The Road To The 2013 Grand National

Bar the Bull said:
I think this is a very bad bet, Slim. There are first-fence fallers every year, and I don't think 90 yards is going to make a difference.
Click to expand...

How is it a bad bet? Go to a shop on Saturday and watch punter back the same bet at 9/4. There may also be less than 40 runners. every 0.05% counts, its a rick.
 
SlimChance said:
How is it a bad bet? Go to a shop on Saturday and watch punter back the same bet at 9/4. There may also be less than 40 runners. every 0.05% counts, its a rick.
Click to expand...

The event has occurred once in the last 25 years. Making it a 24/1 shot. The price that mug punters are prepared to back it at is irrelevant to whether or not it is a rick. You would have to assume that a further 4 of the occassions when only one horse fell at the first would have been affected by shortening the distance to the first in order to make it a rick.
 
simmo said:
The event has occurred once in the last 25 years. Making it a 24/1 shot. The price that mug punters are prepared to back it at is irrelevant to whether or not it is a rick. You would have to assume that a further 4 of the occassions when only one horse fell at the first would have been affected by shortening the distance to the first in order to make it a rick.
Click to expand...

Once in the last 25 years!! No way Simmo - no faller at first last year alone as I remember...
 
Looking at the last ten years....

18 fallers out of 400 (skipping the year with 9 fallers).

So that means that a horse has a 4.5% chance of falling at the first fence.

The probability of none of them falling is therefore 15.9%. So a fair price would be 5.3 to 1.

However, if you assume that the shorter run-in has reduced the probability of each horse falling* by 20% on a relative basis, it means the probability of no faller goes down to 4.3 to 1, meaning Slim has an okay bet, but not a rick.

So not as bad a bet as I thought, but I don't see the rick.

* I don't think this is going to make a difference, but I am not an expert on this type of thing.
 
Bar the Bull said:
Looking at the last ten years....

18 fallers out of 400 (skipping the year with 9 fallers).

So that means that a horse has a 4.5% chance of falling at the first fence.

The probability of none of them falling is therefore 15.9%. So a fair price would be 5.3 to 1.

However, if you assume that the shorter run-in has reduced the probability of each horse falling* by 20% on a relative basis, it means the probability of no faller goes down to 4.3 to 1, meaning Slim has an okay bet, but not a rick.

So not as bad a bet as I thought, but I don't see the rick.

* I don't think this is going to make a difference, but I am not an expert on this type of thing.
Click to expand...

Spot the difference between the educated man and the chap who read half of a book on statistics once. :D

But I have few observations:

You have taken out the 9 fallers but not the 40 runners from that race.
If you take out the 40 runners the odds become 15/2 (or 6.2/1 with a 20% reduction)
If you use the entire sample (assuming 38 runners on average), the odds come in at a shade under 14.9/1 (or 11.9/1 with the 20% reduction).


Which is still a lot better than I had it at but not a value bet.
 
simmo said:
Spot the difference between the educated man and the chap who read half of a book on statistics once. :D

But I have few observations:

You have taken out the 9 fallers but not the 40 runners from that race. No I haven't...I have just not gone as far back as that...that was 11 years ago.
If you take out the 40 runners the odds become 15/2 (or 6.2/1 with a 20% reduction) No need, see above.
If you use the entire sample (assuming 38 runners on average), the odds come in at a shade under 14.9/1 (or 11.9/1 with the 20% reduction). There have been so few non-runners in the last 10 years, that I just went with 400 runners. Won't make a bid difference.

Which is still a lot better than I had it at but not a value bet.
Click to expand...
 
Noted on the 9 fallers race. My apologies for my horrendous gaffe. :D

The entire sample calculation I did used all 25 years. I recall there being several races during the early part of that sample where there were less than 40 runners (possibly as low as 33 one year I think), hence the 38 average I used.

Which does, of course, indicate that there has been a shift towards less first fence fallers in the past ten years. Were there significant changes made to the first fence or the way the race was started 10 years ago?
 
With all the talk of fallers Always Waining must be the best 40/1 shot in the race with his course record over the big fences 4f16141.
 
Last edited:
davidjohnson said:
Any thoughts on Colbert Station? Very much an improving type, sure to get into the race, and being campaigned at present to keep his mark where they want it. McManus likely to have plenty of darts to throw at the race but this as interesting as any of them?

Have taken the 20s.
Click to expand...

Laziness as much as anything, but not changed from this view. Added Imperial Commander after they took him out of the Gold Cup. Expect them to fight out the finish.
 
I took On His Own at 16/1 shortly after the weights came out in the belief Ruby would ride in preference to PDB.

A couple of weeks back I took 18/1 Chicago Grey nrnb.

Last week I backed Imperial Commander because it's a 184 Gold Cup winner getting to run off 158. It might not win but I don't believe the weight will stop it. Something might be better handicapped on the day. It might be one of the other two or something else altogether.

My take in the race is ignore all those stats you read. The bottom line is that the race is always won by a well-handicapped runner who gets everything to fall right for it on the day.
 
Not looked as closely as i should but Teaforthree really makes sense.

I wonder if the race's appeal is generally on the wane? Usually get a fair few texts asking for tips off once a year punters (and in fairness its a good race for me) but nothing this year. Hardly a big sample but we also have the switch away from BBC too. Personally I have very mixed feelings and find it a slightly disturbing spectacle. Wouldnt miss it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top