Hippos Handicapping Review Panel (Melbourne Cup)
The Hippos Handicapping Panel — where memory and mechanisms collide, but only the horses decide.
Our ongoing exploration of the role of Large Language Models (LLM) in sports trading.
Welcome to the Hippos Handicapping Panel — a virtual round‑table of racing minds brought to life with the help of an LLM. Each Hippo has a distinct voice:
- Mick – Aussie handicapper and professional punter
- Pearl – Canadian academic and causal analyst
- Philip – British host who keeps them honest and sneaks in his own Weekend Warrior longshots
Together they blend events and explanations into a lively debate that is equal parts analysis and paralysis.
🏆 Melbourne Cup Review Panel
Generated: 2025-11-04 10:54:02 Race: Race: Full Result 4.00 Flemington (AUS) at Flemington on 2025-11-04 Winner: Half Yours (SP: 8/1) Results URL: https://www.racingpost.com/results/297/flemington/2025-11-04/902958
Generated: 2025-11-04 11:15:42
Race: Melbourne Cup - Flemington (AUS) - 4:00 GMT - Tuesday 4th November 2025
Official Result: HALF YOURS (8/1) - GOODIE TWO SHOES (40/1) - MIDDLE EARTH (25/1)
🎙️ Philip (Host) - Opening
Well, well, well. The Melbourne Cup has delivered its verdict, and it's a fascinating one. Half Yours has saluted at 8/1 under Jamie Kah, giving Tony and Calvin McEvoy a famous victory. The quinella? Goodie Two Shoes at 40/1 in second, and Middle Earth at 25/1 in third. The trifecta paid out handsomely, and somewhere in the ether, the racing gods are having a good laugh at our expense.
No stewards' inquiries to muddy the waters—Half Yours won fair and square, leading home a field that included some very well-fancied runners who simply didn't fire. Buckaroo, our panel's consensus pick at 17/2, finished a disappointing 24th and last. Presage Nocturne, the 9/2 favourite, managed only 19th. And Valiant King, the other market leader at 8/1, came home 17th.
But before we dissect the carnage, let's acknowledge what we got right: Mick, you had Half Yours in your selections at 6/1 in the preview market. And Philip's Weekend Warrior pick—Goodie Two Shoes at 40/1—has just run second. We'll get to that delicious irony shortly.
Mick, mate—immediate reaction. You were on the winner, but you also led us down the Buckaroo garden path. What's your memory bank telling you now?
🗂️ Mick (Memory Lane) - Post-Race Reflection
Sighs and grins ruefully
Philip, I'm experiencing what we call in the trade "cognitive dissonance with a side of vindication." Let me walk you through the wreckage and the wins.
What I Got Right:
Half Yours at 6/1 (drifted to 8/1 SP)—I had him in my preview as a legitimate contender. Form read 215141, I noted he'd won last time out, and I said he was competitive at this level. But here's where I stuffed up: I called him overbet at 6/1. I said the crowd was showing "overconfidence, not wisdom" and that he was being backed like a 25-30% chance when he should've been 16-17%.
Turns out the crowd was absolutely bang on. The wisdom-of-the-crowd just pantsed me in front of the entire racing world. Half Yours wasn't overbet—he was correctly assessed. The market knew something I didn't, or rather, I talked myself out of what the market was screaming at me.
What I Got Catastrophically Wrong:
Buckaroo at 17/2—my main selection, the Waller battalion elect, the horse I said had "Caulfield form, Williams in the saddle, progressive profile." He finished dead last. Twenty-fourth of twenty-four. That's not just wrong; that's spectacularly, historically wrong.
I built an entire narrative around Waller's strike rate when he loads up multiple runners. I said "when Waller loads up, he's hunting the big one" and "Waller's strike rate in these staying features when he brings multiple runners is approximately 1-in-4." Well, mate, this was the 3-in-4 where it doesn't work. All five Waller runners finished in the back half of the field—Buckaroo 24th, Land Legend 22nd, More Felons 18th, Valiant King 17th, River Of Stars 4th (the best of a bad lot).
