The Aidan O Brien Appreciation thread
- Thread starter Deleted 1
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Are you for real? How can you honestly argue that having more than 1 winner in a race doesn't have an impact on your strike rate? Sorry to pinch Quel's comments but I am also gobsmacked. I suspect AoB could win every classic in the world in one season, train 23 Cheltenham Festival winners, the Grand national winner, win the Eurovision song contest and find a cure for cancer and you would still find something to criticise him for.
If AOB could have more than one winner in a race he really would be something special
If AOB could have more than one winner in a race he really would be something special
. 
Guys for what it is worth I cannot stand the smug pr**k - I would love to smack his teeth down his throat - he is a fiddlin b*****d and Coolmore are all the same !! Reasons
1) Why multiple runners all the time ??
2) Why wear those ****ing stupid sunglasses all the time regardless of the time of day / month of the year or weather - he is shify and cannot be trusted !!!
3) As soon as every race is finished and he has a winner he is always on his friggin mobile - to whom ?? All of Coolmore are always at the big meetings and he takes his bloody whole family with him always wherever he goes ???
4) He is so deceptive and cannot give a truthful answer to the press or media - every answer "he's a nice horse and he'll run a nice race".
You can imagine if he owned Frankel and was running against a 3 legged selling plater with one eye and was 1/1000 on - Rishi "Aidan do you think Frankel will win ??" - The fiddler "he's a nice horse and he'll run a nice race" - but Aidan this is the biggest mismatch in history you must be confident of success surely - "like I said he's a nice horse and he'll run a good race" - grrr - give me bloody strength !!!
1) Why multiple runners all the time ??
2) Why wear those ****ing stupid sunglasses all the time regardless of the time of day / month of the year or weather - he is shify and cannot be trusted !!!
3) As soon as every race is finished and he has a winner he is always on his friggin mobile - to whom ?? All of Coolmore are always at the big meetings and he takes his bloody whole family with him always wherever he goes ???
4) He is so deceptive and cannot give a truthful answer to the press or media - every answer "he's a nice horse and he'll run a nice race".
You can imagine if he owned Frankel and was running against a 3 legged selling plater with one eye and was 1/1000 on - Rishi "Aidan do you think Frankel will win ??" - The fiddler "he's a nice horse and he'll run a nice race" - but Aidan this is the biggest mismatch in history you must be confident of success surely - "like I said he's a nice horse and he'll run a good race" - grrr - give me bloody strength !!!
Good evening again this is getting tedious.
Let's keep it simple then for the unitiated. If you buy 10 tickets for a single lottery draw do you have a better chance of winning the minimum prize than if you buy 1 ticket for 10 individual draws? The answer to this question is no you have the same chance.
So if you have a winning ticket in either scenario the strike rate remains the same. That is 1 winning ticket from 10 attempts in either case.
The odds for this lottery example are the same to within about 60 decimal points.
So an AoB's scenario is 5 entrants in a 10 runner race of odds for example 2/1,3/1,4/1,5/1,6/1 or 1 entrant at the same odds in each of 5 races of 10 runners is simply the same thing.
In fact you may argue that he should increase his strikerate with multiple entries as with more than one runner he can effect the way the race is run dictate perfect pace for a favoured horse possibly.
Now while I accept odds are variable and numbers of runners are variable over the season this averages out.
If someone can show me a statistical model that proves I'm wrong I'd be delighted.
Let's keep it simple then for the unitiated. If you buy 10 tickets for a single lottery draw do you have a better chance of winning the minimum prize than if you buy 1 ticket for 10 individual draws? The answer to this question is no you have the same chance.
So if you have a winning ticket in either scenario the strike rate remains the same. That is 1 winning ticket from 10 attempts in either case.
The odds for this lottery example are the same to within about 60 decimal points.
So an AoB's scenario is 5 entrants in a 10 runner race of odds for example 2/1,3/1,4/1,5/1,6/1 or 1 entrant at the same odds in each of 5 races of 10 runners is simply the same thing.
In fact you may argue that he should increase his strikerate with multiple entries as with more than one runner he can effect the way the race is run dictate perfect pace for a favoured horse possibly.
Now while I accept odds are variable and numbers of runners are variable over the season this averages out.
If someone can show me a statistical model that proves I'm wrong I'd be delighted.
Why the stupid sunglasses?
So hopefully people like Dayo wont recognise him and smack him in the mouth??????
So hopefully people like Dayo wont recognise him and smack him in the mouth??????
