Doncaster Lincoln

M

Marb

Journeyman
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
7,587
The ground is likely soft right now. Your Fired looks good to me in these going conditions.
This has won at left handed tracks and has a nice turn of foot. Fill your boots. Good each way value. ;)
 
Last edited:
What's the word on the draw? It isn't in the card I copied.

Also, what's the situation regarding Buick & Doyle and the Godolphin trainers?
 
I had Express Himself on my tracker since his first run last season at Pontefract. Took him off after he was beaten over 10f at Donny and then again in the Cambs. He then won at Haydock over a mile despite losing three lengths at the start (he is prone to this but only really badly at Haydock, lost the same amount in the summer with Moore onboard before collaring Birdman on the line.) Eight pounds up from that win in October seems a lot but he did so well to win given his start and the steady gallop. He stays further than a mile so the ground isn't an issue. Anything over double figures is worth taking.
 
I had a few quid E/W on Ocean Tempest at 40s yesterday
3lb below the mark when he won it 2 years ago and Frankie's booked for the ride
One to watch over the coming weeks is Gabriel's Kaka who is so well handicapped he didn't even make the cut for the Spring Mile!
 
If we could be guaranteed he'd return to within half a stone of his best form, Ocean Tempest would be carrying the mortgage. Even his Meydan form last spring would be just about good enough to win this but I've backed him often enough off higher marks to believe he's out of love with the game. Kirby rode him when he won a couple of years ago and, even with Dettori there, I imagine Kirby would have chosen Battle Of Marathon ahead of him, and I would take a fair bit of convincing about his chances.

I might just wait until we've seen the Spring Mile before having a bet this time.

I'm looking at the likes of You're Fired, Udododontu, Mutarakez, Bravo Zolo, Storm Rock and Secret Brief as a short list.
 
Desert Orchid said:
If we could be guaranteed he'd return to within half a stone of his best form, Ocean Tempest would be carrying the mortgage.
Click to expand...

in the last 50 years there have probably been 3 or 4 horses in every running age 7 or older..so probably about 180 runners..only 2 have won.

48/50 years have been won by hosses [luv u Clive] age 6 or less.
 
How many of those 180 would have been as well handicapped as Ocean Tempest?

How many of them would have been guaranteed to return to their very best form?
 
I know. But you know how much I hate meaningless stats :)

A couple of years ago the 2nd, 3rd and 4th were 8, 7 and 7 and beaten in a four-way photo. Different luck in running and they could have been 1-2-3.

The day I start looking at the age of a horse, rather than what it has achieved and might be likely to achieve, is the day I know I should be packing it in :)
 
Last edited:
22 horses with only 8lbs separating them all is a punter's nightmare.

Ond friend from Malton uses to run a book during the flat season and punt over the jumps

One look at the Donnie card tells me why.

However another Malton based man could have the answer with Rene Mathis 5lb higher than when he won the Bunbury Cup shouldn't stop him.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I'm looking at the likes of You're Fired, Udododontu, Mutarakez, Bravo Zolo, Storm Rock and Secret Brief as a short list.
Click to expand...

Respective ages of that group, by the way:

5, 4, 4, 4, 4

I couldn't have told you that until a moment ago. I was going by what they've done and what I think they might be able to do.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
aye..stats mean nowt...best ignored DO.:)
Click to expand...

Check my bets for the last three years against the stats :p

The vast majority of stats are no more than coincidences. I'm prepared to accept the odd stat may have some significance. People said for long enough it was impossible to carry over 11-0 in the national, didn't they?

C4 quoted another stat in the Midlands National, something about weight carried. It ruled out everything bar something like three or four runners. All gubbed.

It's not the stat that counts, it's the significance of it. Had my short-list included a seven or eight year old, there's no way I'd have let its age put me off. I might even have got much better value because of the short-sightedness of so many punters regarding stats.
 
Last edited:
It's not a question of whether or not it's silly and I'd be pretty certain you're ratings would pinpoint the winner far more often than a set of coincidences. The coincidences are not unlike those quoted by football commentators, along the lines of "Invertottie Howkers haven't scored a goal away to Inter Milanda since 1995".

