Snaith Yard PE December 2013

34 RUNNERS
5 WINS
2 SECONDS
4 THIRDS
4 FORTHS
6 FIFTHS

NOT BAD MONTH

Sylvester Wrote:

---

> 34 RUNNERS
> 5 WINS
> 2 SECONDS
> 4 THIRDS
> 4 FORTHS
> 6 FIFTHS
>
> NOT BAD MONTH

Shows you that stats can be meaningless without scrutiny!

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Sylvester Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > 34 RUNNERS
> > 5 WINS
> > 2 SECONDS
> > 4 THIRDS
> > 4 FORTHS
> > 6 FIFTHS
> >
> > NOT BAD MONTH
>
> Shows you that stats can be meaningless without
> scrutiny!

I feel like Tiny....Scru'd....

And Loads of 'odds on's' rolled as well !!!!

Gazza Wrote:

---

> And Loads of 'odds on's' rolled as well !!!!


2 to be exact :S

For that yard, with all the runners they have, imo should be doing a lot better in PE. For whatever reason, I think that a poor month for them but I don't know how it fares historically. Didn't they have as many winners as that in one day in PE not so many moons ago?

62% runners to stakes is a brilliant return Mr E...and the more runners they have the harder it is to keep the win averages up.. sometimes 3 runners in a race and only 1 can win...

Titch Wrote:

---

> 62% runners to stakes is a brilliant return Mr
> E...and the more runners they have the harder it
> is to keep the win averages up.. sometimes 3
> runners in a race and only 1 can win...

Whichever way you want to explain it ,the yard have over the last few weeks had many runners that at the weights were "penalty kicks"
Many ran to way below ratings (some over 30% worse)That should not be happening on a regular basis without query!
There is a NHA rule that states horses must be raced on merit!!!!!
Therefore if a horse rated 100 runs to a 75 either the MR is wrong or the horse didn't run on merit,so to apply the rule either the handicapper or connections need to explain..................bear in mind ,I didn't make the rule ,they did!

Surely,for the product to be trusted the regulators should be asking the questions the punters are thinking!

The rules are in place(as bad as many of them are) so either delete them, amend them or enforce them...........is that so hard for them to understand?
What is happening presently is they are ignoring them ..........an unacceptable option.

Titch Wrote:

---

> 62% runners to stakes is a brilliant return Mr
> E...and the more runners they have the harder it
> is to keep the win averages up.. sometimes 3
> runners in a race and only 1 can win...

Mate if stables were all restricted to one runner per race I'd be all for it. There are too may (blank) games played by too many and having calmed for a while it seems to be rearing its head again.

I am with Rob in many ways though perhaps from a slightly different direction... partly cos he understands the finer details etc so much better than me, like totally .

I hear you bud and it is a fair point but imo that stable should do better overall in terms of winners. Just imho.

Rob, in your opinion those favs that have been rolled should they have been favs? I find bookies price up the Snauth yard horribly. Often making the Fourie ride for Snaith the odds on fav regardless of the merits of the horse.

Titch always defending stables not performing or jocks giving the horse a bad ride, you must be their agent I guess.

Richie77 Wrote:

---

> Rob, in your opinion those favs that have been
> rolled should they have been favs? I find bookies
> price up the Snaith yard horribly. Often making
> the Fourie ride for Snaith the odds on fav
> regardless of the merits of the horse.

Richie, if a horse has between 5-10 lengths in hand , what price would you expect?
You can't have one opinion for every runner- have a long list of overrated runners but when a division horses run unplaced in a novice plate, something is amiss-it might be a virus , it might be unsoundness, it might be a very badly needed run-it's the regulators job to get those answers for us!