Thoughts on Long Run via BST

(3 weeks ago)

The move to front-running Long Run only emphasizes the general point, although that can only be taken on trust once they line up.
It may help both horse and amateur jockey - the only thing to worry about from the front is getting the fractions right with no distractions. Most of his opposition are hardly going to be inclined to want to force it, in the way Nacarat always wanted to, and Kauto was out-the-ballpark good enough to.
Riverside is likely to sit second with his stamina now more in the confirmed box.
The reason i emphasize the 3m runs/form point is because at 2.5+ miles those in behind the front 2 are really going to start hurting. Providing there are no real thumping mistakes from Long Run that means they have to go into overdrive to overtake him at the very point where they're hurting the most because on paper they don't have the conditioning to stay well enough.
It's hard to envisage Long Run folding easily from 1st place because he always runs a very similar level of race.
Smaller field races aren't going to be much of a guide if they're going at LR's pace from the very start of the race - but that depends on SWC asking for no let-up at all on his mount and for LR to get into the kind of rhythm that saw him win it 2 years ago.
Lots of ifs, Kauto showed them how to do it last year though. 

 (19 days ago)

No change of gears definitely - he's one-paced absolutely no question.
Be very prominent/front-run - definitely, he finds it very hard to quicken at elite level pace.
Jockey - whatyagonnado aye
King George winner, Gold cup winner, dual Betfair Chase runner-up, Aon winner, King George runner-up, Gold Cup 3rd - for a horse aged 7 (and for any horse of any age) he has exceptionally strong form and sustained G1 3m top class ability.
Because of the nature of his extraordinary winning season he has since been assessed as if defeat is impossible: he must win every race to be a superstar and an unbeatable champion but that's not the M.O of the horse or necessarily the trainer: Long Run has been the victim of his own success. It points again to the sheer futility of "prices" in that because he's favourite he has to win and if he doesn't win he's not that good. Big Buck's puts that 'pressure' into perspective.
Here Sizing Europe is a fine example. A stunning Arkle winner but he was beaten all ends up in every single one of his starts after that until returning for the QMCC. That's not really very good at all is it? Some of them were by quite some way whereas LR very rarely gets beaten far (because he's actually got a really rare ability to sustain elite level 3m pace).
So yes Long Run has lost some battles. Last year he lost the races you highlight but what was going on? Was he ever really right. He got into an almighty war with one of the best racehorses of all time and got his ar$e handed to him fto as a result. Physically and mentally he was probably shot by that and, to boot, he was more than likely still progressing physically, or trying to. That's one hell of an ask and yet he still only went down narrowly in a KG managing to lunge at Kauto one last time too. It may have been his best effort to date all things considered?
Favourite for the King George: does he not have to be? Irrelevance of prices once more: were he 6 or 7/1+ everyone (nearly) would be saying that is "value": a crazy price for a KG winner & KG runner-up against a field with little 3m form. If anything one could say he 'should be' shorter but really it's all very pointless from an assessment p.o.v...

... The reaction to the Betfair Chase highlights some of the above. How on earth has he been beaten again, it's ridiculous, he's slow and not the horse he was.
I thought he looked the best he's ever been. I'm no expert on that, maybe he just had a shiny coat or something but he went through the race comfortably. If he's one-paced how can he possibly win a G1 slowly-run, stop-start affair against a horse who is in the form of his life, a superb 3m chaser and not far off favourite for the Gold Cup afterwards? Henderson had all but said they would tail him round without racing because of his hard race against Kauto last year. He's not been beaten far, what if Silvi wins the Gold Cup? How would the 2nd placing fto going easy look then?
Variety of thought.
Is the KG weaker? It might be. Didn't Al Ferof win a handicap in which only 6 finished? Should he be favourite? Should Cue Card be favourite, the buzzy Arkle runner-up that's never been 3m?
Then the race itself: it's a war, I think? I can't think of many "speed" horses winning a KG, Kicking King the last, but didn't he win a Gold Cup anyway, as Long Run has? Hell for leather from the off it's a brutal staying 3m like the World Hurdle where flashier, speedier, shorter-trip types get hurt badly and fade badly, that's assuming they're G1 class to start with.
Or is the race destined for the highest-rated chaser, the best 3m chaser in the race, a previous winner and runner-up of the race, a horse that can maintain 3m+ at one pace, elite pace?
##
That's obv the pro LR bit but it seems to make a whole world of sense.
Unless the horse is just "gone". 

(17 days ago)

Whilst I like most agree it's not as if there needs to be a clock in his head, Long Run has elite level pace and stamina it's more that SWC has to do what Ruby did and not wait around if it's a bit of a dawdle. I'd think it was a no-brainer but if he's not thinking and waits 3 fences the race changes shape a bit..
Couldn't disagree more with HDB trying to push that SE is a 3m horse with no worries. Small field Graded races in Ireland are often muddling and he appeared not to stay in either attempt - ground can't be an excuse because he won a Tingle on deep ground.
There's also an assumption, myself included, that SE would have won the Champion Chase but for the final fence issue. Two things though: this confirms SE as a 2miler through and through and anything but a 3m stamina horse; and that level of form isn't necessarily red hot: Finian's struggled a bit until that day and had lost his Arkle before that. 

(16 days ago)

Is Nicholas Mordino's conclusion an example of the confusion surrounding LR's abilities?

He says Silvi Conti's (sectional) times in the Betfair indicate him winning 4 out of 5 gold cups.

Yet being just 2.5L behind Long Run has gotten slower and less agile as a result of sizeable physical growth over the last two seasons.

If Conti is that good - and I think he certainly is - how can LR be so negatively evaluated when he's so close to him in a race that they were taking a shade easy and which had no pace until Conti injected it tactically (causing The Giant Bolster no end of problems as he points out)?

Do hypotheticals help? Had Kauto been retired LR's form figures would have been 1113 last season.

Watched Riverside's Ascot win again and he didn't half move through it well. 

(3 days ago)

Cue Card is a very good G1 horse and a fast one too. Part of what makes him near top class, I think, is that he gives his all in his races. Exuberance at the start (over fences he has more or less led from the start in every race) and at the end: winning distances of 6L, 8L, 13L, 8L before fences and 3.5L, 4L (7L clear at the last) & 26L.

His jumping is adequate and not under scrutiny (needless) but he is far from foot perfect and makes enough mistakes for a horse with elite level pretensions.

Soft ground, it is reasonable to deduce, will have him in the red zone at the second last, if not before. Given his exuberance/determination to give everything, emptying the tank appears far more likely than running to the line. 

Good luck to all betting on the King George.

Structured consistency: approach rundown

What better to get stuck into than a fair few non-winning selections? As a preface I'll take the opportunity to stress that the ultimate concern in my thinking is finding the likeliest winner of a race. In that respect backing three, four, five and more horses in any one race makes no appeal - that in itself is very easy to do. Trading holds no place whatsoever in analysis either. The other point of note is the general ethos behind winner finding: how accurate is the analysis trying to be, how predictive and how intent on reading the race correctly or more seeking a pay-out / ROI.

The strongest conclusion (as I've already thought about this a little) is likely to be that the process is sound (this will require mentioning successful bets from BST from last season but then this blog is merely an extension of that anyway) but has structural deficiencies arising from a) the timing of race analysis due to work commitments; b) variance; and c) a lack of focus on ROI. The latter one is quite surprising but it seems to be the case that initial financial return of any kind has been overlaid by backing a singular strand of analysis. All that should become clearer as I explain my losing bets posted on here; anyone reading where I went wrong AND how I was unable to steer myself onto the correct path may derive some benefit for their own approach.