My memory bank failed me because I confused stable capacity with race-specific readiness. Waller's process is world-class, but that doesn't mean every horse is primed on the day. I should've questioned why Buckaroo was drifting in the market rather than contracting if the "smart money" was so confident.
The Market Told the Truth:
Here's the killer: I noted that Presage Nocturne had drifted from 11/2 to 7/1 and called it "smart money getting off." But Presage finished 19th—so the drift was justified. Meanwhile, Half Yours held firm at 6/1 and I called it overconfidence. The market was right on both counts, and I was wrong.
The quiet support I mentioned for River Of Stars at 14/1? He ran fourth, so that was a half-decent read. But fourth in a Melbourne Cup when you've tipped the winner is like getting a participation trophy at the Olympics.
What I Missed:
I completely overlooked the McEvoy stable. Tony and Calvin McEvoy aren't in the Waller/O'Brien tier of international recognition, but they prepared Half Yours beautifully. His form line was right there—215141—and I mentioned it but then dismissed him as overbet. Classic case of overthinking.
And Goodie Two Shoes? I didn't even have him on my radar. Form read /31113, trained by Joseph O'Brien, carrying just 8st 2lb. I was so focused on Al Riffa as the O'Brien stable elect that I ignored the second string entirely. That's a pattern-recognition failure—I know O'Brien's history of bringing surprise packages, but I didn't apply it.
Lessons Learned:
Approximately right beats precisely wrong—except when you're precisely wrong about being approximately right. The wisdom-of-the-crowd isn't infallible, but when the market's stable on a horse and you're calling it overbet, you'd better have a damn good reason beyond "my Fermi estimate says otherwise."
I'm eating humble pie, mate. But at least I had Half Yours somewhere in my thinking. That's the consolation prize for a bruised ego.
🎙️ Philip (Host) - Probing Transition
Mick, you've just admitted to being outsmarted by the collective intelligence you claim to respect—which is either admirably honest or a sign you need a new methodology. Pearl, you were notably absent from the Half Yours camp. Your causal framework had Furthur at 22/1 as your main pick, and you backed Buckaroo as a "concession to Mick." How's that DAG looking in hindsight?
🔗 Pearl (Causal Analyst) - Post-Mortem
Philip, my causal framework didn't just fail—it failed instructively. Let me walk through the structural autopsy.
What My Model Predicted:
I identified Furthur at 22/1 as my main selection based on a weight-for-age advantage. I said: "The causal pathway runs through weight-for-age allowance, progressive profile, and Balding's international record. The structural edge is real." Furthur finished 11th. Not catastrophic, but nowhere near the frame.
The weight-for-age advantage I identified was real—he carried 8st 3lb as a 3-year-old, which is structurally favourable. But I failed to account for the mediating variable of race fitness and experience. Furthur's form read 152516, which shows Group competitiveness, but he'd never run beyond 2400m. The Melbourne Cup at 3200m isn't just longer; it's a different causal mechanism entirely. Stamina isn't linear—it's a threshold effect. Furthur hit his threshold somewhere around the 2800m mark.
Mick challenged me in the preview about the base rate of 3-year-olds in the Melbourne Cup—approximately 10% success rate historically. I dismissed it as a selection effect, arguing that Furthur was an outlier with structural advantages. I was wrong. The base rate was informative because it captured a real causal constraint: 3-year-olds, even talented ones, struggle with the cumulative fatigue of 3200m at Flemington. My model didn't weight this confounder heavily enough.
What I Got Wrong About Buckaroo:
I conceded to Mick's logic on Buckaroo at 17/2, saying "the Caulfield form, Waller's placement, and Williams' booking create a genuine causal chain." But I should've interrogated the counterfactual: what if Buckaroo's Caulfield third was his ceiling, not a stepping stone?
The causal pathway I accepted—Caulfield form → Melbourne Cup readiness—assumed a mediating variable of progressive improvement. But Buckaroo's form read 703232, which shows consistency, not progression. He'd been running at this level for months without significant improvement. I mistook stability for upward trajectory.
