Cappa Bleu - Won Foxhunters at Cheltenham two years ago and fancied to run a big race for that years Hennessey when falling. Not many many miles on the clock following lay off and back to form this season with a win at Haydock followed by a great trial yesterday when finishing third in the Welsh National.
50/1 currently available with Stan James.
Comments
^ D'oh
You're too kind, as always. Need to see the weights (I think 14 Feb they're announced).
Cappa Bleu certainly looks interesting (available at 40 on Betfair if you want to take the plunge) but until the weights come out I wouldn't like to say whether it quite makes a winning stat score in my model, which has undergone the customary review and tweaking since Ballabriggs pooped last year's party.
Will be crunching the numbers and posting the selections as soon as poss after 14 Feb.
Did you just watch the Lexus? Synchronised, off the bridle a long way, hung in with them gutsily (under AP of course) on ground that didn;t suit him and simply ground them down to win it. They should have run him in the last GN (not least coz I'd backed him ante post!) (Edit - though to be fair AP couldn't have deserted Dont Push It and on quick ground he definitely needs an "AP" on board)
National is on the 14th April but I'm rather hoping that we get presented with the Trophy on the 21st as my youngest boy is mascot that day!
OMG. I see they've voided the in-running bets. Holy cow!
He was a bit unlucky as the winner was thrown in at the weights. He has to get some form at 3 miles+ but when he romps home at AIntree in 2013, I won't forget I read it here first NSS ;o)
So all the punters that took the 28/1 in good faith are told "Don't be silly fellas! As if we are going to get this account holder to pay out. It is so obviously a mistake"
Well you can bet your bottom dollar that if the horse had fallen at the last everyone who backed it would have had lost their stake and would have been told that "That's gambling folks!"
I see Betfair have issued a statement but have so far refused invataions from both BBC Radio and Talksport to come on air tonight to explain things further.
I am hoping for some clarity from AddickAddict who says he works at Betfair.
It'd be like the old days.....half the field out of the handicap! Kauto's obviously a great horse and who's to say he couldn't do it under top weight but I wouldn't underestimate the difference an extra 1.5 miles makes, even on a flat track, especially as his presence would (likely) put recent GN winners and the likes of Synchronised on very nice weights.
good points, I don't honestly think it will happen. Smith probably loves the horse too much to risk him
That's a really, really good question Chunes and, for me, not at all boring.....though the proper answer may be exceptionally so, so I'll give you a short one first.
The short answer is that I will ignore a result if it is clearly a freak. For example, my database goes back to the 1988 GN but it excludes input from one race (2001) when a massive melee led effectively to a 2 horse race. I didn't use a model then and it would be crazy to include either of those horses' characteristics as a guide to future GNs. But, much though I would like to think that Ballabriggs was a freak winner and Oscar Time really should have won, there is no way that it should be regarded as a false result. Ballabriggs simply exposed a deficiency in the model (relevant I think to quicker ground). In fact, I look for deficiencies even when the model has picked the winner (as explained below). One day the wheels will come off but so far it has worked OK.
At the risk of boring the socks off you, I'll give you a fuller explanation. A few background musings/statements of the obvious. Firstly, even a successful stats model (whatever its use) is not a crystal ball. With horse racing, you can pick a winner by judgement or luck but the aim of a stats-model is to improve your percentages and of course, over time, your returns. Any model will at some point fail (though that doesn't necessarily make it a bad model); arguably it always fails to some degree, even when it appears to succeed. Secondly, a model aims to stop you following your gut (or heart) when it comes to selections but, though it should be applied systematically (based upon objective data, hopefully accurately gathered), there is inevitably a good deal of subjectivity in constructing it; at the very least in selecting the criteria used to screen the runners. Thirdly, many stats-based systems tend to use a rigid "red-line" methodology with criteria drawn from previous winners only. They seek to eliminate from consideration all runners that fail to comply with ALL of the chosen criteria, thereby leaving the list of eligible candidates. The problem with a red-line system is that there is little or no allowance for the changing characteristics of a race that has changed significantly over the years and is continuing to do so. Just as important, the problem with only considering previous winners is that you ignore the fact that, but for a bit of luck here or there, a close runner up (with very different stats) could easily have won the race.
So, what's all that got to do with the price of fish?
I'll try to demonstrate with specific examples why, IMHO, a GN model should include closely-placed horses in its database, why it should use a largely "points-based" rather than red-line methodology and why it needs to be reviewed and, as necessary, tweaked every year, regardless of success.
Stat-followers used to say that since no French-bred horse had won the GN you should put a line through all French-bred runners. Then in 2009 Mon Mome popped up at 100/1 (cue nostalgic cheering from Plaaayer). But Mely Moss (French-bred) narrowly missed out to Papillon in 2000 and Clan Royal (French-bred) was a 3-length 2nd in '05 (jockey dropped his whip on the run-in) and 7-length 3rd in '07. Both of these could easily have won. There are many other examples of why the characteristics of closely-placed horses should be an essential component of the database.
