Firstly, thanks for all the comments, good and bad (yes really), regarding last weeks Cheltenham Trends.

A few points….

I think that most people will agree that last week’s Cheltenham Festival was one of the hardest meetings, for punters, for a very long time. Just 3 favourites, an average SP of over 14/1 and bookmakers reporting their most profitable Festival ever all made for a difficult time.

A poor Friday probably did for us here at Festival Trends but we also had more than our fair share of runners-up with 4 out of 6 on the Tuesday and the first 3 on Thursday amongst others. At odds of 9/2, 4/1, 9/2, 20/1, 11/4, 16/1 and 50/1 for those second places it certainly wouldn’t have needed much to have made it a great week.

Not that it was anywhere near a disaster though as we did manage 5 winners (Peddlers Cross, Weapons Amnesty, Big Bucks, Ballybriggs and Big Zeb) at odds of 7/1, 10/1, 10/1, 5/6 and 9/1 and for any subscribers looking further than just the selections and applying the stats themselves they would have found Chief Dan George (33/1), Binocular (8/1), Sanctuaire (4/1), Pigeon Island (16/1), Poker De Sivola (14/1) all had very strong trends and would have made anyone’s shortlist.

In many races we did manage to get it down to a shortist of 3, 4 or 5 horses but then went in the wrong direction when attempting to choose the ‘likeliest trends winner’. No race emphasised this problem more or gave me more trouble last week than the Champion Hurdle. I got it down to a very confident list of 4 runners Binocular, Medermit, Solwhit and Punjabi but went with the wrong one. You could have made a very strong case for any of the four and I’m still kicking myself now for not getting it right.

As for Gary, I am fully aware that my brother is a damn fine tipster and when it comes to good old fashioned form study he is way, way better than me. His record of backing big priced winners would put even Pricewise to shame BUT when you regularly target outsiders you have to expect quite a few losers too.

And that’s where the problem lies, I would be more than willing to take a back seat when it comes to tipping on the blog and hand it all over to him on a regular basis but I’m not sure he’d want the aggro when things aren’t going so well. Tipping two 33/1 winners and 20 losers doesn’t go down too well with some people and if you get 15 of those losers in a row then things usually turn nasty.

Also, as soon as I start putting up selections that differ from those contained in my trends guides I get ’sackfuls’ of emails complaining that I’m tipping different horses. It seems it’s okay for the Racing Post to have 10 different tipsters selecting 10 different horses in a race using 10 different methods but as soon as I offer an alternative choice I get slated.

Last week at Cheltenham I was obviously aware of Gary’s fancies but can’t just make them the trends selections because he strongly fancies something. The Trends Guides try to determine the winner by identifying the horse that most resembles previous winners of the race and for me to try and manipulate them to fit a certain horse would be ridiculous, not to mention deceitful.

Which brings me to my final points. These guides are based on trends not personal fancies. I collate the information, write it down and then work out a selection using all the information included over the 8 pages. Everything is there for subscribers to see, all the data I use and all my workings out. I’m not randomly selecting a runner and simply telling you to back it! For every tip I explain exactly why I have chosen it and if you’re not happy with the final choice or don’t agree with it then don’t back it! There’s plenty of information contained in my guides to enable you to make your own decision.

I use trends for the vast majority of my betting but I don’t back every horse in my trends guide because sometimes the final selection may be the ‘likeliest trends winner’ but isn’t MY idea of the ‘likeliest race winner’!

For some races the trends are strong and one horse stands out as having a typical profile while for other races it’s difficult to find any horse that fits the criteria and in some races you can get it down to a shortlist of 3 or 4 then have to use less than reliable trends to get it down to 1 (or 2) horses. If a meeting consists of 26 races then you’re going to get a variety of these types of scenario with some good and bad choices.

AND sometimes even when you get a horse that looks the perfect trends type they still don’t win! (Tell Massini for example). That’s horseracing, it’s not an exact science and as there are so many variables to consider, it never will be. You could argue that a decision by the course executives to move the final flight (more of that tomorrow) 70 yards nearer the finish line cost Get Me Out Of Here the Supreme Novices Hurdle. You apply the trends, you find the perfect horse, you get one of the hottest favourites of the meeting well beaten and you still don’t get the winner because of something completely unconsidered. If the run-in had been another 2 yards longer, let alone 70, McCoy would have got up.

Cheltenham may be the most important jumps meeting of the year but that doesn’t mean we are guaranteed to pick winners. I gave it my best shot, showed everyone why I fancied each and every horse I chose and got a mixed bag of results. Some winners, some losers and some ‘nearly’s’. If any of Othermix, Prince Eric or Caroles Legacy had won it would of course have been a different story…

It really is a fine line between success and failure!

I’ll dust myself off and move on to Aintree before getting ready for the flat. We’ve learnt some valuable lessons this week and as Cheltenham is just the first of many great meetings this year, I’m sure we’ll be back amongst the winners shortly.

Good luck,
Gavin.

P.S. For non trends subscribers, sorry for today’s post. I’ll be back tomorrow with a look back at the Cheltenham meeting and then on Thursday I’ll give you a blow by blow account of how I did my money last week.