Tuesday, December 23, 2025

Hippos Handicapping Preview Panel - King George VI Chase

Generated: 2025-12-23 10:49:02
Race: Race: 2:30 Kempton at Kempton on 2025-12-26
URL: https://www.racingpost.com/racecards/28/kempton/2025-12-26/907817
LIVE DATA FETCHED: 2025-12-23 10:49:02

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.

🏇 King George VI Chase Preview Panel

Kempton Park | Thursday 26 December 2025 | 14:30 | Good To Soft

🎯 Race Context and Likely Shape

The King George VI Chase remains British jump racing's Boxing Day centrepiece—three miles of Kempton's right-handed galloping track that rewards sustained cruising speed and tactical nous. Good to soft ground adds stamina emphasis without becoming a slog. This year's renewal features eight runners, a compact but quality field headlined by Willie Mullins' dual threat of Gaelic Warrior (3/1 favourite) and Fact To File (7/2), alongside Nicky Henderson's progressive six-year-old Jango Baie (10/3).

The market scaffolding suggests a three-way fight at the head of affairs, with The Jukebox Man (5/1) offering the best of the rest. The Mullins stable is firing at 42% run-to-form, Henderson at 52%—both yards plotting deep into winter. Venetia Williams sends Djelo (12/1) seeking redemption after a Haydock fall, while the outsiders Banbridge (16/1), Il Est Francais (16/1), and rank outsider Master Chewy (150/1) complete the octet.

Pace dynamics look straightforward: expect honest gallop from the outset, likely led by Jango Baie or The Jukebox Man, with the Mullins pair tracking and pouncing. The three-mile trip on a flat, galloping track favours horses who can sustain rhythm rather than grind—think engine over stamina, though both matter. Weight-for-age gives the younger horses theoretical advantage, particularly the six-year-old Jango Baie carrying the same 11st 10lb as his elders.

Early market tells? Gaelic Warrior opened shorter and has drifted slightly, Jango Baie has been nibbled into 10/3 from bigger, suggesting stable confidence. The crowd wisdom points toward a Mullins-Henderson showdown, but this is the King George—upsets happen when class meets opportunity.

🎙️ Philip (Host)

Good afternoon and welcome to Kempton on Boxing Day, where the King George VI Chase once again provides the festive centrepiece. We've got eight runners, three miles of right-handed galloping track, and ground described as good to soft—stamina-testing without being a war of attrition. The market suggests a three-way fight between the Mullins pair and Henderson's progressive youngster, but as Heraclitus reminds us, "No man ever steps in the same river twice." Last year's form is merely prologue.

Mick, you've been tracking the early market moves and stable plots. What's your memory bank telling you about this renewal?

🗂️ Mick (Memory Lane)

Cheers, Philip. Right, let's cut through the noise. I've seen this movie before—Mullins sends two to a big race, market splits between them, and meanwhile Henderson's got a live one lurking at single-figure odds. Classic misdirection play.

Stable form and plots: Henderson's yard is absolutely flying—52% run-to-form, which in December means they're peaking. Jango Baie won the Silviniaco Conti at Kempton last time, same track, loves it here. Six-year-old getting weight-for-age against older horses in a Grade 1? That's a structural edge, mate. Mullins is 42% RTF, which is solid but not scorching. When Willie sends two, one's often the decoy. Gaelic Warrior's the buzz horse, but Fact To File at 7/2 might be the value if you trust the second string.

Collateral form and guesstimates: Let's Fermi this. Gaelic Warrior beat Fact To File by three lengths at Punchestown in April—call it 6-7lb difference. They're level weights here, so theoretically Fact To File needs improvement or Gaelic Warrior regression. Has either happened? Gaelic Warrior's been off since April, Fact To File ran a solid second at Down Royal in November. Fresher horse, recent run—advantage Fact To File on recency, disadvantage on head-to-head. Call it a coin flip between them.

But here's the thing: Jango Baie ran a 175 RPR winning the Silviniaco Conti. Gaelic Warrior's best is 178, Fact To File 181. We're talking margins of 3-6lb between them, which on good to soft over three miles is a neck or two. And Jango Baie's only six—he's the one still improving.

Early market tells: Jango Baie opened 7/2, now 10/3. That's money coming for him, wisdom-of-the-crowd stuff. Gaelic Warrior drifted from 5/2 to 3/1—punters aren't convinced. Fact To File steady at 7/2. The Betfair WOM is leaning toward Jango Baie and Fact To File, not the favourite. When the crowd's smarter than the morning line, I listen.