And here's the kicker: I noted in the preview that "stable identity is a confounder—Waller's success is mediated through his ability to select the right horses and place them optimally. The stable name itself doesn't cause wins; the quality assessment does." I said that, and then I ignored it. I let Mick's pattern-based reasoning override my own causal skepticism.
What I Missed About Half Yours:
Half Yours wasn't in my model at all. I didn't even mention him. Why? Because I was looking for structural edges—weight-for-age, pace scenarios, progressive profiles. Half Yours at 8st 5lb as a 5-year-old didn't scream "structural advantage." His form read 215141, which is solid but not exceptional. His RPR of 138 suggested he was accurately rated.
But here's what I missed: class is a causal variable too. Half Yours had won at this level before. He'd been competitive in Group company. The McEvoy stable had him primed. Sometimes the causal pathway is simple: good horse + good preparation + good jockey = good result. I was so focused on finding hidden edges that I overlooked the obvious edge of proven class.
The Pace Scenario:
I predicted a genuine tempo with Meydaan and Half Yours pressing forward, which would favour closers like Absurde. Absurde finished 8th—not terrible, but not the each-way value I predicted at 20/1. The pace scenario played out, but the closers didn't capitalize. Why? Because the leaders—including Half Yours—were good enough to sustain the tempo and still finish strongly. I underestimated the quality at the front of the race.
What the Data Spoke:
The trifecta—Half Yours (8/1), Goodie Two Shoes (40/1), Middle Earth (25/1)—tells us something important: this wasn't a race where the favourites dominated. The market leaders (Presage Nocturne, Valiant King) failed. The Waller battalion failed. The European raiders largely failed (Absurde 8th, Vauban 6th, Furthur 11th).
What succeeded? Horses that were either correctly assessed by the market (Half Yours at 8/1) or completely overlooked (Goodie Two Shoes at 40/1, Middle Earth at 25/1). The causal lesson here is that market efficiency is variable. The crowd nailed Half Yours but missed the placegetters. My model missed all three.
Lessons Learned:
Causal models need to incorporate base rates more rigorously. My dismissal of the 3-year-old historical record was hubris. Base rates are priors in Bayesian terms—they should be updated with new evidence, not ignored.
Structural edges are real, but they're not sufficient. Class, preparation, and race fitness are causal variables that can override structural advantages. Furthur had the weight edge but lacked the stamina. Half Yours had the class and preparation but no obvious structural edge. Class won.
And finally: prediction is not explanation, but explanation should inform prediction. My causal framework explained why certain horses had edges, but it didn't predict the winner. That's a model failure. I need to recalibrate.
🎙️ Philip (Host) - Challenging Both
Right, let's get forensic here. Both of you had Half Yours somewhere in your thinking—Mick explicitly, Pearl not at all. Both of you backed Buckaroo, which finished last. And neither of you flagged Goodie Two Shoes or Middle Earth, which filled the minor placings.
Here's my challenge: What did you both miss collectively? You had the market leader (Half Yours) in your sights, Mick, but you talked yourself out of him. Pearl, you didn't even consider him. Meanwhile, you both converged on Buckaroo based on different reasoning—Mick's patterns, Pearl's causal concession—and it was a disaster.
Were you both overthinking this? Was the answer hiding in plain sight—a proven Group horse at a fair price, well-prepared, well-ridden? Or is this just hindsight bias, and we're retrofitting a narrative to the result?
And the bigger question: Why did the Waller battalion fail so comprehensively? Five runners, all in the back half. That's not random variance—that's systematic underperformance. Mick, your pattern was that Waller loads up when he's hunting the big one. Pearl, you noted that stable identity is a confounder. So what happened?
🗂️ Mick (Rebuttal) - Defense and Lessons
Philip, you're asking the right questions, and I don't have all the answers—but I've got some theories.
Why Did I Talk Myself Out of Half Yours?
