Queen Anne Stakes (group 1)

Well I thought that aswell when I first looked at it Headstrong but there must be some sort of edge we can get in a race like this?

For some reason my gut feeling is telling me (especially if the rain comes) the winner might have to have stayed a little more than a mile previously? The only 2 to have won over further than 8 Furlongs are Sageburg and Linngari, with Haradasun and Darjina placed in such events. I think I have made my final decision on the race and that will be to do the former in a forecast and throw in the latter two in a couple of tricasts. Good luck to everyone who dares to play on this event! I can't stomach the idea of not having a bet on the first race at Ascot!
 
As usual I've no doubt I'll throw caution t the winds and bet on every race instead of doing what I did last weekend - focus my betting! I did so well too, first in the Oaks and 1/2 + FCT in the Derby, and win or place on 3 of the only 5 races I bet on besides - you'd think I would learn my lesson :rolleyes: Instead of which I've frittered quite a bit of it these last two days on silly races

As I'm getting SKY [ie atr] for Ascot I'll prob be even less disciplined....
 
I'm still kicking myself from what happend on Tuesday. I backed a horse in the morning called Casilda who I thought had a great chance in a handicap at Salisbury (12's), she then went out to nearly 20/1 and I suspected the writing was on the wall so laid most of it off, needless to say she went on to win and my Ascot betting bank would have been a hell of a lot more if i'd stuck to my instincts!

As long as you know what your doing can pay in the long run like your bets at Epsom did then stick with it, if your not sure maybe you should rethink your strategy, which I think most punters do all the time anyways! I've found a strategy that works for me, it involves anaylising my selections in running. After a furlong or two I put them in three catagories

a) horse is at the back and looks to be struggling in which case try and lay it off.
b) horse is running well and looking like it could challenge at some point without winning in which case try to lay it at a very short price and actually make a profit out of it losing.
c) let the bet ride and hope for the best.

What i've noticed is, you can't always pick the winners of a race, but you can damn well pick one thats going to go close and make a good trade.
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Jun 13 2008, 12:12 AM
As I'm getting SKY [ie atr] for Ascot I'll prob be even less disciplined....
Click to expand...
You must be over the moon about it as well, Headstrong, seeing as you must have mentioned it about 10 times by now... :D
 
Originally posted by martin+Jun 12 2008, 10:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (martin @ Jun 12 2008, 10:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-betsmate@Jun 11 2008, 10:27 PM
Darjina is very ground dependent, anything slower than good then she gets beat. The faster it is, the further she wins by in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Betsmate, you say Darjina needs good ground, but what she is likely to encounter at Ascot could be firm? (sorry I havn't checked the latest goings) and she's never been on that before, and has already been beaten at short odds at the track before. [/b][/quote]
I think firm would be great (as long as it isn't dangerous).
 
Be interesting to see who goes off favouroute, I will hazard a guess on Tuesday morning what the prices will be...(not at race time as the money could come for anything)

Tariq 9/2
Sageburg 9/2
Linngari 5/1
Haradasun 11/2
Cesare 6/1
Darjina 15/2
Finsceal Beo 10/1

Doubtless one or two bookies will stick their head out and go bigger and shorter on the odd horse but thats my guess of how the market will go between now and Tuesday. I think Tariq will make more appeal to the betting public than horses like Haradasun, Darjina and Finsceal Beo so I think he could be fav on Tuesday morning. There's been money for linngari (not mine) and I think the Stoute/Moore effect will come into play; At this stage i'd have Sageburg as the obvious one that could go off favouroute, and some of the outsiders will surely drift a bit. At the moment Hill's are going....

Haradasun 4/1
Tariq 9/2
Sageburg 9/2
Cesare 9/2
Linngari 6/1
Darjina 6/1
Finsceal Beo 7/1
 
If you enjoyed my Ascot Gold Cup preview, or if you didn't thats fine - but I've also compiled some thoughts ahead of the Queen Anne, these can be read here
 
Will be interesting to see if the money comes for Haradasun on course. Remember George Washington was steamed into on course before last year's Queen Anne.
 
Interesting preview Jamie. I think you have skirted around Darjina a little bit though.

- No mention of the Moulin which is probably the best piece of form brought to this race by any horse.