Paddy Power Gold Cup

Perhaps one the trickiest things I find is weighing up the absolute quality of a race. On this occasion it wasn't a problem. It was a shocking renewal on desperate ground. I had little interest in the race having initially identified Notus De La Tour (more on him later) and with activity elsewhere focus on the race was below the required standard (#error). Because of the poor nature of the race in absolute terms (I did not rate Walkon highly at all before the off) it seemed clear that if Grand Crus reproduced his Feltham win he was by far the likeliest winner. A breathing problem (at least) ensured he was pulled up. The main #error was approaching the race from a very early point of view. Last season and indeed whenever possible decisions were left as late as possible. A combination of work commitments and poor overall focus led me to tackle the race early. This caused two problems: firstly, having decided on the shape of the race before confirmed runners and ground were known, I was blinded to the late swell of activity and betting moves for the winner Al Ferof. Secondly this meant I was unable to give Al Ferof due consideration and instead relied on an overall impression of him from last season. Whilst this is still probably accurate (I think) it meant he was not assessed in the context of this race and its super-weak field. This led to an improbable u-turn on the fav - whom I had raised considerable doubts about on these pages - due to the initial weighting of the race as poor and there being almost no alternatives (this in itself is often not the case of course). Whilst I didn't back Grand Crus for the race outright (he went into some small multi's instead) the lack of focus and desire/need to play the race early led to a poor conclusion. 

Hennessy Gold Cup

The above was compounded by a classical timing + analytical error in this race. In essence, this race boils down to Graded class ability v handicap (progression) ability. With a deluge of rain mid-week and the favourite Bob's Worth perhaps unlikely to run in such conditions (or if running on a bog) I again played the race ante-post and again it was unsuccessful. With deep ground the call was made to side with handicappers who had shown fair form and who might operate best over the trip. In terms of actual finishing positions the selections were good: taking away the top three who were all Graded class they finished in second and fourth (fifth & seventh). Whether the ground was in fact ever a concern for the analysis (class outs) is a kind of mute point as the ground dried significantly and the three Graded class horses ran through the deep end of the race to the line. With day of race conditions the decision not to side with fair handicappers would have been much easier but even here we have a key #error: "In essence, this race boils down to Graded class ability v handicap (progression) ability." so the correct play would have been one of each, a handicapper and one of the classy crop. Given I have continuing doubts as to the residual class and resolution of First Lieutenant then the winner could have been included in a strategy designed on ensuring an ROI. Strange as it sounds, I was happy to double-barrel the handicappers rather than take a more balanced approach which has to be noted for future runnings where the final decision is deemed marginal (which it was here during the downpours). This is also linked to the Likeliest Winner approach as covering all race scenarios leads to unwarranted numbers of bets on several horses in one race. The handicap picks were good; the approach to the race balance was not, ultimately leading to a poor conclusion.

December Gold Cup

Much less self-criticism required here as this was more than anything simply variance given my overall approach. A strategy I am very happy with is to rarely ever back 4yo's in big(ish) handicaps and to never back horses aged 12+. It simply rules out a lot of horses that return a miniscule win ratio. Of course there is a contra point that surely it is best to assess races on their individual merits and work from there and that is viable but I had already had a reversal in this race with a 5yo (as mentioned, Robinson Collonges) and despite Unioniste's "tougher" profile he was still a baby in my eyes! That overall explains why I said he "should be a million". Of course were it solely that it would be a slightly enigmatic approach but there was of course a very interesting candidate on paper that reminded me a little of Great Endeavour and it was a shame that Notus De La Tour developed a physical problem or just wasn't right on the day. Walkon has now finished second in both big intermediate handicaps. Analytical flaw? Quite the opposite and I am very happy to always field against this type of animal, for all that he has actually run quite well! He just hasn't looked like winning either race and for all the media coverage and shortness of price his profile is just neither progressive nor does he have performances of residual class in the bank following his time on the sidelines when injured. There is a good post on BST (not by me obviously) that shows the potential benefit for those who took Unioniste on merit rather than age. They'll win bad races like that now and then but little else outside of their own age group at that level.

The Betfair Chase was a quietly compelling race that was fine analytically with the winner pin-pointed. The real benefit was, potentially, doubling up the winner with Long Run in the King George. This is part of an overall strategy of pot control this season - to not get caught up in the here and now of any one race but also to maximise correct thinking across a number of races for a bigger return later down the line (should such longer term thinking bear fruit). This example gave 14/1 about Long Run on Boxing Day. The downside is not maximising the on-the-day win but in terms of the races highlighted here we can see that that's not a problem! Had they won though the potential for greater returns would kick in which is something I'm happy to pursue this season for a number of strategic reasons.

The Becher Chase saw another selected runner pulled up (this time with an abject display) but as a returning hero this is again more variance than anything else, particularly as the winner was a 14yo! West End Rocker remains well handicapped in part because he is just so impossible to be consistent with. Well, he may have the odd mental issue too. As an overall strategy he goes hand-in-hand with other returning heroes like Merigo and Always Waining and as such they will not always repeat win and this was a case in point. In theory the process was solid because had he performed then based on his demolition of Niche Market last season he would have accounted for a field led by the admirable but now retired (!) Hello Bud.

The fact that the four handicaps failed to produce a winner, whereas the Grade 1 contest proved accurate has personal ramifications. Handicaps are often best approached as late as possible when all information is known except in those circumstances where a horse has been tracked specifically with a certain race or conditions in mind. Handicaps in particular often take on different complexions as stable information is slowly revealed and certain runners come and go, with ground conditions assured (many times they are but this season has provided a good example of rapid change from stated/suspected descriptions). 

In contrast the abilities of graded horses can be more accurately defined from some way out: intentions are often clearer, preparations much more significant and traceable. In the Betfair for example, from a long way out it was made clear that Long Run would have a gentle introduction and that Silviniaco Conti was race-fit and firing on all cylinders for the race making assessment easy. 

Focus, patience and tactical betting all require further work with a keener eye kept on ROI policies, strange as that may sound: without an A-Game mentality analyses can wend a winding path leading to the kind of errors identified above.

Paul Stewart IronSpine Charity Challenge Gold Cup

Another big handicap set to be subject to rapid ground change presenting caution as the watchword. Anyway:

I remember backing Robinson Collonges in this a couple of years ago. He had looked all set to hammer Wishful Thinking in the Rising Stars at Wincanton but fell instead. Dotted up in a racecourse gallop afterwards to show well-being so the money went down. But he was a 5yo. He was traveling comfortably enough under Walsh but he hammered 3 out and that was it: taken out of his comfort zone he eased home 9th beaten 45 lengths. Tough ask for one so young. His form figures since that day perhaps reveal how hard a race he actually had overall: PP305P0.

Unioniste should be a million. Maybe his 2 - two - chase starts in this country have him prepared for the grueling mental and physical demands these types of handicaps place on very young horses. PN, you would think, knows otherwise and the Novices Chase entry seems far more sensible for the baby horse.

Walkon is interesting for a number of reasons, although he too I plain can't have. Quantitativeeasing was second in a rip-roaring (handicap-level-wise) renewal of the Paddy Power and came to this race and won a thriller of a top-class renewal (all-round). I'd suggest Walkon has neither the steeply progressive aspect nor the proven class in the bank to be effective as a bet option. Error? He did beat the uninspiring Zaynar at Exeter AND Notus De La Tour who was 3rd. NDLT was giving away 8lbs that day as a 5yo, and he was building slowly towards being a festival plot horse (I'd suggest). Now it's a 12lbs swing in NDLT's favour with Walkon exposed a) by being beaten 50L in 3 top class races before puling up in a Scottish National and b) not winning fresh with cut off 143 (now 5lbs higher).

Heavy rainfall would aid his chance however.

