Doncaster Lincoln

clivex said:
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
Click to expand...

me grow up..what ...out of that stage where i have usernames that i like to single out for treatment?

you don't change,,you hounded me and Seen off of TRF with same treatment...you grow up and do us all a favour eh?

i've never said it precludes an individual winning it..another misconception when people see stats...ooooh that means none can ever win mentality

The figures show its highly unprofitable following them..so are bad bets..or are we encouraging people to make unprofitable bets now on here?
 
Desert Orchid said:
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.)
Click to expand...

True but BSP is still the best estimate we have.

This is from the gospel according to Slim Chance.
 
For flat handicaps I think it's essential to read Stewart Simpson's Always Back Winners, published in the late 70s. It forms the cornerstone of my betting in those type races.
 
BennyB said:
True but BSP is still the best estimate we have.

This is from the gospel according to Slim Chance.
Click to expand...

Somewhat reluctantly, I have to accept this.

I worry about what influences or 'informs' (as the grey suits at work used to annoy me with) the betting public, though. Timeform? The Racing Post? The racing channels?
 
Euronymous said:
For flat handicaps I think it's essential to read Stewart Simpson's Always Back Winners, published in the late 70s. It forms the cornerstone of my betting in those type races.
Click to expand...

I have that up the loft. Interesting read.

Was it that book or another that was exposed as a work of fiction?
 
EC1 said:
me grow up..what ...out of that stage where i have usernames that i like to single out for treatment?

you don't change,,you hounded me and Seen off of TRF with same treatment...you grow up and do us all a favour eh?

i've never said it precludes an individual winning it..another misconception when people see stats...ooooh that means none can ever win mentality

The figures show its highly unprofitable following them..so are bad bets..or are we encouraging people to make unprofitable bets now on here?
Click to expand...

the post I made makes perfect sense and is prime example of thoughtless stats. What's the problem? Tell me why it wasnt

you we're not hounded off by anyone there. You blew it with paranoid abuse directed at any number of posters there . Also every thread was flooded. It pissed people off

cant really be bothered. If you want constant pat on the backs and someone to make you feel worthwhile, ring samaritans

although I would warn you that if you go on about time ratings to them they will be probably slash their own wrists
 
BennyB said:
True but BSP is still the best estimate we have.

This is from the gospel according to Slim Chance.
Click to expand...

I'm too hungover to get into this but if the Betfair SP was wildly inaccurate then why aren't you all making a killing beating it? I completely understand it's the "betting publics" amalgamated opinion but it's a very accurate opinion thst is formed. In one off races prices will be out but if you study big data samples then a 2.0 BSP will win 50% of the time.

If you're not beating BSP with you're bets you're in trouble.
 
Last edited:
Euronymous said:
It wouldn't surprise me, his ROI was startling. Or did you mean all the conquests he mentioned?
Click to expand...

:)

Both. The basic premise seemed pretty sound and is probably still somewhere in my subconscious when analysing races.

Is he the one who advocated following horses that "quickened" or something along those lines?

I do think the official handicapping approach has changed quite a bit since then too.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Somewhat reluctantly, I have to accept this.

I worry about what influences or 'informs' (as the grey suits at work used to annoy me with) the betting public, though. Timeform? The Racing Post? The racing channels?
Click to expand...

Or all of the above and what the horse are this morning.
 
Euronymous said:
For flat handicaps I think it's essential to read Stewart Simpson's Always Back Winners, published in the late 70s. It forms the cornerstone of my betting in those type races.
Click to expand...

That's given me some dose of nostalgia. Great memories. I can remember when my book arrived (maybe 1999 or 2000) and the fun I had with my Racing Post on a Saturday morning scoring up the cards. My favourite part of the book was his letter from William Hill. I dreamed about the day I would be restricted.

If I knew then what I know now...

EDIT - Just realised I'm thinking of a different book. Winners Back Winner by Clive Holt.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
:)


Is he the one who advocated following horses that "quickened" or something along those lines?

I do think the official handicapping approach has changed quite a bit since then too.
Click to expand...

