ALLIGATOR BLOOD v catalyst

[mardigras]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

I think it was significantly below his best.  

 

I'd at least agree that it was a fair bit below his best. Horses don't always run to their best and for that race, I certainly hadn't expected him to run to his - hence my assessment of his chance.

[Chief Stipe]

1 minute ago, mardigras said:

I'd at least agree that it was a fair bit below his best. Horses don't always run to their best and for that race, I certainly hadn't expected him to run to his - hence my assessment of his chance.

Why didn't you think he would run to his "best"?  Given it was his "best" time over 1600m.

[mardigras]

21 minutes ago, Fred said:

You call yourself a professional - I assume you aspire to being a professional punter yet you do not know the basics like the different timing systems and track classifications between N Z and Australia

 Still trying to write about what you think other people know or don't know. And getting it all totally wrong. You need to try harder. 

I can sense how my punting ability infuriates you since you think I have so much to learn - and yet, you still struggle with punting even with all that knowledge you supposedly have. Diddums.

But to put the record straight, I don't need to know whether the track states are different between NZ and Australia, NZ and HK, NZ and UK. Or even between Western Australia and Victoria. That isn't anything I even need to consider. 

I also don't need to know what timing methods they each use.

I also wouldn't need to know that if every time they run a 1400m race at Ellerslie, the distance is actually 1420m (should that be the case). 

Because I don't do stupid things like what you suggested I do. You actually think I compare the time of a race at Riccarton with the time of a race at Flemington (outside of giving an illustration such as in the case of Catalyst). I have no need to do that. I don't even compare the time Catalyst ran at Riccarton with the time it ran at Hastings or Ellerslie. Doing that wouldn't tell me anything.

You're so old school, people have moved on well beyond your level of comprehension. Based on your posts on this site, you couldn't even begin to understand what I do. 

[mardigras]

18 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Why didn't you think he would run to his "best"?  Given it was his "best" time over 1600m.

His 'best' was not his performance over 1600m imo. That was one of his worst in my assessment. I had little confidence that he could run to his best at 1600m, and little confidence that he would also do that on a hard track at Flemington.

[All The Aces]

36 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I'd at least agree that it was a fair bit below his best. Horses don't always run to their best and for that race, I certainly hadn't expected him to run to his - hence my assessment of his chance.

Having second thoughts now are we after you posted on the other site "His run wasn't that bad on Saturday. Just not up to it on the day."

You are now agreeing it was a fair bit below his best.

Hallelujah!! 

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by All The Aces

[mardigras]

8 minutes ago, All The Aces said:

Having second thoughts now are we after you posted on the other site "His run wasn't that bad on Saturday. Just not up to it on the day."

You are now agreeing it was a fair bit below his best.

Hallelujah!! 

 

I can't help it if you are still having problems with comprehension.

Since my statement is unchanged. He didn't run that bad. Actually ran to what I expected. But what I expected, you thought was terrible.

Probably why you do best with winners, after the event.

 

[Chief Stipe]

10 minutes ago, mardigras said:

Actually ran to what I expected.

I can't understand how you got to that expectation.  All I can assume is that you assessed the other contestants 1600m form to be better than Catalysts.

[mardigras]

7 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

I can't understand how you got to that expectation.  All I can assume is that you assessed the other contestants 1600m form to be better than Catalysts.

No I ranked him 3rd. I don't assess form quite like that. I assess ability, and then I assess suitability. Catalyst is assessed at a little lower than Alligator Blood for me. I assessed his suitability as a fair margin below Alligator Blood's in that race.

[All The Aces]

37 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I can't help it if you are still having problems with comprehension.

Since my statement is unchanged. He didn't run that bad. Actually ran to what I expected. But what I expected, you thought was terrible.

Probably why you do best with winners, after the event.

 

You duck and weave faster than Ali and you have more spin that Shane Warne  Add in the Einstein factor and your modesty you really are the perfect human being. All us mere mortals should bow in deference and awe. 

To have winners after the event is what we strive for isn't it, as you can't have an actual winner until the event has been run. My racing account balance would say I get it right pretty often and that's all that concern's me. I don't give a toss about anyone else's pocket. I don't have a lot of bets as previously advised and nor are they small bets either, so I have to get it pretty much right and things are rolling along nicely thank you. Must be my four leaf clover.    

[Chief Stipe]

31 minutes ago, mardigras said:

No I ranked him 3rd. I don't assess form quite like that. I assess ability, and then I assess suitability. Catalyst is assessed at a little lower than Alligator Blood for me. I assessed his suitability as a fair margin below Alligator Blood's in that race.

But you must assess ability relative to some standard?  Surely you then apply an adjustment relative to the participants in the field.

As an aside I think in general we are too soft on our horses in NZ.  The OZ horses are battle hardened from the get go and they seem to be able to keep their horses at peak for longer.  Catalyst was underdone for the Hayes, had a hard run and was flattened.  Would have been better ridden to his normal pattern and finishing on.  Same in the Guineas - held up and a late plug from the Clock Tower.  Alligator Blood is an exceptional horse - his galloping style reminds me of Winz.  Very very economical.

In hindsight I think James Macdonald was the wrong jockey for Catalyst.  Not only did he ride him upside down in the Hayes but he rode differently to what he normally does.  James is a better off pace rider.  However we don't know what the instructions were.

Compare the rides from OP on Probabeel and Te Akau Shark.

BUT I disagree with you Mardigra in terms of Catalysts ability - I think something is not quite right with him (bruised fetlocks aside) at the moment.  

