Novice Hurdlers 2012-13

i don't think using stats is any more an inferior way of finding winners than any other method..nothing is infallible

they are are easy to pick holes in though where other methods get away with it.

lets say a long standing stat gets broken..the response is usually..so much for stats..but when another method fails to find a winner people just accept it as you lose some win some.

simpler can sometimes be better than a more involved approach

for big handicaps where i usually take a lazy approach..i quite like using them
 
Stats are strictly for the birds

Take the above stats for example you could easily eliminate the last 3 winners using them

Cinders and Ashes hadn't run for 52 days so he's out

Al ferof never won 50% of his previous hurdle races so he's gone.

Menorah was beaten in his previous race so forget him

Individuals are not affected by stats in any way shape or form
 
Last edited:
That Feltham stat has withstood some very skinny favs and will be tested again this year. You couldn't back Dynaste with those numbers against you....:confused:
 
i'd say at fishers cross is the bigger danger. coneygree looks a out and out 3 miler from what i've seen thus far.
 
Tanlic said:
Stats are strictly for the birds

Take the above stats for example you could easily eliminate the last 3 winners using them

Cinders and Ashes hadn't run for 52 days so he's out

Al ferof never won 50% of his previous hurdle races so he's gone.

Menorah was beaten in his previous race so forget him

Individuals are not affected by stats in any way shape or form
Click to expand...

If you use stats individually then yes you could eliminate every horse in the race (although Al ferof had won 50% of his hurdles races).
I like to see how many stats go for the horse.
 
Tanlic said:
Stats are strictly for the birds

Take the above stats for example you could easily eliminate the last 3 winners using them

Cinders and Ashes hadn't run for 52 days so he's out

Al ferof never won 50% of his previous hurdle races so he's gone.

Menorah was beaten in his previous race so forget him

Individuals are not affected by stats in any way shape or form
Click to expand...

why do stats have to be 100% all the time or they are crap>..whilst almost every other method is lucky to be right 20/25% of the time?

How many of your picks win Tanlic for example?..20/25% i'd guess?...but you don't stop using whatever you use due to not getting 100%
 
Yeah but for the most part stats only reveal themselves when they become significant, at which point the likelihood of them continuing to be statistically significant is diminishing fast I.e. the stat is broken.

That is a generalist view and in some circumstances stats can have relevance but for me it's usually when it's blindingly obvious anyway.
 
Aragorn said:
Yeah but for the most part stats only reveal themselves when they become significant, at which point the likelihood of them continuing to be statistically significant is diminishing fast I.e. the stat is broken.

That is a generalist view and in some circumstances stats can have relevance but for me it's usually when it's blindingly obvious anyway.
Click to expand...

when someone quotes stats its easy for people to highlight exact bits to deride..whereas if someone uses a more personal analysis where 70% of how they make a decision is unknown..then its just ignored

someone may say that no 5yo has won the CH for x number of years...someone else may say..that after they have fully studied all aspects of the CH..they think horse Y may win

after the race..i can absolutely guarantee no one will deride the 2nd punter..but there will be lots of posts deriding the 5yo stat...its just lazy criticism imo..because stats are viewed as geeky and not sophisticated enough for a serious punter.

all methods produce a + or - scenario..no one has shown that stats lose more than traditional study
 
Last edited:
Aragorn said:
When does a stat become a stat in this context?
Click to expand...

well..most stats quoted on here tend to get the same treatment..whether they have some explainable relevance or not..generally dismissed..even though if taken over a period of time they may show the same profit as form based selections

it would be an interesting exercise to rate a series of races by stats and have a form person put their method against the stats and see which method showed greater profit

imo..there wouldn't be much in it..so why are stats seen as some poor relation?..when in fact they are just another selection process that will probably churn out a 20-25% success rate same as any other method used by someone studying from a form perspective
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
why do stats have to be 100% all the time or they are crap>..whilst almost every other method is lucky to be right 20/25% of the time?

How many of your picks win Tanlic for example?..20/25% i'd guess?...but you don't stop using whatever you use due to not getting 100%
Click to expand...

You are missing one important factor, stats are not right 25% of the time nothing like it unless you are after timing and saying the stats highlighted the winner and neglecting to say and six losers in the same race.

For stats to work you have to come down to 1 horse.... The Winner....when do they ever do that in a race like the Supreme?

I'd say never
 
Last edited:
I rate Coneygrey highly but 2 big advantages for The New One today
First a recent run with this weather spell ,
SeCond drop in distance for Coneygrey looks a negative.
I think the prices are right and I am not betting in the race.
 
I liked Coneygree last time but I can't remember the last time a novice staying hurdler impressed me the way The New One did a fortnight ago. They called it a mickey mouse race on TV this morning but I think TNO just made it look like one.

He looked to do it very easily and my only concern is that those races sometimes take more out of a horse than is apparent at the time but NTD insists the horse would work harder on the gallops than he did there so I think TNO will win by some way, if allowed to.
 
Last edited:
The New One is a big, strong ball of muscle who will find one too good either today or in the Neptune just like Denman did.
 
Tremendously gutsy finish from AFC there. It will be interesting to see which one ends up the best. I wonder if young Sam went a half-furlong too soon but he was going really well at the time.
 
The New One won't be winning the Neptune. He simply does not hurdle well enough and he reminds me of a Spinter Sacre or Denman. He loses ground at the obstacles he'll gain ground at when they are bigger.

Coneygree on the other hand gains ground at his hurdles but two and a half miles and ten hurdles wasn't enough of a test.
 
Tanlic said:
You are missing one important factor, stats are not right 25% of the time nothing like it unless you are after timing and saying the stats highlighted the winner and neglecting to say and six losers in the same race.

For stats to work you have to come down to 1 horse.... The Winner....when do they ever do that in a race like the Supreme?

I'd say never
Click to expand...

no i won't be giving 6 a race..just one...more on that further down

i don't need to after time...why would i..it makes no difference to me what the results are tbh....i don't know what % they can achieve..hence the thread

what i do know is that they are just as likely to be as good a method as any other..and probably better than some

there is only one person on here that makes a consistent profit from what i can see..apart from him..what is the strike rate and profit of the average forumite do you think?

For stats to work you have to come down to 1 horse.... The Winner....when do they ever do that in a race like the Supreme?

why is that then?..why on earth would a rule like that be applied when it does not apply to any other method?..some people on here back 10 horses through the year for that particular race.

i'm not advocating using stats..but i do get a bit tired of reading how they are crap when in fact many selection systems/people's form study is not great and don't win money either
 
Back
Top