For me the race revolves around the Pipe stable and NDLT. Originally ear-marked as being well-forward and second up in the RPTV stable stars tour, the amount of concrete news on him has been meagre. Suggestions of slight hold-ups in training aside it seems a simpler case that Grand Crus was their Paddy Power horse and NDLT their December one. He went close to winning a G1 in soft ground before being sent off 5/2 for the Irish Arkle that Flemenstar took apart. NDLT led early and remained prominent for a long way until the winner's outrageous ability took over. They were perhaps finding out in part just how good their horse was but at the same time gaining a low-ish handicap mark and he duly turned up for the Byrne Group Plate as an 8/1 shot jumping three fences sweetly before lacking the appropriate landing gear on descent. 

NDLT had some high-level handicap hurdle form also and everything appears in place after a summer of further maturation for a huge run off a very feasible handicap mark in a weak renewal. Cristal Bonus could be the danger despite a stiff OR. Over to the Pipes!

Champion Hurdle 2013 - Grandouet

The 2012 Champion Hurdle really wasn't very good at all. The winner and second are honest prominent gallopers and another one of those, Celestial Halo, finished 9th after helping to set the pace. Oscars Well had the choke out as has been standard for him (fading into 6th) and Zarkandar, like Hurricane Fly, came to the race off only a 1-stop preparation, leaving them physically weak and unprepared. Binocular had finished 4.5L behind Overturn in the Fighting Fifth and, having beaten the winner in the Christmas Hurdle, drifted a further 2L behind Overturn in 4th in a more physically demanding race. Overturn himself is admirable and tough, in some ways like Binocular himself, without either being a hurdling star in any way (although many will argue Bincoular was on one occasion at least). 

Given the weak texture knitted by those runners Hurricane Fly could well have been below par and won or been second but he was a mile from match-fitness and failed to respond in the way he previously could as far out as the second last. Here though lies a clue as to the overall weakness of the race.

The pace had been good without being breakneck which is eminently sensible. The entire field were still clustered quite closely together until three and two out at which point Overturn and Rock on Ruby engaged a battling stream of turbo grind leaving the aging Binocular and the ill-prepared Hurricane Fly staring down a physical brick wall. By the last hurdle however the also-ran, pumped along and off the bridle, had closed up once more to be challenging without any prospect of getting past the tearaway two. 

 

This "slipping" of the field by Overturn and Rock on Ruby had everything to do with the physical ability and preparedness of the front two compared to the declining forces of the third and fourth and the troubled preparation of the fifth (and third). Running evenly to the line was simply enough in this race and Rock on Ruby - having lost to Binocular at Kempton in the manner of a resolute galloper - did that best. It was in fact Overturn who emerged with the best performance, however, having been 8L behind Rock On Ruby on that occasion and only 3.5L at HQ, trumping Binocular in the process. 

The International on Saturday should help to enlarge the picture as three main rivals clash (depending on the ground) but whatever the outcome of that race the 2013 Champion Hurdle is open and available to be taken apart by a horse with a little star quality and, excitingly, some real speed.

Ground dries, Class Outs..

For the second big handicap in a row the ground changed dramatically towards the end of the week rendering mid-week thoughts fairly limp. That's racing sometimes. Whether really deep ground would have altered the result is hard to say because the winner was very, very good and dossed in.

A pleasing aspect was that the two handicappers ran their races even though the class horses at the top occupied the front three positions. Hold On Julio hit the frame with some firms by sticking on for 5th - deeper ground would certainly have aided his cause as he was always struggling to get traction with the pace of the race. And that pace was set for a very long way by Fruity O'Rooney who ran a screamer in 7th still right there at the 3m point before fading late. He is small in stature but lion-hearted. Both horses should pick up a decent handicap this season and The Package deserves special mention for reproducing his Badger Ales run after just a 3-week break.

In contrast to his pace-making rival, First Lieutenant is a really big strong horse (not in the Giant/Slow Police Horse mould of a Joncol or Soll mind). He headed the field when his class got him further into the race than Fruity O'R but was it his heart or his stamina that wilted? His seventh defeat in a row ceding second place to Tidal Bay in receipt of 7lbs again suggests he struggles to find a way to win and is happiest following others home. 

Tidal Bay looks set for his best season ever with top-class runs imminent as a 12yo and a threat to all. Really? Well, no. There's no doubting the amazing work done by Paul Nicholls to 'work out' the mental nuances of the horse and unlock more of his physical capabilities than his previous trainer. Nonetheless the enigma remains and Tidal Bay has not found a way to win any of his last 11 chases at G1 or G2 level - his run-style alone makes improving that statistic a daunting task as he nears retirement but what a fine, charismatic horse he continues to be.

Bobs Worth won impressively off 160. He was getting weight off Tidal Bay but consideration must be given to the style and deep impression of his win, moving well and picking up the leaders comfortably before going away. His HQ record speaks for itself and he rightly moves to the head of the Gold Cup betting. As is fast becoming the norm, as few runs as possible before the festival is the preferred route and only one more run is planned. It will be interesting to see, come March, how he responds to running with G1 elite level runners such as Long Run, Silviniaco Conti and....?

Can the Hennessy bear Fruit @ 33/1?

