Welcome to "On the Punt" with the Optimist

SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL (2)

Yesterday I said:

The Q.E. contains (in my view) some horses that might be dispensed with. I come down to three that seem to have better chances than the other six, with one sort-of "don't knowish".

In the Cup, there are several big shows. I've managed to get it down to eight, After that I'm struggling.

Well, if it helps, here's how I'd be analysing these two celebrity races.

The Q.E. has lost Doncaster winner Rangirangdoo and as a result I've shifted my position quite a bit. So it's down to eight. Runner-up in the Doncaster, Road to Rock, has to contend with weight for age. He looked home in the Doncaster and has won twice at 2000 metres. Doctor Fremantle is a staying import. I don't back horses I don't know.

Vision and Power has done little since the Doncaster last year but has won twice at 2000 metres. I saw Vosne Romanee win in New Zealand. His victory over Harris Tweed was a very comfortable one. His win sequence this time in is very uneven. He too has won twice at 2000 metres and once at 2040. The form stands up.

Triple Honour ran a decent race in the Doncaster. 2000 metres? I'd be guessing there. Miss Marielle can run it, but she would need to turn recent runs upside down. Palacio de Cristal ran a blinder first up, and in fact her next two were OK. But without any places over 2000 metres, and one win and six unplaced runs at the track, I haven't got the information I'd want to support her.

Monaco Consul ran a super race to win here last spring, then easily won the Victoria Derby. The run a fortnight back in the Derby here was a superb run. He's on the shortlist as the class and also as having the weight edge.

In a nutshell, I came down to the three year old as having a huge show. Each way is available and in an eight horse field it would be my bet. What did you come down to, and why?

The Cup baffles me. I want Harris Tweed to win, as I thought the $12 offered midweek was well above his realistic chances and I accepted it, regardless of what can happen with prepost prices. It was partly to get that 11/4 the place as security. My mind keeps going back to that big race on the first Tuesday in November when he finished fifth. He might have placed with a clearer run from the turn. We have Auckland Cup winners, eight year old former winners, in-and-outers, last start enigmas... I had it down yesterday to Capecover (Adelaide Cup winner) and Precedence (the Bart factor), along with my first pick. To be honest I don't know that I've got them right, because the race defies usual logical analysis.

So, (i) I don't know but I feel the three year old with some very fine wins on the board, and (ii) the proven two miler which has clearly been set for this one race, are likely to run well. But as to tipping, I'm just glad I don't have to!

"SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL"

A lot of money romped in using this title for a book in (if I recall correctly) the late 1970's by the British economics expert E.F.Schumacher.

Maybe it can be beautiful. It certainly reduces the chances of interference in a horse race. And it reduces the effects of the draw, which proved especially relevant to last weekend's Doncaster.

But it can bring together an evenly-matched set of horses with a lot going for them all... hence, a difficult, if not impossible, race to analyse.

Two such races will be staged at Randwick on Saturday: The Queen Elizabeth Stakes and the Sydney Cup.

The Q.E. contains (in my view) some horses that might be dispensed with. I come down to three that seem to have better chances than the other six, with one sort-of "don't knowish".

In the Cup, there are several big shows. I've managed to get it down to eight, After that I'm struggling.

What I propose now is that I leave you with this for about 36 hours (it's 8.30am Thursday local time as I write this).

Then I'll tell you what I have been able to work out with my analysis. No tips, mind, just (I hope!) some helpful guidance to patient analysis. We may end up with no confidence at all, and hence no decisions.

And no bets!

OK, see you in about a day and a half, when we can compare our analyses and see if we can all learn from that.

A SMALL ANALYSIS OF A BIG TOPIC

Well the basic analysis didn't disgrace itself.

The barriers wrecked a potentially superb field.

I suggested that you needed to find the best (or best treated) amongst the top five in a Group One Handicap, and to then add the best "up and comer".

Only ONE of the five drew reasonably, and he won the race.

And the up and comer would have won comfortably from a better draw. As it was, the run for third was outstanding. The connections must have been looking ruefully at that 400/1 they took months ago!

