QM Champion Chase betting

Maruco said:
One of the Cheltenham boys can confirm or deny (Roger, Darren?), but they never used to water the same course after racing. It used to be day 1 watered, day 2 unwatered, day 3 watered, day 4 unwatered.
Click to expand...

I normally water the top bend on the way back to the pub.
 
Maruco said:
One of the Cheltenham boys can confirm or deny (Roger, Darren?), but they never used to water the same course after racing. It used to be day 1 watered, day 2 unwatered, day 3 watered, day 4 unwatered.
Click to expand...

i think they are misguided by the times,,particularly since they now time faster..ie from when they pass the starter..after day one it looked like a bit of fast might be creeping in..so they watered..but there was no fast..it was perfect Good ground after day one...they nearly made it G/S by day 2

thats my theory anyway

wait until it starts this year..if any horse gets near the record..everyone will shout fast ground..when its only good..the record was set on good is the bit that gets missed

they will then water it to nearly g/s again..madness really
 
Last edited:
Jim Culloty was worried day 2 last year that they had over watered the first night.
Rain that was forecast pre festival did not fall so Day 1 may have been a little faster than desired.
The watering was compounded by a morning fog that did not lift until out in the day Wednesday.
Thursday was foggy all day so there was no need to water further.
I see long range this year there is less than 50 mm of rain forecast from now to Mar 13, 10 or so forecast for the previous weekend so watering schedule will be tricky enough to judge.
 
EC1 said:
I've calculated speed figures for both days using RP standards..adjusted by 1 second to allow for the new timing method..its not as extreme here as it was at less competitive meetings...where you need to knock about 4 off every standard time.

One thing to bear in mind with Cheltenham..don't let track records here make you think the ground is rock hard..most of the past records were actually produced on Good ground..Cheltenham differs re track records from nearly every other course in that the best races..therefore the best ever times are recorded on Good ground. Every year when i hear..oh its nearly a track record..i just know that most punters will assume fast ground..its not.

The first day works out at perfect middle GOOD going...nil going correction was necessary.

11-Mar-14154Cheltenham4VAUTOUR

<tbody>
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 11-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 154 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 4 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] WESTERN WARHORSE [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 11-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 98 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -47 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] HOLYWELL [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 11-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 165 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -5 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] JEZKI [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 11-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 83 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -84 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] QUEVEGA [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 11-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 91 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -48 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] MIDNIGHT PRAYER [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 11-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 125 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -12 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] PRESENT VIEW [/TD]

</tbody>


First figure is the speed figure..related to OHR..the coloured figure is race fast or slow by lbs

Second day..after watering?..a bit slower

The going is now -20 lb per mile slow...still GOOD..just

12-Mar-14154Cheltenham2FAUGHEEN

<tbody>
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 12-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 153 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 3 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] O'FAOLAINS BOY [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 12-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 131 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -22 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] WHISPER [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 12-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 169 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -1 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] SIRE DE GRUGY [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 12-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 126 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -4 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] HAWK HIGH [/TD]

</tbody>


Sire De Grugy has run faster than Western Warhorse by 15lbs...which on their OHR's at that time isn't far out...both races look proper tests for class level based on overall times


remember..don't shoot the messenger:)
Click to expand...


Here's an honest question, EC1......

The Clerk of the Course gave the ground on the Tuesday last year as 'Good to Soft'. His description is therefore in conflict with your description. I've no particular desire to understand where Claisse has made his error, but with me having a much greater degree of faith in your analysis than his walking stick, an error he has clearly made.

Unfortunately, as bettors on the day, we are pretty-much compelled take his assessment of the Going on trust, and have little option but to back horses based on how he calls the ground. Is there any way that we can apply times - almost in real-time - that would give us an idea as to how the Hurdle and Chase tracks are really riding, after the Supreme and Arkle have been run?

Or would the sample-size be too small, and the numbers needing crunched too great, for us to get any sort of worthwhile view on the true ground conditions, ahead of the third race?
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
I think last year EC1 told as after the first race that it was riding good (at least on the hurdles course).
Click to expand...

thats right..i've done it for a few years Grass..in fact you asked me to expand on it one year to show a range of times rather than middle good if you remember

the first two races usually give you a good idea..and luckily usually one or both is decently run

the chase and hurdle course are usually pretty samey
 
Grasshopper said:
Unfortunately, as bettors on the day, we are pretty-much compelled take his assessment of the Going on trust, and have little option but to back horses based on how he calls the ground. Is there any way that we can apply times - almost in real-time - that would give us an idea as to how the Hurdle and Chase tracks are really riding, after the Supreme and Arkle have been run?