1 2541-1 Tidal Bay28 11 11-12 Paul Nicholls52 R Walsh 166
Extraordinary horse. Has won two prestigious chases (Arkle, Whitbread) in the year when, respectively, they were probably the worst renewals of the race ever. 16f and 30f shows the range of his ability and with hurdles wins in there too there's probably not a lot he can't do when the race is weak enough. This is a borderline poor Hennessy. Would have been fascinating to see him in here off his pre-Sandown mark of 154 but rising 12 off 166 requires JK Rowland to step in.
2 2887-1 Roberto Goldback28 10 11-8 Nicky Henderson50 162
Simon Munir listened to Barry Gerraghty and Nicky Henderson did the rest. He's absolutely lagged up in a 56k Ascot chase and again you wonder what that rejuvination could have done here off 150. It's rare that the Hennessy is won by a 'double-upper' - that is winning on reappearance and then taking this down too a) for handicapping reasons and b) the physical and mental demands the Hennessy requires, no doubt the reason Welsh National runners who run here may as well not bother.
3 1321- Bobs Worth262 7 11-6 Nicky Henderson50 160
Very few miles clocked up in a seamless ascent through the ranks beating the future Champion Hurdle winner en route to an AB win and returning after breathing issues and/or some lacklustre jumping displays to take the RSA from First Lieutenant. Yet to race on officially soft ground and whilst his size brings about worries on the likely ground his robust mental attitude will never see him down tools. Not a bruising tank like Denman and highly likely to fall short of Denman's class but then Bobs Worth isn't top weight either. Perhaps more importantly it just may be inconceivable that Henderson of all trainers would bottom a true HQ horse first time up in a Hennessy bog, so readily passed over.
4 223-42 First Lieutenant28 7 11-5 M F Morris60 159
Beat Rock on Ruby at the festival and returned after a surprisingly mixed and robust campaign to finish second to Bobs Worth in the RSA. His trainer has always maintained the need for good ground yet has run him several times, many of them unnecessarily (it would seem), on deeper ground. The question FL has to answer is does he have the tools to find a way to win any race whether he runs here or not, but here he will be 362 days without a win after 6 straight defeats. His last run would appear to give him every chance as it was a close 2nd in a G1 on soft ground over 3m yet small-field affairs are a world apart from the pace from the start of a Hennessy. In his defense he has big-field form as a novice hurdler.
7 110-3 Hold On Julio42 9 10-8 Alan King71 148
A rapid riser which always leaves cause for concern. The races he won impressively last season were weak affairs of little consequence and he was duly caught out for experience and the rest at the festival. His reappearance run was however some of the best form on offer in this race and despite a further rise in the weights he can now be pegged as being capable of being involved in the finish of a high quality race off 148. Ground is a bit of a guess but he is all stamina and a softer surface will play to that. The biggest concern in terms of being the likeliest winner arise from the impact his sometimes wayward leaps can have on his rhythm, prominence and place in the race. At HQ his momentum was just checked now and then and it was on the flat that he was making up the ground, that can be exacting. Nonetheless he managed to chase the tail of Balthazar King, a tool and rhythm king, so Julio could well go off favourite and win.
8 18511- Lion Na Bearnai236 10 10-8 Thomas Gibney 148
Pass, mark, profile, class.
9 P09-L0 Carruthers14 9 10-7 Mark Bradstock67 147
Everything dropped perfectly last season for the race of his life: ground, race strength, hcap mark. Not that he wasn't perfectly entitled to take one down in terms of class, he was, and many knew it, despite a potholed profile. His form figures since that great day last year tell it all, however.
11 55/4-1 The Package21 9 10-7 David Pipe47 147
Finally boosted his strike-rate over fences with a flawless win in the Badger Ales but as with Roberto Goldback he was targeted at that race not this one making this contest an even more brutal examination of his residual ability off only a 21 day break.
12 1P11-8 Teaforthree14 8 10-6 Rebecca Curtis20
A surprising entry in many respects as Hennessy runners have a truly shocking record in the Welsh National which is said to be this horse's main target. Doesn't appear particularly well handicapped and despite having a staying record weakened alarmingly first time out this season.
13 1325-0 Fruity O´Rooney42 9 10-5 Gary Moore57 145
Along with Hold On Julio he offers some of the best handicap form in the race. Arguably could have won the Skybet Chase at Doncaster (off 140) but for the saddle slipping and his performance from the front around Cheltenham in the Festival Chase was outstanding, bested only by the very well handicapped Alfie Sherrin. He again gave everything before tiring into 5th in the Scottish National. He handles soft and heavy ground - he got into a few wars on such ground at the beginning of 2011 but they seemed to have made him stronger. Hurdles spin preparation is standard for the yard and his huge appeal lies in his mental robustness, ground ability and competitive handicap mark. If he's accurate and finds his own rhythm those in behind will have a race on to get to and pass him. Very interesting runner.
14 24U01- Saint Are231 6 10-5 Tim Vaughan67 145
Not unreasonable to suggest his sole claim to running in this race is his sign-off win after an indifferent campaign last season. May handle soft despite rarely running on it but that Aintree chase win was a searingly poor affair and scraping home from a "reluctant" rival did little to suggest he's of this standard, physical improvement over the summer notwithstanding.
15 2511-2 Duke Of Lucca28 7 10-4 Philip Hobbs40 144
Could be strongly progressive this season but the toughness of this race along with soft ground is a little off-putting. Would have much stronger claims on good ground.
16 45PP-P Diamond Harry21 9 10-3 Nick Williams33 143
Yes or no but simply a no here as the ground will rip apart any physical weaknesses.
17 PP-522 Magnanimity16 8 10-3 D T Hughes69 143
Another surprising runner. A torrid first season out of novice company where he was never right he has showed some signs of life this season. However, the RSA in which he was 1L 4th was a terrible renewal and he has ultimately shown few signs he is ready to win a race let alone one of this brutal nature.
18 112P-P Harry The Viking14 7 10-2 Paul Nicholls52 Daryl Jacob 142
Passed over by Ruby after a poor reappearance.
19 211P-4 Ikorodu Road30 9 10-1 Matt Sheppard 141
Pass.
20 21U-4F Frisco Depot28 8 10-1 Charlie Longsdon64 Mr S Waley-Cohen5 141
One of the few runners to offer unexposed soft ground 3m chase form in the race. Money arrived strong and late for him at Ascot and has come again here. A big worry would be that he was keen at Ascot and could have fallen before he actually did and were he to be keen again then his race could be done with before 3 out.
21 1/21B- Soll262 7 9-13 Jo Hughes 139
Pass.
22 1235-3 Alfie Spinner28 7 9-12 Nick Williams33 138
Gets in at the bottom here because he has managed only 1 win from 7 starts over fences. Likely to handle the ground but not the class of this contest.

Ante-Post Selections are both intended runners: Fruity O'Rooney e/w 33/1 & Hold On Julio 7/1

Glorious Conti and Long Run to Regain?

On #BST I dotted out some reasons for saying:

"liking Conti in the Betfair. Hope he's man enough to see it through
but getting a (surprising) stonk on for Long Run in the KG, the race I think he's best suited to.
around 16/1 for the double, will be having a good go at it" 

So is a payday looming? 

Silviniaco Conti was breathtaking in the Rising Stars chase at Wincanton last season. For sure he beat little but it was straight out of the "way he did it" basket. Rhythm, attacking, athletic. It appears (now) he ran into a bit of a one-off in the Feltham whilst still having the eventual RSA winner behind. He was perhaps undone by mental inexperience as much as anything, still running the winner down at the end of the contest. In the Betfair Chase he was all man: rhythm from the front, attacking out of deep ground, athletic - bar the last - in clearing his fences. Quite a few have ante-post vouchers for the King George, where he won't be going, and the Gold Cup where he almost certainly will be. The potential lack of a prep run is quite off-putting for March though.

And what of Long Run?

Vanquished again but predictably so: (from BST) My view atm is that he is a top class one-paced grinder and that that reveals itself around Kempton better than any other track.

I really like Conti for the Betfair but whatever he does I remember NJH saying last year they thought they got into a war with Kauto and it left a bit of a mark on LR for the KG - he's got the ability to take a Betfair slog down but my guess is they will take it as it comes and an easier race is preferred (which could still mean a win) to preserve an all-out attempt at Kempton, home of his best runs.

With Kauto retired I'd say LR is boss man at Kempton and just hanging around for the afterparty at HQ.

Henderson's comments were crucial in that they indicated a keen fear of a hard race in bad ground first up. So it proved. However, he appeared to look quite striking in his appearance - more of "a man" as owner and trainer had indicated in pre-season. He moved through the race pretty well and his placing was never threatened, at least only by himself with his usual now-and-then leaps out of the Goat-On-Acid playbook. That's just him though. A lot of his jumping is really good.

Why Kempton? If he's one-paced then a speedy three miles flat tracking won't help him? Everyone has their view and mine is that the King George is a brutal test of high-class stamina. There are no breathers. It may have been Ruby Walsh - I can't remember - who once likened going round the track in a King George as being on roller-skates: almost continually turning with no rest. Once turned, it's jumping, jumping, galloping and turning again. Kauto Star was most likely so brilliant there because he was just so brilliant. Top-end Grade 1 class with stamina is unbeatable. Long Run has only lost around Kempton to Kauto Star. A (soft) Feltham destruction; his King George win, comfortably, by 12L from the future Ryanair winner; and last year's desperate late lunge at one of the Greatest ever: that is some achievement what with winning a Gold Cup too.

Not many horses can cope with the demands of a King George to an extent where they are actually in a race proper turning for home: nearly all are left behind by the one or two with elite G1 class and the stamina to sustain that gallop on a course where no let-up is allowed. To have to keep finding like that hurts a lesser animal in their bones and they wilt. Long Run won't wilt at Kempton. Can any of his rivals do his level of grind?

Fading Fly

Winner of 14 from 17 over hurdles, placed in the other three. Hurricane Fly needs no introduction as one of the best two mile hurdlers of a generation, possibly ever. Only Injuries prevented a fuller list of accolades. He finally won the one that mattered most in a stirring lung-bursting battle with the most hardy, arguably most talented runner-up of the race since the Hardy and Brave years. As with that other iconic hurdler, Big Buck's, part of Hurricane Fly's supreme talent that season lay in robustness: he could have wilted after Cheltenham but instead was just as imperious back in his Native Ireland.

Last season saw the fade begin. Beset by niggling problems once again, he was unable to make the track until January. A one-step to the most grueling of battles is rarely ever enough and so it proved, besting the other much-vaunted decliner, Binocular, but unable to muster a challenge to the two hard-hats in front. Never traveling like he used to, he stuck at it, the resolution of a champion. It's true he edged out the limited Zaidpour in Ireland afterwards but there was little swagger on show, the swagger that so captured the imagination. 