- No mention of her ground dependence which is absolutely critical to her form.

It is easy to dismiss that she hasn't won in four, but two of them were on ground softer than good (and she still managed a second place in a G1). The two defeats where you can't blame the ground were also G1 placed efforts.

I am not sure of the merits of 'trends' as a whole in horse racing or of the individual merit of the fact that 3 of the last 9 winners contested the Dubai Duty Free at Nad Al Sheba. Is this really more than coincidence? Perhaps I wrong, but if I am, then why not back the horse that finished 2nd in that race rather than the one that finished 14th?

Linngari has had 23 career starts and just one win at the top level (and that came in Italy...). His only win this season was in a handicap.

I just can't make Linngari a 7/1 shot in this field. But that doesn't amaze me as much as the fact that Darjina is also a 7/1 shot. If it is good - good to firm in places on Tuesday then pretty much everything else in this field has a problem I reckon.
 
I think this years renewal is poor enough to go to a handicapper in actual fact. If you watch that race where he ran off a mark of 118 he made up sufficient ground to make one believe he was better than the winning distance suggests. I don't make the horse a cert, but I thought he was the value at 9's a couple of days ago. Chris Beeks says he's been burning up the gallops aswell.

Darjina is not one to put the mortgage on, not in my book anyway (but then I don't have a mortgage ha ha!)
 
Trends can have their value as an elimination tool, as winners tend to conform to various performance parameters over time for a reason. The secret is understanding the reasons, and from this you can draw a sense of their relevance and application, and then make an assessment based on probability. I probably find they work better in jumps racing however, and more especially, in handicaps where weight barriers exist.

As regards Darjina specifically, I'm less than convinced she's ground dependent, although she probably has a preference. I'd be very wary of relying on official going (the French will call wet grass Soft).

18/5/08 - 2nd in the D'Isphan @ Longchamp official ground G/S
Time was -0.70, Time based ground, faster side of Good

29/3/08 - 2nd in Dubai Duty Free @ Nad Al Sheba official ground Good
Time was +0.60, Time based ground fast side of Good verging on Good to Firm in places

09/12/07 - Can't do Sha Tin

29/09/07 - Last in QEII @ Ascot official ground Soft
Time was -1.05, Time based ground, pretty well spot on Good on the faster side of good if anything

09/09/07 - Prix du Moulin @ Longchamp official ground Good
Time was +0.60, Time based ground fast side of Good verging on Good to Firm in places

29/07/07 - Prix D'Astere @ Deauville official ground Soft
Time was -1.60 Time based ground Good, almost smack on perfect

22/06/07 - Coronation Stakes @ Ascot official ground G/S
Time was just -0.86 slow despite a torrential downpour 20 mins before the off. The race was won by Indian Ink who we'd accept needs cut, but the time is more consistent with Good again, and this is what it was called in the RP's TBG

I suspect you're talking about a preference rather than a dependency and where areas of advantage are measured in such fine parameters at the apex of the sport, this could be enough i.e. 1 length etc. No fimr opinions on the race to be honest yet
 
Interesting. I have to say her run in the D'Isphan worries me.

I have a question about your times for Ascot though, how can you be so sure on such little evidence? The ground in the Coronation was on the soft side of good and i don`t care what time evidence there may be to the contrary - there is no way that Indian Ink could have won that race on any other surface.
 
Interesting. Thanks.

How/why were Ascot calling 'Good on the faster side of good if anything' Soft ground?

Mistake or conspiracy? How confident are you that you are accurately calculating time-based ground at the new Ascot? What's your take on it?
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Jun 14 2008, 09:53 PM


29/09/07 - Last in QEII @ Ascot official ground Soft
Time was -1.05, Time based ground, pretty well spot on Good on the faster side of good if anything


Click to expand...
I reckon she was over the top by this time.
 
So do I fwiw, but I am not putting the ground based thing to bed yet. She looks muted when there is give in the ground.
 
Ascot's been strange ever since the new drainage was put in, especially in the home straight. I believe it's quite possible that there have been instances where 3 different going descriptions with the words "in places" could have been applied, under certain conditions.

