Gold Cup 2009 (was: Denman)
- Thread starter Guest_
- Start date
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
None. I wonder what price SMB was in 01 before the foot and mouth kicked in.
Yes, because we understand the cause and affect, science has taught us about body types and muscular development etc although there are other explanations (which fascinating thought they are....I'll leave for the time being). You might however have offered me the same bet back and seen whether I'd have taken it in '100m freestyle'? In this case we have an understanding as to why something is difficult and wouldn't fall under random distribution. I'd contend that in a lot of major athletics events (human or equine) there are certain circumstances that conspire for or against a horses chances, and that in a lot cases there is a fair degree of explanation as to why one is advantaged or disadvantaged. This explains the frequency of similar outcomes which we group as statistical clusters. That's not to say they can't be defied, but it's essentially the difference between what I'll call the punter and the gambler. The latter is much more aware of the probability and bets like an accountant etc
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Ultimately stats only tell part of the story. They`ve got to be used in context. With racing it`s all about the era a given horse runs in. Best Mate won three Gold Cups and remained injury free, Kauto Star has had that same advantage but came up against opposition in his second Gold Cup that far outstripped anything BM had to face.
Another stat thrown into the mix every May is that 2000 Guineas winners are no longer capable of winning the Derby. And yet if Hawk Wing had been born a year later chances are he`d have accomplished just that.
Another stat thrown into the mix every May is that 2000 Guineas winners are no longer capable of winning the Derby. And yet if Hawk Wing had been born a year later chances are he`d have accomplished just that.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Actually the 'stat' was that 2000 Guineas runners couldn't win the Derby. At least it was when Mordin brought it up. I used to like that one. Then Sir Percy and New Approach made a mockery of it - I could just about argue that Sir Percy was the luckiest Derby winner in decades, but New Approach ran in two Guineas and still won the Derby despite having an atrocious trip...
But how many tried with realistic chances? and how many failed?
I return to something I posted earlier in response to Headstrong. It's not that they can't, it's just that its very difficult, and the percentage call is to look elsewhere. That is afterall how statistical clusters are formed. I don't think that Sir Percy or New Approach "made a mockery" of the figures, they simply reduced the laws of coincidental probability (that I think is a new branch of maths I've just invented by the way). There have been many more high profile failures than successes, but given the way we account for success that's almost inevitable. Can we separate them into realistic chances (against their odds) and their strike rates and work out a ratio etc. Over a 10 year timeframe, and certainly 15 or 20, I'd expect the percentage call is still with Mordin? Especially at the cramped odds that Guineas winners/ placed runners are likely to go off at
I return to something I posted earlier in response to Headstrong. It's not that they can't, it's just that its very difficult, and the percentage call is to look elsewhere. That is afterall how statistical clusters are formed. I don't think that Sir Percy or New Approach "made a mockery" of the figures, they simply reduced the laws of coincidental probability (that I think is a new branch of maths I've just invented by the way). There have been many more high profile failures than successes, but given the way we account for success that's almost inevitable. Can we separate them into realistic chances (against their odds) and their strike rates and work out a ratio etc. Over a 10 year timeframe, and certainly 15 or 20, I'd expect the percentage call is still with Mordin? Especially at the cramped odds that Guineas winners/ placed runners are likely to go off at
simmo
Senior Jockey
those of you who have been paying attention over the past few years will know that I love my stats. :<3:
Especially Cheltenham ones. :<3::<3:
Over the years I have found those stats most likely to be statistical anomaly are those associated with age and xyz hasn't happened before.
I believe that this falls into the category of xyz hasn't happened before.
Especially Cheltenham ones. :<3::<3:
Over the years I have found those stats most likely to be statistical anomaly are those associated with age and xyz hasn't happened before.
I believe that this falls into the category of xyz hasn't happened before.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Back to the question of Gold Cup winners regaining the title. Let's try the following model:
Not every horse who attempted to regain it had an equal chance of doing so. The only consistently available estimate of each horse's true chance of winning we have is their SP. So let's go through the Racing Post database (which unfortunately limits us to post-1987), find our candidates, use their SP as an estimate of their chance of winning, and use that to give us a probability of how many times we should have seen a horse regain their title if all other things were equal.
The average probability in our sample is 0.091. Using binomial distribution, we can work out the chances of having a given number of successes:
So the chance of having no winners in our sample is 42%, which is greater than the chance of any other individual number of winners. Another way of looking at it, however, is that there's a 42% chance of having no winner and a 58% chance of having at least one winner.
Two ways we can improve this:
a) adjust the SPs for over-round and their each-way portions to find a more accurate 'true win' probability. This would have the effect of increasing the SPs and reducing the average probability of a winner, thereby increasing our expectation of no winners.
b) do the research to go back before 1988 to increase our sample size. Note that if the average probability stays roughly the same, as the number of candidates increase the chance of seeing 0 winners gets smaller and smaller. For example, if we ended up with 30 candidates and the average probability stayed at 0.091, the chance of us randomly seeing no winners would be just 0.057 (~6%).