Because I was being too clever by half. I saw the market support, I saw the form, I saw the class. But I thought I knew better than the crowd. I ran my Fermi estimate—"if the top 6 have equal chances, that's 16-17% each, but Half Yours is being backed like 25-30%"—and concluded he was overbet.
But here's what I missed: the top 6 didn't have equal chances. Half Yours was genuinely better than Presage Nocturne, Valiant King, and Buckaroo. The crowd wasn't overconfident—they were correctly assessing relative quality. My pattern-matching failed because I assumed market efficiency meant equal distribution of probability, when in fact it meant accurate differentiation of probability.
Why Did Waller's Battalion Fail?
This is the million-dollar question, mate. My pattern was based on historical strike rates, but patterns are descriptive, not predictive—Pearl's been saying this all along, and she's right. Waller's success when he loads up is real, but it's not a law. It's a tendency based on his stable's quality and depth.
What happened this year? My guess—and it's only a guess—is that the handicapper got wise. Waller's horses were all carrying competitive weights (Buckaroo 9st 0lb, Valiant King 8st 0lb, River Of Stars 8st 2lb), but maybe they were rated accurately rather than leniently. Or maybe the stable's preparation was off—these things happen. Horses aren't machines.
The lesson here is that stable form is a signal, not a guarantee. I should've interrogated why Buckaroo was drifting rather than assuming the market was wrong. When your pattern conflicts with the market, you need a damn good reason to back the pattern. I didn't have one.
Were We Overthinking?
Absolutely. Half Yours was the answer hiding in plain sight. Proven class, good form, fair price, well-prepared. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one. I got seduced by the narrative of Waller's battalion and the structural edge of weight-for-age. Pearl got seduced by causal pathways and counterfactuals. We both missed the forest for the trees.
But here's the thing: overthinking is part of the game. If we just backed the favourite every time, we'd be broke. The trick is knowing when to trust the simple answer and when to dig deeper. This time, the simple answer was right. Next time, it might not be.
Approximately right beats precisely wrong—but sometimes the crowd's approximately right, and you're precisely wrong for ignoring them.
🔗 Pearl (Rebuttal) - Structural Insights
Philip, Mick's right that we overthought this, but I'd argue we overthought it in different ways—and that's instructive.
Why Did the Waller Battalion Fail?
Mick's pattern-based reasoning assumed that Waller's historical success was a stable causal mechanism. But stable form is a lagging indicator—it tells you what worked in the past, not what will work in the future. The causal mechanism behind Waller's success is his ability to identify horses suited to specific race conditions and prepare them optimally.
This year, the conditions didn't suit his battalion. The pace was genuine, which favoured horses with tactical speed and sustained stamina—Half Yours, Goodie Two Shoes, Middle Earth. Waller's horses were either one-paced (Buckaroo, Valiant King) or lacked the class to compete at this level (Land Legend, More Felons). The stable's depth didn't translate to race-day performance because the causal pathway—stable quality → race suitability → performance—broke down at the second link.
Why Did I Miss Half Yours?
Because I was looking for structural edges rather than class edges. My causal framework prioritizes variables like weight-for-age, pace scenarios, and progressive profiles. Half Yours didn't fit that template. He was a 5-year-old carrying a fair weight, with solid but not exceptional form. No obvious structural advantage.
But class is a causal variable—it's just harder to quantify. Half Yours had proven Group-level ability. He'd won at this level before. The McEvoy stable had him primed. Those are causal factors that my model underweighted because they're not easily captured in a DAG.
The lesson here is that causal models need to incorporate qualitative variables alongside quantitative ones. Class, preparation, and trainer skill are real causal mechanisms, even if they're harder to formalize.
Were We Overthinking?
Yes, but overthinking is how we learn. Mick's pattern-based reasoning identified Half Yours but then dismissed him. My causal framework ignored him entirely. The convergence failure—we both missed the winner for different reasons—tells us something important: no single methodology is sufficient.