Take the old 11 stone weight barrier. Until Hedgehunter won the 2005 GN carrying 11stone 1lb, no winner had carried 11st+ since 1988 and most GN stat-followers used to put a red-line through all runners that did. When he won, the threshold for elimination was simply raised to 11.02. I started using a GN stats model in 2006. Then it was a red-line system which had an 11.02 weight elimination threshold. Happily, it threw up the winner and 4th placed from 6 selections in '06 but I was uncomfortable that Hedgehunter had came a 6-length 2nd carrying 11.12. Moreover, the handicapper was beginning to compress the weights to give higher rated horses a better chance. So I decided to adapt the model to a points-based system, penalising horses for not complying with the selection criteria rather than eliminating them. It didn't have much effect on the model's selections in 2007 (which only identified 1 horse with a "winning score", McKelvey, which came a 3/4-length 2nd) and, since the first 5 home all carried less than 11 stone, normal service on weight was seemingly restored. But the change began to pay off in 2008 when the model scored with the winner, 2nd and 4th from 5 selections, with the 4th placed, Slim Pickings, carrying 11.03.
It picked the winner again (from 6 selections) with Mon Mome in 2009, carrying 11 stone but I was again uncomfortable, not so much that the other 5 selections had bombed (you simply have to accept that not all horses take to the race or run to their best in the GN for whatever reason) but because the 3 placed horses carried 11.06, 11.04 and 11.02. Clearly the handicapper's weight compression was beginning to take effect and so I decided to tweak once again the criteria and the weight penalty-scale and in 2010 the model had its second very good year with 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and the simple fact is that if I hadn't made these adjustments, the model would never had identified Dont Push It, the first winner to carry as much as 11.05 for 28 years. While there is a risk (a certainty I guess) that my tweakings will one day cause the model to crash and burn, I prefer to try to account for unexpected results as a way of trying to accomodate the model to changing characteristics of the race.
So, for anyone still awake, what about the tweakings caused by Ballabriggs? There have been a number of tweaks but the main two are: a) to treat a Class 2 win at the Cheltenham Festival as a Class 1 (a tweak also verified when back-testing Silver Birch's win) and b) to adjust some of the criteria and penalties according to ground conditions, adopting 4 ground scenarios (from soft/heavy through to good/quicker) to give 4 respective scores to each runner. Of course, it won't be possible to know the precise going before the race but back-testing the model suggests that there are gradual changes to most horses' scores through the going range and I'm intending to make sure that the possible range of ground is covered in the final selections. It also suggests that on good to soft or easier last year, Ballabriggs would have had to settle for a place and Silver By Nature would have been Oscar Time's nearest danger. Shoulda, woulda, coulda!
Well you did ask Chunes :-)
Peanuts is our very own Stephen Hawking, which is meant as a compliment.
Saying that, the intricies of the model bamboozle me (and I'm doing a maths degree) but the detail contained within it and the knowledge you have behind it are amazing. Here's hoping to another successful year!
It would look a very weird system to a real mathmetician who knows how to do proper regression anaylsis. I'm strictly an amateur statistician but it's kind of worked so far. Got long to go at University?
Maybe more likely that Synchronised takes his chance (with AP)?
A man's got to know his limitations
By the way, I have a friend who is developing a model for the GN as part of his dissertation. It will be interesting to see if your tips differ, and I'll let you know them when his are finalised so as to compare.
It's often said (by some eminent racing people/journos) that 2.5 milers are well suited to the GN because of the flat track and pace of the race. There is an element of truth to that because a GN winner on anything other than soft ground has to have enough speed to be able to to travel and stay in touch at what is commonly a gruelling pace. Even so, that is far from being equivalent to the bald statement that 2.5 milers are well suited to the GN.
The amazing thing about the GN is the way that the result frequently confounds the experts, perhaps because they spend all winter thinking about and rating horses in relation to "Championship" races over 3.25 miles or less. That's why Mon Mome was a "freak" to them and of course that's why it was 100/1.
I would say that the evidence of at least the past 23 years demonstrates that, in simple terms, a horse can win the GN without speed but it absolutely cannot win it without stamina.
Facts from the 1988-2011 GNs (excluding the Red Marauder freak race of 2001):
All 23 winners had won Class 1 or 2 (or equiv) chases at 3 miles+ (15 had won at 3m3f+). Only 5 had (at the time of winning the GN) won more chases at under 3 miles than at 3m+ but, of these, Papillon and Bindaree had already been 2nd & 3rd in the Irish and Welsh Nationals (resp), Amberleigh House had been 3rd in the previous GN and Dont Push It had come a 1/2 length second in a Class 1 chase over 3.5 miles on soft at Cheltenham (finishing strongly).
Of the 50 horses that finished within 20 lengths of the winners in these 23 GNs, only 6 had never won a chase at 3 miles+. Of these 4 were more than 10 lengths behind the respective GN winner. Both of the other 2 (Encore Un Peu and King Johns Castle) came close 2nd in their GNs but had previously come very close to winning Class 1 or 2 3-mile chases.