Given that this season he reappeared with a win it might seem churlish to be forecasting his lesser powers. Forecasting has no sway with sentiment, especially in a brutal arena such as the festival. Nor does that opening win affect the narrative: again he seemed shackled too closely for comfort to a lesser force. Go Native, still a useful speedball rising 10, closed towards his more illustrious rival ready to launch a war before miss-stepping the last.

As mentioned before it is testament to the unnerving quality of Hurricane Fly that, despite a lackluster defence of his crown and his swagger curtailed on reappearance, he is favourite to regain the title of Best Around. But at the age of nine will he really progress again, improve again, really fly again? Or will he be grounded by the daunting-looking army of young and hungry 2m hurdlers set to make March a war with no trenches?

Unequivocally the latter. No right to waiver.

The Paddy Power Aftermath & Rhythm?!

1) Not being "at the races" is a problem.

Expectation can work both ways. I expected several things all of them wrongly because I was at work and not near a TV on Saturday: the ground was bordering on heavy with work done for g/s; Grand Crus lined up - inconceivably - at the back of an 18 runner field on deep ground when I had expected him to sit third or at least no deeper than sixth; and, given it was Pipe and the horse's first run of the season, that any physical problem would have been picked up long before this race. The latter you would have expected to have been sorted after the RSA but is a part of racing in any case. The first two combined to leave any analysis of Grand Crus, positive or negative, to be irrelevant: name the last horse to set off stone last on deep ground in a big-field top-level handicap and win? Those errors are mine: don't expect something especially when you're not around to check on it. Lest we forget there was no win single bet on Grand Crus - the race held little appeal overall - I used innate genius to double him with Darlan, a non-runner! Expect to lose, then.

2) Substantial problem(s) identified about a key horse should not be transferred onto their opponents.

Re-forming opinions is essential. Many stick doggedly during a season or over many seasons to an assumption, a belief, or a hope. That can pay off once but what of all the other times? The above expectation (largely shaped from the Feltham win over Silviniaco Conti and Bobs Worth and that devastating mid-race move which probably bottomed/hurt him) coincided with a total lack of credible unexposed opposition. Nothing with an OR between 146-149 is inconceivable. To identify strong weakness in a key horse (or favourite) is enough, there is no need to search and question the opposition for their strengths, just let the problem horse fade. Instead, largely dissatisfied with the quality of the race as a whole,  the tables get flipped. Makes no sense now, of course. On heavy ground any hint of weakness or physical problem pulls a horse out of shape, it hurts them. Focus on the weaknesses of the assessed horse, not the weaknesses identified in a more generic abstract sense about the race, I'd say.

I wonder if it was "Pipe's insanity" to set the horse off last, or whether they knew in any case of some underlying problem. Regardless, he remains of little to no interest in any backing sense; I wonder how much the front two will progress this season.

Upcoming...

Paddy Power aftermath: Pipe "insanity", the problem with Al Ferof and why I'm against Hurricane Fly...

2012 Paddy Power Gold Cup

Few with chances, most with none....

A strange quirk in the build-up to the 2011 renewal was that the eventual winner was not even mentioned in the RPTV analysis of the race. Not meant as criticism in any way, as Mr Watts said they have very limited time and can’t cover everything: it just goes to show that sometimes the obvious can slip by all too easily. Great Endeavour was trained by the race’s strongest stable, had winning festival form and was ideally handicapped. An irrelevant flashback? Well the same stable have the likeliest winner this year also: it matters to many that he’s now only 2/1 but in terms of the race itself that denominator is irrelevant. Grand Crus’s profile and quirks are detailed below - staring at a very weak Paddy Power field I’m happy to revise the preliminary conclusion. Very few doubts or concerns materialise for Saturday; the King George will be another bridge later on.

It would have been fascinating to watch a stablemates battle as Notus De La Tour would have received a major chunk of weight, but Pipe, hardly averse to running multiple entries in big races, has other plans. The quirk of this race lies in the official ratings. Alarm bells should ring for those wanting to challenge the 150+ brigade because there is no progressive, talented horse with a competitive OR of 146, 147, 148 OR 149. Where are they? The two that reside on 145 have pretty much shown their rather limited hands already, to boot. (This general point was made, subsequently, by Ruby Walsh on Friday)

Some perspective of the race can be gleaned via Hunt Ball. A fine narrative of a horse continually responding to racing and winning, without doubt, but in terms of racing structure, core achievement and future progression it goes 3x1k, 1x3k, 3x7k and then what was probably the worst festival handicap chase ever, the form of which would be more akin to the 1-7k events in which his ascent began. He did win it well and signed off with a fine third in the G1 Betfair Bowl at Aintree. I’ve talked elsewhere of the great - often immense - difficulty of picking up such a season in the same kind of form after a break. Wishful Thinking in this race last year springs readily to mind. With the King George declared as the somewhat ambitious first half season target, a watching brief is strongly advisable.

What not to be is afraid. Far too often a defensive posturing surrounds strong predictions concerning favourites at a short price. The price merely reflects financial reward amounts for being right, the thing to worry about is the being right, the analysis. Flexibility outlasts a stubborn prediction; wiggle room is always essential. Here, as with the RSA, the opposition is or has already faded away, but in the RSA the horse suffered from a cotton wool preparation and consequently scoped badly post-race. Now, he should be at the peak of his physical powers, which he will need to be especially if held-up in a big field handicap. Long Run laboured first time out - unprepared - as Little Josh powered on up front but Grand Crus is in many ways antithetical to the bruising, often clumsy, stamina-laden King George and Gold Cup stalwart. Pipe declined the Betfair Chase for the very favourable first up conditions to be encountered at HQ.

If Hunt Ball’s performance is none too predictable then he is joined on that front by Al Ferof. Dismantled in the Arkle, the future Gold Cup horse was trying 2m against a monster and it told spectacularly. He had been overrated in any case and it is not unreasonable to conclude that following his facile chase debut he started down a regressive line. Whether a breathing problem emerged I’m not sure but legging it after Grand Crus and co in a big-field handicap doesn’t seem an entirely beneficial or appealing return to work. Despite a multitude of questions to answer, he’s third favourite - a further indication of the easing task being set the favourite. Walkon, too, was regressive last season.

Likeliest winner: Grand Crus - AMENDED, only if not setting off stone cold last! #Rhythm

What to do, with Grand Crus

It's perhaps not surprising that a firm plan hasn't been mapped out for Grand Crus. Worth remembering that he ran well against Big Buck's but was eyeballed and beaten easily looking of smaller stature and resolution. Subsequently at Aintree he was demolished before being sent (presumably pot-hunting) to France. He was exhausted and well beaten.

He got the rave reviews as most good horses do FTO over fences but his next three runs have all left question marks. Having been closely attended by Sonofvic he then appeared to run with the choke out in the Feltham. His destructive move was mid-race where Bobs Worth and Silvi Conti couldn't cope with the exuberant pace he injected, very much like those that attempted to give chase to Nacarat when that horse had ideal conditions. Despite that, he was being held together approaching the line looking very much (to me) a tired horse. Silvi Conti, himself far from accomplished, got back to him and the form of that race could well be just as it is: a 2.25L beating of the Nicholls horse who was brushed aside in the Reynoldstown. That race would have left few question marks had it not been for the flurry of superlatives that followed, tilting stable and media to talk of a Gold Cup assault. Beaten 18L in the RSA, the talk was misplaced. He can be forgiven that run as he "wasn't right" and scoped dirty afterwards but the Feltham and an excuse have propelled him towards the head of the PPGC & King George markets.

As noted at the time, talk of the Gold Cup was perhaps the most disturbing aspect of his season: having gone pot-hunting when exhausted at the end of his big hurdles season, they appeared wont to extract another payday that was out of kilter with both the horse's physical characteristics and his stage of development. It suggests that, due to size, his sometimes choke-out style, or whatever, his durability is in question.