The first clue we got that something was pecuiliar concerned George Washington's QEII. 20inches of rain fell 24 hours before hand, and jockeys and trainers were queuing up to tell us the ground was soft. Unfortunately, no one thought to tell the horses, 20 of the 65 who ran that day, beat standard, and two winners ran within 1 tenth of the new track records which were established in the Royal meeting in June when the ground was given as Good to Firm. shrug::

In essence this goes to the heart of the problem. You can run a slow time on fast ground, (tactical race) but you can't run a fast time on slow ground. You can quibble about the reliability of the standards, but in truth it doesn't really mean that much as Ascot attracts horses of sufficient quality regularly enough, to quickly establish new standards. In any case standards aren't necessary to the understanding in this instance. You can simply compare raw times achieved over same C&D's with completely different going descriptions given.

What I suspect might be happening is a combination of things. The top soil might get wet very quickly, but their is a firm surface just below it (it's not dissimilar to slop on a dirt track). Horses go straight through the soft top, and then gain purchase from the firmer surface which allows them to run fast on what hitherto appears to be soft, to a human. Now Mr Doddery Old Clerk is prodding away with his going stick etc and isn't necessarily getting through the top surface. Why should he? He weighs a damn sight less than a horse afterall, and can't run at anything like the same speed. Essentially, we're using human methods to tell us what the ground is like for a horse. I'm struggling to find a way of articulating this, but it's close to comparing apples with pears. Ask yourself what relevance a human being poking sticks in the ground from a vertical and stationary posture has, to replicating an animal that weighs 1060Ibs travelling close to 40mph. Basically you aren't replicating anything close to like-for-like.

I also susepct there's a pyschological thing at play too? A human will know how much rain fell, and is bound to be swayed to some extent by expectation. A horse by contrast, won't. If I knew 20mm had come down, and loads of heel thumping trainers had been crawling over my track and withdrawing horses in the morning, I'm not sure I'd dare declare Good to Firm, even if that was what my readings were telling me. I'd think I'd got it wrong, and throttle back for fear of ridicule. Unfortunately, it was the horses who frequently provide the ridicule, by proceeding to run times pretty well consistent with those put up the Royal meeting earlier in the year.

I don't think it was necessarily a conspiracy, and I think Ascot have grown increasingly aware of what they might have created now. Initially though, I don't think they were, and suspect they simply were led by inappropriate methods, and a degree of pyschological expectation. Most people like to conform to a consensus opinion remember, and feel uncomfortable taking up a contrary position. Various tests have been conducted that prove this. Even when we believe that a group answer to a question is wrong, 40% of us agree with it. An experiement was run a few years ago which involved a group of 4 people ranking shapes in size order. The first three asked were all planted people, (part of the experiment), and all 3 identified the same wrong shape as the biggest. When the fourth person was asked, they gave the same answer on 40% of occasions despite later revealing at debrief that they thought the first 3 were wrong.

As regards Darjina, as I said, I'd be confident she'll get something close to Good to Firm. I suspect she has a preference, rather than a dependence though.

At the apex of the sport where advantages are measured in 1-2 percent, converting small advantages is the difference between winning and losing. All I'd say at the moment is she's been running on good ground plenty of times which has been described as Good to Soft or slower, it might be that she needs Good, Good to Firm in places etc in order to eek out the extra couple of lengths.

The specific issue of Indian Ink puzzles me, and I can't as easily put something forward in her case. I suspect however, it might owe something to the fact that the first part of the mile round course is run on ground that hasn't been subject to drainage improvements, and she might have decided early doors that she was on a going day. When she hit the last 3 furlongs she was settled and happy? Even if she was going through the top and finding firmer ground just below the surface, it might have been enough to coax a big run out of her.?

Something strange happens at Ascot though
 
I hope so.

It will be interesting to compare the times with the published going descriptions next week.
 
I think you are quite right Warbler - there are sometimes three kinds of ground there, and some horses react very badly to a change of going in running. There seems ot be definite change coming into the home straight, and another def change around Swinley Bottom. It makes punting quite tough!
 
Originally posted by betsmate@Jun 14 2008, 07:25 PM
Interesting preview Jamie. I think you have skirted around Darjina a little bit though.

Click to expand...
Yes you are probably right here Betsmate, I was trying to do a little for each horse but have ended up doing more on some than others.