Not every horse who attempted to regain it had an equal chance of doing so. The only consistently available estimate of each horse's true chance of winning we have is their SP. So let's go through the Racing Post database (which unfortunately limits us to post-1987), find our candidates, use their SP as an estimate of their chance of winning, and use that to give us a probability of how many times we should have seen a horse regain their title if all other things were equal.
Code:
[b]Year Horse (Year of Win) SP Prob[/b]
1988 Forgive 'n Forget ('85) 8/1 0.111
1989 The Thinker ('87) 15/2 0.118
1991 Desert Orchid ('89) 4/1 0.200
1992 Norton's Coin ('90) 33/1 0.029
1993 Garrison Savannah ('91) 25/1 0.038
1994 Garrison Savannah ('91) 50/1 0.020
1995 Jodami ('93) 7/2 0.222
2002 See More Business ('99) 40/1 0.024
2003 See More Business ('99) 16/1 0.059The average probability in our sample is 0.091. Using binomial distribution, we can work out the chances of having a given number of successes:
Code:
[b]Expected
Successes Prob[/b]
0 0.422
1 0.382
2 0.154
3 0.036
4 0.005
5 0.001
6+ 0.000So the chance of having no winners in our sample is 42%, which is greater than the chance of any other individual number of winners. Another way of looking at it, however, is that there's a 42% chance of having no winner and a 58% chance of having at least one winner.
Two ways we can improve this:
a) adjust the SPs for over-round and their each-way portions to find a more accurate 'true win' probability. This would have the effect of increasing the SPs and reducing the average probability of a winner, thereby increasing our expectation of no winners.
b) do the research to go back before 1988 to increase our sample size. Note that if the average probability stays roughly the same, as the number of candidates increase the chance of seeing 0 winners gets smaller and smaller. For example, if we ended up with 30 candidates and the average probability stayed at 0.091, the chance of us randomly seeing no winners would be just 0.057 (~6%).
endevour269
At the Start
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2009
- Messages
- 137
I cant have this business of saying if mdb had not been in the race denman would have won easily is pointless,it is a race that has not happened so you cant possibly know what would have happened,you have to go on what you see,and imo denman was disappointing,make no mistake P nicholls had him fit enough and denman of old would have won going round the wrong way or not,far to much is made of horses going left handed or right they can win any way imo it is far more to do with the opposition than any thing else.
Hard to tell from the tv, but I agree with Steve...the horse did not appear to be carrying too much condition...indeed the trainer himself has said there will not be that much improvement from the horse in terms of fitness.
Physically he looked a different horse to me. In the build up to last year's Gold Cup, he was described as a tank. He certainly appeared far less imposing than last year and looked a generally less impressive animal. To me he looked like a horse that has taken alot of work in a short space of time, and that in itself has set him back.
Someone made a great point on this thread about how the horse never once took hold of the bit. Have never been the biggest fan of the horse, but looked clear to be he was not the horse of last year in any sense and I find it hard to believe he can return to his best (will actually probably need to be better again) in time for Cheltenham.
If they were really patient with the horse maybe putting him away for the rest of the season and giving him a proper preparation might be best rather than trying to get alot done in a short space of time.
Physically he looked a different horse to me. In the build up to last year's Gold Cup, he was described as a tank. He certainly appeared far less imposing than last year and looked a generally less impressive animal. To me he looked like a horse that has taken alot of work in a short space of time, and that in itself has set him back.
Someone made a great point on this thread about how the horse never once took hold of the bit. Have never been the biggest fan of the horse, but looked clear to be he was not the horse of last year in any sense and I find it hard to believe he can return to his best (will actually probably need to be better again) in time for Cheltenham.
If they were really patient with the horse maybe putting him away for the rest of the season and giving him a proper preparation might be best rather than trying to get alot done in a short space of time.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
My sentiments almost to the letter, Gal.
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Interesting stuff, SteveM. I must admit that I didn't get a chance to see Denman in the paddock before the race as I didn't catch it live, but if he did seem spare, would the fact that he doesn't have much to "work off" as you suggest, not contradict your earlier statement (at least I think it was you) that the horse will need to be put through a fair amount of fast work before the Gold Cup?
I tend to agree with Galileo that the horse might be best served by being let off now and bringing him back next year with a proper preparation.
As for the Gold Cup market, I personally haven't a bull's notion what to make of it to be honest, though I'm tempted to think Exotic Dancer might just be slightly too big at 16/1.
uncle goober
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,277
SteveM, you have given your opinion and Shadow Leader has given her opinion. Why should anyone have to assume that it is your opinion of Denmans wellbeing that is the correct one. When last I looked I did not detect that you are any more an authority on Denman than anyone else that has seen the horse regularly. Anyone who was there has the right to say what they believe they interpreted in the size and shape, fitness and attitude, training regime and form of Denman and your posting was just as opinionated as Shadow Leaders. Maybe it is the person who has Baracoudarised the horse and imprinted his form figures in their forum signature that is least able to offer an objective view of Saturdays proceedings.
