Mark Johnston - Enemy Of The Punter

  • Thread starter Thread starter useful
  • Start date Start date
U

useful

Guest
Has anyone else noticed the Johnston yard has put punters to the sword no less than 7 times in the past fortnight, oddsof these favs ranging from 5/4 to 2/7, with 4 odds on.

I seem to recall a similarly terrible fate for puinters backing his nags last year about this time.

Perhaps if his riding instructions were something other than "sit in the van or lead at all costs, irrespective of the fractions being set and we'll see how we go", he might have more of a chance of winning these supposedly "soft" races.
 
Surely MJ is the friend of the punter, offering up all these underpriced horses which you mentioned?
 
Racing post line is that his stable are in red-hot form. Consistently. Think Greg Fairley aint the greatest either.
 
useful you've stated that you usually back favourites.

That's what you get, when a stable [Nicholls' is another] is consistently overbet on reputation rather than punters objectively assessing the chance of the horse
 
HS, correct I do hone in on favs, but I have steered clear of Mark Johnston since last winter when fingers got burnt.

I think as Garney says, the RP were putting him up last week as being in good form.

Yes AH, he is certainly a friend of people who lay (which in the main I dont I'm afraid, although I do make exceptions such as Sizing Europe!!)
 
He plays a numbers game, bit like Channon and Hannon, and his strike rate rarely exceeds 18%.

I can't abide by somebody who is so one dimensional in his tactical approach to races. I have given up counting the times I have watched races with his horses involved and known after a furlong they are going too fast once taken on for the lead (often infuriatingly by a rag).
 
Originally posted by useful@Feb 4 2008, 12:31 PM
Has anyone else noticed the Johnston yard has put punters to the sword no less than 7 times in the past fortnight, oddsof these favs ranging from 5/4 to 2/7, with 4 odds on.

I seem to recall a similarly terrible fate for puinters backing his nags last year about this time.
Click to expand...
The points I'm making are:

- that MJ had a run of success a month or two back when he started sending down horses to run on the a/w this winter. Many of these were backward debutantes, some fto, so entitled to win if only once

- Since then ALL his horses have been overbet, usually made favourites at ridiculously short prices, regardless of the fact that most have gone up in the weights etc etc. That's partly on his overall reputation too. Punters just think: "Ah! - MJ's sending then down to Lingers, long trip, must be a good thing, wink wink" - and lump on. Then favourite backers get on the bandwagon....

- How on earth can MJ be blamed for the horses starting at short prices ffs?? - he doesn't make the book!

- No blame is due to MJ for trying to get something out of his poor or backward or problem horses in poor races on the a/w. Several of these horses cost a packet, some are homebreds. He's under an obligation to try to get something out of them.

As ever, I've no sympathy whatever for punters who don't do their own research


By the way, it this context it 'fewer' not 'less' - sorry, but one of my pet peeves :rolleyes:
 
He has so many horses that run as though they're sick he should be investigated by the rspca. He obviously trains them so hard that they regularly go over the top. He is the flat version of Pipe The Slayer.
 
HS, do you not think his obsession with having to make the pace or be in the van at the very least, is poor tactically and that he might be more successful in terms of overall strike rate if he employed a wider variety of styles depending on the horse's preference? Godolphin, Stoute, Ballydoyle can't be pigeon holed - they ride a race according to how they think the horse is most likely going to benefit. Johnston seems to think tactics are irrelevant (I recall he once said as much in an interview) and that getting them fit is all that matters.

Maybe if he had told Jason Weaver to hold onto Mister Baileys and ride him to get the trip he may have won a Derby by now?
 
tbh

I really like MJ's approach

so many races are won by horses "on the pace" due to the English style of race riding..ie everyone takes a pull

Pipe used teh same tactics and tbh I would use them myself if I were a trainer.

I would rather a horse be put in to a race than be held up of a soft pace..I would say 70% of races are soft pace types...so staright away by racing on the pace you are automatically playing a successfull % game.

Pipe and MJ spotted the trend of everyone waiting for the final furlong push...or final 5 furlong push over jumps...and used it to their benefit.

It's just a pity a few more trainers don't use the same atctics...we might then get more truly run races.

