one. My current bet is on county hurdle (25's)

Is this the most likely race or do you think the plate is more likely?

I thought there was a rule implemented last year or maybe 2 years ago, to stop you declaring for two races over the festival

Morgans

abarkie wrote: »

I thought there was a rule implemented last year or maybe 2 years ago, to stop you declaring for two races over the festival

Yeah, that's in place. There are a few contenders, especially in the Mares races, that could double up if they were allowed.

NaiveMelodies

Morgans wrote: »

I backed a horse called Eye Van at Naas a couple of weeks ago - backed at 10/1 went off 9/4. Lost, unplaced. I shouldnt be congratulating myself more than someone who backed a horse at 1/2 and drifted to 1/1 and won.

In the long run you will show a better ROI though, if you continue to beat SP and the 1/2 punter does not.
It really is basic math.

Morgans

NaiveMelodies wrote: »

In the long run you will show a better ROI though, if you continue to beat SP and the 1/2 punter does not.
It really is basic math.

Only if you win. Bet on the horse you think will win rather than the horse that is overpriced. Not to be overstated, I wouldn't recommend laying 100/1 shots every race but used judiciously keeping your betting strategy simple works.

And working with a bigger bank with a lower ROI can make you more overall pure profit.

Case in point today - the horse that I most fancied today to win was volkovka at Exeter - a horse that I've in the tracker. Didn't have a bet but was 8/11 overnight. SP was 13/8. A bad miss really.

BOG means it's not an issue. Value seekers will tell you betting on it at 8/11 is poor judgement. Windswept Girl, 7/2 overnight and backed into 2/1, finished second. Those who got 7/2 can feel smug with their loss. There is no guarantee that beating SP works out (markets are hardly pure) and on another day Volkovka starts 1/2. Your judgement is no better or worse the way the market goes. Focus betting on the horse that wins.

A month ago I backed portstorm in the river Don at Doncaster. 40s ew. Drifted to 50s. Finished second. To those who see betting as beating the SP, it was a bad bet.

It was RPs Graeme Rodway who said he likes when his horses drift on a podcast. David Jennings was shocked and asked why - Jennings coming from the point of view that a horse shortening meant his horse was fancied - Rodway simply said, I get more money when he wins. I don't like Rodway in generally hut it was a refreshing angle. Before the prices, concentrate on picking the winner.

FatRat

Morgans wrote: »

Only if you win. Bet on the horse you think will win rather than the horse that is overpriced. Not to be overstated, I wouldn't recommend laying 100/1 shots every race but used judiciously keeping your betting strategy simple works.

And working with a bigger bank with a lower ROI can make you more overall pure profit.

Case in point today - the horse that I most fancied today to win was volkovka at Exeter - a horse that I've in the tracker. Didn't have a bet but was 8/11 overnight. SP was 13/8. A bad miss really.

BOG means it's not an issue. Value seekers will tell you betting on it at 8/11 is poor judgement. Windswept Girl, 7/2 overnight and backed into 2/1, finished second. Those who got 7/2 can feel smug with their loss. There is no guarantee that beating SP works out (markets are hardly pure) and on another day Volkovka starts 1/2. Your judgement is no better or worse the way the market goes. Focus betting on the horse that wins.

A month ago I backed portstorm in the river Don at Doncaster. 40s ew. Drifted to 50s. Finished second. To those who see betting as beating the SP, it was a bad bet.

It was RPs Graeme Rodway who said he likes when his horses drift on a podcast. David Jennings was shocked and asked why - Jennings coming from the point of view that a horse shortening meant his horse was fancied - Rodway simply said, I get more money when he wins. I don't like Rodway in generally hut it was a refreshing angle. Before the prices, concentrate on picking the winner.

This is some load of nonsense

del roy

I think you have to beat the bookies at the price at least 50% of the time and back enough winners just to stay ahead in this game.

Long term beating the price helps but at least 30% of them have to be winning.

Remember "you can't eat VALUE"

Regarding Graeme Rodway and drifters

I would stop listening to him after that statement, how many drifters win ? very very few.

TheMilkyPirate

Awful ****e sign up offers out there. Will they get better closer to Cheltenham would you think? My "mother" wants to open a paddy power account

Morgans

del roy wrote: »

I think you have to beat the bookies at the price at least 50% of the time and back enough winners just to stay ahead in this game.

Long term beating the price helps but at least 30% of them have to be winning.

Remember "you can't eat VALUE"

Regarding Graeme Rodway and drifters

I would stop listening to him after that statement, how many drifters win ? very very few.

Interesting. One of the biggest certainties (with hindsight of course) this year was Royale Pagaille at Haydock. What turned out to be a high 160s horse running against soon-to-be-retired plodders. Drifted from 5/4 to 11/5 SP. Those who backed him all week into 5/4 weren't wrong. Sams Adventure, running today, was punted against him. Goshen last weekend is another high profile example, drifted from 5/2-100/30.

