Grand National

All of which would be correct if you back stats blindly. But that's the same as backing the best handicapped horse blindly.

There are many more factors to take into consideration is my point. It's not the stats vs handicapping argument I often see on here. It's much more if you really want to stay ahead, and dismissing any part of that is a mistake.

Trainer form, jockey, underfoot conditions, flat/undulating, sharp/stiff, left handed/right handed, etc, etc, etc.

And then when all of those things are taken into consideration, what emphasis you place on all of those them in the context of the race. And following hours of hard work you're still left with a short list and then instinct takes overly.

You assert that stats followers say a horse can't win if it doesn't follow the stats. No 'stupid' stats followers may do ao, but stats followers with more than half a brain do much more.

The Bear will answer for himself in terms of the method he uses but I doubt its as simple as taking the Weatherby's guide and just applying it. As I doubt you simply frame a handicap and apply it Maurice. And I wouldn't insult and suggest otherwise (perhaps you may want to re-read your original response to The Bear). The difference will be you both place different emphasis on criteria. But if The Bear has a high success rate in the race it would surely be foolish to dismiss him as a basic stats man, when he has a strike rate that suggests he may have a lesson worth learning.
 
Surely a lot of the stats based theories have been blown out of the water by the changing nature of the race. I remember Mordin used to have one where he'd ignore all second season chasers on the basis that their jumping wouldn't be good enough.
 
Many of the stays used are 10 year stats which are too long a period to take IMO. 5 years is my optimum. And if you're smart about the way you crunch stats you take into consideration any known changes plus look for outliers. Many of the wider publicised stats should be dismissed anyway. Stats aren't a holy grail to finding one horse, just part of multiple criteria.
 
Not the National and didn't win but she was almost at the winning post before Mike Cat mentioned Ma Filleuile at Cheltenham [even more unforgivable as she was a grey and quite easy to spot]. Must admit that I watched that link and kept wondering if I was watching the wrong race till R&R was eventually mentioned. It was great to see Lean Ar Aghaidh again [but still can't spell his name without looking it up].
 
It might be a bit late to defend my standpoint now but I still say stats are the best way to go. It's a 40 runner field for heavens sake so you've got to start somewhere!

Surely trends which fit each of the last 10 winners is not a bad place to start. Admittedly these credentials change slightly as years go by but does this also not assist with the conditions of the race altering? I would argue it does.

For a 40 runner handicap I have a good record in this race purely from following stats. Last year I backed 5 and had 4 in convention over the last eventually finishing with a 1,2,3. The only one not to get involved was one which didn't quite meet the trends. A lesson learned.

The Masters golf is a very similar betting proposition. A large field on a unique course where the conditions have altered slightly throughout the years. Again this event has some very strong trends which allow you to narrow down the contenders significantly. Auroras Encore and Adam Scott paid for my honeymoon last year!

I will post up my selections and the trends I follow shortly. I'm not afraid to look a fool.
 
TheBear said:
It might be a bit late to defend my standpoint now but I still say stats are the best way to go. It's a 40 runner field for heavens sake so you've got to start somewhere!

Surely trends which fit each of the last 10 winners is not a bad place to start. Admittedly these credentials change slightly as years go by but does this also not assist with the conditions of the race altering? I would argue it does.

For a 40 runner handicap I have a good record in this race purely from following stats. Last year I backed 5 and had 4 in convention over the last eventually finishing with a 1,2,3. The only one not to get involved was one which didn't quite meet the trends. A lesson learned.

The Masters golf is a very similar betting proposition. A large field on a unique course where the conditions have altered slightly throughout the years. Again this event has some very strong trends which allow you to narrow down the contenders significantly. Auroras Encore and Adam Scott paid for my honeymoon last year!

I will post up my selections and the trends I follow shortly. I'm not afraid to look a fool.
Click to expand...

Front runner for after timing post of the year. Desert Orchid will not be amused.
 
At Maruco's suggestion, I had a look back at my original reply to you, Bear. I'm not sure I said anything for which I should reproach myself. If following stats is your thing, it's your thing. It certainly isn't mine but if it works well for you it's easy to understand your enthusiasm for them.

One of the pro-stats site I visited the other day out of curiosity said more than once that Aurora's Encore defied a lot of the normal stats. Presumably good form over marathon trips and/or valuable races was in its favour. It was one of a number in the race I backed but that was because it was handicapped to have a good chance. If it had a stone more to carry I'd have thrown it out. A stone more would have slowed it up close to 30 lengths so it would have finished somewhere between Rare Bob and Swing Bill and nobody would have batted an eyelid. Stats people wold have backed it regardless, I believe.

TheBear said:
It might be a bit late to defend my standpoint now but I still say stats are the best way to go. It's a 40 runner field for heavens sake so you've got to start somewhere!
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to defend your standpoint. I just think stats cannot be the be-all-and-end-all. I also think there's a difference between stats being a starting point and a finishing point.

TheBear said:
Surely trends which fit each of the last 10 winners is not a bad place to start. Admittedly these credentials change slightly as years go by but does this also not assist with the conditions of the race altering? I would argue it does.
Click to expand...

I cannot accept that the same trends have found each of the last ten winners. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you have a set of trends that every one of the last ten winners has fully met? I looked at a number of trends sites that tell me 9/10 fell into this trend. 8/10 fell into that trend. All bar three didn't have a negative regarding a different trend. That's what odds are all about. If 7/10 followed a certain trend it means that 3/10 didn't. That's not far off half. If it extended to 20 years it might be 7/20. That's where trends are so flawed.