So, in a big field of topliners, there can be an argument for watching the draw. The riders had to decide what to do with the mission they'd been landed with. Two of the five horses were given hard runs. One was so far back you couldn't hit him witha 303. He powered home. The other probably went for the wrong race for him this autumn: he's taking time this preparation to find form.

The runner up came from barrier 1, but to be scrupulously fair the fourth placegetter was a wide starter. Racing is rarely a "put in take out" proposition for the punter.

The Oaks? Well, I'm a bit harsher than some here. The favourite should have won by panels. I have no idea why the second favourite dropped back to last early and stayed there, whilst the favourite started chasing far too late, and was the best thing beaten at this elite level for ages.

Again, winners can laugh.

The Galaxy was won by probably the best up and coming female sprinter in the land. It was one of those wins that set your backbone tingling. At the distance you were tearing up your tickets, unless you really knew how she races best. It was a classic ride on the best part of the track.

So we learnt what?

Maybe, just to take away one lesson of value, that there are easier races to make a dollar on. Maybe the Group One-ers are (in general) for a few optimistic exotics, whilst the serious long term investment strategies are for the long term.

If I got that across, it'll do!

AN APPROACH FOR LIFE - NOT FOR ONE DAY

The difference between the best and the rest is that the best go on winning.

And, to put it bluntly, the rest don't.

So where does that put us in Group One races?

Well, the Oaks firstly. We have the winner of the biggest southern Oaks, and the runner-up. They've performed well enough to suggest they'll quinella the race in Sydney.

And there's the third Victorian, having impressed locals and being the obvious other chance. Can she stay the full trip? Some breeding experts won't have a bar of it. I'm a duffer when it comes to breeding and I stay out of that. But her win last weekend was a bottler. However, she beat little of consequence.

There are two or three trainers telling us their charges have been prepared just for this race. Must have been very quiet preparations, I say, because on what we've seen the top two would blow them away.

If the toppie is in the black, she is surely hard to resist. And she has been most of the week. And her archrival is almost an each way quote. Now THAT'S a bet, as they say. Let's leave it at that, with the conclusion being that to bet outside the trio would be a straight out gamble rather than an investment.

The Doncaster. What a race it is! Many real chances including two past winners and a past runner-up. All are at big odds. They're not without chances.

But if you want to stay the course in racehorse selecting, you have to stay with the best when it comes to Group One.

The proven best are at the top of the weights.

And then there's one, just one, fair dinkum up-and-comer.

You can come down to 1,2,3,4 and 5 (in no particular order as I'm not tipping) and you have some very valuable and proven conveyances, none of which is weighted above its limits.

Just one of the five has a reasonable barrier. Not a good one,mind you, but at least decent.

The other four have to make their own luck.

Below them, it's a lottery. Nothing would surprise in ONE race, but long term these five are proven winners for you and for me.

Then there's the newcomer. Yet another lousy barrier!

However, this chap has fulfilled that other criterion above: he keeps on winning.

But that win last week in Group Two over this course and distance was awesome. The rider has an awesome record too. He's transferred his fierce allegiance to this one from the great Takeover Target. A big act to follow but we know this jockey can do it against any odds.

Just on the odds, mind, I thought that $18 or $17 (shopping around) was pretty reasonable each way. If he wins you'll never get that again.

If he doesn't, well, that sort of "up and comer" is worth a gamble (which is what it is, really, but a logical one at that price).

We shall see.

FOLLOWING UP AN ANALYSIS

In the analysis I made for you of the upcoming Derby I tried to demonstrate how many factors could influence the result. Some were known, some were problematical.

For example, the observation that the subsequent winner had not been beaten at Randwick and was "bred to run the distance". But I called him a "promiser" You couldn't know he'd give his best. It was of course easy afterwards!

And the Victoria Derby winner ran a respectable third, not bad and more or less what we felt might happen. Big run, minor cigar.