Darjina is a lively threat dont get me wrong, and she has been strongly considered as a bet myself. Would you class her as good as Six Perfections or better? Bear in mind only Soviet Song has managed to place (and almost win) in this race for the Filly's since 1990 I think it was, would you take 7/1 about Darjina winning?

The reason I went with Linngari is because Ryan Moore gets on so well with the horse, Sir Michael Stoute knows what it takes for such animal to win this race, and has brought him back over here to have another go at the English Group races (After a year or two abroad).

Another factor was some handy work reports I've been receiving from a good friend of mine who uses these boards suggesting Linngari has been thriving in his homework, therefore I felt at 9/1, he was worth chancing - but is by no means a strong selection.

Hope that helps explain my case pal.
 
Jamie, firstly let me say that we all have different approaches to this game and I am not here saying that my way is better than any others!

But to answer your questions, I have to explain the root of my approach.

Originally posted by Jamie+Jun 15 2008, 12:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jamie @ Jun 15 2008, 12:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Would you class her as good as Six Perfections or better?[/b]
Click to expand...


I don't know. The answer is that I think it is irrelevant; she may be better, worse or equal to Six Perfections, but the truth is she is neither racing against Six Perfections or necessarily having to recreate any performance of Six Perfections to win on Tuesday.

<!--QuoteBegin-Jamie@Jun 15 2008, 12:18 AM
Bear in mind only Soviet Song has managed to place (and almost win) in this race for the Filly's since 1990 I think it was, would you take 7/1 about Darjina winning?[/quote]

Again, what relevance does this have to Darjina's price? She is not racing against any of those colts, in any of those years on Tuesday. What she is racing against is 12 rivals in 2008. If she crosses the line first, no bookie can turn around to me and say - oh well she wouldn't have beaten Valixir. With the possible exception of the conditions of the races remaining the same or the average genetical disposition of 4yo fillies versus their average colts, the events are mutually exclusive.

So what am I trying to decide? Simply whether she will cross the line first on Tuesday. That is the simplest thing, and perhaps also the most difficult. Is she - right here, right now - good enough to beat her 12 (possibly not superstar) rivals.

And it is my belief that she is currently the best miler in Europe, colt, filly or mare but dependent on (or 'when preferring' to use Warbler's vernacular) the conditions. And therefore by definition, she is better than her 12 rivals. FWIW a quick look at the RPRs and Topspeed figures for Tuesday's card would agree with me (although this debate shouldn't be about the relative merits of those two figures)

Therefore, if she were to get those conditions, then there is an argument that I would back her at any price (having taken in account the usual factors of injury, luck-in-running etc.).

So lets come back to the 7/1. Is that price formed on the basis of what she has to achieve? Or is it based on factors that she doesn't have to achieve (and is therefore meaningless)? What I am saying is that, are the people forming that price asking themselves things like:

Is she as good as Six Perfections?

If she had been running this race in 2003 would she be as good as Dubai Destination?

If they are, and they are coming to any kind of conclusion that results in them offering a price greater than one that would be formed if they simply asked the question:

Will she come first on Tuesday?

Then I am going to be getting some value.

Or, to finally answer your question, would I take 7/1 about Darjina winning? Yes.
 
So would I on the grounds that although there may be one better on the day, there are unlikely to be three - so that makes her a very good e/w bet at 7/1.

My thinking here is always that whilst I'd like to win, I hate to lose; and by going for the e/w I stand a very good chance of not losing on the race, and still having my stake if she does find one too good

I don't 'halve' my stake by betting e/w by the way - I double it, ie I put on the same size win bet but then put on the place as well, rather than splitting the stake
 
Final Declarations...


(4)Arabian Gleam Seb Sanders
(3)Cesare Jamie Spencer
(10) Haradasun (AUS) J. Murtagh
(9) Honoured Guest (IRE) David McCabe
(8)Linngari (IRE) Ryan Moore
(2)Mount Nelson J. A. Heffernan
(11)Sageburg (IRE) (Tongue Strap) O. Peslier
(7) Spirito Del Vento (FR) C. P. Lemaire
(1) Tariq Jimmy Fortune
(5)Darjina (FR) C. Soumillon
(6)Finsceal Beo (IRE) K. J. Manning
 
Back
Top