Sandy Lane - inconsistent run

Blouperd Wrote:

---

> I would never single her out as the winner but I
> can give you a whole lot of reasons why you been
> stupid not to have her in your exotics or in your
> top 5 selections in that race .Their are people
> looking much deeper than just the last race


then they are far cleverer than stupid me, the stipes, bookies and other punters - i wonder what reasons you can find for that form reversal AND more importantly why the horses with better form than this horse should have been selected after this outsider.

Blouperd Wrote:

---

> I would never single her out as the winner but I
> can give you a whole lot of reasons why you been
> stupid not to have her in your exotics or in your
> top 5 selections in that race .Their are people
> looking much deeper than just the last race


Aha,there are horses that you know will occasionally reproduce a winning run and you may well include in a bundle that need to be included in exotic perms................that is very different to pretending to know,with exact science, what day that will be!
A horse that every one in ten runs produces a run some 10 MR points better than usual is INCONSISTENT.
........................including it does not remove that fact!

(unless of course the gap between good runs was always the same ...............then it would be consistently inconsistent,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,lol)

AS kids we used to have a bet in the national by dobbing the racing sheet with a marker blindfolded or by picking the horse with the nice green colours,amazing how many times we picked a winner or placed runners

hibernia Wrote:

---

> AS kids we used to have a bet in the national by
> dobbing the racing sheet with a marker blindfolded
> or by picking the horse with the nice green
> colours,amazing how many times we picked a winner
> or placed runners


lmkllaaaaa hahahaha

At the end of the day we are all guessing based on what we perceive to be the correct information. I picked diamond lill the other dy when it ran 4th at 66-1 and it paid 11-1 a place. No reason except it fell into my criteria.

There are many cases of horses who wins a race close to the DAY the previous year, latest example is Coffee Sheik
also notice Guantanamera ran 2nd last year this year 4th

27/08/2013 Scotsville
1ST2 Coffee Sheik
2ND5 Guantanamera
3RD6 Mr Whatever
3RD7 Panama Man


26/08/2012 Clairwood
C64 - Race 7 - R 95000 - RUGBY 5 PINNACLE STAKES
A race for all horses - 1200m
No Horse Jockey Trainer Al/Bl Kg Dr Fin Dist Time OP SP
4 COFFEE SHEIK Lucian Africa W Whitehead A 59.0 1 1 0.00 69.85 16/1 9/1
12 SKITT SKIZZLE Anthony Delpech S G Tarry A 53.0 11 2 1.00 70.03 9/2 3/1
7 MONSIEUR DUPONT Donovan Dillon (2.5) M W Bass A 57.0 8 3 2.00 70.21 8/1 15/1
10 GUANTANAMERA Karis Teetan J Freedman A 55.0 9 4 2.05 70.22 10/1 14/1
3 ICE MACHINE Stuart Randolph G B Puller A 59.0 13 5 2.55 70.31 7/1 9/2
1 RIO CARNIVAL (AUS) Keagan De Melo (1.5) C Laird A B 61.0 10 6 2.80 70.35 7/1 13/1
8 ALWAYS AL Brandon Lerena S G Tarry A 57.0 2 7 4.30 70.62 14/1 20/1
9 KALINAGO Sean Cormack D R Drier A 57.0 7 8 5.55 70.85 16/1 28/1
5 THE SHARK (ZIM) Kevin Shea D Kannemeyer A B 59.0 4 9 6.55 71.03 8/1 8/1
2 THE MOUSEKETEER Raymond Danielson S G Tarry A 61.0 6 10 7.30 71.17 8/1 25/1
6 SPORTS COACH Anton Marcus C Laird A B 57.0 12 11 8.05 71.31 28/10 33/10 F
13 NATIONAL CARRIER Athandiwe Mgudlwa G B Puller A 53.0 3 12 9.30 71.54 25/1 28/1
11 JOSHUAS CROWN Alec Forbes A D Gordon A 55.0 5 13 11.05 71.87 25/1 50/1

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Mr H ,it's what I call the "film critic"
> syndrome..........they have to see things
> different to mere mortals........that's why they
> can charge for their foresight.
>
> A question I would like to ask many of the
> experts..........what is their definition of
> inconsistent form?