If you concentrate on backing winners first, leave the price worry about itself. Of course the bigger price the better, and of course the more you beat the SP the better.

The idea of value centres on each punter being able to make their own market, judging the probability of each horse winning, with the largest discrepancy between your judgement and that available to bet on as the best source of success. If you rate one at 6s and he is available at 10s great. Doesnt mean that the 6/1 shot is the most likely winner of the race.

Also most punters are doing it as a hobby, pitting their wits and solving a puzzle, rather than a pure money-making scheme.

To bring it back to tips - Im warming to Glens of Antrim in the Mares Novice and took 20s last night And the one horse that I think will win today is Acapella Bourgoise - took 7/4. Shorter now, but I hope he drifts before the off.

The Tetrarch

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Google how to be a successful punter. Read Patrick Vietch's book or something.

I would not recommend Patrick Veitch's book (not Vietch). There is little or nothing to learn from it.
Veitch started off with Exponential (2002), a 2yo gelding who ran 13th of 13 on its debut, beaten 17 lengths. In its second race on 16th August 2004 it opened at 100/1, and started at 8/1. Google says Veitch made almost a quarter of a million on the race. "(trainer said, regarding the improved form shown, gelding benefited from the experience of its first run and had also strengthened up between its two races)". :rolleyes:

Enemy Number One, the secrets of the UK's most feared professional punter, by Patrick Veitch, reveals nothing, perhaps because he has no secrets, except horses running very badly, and then running very well, for reasons known only to him.

del roy

Morgans wrote: »

Interesting. One of the biggest certainties (with hindsight of course) this year was Royale Pagaille at Haydock. What turned out to be a high 160s horse running against soon-to-be-retired plodders. Drifted from 5/4 to 11/5 SP. Those who backed him all week into 5/4 weren't wrong. Sams Adventure, running today, was punted against him. Goshen last weekend is another high profile example, drifted from 5/2-100/30.

If you concentrate on backing winners first, leave the price worry about itself. Of course the bigger price the better, and of course the more you beat the SP the better.

The idea of value centres on each punter being able to make their own market, judging the probability of each horse winning, with the largest discrepancy between your judgement and that available to bet on as the best source of success. If you rate one at 6s and he is available at 10s great. Doesnt mean that the 6/1 shot is the most likely winner of the race.

Also most punters are doing it as a hobby, pitting their wits and solving a puzzle, rather than a pure money-making scheme.

To bring it back to tips - Im warming to Glens of Antrim in the Mares Novice and took 20s last night And the one horse that I think will win today is Acapella Bourgoise - took 7/4. Shorter now, but I hope he drifts before the off.

Couldn't agree more, you have to learn to believe in your judgement if you think a horse is too big at 10/1 then it normally is.

Slattsy

TheMilkyPirate wrote: »

Awful ****e sign up offers out there. Will they get better closer to Cheltenham would you think? My "mother" wants to open a paddy power account

Yes my wife has taken an interest in horses lately.

del roy

Slattsy wrote: »

Yes my wife has taken an interest in horses lately.

and her sister/brother in law soon

Shemale

Tritonic looked good there, took 5/1 with Skybet for the Triumph

zpehtsfd

del roy wrote: »

I think you have to beat the bookies at the price at least 50% of the time and back enough winners just to stay ahead in this game.

Long term beating the price helps but at least 30% of them have to be winning.

Remember "you can't eat VALUE"

Regarding Graeme Rodway and drifters

I would stop listening to him after that statement, how many drifters win ? very very few.

Always wondered about this so I wrote a software program many moons ago (2008) that compared the tissue prices to the SP of all winning horses. All prices were taken off PP website. I didn't include any races where there was a NR < 14/1. Ran the program over 2 years. First year showed 66% of all winners had been backed and 68% for the second year. Only a few % showed no change in price.

Although only a small sample size i thought the results were interesting. Must have stuck in my head cause i run from horses that drift.

Shemale

zpehtsfd wrote: »

Always wondered about this so I wrote a software program many moons ago (2008) that compared the tissue prices to the SP of all winning horses. All prices were taken off PP website. I didn't include any races where there was a NR < 14/1. Ran the program over 2 years. First year showed 66% of all winners had been backed and 68% for the second year. Only a few % showed no change in price.

Although only a small sample size i thought the results were interesting. Must have stuck in my head cause i run from horses that drift.

By tissue prices do you mean the opening show? If so where did you get this?

Anniepowaaa

another nail in the royal pagaille coffin there

zpehtsfd

Shemale wrote: »

By tissue prices do you mean the opening show? If so where did you get this?

Sorry yes opening price (i knew someone would correct me on that but was too lazy to change it).

Got them off PP website evening before raceday.

Shemale

Anniepowaaa wrote: »

another nail in the royal pagaille coffin there

What are you on about?