One of those two Tulloch Stakes nominations ran second, while the horse that beat him in that race got himself cast and was scratched at the start. Heartbreaking for many, including yours truly, who chanced the 17s early in the day and saw the horse backed in to 8s. It happens.

We did indeed nail the "iffy" brigade. Class will out (usually).

And the NZ filly wasn't up to it at all

And Bart? Last and second last! I saw not one report on that.

No worthwhile news in reporting failure, I guess.

Had Count Encosta not become cast, we can just wonder what might have been. The horse he demolishes beats all but the winner. Where's that put him? Well, second at worst. But that's easy to say and hard to be sure of. He didn't run.

All in all, we should all be able to take from this that it's possible to learn a lot by a thoughtful pre-race analysis that involves what we, as punters, know about the competitors. That's before the race.

And then to add heaps by a patient and balanced post-race examination of what we thought and why we thought it.

Now try your hand at three upcoming races: the Doncaster, the Oaks and the Sydney Cup.

I'll give you a few clues as to my thinking prior to my analyses, and then you can have your own notes ready and see how we stack up.

I regard the Doncaster as possibly pickable this year (there are years when it simply isn't). There are three near the top of the weights and one - yes, just one - lightweight that I feel may hold all the aces. You do your homework before Friday afternoon and see what you come up with.

The Oaks looks to me to be virtually over now, nearly two weeks ahead of time. I am seeing 1-2-3 as clear-cut. Will something happen to make me - or you- change my mind? Balance up your thoughts.

And the Sydney Cup. Well, if it rains we have an interesting challenge. But if it manages to stay reasonable, say around dead to a goodish slow, I've been watching with increasing interest a classical olden dayes preparation of one runner. I'll give you a clue and you can do the rest for yourselves.

In the Melbourne Cup last year I thought he was right in it as they approached the final furlong. In another year, with another run, he'd have placed. That's good enough to win most Sydney Cups, or go close. A cryptic clue? All right then. You could throw a coat over him.

Go and search this bloke out and we'll talk a bit more about these race analyses on Friday.

A DERBY TO SAVOUR OR TO FORGET?

There have been great years. 1996 for example. But there are more frequently ordinary years.

Now and then a filly strikes. Twenty-one years ago one did. She was exceptional. She didn't stop there.

This year seems, at least to this horseplayer, to be an enigma. True, the logical favourites may bolt in. One may even turn out to be a top stayer. But then it's the Bart Cummings background of one and the breeding of the other that sort of gets them this elevated spot. When they last met, they slogged it out. Run the Guineas again and who can say?

Does this mean they're exceptional, or ordinary?

And there's a Brisbane promiser that just might not like Rosehill. Two amazing wins at Randwick - unbeaten there- sandwiched in.

Bred to run the distance.

And the Victoria Derby winner (after a spellbinding win at Randwick). Looked a phenomenon in the making. Hasn't regained that form but trainer says he might here.

And his Melbourne runner-up. Also said to have hit form now. Maybe, maybe not.

And there's a decent sort in the shape of the NZ Derby third placegetter, a horse that obviously will stay all day.

Two good young stayers fought out the Tulloch Stakes seven days ago. It's not as good a guide as the Rosehill Guineas, but it does throw up Derby winners. And one of the two, the winner last week, might be anything. But the other had the harder run.

The next lot are a bit iffy, until we get to that filly at the bottom. She's after the big money and already has the recently-run Kiwi Oaks on her trophy stand. Interesting ownership story too.

And of course Bart has a smokey that beat the more fancied stablemate in a trial. Mean anything? Bart says no.

A race to watch.

Perhaps not one to put your savings on, though.

AN EASIER WAY TO MAKE MONEY?

You know, with your access to the net there are easier ways to make a buck than to shove it all into the biggest (and therefore often most difficult) races.

Let's have a look at the long weekend.

Say you used part of your bank, or a separate bank, to fund a method that selects two - no more - chances at reasonable odds. I mean around, say, $5 through to $10. That keeps it in the single digit odds area but in an area where (if betting to win) you're asked to pick maybe one winner in five bets to make a steady income. Three in five places to cover the each way component.