My selections:

Win pick: Jango Baie at 10/3. Course winner, progressive six-year-old, weight-for-age advantage, stable in form, market support. He's got the lot.
Safety each-way: Fact To File at 7/2. Recent run, top RPR in the field (181), Mullins plotting him specifically for this. If Gaelic Warrior's the decoy, this is the real deal.
Value swing: Djelo at 12/1. Fell last time but won two before that, including a Grade 2. Venetia Williams is 50% RTF, and 12/1 is generous if he stays upright. Each-way safety net here.

Look, I've seen Henderson do this before—bring a young horse to the King George, everyone focuses on the Irish raiders, and the English horse nicks it. Jango Baie's the play. Approximately right beats precisely wrong, and my gut says this six-year-old's got the engine for three miles on a galloping track.

"Mate, when the stable's firing and the horse loves the track, you don't overthink it. You back it."

🎙️ Philip to Pearl

Mick's making a compelling case for youth and momentum, Pearl. But you've always cautioned against mistaking correlation for causation. What does your causal framework reveal about this race? Are we confusing stable form with individual horse class?

🔗 Pearl (Meaningful Musings)

Thanks, Philip. Mick's pattern-matching is valuable, but let's construct a proper directed acyclic graph here and identify the true causal pathways.

DAG framing: The outcome variable—winning the King George—is influenced by multiple nodes: class (RPR/OR), current form trajectory, course suitability, pace dynamics, and weight-for-age effects. The key question is: which of these are mediators, which are confounders, and where are the colliders blocking our view?

Mediators: Track suitability is a mediator between class and performance. Jango Baie's Kempton win mediates his class through proven course form. But—and this is critical—his 175 RPR at Kempton was in a weaker Grade 2. The causal pathway from "won at Kempton" to "wins King George" requires the mediator of class elevation. Has he shown 178+ RPR ability? Not yet. That's an assumption, not evidence.

Confounders: Stable form is the classic confounder here. Henderson's 52% RTF makes every horse from the yard look better, but it doesn't differentiate which horse. Gaelic Warrior and Fact To File both have higher peak RPRs than Jango Baie. If we control for stable form and look purely at individual class, the Mullins pair dominate. Mick's conflating yard form with individual ability—that's the confounding variable.

Counterfactual checks: Let's run the what-if scenarios. What if Gaelic Warrior hadn't been off since April? His form reads 2311-1—that's four wins in five starts, including a Grade 1. The counterfactual is: if he's fresh and firing, he's the class horse. What if Fact To File hadn't faced Galopin Des Champs at Down Royal? He finished second, beaten 5 lengths by arguably the best chaser in training. That's not a negative—it's elite company. The counterfactual suggests Fact To File is underrated at 7/2.

Feature clarity: Weight-for-age gives Jango Baie approximately 7lb over the seven-year-olds, 10lb over the eight-year-olds. That's real. But class differentials matter more. Fact To File's 181 RPR is 6lb better than Jango Baie's best. Even with weight-for-age, Fact To File holds a marginal edge on raw ability. Gaelic Warrior's 178 RPR plus potential freshness makes him competitive despite the layoff.

Pace dynamics: Mick's right that Jango Baie or The Jukebox Man will likely lead. But pace is a mediator, not a cause. The causal pathway is: sustained gallop → stamina test → class prevails. On good to soft over three miles, the horses with the highest cruising speed and stamina reserves win. That's Fact To File and Gaelic Warrior based on RPR ceilings.

Colliders: Here's where it gets interesting. "Recent run" is a collider. Fact To File ran in November, Gaelic Warrior hasn't run since April. The market penalises Gaelic Warrior for absence, rewards Fact To File for recency. But freshness can be an advantage in a stamina test—less wear, more energy reserves. The collider blocks the path from "fresh horse" to "peak performance" because we assume rust. But what if Mullins has him primed? That's the hidden pathway.

My selections:

Win pick: Fact To File at 7/2. Highest RPR in the field, recent run against elite company, Mullins plotting specifically for this. The causal pathway from class + form + trainer intent leads directly to victory. He's the structural favourite.
Each-way structural: Gaelic Warrior at 3/1. The freshness concern is priced in, but his class (178 RPR, four wins in five starts) suggests the causal pathway from ability to performance remains intact. If he's ready, he wins. If not, he places. That's structural value.
Progressive risk: Jango Baie at 10/3. For those seeking upside, the weight-for-age advantage and course form create a plausible causal pathway to victory. But it requires him stepping up 6lb in class. That's risk, not certainty.

The base rate for six-year-olds winning the King George is low—most winners are seven or eight. The likelihood ratio from Jango Baie's Kempton win is positive but modest. Fact To File's likelihood ratio from his Down Royal second against Galopin Des Champs is stronger. Bayesian updating favours the proven class horse over the progressive hopeful.