So, IMHO, the first and most important attribute to look for is the ability to get a trip and stamina is crucial regardless of the going. Silver Birch had won the Welsh National on heavy and could justly be called a mudlark but still pipped McKelvey on good ground in 2007. Similarly Bindaree and Royal Athlete won GNs on Good (bordering Good to Firm) and were both sired by Roselier (one of the most successful sires in recent times of GN winners and staying chasers renowned for liking softer ground).
Nonetheless, the increasing "quality" of the GN field, brought about by the compression of the weights, will probably increase the demand for speed. Stamina with the ability to travel and stay in touch at a fast clip will certainly be essential requirements on quick ground. For example, Don't Push It was very effective at 2.5 miles, particularly over hurdles, and ran Denman very close at level weights in a novice chase at Cheltenham over 21f. But it won't diminish the stamina demands of the race. Watching an out-and-out stayer like Synchronised beat some supposedly quality 3 milers in the Lexus on decent ground last month shows that if a stayer has enough about him to stay in touch he can eventually grind them down, even over a shorter than optimum trip.
Get on board AP!
Would be very interested to compare notes.
Upon review Gay Trip won the 1970 GN and was favourite the following year when it fell at the first! for this year i think Cappa Bleu and Syncronised are the "talking" horses at moment wil bein teresting to see if Le Beau Bai, Qualtitiveeasing, Wierd Al and Curruthers take thair chance as all have a touch of class.
I'm surprised you haven't been offered a well-paid consultancy for a bookies firm!
In fact, I just just looked out of the window, and sure enough.....
They're off!
No chance for a fairystory in the 2012 GN (probably wouldn't make the cut even if they entered him) but great to see such a stalwart still loving the job at 14 years of age.
Winner Hey Big Spender unlikely to run in GN according to trainer Colin Tizzard - "would not jump well enough".
From a while back, Donald McCain says handicapper has told him that Synchronised will be allotted top weight if he's entered.
From my model's perspective, it's too early to say whether being top weight will kill his chances (I know most trend followers would say it must do but, again, look to the near placed horses). It certainly means that he needs to maintain performance levels if he runs at Leopardstown and/or the Festival and he would almost certainly need it soft/heavy. Again it may seem counter-intuitive but top-weights have a better record since 1988 on soft~heavy in the GN than on better ground: The Thinker 7.5-length 3rd in 1989 with 11.10 (Hvy), Suny Bay an 11-length 2nd with 12 stone in 1998 (Hvy) and Hedgehunter a 6-length 2nd with 11.12 in 2006 (official going GS but time definitely suggests Soft). Maybe it's the gruelling pace of quick-ground GNs that does for them generally, though Don't Push It made a valliant attempt with top weight last year.
Enjoy the trip - deeply envious.
Won't take this thread 'off course' though...
Peanuts - What does your model say regarding " jockeys, trainers and horses, for courses" regarding the GN? The one that springs to mind in recent years is Mon Mome @ 100/1, trained by Venitia Williams and ridden by Liam Treadwell, he is normally 3 or 4 jockey for her horses and wondered if there was a pattern to this type of booking in the GN?
Trainers - same thing. One example: Paul Nicholls - 0 from 52 runners.
Races with a good correlation: no surprise really - winners or creditable performances in Welsh National, Irish National, Gold Cup, Hennessy, Becher Chase are very relevant. Not so much the Scottish National [notable exception Little Polveir in 1989] or Whitbread [now Bet 365], despite also being run in the spring.
Courses, certainly a factor and overlapping with major staying chases. Of the 44 horses that won or finished within 10 lengths of the winner in the GNs since 1988 (excl 2001), 42 had either won or performed creditably over the GN fences (including Becher, Topham & Grand Sefton) or had won chases at other stiff-jumping left-handed British courses (specifically at least one of Cheltenham, Newbury, Chepstow or Haydock [pre-2007, when they put in removable fences!]) or had won or performed with credit (i.e. not more than 4 lengths behind winner) in at least one of the major staying chases above or had finished within 10 lengths of the winner over fences at the Cheltenham Festival (not necessarily the same year).
The 2 exceptions were Lord Gyllene (winner in 1997, who did most of his running in the north and ticked many other boxes) and King Johns Castle (2nd in 2008, who had been a 1.25length second in his only run at 3 miles, in a Grade A chase at Leopardstown, Ireland's main left-handed jumps track [again other compensating factors]).
The ability (or not) to handle the GN fences is an interesting factor. There is no doubt that horses either take to the fences (and tend to run well repeatedly) or they hate them. And they can take to them and win without ever having seen them before (countless first-timer GN winners). So, unless a horse has a genuine excuse for its previous run(s) over the GN fences (all) being poor (Mon Mome being the notable case when he finished 10th the year before winning but had had an interrupted campaign through injury and jumped the fences well, just running out of gas), it is a significant negative to have run over the GN fences but never having done so creditably (THOUGH, creditably can include an F or UR if it happened when up with the leaders on the second circuit - Little Polveir and Hedgehunter both won having tipped up late on when with the leaders the previous year and a couple of placed horses have done likewise [Camleot Knight 3rd in 1997 and Black Apalachi 2nd in 2010]).
Hope that helps.