That will be tested once and for all this season as, stepping into open company, he has nothing but the biggest races as alternatives.

A curious duality has, it seems, already emerged. Supposedly, the PPGC distance of 2m5f is "ideal" for a horse with question marks about his stamina - a drop in trip, running at the speed in which he ran the Feltham, make him a huge player. Yet he is equally prominent for the King George, a lung-bursting 3m which in open company places stern emphasis on stamina due to the constant breather-less nature of the race/track. He stayed 3m over hurdles but fences exact a bigger physical exertion; he lasted it out in the Feltham as a novice but only just and had he not been off colour in the RSA it is still open to question how much if any superiority he would have enjoyed against out and out grinders up the hill. So which is it?

A horse surrounded by continual decisions and "either/or's" - they are still not sure what they have, or how good what they do have is, or how good he will be in three to six months time, or whether he has the constitution to come back and repeat the process. The jury is very much out for me too, for either race and the future. Horses who try to eyeball Big Buck's then get beaten in the ultra-grind of an RSA are most likely not going to 'make it'.

Change the Default Settings

A key point highlighted by the ‘value’ myth in turf horse racing is just how difficult and disorientating it can be to change a heavily ingrained pattern of thinking. Some ways of thinking are repeated so often that they become automatic, like a default setting, and the requirement to reassess on a different plane is lost.

The current situation at Liverpool and the transfer window is another example of this. Stemming from a different sport the example has different characteristics: the ways of thinking are not necessarily unfounded or flawed as they are concerning ‘value’ in horse racing. Opinions on how to strengthen the playing performance of a team are endless and can be supported. So here the interesting thing is not that it is Liverpool but just how strongly that default setting kicks in, leading to a repetitive cycle of analysis that does not appear to progress.

The explosion of opinion, dissent, concern - whatever - when Liverpool were unable to sign another striker during the transfer window bordered on the bizarre. As a functional opinion the reaction had merit, a club should hold a certain number of playing staff covering certain positions and so on. What was bizarre was how that was expressed and magnified, be it by supporters or media commentators, not least because of the three individuals that were involved: none of them were particularly important.

The first was Andy Carroll. Not a first choice striker at any stage, he was around third choice striker at the club and has never been viewed by a manager of the club to be central to the team’s plans. That much was obvious but it was cemented by Carroll lasting 70 minutes on debut before getting injured. For some reason, however, once he had left it then became essential he stayed at the club. Repeated like a mantra, but never really explained why.

The second was the suggested replacement, Clint Dempsey. The 29yo who had point blank refused to play for his team was deemed an essential purchase at any price (and wages). What wasn’t said so often, was that his fee and wages would lead to him sitting on the bench. Amid the clamour to sign him - well, anyone, really - it never really emerged that to utilise him would mean dropping the £24m Uruguayan striker Luis Suarez, who had just signed a lucrative contract extension and was the confirmed number one striker at the club. So ingrained was the mantra to sign a replacement for Carroll, that all sense was mislaid as such a replacement would be sat on the bench, like Carroll was, unless the manager ditched his whole approach to the game and played a version of 4-4-2. Fortunately (to inject a personal opinion on players) the owners stepped in and said the Dempsey deal was only good as a squad addition, not a pension plan for the player. Dempsey went to Spurs, where he will likely struggle.

The third was the £15m-rated Daniel Sturridge. He essentially plays the same kind of role as Suarez and Borini and it could be argued the jury is out on his overall ability. His appearances for Chelsea in wide positions became increasingly predictable: cutting inside from whichever flank he was on and then passing inside or shooting (usually the latter, but often with less accuracy than the already low accuracy of the current Liverpool team).

When no deal for a player was done, the world had all but ended. Default thinking kicked in that said without a third choice striker, the season was over. No-one told Chelsea that before they won the Champions League, nor Arsenal this season before they dismantled Liverpool albeit with some considerable help. Many teams utilise only one key striker throughout a season, the Manchester clubs excepted.

There was even further confusion. The word that got dropped from the discussion was ‘proven’. Liverpool had already signed the prolific young striker Samed Yesil from Leverkusen - striker. And the club already employed Suso, a young striker with a blossoming reputation. So the club has four strikers to call upon but the key to everything and everyone showing ‘wellness’ was signing a striker who would not start in the first XI - the only place with some interchangeability is Borini’s, but he was signed for £11m to play in a particular system. Raheem Sterling, however, has been the best attacker in the opening games, and cost nothing.

Confused or confusing? Both. Particularly with Liverpool, the default setting has for some considerable time been that ‘one player’, yet to be signed, will make all the difference. If signed, that player will solve the multitude of tactical, technical and mentality issues throughout the team, leading to heightened success, or at least higher levels than if he were not to be signed. One individual. This was the repetitive thinking that mushroomed around the Clint Dempsey deal.

The answer lies within. The stats show that, as with the game against Manchester City, Arsenal had to work exceptionally hard for their superiority which even then was ultimately handed to them. Liverpool’s success or lack of it has virtually nothing to do with backup strikers: with the transfer window shut, the club can get on with the task of building a structure that outlasts individuals. A coaching method and playing style stamp that is the hallmark of good teams. Maybe then the patterns of thinking will change too.

Liverpool on verge of Premiership springboard

At long last, a Liverpool manager with a clear protocol for developing a systematic pattern of (attacking) play for his team. A trio of excellent signings added to a brilliant defence and a world-class striker. If only it had happened when Gerrard was 25. LFC supporters can finally herald, also, a manager who understands what fast, tricky wingers do on a football pitch. Tiki-taka might take some time but, equally, it might not.

Liverpool +19pts 14/1 e/w
Luis Suarez TGS 16/1 e/w

The Value Myth #1

The largely unchallenged notion of ‘value’ in horse racing betting houses a complex problem that I believe has received very little worthwhile attention. The origin of the term as it is currently understood in horse racing betting, so far as I can tell, is unclear but it almost certainly derives its modern context from similarities to the use of the concept in the game of poker and the game of Texas No Limit Hold’em in particular.

In short, ‘value’ as a strategy in horse racing betting has all the hallmarks of a myth. Here I am only concerned with turf horse racing for the simple reason that racing conditions on turf are hugely variable, whereas on the all weather surface there is a far more certain degree of regularity and repetition of racing conditions.

In racing betting the most common phrases regarding the word ‘value’ include: ‘At the prices [horse A] is value’; ‘Given that [horse A] is 4/1 and [horse B] is 14/1, [horse B] represents the best value’; and ‘[horse A] has a great chance but I’m looking for some value’. There are others, of course. What these examples refer to is the idea, roughly, that in any given race a horse’s price offered by the bookmakers may be ‘too big’. This means that in the subjective view of the person placing the bet, the horse has a much better winning (percentage) chance than the odds on offer imply. In one of the above phrases, for example, the person backing the 14/1 shot clearly believes that horse B would win the race in question let’s say around once in every seven attempts, giving the ‘true odds’ or ‘truer odds’ of the horse as 7/1. By backing the horse at 14/1 therefore, the person placing the bet believes he or she has ‘value’ or ‘the value’ because the horse will win the race – in theory at least – more times than the odds imply, giving the bettor ‘value’ or, put another way, a much better bet than should actually be available.