I'm certainly no 'expert', but imo this is a question with no 'one correct' answer - you also mention a little further down that a horse that runs '1 in 10 runs more than 10 points' above his normal rating - so what if he does that once in every 5 runs - is he now more (or less) inconsistent? The point I'm trying to make is that it is very hard to put together a set number of 'rules' that would define 'inconsistent' running (it's entirely possible that there is a 'valid reason' for horses running below par - saddle slipped, bumped at a crucial stage, etc) - so do we exculde these runs when looking at 'inconsistent running', or not? Or do we only do consider a horse to be 'inconsistent' when he suddenly improves to win a race.

Frodo Wrote:

---

> rob faux Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Mr H ,it's what I call the "film critic"
> > syndrome..........they have to see things
> > different to mere mortals........that's why
> they
> > can charge for their foresight.
> >
> > A question I would like to ask many of the
> > experts..........what is their definition of
> > inconsistent form?
>
>
> I'm certainly no 'expert', but imo this is a
> question with no 'one correct' answer - you also
> mention a little further down that a horse that
> runs '1 in 10 runs more than 10 points' above his
> normal rating - so what if he does that once in
> every 5 runs - is he now more (or less)
> inconsistent? The point I'm trying to make is that
> it is very hard to put together a set number of
> 'rules' that would define 'inconsistent' running
> (it's entirely possible that there is a 'valid
> reason' for horses running below par - saddle
> slipped, bumped at a crucial stage, etc) - so do
> we exculde these runs when looking at
> 'inconsistent running', or not? Or do we only do
> consider a horse to be 'inconsistent' when he
> suddenly improves to win a race.


Sometimes i find myself looking for horse that had 'problems' in their races be it bad draws,saddle slips,ect.Those type of runs i completely ignore....i judge the horse on his 'proper form' than.+n the case of SANDY LANE...I was quite impressed by a previous run of his....than for the next 4 or 5 runs i just watched him...never tipped him...coz i just felt...not this race becoz of this reason....than finally the race came i thought he had a chance!The price was based on his form...but on what ive seen,he shouldve been at 10's at most....same thing with a few others that im currently following...

Have a look at all the threads about inconsistent runners or freak winners.

Without fail..... one of the famed tipsters or one of their fluffers will pop up, proclaiming what a stand out bet it was.

Party Line Wrote:

---

> Have a look at all the threads about inconsistent
> runners or freak winners.
>
> Without fail..... one of the famed tipsters or one
> of their fluffers will pop up, proclaiming what a
> stand out bet it was.


Not a famed tipster....and certainly not saying it was a standout bet.simply trying to state why it was NOT so 'inconsistent' as being claimed.to continue...sometimes i try to help on here...but it always turns against me!All im saying is....look further than the obvious!as racing has evolved....its changed!If you cant stop moaning and bitching abt crappy results...go to the casino.

heinrich Wrote:

---

> Party Line Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Have a look at all the threads about
> inconsistent
> > runners or freak winners.
> >
> > Without fail..... one of the famed tipsters or
> one
> > of their fluffers will pop up, proclaiming what
> a
> > stand out bet it was.
>
>
> Not a famed tipster....and certainly not saying it
> was a standout bet.simply trying to state why it
> was NOT so 'inconsistent' as being claimed.to
> continue...sometimes i try to help on here...but
> it always turns against me!All im saying
> is....look further than the obvious!as racing has
> evolved....its changed!If you cant stop moaning
> and bitching abt crappy results...go to the
> casino.

It was very very consistent in its first 10 runs not earning a cent !!!Racing many have evolved but the word inconsistent has not

Frodo,unfortunately the one drawback of the MR system is that it prone to manipulation, therefore the regulation of consistency becomes more important.
The key is the need for consistency to be defined(If you can't measure it ,you can't regulate it).
An example is the drunk driving issue........convictions were few and far between until it was defined and measurable(.080,and now .050)

Obviously reportable/reported reasons would not apply..........but it is surely not acceptable to listen to the interview of a 33/1 winner only to hear AFTER THE EVENT why you should have ignored the last 3 runs!!!

About a month before the MR system was introduced ,I was at a function sitting at the same table as a top trainer(no longer trains locally) and his comment on the system was "if they are now going to let me handicap my own horses to be competitive then I must do so"..........is that really such a surprising revelation??