Not the greatest of starts to the
Open meeting…
I tipped 6 horses in 4 races but
the best any of them could manage, was a third placing by Whisper in the novice
handicap hurdle…
In fairness, a couple of them
were quite speculative plays – but the runs of a couple of the others, have to
go down as very disappointing…
Without doubt, the most
disappointing of all, was Renard…
I was very keen on him – and the
strong market support did little to waver my confidence.
However, he was never really at
the races. Starting sluggishly and just not having basic pace to keep up with
the leaders.
He made ground a couple of times
when put under pressure, but that ultimately took its toll and he could only
plug on for 8th place.
Based on this run, I think Venetia is right – he wants further than 2 miles !!
Based on this run, I think Venetia is right – he wants further than 2 miles !!
In the same race, Oh Crick ran a
similar race – simply, he just isn’t the force he used to be…
The next 2 tips to run, were
Whisper and Warden Hill, in the novice handicap hurdle.
As suggested, Whisper ran a very
good race to finish third - but just seemed to lack a bit of match
sharpness.
He will doubtless come on for the
run and should be one to follow next time – either over hurdles or over
fences.
Warden Hill didn’t run quite so
well – but stayed on at the end of the race, suggesting he maybe needs a step up
in trip.
In the cross country race,
Balthazars Gift ran out a very game winner.
He’s such a gutsy horse, you
simply have to admire him.
He briefly looked in trouble as
Uncle Junior bore down on him rounding the home turn, but he found for pressure
– as he always does – and in the end, won going away…
Diamond Harry travelled really
nicely through the race and had every chance of winning – if the fire was still
burning.
But after today, I think we can safely say that it isn’t. An honourable retirement would be best for him…
But after today, I think we can safely say that it isn’t. An honourable retirement would be best for him…
The final tip to run was Lone
Ranger – and, to be honest, he could still be running as I write this !
I can’t say for definite as he
was too far out of my screen, when Ruby took up the running jumping the last on
Quick Jack.
It was nice to see Ruby back in
the winners enclosure at Cheltenham – he’s been missed…
In the opening race on the card,
it was obvious quite early, that Standing Ovation had gone to the well once too
often..
He was very keen in his race – a
good indicator that a horse is in need of a break.
His jumping also nearly let him
down on a couple of occasions and he eventually finished a well beaten
seventh.
He will doubtless get a break now
– and may well be able to pick up where he left off, when he returns in the
spring.
Finally, Oscar Whiskey got turned
over by Tarquin Du Seuil in the novice chase – but what an unsatisfactory race
it was…
In truth, Oscar Whiskey nearly
came a cropper at the very first fence – and Barry Geraghty did well to maintain
the partnership.
He then ballooned the second and
was left in the lead at a hack canter…
The pace did increase from there,
but he then became a sitting duck for the race fit Tarquin Du Seuil, who picked
him off after the final fence.
Such a scenario is also a
possibility when there is a very small field and it would probably be best to
reserve judgement on Oscar Whiskeys’ chasing ability, until he has been seen
over fences again.
On to tomorrow then, which
hopefully will be better…
TVB.
Hi TVB,
ReplyDeleteRenard was an interesting selection for me yesterday. He was strongly tipped up across the boards and the market reflected this as his price dropped to 11/2. The main positives for his chances being his rating had dropped significantly, a promising run LTO, 2m trip etc. I could see the positives as you did!
I had a little time before the race so I dug a little further and Renard had never won in class 2 or at Cheltenham despite a fair few opportunities. Then Aidan Coleman came on RUK saying Renard needs 3 miles – why run him over 2m then?!
Anyhow that got me thinking of an angle I’m focussing on this NH season and that’s young, progressive horses that I believe are ahead of the handicapper. Obviously it’s not as cut or dry as one group or other but I wonder if there is more juice in finding the likes of Pod and Anay Turge with an improving profile versus the Renard type who has fallen a fair way in the handicap.
The skill is in finding those improving types and striking when the price is right. I’d say the odds compilers find it easier to price up the Renard type whilst there’s more uncertainty in the potential improver and that’s when we can find the value.
Post-race Alan King mentioned Oh Crick needs to drop into a 0-125 as they were going too quick for him yesterday. The 3 ten year olds in the race all finished out the back. Common sense I know but horses lose that bit of speed (as we all do!) the older they get. As you mentioned yesterday price is also a major factor and Oh Crick at 20/1 had some value IMO.
I’m going to do a bit more digging on the young improver angle, particularly over the 2m-2m4f distances. Cheltenham is an interesting course as you need a sound jumper (typically comes with experience) but also a horse that can travel through the race and then the speed to quicken at the business end.
Enough of my waffle...I’ll let you get on with today’s write up!
Cheers,
Neil
Thanks for the comment Neil.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think you’ve got a point – and I tried to answer it, in part, in todays write-up…
The long distance handicap hurdle was exactly the sort of race we need to test out a theory: there were plenty of young improver – and one or two old ‘regressive’ sorts…
As you will have seen (!) I went for one of the latter camp, with Cross Kennon – whilst acknowledging that the winner was more likely to come from the other brigade.
The problem is, as I said in the write-up, the odds compilers are generally all over the young progressive sorts.
I actually think Renard was a bit of an anomaly yesterday.
He’s not that old (only 8) – and the suggestion was the at the reason for his handicap mark dropping was because he had been running over the wrong distance (as opposed to becoming slower).
The likes of Oh Crick (and Diamond Harry – and Cross Kennon) are better examples of what you are saying.
However, in each case I thought I could see an angle which mean they could run well (I like to look for a recent bit of half decent form).
Obviously when these types don’t perform, it looks obvious with hindsight that they are indeed regressing faster than the handicapper is adjusting them.
Anyway, I would be interested to hear the results of any research you do carry out.
Like I say, I don’t think it is a black and white thing – but if you are able to offer any insight, it would doubtless be of value.
Incidentally, I don’t think you should restrict your research to 2m/2m4f - I actually think that the further horses go, the more likely they are to have an advantage if they are young..
A.
Congrats on a good winner at Wexford today, if they all won like that there would be no need to lay a bit back in running. On the question of backing regressive horses, I think you are right that they get over looked by the public and bookmakers alike. There is a good reason for this, it takes a bloody good eye to spot the half decent bit of form you are talking about. A decent first half of a race first time out, a reasonable plugging on when the ground is against them e.t.c. You have the ability to spot this, most of us don't have that skill or the time. The only bit of advice I would give is be prepared to back them a few times more than your head tells you, (unless of course they don't lift a leg and you definitely feel they are over the hill). A big part of being regressive is being inconsistent, and there is nothing worse than calling it a day with a horse only to see it roll back the years and nick it at 50/1!
ReplyDeleteMark
Hi Mark,
ReplyDeleteThere never should be a need to lay back in running – though the likes of Pod and Tullyraine do create quite a compelling argument for it !
As I’ve said, I try to keep an open mind about regressive horses – and judge each case on its merit…
Some (like Diamond Harry), I wouldn’t touch again; others (like Fordpady), I would - in the right circumstances…
And I think it is the ‘circumstances’, that is the key thing…
I understand what you are saying about keeping on following them because they can be inconsistent – but I think the key is to try and establish why they are inconsistent (there is often a reason) and to only follow them when conditions are right…
Obviously this is easier said than done – but I do think it should be achievable (with the appropriate amount of effort). And if I’m in any doubt, I’ve always got the mentions to fall back on ;)
A.