It's about the context of the 'stats'.

It's highly unlikely that a 6yo or 7yo would win a Grand National, for example, but that's because it would be very rare for one so young to be physically mature enough for the test. It would also be highly unlikely for an outside-drawn horse to win a 15-runner field 5f h'cap at Chester, but it wouldn't be impossible for either stat to be broken.

I'm sure there are contributors on here who have degrees in maths and/or statistics. Perhaps they can shed some light on the importance and relevance of the statistics.

Here's a quote from this week's Weekender's ten-year trends guide to the big race:

What is essential is handicap experience as the last winner lacking this was High Low back in 1992.
Click to expand...

No attempt to dig into the reason. So if Frankel turned up in the Lincoln, it would be dismissed out of hand? I would be asking how many runners (as you did mention) have attempted to beat this stat and how well handicapped were they on the day.

Another quote from the same item:

Six of the last ten had won at the distance.
Click to expand...

So four out of ten - almost half - hadn't. And the guy is putting this forward as a meaningful stat?

I do have to say, EC1, I find it disappointing when you take the "it was silly of me to.." attitude. It comes across (I don't know if that's the intention) as a sarcastic dismissal of people who question the idea of following stats blindly.
 
Surely the only way of looking at these stats is to look at the expected win/place versus actual win/place for whatever categories you're trying to analyse.

So use betfair SP as the best estimate of a horse's true chance and then work out whether 7yos/greys/horses with an r in their name underperform or overperform versus that expectation.
 
Very much like the awful Tanya's "stat" about "only two favourites have won this (Cheltenham) handicap in ten years!"

well at a usual 7/1 the field that's above average you doughnut
 
Desert Orchid said:
I do have to say, EC1, I find it disappointing when you take the "it was silly of me to.." attitude. It comes across (I don't know if that's the intention) as a sarcastic dismissal of people who question the idea of following stats blindly.
Click to expand...

i have no problem with questioning of anything DO..here is where i have a problem...people assuming i believe any old stat and just randomly shoved a stat up a 5 year old could poke holes in..like i am a dummy to just believe anything spoon fed me.

I posted some figures last night that i thought relevant to this "stat"..but got f00k all responses..but folk hurry on to post replies if its in a negative way...thats a pity but all too prevalent on here ...some here rush to pull down without any back up to their argument....but there is never the same effort put into rushing to agree or congratulate.....just the rush to put down.....thats a real shame..and imo stops new people from even bothering

If we want to assume i'm not some wet behind the ears newbie to the game..i'll back my stat up with some reality..judge if this is "coincidence".

Taken from 2 years flat data using Racing Systems builder

A+B class handicaps..all distances

4yo = 93/1123 = 8.28% = ROI -18%
5yo = 42/520 = 8.08% = ROI -12%
6yo = 18/315 = 5.71% = ROI -49%
7yo+ = 13/261 = 4.98% = ROI -42%

Its fair to say that the older horses it gets harder to win class B handicaps overall just looking at those figures there..but its even harder to win B handicaps at the more competitive mile division where competition is tougher and there are more younger horses involved..the 7f to 9f area is very tough for older horses at this level. There are a lot of horses competing in this area which gives youth an edge.

Another big handicap in this distance area is the cambridgeshire..again a race where horses age 7+ are 1 winner in the last 40 years,,probably 3 try a year.

Back to the 2 years worth of data

A+B handicaps ...7.5f to <10f

4yo = 19/299 = 6.35% = ROI -5%
5yo = 13/132 = 9.85% = ROI +56%
6yo = 3/74 = 4.05% = ROI -59%
7YO+ = 1/54 = 1.85% = ROI -90%

Do they look like a coincidence?



I've just seen Clive's post above..a classic example of someone who never congratulates or posts positively..towards certain posters.... but is oh so hasty to ridicule..thats a cnt of a post Clive..

i'm tired of reading sh1t like that on here. Posts like that make me want to never read the forum again..and don't add anything to the forum except add a nasty taste. You might think i'm an easy target for put downs..but i'll guarantee you i'm not old lad. Please pack in with the targeting of myself in that way..its not smart or clever..its boring and shows you in a simpletons light imo.
 