"Prediction is not explanation. Jango Baie might win, but the causal pathway favours Fact To File. Let's not confuse momentum with inevitability."

🎙️ Philip Challenges Mick

Mick, Pearl's raising an important point about conflating stable form with individual class. You've backed Jango Baie at 10/3 based largely on Henderson's yard form and course suitability, but his peak RPR is 175—six pounds below Fact To File's best. Aren't you anchoring on the stable's success rather than this specific horse's ceiling? How do you reconcile the class differential?

🗂️ Mick Rebuttal

Fair challenge, Philip, but here's where the academic model misses the forest for the trees. Pearl's right that Fact To File has a higher RPR ceiling—181 versus 175. But RPRs are backward-looking, mate. They tell you what a horse has done, not what it can do. Jango Baie's only six. He's run seven times over fences, won four, and his trajectory is upward. Fact To File's eight, he's had 22 runs over fences. Which horse has more improvement left? The young one still learning his trade.

And let's talk about that 175 RPR. He ran that at Kempton in the Silviniaco Conti—same track, same trip, same right-handed configuration. Course form isn't just correlation, it's causation. Horses who handle a track's idiosyncrasies perform better there. Kempton's flat, galloping, right-handed—it suits certain engines. Jango Baie's proven he's got the engine for this track. Fact To File's never run here. That's not a minor detail, that's a structural unknown.

Pearl's worried about class elevation—can Jango Baie find 6lb improvement? I've seen it before. Young chasers stepping up in grade often find more because they're still physically maturing. Six-year-olds in Grade 1 chases are rare because most aren't ready. The ones who are—like Jango Baie—are special. Henderson doesn't run horses in the King George for the experience. He runs them to win.

And here's the kicker: the market's telling us something. Jango Baie's been backed from 7/2 to 10/3. That's not mugs having a punt, that's informed money. Fact To File's steady at 7/2, Gaelic Warrior's drifted to 3/1. The wisdom-of-the-crowd is saying: the six-year-old's the value, the favourite's overrated. I trust the crowd more than I trust theoretical RPR ceilings.

"Pearl can build her DAGs and run her counterfactuals, but I'll take the young horse on the upgrade with course form and stable confidence. Theory's great until the flag drops, then it's all about who's got the engine on the day."

🎙️ Philip Challenges Pearl

Pearl, you've made a compelling case for Fact To File based on class and recent form, but Mick's point about course experience is hard to dismiss. Fact To File's never run at Kempton. Jango Baie won here five weeks ago. Doesn't that introduce uncertainty into your causal pathway? How do you account for the unknown variable of track suitability when your top pick has no Kempton form?

🔗 Pearl Rebuttal

Excellent question, Philip, and it forces me to clarify the causal structure. Course form is indeed a mediator, but it's not a necessary mediator for class to express itself. Let me explain.

The causal pathway from class to performance can operate through multiple mediators: course suitability, yes, but also raw ability, tactical positioning, and stamina reserves. Fact To File's 181 RPR wasn't achieved on one specific track—it's a measure of his peak ability across multiple venues. High-class horses adapt. They don't need prior course experience to perform because their ability transcends track-specific quirks.

Kempton is a galloping, right-handed track that rewards sustained cruising speed. Fact To File's form suggests he possesses exactly that. His second to Galopin Des Champs at Down Royal—also a galloping track—demonstrated his ability to sustain pace over three miles. The causal pathway from "galloping track specialist" to "Kempton success" doesn't require prior Kempton experience; it requires the attributes that succeed at Kempton. Fact To File has those attributes.

Now, Mick's right that Jango Baie's Kempton win is evidence of track suitability. But it's evidence of suitability at 175 RPR level. The King George is a different class tier. The causal question is: does course form at Grade 2 level mediate performance at Grade 1 level? Not necessarily. Class elevation often disrupts prior patterns. A horse who thrives at one level can struggle when the pace quickens and the competition deepens.

Here's the Bayesian framing: the prior probability of a high-RPR horse (Fact To File at 181) winning a Grade 1 is higher than the prior for a lower-RPR horse (Jango Baie at 175), even with course form. The likelihood ratio from Jango Baie's Kempton win is positive but modest—it updates our belief in his chances, but not enough to overcome the base rate of class prevailing. Fact To File's likelihood ratio from beating quality fields elsewhere is stronger.

