Gold Cup 2009 (was: Denman)

Warbler said:
Eddie Freemantle has an interesting take on it in today's Observer:


"But let us imagine what the headlines would have been had Madison Du Berlais remained snowed in at Pipe's Somerset base, as he nearly was, and had missed the Levy Boards Chase. Denman would have been hailed for his 25 length demolition of Albertas Run, last years' Sun Alliance winner whose latest run was a creditable eight-length second to Kauto Star in the King George."
Click to expand...

Without MdB in the line-up Denman would have just pottered around. He certainly wouldn`t have won by 25 lengths.
 
Can I just ask what this is about the horse nearly falling over the last? I've watched the replay a couple of times, shown from more than one angle, and as far as I'm concerned he jumped it fine.
 
The race is a complete bogey, other than confirming MdB as an admirable, straightforward and talented individual. But as a formline, it cannot be taken seriously, and should be disregarded.

There is no point in rating anything from this event, imo, though I doubt that will stop the Official Handicapper absolutely crucifying MdB.
 
Muttley said:
Can I just ask what this is about the horse nearly falling over the last? I've watched the replay a couple of times, shown from more than one angle, and as far as I'm concerned he jumped it fine.
Click to expand...

No he didn't - he corkscrewed it and nearly came down!
 
KS is the class horse in the race

so was Denman yesterday

class horses don't always win Head

from what I can remember..nearly everyone on here thinks KS does not stay 3m2f and does not like Cheltenham

just a couple of reasons why KS is the worse fav since egg and spooner Beef Or Salmon was marked up in a similar slot

this forums view..well about 80%

I wonder if they will change their minds now
 
Headstrong said:
EC1, that stat is worthless, for one reason because the premise that horseraces always run true to stats is demonstrably false;
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that comment just displays a gross misunderstanding of the use of stats. No one ever claims they are there to guarantee a result, but the objective is to try and load the balance of probabilities on your side, when trying to profile the characteristics of a typical winner. You might argue that statistic are totally random? In certain disciplines such as random distribution they are, but there's other areas in real life, where they tend to occur and continue re-occur beyond the laws of random distribution for a reason and if you can satisfy yourself as to why, (by way of a cause and effect) then you might have the use of an elimination tool.

Oceanographers talk about the 50 year wave (its a theoretical wave that occurs when all the forces that generate a wave combine at the same time to provide something that will sink any ship). Occasionally it breaks, but for the most part you'd bet against happening. That Kauto Star is trying to do something that no other horse has ever done in history means that the percentage call is against him.
 
Last edited:
EC - when you're talking about the time of the race, why are you only comparing against one other race on the card? What about the other chases?
 
Nope Muttley you are not losing your marbles, not yet anyway! :)

I can't see a mistake either. He looked tired, granted, and was going slower than I've ever seen him race or jump, but cleared the fence fine.
 
To those quoting that 'statistic' about Gold Cup winners being unable to regain the championship:

a) how big is the sample size?
b) to what level of confidence is it statistically significant, and with what margin of error?
 
For it to be statistically significant it requires 30+ in the sample. I certainly haven't trawled through the races history (and have no intention of doing so) but I'd have thought it was within that? If any one else wants to work out 99%, 95%, and 90% error margins and confidence intervals - be my guest. One day, a horse will defy it, but for such time as it does, then the percentage call is that it won't, (and even if it does), the percentage call would remain the same, although you might to choose to weight things depending on a value judgement made about 'changes' to discriminating factors etc
 
Warbler said:
That Kauto Star is trying to do something that no other horse has ever done in history means that the percentage call is against him.
Click to expand...

For me that is bordering on, "there have been nine reds in a row so that means that the percentage call next time is black".

Are we more confident that there are factors that have led to this trend and that they apply to Kauto Star than we are that the previous races were not independent events.
 