Last edited:
BennyB said:
Surely the only way of looking at these stats is to look at the expected win/place versus actual win/place for whatever categories you're trying to analyse.

So use betfair SP as the best estimate of a horse's true chance and then work out whether 7yos/greys/horses with an r in their name underperform or overperform versus that expectation.
Click to expand...

Something along these lines. (Although I wouldn't be 100% convinced the Betfair sp represents a horse's true chance - I'd say it represents the betting public's perception of its true chance.)
 
EC1 said:
i have no problem with questioning of anything DO..here is where i have a problem...people assuming i believe any old stat and just randomly shoved a stat up a 5 year old could poke holes in..like i am a dummy to just believe anything spoon fed me.

I posted some figures last night that i thought relevant to this "stat"..but got f00k all responses..but folk hurry on to post replies if its in a negative way...thats a pity but all to prevalent on here ...some here rush to pull down without any back up to their argument....but there is never the same effort put into rushing to agree or congratulate.....just the rush to put down.....thats a real shame..and imo stops new people from even bothering

If we want to assume i'm not some wet behind the ears newbie to the game..i'll back my stat up with some reality..judge if this is "coincidence".

Taken from 2 years flat data using Racing Systems builder

A+B class handicaps..all distances

4yo = 93/1123 = 8.28% = ROI -18%
5yo = 42/520 = 8.08% = ROI -12%
6yo = 18/315 = 5.71% = ROI -49%
7yo+ = 13/261 = 4.98% = ROI -42%

Its fair to say that the older horses it gets harder to win class B handicaps overall just looking at those figures there..but its even harder to win B handicaps at the more competitive mile division where competition is tougher and there are more younger horses involved..the 7f to 9f area is very tough for older horses at this level. There are a lot of horses competing in this area which gives youth an edge.

Another big handicap in this distance area is the cambridgeshire..again a race where horses age 7+ are 1 winner in the last 40 years,,probably 3 try a year.

Back to the 2 years worth of data

A+B handicaps ...7.5f to <10f

4yo = 19/299 = 6.35% = ROI -5%
5yo = 13/132 = 9.85% = ROI +56%
6yo = 3/74 = 4.05% = ROI -59%
7YO+ = 1/54 = 1.85% = ROI -90%

Do they look like a coincidence?



I've just seen Clive's post above..a classic example of someone who never congratulates or posts positively..towards certain posters.... but is oh so hasty to ridicule..thats a cnt of a post Clive..

i'm tired of reading sh1t like that on here. Posts like that make me want to never read the forum again..and don't add anything to the forum but add a nasty taste. You might think i'm an easy target for put downs..but i'll guarantee you i'm not old lad. Please pack in with the targeting of myself in that way..its not smart or clever..its boring and shows you in a simpletons light imo.
Click to expand...

you need to grow up

it is in response and endorsing bennys post that stats should be seen in relation to the price. If you can't see the ridiculousness of Tanya's "observation" then more fool you.

its a pure example of yet another "stat" trotted out unthinkingly

the age stat in the Lincoln doesn't mean much eitehr. Aside from standard deviation and so on, it's pretty clear that horses in that age group are more likely to be exposed (we need a stat to tell us that?) but that certainly doesn't preclude an Indivudal horse that may still fit the profile
 
EC1 said:
here is where i have a problem...people assuming i believe any old stat and just randomly shoved a stat up a 5 year old could poke holes in..like i am a dummy to just believe anything spoon fed me.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer to believe you know from my private exchanges with you that you know I would not regard you as a dummy or believe anything spoon fed to you. It just looked to me - surprisingly, given your normal approach - that you were offering a stat (which you later said was done to try to be helpful) which I, like your 5yo, felt holes could be poked in.

Your normal approach is so much more substantive than that.

I'm not surprised the RSB stats back up the stat. Younger horses are, by their very nature, far more likely to be on an upward curve than older established types but some of the betting public (I'm not innocent of the charge myself) will keep backing the older horses more out of a sense of belief in the horse/trainer/jockey than in the cold hard facts that it almost certainly won't win. But there is still the chance that it might. It's just that that chance isn't truly represented by its odds.
 
Back
Top