[mardigras]

3 minutes ago, All The Aces said:

You duck and weave faster than Ali and you have more spin that Shane Warne  Add in the Einstein factor and your modesty you really are the perfect human being. All us mere mortals should bow in deference and awe. 

 My racing account balance would say I get it right pretty often and that's all that concern's me. 

Modest aren't we? 

No ducking and weaving at all. His run was definitely not that bad. It's my opinion. It hasn't changed, or altered yet your comprehension is so weak, you call it 'duck and weave'.

You can't seem to grasp that I can have a different opinion to you. You get so excited about reading a different opinion elsewhere, you feel the need to write about it here. I'm generally pleased that you have a different opinion to me.

As for my situation, if someone states comparing times is stupidity, then it lacks any credibility to respond that times are not stupidity, if I said I used them as a major part of my analysis and was also a punter that lost money overall. 

As for calling people Einstein. Don't be so hard on yourself. I expect most people come across a bit like Einstein to you.

[mardigras]

Just now, Chief Stipe said:

But you must assess ability relative to some standard?  Surely you then apply an adjustment relative to the participants in the field.

I assess ability relative to the horse population. A bit like what NZ handicappers are supposed to do, but do poorly.

I don't apply an adjustment relative to the participants in the field. I assess a horse's ability. I assess its suitability. At that point I don't even know who is in the field. I then assess the time I believe the horse will run in the race. I then determine a distribution model of the times the horse will run if it ran the race 20,000 times.

And then I do that for all the competitors, modelling their performances in combination over 20,000 races - that gives me the percentage chance of each horse that I use every day. A horse I give a 50% chance will have won 10,000 races in my model.

Many will state what I do could easily be improved on. Watching videos etc. They may well be right. But the time to do that will be a lot longer than the time it takes me to model races in this fashion.

[All The Aces]

12 hours ago, mardigras said:

If you say so. I'm pretty confident however, that the horse that runs the fastest from the starting point to the finish line - is usually called the winner.

And I must be stupid since I've been winning at punting for 20+ years - and comparing times has been the biggest factor in that for all those years. Must have been lucky I guess.

And Catalyst had never run faster in a race over 1600m than he did last Saturday. 

 

And neither had Alligator Blood, in fact Alligator Blood was beaten at his other start at 1600m with the winner running 1:36:44 on a good 3 with both horses stretched (last 600 35.22) and Lordy Lordy the time was actually slower than what Catalyst ran when easily winning the 2000 Guineas 1:36:07. last 600 in 32:16 by two and a quarter lengths.  

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by All The Aces

[Mooncoin]

5 hours ago, All The Aces said:

You duck and weave faster than Ali and you have more spin that Shane Warne  Add in the Einstein factor and your modesty you really are the perfect human being. All us mere mortals should bow in deference and awe. 

To have winners after the event is what we strive for isn't it, as you can't have an actual winner until the event has been run. My racing account balance would say I get it right pretty often and that's all that concern's me. I don't give a toss about anyone else's pocket. I don't have a lot of bets as previously advised and nor are they small bets either, so I have to get it pretty much right and things are rolling along nicely thank you. Must be my four leaf clover.    

Not asking you to post every selection, but one or two a year would be nice Ace!

No hot favourites, we are always looking for value ?

Edited March 6, 2020 by Mooncoin

[mardigras]

23 hours ago, mardigras said:

On a track that delivers similar times to Flemington for higher rated horses running on a Good 3.

Lordy lordy is right. Since it appears to me you've just tried to do what I suspect Fred was saying was stupidity.

9 hours ago, All The Aces said:

And neither had Alligator Blood, in fact Alligator Blood was beaten at his other start at 1600m with the winner running 1:36:44 on a good 3 with both horses stretched (last 600 35.22) and Lordy Lordy the time was actually slower than what Catalyst ran when easily winning the 2000 Guineas 1:36:07. last 600 in 32:16 by two and a quarter lengths.  

 

It doesn't get better than this. Because you actually think that as an assessment of performance, that is worse than Catalyst's Guineas. You stick to watching videos. You are clueless on basic stuff like this.

Edited March 6, 2020 by mardigras

[All The Aces]

8 minutes ago, mardigras said:

Lordy lordy is right. Since it appears to me you've just tried to do what I suspect Fred was saying was stupidity.

It doesn't get better than this. Because you actually think that as an assessment of performance, that is worse than Catalyst's Guineas. You stick to watching videos. You are clueless on basic stuff like this.

You stated it was Catalysts best performance at 1600m based on what he run in the Guineas. I am merely pointing out that it was also Alligator Bloods best performance also.

FYI I don't compare times on different tracks to performances as tracks are not the same. Ellerslie is completely different to Trentham for example. They run a lot quicker over 1200m at Trentham than Ellerslie due to contour and other factors. The Railway and Telegraph times illustrate that perfectly.   

 

[mardigras]

11 minutes ago, All The Aces said:

You stated it was Catalysts best performance at 1600m based on what he run in the Guineas. I am merely pointing out that it was also Alligator Bloods best performance also.

I didn't respond to that part of your statement. It was your heightened excitement in Alligator Blood's Guineas run being run slower than Catalyst's - that was comical.

14 minutes ago, All The Aces said:

FYI I don't compare times on different tracks to performances as tracks are not the same. Ellerslie is completely different to Trentham for example. They run a lot quicker over 1200m at Trentham than Ellerslie due to contour and other factors. The Railway and Telegraph times illustrate that perfectly.   

 

After your example in the earlier post, I can see why.

[All The Aces]

I stand by my thoughts that it was a sub standard performance by Catalyst last Saturday. You feel differently. matter closed.