I've said before on TRF...I would love MJ to have more runners in G1/G2 races because these very often end up being farcical pace abortions which could be mopped up by Johnston...with horses not actually good enough...just by using tactics that others are not prepared to use.

As to odds on favs being beat...EVERY trainer goes through those periods anyway...and has as been said on this thread...many of these MJ horses are racing at well below odds that relate to the actual chance they have in the betting market. MJ has many runners that should be 3/1 - 4/1..but race at <6/4....so is it really surprising that only 25% of these supposed short horses win?...they do actually win at the % they should...it's just the odds that are wrong....which is the fault of the punter for overbacking...lazily punting them.
 
Yeah, but hang on a minute - Pipe had phenomenal strike rates, Johnston has just about struggled to 15% in the past 4 years.
 
I added him to my "avoid list" by March last year, and I cannot say I have missed him. I find myself more often than not saying "there goes another Johnston odds on shot down the drain". Pity the poor punters who haven't seen the light.
 
A lot of people on betfair back his horses to win and lay them for a place on the basis that they're either unpassable or ill.
 
Pipe had phenomenal strike rates, Johnston has just about struggled to 15% in the past 4 years.

The difference being the codes imho...in NH racing a trainer like Pipe with horses stripping fit and ready to run more than most slow maturing NH types ...he mopped up novice hurdles like no ones business.

Johnson competes on the flat where competition is that much keener.

If Johnston started traing NH horses he could be the next Pipe...imho...lots of similarities.
 
Originally posted by useful@Feb 4 2008, 05:22 PM
Maybe if he had told Jason Weaver to hold onto Mister Baileys and ride him to get the trip he may have won a Derby by now?
Click to expand...
That's just ridiculous. You conveniently ignore the fact that Mister Baileys was ridden with restraint in the Dante and didn't get home. He didn't stay 10f let alone 12f.
 
Originally posted by Euronymous@Feb 4 2008, 07:24 PM
I have a good record backing MJ`s horses. I`ve never punted one in January or February though.
Click to expand...
I read somehere recently that he has a good record with his 3 y-o's in 3 y-o+ 1m4f races on the a.w in February/March. With the theory behind it that horses runing in these types of races are no good, and his horses get the weight for age allowances. Old trick I know, but the record for him was impresive.
 
Mister Baileys led the field a merry dance in the Derby until about 1.5 furlongs out - this doesn't suggest he was a total non-stayer, and if you want to win a Derby with a suspect stayer the last thing you want to do is blaze off the way Weaver did that day.

I suggest the problem in the Dante was that he pulled too hard in the race, which doesn't mean he didn't stay the trip, it means he expended too much energy earlier in the contest.

Perhaps if Johnston was able to diversify the tactics he employs on his horses he could have addressed this issue in a better way rather than going back to Plan A, ie. try and run genuine stayers ragged.

He led and was beaten in the Sussex Stakes, does this mean he didn't stay a mile??
 
if you want to win a Derby with a suspect stayer the last thing you want to do is blaze off the way Weaver did that day.
Click to expand...

True, assuming he did go off too fast, and it would have been hard to not have done so given the big field.

However, in general the idea of trying to get an easy lead for a suspect stayer is a sound one, assuming you have a jockey skillful enough to get the fractions right (Dettori on Shamardal in the Prix du Jockey-Club, for example).
 
Mr Baileys run a good race in the Derby,
Mark Johnston tactics are best in the business today,
he has the horse fit and if there is no pace they lead( best place to be) if not, they are ridden to the rhythm, great trainer.
 
Gareth, spot on re: Shamardal. Problem is Weaver didn;t get the fractions right on Mr Baileys.

Sunybay how can you say Johnston's tactics are the best? Almost every horse is ridden the same way. Unless they get an uncontested lead they are toast. Time and again you see this, and yet he is too obstinate to change. Maybe his paltry 16% strike rate would be increased to something comparable with Stoute and Bin Suroor if he were to adopt a more pragmatic approach to tactics.

He gets the number of winners he enjoys because he has some top draw owners who send him a lot of decent horses, which he mostly campaigns in the north where the competition is less intense.

And, unlike true masters such as Stoute and Bin Suroor, he then crashes the winter a/w game instead of letting the smaller yards have some respite.

The man is a bully, and totally blind to his own shortcomings.
 
Back
Top