For it to be statistically significant it requires 30+ in the sample. I certainly haven't trawled through the races history (and have no intention of doing so) but I'd have thought it was within that? If any one else wants to work out 99%, 95%, and 90% error margins and confidence intervals - be my guest.
Click to expand...

Aren't you supposed to come up with all that *before* you start proclaiming it a significant stat?
 
But i never used the word 'significant' (and certainly not in terms of maths) I said 'compelling'; in any case I have no desire to turn the thread into an academic exploration of statistics.

A quick count suggests there's 67 possible qualifiers maximum (winners of the race - provided I count, which is no given at the moment) I'd have thought that something in the region of 25-30 tried again?
 
I was coming on here before I go to bed to say 'take MDB out of the race and what would we be saying about Denman?' but I see Warbler's beaten me to it.

Another thing. For those who believe Cheltenham doesn't suit MDB, if you look at his RPRs relative to his ORs in his races there - not to mention the fact he was hardly weighted to win most of the races in which he was beaten - he's quite capable of running to form there.
 
1987 The Thinker - Fell 1989
1989 Desert Orchid - 3rd 1991
1990 Nortons Coin - PU 1992
1991 Gar` Savannah - 7th 1993, PU 1994
1993 Jodami - 8th 1995
1999 See More Business - 3rd 2002, 8th 2003

Interesting. Like KS, Jodami was second when defending his crown in 1994. The ground was really soft when he was beaten a distance the follwing year though.
 
Last edited:
betsmate said:
For me that is bordering on, "there have been nine reds in a row so that means that the percentage call next time is black".
Click to expand...

No. And it's so far off beam I don't no where to start. In the first case, roulette would fall within the realms of random distribution. The probability of the next spin would still be 50/50 (well technically speaking it would be something like 48.5/48.5). The laws of probability would only be gainst you if you'd bet on 10 consecutive reds, but by that time you've reduced those odds right down. Racing, and sports betting isn't random however, as things occur for a reason. Sometimes we understand these reasons, sometimes they're a bit more tenuous and sometime swe don't (but they still occur).

Let me give you a crude example and an offer (which I don't expect you to take me up on). In every major 100 metres athletics final until the day we die, I am happy to back the black men for £1000 if you'll back the white men in the field to the same amount?

There is a greyer area which was emphasised to be an old economics lecturer.

"Alun" he said "If you were chancellor of the exchequer (god forbid) and I could demonstrate to you that for the last 100 years consecutively, the annual conception rate in Aberdeen, just so happened to be identical to three decimal places to the UK's GDP growth, would you be prepared to use this as an indicator in making a forecast?"

Although this might invite a few answers, as it also verges into philosophy, it's a classic example of seemingly unrelated correlation where the knowledge deficit is such that we can't link the two by way of course effect, and yet the figures keep coming back year after year to a level which we might want to consider even if we don't understand why?

Incidentally, by way of slight digression since he's recently died. Patrick McGoohan in the Prisoner was confronted with an all telling computer that knew the answer to everything and could calculate everything. The people came to rely on this 'teacher' or was it 'professor'? and no where dare question its output. When ever they had any reservation they asked it, it told them, they did it. Number six duly blew it up by asking it the question that no one could answer, and it overloaded in smoke and flames.

What was the question? It's not as irrelevant as it sounds, as it goes to the heart of the argument about stats

be seeing you:ninja:
 
Last edited:
Generalising (in a field where it is usually dangerous to do so), aren't Black athletes genetically pre-disposed to running faster?

In the example of the Gold Cup, I don't think that there is such a factor that has been proved (or is suspected) to such a degree that it would affect the odds of Kauto Star winning a horse race on Friday 13th March 2009.

I accept that there could be a situation where the knowledge deficit is such that we can't link the two by way of course effect. But on something as specific as winning-losing-regaining and with such a small sample, on the balance of probability I would rather exclude it than include it from my reckoning. I certainly cant see how the "percentage call is against him" based on this fact.
 
Back
Top