The Well Worn Road To The Champion Hurdle (2016)

wilsonl said:
Not everything in this game is rating based though Archie.

Yes they facilitate a number of important aspects of the sport but a) they are not an exact science and b) many times horses would be capable of differing performances under different circumstances.

To the eye Rooster Booster was imperious.
Click to expand...

winning ratings are based on what horses beat..Westender was rated 157..so RB can only get 11 more

how far do you think Isty would beat a horse like westender?..the ratings suggest...another 8 lengths further than RB..thats why we need ratings..you have no clue what is what without them.

look at Vroom Vroom..looks impressive saturday win visually....then look at the horse in 2nd's rating
 
Last edited:
I'm one of the sheep who took 10/1 Peace And Co after Nicky Henderson's comment that neither Hargam nor Top Notch could beat Faugheen but Peace And Co "could/would"(whatever the actual word was). This was full in the knowledge of how good Faugheen is (imho better than RB, Hurricane Fly or anything else since Istabraq but maybe not yet better than Isty).

Yes, I've said Hendo doesn't always tell it like it is but when he's doing these pre-/early-season interviews and discussing the top prospects, he tends to be pretty upfront. He's more guarded about his handicappers.

For him to even mention P&C in the same breath as Faugheen was something I took as a big plus and an indication that he really rates this one and given the good ones he's had in recent years was worth noting.

Right now I've mentally binned that ante-post bet so I'm looking for a minor miracle.
 
they are based on the whole horse population each season though Wilson..thats as good as it gets as far as knowing how good the current crop is. Each season varies very little

You have to ask yourself where horses like Westender would finish behind Faugheen and Isty...plenty of data tells us..westender..isn't going to get within hailing distance of either
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
winning ratings are based on what horses beat..Westender was rated 157..so RB can only get 11 more

how far do you think Isty would beat a horse like westender?..the ratings suggest...another 8 lengths further than RB..thats why we need ratings..you have no clue what is what without them.

look at Vroom Vroom..looks impressive saturday win visually....then look at the horse in 2nd's rating
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you rate the race through Rhinestone Cowboy, you get a slightly different set of figures.

You can basically make any case you want (within reason) when it comes to ratings - because the data is open to such wildly-different interpretations - and we can never know if we are conclusively right or not (and that goes for the Official Handicapper too).
 
I know what you are saying but horses underperform and outperform every day of the week - otherwise handicap races would be a flurry of dead heats.

So isn't it possible that Westender outrun his OR behind Rooster Booster given that his previous best performance was under similar conditions in the previous year's Supreme.

And re yesterday while I was as impressed as everybody else we do know that winning distances can often be exaggerated in very soft ground.
 
You also have to take into account that RB's CH was back in the era of regular slippage, before Phil Smith started addressing the problem. Subsequent seasons' hurdlers had their ratings upped by about 6lbs until his new system bedded in. So any comparison with back then is open to question.

I've never been a fan of Timeform's ratings (due to expensive personal experience) and am much more trusting of ORs (in terms of rating horses relative to each other) but I also trust my own more than any others. I like to check others out just to see how we compare/contrast but ultimately I'll go with my own every time.
 
3lb different..he was 157 after CH..you then ask..is westender a 160 horse

either way ..RB comes out about 170

without any ratings at all..you are guessing with a potential error margin of + or minus 15lbs any race you look at..it would be pure guesswork

whereas with the ratings we have now..that error margin is very small
 
wilsonl said:
I know what you are saying but horses underperform and outperform every day of the week - otherwise handicap races would be a flurry of dead heats.

So isn't it possible that Westender outrun his OR behind Rooster Booster given that his previous best performance was under similar conditions in the previous year's Supreme.

And re yesterday while I was as impressed as everybody else we do know that winning distances can often be exaggerated in very soft ground.
Click to expand...


it wasn't very soft though..in fact compared to many recent meetings here and in Ireland..it was positively quick..just kiddin about quick obviously..but that ground wasn't heavy..in fact if it was...the time Faugheen put in would be 200 rating...it was only 9 seconds slower than RP standard..thats not dire ground
 
these are Leopardstowns recent goings

26 Dec = 56 lengths per mile slow
27 Dec = 43 lengths per mile slow
28 Dec = 55 lengths per mile slow
29 Dec = 66 lengths slow per mile
17 Jan = 41 lengths per mile slow
24 Jan = 29 lengths per mile slow


the scale is roughly ...Soft ground starts about 35/40+ lengths slow per mile..Heavy = 55/60+ lengths per mile slow

yesterday would be somwhere between G/S and soft

when you consider some Irish courses run when its 100+ lengths per mile slow ground..it puts in perspective that yesterday's 29 slow ain't desperate ground. The scale i use is based on all courses results here and Ireland.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
don't follow the each way bit....its to win the race without Faugheen isn't it?
Click to expand...