Yours sincerely,
Someone else who was there that can make their own mind up who wasn't in the "bunch of cronies"
Yours sincerely,
Someone else who was there that can make their own mind up who wasn't in the "bunch of cronies"
I’m not saying my idea of the well being of the horse is any clearer than anyone else’s. However, when it is stated that the horse was burly, when he so obviously was not, it does stand correction. Particularly so when we’re told this was the consensus of people who know what they are talking about – when this is so contrary to the facts of the matter and the trainer subsequently verifying the horse is much lighter than last year. It amazes me how people can talk with absolute conviction about things, when they clearly haven’t used their own eyes, but been swayed by received opinion.
Was fat, or was not fat: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune
Or to take arms against a sea of squabbles
I'm half reminded of some experiment that was done on this subject to do with group conformity that involved 5 children (4 of whom were stooges for the experiments purpose, with the fifth being the guinea pig). They were all given 5 pieces of string to look at, and asked to identify the shortest. The first 4 all identified the same piece (the second shortest) by the time the fifth child was asked, they also identified the piece on something like 50% of the occasions, which when debriefed, nearly all of them confessed they thought the first four were wrong, but went with the flow etc.
There is some truth that if we're surrounded with people offering an opinion then as a group we tend to converge in consensus. It's not quite auto suggestion but it's a technique that people like Derren Brown use to programme responses by exposing people to controlled and suggestive environments before delivering the punch etc.
There's plenty of other surveys that have been conducted (most notably in the field of witness testimony) where people witnessing the same event have given vastly different descriptions based loosely around what they think they wanted to see subconciously, or what they expected to see through a prediposition
In short it wouldn't be unusual for two people from different perspectives to have polarised opinions of the same observation
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Sorry, I forgot. Miller is God and what he says goes - period. Therefore when he categorically tells you that "you are wrong" he is right and you should brook no argument.
Maybe before criticising others about their lack of ability to accept they are wrong [in your eyes] as well as being downright patronising and rude to them you should take yourself off the pedestal you have placed yourself upon, open your eyes and look a little yourself.
Denman looked decidedly burly to me; he looked like plenty was left to work on and he did not look fit and tight. The result of the race tends to bear that view out too, seeing as he finished knackered.
It's worth pointing out that UG and I don't quite agree about the horse either, having had long discussions about him. I think Nicholls left plenty to work on, he doesn't necessarily, partly going by what Nicholls has said to the press - whereas I wouldn't believe a word Nicholls said if my life depended on it, frankly. And no, UG was not one of the people who agreed with me - people who all go racing several times a week and whose livelihoods depend upon analysing the fitness of horses, even getting them fit and analysing thus; rather than people who go racing on a handful of Saturdays a year and wouldn't have the hands on knowledge or experience to speak so authoritatively either.
Maybe before criticising others about their lack of ability to accept they are wrong [in your eyes] as well as being downright patronising and rude to them you should take yourself off the pedestal you have placed yourself upon, open your eyes and look a little yourself.
Denman looked decidedly burly to me; he looked like plenty was left to work on and he did not look fit and tight. The result of the race tends to bear that view out too, seeing as he finished knackered.
It's worth pointing out that UG and I don't quite agree about the horse either, having had long discussions about him. I think Nicholls left plenty to work on, he doesn't necessarily, partly going by what Nicholls has said to the press - whereas I wouldn't believe a word Nicholls said if my life depended on it, frankly. And no, UG was not one of the people who agreed with me - people who all go racing several times a week and whose livelihoods depend upon analysing the fitness of horses, even getting them fit and analysing thus; rather than people who go racing on a handful of Saturdays a year and wouldn't have the hands on knowledge or experience to speak so authoritatively either.
Last edited:
granger
Senior Jockey
Harry Findlay
Christ you’re hard work at times… You talk about me being patronising and rude!!! When you say “If you think that is how a fit racehorse should look then I really worry for you”, what’s that? It was anyway besides the point as you clearly hadn’t read what I said – I’ve been saying all along that he was weak and spare and that was decidedly not how he should have looked.
I won’t take this further as it is almost bound to sound discourteous. I’ll stick to suggesting that you cannot will yourself right… again I’m sorry if this comes across as excessively harsh (…I do have that unfortunate knack).
Good thread...lets not end it up in a slagging match. Both disagree but both are generally a good judge of a horse but differing on this occasion.
Think the market will be interesting with Denman...as to just how big does he get.
Think the market will be interesting with Denman...as to just how big does he get.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
I'd suggest that you don't go around telling people "you are wrong" if you are expecting courteous replies, SteveM. Nevermind then going on to tell them they clearly didn't look at the horse whilst tagging a whole load more insults on as well.
You can think what you like about the horse - I managed to refrain from telling you how wrong you were and how you should've actually looked at the horse, so do me the same favour, will you?
You can think what you like about the horse - I managed to refrain from telling you how wrong you were and how you should've actually looked at the horse, so do me the same favour, will you?
Very true Warbler... the weighing scales fortunately could see through it.
insufferable... impossible... I give up.