And let's address the "young horse on the upgrade" narrative. Yes, six-year-olds can improve. But the base rate for six-year-olds winning the King George is low—historically, it's a race for seven and eight-year-olds at peak maturity. Jango Baie would need to defy the base rate and find 6lb improvement and handle class elevation. That's multiple causal pathways all needing to align. Fact To File needs fewer assumptions—just run to his known ability.

"Mick's betting on potential. I'm betting on proven class. Potential is a narrative; class is a fact. Let's not confuse the two."

🎙️ Philip's Summary

Right, let's synthesize what we've heard. Mick's backing Jango Baie at 10/3 based on stable form, course suitability, and the progressive trajectory of a six-year-old still learning his trade. He sees the market support as validation and trusts Henderson's plotting. Pearl's countering with Fact To File at 7/2, arguing that class—measured by peak RPR—trumps course form, and that high-ability horses adapt to new tracks. She's also got Gaelic Warrior at 3/1 as structural value if the freshness concern is overblown.

Here's where I land: both are making valid points, but they're emphasizing different nodes in the causal graph. Mick's prioritizing momentum and track-specific evidence. Pearl's prioritizing raw ability and base rates. The Socratic question is: which matters more in a three-mile Grade 1 on good to soft ground—proven class or progressive trajectory?

My instinct says class prevails, but with a caveat. Fact To File's lack of Kempton experience is a genuine unknown. If he adapts, he wins. If he doesn't, Jango Baie's course form becomes decisive. Gaelic Warrior's the wildcard—if Mullins has him primed after the layoff, his 178 RPR and four wins in five starts make him formidable.

My consolidated selections:

Win pick: Fact To File at 7/2. I'm siding with Pearl's causal framework. The highest RPR in the field, recent run against elite company, and Mullins' specific plotting for this race. Class should prevail.
Each-way backup: Jango Baie at 10/3. Mick's case for the progressive six-year-old with course form is too strong to ignore. If Fact To File doesn't adapt, this is the beneficiary.
Risk add: Gaelic Warrior at 3/1. The freshness concern is priced in, but if he's ready, he's got the class to win. Mullins doesn't send two unless both are live chances.

As Seneca wrote, "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." Fact To File's prepared, Kempton's the opportunity. Let's see if the causal pathway holds.

🧢 Weekend Warrior — Live Longshot

Now, for my speculative punt—the horse not in the model, not in the memory, and barely in the market. I'm taking Banbridge at 16/1.

Why? Because he's a nine-year-old who's been there and done it. His form reads U17-44, which looks messy, but dig deeper: he was fourth in the Ryanair Chase at Cheltenham in March, beaten 13 lengths by Envoi Allen. That's elite company. He was fourth in the Melling Chase at Aintree in April, beaten 11 lengths by El Fabiolo. Again, top-class opposition.

Yes, he's been inconsistent—unseated rider at Punchestown, seventh at Down Royal. But Joseph O'Brien's yard is 40% RTF, and Banbridge has the class (OR 167, RPR 176) to compete at this level if everything clicks. At 16/1, he's a speculative each-way play for those who believe in redemption arcs.

He's not the pick of the form book, he's not the progressive youngster, and he's not the stable favourite. But he's a seasoned campaigner who's run well in Grade 1s this year, and if the race sets up for a closer, he's got the stamina for three miles on soft ground.

"Will he win? Probably not. Will I be insufferable if he sneaks into the places? Absolutely. You know the drill."

📋 Quick Racecard Crib

Race: King George VI Chase (Grade 1)
Course: Kempton Park (right-handed, galloping)
Distance: 3 miles
Going: Good to Soft
Runners: 8
Prize: £142,375 to winner
Key Yards: Mullins (42% RTF), Henderson (52% RTF), Williams (50% RTF)
Market Leaders: Gaelic Warrior 3/1, Jango Baie 10/3, Fact To File 7/2
Pace Angle: Honest gallop likely, led by Jango Baie or The Jukebox Man
Weight-for-Age: Advantage to six-year-old Jango Baie

📊 Guide Odds

Horse	Odds	Panel Selection
Fact To File	7/2	Pearl Win, Philip Win
Gaelic Warrior	3/1	Pearl E/W, Philip Risk
Jango Baie	10/3	Mick Win, Philip E/W
The Jukebox Man	5/1	—
Djelo	12/1	Mick E/W Value
Banbridge	16/1	Philip Weekend Warrior
Il Est Francais	16/1	—
Master Chewy	150/1	—

🌐 Web Sites (Alphabetical)

Betfair: Live odds, weight-of-money tracking
Oddschecker: Odds comparison across bookmakers
Racing Post: Form, RPRs, expert analysis
Timeform: Ratings, pace maps, trainer stats
X (Twitter): Kevin Blake, Tom Segal, Ruby Walsh insights

Good luck, and may the causal pathways align in your favour.