It has, so I use a modification whereby I look for horses who have quickened but not won the race, either through being badly placed during the race (Bronze Angel in the Britannia, who was in the wrong place on the track) or quickened at the wrong time (Angel Gabrial in the Chester Cup.) I find these qualifiers obviously aren't raised that much because they didn't win the race.
 
What is essential is handicap experience as the last winner lacking this was High Low back in 1992.
Click to expand...

I can't say I fancy the favourite myself but it would seem Lord Of the Land has no chance anyway based on this stat. He's never run in a handicap. Neither had Mondialiste last year. He came within a neck of winning but had been running in better class.

Which brings us back to public perception...

Mondialiste was 25/1 for last year's Lincoln. Lord Of The Land is 9/2f.
 
Euronymous said:
It has, so I use a modification whereby I look for horses who have quickened but not won the race, either through being badly placed during the race (Bronze Angel in the Britannia, who was in the wrong place on the track) or quickened at the wrong time (Angel Gabrial in the Chester Cup.) I find these qualifiers obviously aren't raised that much because they didn't win the race.
Click to expand...

Yes. I latched on to Bronze Angel but not Angel Gabrial.

I often rate what I call races within races. They tend to involve those racing on the 'wrong' part of the track. It can certainly lead to value prices in future races.
 
Yep. And the exciting thing for me is that up until last year I only used this system if you will in big, ante-post races, but you find it day in day out watching gaff track races.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I can't say I fancy the favourite myself but it would seem Lord Of the Land has no chance anyway based on this stat. He's never run in a handicap. Neither had Mondialiste last year. He came within a neck of winning but had been running in better class.

Which brings us back to public perception...

Mondialiste was 25/1 for last year's Lincoln. Lord Of The Land is 9/2f.
Click to expand...

Agreed DO. Lord Of The Land may well win but anybody backing it at those odds, enjoy the winnings because they'll soon be handed back.

On the topic of stats. I never refer to them but each to their own and I do remember using them once - for this race actually - and it picked me the Hannon trained/Dane O'Neil ridden winner years ago (can't remember the name) and I've hardly had a bet in it since because not being a flat aficionado this is just too damn tricky to work out and I hate the fact that the draw can have such a big outcome which we won't know for sure until after the race despite the consolation race.

If I were to have another bet it would be for small for-interest-sake stakes and purely on stats. So who's the stat horse anybody ?
 
Last edited:
wilsonl said:
and I hate the fact that the draw can have such a big outcome which we won't know for sure until after the race despite the consolation race.
Click to expand...

This was on my mind too until I watched the replays of the last few years the other evening.

The trend now seems to be to converge in the centre soon after the start and gradually edge nearside but not all the way. It seems jockeys (and trainers?) have agreed it's best not to split and leave it for the 'best' horse to win.

Again, I read somewhere that nothing higher than 17 has won lately but plenty have gone very close so I wouldn't read anything into that either.

So I really don't think draw is that big a deal anymore. (So watch them split into three groups with one leaving the other two for dead.)
 
Last edited:
A combination of stats :ninja:, 10 minutes form studying and an extremely healthy dose of faith has seen my dart land on Man Of Harlech @ 20/1, 5 places 1/4 odds.

Easy.
 
I've no strong views on the Lincoln and will probably end up backing Mutarakez and Udodontu, both of them fairly lightly-raced and with possible improvement to come.

A horse I do quite fancy in the Spring Mile at the price - 25/1 - is Si Senor. He is 6lbs "well-in" on official figures. This is based on improved form shown on the AW since the weights came out. The price must be holding up on the basis that he's perceived to be a better horse on artificial surfaces than he is on turf but I think the case for that is far from made out. He's hard fit anyway and his last run in a valuable conditions race was arguably the best of his career. His draw may or may not be a problem - we'll see.

I think he has a somewhat better than average chance tomorrow and I'd price him up at about 14/1 so the current price looks decent and although I've not yet looked I suspect there'll be one or two firms paying each-way bets on the first five tomorrow which would be attractive as well.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top