Mick's patterns capture historical tendencies but can't predict regime changes. My causal models capture structural mechanisms but can miss qualitative factors. The optimal approach is a hybrid: use patterns to identify candidates, use causal reasoning to interrogate those candidates, and use market signals to validate or challenge your conclusions.
This race was a masterclass in humility. The market got Half Yours right. We didn't. That's not a failure of methodology—it's a reminder that racing is irreducibly complex. No model, no pattern, no framework can capture every causal pathway. The best we can do is learn from our misses and recalibrate.
🎙️ Philip (Host) - Synthesis
Right, let's pull this together before I get to the Weekend Warrior segment—where, I should note, I'm about to claim a moral victory of sorts.
What Worked:
Mick's pattern-based reasoning identified Half Yours as a legitimate contender, even if he talked himself out of him. The market signal was there—Half Yours held firm at 6/1 and drifted only slightly to 8/1. The wisdom-of-the-crowd was accurate.
Pearl's causal skepticism about stable form was vindicated. She warned that "stable identity is a confounder" and that Waller's success is mediated through quality assessment, not stable name. The Waller battalion's failure proves her point.
What Didn't Work:
Both panelists converged on Buckaroo, which finished last. Mick's pattern (Waller's strike rate when he loads up) failed. Pearl's causal concession (Caulfield form → Melbourne Cup readiness) failed. The convergence was a false signal—it suggested consensus, but it was consensus around the wrong horse.
Neither panelist flagged Goodie Two Shoes (40/1, 2nd) or Middle Earth (25/1, 3rd). These were the value plays, the horses that the market underestimated. Mick's memory bank didn't have them. Pearl's causal framework didn't capture them. The panel's collective blind spot was the placegetters.
Systematic Blind Spots:
We overweighted stable form (Waller's battalion) and underweighted class and preparation (Half Yours, McEvoy stable). We looked for structural edges (weight-for-age, pace scenarios) and missed the simple edge of proven ability at a fair price.
The market was more efficient than we gave it credit for. Half Yours at 8/1 was correctly assessed. The favourites (Presage Nocturne, Valiant King) were overbet and failed. The lesson: trust the market when it's stable, question it when it's volatile, and always interrogate your own biases.
Philosophical Reflection:
Heraclitus was right—you can't step in the same river twice. Racing is dynamic, not static. Patterns that worked in the past (Waller's strike rate) can fail in the present. Causal mechanisms that seem robust (weight-for-age advantage) can be overridden by other factors (stamina threshold). The best we can do is update our priors, recalibrate our models, and stay humble.
As Socrates might have said if he'd been a punter: "The only thing I know is that I know nothing—except that Half Yours just won the Melbourne Cup, and I should've backed him."
🧢 Weekend Warrior Review - Philip's Longshot
And now, the moment you've all been waiting for: the Weekend Warrior segment, where I get to be insufferable for at least the next 48 hours.
My Pick: Goodie Two Shoes at 40/1.
The Result: Second place.
Let me repeat that for those in the cheap seats: SECOND PLACE.
Now, before we get to the mathematics of my triumph, let's revisit my reasoning. I said: "He's not in Mick's model, not in Pearl's DAG, and barely in the market's consciousness. Form reads /31113—that's three consecutive wins, including a third last time. He's trained by Joseph O'Brien, who's already got Al Riffa as stable first string, which means Goodie Two Shoes is flying under the radar."
I also noted: "O'Brien's won this race before by bringing a second string that nobody expected. The market's focused on Al Riffa at 15/2, which means Goodie Two Shoes at 40/1 is getting zero attention."
And what happened? Al Riffa finished 7th. Goodie Two Shoes finished 2nd.
The Each-Way Mathematics:
With 24 runners, this race paid four places at 1/4 odds. My 40/1 longshot finished second, which means I get paid at full win odds for the place. But let's be generous and calculate the each-way return as if I'd bet £10 each way (£20 total stake):
- Win bet: £10 at 40/1 = £0 (lost, as he didn't win)
- Place bet: £10 at 40/1, paid at 1/4 odds = £10 at 10/1 = £100 + £10 stake = £110 return
Net profit on £20 stake: £90.