Generated by Hippos Handicapping Preview Panel - Poe API v1.00.00 [ https://vendire-ludorum.blogspot.com/ ]

Sunday, December 21, 2025

Hippos Handicapping Review Panel - Ascot Rotary Club Festive Handicap Hurdle

Generated: 2025-12-21 11:38:28
Race: Race: Full Result 3.35 Ascot at Ascot on 2025-12-20
Winner: Wilful (SP: 15/2)
Results URL: https://www.racingpost.com/results/2/ascot/2025-12-20/907815

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.

Ascot Rotary Club Festive Handicap Hurdle

🎙️ Philip Opens

Philip: Welcome back to the Hippos post-mortem, where we perform the traditional ritual of examining our predictions against the cold, unforgiving reality of the actual result. And what a result it was at Ascot yesterday.

Wilful, trained by Jonjo and AJ O'Neill and ridden by Jonjo O'Neill Jr, took the Ascot Rotary Club Festive Handicap Hurdle at 15/2, winning by 2¾ lengths from the 33/1 outsider Hot Fuss, with the market favourite Alexei another 1¼ lengths back in third at 85/40. Let me read that again: the favourite was 85/40, Alexei finished third, and we had a 15/2 winner followed by a 33/1 second. The market got this spectacularly wrong, and I suspect our panel didn't fare much better.

Also worth correcting our mental picture of the conditions: the official going was good to soft, not soft.

Mondo Man, the horse we all collectively opposed when he was 11/4 in the build-up, finished fourth (he went off 7/2). So we were right to be sceptical of the hype narrative, but entirely wrong about where the value actually lay. Mick, you were bullish on Alexei at 9/2 for the win, and he obliged by finishing third. How does your memory bank feel about that this morning?

🗂️ Mick — Post-Race Reflection

Mick: Mate, I feel like I walked into the pub confident I knew the quiz answers, only to discover they'd changed the bloody questions. Let me lay out the carnage.

My main selection was Alexei at 9/2 for the win. He finished third at 85/40 — so the market compressed his price even further from my preview odds, which tells me the crowd agreed with my logic. But third is third, not first. He ran his race, got beaten four lengths, and that's racing. Joe Tizzard's 63% run-to-form rate delivered exactly what it promised: a solid, consistent performance. Just not a winning one.

My each-way safety was Live Conti at 14/1 in the preview (18/1 SP). He finished tenth. Tenth, Philip. The Skelton stable plot I was so confident about didn't materialise. Harry Skelton in the saddle, fresh off a break, lightly raced four-year-old — all the ingredients were there, but the cake didn't rise. That's a complete miss, and I own it.

My value swing was Sticktotheplan at 22/1 in the preview (18/1 SP), and he finished eleventh. Another swing and a miss. Olly Murphy's 48% run-to-form rate proved to be exactly what it said on the tin: below average. I got seduced by the Cheltenham form and the jockey booking, but the market was right to sleep on him.

Now, here's what really stings: I had Wilful in my notes as a "progressive risk" mention at 11/2, but I didn't pull the trigger. The form read 4P1-23, which I flagged as volatile, and I talked myself out of it because I wanted consistency. Well, guess what? The volatile horse won. The O'Neill family duo — I mentioned them in the preview, noted Jonjo Jr's intimate knowledge of the horse, and then... didn't back it. That's the kind of mistake that keeps you awake at night.

What did I miss? I anchored too heavily on proven top-level form and dismissed the progressive profile. Wilful's TS of 136 and RPR of 148 were right there in the data, screaming "I've got ability when I put it together," and I ignored it because the form figures had a P in them. Classic case of letting recent disappointment override structural capability.

The market told a story, but I misread the plot. Alexei shortening to 85/40 suggested confidence, but it also suggested over-backing. The real value was sitting at 15/2, waiting for someone brave enough to look past the inconsistency.

You know what they say, mate: the horses don't read the form book. Sometimes they just turn up and run. Wilful turned up. I didn't back him. Lesson learned — again.

🎙️ Philip to Pearl

Philip: Pearl, Mick's essentially admitting he had all the ingredients for the winner in his notes but didn't trust the recipe. You went for Helnwein at 10/1 in the preview (12/1 SP) for the win, citing clean causal pathways and Alan King's 61% run-to-form rate. He finished fifth. What does your DAG tell you about what went wrong?

