The 2009 Grand National

[Gingertipster]

Re: The 2009 Grand National You also seem to be saying because Mon Mome was only just out of the weight range, it did not count. Where as if Butler's Cabin had won some would have claimed victory for the 11 stone trend. By now saying about "burden weights winning" you now seem to be moving the goal posts to an even more biased group. With there being an even smaller group of burden weights against an even bigger group of lower weights. Ginge

[billy the punter]

Re: The 2009 Grand National

Billy, You seem to be saying this years race should not count towards trends / stats because of the pace of the race. Despite all my work showing how how few runners have carried 11 st and more in the past; and how biased this so called "trend" or "stat" is. And despite the result of this years race: You still pursist in this weight debate. Just got to me a bit, sorry, forget it.:lol Ginge

When did I say that the race does not count? I'll answer for you, I didn't. What I said was there is always a reason behind a freak result. Mon Mome winning by 12l, Cerium finishing 5th and Arteea being in with a chance at the last proves this was indeed a freak result. Many horses were given the chance to creep into the race, and many horses were able to reserve energy due to the fact the crawled from Bechers to the 2nd last - it was almost pedestrian between Bechers and Canal. Read my post above - it actually agrees with your style of thinking. Stats are a guide, I use them as a guide - if said trend makes sense, but happily to oppose them also, yesterday I backed a 7yo novice, a French bred, a horse over 11-0, and a horse with headgear. So how can you portray with your answer that I am a slave to trends??!?! My post suggests that under certain circumstances trends CAN be broken. The 7yo novice ran well yesterday as he isn't your typical 7yo novice (wants the hustle and bustle of a handicap) is therefore mentaly and physically tougher than your average 7yo novice. G1 sprinters don't beat G1 2milers over 2m - but it can happen under certain circumstances. Treat everything on it's merits, I always thought that was your thinking too? 25 years and counting since any horse has carried over 11-01 to win. The only time it came close to changing was Suny Bay in 1998- he would've won on less testing ground. Trouble is, Suny Bay don't run every year. It's unlikely a horse will be well handicapped off a mark of 150+, therefore it's unlikely for there to be a massive-weight winner. Not impossible, unlikely.

[billy the punter]

Re: The 2009 Grand National

You also seem to be saying because Mon Mome was only just out of the weight range, it did not count. Where as if Butler's Cabin had won some would have claimed victory for the 11 stone trend. By now saying about "burden weights winning" you now seem to be moving the goal posts to an even more biased group. With there being an even smaller group of burden weights against an even bigger group of lower weights. Ginge

Again, you're getting confused. I never once said that big weights cannot win - what I did last week was question your opinion that %-wise big weights over perform. They don't - and after some research by me you reverted to saying they have "as much chance".

[bowles10]

Re: The 2009 Grand National

So Bowles: A staying race over 36 furlongs should be won by a winner of a race of 24 of more furlongs. Surprise!:eek Age 8 to 11. So you don't usually want a geriatric, most horses are on the downgrade by the age of 12. And considering until recently those aged 6 and under were banned from the race; that just leaves those aged 7 which consist of what percentage of the runners in your time range?:unsure So if you took no notice of two of your trends, on every horse to run; how many horses would have qualified in your trends? Without choosing which trends to ignore. Mon Mome was rated 148 and French bred. Sorry, could not resist.:lol Ginge

As with Billy, not sure what you are getting at, but you missed the fact that Mon Mome won a class 1 chase also & i was making the point it was only 1lb out of the OR range. I always take notice of the trends i put up otherwise it aint worth the time i have put into it, so why would i ignore 2 main trends?? :\

[Gingertipster]

Re: The 2009 Grand National Now you are confused. I never said that big weights over perform because of any advantage they had. What I meant was the better record of 11 stones+ horses being placed (which is a fact), suggests it is only a coincidence that lesser weights have won more Nationals (which is a fact). As you can say the opposite is true, the better win rate of lesser weights suggests the better placed record of 11 st+ horses is a coincidence. I merely suggested this weight stat / trend was flawed because of how one group outnumber the other by so many. I never intended (at any point) to suggest those carrying 11 st + had a better chance. If that is the way you have chosen to look at what I said, then you are mistaken. I have not "reverted" to anything. You have never said big weights can not win but you have said they have a disadvantage. You seemed to suggest by saying "if nothing untoward happens" the only reason those carrying more weight did so well was the pace of the race. So the race does not count. If that is not what you meant Billy then that is fine. I never suggested you are a slave to trends Billy, where did I say that. I know we look at things in a similar way most of the time. Ginge

[Gingertipster]

Re: The 2009 Grand National

As with Billy, not sure what you are getting at, but you missed the fact that Mon Mome won a class 1 chase also & i was making the point it was only 1lb out of the OR range. I always take notice of the trends i put up otherwise it aint worth the time i have put into it, so why would i ignore 2 main trends?? :\