Or would the sample-size be too small, and the numbers needing crunched too great, for us to get any sort of worthwhile view on the true ground conditions, ahead of the third race?
Click to expand...

In addition to EC1's stalwart efforts, Channel 4 do much the same thing every year. ;)
 
channel 4 though just quote ..so many seconds above standard..but don't tell you what level of horse the standard is based on,,so isn't that useful unless its really slow
 
NJH hugely positive about SS at the Grand National gravy train free bar yestreday...before falling asleep in his soup.
 
Pretty sure I read Nicholls saying that there was no good reason why Sacre would turn around the form with Dodging Bullets.

Presumably as a sop to the owner, before the Aeroplane laughs at him in 3 weeks.
 
SS is beaten 3L in the Chandler, without ever being anything other than shaken-up. Dodging Bullets was under pressure from before the second-last, when SS was still lobbing away.

DB might still win the QMCC, but there are certainly plenty of ground for thinking SS can reverse the form.
 
Grasshopper said:
Pretty sure I read Nicholls saying that there was no good reason why Sacre would turn around the form with Dodging Bullets.

Presumably as a sop to the owner, before the Aeroplane laughs at him in 3 weeks.
Click to expand...

Would PFN say anything else?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
All we need to do is take a look at the Amlin Chase in November....... He put everyone off Al Ferof (5/2 Fav) - urging caution about his 'Match Fitness' and was VERY bullish on a number of different channels about the Chances of Bury Parade (6/1 Outsider). Al Ferof hoses up by 7 Lengths and Bury Parade Pulled up before 2 out !!! Enough Said :blink:
 
He spouts no more tripe than what's on here.
It's all just an opinion. Take from it what you will.
 
The difference is a lot of punters put too much store in what trainers and jockeys say, which to be fair is great for the market because it makes it unrealistic a lot of times.
 
EC1 said:
I've calculated speed figures for both days using RP standards..adjusted by 1 second to allow for the new timing method..its not as extreme here as it was at less competitive meetings...where you need to knock about 4 off every standard time.

One thing to bear in mind with Cheltenham..don't let track records here make you think the ground is rock hard..most of the past records were actually produced on Good ground..Cheltenham differs re track records from nearly every other course in that the best races..therefore the best ever times are recorded on Good ground. Every year when i hear..oh its nearly a track record..i just know that most punters will assume fast ground..its not.

The first day works out at perfect middle GOOD going...nil going correction was necessary.

11-Mar-14154Cheltenham4VAUTOUR

<tbody>
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 11-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 154 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 4 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] WESTERN WARHORSE [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 11-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 98 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -47 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] HOLYWELL [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 11-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 165 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -5 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] JEZKI [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 11-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 83 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -84 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] QUEVEGA [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 11-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 91 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -48 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] MIDNIGHT PRAYER [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 11-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 125 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -12 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] PRESENT VIEW [/TD]

</tbody>


First figure is the speed figure..related to OHR..the coloured figure is race fast or slow by lbs

Second day..after watering?..a bit slower

The going is now -20 lb per mile slow...still GOOD..just

12-Mar-14154Cheltenham2FAUGHEEN

<tbody>
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 12-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 153 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 3 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] O'FAOLAINS BOY [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 12-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 131 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -22 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] WHISPER [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 12-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 169 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -1 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] SIRE DE GRUGY [/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 12-Mar-14 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] 126 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] Cheltenham [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] -4 [/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFCC"] HAWK HIGH [/TD]

</tbody>


Sire De Grugy has run faster than Western Warhorse by 15lbs...which on their OHR's at that time isn't far out...both races look proper tests for class level based on overall times


remember..don't shoot the messenger:)
Click to expand...

i'm not too happy with the RP standards re the level they are set at ...they make the going slower than it actually is.

.i've checked the times from the first hurdle in the CH + supreme and i think the going was a bit faster than the nil on the first day..approx 13lb fast..thats still Good ground,,but more top end..would explain the watering...so the second day was Good..near middle after watering

doesn't affect the speed figures..they the same

the times on the first day were faster than any first day i've got records for..it had to be really Good ground to produce those times..not good g/s

and yet turftrax maps had it as good, Good to soft places..strange
 
Last edited:
Back
Top