🔗 Pearl — Causal Post-Mortem

Pearl: Thanks, Philip. Let's start with the uncomfortable truth: my main selection, Helnwein at 10/1, finished fifth. Alan King's 61% run-to-form rate delivered a run-to-form performance — mid-pack, respectable, but not competitive for the win. The causal pathway I identified — Proven Class + Weight Relief + In-Form Yard + Tactical Rider = Value — was structurally sound, but I underestimated a crucial confounder: current form trajectory.

Helnwein's form read 372-22, which I interpreted as consistency at this level. But the winner, Wilful, had form reading 4P1-23, which I should have recognised as a horse finding form at the right time. That final "3" was a third-place finish in his last run, suggesting upward momentum. I anchored on consistency and missed the mediator of recent improvement.

My each-way selection was Fiercely Proud at 8/1, and he finished twelfth. That's a complete structural failure. I ran a counterfactual check on his form (61PP-5) and hypothesised that the pulls were due to unsuitable conditions. The race proved me wrong. Sometimes a pull is just a pull, not a signal of misalignment. I over-fitted my model to explain away negative data, and the result punished that hubris.

My progressive risk mention was Wilful at 11/2, and he won at 15/2. So I identified the winner, but didn't commit to the selection. Why? Because I let noise in the form figures (that P for pulled-up) override the signal in the ratings (RPR 148, TS 136). I confused variance with unreliability. A horse with volatile form isn't necessarily unreliable — it might just be a horse that needs conditions to align. Yesterday, conditions aligned for Wilful.

What did my causal framework miss? I underweighted the importance of trainer-jockey synergy as a mediator. Jonjo O'Neill Jr riding for his father's yard isn't just a booking — it's an information advantage. The jockey knows the horse's quirks, the trainer knows when the horse is primed, and that combination creates a causal pathway I didn't adequately model: Insider Knowledge → Tactical Execution → Performance Edge.

The market favourite, Alexei, finished third, which validates Mick's and my collective scepticism about Mondo Man when he was 11/4 in the build-up (he finished fourth at 7/2 SP). But we were right for the wrong reasons. We opposed Mondo Man because we thought the value lay elsewhere — in proven form (Alexei) or structural relief (Helnwein). We didn't consider that the value might lie in a horse with the potential to put it all together on the day.

Here's the Bayesian update: my prior was that consistency beats volatility in competitive handicaps. The likelihood ratio from this race suggests that current trajectory is a stronger predictor than historical consistency. Wilful's recent third, combined with the O'Neill synergy, should have elevated him in my model. It didn't, and that's on me.

Let's not confuse correlation with causation, but let's also not ignore causation when it's staring us in the face. The data spoke. I didn't listen closely enough.

🎙️ Philip Challenges Both

Philip: Right, let me probe this a bit further, because there's a pattern emerging here that's worth interrogating.

Both of you mentioned Wilful in your preview analysis. Mick, you called him a "progressive risk" and noted the O'Neill family synergy. Pearl, you flagged him as a "progressive risk" at 11/2 and acknowledged his ability. Yet neither of you backed him. Meanwhile, you both went hard on horses that finished mid-pack or worse — Alexei third, Helnwein fifth, Live Conti tenth, Fiercely Proud twelfth.

Here's my question: were you both victims of consensus bias? You converged on opposing Mondo Man, which was correct, but you also converged on backing "proven form" and "structural value" over "progressive potential." The market gave you Wilful at 15/2 — better odds than your preview suggested — and you both walked past it. Why?

And here's the harder question: the winner came from the same yard as your each-way selection, Mick. Wreckless Eric finished seventh for the O'Neills. You backed the wrong horse from the right stable. Pearl, you identified trainer-jockey synergy as a causal factor in hindsight, but Alan King's Tom Bellamy combination didn't deliver. Was this just bad luck, or did you both systematically undervalue the right signals?

🗂️ Mick Rebuttal

Philip: Fair cop, mate. You've put your finger on it. I did suffer from consensus bias, and I'll tell you why.

When Pearl and I both converge on opposing the favourite, it feels like validation. "Great minds think alike," right? But what we actually did was create an echo chamber. We both anchored on the same narrative — proven form, in-form yards, structural value — and we both missed the counter-narrative: a progressive horse from a top yard with insider knowledge hitting form at the right time.

I backed the wrong O'Neill horse because I prioritised consistency over potential. Wreckless Eric's form read 12/1, which looked safer than Wilful's 4P1-23. But "safer" isn't always "better." The market was telling me something when Wilful drifted to 15/2 — it was saying, "This horse is inconsistent, but when he's good, he's very good." I should've listened.

Here's the memory bank lesson: when you've got two horses from the same top yard, and one's consistent while the other's volatile but talented, don't automatically pick the consistent one. Ask yourself, "Which horse is the stable backing with their best jockey?" Jonjo Jr on Wilful versus Kielan Woods on Wreckless Eric — that should've been a signal.