In Texas No Limit Hold’em the same idea is dominant. From the vast array of possible hands one will suffice as an example. Two players, with equal chips, with starting hands (Player 1) 6h7h v (Player 2) AsAd [67 v AA]. Pocket aces is the best pre-flop starting hand in No Limit Hold’em, they will win in this situation roughly 77 times per hundred played (77%). On the flop for these two players comes 2h 4h Js. Now player 1’s hand is favoured more than it was, as one more heart makes a flush, but AA is still dominant and expected to see out and win this hand roughly 60% of the time. Player 1 has increased his chances from roughly 22% to 40%. Both players bet to stay in the hand. The turn then brings a ‘blank’, 2c – a card that for each player is highly unlikely to improve their opponent’s hand. Player 2’s original hand started with maximum strength pre-flop, became more tricky after the flop, but has strengthened again as his opponent fails to catch the card that would make his hand. Player 2 is now an 82%-18% favourite. As such, player 2 makes another bet from his strong position. It is now up to player 1 to decide if he wants to pay to stay in the hand and try to catch a heart on the river that would make his flush and win him the pot. What determines what player 1 will do depends on the concrete value of the bet he is being offered. In scenario (A) player 2 bets 40,000 and the pot becomes 160,000. Player 1 knows his chances of winning the hand are roughly 20% or 5/1. He is being offered pot odds of 4/1 by his opponent (40k to win 160k) and so folds. In scenario (B), player 2 bets 20,000 and the pot becomes 140,000. This time player 1 is being offered 7/1 about a hand he is 5/1 to win. This is value, he calls the bet (20k) and the fifth and final card is turned over. Win or lose, player 1 was offered bigger odds of winning than the actual odds implied and so can be said to be making a ‘value call’. In other words if he repeats this bet at those odds hundreds of times, he will come out in front, winning more than he loses on this particular situation. In the long run, he will have found value, obtaining more money by winning events that were priced incorrectly. If Player 2 bet 30,000 making the pot 150,000, the odds for calling and seeing the final card would be 5/1 – exactly the odds of player 1 winning the hand over time. In the long run therefore, no advantage would be gained and no value can be observed.

In theory, this is exactly what the person placing the horse racing bet at odds of 14/1 is doing: they are looking to consistently make bets at odds higher and in some cases much higher than the ‘real’ or ‘true’ odds of winning the horse holds in their opinion.

The last bit is crucial. ‘In their opinion’; and this is where it gets interesting. You can carry out your own poker experiments regarding the percentage probabilities and decision making of various hands here: http://www.pokerlistings.com/online-poker-odds-calculator. Several inescapable observations emerge when considering poker hands as a means of assessing value:

-    the game conditions are clearly defined and operate unilaterally everywhere. One table, between 2 and 10 players per table, 52 cards only, the same 52 cards only, the same statistical probabilities per hand definition (e.g. with AA v KK the pre-flop odds always favour AA 8 times out of 10 (80%)). This never changes;

- there are any number of subjective decisions and psychological variables at play in a game of poker but none of these affect the actual statistical certainty of a particular situation, such as the example given earlier. The cards will fall and hands play out in exact accordance with their statistical values over a long period of time (long enough to sustain significant variance). The values are known and calculable in theory;

-    the application of statistical probability models is applied and developed alongside the use of inanimate objects – cards.

Now consider the depth of difference between these conditions and the vast (sometimes incalculable) array of variables that feature in assessing races in the sport of horseracing. They are too numerous for an exhaustive list but include:

-    the ‘game conditions’—in this case everything experienced by the horse in the course of their preparation and day of race—is incalculable in percentage terms. There is no race that can be said with any certainty to represent a clear statistical model on known information in any way similar to a poker hand;

-    a horse’s ‘chance’ can change radically at any point in time in the lead-up to a race but a poker card always affects a given hand in the same way, strengthening and weakening that hand accordingly. Of course, poker opponents cannot know for sure each other’s hand strength: that introduces the fundamentals of skill and experience that give the game its bottomless appeal. Racing has any number of indicators: ‘betting money’ may indicate a horse has a very strong chance (it often means nothing too); a horse may have a physical problem or be unwell, neither of which can be known (mostly) and neither of which can be adjusted in terms of probability; a horse may alter its physical state pre-race thus violently skewing any pre-held estimates of ‘chance’—a horse sweating and reacting nervously or even just looking less than bright in its coat could all indicate a depression in the level of their upcoming run: how can that be factored into a sustainable price model?

-    In poker the cards stay the same but the opponents change. In racing everything is in constant flux: stable form/health, opponents, ground, preparation, injury detection, weather, travelling, pace a race is run at—essentially every variable possible is in play precisely because racing deals with animate objects with wildly fluctuating game conditions over time. Virtually nothing is repeatable with the exact same conditions.

Perhaps one of the strangest yet most consistently used terms in racing betting is ‘[horse A] should be shorter’. We can see from the earlier example how this is a widely perceived expectation of ‘value’ if indeed finding a horse that ‘should be shorter’. In the context that underscores this discussion it is a flawed and confused concept, however. In analysing a race the search of all available criteria has the aim of finding the likeliest winner of the race: the horse with the strongest credentials. Precisely because the game conditions in turf horse racing are almost never repeated it is not possible to apply a rationale that is based on the repeatable sequence of events occurring limitless times in the future, as is the case with poker. To say a horse with odds of 14/1 ‘should be 7/1’ is to imply that if the race as it is run the first time is repeated as an event under the exact same conditions (same opponents, ground, track bias, wind direction and strength, horse’s health and physical condition, stable health etc) then the horse would win far more frequently than the original odds suggested. This is unknowable. There can be, of course, a certain amount of estimation. This is the case in poker where one has to estimate an opponent’s hand. In poker, this estimation forms part of the overall decision but that decision is still reliant on a series of statistically predictable and repeatable events where analysis can reveal if certain decisions are profitable in the long term. In racing a given race is never repeated making projected future outcomes invalid and irrelevant. “If the race had been run on fast ground (instead of soft) then the outcome would have been different” is a common refrain but its place as an analytical footnote, as one can see, is just that: it bears no relevance unless the same horses replicate the same race conditions (preparation, preliminaries, field size, draw [flat], etc) with the sole exception that the ground is officially described as ‘good to firm’ and not ‘soft’.

In racing there are distinctive characteristics of the sport that demarcate it from poker in betting terms. The most obvious is physical disintegration and repair. Rise and fall. A racehorse is rarely assured to run a race befitting the ability attributed to it. Exceed expectations and disappoint them. This is in part due to their often fragile physical confirmation but also because they are asked to repeat a performance usually on different courses, different ground, with different weight, against opponents of different ability and so on. It is not yet possible to know or gauge the exact physical exertions of a racehorse during a race and one measure of that has yet to be implemented as a standard, namely the weight of racehorses before and after racing. This would at least give some insight into the level of physical entropy experienced by the racehorse and the extent to which the racehorse has recovered from those exertions. Visual clues are on offer, as are audio soundbites from the trainer, but neither allow us to know for sure particularly as underlying physical problems are rarely disclosed to the general public. In poker the flop, turn and river cards offer increasing and reliable information about concrete theoretical and statistical outcomes. Percentages are therefore calculable; in turf horse racing, they are not.

A second example is the extent to which bettors are ‘forced’ to bet. The blind and ante structures inherent in poker are ‘forced’ bets shared equally among all participants to induce action and prevent persistent non-participation, giving poker a peculiar and fascinating strategic mode of play through which bet sizing and value betting become imperative. With horse racing, there is no such ‘forced’ inducement. One of the more interesting aspects of hearing some horse racing bettors talk about ‘value’ is that those who insist on it as a viable betting model happen to bet the most frequently. Somehow, somewhere, in all those races, there is ‘value’; and there is always ‘value’ because looking hard enough and structuring a view ‘just so’ means ‘value’ is indeed ‘present’ and obtainable. The far simpler view is that such talk is nothing other than a metaphysical abstraction: a layer of continual justification for betting that wraps around a series of events that take place irrespective of it. It seems a very strange state of affairs to talk more about this incalculable abstraction than the actual likeliest winner of a race, than what is most likely to happen given all the available information. The man-made formulation of a series of prices, comprised and altered/adjusted by strangers, has a total lack of impact on the end result. Curiously, it is almost never that a race is analysed for retrospective ‘value’. Only the very top-end races appear to feature any kind of look back at the prices that were in operation for the race; the vast majority of time the talk of ‘value’ disappears as soon as the race has passed, most likely because it was largely irrelevant in the first place: the key was finding the likeliest winner and backing it. For at this point it becomes obvious that the likeliest/eventual winner will always return at odds covering the full spectrum of prices.

