The 2022 'Should be odds-on' Thread

I agree with Euro and pay no attention to handicap ratings for novices, rightly or wrongly.

A fledgling golfer gets 28 and their handicap fluctuates wildly during the first 20 or so rounds then balances out. Extreme example given some horses don’t even run that many times but the principal still stands.
 
wilsonl said:
I agree with Euro and pay no attention to handicap ratings for novices, rightly or wrongly.

A fledgling golfer gets 28 and their handicap fluctuates wildly during the first 20 or so rounds then balances out. Extreme example given some horses don’t even run that many times but the principal still stands.
Click to expand...

But what if you knew he wasn't a 28?, he was a 10 really? Not sure I get the golfing rankings, 10 is better than a 28? I will go back to this example. In October 2015, I spotted a novice race at Ascot, I posted it on here and elsewhere. The winner was Altior, the second horse was Chi'tibello the third was fresh air. On paper that looked like just another race, but the time told you it was extraordinary. No you don't get that often, but you always have a clue if you look at times. I cannot be arsed now with looking at times, but I can say to you, you will get some idea/ranking, just from time comparisons on the day. If you are good at doing that you have the edge over people who can't be arsed to do that. Edge = profit. Most people who like novice races and do have ratings just hope that people like you and Euro are their betting opponents. It is really as simple as that regarding making some £s from those type of races, to make money from novice flat races or jumps ones, does rely on most punters not being arsed.
 
Last edited:
EC21 said:
But what if you knew he wasn't a 28?, he was a 10 really? Not sure I get the golfing rankings, 10 is better than a 28? I will go back to this example. In October 2015, I spotted a novice race at Ascot, I posted it on here and elsewhere. The winner was Altior, the second horse was Chi'tibello the third was fresh air. On paper that looked like just another race, but the time told you it was extraordinary. No you don't get that often, but you always have a clue if you look at times. I cannot be arsed now with looking at times, but I can say to you, you will get some idea/ranking, just from time comparisons on the day. If you are good at doing that you have the edge over people who can't be arsed to do that. Edge = profit. Most people who like novice races and do have ratings just hope that people like you and Euro are their betting opponents. It is really as simple as that regarding making some £s from those type of races, to make money from novice flat races or jumps ones, does rely on most punters not being arsed.
Click to expand...

I remember the Ascot race with Altior being discussed on here.

A couple of things: there's probably more chance of an Ascot novices' hurdle throwing up a good 'un than a Plumpton one, no offence to Plumpton. Altior got an OR of 143 for the win, which is quite high for a novice in October. So, on this occasion, 'the ratings' could hardly fall into the 'nonsense' category. He then beat a 147 (Maputo) at the PP meeting but it was once I came up with figures for his win at the King George meeting that I started backing him for the Supreme. (Sadly, Maputo never ran again.)
 
EC21 said:
But what if you knew he wasn't a 28?, he was a 10 really? Not sure I get the golfing rankings, 10 is better than a 28? I will go back to this example. In October 2015, I spotted a novice race at Ascot, I posted it on here and elsewhere. The winner was Altior, the second horse was Chi'tibello the third was fresh air. On paper that looked like just another race, but the time told you it was extraordinary. No you don't get that often, but you always have a clue if you look at times. I cannot be arsed now with looking at times, but I can say to you, you will get some idea/ranking, just from time comparisons on the day. If you are good at doing that you have the edge over people who can't be arsed to do that. Edge = profit. Most people who like novice races and do have ratings just hope that people like you and Euro are their betting opponents. It is really as simple as that regarding making some £s from those type of races, to make money from novice flat races or jumps ones, does rely on most punters not being arsed.
Click to expand...

I agree with most if not all of that.

My point - as I suspect was Euro’s - is that to simply look at a novice race where they may be racing off levels and say “horse A is rated 110 and horse B 100 so off levels horse A has 10lb in hand” is flawed.
 
wilsonl said:
I agree with most if not all of that.

My point - as I suspect was Euro’s - is that to simply look at a novice race where they may be racing off levels and say “horse A is rated 110 and horse B 100 so off levels horse A has 10lb in hand” is flawed.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd agree with that too but I'd take a fair bit of convincing to bet a 100 horse over a 140 one.

I also think relying solely on ratings is flawed - this from someone who spends most of their study time compiling ratings - and other factors have to at least be considered.

If, for example, a 'mid-level' trainer had a 140 novice and it was being taken on by a Hendo/Mullins (etc) 130 horse with big entries then I wouldn't be confident of the 140 winning.

Then again, if the same 140 top-rated is sitting at 20/1 in the same race, I'd see that as value.
 
Yes. As you well know DO, all factors need considering and of course I take official ratings into consideration, even for novices, I just place less emphasis on them than I would for seasoned campaigners.
 
Yes, it was just that Euro's assertion that for novices ORs are absolute nonsense, or words to that effect, struck me as plain wrong.

But it's all about opinion and, as Plato put it, "Opinion is the wilderness between knowledge and ignorance".

In that regard, this forum is a true wilderness and a very good wilderness.

In fact, I'm changing that quote to my strapline!
 
