Gold Cup 2009 (was: Denman)

I think Denman was a 185 for last years GC

Neptune is posting regularly 175 or better in his last 5 preformances
 
EC, the point of my post is that Kauto has a dramatically higher rate of mistakes at Cheltenham than anywhere else.

By making it into left vs right, there isn't enough data to support with confidence the suggestion that he's better going right-handed. He may have a higher rate of mistakes going right-handed at the moment but he hasn't yet jumped enough fences both ways for us to be sure that that isn't a product of random chance.

Here's Kauto's stats broken down by course, along with:

- the number of fences he's actually attempted to jump
- the number of mistakes he's made (defined as anything marked as a fall, unseated rider, 'hit', 'blunder', 'mistake' or 'not fluent' within the race comments)
- the average number of mistakes per fence attempted, expressed as a decimal
- a margin of error for each average, given a 95% confidence level
- the range of values that his 'true' rate of mistakes is between, given the margin of error

Code: 
[b]Course		Fences	Mistakes	Average	MoE	Range[/b]
Kempton		54	3		0.0556	0.0611	[0,0.1167]
Aintree		51	2		0.0392	0.0533	[0,0.0925]
Haydock		48	5		0.1042	0.0864 	[0.0177,0.1906]
Cheltenham	47	9		0.1915	0.1125	[0.0790,0.3040]
Newbury		33	1		0.0303	0.0585	[0,0.0888]
Sandown		26	1		0.0385	0.0739	[0,0.1124]
Exeter		24	2		0.0833	0.1106	[0,0.1939]
Ascot		17	0		0	0	[0,0]
Down Royal	15	0		0	0	[0,0]

As you can see, although Cheltenham jumps off the list (19% rate of mistakes), when you factor in the margin of error you can only say the following (given the 95% level of confidence we chose):

He's better at Ascot than at Haydock or Cheltenham
He's better at Down Royal than at Haydock or Cheltenham

Groundbreaking, eh?

In order to reduce the margin of error, we need to increase the sample size. One way is to group data together under a common heading. For example, left-handed vs right-handed:

Code: 
[b]Direction	Fences	Mistakes	Average	MoE	Range[/b]
Left		179	17		0.0950	0.0429	[0.0520,0.1379] 
Right		136	6		0.0441	0.0345	[0.0096,0.0786]

As you can see, the ranges still overlap. So we can not say with confidence that his higher mistake rate going left-handed is statistically significant - it may be a product of random chance.

However, if we compare Cheltenham to all of the other courses:

Code: 
[b]Course		Fences	Mistakes	Average	MoE	Range[/b]
Cheltenham	47	9		0.1915	0.1125	[0.0790,0.3040]
Elsewhere	268	14		0.0522	0.0266	[0.0256,0.0789]

And there it is - the ranges don't overlap (just barely!) and so we can say with 95% confidence that Kauto's higher rate of mistakes at Cheltenham than everywhere else is not simply down to chance.

(Edited massively for introduction of margin of error, better analysis, and less extraneous crap...).
 
I didn't say that, I'm pointing out that no ratings system is infallible and it can nearly always be argued with in some way.
 
Gareth, those figures are fascinating and thanks for the effort and also for sharing them

I am sure they do mean something, and I think anyone even before seeing those who pretended that KS was at his best at Cheltenham should be laughed out of court. Of course it's not his track. Nevertheless, his class has won him a Gold Cup already!

In the context of this year's Gold Cup however, which was the point earlier in punting terms, it comes down to how much pressure he is likely to be under, and what there is in the field to beat him THIS YEAR.

The Nicholls/Findlay camp have made no secret in the last week how they did that last year - by asking Denman to push the speed fractions to their limit from early in the race, and so put the field under max pressure all the way through.

They are only just coming to terms with what that has cost them, in my reading of the script.
That's not going to happen again this year.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
can I just ask what scale you guys are using when you are quoting 175 etc

are they OHR...Timeform...RPR etc?

these all differ don't they?
Click to expand...


They are RPRs, which for convenience are available on all the specific races for all of these horses. Suny's right Denman's RPR was 185 in the Gold Cup on this set of ratings.

Other ratings show slight fluctuations in levels but all show a clear difference between the respective performances of KS and DO at Kempton and Cheltenham - i.e. whatever the actual figure the difference in level is clearly apparent.

The best performances for DO and KS are consistently at Kempton (head and shoulders above their own performances at Cheltenham) while Denman's best performances are at Cheltenham.
 
Could someone possibly explain to a thicko why Denman first ran in purple colours followed by green/white then back to purple? or have I missed something?
 
The purple colours are those of Margaret Findlay (one joint owner) and the dark green and light green are the colours of Paul Barber (the other joint owner). They alternate each season.

It's the same with other horses they own together such as Gungadu who's also run in both sets of colours.
 
Thanks IS that makes sense now, is it not possible to buy a set of colours for use as joint owners like a syndicate does?
 