That's a 450% return on investment. Not bad for a narrative-driven, speculative, "absolutely not rational" pick.
What Played Out:
The narrative angle I identified—O'Brien's second string flying under the radar—was spot on. Goodie Two Shoes carried just 8st 2lb, had the stamina for the trip (Fastnet Rock breeding), and was ridden by Wayne Lordan, who knows the horse well. The market was so focused on Al Riffa that they completely overlooked the stable's better chance.
Self-Aware Reflection:
Was this skill or luck? Probably 80% luck, 20% narrative intuition. I didn't have a causal framework or a pattern-based justification. I just had a hunch that O'Brien's second string was being underestimated. And in racing, sometimes a hunch is all you need.
Closing Line:
As I said in the preview: "If he lands a place, I'll be insufferable until Tuesday (at the earliest)." Well, it's Tuesday, and I'm just getting started. Mick, Pearl—you can keep your DAGs and your memory banks. I'll take my 40/1 runner-up and my £90 profit, thank you very much.
Drops mic, picks it back up, drops it again for emphasis.
📋 Key Takeaways
-
Market efficiency is variable: The crowd nailed Half Yours at 8/1 but missed Goodie Two Shoes at 40/1 and Middle Earth at 25/1. Trust the market when it's stable, but look for value in overlooked runners.
-
Stable form is a signal, not a guarantee: Waller's battalion failed comprehensively despite historical patterns suggesting success. Stable identity is a confounder—it's the quality assessment and preparation that matter, not the name above the door.
-
Class trumps structure: Half Yours didn't have an obvious structural edge (weight-for-age, pace scenario), but he had proven Group-level class and excellent preparation. Sometimes the simple answer is the right one.
-
Base rates matter: Pearl's dismissal of the 3-year-old historical record was a mistake. Furthur's weight-for-age advantage couldn't overcome the stamina threshold. Base rates capture real causal constraints.
-
Narrative angles can find value: Philip's Weekend Warrior pick (Goodie Two Shoes at 40/1) ran second because the market overlooked O'Brien's second string. Narrative-driven selections aren't always irrational—they can identify blind spots in the market.
-
Convergence can be a false signal: Both Mick and Pearl backed Buckaroo, which finished last. Consensus around the wrong horse is worse than individual error—it suggests systematic bias.
-
Lessons for Flemington: The Melbourne Cup rewards stamina, class, and tactical speed. Horses that can sustain a genuine tempo and finish strongly have the edge. Weight-for-age advantages are real but can be overridden by stamina limitations. The McEvoy stable proved they can compete with the international raiders—don't overlook local trainers with proven Group horses.
🏁 Final Thought - Philip
As the great philosopher and occasional punter Nassim Taleb might say: "In racing, as in life, we are all blind to Black Swans until they've already flown past." Half Yours wasn't a Black Swan—he was hiding in plain sight at 8/1. But Goodie Two Shoes at 40/1? That's the kind of outlier that reminds us why we love this game.
Mick's patterns failed. Pearl's causal models failed. But the Weekend Warrior's narrative hunch? Well, let's just say I'll be dining out on this one until at least the Cox Plate.
The Melbourne Cup has taught us, once again, that racing is irreducibly complex. No methodology is sufficient, no model is complete, and no pundit is infallible. But that's what makes it beautiful. The race doesn't care about our frameworks or our Fermi estimates. It just runs, and the best horse on the day wins.
Until next time: stay humble, stay curious, and always—always—have a cheeky each-way saver on the longshot.
Good luck, and may the racing gods smile upon your selections. Or at least not laugh too hard when they don't.
Generated by Hippos Handicapping Post-Race Review Panel
"Prediction is hard, especially about the future. Reflection is easy, especially about the
past."
Generated by Hippos Handicapping Review Panel - Poe API v1.00.00 [ https://vendire-ludorum.blogspot.com/ ]