Charlie Hall Chase

Weird Al won't be able to cope with a bigger field, fitter rivals and a faster pace. I wouldn't have shortened him at all.
 
Ta!

Took me 9m 56s to put singles and doubles on using phone. incredible conversation.

Me. Can I a price for Restess Harry to win the RSA Chase at the Cheltenham Festival.
Her: What is the meeting?
Me: The Cheltenham Festival!
Her: Can find that meeting- is that its proper name.
Me: ( Slightly less calm) It is the Cheltenham Festival in March. The full race title is The Royal and Sun Alliance Chase.
Her: Can't find that- I'll speak to my colleague.
She comes back .
Her: We found it. Quotes 33's and takes my bet.
Me: Can I also have a double with Weird Al to win the Cheltenham GoldCup?
Her: Where is that run?

and so on and on and on.
AAAAAAAAArgh!
 
Tout Seul said:
Ta!

Took me 9m 56s to put singles and doubles on using phone. incredible conversation.

Me. Can I a price for Restess Harry to win the RSA Chase at the Cheltenham Festival.
Her: What is the meeting?
Me: The Cheltenham Festival!
Her: Can find that meeting- is that its proper name.
Me: ( Slightly less calm) It is the Cheltenham Festival in March. The full race title is The Royal and Sun Alliance Chase.
Her: Can't find that- I'll speak to my colleague.
She comes back .
Her: We found it. Quotes 33's and takes my bet.
Me: Can I also have a double with Weird Al to win the Cheltenham GoldCup?
Her: Where is that run?

and so on and on and on.
AAAAAAAAArgh!
Click to expand...

Any idea of the nationality of the call centre employee?
 
Tout Seul said:
Ta!

Took me 9m 56s to put singles and doubles on using phone. incredible conversation.

Me. Can I a price for Restess Harry to win the RSA Chase at the Cheltenham Festival.
Her: What is the meeting?
Me: The Cheltenham Festival!
Her: Can find that meeting- is that its proper name.
Me: ( Slightly less calm) It is the Cheltenham Festival in March. The full race title is The Royal and Sun Alliance Chase.
Her: Can't find that- I'll speak to my colleague.
She comes back .
Her: We found it. Quotes 33's and takes my bet.
Me: Can I also have a double with Weird Al to win the Cheltenham GoldCup?
Her: Where is that run?

and so on and on and on.
AAAAAAAAArgh!
Click to expand...

I think it took me a similar time to place a double with the Tote about Frankel (QEII) * NZ-Wales (RWC final)

Pond life
 
Weird Al's record is

Races 9
Wins 6
2nd 1
Unp 2 Last season's Hennessy and Gold Gup. Never really in either race and doubts about fitness prior to both.
First two races- a bumper and a novice hurdle- fields 16 and 18 respectively. Result - 2nd and win.

You may be right, Euro, but there is little evidence to support your position.
I thought he travelled reasonably well today and a nice ride from Murphy gave him the opportunity to go and win well.

I've liked the horse from the start and readily admit that I am not dispassionate in assessing his chances. My main concern when considering him for Cheltenham was the likelihood of good ground which might not favour him. Today was good ground so I am less concerned.
 
He wasn't right last year - he bounced badly in the Hennessy and then broke a blood vessel at Cheltenham . He is a serious animal and made TFR look slow this afternoon.
 
Last edited:
Tout Seul said:
I've liked the horse from the start and readily admit that I am not dispassionate in assessing his chances.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, I won't over egg the point.

In contrast to your telephone call I actually had a decent conversation with the Hills rep who took my top up on Rupert. He actually knew where and when the horse had ran today.
 
Slim
I'll take the Fifth on that as I don't like to give ammunition to support false arguments. Suffice to say it was not the person who should be handling racing bets without a period of training.
 
Tout Seul said:
Slim
I'll take the Fifth on that as I don't like to give ammunition to support false arguments. Suffice to say it was not the person who should be handling racing bets without a period of training.
Click to expand...

I was just wondering if you had got through to one of the Irish shops.
 
Euro . Your last post reminds me.
In the second half of the saga abridged above she offered me the price for Weird Al to win without the favourite, TFR, obviously for today's race. Perhaps I should have taken the opportunity for some real aftertiming.
 
Ardross said:
He wasn't right last year - he bounced badly in the Hennessy and then broke a blood vessel at Cheltenham . He is a serious animal and made TFR look slow this afternoon.
Click to expand...