I think they give a good indication of what a horse has done, as opposed to what it can do and as opposed to what it is going to do (and does) today. I often blow cold at the whole handicapping thing wondering how something weighing half a ton and carting another 150 lbs of jockey around can possibly be affected by a few pounds of lead…………and then get surprised when it seems to work. And then blow cold again when I see a horse apparently improving by a couple of stone in a few months. In all probability it’s innate ability wouldn’t have changed that much at all.
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
I often blow cold at the whole handicapping thing wondering how something weighing half a ton and carting another 150 lbs of jockey around can possibly be affected by a few pounds of lead…………and then get surprised when it seems to work.
Click to expand...

It amazed me too but it does work - in general terms - most of the time.

I presume it's the laws of physics at work. I often use the example of the can of beans. Pick it up and it doesn't weigh much. Hold it at arm's length and it's comfortable enough but keep holding it there and it will soon start to feel very heavy, to the point that you have to give up.

I think that the effort of carrying even a relatively lightweight human eventually takes it toll on a horse's ability to sustain it. And minor adjustments to the weight carried will affect how long it can sustain it.

I do find it utterly fascinating!
 
If we'd all paid attention in physics class 45+ odd years ago to the laws of momentum, force, vectors, gravity etc etc, we'd possibly have an improved grasp. But fwiw think you are on the right lines, DO.

Calling Dr Dolittle.
 
chaumi said:
If we'd all paid attention in physics class 45+ odd years ago to the laws of momentum, force, vectors, gravity etc etc, we'd possibly have an improved grasp. But fwiw think you are on the right lines, DO.
Click to expand...

Well, I was bottom of my Physics class with 30% at the end of second year...

But about 30 years ago I did spend a lot of time with paper, different colour pens, highlighters and a calculator trying to come up with some kind of angle that might give me some kind of edge. Using arithmetic more than anything to do with physics, I worked out how long it took for a horse to cover a yard at every distance, Flat and NH, from 5f to the 4m4f of the National. Then I tried expanding that to evaluating how much in pounds a length was worth at each of the trips and how much adding or subtracting affected it.

I eventually came up with a sliding scale that equated a length at 5f as 3.6lbs and 0.5lbs at the National trip.

I still use that sliding scale today but it does differ a bit from some of the commercial operators.

Please don't ask me to expand :lol:
 
One factor that I think most punters/pundits seem to ignore is the individual horse and his/her ability to carry extra weight, not all horses are physically equal and obviously a bigger stronger horse can carry an extra 6lb much easier than a diminutive horse. Denman would be a very extreme example from recent times of a horse that weight carried was pretty much irelevant.
 
I don't think it has been ignored, BoS.

The likes of Denman and Roman Warrior have been mentioned every so often.

However, it creates vast amounts of extra work trying to gather info on the size and/or muscularity of all horses.

I think it's a lot easier and timesaving to go with generalities and then allow for some kind of individual adjustment.

For example, if I have a top-rated horse also carrying top weight, I'll usually double check to see if it has carried the weight successfully before. Then again, sometimes there isn't enough of a spread in the weights for it to be so important since lesser horses are maybe carrying more than ideal for them.

So many variables...
 
Of course DO, was more referring to the average punter - and as you refer to, the main reason being it is bloody difficult to incorporate into any calculations!
 
Setting myself up for a huge disappointment but if you're going to have a strong opinion on something you might as well be brave about it...

Greatwood Hurdle - Dads Lad 11/2

It's weak, which is a concern, and the Mullins novice wasn't really off yesterday so no shortage of caveats. I'm not about to lay down all my reasons why I think this should be odds-on, mainly cos I'm tight for time, but if my thinking is right then this one really should be odds-on. I have a decent-price about the one I think is the most likely danger and I plan to do the forecast to decent money.

If I'm gonna lose, I'm gonna do it in style!
 
Desert Orchid said:
Setting myself up for a huge disappointment but if you're going to have a strong opinion on something you might as well be brave about it...

Greatwood Hurdle - Dads Lad 11/2

It's weak, which is a concern, and the Mullins novice wasn't really off yesterday so no shortage of caveats. I'm not about to lay down all my reasons why I think this should be odds-on, mainly cos I'm tight for time, but if my thinking is right then this one really should be odds-on. I have a decent-price about the one I think is the most likely danger and I plan to do the forecast to decent money.

If I'm gonna lose, I'm gonna do it in style!
Click to expand...

which is the one you rate as the most likely danger, if you dont mind me asking..
 
That was pretty shocking, I have to say.

The drift on DL proved to be meaningful - he was heavily backed last time - and he was never put in the race. I don't know what to make of Severance. Didn't take to the track? The early mistake certainly didn't help.

It never occurred to me that they might omit half the hurdles. I'll need to bear that in mind next year. No point in having a bet if you don't know what's going to happen. They must have run a mile there before jumping one.

I'd love to see ILTMI trained for the Ces but it probably won't happen.
 
Just checked my accounts.

I wasn't sure if I had the fourth place on the bet I made yesterday on Indy Five but I did and I got the 33/1 so the place returns just about recouped the losses on the Greatwood.

Could have been so much worse...
 
Back
Top