Essentially 4/5 to finish in the first 4 in 7 runner rave. It was a monumental rick. People on here talk a lot of shite about this and that but few can accurately price racing.
 
i only know the W/O betting on Betfair Slim..its win only on there...thats why when Wilson said 4/1..i automatically assumed it was win. The 4/1 was absolute madness for a place
 
It's not for a place, it's a market excluding Faugheen. There will be 7 runners in the race so w/o there will be 6. How you can offer 3 places e/w in this market and be 4/1 Arctic Fire was beyond me.
 
SlimChance said:
It's not for a place, it's a market excluding Faugheen. There will be 7 runners in the race so w/o there will be 6. How you can offer 3 places e/w in this market and be 4/1 Arctic Fire was beyond me.
Click to expand...

yes i know its without Faugheen,,did you not read my replies yesterday?..i know what you are on about...but i didn't when Wilson posted..i assumed it was W/O but had to beat every other horse

i don't use bookies sites..I didn't know they did place W/O fav bets..until Wilson posted..and i then looked
 
Last edited:
SlimChance said:
It's not for a place, it's a market excluding Faugheen. There will be 7 runners in the race so w/o there will be 6. How you can offer 3 places e/w in this market and be 4/1 Arctic Fire was beyond me.
Click to expand...

Yes these ricks do happen but when I tried to take advantage of one a number of years back the bookie refused to pay out, told me it could never have been on offer and then accused me of lying when I insisted it was. There were witnesses on this forum that the prices/places were there on the bookie's site that morning.

I wouldn't be surprised if they claim palpable error on this one.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Yes these ricks do happen but when I tried to take advantage of one a number of years back the bookie refused to pay out, told me it could never have been on offer and then accused me of lying when I insisted it was. There were witnesses on this forum that the prices/places were there on the bookie's site that morning.

I wouldn't be surprised if they claim palpable error on this one.
Click to expand...

it was way out just compared with Betfair W/O market..it was only 5/2 to win ..not place...without Faugheen.. on there.. at the same time as it were 4/1 to place with Laddies. A staggering misjudgement on their behalf...i wonder how much they layed at 4/1
 
Their compiler on that market yesterday was clearly an idiot. Before the race Arctic Fire was 7/2 and immediately after the race they pushed him out to 4/1 but they didn't even suspend the market during the race as I managed to get my first bet on as soon as Nichols Canyon started back pedaling 2 out.
 
wilsonl said:
Their compiler on that market yesterday was clearly an idiot. Before the race Arctic Fire was 7/2 and immediately after the race they pushed him out to 4/1 but they didn't even suspend the market during the race as I managed to get my first bet on as soon as Nichols Canyon started back pedaling 2 out.
Click to expand...

maybe a little bird told them he won't run in the CH
 
what are out talking about Slim..its simple..Wilson never mentioned ew when he first posted ffs..what are you not understanding?..he said..it was 4/1 without Faugheen...he never said EW..ok

I only use betfair..and the without fav market on there is NOT place without fav..you have to beat every horse in the race bar the fav

ffs..i'm sick of of explaining

if you want to score points..explain what you are taking the p1ss out of
 
Last edited:
Let me get this straight. Arctic Fire was 4/1 to win in a Without Faugheen market yesterday?

It was a good job I didn't know about it, otherwise I would have puked.....rather than just being on the verge of it all day.
 
no..that was what i thought Wilson meant..because he never mentioned EW in his first posting...it was 4/1 to place without Faugheen

Slim seems to think that me mistaking win for EW is a sign of stupidity..well folk should say it was place to start with..i didn't even know you could place bet wO the fav until yesterday
 
EC imagine Faugheen picked up an injury today (heaven forbid) and missed the race in March.

and the revised NRNB market has Arctic Fire in it quoted at 4/1, 1,2,3 1/4 odds.

There is simply no way he will be out of the first three and in all likelihood will win so the 4/1 is amazing value as win only but a bet to nothing in the e/w market.

It is exactly the same in the w/o market as you can bet win or e/w - the same as any bookmaker tissue. and the placings are treated as though Faugheen never ran.
 
Back
Top