I tried this on Saturday, then again on Monday.

Saturday produced these two, after scratchings and after knowing more or less how the track was going to be playing (I mean by that an hour prior to the chosen races' being run): FANJURA at Caulfield and COUNT ENCOSTA at Rosehill.

Why these two? There is more than one reason; in fact there's a set.

Because of the field sizes.

Because of the form shown.

Because of the opposition and the number of chances.

Because the likely odds would mean a decent edge even if they only placed.

Fanjura was opposed by nine "usual suspects". Up to Group Three? Well, his win first up at Caulfield said he was OK with Australian conditions, his UK form at 2000 metres (today's distance) said he'd won three from four and placed in the other, and he was clearly a horse of real potential. All that at around $5.50. He firmed to significantly shorter, and it would have been best (with hindsight) to take the early $5.50 that was plentiful an hour before the race.

The thing about that $5.50 is that each way you're looking to a profit if he runs in the first three. This is his fifth shot at the distance, and he's never NOT done that.

Count Encosta had won his last two starts, and while rising in class, also met seven opponents. All the TABs were showing double figures early, so a punter might wait and take Best TAB, or better still one of those Best of the Best TAB/SP offers. Even if you could only get the local TAB, the home tote paid $12. The best for a place was around 2/1, but then the chances were very limited.

On Monday only Canterbury seemed to be offering a genuine city-class meeting. In an eight horse field, it was difficult to imagine the nice mare PRINCESS QUALITY missing a place. She swanned in, and the early $5.50 proved a bonus for both win and place.

The other pick was another import, ALBERTINELLI. He looked a ready-made each way job for the Neville Sellwood 1900 metres. The $6.50 each way seemed a bit lean on what the early forecasts (and my own thinking) suggested. He met one that had finished in front of him last start (and ironically, won today too!), and I'd anticipated maybe tens. However the early TAB markets suggested I'd never even see that $6.50 during the last half hour, and anyway I'd be getting tote place odds, which are usually crippling.

I went for the $6.50 with half my stake, and when betting opened seriously I quickly realised I wouldn't see that again, so I grabbed an offer of $6. He firmed to $5 and even less, with all the TABs paying around $4.50. Unusually though, they still paid $2.20 best (and home) TAB for the place. Anyway he got up for third, and I was relieved at that, as he was never going to win and had a fight to even get that minor placing.

Now this is not meant to suggest that I - or you - can do this every week. But if you go back over the lead-up and the known form of those four horses, I suspect you'll see that they all had great each way chances in fields where the chances were limited, and where they would be at backable each way odds.

All in all, I maintain that this approach can make a positive difference. That's what it's all about, agreed?

IT'S FINALLY HERE!

Well, after all this time it's happening.

Rain, rain, go away! (Please...)

It would be a shame if the race were to be marred by losing the speed machines to a heavy surface. And of course regardless of what they say, this is Rosehill, meaning that there MAY be a fast lane.

But where will it be? That's the big question, isn't it?

My view is that horses drawn between, say, three and ten (inclusive) have the best opportunities to make what they can of what's been revealed in the six earlier races. Of course that takes in half the field, but I don't like to imagine how those in the inside two barriers will go unless they jump like gazelles, and as you know I hate the wide barriers, regardless of the fact that Phelan Ready created an anomaly last year.

It's hard, this race. The fave was available at tens a few weeks back. She was a dream bet then.

And speaking of dreams, I suspect that there's something inside all of us that quietly hopes little Chance Bye can do it for Michael Tubman and Kathy O'Hara. Chance Bye and Military Rose are the two unbeaten runners, and nobody really knows if one of them will turn out to be another Wenona Girl, or a Gold Edition. Realistically, they both could!

Ten girls and five boys. Unusual in itself.

Good luck, however you decide to play it.

FOLLOWING THE RACES

This blog title has two meanings as you probably cottoned onto. "After" the races, and "Following" the horses. I meant both.