Stick haha !!! Depending on where you come from when you are growing up you hear certain phrases - and one was never trust a person whose eyebrows meet LOL and also never trust a man who always wears dark glasses !!! FFS if his eyes are that bad get to Specsavers - great offers on at the moment !!!
Have a better chance of winning the lottery than winning by following your ISOE system
right thats me back off - keep me off the daily thread Wayward lands his 100-1 bet
right thats me back off - keep me off the daily thread
Wayward lands his 100-1 bet
You must log in or register to see images
I'm sure she could get you to say you're wrong
As I cheekily took the title of this thread seriously in my earlier comment I'll now add some more. I'm in full agreement with the comments of Stick, David and others that I find AOB an irritating pratt. Having said that not any fool can train racehorses, and I believe he's a very good if not great trainer. He does have fantastic ammunition at his disposal and he wins with them.........like he's won 3 of the 4 classics this year. I'll say again that I admire the fact that his horses actually run and are not mothballed. His handling of Rock of Gibraltar's 2yo career for example was masterly. He ran early season and won, then was beaten in the Coventry Stakes and then ran in 5 more races, winning 4 of them. 7 races as a 2yo did not destroy him and he came back the next year and did all he did. I actually think Irish trainers have an advantage over British trainers in that there are far more 2yo maidens than there are in Britain. It used to be a rule that each racecard had a 2yo race on it, but someone in their wisdom changed that. So Bolger is similar to AOB in that he gets his 2yos out and as an example New Approach ran 5 (winning) times as a 2yo.
Now this statistical question. While Ardent is correct in his statement that " If you buy 10 tickets for a single lottery draw do you have a better chance of winning the minimum prize than if you buy 1 ticket for 10 individual draws? The answer to this question is no you have the same chance", my stats teacher would have said 'ah but you haven't answered the question'.
All QE is saying is that if your winning ratio is "races won/horses run" then the more horses you run must increase the value of the denominator and so make the fraction or percentage smaller. So this percentage has nothing to do with statistical probability it's just a number that you can't argue with. Only one of the horses can win the race, so it must dilute his winning percentage by having multiple entries. Whether AOB is a plonker or plain stupid or extremely sensible to have these multiple entries in races is another question altogether.
To go back to Ardent's argument a better ratio for his reasoning would be "races won/races contested". As they don't publish those statistics we'd have to have someone who has the time to look at a set of races and see how many he contested and how many he won. Maybe looking at the 5 classics over the period 2001-2010 would be a reasonable sample. As anyone who knows anything about statistics knows the sampling is the key thing. So if you did that you'd have a number but you'd then have to do the same analysis (or sampling) for a couple of other trainers and compare that number with AOBs. Then you might be getting a reasonable statistic to argue over.
Now this statistical question. While Ardent is correct in his statement that " If you buy 10 tickets for a single lottery draw do you have a better chance of winning the minimum prize than if you buy 1 ticket for 10 individual draws? The answer to this question is no you have the same chance", my stats teacher would have said 'ah but you haven't answered the question'.
All QE is saying is that if your winning ratio is "races won/horses run" then the more horses you run must increase the value of the denominator and so make the fraction or percentage smaller. So this percentage has nothing to do with statistical probability it's just a number that you can't argue with. Only one of the horses can win the race, so it must dilute his winning percentage by having multiple entries. Whether AOB is a plonker or plain stupid or extremely sensible to have these multiple entries in races is another question altogether.
To go back to Ardent's argument a better ratio for his reasoning would be "races won/races contested". As they don't publish those statistics we'd have to have someone who has the time to look at a set of races and see how many he contested and how many he won. Maybe looking at the 5 classics over the period 2001-2010 would be a reasonable sample. As anyone who knows anything about statistics knows the sampling is the key thing. So if you did that you'd have a number but you'd then have to do the same analysis (or sampling) for a couple of other trainers and compare that number with AOBs. Then you might be getting a reasonable statistic to argue over.
Simple he is a great trainer ! As for multiple runners is simple racing in ireland is limited and 2yo races he must run 2,3,4 horses to get them a run also I am sure magnier tabor and smith all have a say what runs Where ! If you think he is a con man have a look at Hannon Cecil stoute they are con men ! Also he is top trainer in England with less than 60 runners won 4 out of 4 classics not bad for a average trainer from a foreign country that races under a different racing body apart from that he is not the top trainer for the biggest and best super power in horse racing !!