Grand National

I'm impressed if you've narrowed it down to 20. I'm struggling to even rule out 8 year olds this year and that's usually the first thing I do.
 
Indeed, moehat. There are six of them on my list! The only thing that puts me off the 7yos is the very fact that they are 7yos, otherwise I could include a few. As it is, I'm keeping one onside (Goonyella).
 
The Package could be of interest. Looks like he's been targeted at this race and his run at Cheltenham was good from a long lay off. He's a big price.
 
Simon said:
The Package could be of interest. Looks like he's been targeted at this race and his run at Cheltenham was good from a long lay off. He's a big price.
Click to expand...

I backed him a/p before the Cheltenham race in anticipation of a good run :)
 
Maybe it's so long ago he's forgotten, especially as Timmy won't be riding him this time. And, the fences are different. They might take a different route with the horsebox as well. Chances are he'll be most of the way round before he twiggs [and they could put a hood on as well for good karma.They're canny are the Pipes.
 
Its easy enough to get the lists down to 10 or so - stats. The National is a massive stats race because of its unique test. There are 7 or 8 trends which each of the last 10 winners have in common. If you ignore those you're taking a big leap of faith.

Prince De Beauchene and Same Difference stand out to me. Monbeg Dude will be a huge player if the heavens open.
 
TheBear said:
Its easy enough to get the lists down to 10 or so - stats. The National is a massive stats race because of its unique test. There are 7 or 8 trends which each of the last 10 winners have in common. If you ignore those you're taking a big leap of faith.

Prince De Beauchene and Same Difference stand out to me. Monbeg Dude will be a huge player if the heavens open.
Click to expand...

I like Same Difference too, but not been best of sorts.... If Battle Group has got over his stable move, it has run well fto after a break and likes Aintree, so although might refuse the first if problems not sorted but at 40-1 seems worth a couple of quid.
 
Wasn't Johnny Farrelly pretty much in charge of Battle Group at the Pipes and knows the horse inside out [also knows a thing or two about riding in the National]. Can't see loads of stamina in his pedigree though. Would Minella for Value be the only Old Vic horse in the race if he ran? It'll be interesting to see how all these Milan horses do.
 
TheBear said:
Its easy enough to get the lists down to 10 or so - stats. The National is a massive stats race because of its unique test. There are 7 or 8 trends which each of the last 10 winners have in common. If you ignore those you're taking a big leap of faith.

Prince De Beauchene and Same Difference stand out to me. Monbeg Dude will be a huge player if the heavens open.
Click to expand...

I suspect the nature of the race has changed now that the fences are more forgiving, and that the statistical trends in ten years time will reflect this also. My guess is that younger horses and higher-weighted horses will be less disadvantaged than heretofore.
 
Last edited:
I'd agree with that Grey, a few years ago, you simply put a line through anything with over 11 stone in the race and worked your way through the field from there.
Nowadays, it's definitely not the case.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only stat that matters is that every winner is handicapped to win, except maybe Foinavon.

I imagine a French-bred will one day kick out the stat regarding 7yos.

Even in the days of bigger fences and drops there were plenty of horses carrying over 11st that were genuinely unlucky not to win.

I challenge the Bear to put up those that fit his trends. If any of them are handicapped to win they might well do so. If not, no number of trends will get them past the post first.
 
Last edited:
Frankel said:
I know horses have run in the Gold Cup before. But this fella won't just be lobbing round the back all the way. He'll be up there with the pace for a way, and get suckered in to having a gruelling race. He will run a very admiral race, but finish absolutely drunk imo.
Click to expand...

That's what I was saying, hardly a pootle round Towcester.
 
Diamond Geezer said:
The thing is they didn't win though, did they ?
Click to expand...

That isn't the point. Stats followers believe that if a horse doesn't follow the stats it can't win. (Then if it does they tend to go back and find a stat it does fit in with.)

The unlucky losers didn't lose because they didn't fit the trends. They lost for other reasons.