And yes, it was bad luck that Alexei ran well but didn't win. But it was bad process that I didn't have Wilful as at least an each-way saver. I got seduced by the safety of proven form and forgot that handicaps reward horses on the upgrade, not horses treading water.

Approximately right beats precisely wrong, but this time I was precisely wrong about which horse to back. Won't make that mistake twice, mate.

🔗 Pearl Rebuttal

Philip: You're right to push back, Philip, and I'll own the systematic error.

I identified trainer-jockey synergy as a causal factor in hindsight, but I didn't weight it heavily enough in my pre-race model. Alan King and Tom Bellamy is a professional partnership; Jonjo O'Neill Sr and Jonjo O'Neill Jr is a family partnership. The information asymmetry is different. The younger O'Neill knows when his father's horse is primed in a way that an external jockey simply can't.

That's not mysticism — it's Bayesian reasoning. The prior probability that a trainer-jockey family combination has superior information is higher than for a standard professional booking. I should have updated my model accordingly, but I didn't. I treated all trainer-jockey partnerships as equivalent, which was a structural error.

As for consensus bias, yes, Mick and I both converged on opposing Mondo Man and backing proven form. But convergence isn't always wrong — Mondo Man did finish fourth, so we were correct to be sceptical. The error was in where we redirected our confidence. We both assumed the value lay in horses with established class rather than horses with emerging class.

Here's the counterfactual: what if I'd asked, "Which horse in this field has the highest upside if conditions align?" The answer would've been Wilful — volatile form, but elite ratings when on song, ridden by someone with insider knowledge. That's a different question than "Which horse has the most consistent form?" and it would've led to a different selection.

The data spoke, but I asked it the wrong question. That's not bad luck — that's bad epistemology. And I'll adjust my framework accordingly.

🎙️ Philip's Synthesis

Philip: Right, let's pull this together, because there are some genuinely instructive lessons buried in the wreckage of our collective predictions.

What we got right: We were correct to oppose Mondo Man when he was 11/4 in the build-up (7/2 SP). He finished fourth, which vindicates our scepticism about the market's love affair with progressive four-year-olds getting weight. The favourite, Alexei, ran a solid race to finish third, so Mick's faith in Joe Tizzard's 63% run-to-form rate wasn't misplaced — it just wasn't enough to win. And we were right that this was a race where stable form and tactical nous would matter.

What we got wrong: We systematically undervalued progressive potential in favour of proven consistency. We both identified Wilful as a horse with ability, but we didn't trust it because the form figures had volatility. We let recent disappointment (that P for pulled-up) override structural capability (RPR 148, TS 136). And we underweighted the significance of trainer-jockey family synergy as a causal factor.

The systematic blind spot: Consensus bias. When Mick and Pearl converge on a narrative — in this case, "proven form beats progressive potential" — it feels like validation, but it's actually an echo chamber. We reinforced each other's priors instead of challenging them. The market gave us Wilful at 15/2, better odds than we'd previewed, and we walked past it because we'd already decided the value lay elsewhere.

What the result teaches us: In competitive handicaps on good to soft ground, current form trajectory is a stronger predictor than historical consistency. A horse finishing third in its last run (Wilful's "3") is more significant than a horse with a string of seconds and fourths (Alexei's 48-211). And when you've got a trainer-jockey family combination, that's not just a booking — it's an information edge.

The philosophical reflection: Heraclitus was right — you can't step in the same river twice. We tried to predict this race using patterns from past races, but every race is unique. Wilful wasn't the same horse who pulled up earlier in the season; he was a horse hitting form at the right time, ridden by someone who knew exactly when to ask the question. We had the data, but we didn't trust it because it didn't fit our narrative.

As Nassim Taleb might say, we were fooled by randomness — or rather, we were fooled by our own desire for consistency in an inherently volatile domain. The winner was hiding in plain sight, and we missed him because we were looking for safety instead of value.

Now, speaking of hiding in plain sight, let me turn to my own exercise in speculative hubris...

🧢 Weekend Warrior Review

Philip: My Weekend Warrior pick was Hardy Du Seuil at 28/1, and he finished... thirteenth. Out of thirteen runners. Dead last. Not just out of the places — comprehensively, emphatically, humiliatingly last.

(For clarity: that was my price at the time of the pick — he went off 33/1.)

Let me revisit my logic, such as it was. I said: "Jamie Snowden's yard is running at 60%, this horse has an RPR of 150, Isabelle Ryder takes the 7lb claim, and at 28/1 I only need him to run to his RPR once." Well, he didn't. He ran to approximately none of his RPR, and the 7lb claim made precisely zero difference when the horse was being tailed off.

