Mark Winstanley

R

Ricko

Rookie
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
1,148
Paul Nicholls suggested people would end up skint following Winstanley's advice to oppose Cheltenham winners at Aintree.


Now I'd not usually be one to stick up for the fat oink, but he doesn't seem to have been too far wide of the mark.
 
At level stakes you would probably be ahead if you backed all the Chelt winners so far thanks to Our Vic.
 
Originally posted by Homer J@Apr 4 2008, 05:47 PM
At level stakes you would probably be ahead if you backed all the Chelt winners so far thanks to Our Vic.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's true enough, but the majority have been dreadful haven't they.
 
I considered suggesting this myself Homer, but relented. In any case, you'd be very slightly behind, (1 point). Having said that, it depends how you backed them. If you decided to put them into a reverse forecast for the three races in which two opposed each other, then you'd be something like 11 points in profit
 
I'd forgotten about Our Vic to be honest, but the point I was making was that it wasn't quite the ridiculous comment made by Winstanley that Nicholls made it out to be. The majority of horses that had a run at Cheltenham have significantly underperformed so far this week. What do people think the main reason for this is? Too soon after a hard race? Track differences? Coincidence? A mixture of all 3? I have to admit I was going to row in heavy with Captain Cee Bee today but the poor showings of the Cheltenham runners thankfully put me off.
 
I'm not sure your assertion is right in the first instance Ricko. As I'm fond of saying, to get the correct answer, you have to ask the right question. I suspect all you've seen is something akin to the old adage of horses for courses. So far there's been 14 races at Liverpool, although given that one was a mares bumper we might reasonably say 13 for purposes of cross referencing Cheltenham form.

Cheltenham provides over half of the winners at Aintree so far;

Blazing Bailey - 4th in the World Hurdle
Big Bucks - 7th in the Jewson
VPU - 2nd in the Champion Chase
Gwanko - 2nd in the Plate
Oedipe - 13th in the Plate
Our Vic - 1st in the RyanAir
Binocular - 2nd in the Supreme
Christy Beamish - fell in the Foxhunters
 
Originally posted by Ricko@Apr 4 2008, 07:01 PM
The majority of horses that had a run at Cheltenham have significantly underperformed so far this week. What do people think the main reason for this is? Too soon after a hard race? Track differences?
Click to expand...
Very different ground, coupled with having made a lifetime maximum effort so recently on a very different track, would be my principal reasons. The ground was sticky at Cheltenham, possibly over-watered - then it rained hard. It seems to be pretty good at Aintree; very few horses can act at top level on all ground.

And a flat righthanded track is never likely to appeal to the same horses which love an undulating lefthanded track! The amazing thing is that so many run well on both, not that they don't. Most horses have a favourite 'leading leg' which governs which way round they like to go

I think Winstanley was talking about finding winning bets, so imo he was correct
 
Originally posted by LUKE@Apr 4 2008, 10:24 PM
Aintree is left handed.
Click to expand...
Sorry yes, I was making a general point, in the case of Aintree and Cheltenham they are both as you say both left handed, but one is flat and tight, the other rolling and cambered, and without sharp corners. Very different for jumping round
 
there was an atricle in the rp on monday or tuesday if you had backed every winner at cheltenham to follow up at aintree blindly when there is a 3 week gap between the 2 you would actually have made £17.40 profit for a £1 level stake

if you used only bankers horses starting at less than 5/2 then oout of 24 runners u would have got 10 winners and a profit to a level stake

group winners far exceed handicap winners in following up


this of course donst include this years meeting
 
Back
Top