It is possible to buy, register etc. but I believe it would have to be done as a syndicate rather than joint-ownership (which is what Findlay/Barber have).
 
Gareth

I understand your quest for exactness and strength of significance..but it is horse racing we are talking about which can defy any strength of signifance.

tbh if you look at any horse's form you could generally say...none of it is really significant..as the sample size is to small.

Even when a horse has 60/70 runs on the board..its current preferences can have changed...therefore we may as well give up trying to assess from form to give us a clue about a horse?

My way of looking at Kauto tells me that he is not quite as good LH as RH to a degree that satisfies me...your way is more exact but we could both be totally wrong..we both concur he seems bothered by Cheltenham...again we could be wrong...but it's about whether the figures mean anything in reality to the person creating them.

to make a deceision in this game you do have to make decisions based on small amount of data..if you don't belive that data then you may as well just not bother betting or back the fav every time...as you wouldn't be able to split horses at all
 
For someone who has been pissing and moaning about being 'ignored', it's quite funny to see you being so dismissive when someone takes the time to engage you in detail.
 
Irish Stamp said:
It is possible to buy, register etc. but I believe it would have to be done as a syndicate rather than joint-ownership (which is what Findlay/Barber have).
Click to expand...


It's perfectly acceptable to have own, joint or syndicate colours (you don't even necessarily need to have a horse in training).

Down To The Woods and Enchanted Ocean for example used to carry the colours of the legendary Miller/Richards partnership. Others prefer to have their own set(s): Sue Magnier (separate first and second colours), Tabor and Smith for example, even when the horses are joint owned (when the majority-holder's colours take precedence).

In a 50:50 partnership the horse can either run in partnership colours or alternate between the two different sets of individual colours (as decided by those owners, from race to race, season to season, championship race to championship race). If Denman runs in the Gold Cup
again for example he is certain to be in purple (opposite to last year).
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
Gareth

I understand your quest for exactness and strength of significance..but it is horse racing we are talking about which can defy any strength of signifance.

tbh if you look at any horse's form you could generally say...none of it is really significant..as the sample size is to small.

Even when a horse has 60/70 runs on the board..its current preferences can have changed...therefore we may as well give up trying to assess from form to give us a clue about a horse?

My way of looking at Kauto tells me that he is not quite as good LH as RH to a degree that satisfies me...your way is more exact but we could both be totally wrong..we both concur he seems bothered by Cheltenham...again we could be wrong...but it's about whether the figures mean anything in reality to the person creating them.

to make a deceision in this game you do have to make decisions based on small amount of data..if you don't belive that data then you may as well just not bother betting or back the fav every time...as you wouldn't be able to split horses at all
Click to expand...

I think at championship level when there is a consistent 10-14lb difference between winning performances on different tracks we can be pretty sure of what we are looking at.

The ratings underscore the perception that Desert Orchid, for example, was a markedly better horse at Kempton rather than Cheltenham. Same goes for Kauto - when put under pressure at Cheltenham he struggles to reproduce Kempton form.
 
Now that we're talking numbers and not in-the-flesh impressions, I'd like to add my twopenceworth...

My figures for the last two Gold cups are as follows:

2008
Denman 183+
Kauto 178+

2007
Kauto 176+ (previous best 182+)
Exotic D 174

I think Denman beat a far better field last year than Kauto did the year before but I'm firmly in the camp that says Kauto wasn't on his best form last year. The fact that they're now talking about having bottomed Denman in his Gold Cup would put me off him until racecourse events prove he's back to his best.
 
I reckon they went a wee bit faster than they needed to and he was tying up after the last. If they'd conserved his energy a bit he might have posted a higher figure. Of course, it now has to be debatable whether he will ever replicate the figure let alone surpass it.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
For someone who has been pissing and moaning about being 'ignored', it's quite funny to see you being so dismissive when someone takes the time to engage you in detail.
Click to expand...

theres no need for rudeness like that mate

I haven't dismissed anything.. what I have said is that if people cannot play a % game with the small data they do have then you might as well assume no horse has any preference

if you want to talk to me in that manner Gareth..then don't bother chap

there is a lot of rudeness on here ...and first time I mention it over the weekend you post shit like that re pissing and moaning

my response to your post was very good considering the pig ignorance I receive on here from time to time...you being one of the main protaganist...you are a very arrogant man sometimes mate..which is a shame as I value/like your posts in the main
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
I reckon they went a wee bit faster than they needed to and he was tying up after the last. If they'd conserved his energy a bit he might have posted a higher figure. Of course, it now has to be debatable whether he will ever replicate the figure let alone surpass it.
Click to expand...

Not sure, Desert Orchid. Does the argument not run that it was the punishing fractions through the middle sections of the Gold Cup that supposedly did for Kauto Star?

Not an argument I particularly subscribe to by the way.
 
Back
Top