Bowles, I have no problem with most of your trends / stats Bowles. Just the age and 3m+ stats I think are a bit strange. You seem to be saying you need a stayer to win the National; and an age that consists of (at a guess) 95% of the runners. Which seem to be stating the bleedin' obvious.:lol And the fact is your trends did not find the winner, being against two stats. If you ignore any two of your trends then I would imagine there'd be many more qualifiers. I don't see it as a near miss. But I was only taking the mick.;) Ginge

[Gingertipster]

Re: The 2009 Grand National Billy, I agree Cerium and Arteea are probably flattered, as they excerted less energy in the first part of the race (being further back than the rest. And then made their ground up while the pace was slow. Again not having to excert themselves too much. However Mon Mome was never that far behind and see no reason why he was flattered, other than going around the inner. Over a shorter distance than Comply Or Die or My Will. Ginge

[Gingertipster]

Re: The 2009 Grand National

The only time it came close to changing was Suny Bay in 1998- he would've won on less testing ground. Trouble is, Suny Bay don't run every year. It's unlikely a horse will be well handicapped off a mark of 150+, therefore it's unlikely for there to be a massive-weight winner. Not impossible, unlikely.

What's Up Boys went close under 11st 6lbs (third highest weight, with second highest Kingsmark also placed) in 2002. Royal Auclair was also second under 11st 10lbs (second top weight only 2lbs less than top) in 2005, as was Hedgehunter a year later with joint top weight of 11st 12lbs. Though as you say Billy, the top weights are unlikely to be that well handicapped. With progressive good types like Halcon Genelardais not being risked. Ginge

[billy the punter]

Re: The 2009 Grand National

What's Up Boys went close under 11st 6lbs (third highest weight, with second highest Kingsmark also placed) in 2002. Royal Auclair was also second under 11st 10lbs (second top weight only 2lbs less than top) in 2005, as was Hedgehunter a year later with joint top weight of 11st 12lbs. Though as you say Billy, the top weights are unlikely to be that well handicapped. With progressive good types like Halcon Genelardais not being risked. Ginge

I backed both WUP and RA - although what I meant by "close" was not merely finishing 2nd. Daylight was 2nd to Hedgehunter to be fair. WUP ran well, and could've won that particular race on another day - that said he was 2nd on merit and beaten fair and square (also Ad Hoc was cruising 4 out - but that's another story. Suny Bay's run was very different, he would've won but for heavy ground - his 2nd off 170 on heavy ground, going as well as the winner at the Melling Road, giving 23lb to a horse who thirved on the going was the best performance in my lifetime. Unlike WUP and RA, Suny Bay WAS the best horse at the weights. Many have run well with massive-weights (and I'm happy to back them E/W) but only Suny Bay's performance can be set apart.

[billy the punter]

Re: The 2009 Grand National

Billy, I agree Cerium and Arteea are probably flattered, as they excerted less energy in the first part of the race (being further back than the rest. And then made their ground up while the pace was slow. Again not having to excert themselves too much. However Mon Mome was never that far behind and see no reason why he was flattered, other than going around the inner. Over a shorter distance than Comply Or Die or My Will. Ginge

I think that even ignoring pace and going issues Mon Mome would've still been there or thereabouts. Whether he would've won empatically is open to debate - or even if he won at all. I really think My Will suffered more than anyone due to the slowing pace - he is a horse I ignored so this is an unbiased view.

[bowles10]

Re: The 2009 Grand National

I really think My Will suffered more than anyone due to the slowing pace - he is a horse I ignored so this is an unbiased view.

its a slow enough horse already Billy!

[Gingertipster]

Re: The 2009 Grand National Remember in the other thread Billy you had a seven year stat. Of those 50/1 or under: 56 Overs 8 Placed 14% 120 Unders 18 Placed 15% You said if anything overs still under perform. Now with 8 years it is: 68 Overs 11 placed 16.2% 134 Unders 18 placed 13.4% So is the advantage now reversed? Ginge

[billy the punter]

Re: The 2009 Grand National

Remember in the other thread Billy you had a seven year stat. Of those 50/1 or under: 56 Overs 8 Placed 14% 120 Unders 18 Placed 15% You said if anything overs still under perform. Now with 8 years it is: 68 Overs 11 placed 16.2% 134 Unders 18 placed 13.4% So is the advantage now reversed? Ginge

Yes before this year I said that they (albeit slightly) under perform - we then agreed that they have as much chance. After yesterday they have turned it around (albeit slightly) - but this is regards to getting placed. Getting placed and/or running well has never been in question really. With regards to wins it's 2 from 68 (Overs) 6 from 134 (Unders)