An illustrative example is the 2012 renewal of the Oaks at Epsom. The race looked a very open affair as is often the case. The early favourite was Maybe, unbeaten as a 2yo, unable to win as a 3yo: a fairly common scenario and no doubt she was ‘value’ when ‘x’ price ‘if’ she returned to her 2yo form. The actual favourite was The Fugue, presumably ‘value’ given she was heavily backed before the off after cruising home in her trial race. At a much bigger price but with a profile among the best in the race was Shirocco Star: the likeliest winner for some was returned at 16/1 and denied by a neck. Presumably ‘value’ when an even bigger price because she was a big price. ‘Value’, you see, covers everything. And then there was Was. A super-expensive yearling purchase, owned by the richest and housed in the most powerful stable of all. Unremarkable form mattered not a jot. Very late on, she was backed from 50/1 to 20/1 and won, despite being mentioned barely at all in the multitude of betting previews. She hasn’t won a race since. Pick the ‘value’ out of that.

2013 Champion Hurdle

During the build-up to the 2012 Champion Hurdle I was at pains to stress that Grandouet was capable of running to a rating of 170+ and therefore beating Hurricane Fly. A physical problem prior to the Kingwell not only denied the opportunity to assess that conclusion it led me to an incorrect assessment of the runners that did line-up. The perils of reassessment. Rock On Ruby, unable to beat a clearly declining Binocular when last seen in December, delivered a run stamped with prominence, power, rhythm and class; I was there and watching, he won easily. In winning he acquired a rating of 170.

Both his win and subsequent transferral into the full care of new trainer Harry Fry leave the Champion 2m hurdle division in a small state of disarray. It is not uncommon for certain national hunt divisions to become unnaturally weak either in reality or potential. This weakness can materialise as a result of the emergence of a superstar performer in isolation, a simple lack of exceptional talent, or both.

That Rock on Ruby is not currently favourite despite being reigning champion and beating Hurricane Fly in the process is a measure of the exceptional nature of Hurricane Fly’s 2010/11 season that culminated in his thrilling win over Peddler’s Cross. It is quite some measure of Hurricane Fly’s impact that season that he both retains favouritism despite his defeat in March and that for that defeat expectation was still very high and his starting price correspondingly low despite coming off a far from ideal preparation. Put simply, Hurricane Fly was breathtaking for all of his winning season. Since then, the star has dimmed, despite winning two of his three starts last term. He will be a 9yo in March with the same imponderables as last season concerning his physical well-being. His price is understandable but he represents a declining force and as such he is not a project of much interest for the forthcoming season.

Rock on Ruby was beaten on his next start at Aintree over 20f as Oscar Whisky, relatively fresh from his somewhat predictable no-show in the World Hurdle, excelled at the trip and track he was made for. Rock on Ruby is a little hard to gauge: it’s hard to think of him as a ‘great’, as a repeat winner. He beat the steely Overturn as Binocular and Hurricane Fly declined in behind, leaving the overall shape of the race a little questionable. That in itself matters less than the challenge he will face, all being well, for a second time in March. Returning in the same health, form and physical condition is a challenge all too many succumb to but it is also the likelihood of more potent opposition that dampens enthusiasm about our current champion. If that opposition fails to materialise fully, his powers will need reassessment. One conclusion I cannot agree with is that Rock On Ruby was allowed to ‘get away’ from Binocular and Hurricane Fly who sat too far back and were given too much to do. That may soothe backers of those horses but they simply weren’t good enough to give chase; they never travelled as well as they did in their pomp because they couldn’t call on the same physical powers and ability.

On a steep upward spiral, Grandouet oozed Champion class before his injury. The appetite to back him is revived on viewing either of his last three runs: obviously the most recent stands out, cantering all over the eventual Champion Hurdle second in the International before sweeping past him and forging clear after the last. Hurricane Fly missed Champion Hurdles due to injury and so now has Grandouet. He will be six in March, having grown and filled out further a frame that still had more to come before his injury. The enforced time off could be the making of him: as things stand he has the physical attributes and form in the book to be the biggest player of all in March and is trained by the man who can.

All of which rightly overshadows his stablemate Spirit Son. Prolonged absence, as in his case, is never appealing. As such we know very little about him and he awaits assessment once he makes the track once again.

All eyes will be on the young guns from the Supreme Novices, too. Cinders and Ashes is a sharp technician over a hurdle but even he felt the pressure in March as he tangled with two flights, one of them the last (like three of the front four) before surging on giving Darlan too much distance to overhaul. Darlan deserves additional credit for his run and subsequent win at Aintree, coming as they did following a spectacularly crashing fall in the Betfair Hurdle when moving ominously well in the latter stages. It will be interesting to see how both handle the step up into open company.

Rhythm continues to be central..

Spain's Olympic team, in particular, were often shorn of it. 41 shots and no goals, many from close range, underlines both their own profligacy but also just how sensational the Senior team have been in their last three competitions. Brazil continue to flow through London 2012, meanwhile.

Out Now is a great example of a horse having everything in its profile without running a race. Backed from 16/1 into 4/1, he completely missed out the first fence and from there on was never in a rhythm and never in the race. He did manage to stay prominent for a while, but had nothing more to give a fair way out fading to 11th: such runs are often symptomatic of an underlying physical problem and nothing hinted at that before the race. The winner and second were up top the whole way, jumping with, yes, a lovely rhythm as the second attempted to make all but was tracked the whole way and passed by Bob Lingo, who I wouldn't have put forward as the likeliest winner at any stage until the race was off and they were past halfway. The winner was a big price, like Out Now, and this race is another fine example of one that had nothing to do with price and everything to do with analysis, with congratulations on that front to those that found him. 

2012 Galway Plate: Likeliest Winner?

Out Now

A proper chaser. He’s got size, without approaching the ‘big police horse’ range. In the main he jumps very well: he has the ability to jump fast and fluently meaning no ground is forsaken, and sometimes a little gained. This is important as he travels comfortably through races with his size offering power and rhythm. In the 40k Leopardstown Handicap Chase in January he was prominent in 7th most of the way. He finished 2nd off 128; notable that the winner was Seabass running off 131 - that horse went on to win a Grade 2 Chase on his next start (beating Zaarito) and then finished 3rd in the Grand National beaten only 5L. He ended the season rated 154, shedding some light on Out Now’s efforts to chase him receiving only 3lbs.

Out Now then ran in the Irish National off 131. At Leopardstown he was ridden on the inside but here he was in the middle of a big-field in about 12th. There was not a bother on him and he was still travelling powerfully 4 and 3 out. Rounding the bend he still hadn’t been shaken up as the front four moved on and going to the 2nd last he stormed into second and almost the lead, taking off a stride before the leader and eventual winner, who jumped it marginally better. The question then is, did he stay? It is a punishing trip of 29f if not yet physically complete: perhaps still maturing into his frame? Perhaps not. The winner, a 10yo giving weight away, slightly lesser in stature but thoroughly lion-hearted, fought best. A long run to the last and barely nothing had changed: this time Out Now jumped one stride ahead of Lion Na Bearnai, who rallied and kept on to the line as Out Now finally gave in, bested.

Two stellar performances in defeat that give strong indications about his chances over 22f with a testing finish. He has of course climbed to 138 from his last win off 119 but his overall profile is one of a talented staying chaser with something of an engine about to come into his prime. It is therefore interesting in itself (if he’s an intended runner) that he has been aimed here rather than given the summer off for a winter campaign and an allotted weight of just 10-2, or 10-9 if Follow The Plan comes out, should see him with an excellent chance.