I used to have a brilliant record in the race but went through a few barren (thanks to poor decision-making on my part) years until Sunnyhillboy (would have won but for idling) two years ago and Aurora's Encore last year. Yes, I bet several in the race but I could argue that one long-term profitable stat is to back everything I back. That's as valid a stat, imho, as anything the Bear (or anyone else for that matter) could put up.
 
Last edited:
Diamond Geezer said:
:rolleyes: They still lost though, that's the whole point.The reason for them losing was immaterial.
Click to expand...

Wrong and wrong again, DG.

The reason for them losing becomes material as soon as you relate it to stats.

If something that doesn't fit the stats is 30 lengths clear approaching the elbow and is carried out by a loose horse it would have nothing to do with the stats that it eventually lost.

The stats that say something has to be a proven jumper would have missed the likes of Maori Venture, Rhyme N Reason and Last Suspect.

The stats that say you need to be a stayer would have missed Red Marauder but I accept that was as freakish a race as Foinavon's.

The stats that for years said not to back anything carrying more than 11-0 would have missed Neptune Collonges, Don't Push It and Hedgehunter in the last 10 years alone.

Stats are no more than coincidences. Following them is as bad as following a superstition.
 
Desert Orchid said:
JP said in the immediate aftermath of the Champion Hurdle that his season was geared around that race as he didn't have a Gold Cup horse and probably didn't have a Grand National horse either.
Click to expand...

minella for value now the only old vic in the race. this is of course a stat based thing but also it's a logical train of thought as was the old ' system ' of not considering anything over 11st or out the handicap. as has already been stated, you need to be well handicapped, thats the only system to use and thats why im backing burton port.
 
It's axiomatic that any horse that wins any handicap is either well-handicapped or lucky.
The trick is identifying them beforehand and (with 4 of the last 7 National winners @ 33/1 or higher) that's not nearly so cut and dried.
 
Last edited:
But that is the point though Maurice.

You worked on horses you believed to be well handicapped and struggled, yet the stats find the winner year after year. Surely you follow the stats and then find the best handicapped!

And if as you say you back multiple horses, maybe the approach is to also back the best handicapped horse ignoring the stats to keep the faith n the approach you prefer to take.

Ultimately, if you are backing multiple horses you are doing so to try and stay in front not find the one winner from a single bet, so I'm surprised by you philosophy.
 
You've lost me, Maruco.

I try and identify the best handicapped horses. Obviously if I don't think it will stay I can ignore it. I stopped believing that iffy jumpers can't win Nationals after missing out on both Maori Venture and Rhyme N Reason as I had both top rated but decided they didn't jump well enough.

There aren't many 4m4f races in the calendar but if a 6yo won, say, the Scottish National, I wouldn't automatically rule it out for Aintree a year later just because it was 7. The stats people would.

In the same way, I wouldn't rule out anything up to top weight just because of the weight. I backed Crisp under 12st and a year later backed Red Rum off top weight (also 12st, I think). The year Bindaree won, I backed both him and the runner-up What's Up Boys. The first was an 8yo which at that time was enough for people to dismiss it and the other was carrying something like 11-6.

Suppose Bindaree had unseated late on? Would that have been on account of his age? Would WUB only have won because he was gifted the race?

These stats have a purpose of sorts but as I said before no amount of them will get a horse to win if it isn't handicapped to do so.

And age would be no barrier to a 7yo or 13yo if it was well enough handicapped.
 
the other problem with trends and stats is that they change year on year. that chap who prints the cheltenham festival guide need have only printed one if his stats were right, yet he has done one for the last 10 years ? i bought the first one where i was reliably informed neither moscow flyer or like a butterfly need bother turning up.......didnt buy the 2nd one !!
 
What's the story with Mossy Joe?

I've been ignoring it in my analyses but I see it's still in. I also noticed it shortened up quite a bit on Betfair the other day.
 
Back
Top