Conditions were more in Weird Al's favour today, I think Ardross. Nothwithstanding the fact that he was getting weight, Time For Rupert is the horse to take from the race, imo - insofar as the Gold Cup is concerned at least.
 
I wouldn't be backing any of the first 3 today for the GC

In the last 20 years the 60 first 3 finishers in the Charlie Hall have netted one winner in the following GC..Looks Like Trouble..who finished 3rd...well beat as was only probably 60% on his seasonal debut

1 win from 60 doesn't encourage any confidence that this race has much influence in deciding a GC winner..in fact it does exactly the opposite..automatically reduces by 3 the horses you want to look at for the big one.
 
Last edited:
It's not a trial for the Gold Cup. We just happened to have had an above average renewal this year. If TfR had pissed the RSA he wouldn't have appeared today.
 
Euronymous said:
It's not a trial for the Gold Cup. We just happened to have had an above average renewal this year. If TfR had pissed the RSA he wouldn't have appeared today.
Click to expand...

he didn't piss it though

we have had other good runnings of the race..but its history tells you there is no GC winner there imo

if he wins the GC for you then i'll be first one to congratulate you
 
Well, history tells us that the Royal Lodge usually doesn't provide the Guineas winner. I really don't think these stats matter EC.
 
Euronymous said:
Well, history tells us that the Royal Lodge usually doesn't provide the Guineas winner. I really don't think these stats matter EC.
Click to expand...

but you think Weid Al doesn't like big fields..based on a fraction of the evidence

at end of day..all horse form is stats..its how we base our view of horses....stats is the whole game isn't it?..horse A likes slow ground..how do we judge that?..its 0/10 on that surface..looks like a stat to me..and one with a very small sample to boot

i am a believer in key races to a degree..and non key races..and this one does appear to be a non key one..same as the Fighting Fifth winners no longer win the CH
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
but you think Weid Al doesn't like big fields..based on a fraction of the evidence
Click to expand...

He looked completely out of his depth in the Hennessy, the only proper top draw race he's been in.


The key race thing I don't believe in for a second - just not interested.
 
Euronymous said:
He looked completely out of his depth in the Hennessy, the only proper top draw race he's been in.


The key race thing I don't believe in for a second - just not interested.
Click to expand...

your loss then imo...coz it can save you a lot of wasted ante post bets

there is a lot of info out there...and a lot of variables in the game..ignore the info at your peril

each to his own
 
EC1, I know you like this particular stat (Fighting Fifth another you have mentioned in previous years), but is this reason enough alone, to rule horses out?

Don't other factors also have to be considered?
 
Last edited:
The stat should, of course, have read "57 horses", as all ante-post punters had their stakes refunded in 2001 when the Gold Cup wasn't run. If it had, See More Business might have had a fair chance to buck the trend. Anyway, it didn't stop Davy Lad in 1975/76, did it? :whistle:
 
Grasshopper said:
EC1, I know you like this particular stat (Fighting Fifth another you have mentioned in previous years), but is this reason enough alone, to rule horses out?

Don't other factors also have to be considered?
Click to expand...

if there is years of evidence..i would say its as reliable as saying a horse doesn't like soft ground if its 0/5 ..or 0/10

yes other factors are a bonus of course..but can you give me a stat about a horse thats got 60 factors in its favour?

individual horse form at this level usually involves between 10 & 30 races in total..purely on a statistical basis thats not much evidence we have when you consider that just on the ground liking issue its split 5 ways with the different goings..distance form again can be split 5 or more ways...type of course split? ..what?.. 8 ways. So on each way we try and suss a horse we are looking at very small samples..probably 3 or 4 races sometimes...2 with Weird Al re big fields for example.

i'm not decrying any type of study by the way..but i think all angles are helpful..and shouldn't be dismissed too readily
 
Last edited:
rorydelargy said:
The stat should, of course, have read "57 horses", as all ante-post punters had their stakes refunded in 2001 when the Gold Cup wasn't run. If it had, See More Business might have had a fair chance to buck the trend. Anyway, it didn't stop Davy Lad in 1975/76, did it? :whistle:
Click to expand...

;)

to make up for 2001..go back another year..i believe it makes the 60 back up without another GC winner..i hope so anyway:lol:
 
Back
Top