We listed early prices for the big Rosehill meeting. I have my suspicions about them and I have even more now. Hinchinbrook is the biggest of all the disappointments for anyone going in early.

Here were the early prices (they're detailed in the previous blog):

2 Sacred Choice 2.50 3.80 no offer

3 Precedence 2.80 1.70 1.70

4 Hinchinbrook 2.00 2.00 2.05

5 Georgette Silk 3.00 3.20 3.50

6 Rock Kingdom 2.50 3.20 3.40

7 Shoot Out 2.00 3.20 3.40

8 Khas Kura 3.50 no offer no offer

9 Beaded 2.50 3.20 no offer

And the actuals? Try these. Oh yeah and by the way they ALL lost except Precedence, which was heavily supported!

Sacred Choice was unplaced at $2.20 best.

Precedence won easily at $1.80. Evens was never offered.

Hinchinbrook didn't get around the Rosehill turn. Blew from $2.20 to $2.70, after being at odds on during Saturday morning. Third.

Georgette Silk touched $7.50 and gave little. Sixth.

Rock Kingdom got to $3.30 from $2.00 then firmed to $2.90. Never a real chance. Fifth.

Shoot Out ($2.50 best) ran a shocker and couldn't win from the 600. Fourth.

Khas Kura got out to $4.60 then settled at $4.20. Fourth.

Beaded went from $3.20 to $4.60 then firmed to $4.00. Second.

Now, re-run those races and Beaded wins hers. I can't say that any of the others would win theirs.

And the jury's still out, isn't it? I suspect we were sucked into Hinchinbrook, as the big bookmakers knew the real pea was the ultimate easy winner and heavily backed Brightexpectations. But if they could offer evens Hinchinbrook, then $1.90, and rake the money in... wouldn't you?

Shoot Out? I really don't know. I'm mystified. Sometimes horses make fools of us and so far as I'm concerned this was one occasion. I thought he was a good thing at $3.50 which was offered late Friday. As they turned into the straight he was no hope. That's a bad feeling.

PERILS OF EARLY BETTING

It's become apparent to me over the past months that, more often than not, the top fluctuation in the final forty minutes of betting will belt the ears off the early prices.

That's been a surprise and a revelation.

Yesterday a horse named Albertinelli might have won with a better judged race from a top rider. To allow the favourite to skip right away while you sit back second last is inexcusable in a field of ten, even if you did elect to drop back early. That aside, the horse was $3.80 to $4.00 when the markets opened and around $4.20 late in the morning.

It blew to $5 at one stage then firmed to $4.40 where it stayed. One TAB was paying a dollar more. Its place divvy, had you wanted to back it each way, was marginally less on the NSW TAB than on the early market.

This spurred me to thinking that we can note the early prices in Saturday's big Rosehill carnival meeting, and then see how they stack up. The papers give out a set of prices. I'm blessed if I know where they get them, but it isn't from TAB fixed odds, and it isn't from the large betting concern I consulted.

Some races are not open for betting, including the opening race which has Griffon ("suspended") entered. SInce the first offer is going to be prohibitive anyway I'll just ignore it.

Here they are:

Race/ Horse(s)/ Paper Price/ TAB Fixed Price/ Online Corporate Price

2 Sacred Choice 2.50 3.80 no offer

3 Precedence 2.80 1.70 1.70

4 Hinchinbrook 2.00 2.00 2.05

5 Georgette Silk 3.00 3.20 3.50

6 Rock Kingdom 2.50 3.20 3.40

7 Shoot Out 2.00 3.20 3.40

8 Khas Kura 3.50 no offer no offer

9 Beaded 2.50 3.20 no offer

In the seventh you might note that TAB Number 1 (Rock Classic) is listed at $6.00 in the paper, whereas TAB Fixed gives $3.80 and the other lot have him equal favourite at $3.40.

What do we do with these figures? I vote we watch them and then we have another look on Monday and see what we can make of them. One swallow doesn't make a summer, of course, but if my suspicions are on target we might have something worthwhile to think about!.