I fell for the old Cheltenham trends a number of years ago. I was told X or Y couldn't possibly win and Z couldn't lose. X and Y hacked up and z got stuffed.

TheBear said:
Surely trends which fit each of the last 10 winners is not a bad place to start. Admittedly these credentials change slightly as years go by but does this also not assist with the conditions of the race altering? I would argue it does.
Click to expand...

I hear a lot of trends people saying things like this. It's constant shifting of the goalposts. We can say winner A didn't follow the trends but the trends people will say, 'ah but if you say... then it would have fitted trend 2 or 3..'

You've obviously done well following trends so who am I to argue? I've done well following form and can feel a degree of satisfaction that I worked out the winner by painstaking calculation. If it all boiled down to trends I don't think I could enjoy betting in the race!
 
SlimChance said:
Front runner for after timing post of the year. Desert Orchid will not be amused.
Click to expand...

Not at all, Slim. You know my view is that this place should be like a club and if one of us can report that we had a nice return from a certain event we should be glad for them.

I made a small fortune yesterday, by the way. be happy for me! :)
 
TheBear said:
It might be a bit late to defend my standpoint now but I still say stats are the best way to go. It's a 40 runner field for heavens sake so you've got to start somewhere!

Surely trends which fit each of the last 10 winners is not a bad place to start. Admittedly these credentials change slightly as years go by but does this also not assist with the conditions of the race altering? I would argue it does.

For a 40 runner handicap I have a good record in this race purely from following stats. Last year I backed 5 and had 4 in convention over the last eventually finishing with a 1,2,3. The only one not to get involved was one which didn't quite meet the trends. A lesson learned.

The Masters golf is a very similar betting proposition. A large field on a unique course where the conditions have altered slightly throughout the years. Again this event has some very strong trends which allow you to narrow down the contenders significantly. Auroras Encore and Adam Scott paid for my honeymoon last year!

I will post up my selections and the trends I follow shortly. I'm not afraid to look a fool.
Click to expand...

I'm relying on slim and gigilo to pay for my honeymoon this year :D
 
Desert Orchid said:
Not at all, Slim. You know my view is that this place should be like a club and if one of us can report that we had a nice return from a certain event we should be glad for them.

I made a small fortune yesterday, by the way. be happy for me! :)
Click to expand...

Well done (spit) :lol:
 
moehat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've previewed this event and have Battle Group in my first five, Moehat.

Won twice at Aintree in a short space of time last season, won well too, you'd be taking a bit of a chance of the horse coming back to form - but if so must be a good e/w bet. 50/1 in a place, couldn't put you off. Vintage Star another one who could surprise, improved all season but may simply not like Cheltenham.
 
Last edited:
Battle Group and Vintage Star wouldn't be off my radar but at the moment I've a few ante-post interests one of which keeps coming back to me as a very strong candidate and I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up very much a plunge from its current 50/1. Night In Milan.

I expect the trends people to oppose it on account of its age...
 
Last edited:
Johnny Walker played a montage of comments/commentary from 1977. I just watch the race again. Tommy Stack never picked his stick up or gave him a slap. Still emotional after all this time.
Have half an eye on a 40-1 from O'Brien's yard for this year to at least get round and give me a run for any monies.
 
Getting back to stats...

I've just been trawling through past results. I backed Silver Birch when it won but anyone on the 8yo McKelvie can feel hard done by as he was finishing strongest despite breaking down. Another 8yo, Slim Pickings, was third that year.

Not that many 8yos actually run in the race and only a few of them have realistic chances. Taht probably accounts for the 'poor' stats.
 
Battle Group isn't an ew bet because of his record of refusing to race.I have him on my short list-he is trained by a shrewd man and you can't disregard his exploits at Aintree last April.I think the way to play him is to have a small bet just before the off if he doesn't look reluctant and have the rest on in running if he jumps the first.I would certainly be looking to lay off in running.
 
Everyone likes Night in Milan but I've backed One in a Milan twice [the reason being that if I put double the amount on a horse compared to all the all the others it runs like a drain, so I did the same [tiny] bet twice]. If he runs I'll feel as if I've won anyway.Don't expect to find the winner these days but if all my tiny ante post bets actually run at a much smaller price I'm happy even though I now go into the bookies and tell them that I might just as well give them some money and not bother with the bets [it's been that sort of a season]. Worried that I might have a panic and back loads more on Saturday because Auroras was a last minute bet last year. marb; which other ones do you fancy?
 
LUKE said:
Battle Group isn't an ew bet because of his record of refusing to race.I have him on my short list-he is trained by a shrewd man and you can't disregard his exploits at Aintree last April.I think the way to play him is to have a small bet just before the off if he doesn't look reluctant and have the rest on in running if he jumps the first.I would certainly be looking to lay off in running.
Click to expand...
Good to hear you fancy him if he doesn't refuse to race at least, Luke!

Strictly speaking you are right of course; there is smarter ways to bet him than a traditional e/w

Moehat - I backed GodsmeJudge a while back but I was disappointed with that last run.

Monbeg Dude looks the one for the win to me now, but knowing me I'll probably be more willing to back these 40/50/1 outsiders (Vintage Star & Battle Group) as Its not often you get too hit the bookies and/or betfair with those. :)
 
Last edited:
Carberry will be brimming with confidence after a Cheltenham winner and an excellent ride on Bog Warrior yesterday -Monbeg Dude definitely one for my short list.
 
Back
Top