The narrative angle I was chasing — "eight-year-old finding form again after disappointing efforts" — turned out to be wishful thinking. Sometimes a horse is inconsistent because he's past his best, not because he's unlucky. Hardy Du Seuil proved that yesterday.

So, no, I won't be insufferable until Boxing Day. I'll be quiet until New Year's, at which point I'll pretend this never happened and start afresh with a clean slate and renewed optimism. You know the drill.

The lesson? When you're picking a 28/1 outsider based on "narrative angle" and "what if he runs to his best," you're not handicapping — you're writing fiction. And yesterday, my fiction got a very harsh editorial review from reality.

📋 Key Takeaways

Current form trajectory trumps historical consistency — Wilful's recent third was a stronger signal than Alexei's string of close seconds. Horses on the upgrade beat horses treading water.
Trainer-jockey family synergy is a genuine edge — Jonjo O'Neill Jr riding for his father's yard isn't just a booking; it's insider knowledge that translates to tactical execution. Weight this more heavily in future models.
Consensus bias is dangerous — When the panel converges on a narrative (e.g., "proven form beats progressive potential"), challenge it explicitly. Convergence can be groupthink masquerading as validation.
Volatility ≠ Unreliability — A horse with inconsistent form (like Wilful's 4P1-23) isn't necessarily a bad bet if the ratings suggest elite ability when on song. Ask: "What's the upside if conditions align?" not just "What's the safe pick?"
The market isn't always wrong, but it's not always right either — We were correct to oppose Mondo Man when he was 11/4 in the build-up (7/2 SP), but wrong to assume the value lay in proven form. The market gave us Wilful at 15/2, and we ignored it.
Stable form matters, but pick the right horse — Mick backed Wreckless Eric from the O'Neill yard when Wilful was the one with the better jockey booking and progressive profile. When a yard has multiple runners, ask which one they're really backing.
Good to soft rewards current form over past glories — The testing conditions at Ascot separated horses finding form (Wilful, Hot Fuss at 33/1) from horses relying on past achievements. Fresh legs and upward momentum matter more than CV.

🎯 Final Thought

Philip: As the great philosopher-punter Damon Runyon once observed, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong — but that's the way to bet." We bet on the swift (Alexei) and the strong (Helnwein), and we got beaten by the horse who simply turned up on the day and ran his race.

Wilful won because he was ready, because his jockey knew him intimately, and because sometimes the volatile horse is the one who delivers when it matters. We had all the information we needed, but we didn't trust it. That's not a data problem — it's a courage problem.

Next time, when we identify a progressive horse from a top yard with a family jockey booking, we back it. Even if the form figures have a P in them. Even if it feels riskier than the proven commodity. Because in handicaps, the value isn't in the safe pick — it's in the horse the market underestimates.

Until next time, may your selections be bold, your reasoning sound, and your Weekend Warriors slightly less catastrophic than mine.

Good luck, and see you at the next post-mortem.

Generated by Hippos Handicapping Post-Race Review Panel
Race Result: Wilful (15/2) - Hot Fuss (33/1) - Alexei (85/40 fav)
Panel Record: Identified winner in preview (progressive risk mention), failed to back with confidence
[ https://vendire-ludorum.blogspot.com/ ]

Generated by Hippos Handicapping Review Panel - Poe API v1.00.00 [ https://vendire-ludorum.blogspot.com/ ]

Friday, December 19, 2025

Hippos Handicapping Preview Panel - Ascot Rotary Club Festive Handicap Hurdle

Generated: 2025-12-19 10:38:31
Race: Race: 3:35 Ascot at Ascot on 2025-12-20
URL: https://www.racingpost.com/racecards/2/ascot/2025-12-20/907815
LIVE DATA FETCHED: 2025-12-19 10:38:31

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.

🏇 Ascot Rotary Club Festive Handicap Hurdle Preview

Hippos Handicapping Panel — 20 December 2025

🎯 Race Context & Likely Shape

The Ascot Rotary Club Festive Handicap Hurdle serves up a proper Christmas cracker — thirteen runners tackling the stiff two-mile circuit on soft ground, with £71,188 to the winner. Ascot's undulating track demands both stamina reserves and tactical nous; horses need cruising speed to position early, then an engine to sustain the climb from Swinley Bottom to the finish. The soft going will separate the genuine from the flattered, rewarding those who handle cut in the ground.

The field composition reads like a who's who of Britain's top jumping yards: Dan Skelton fires two bullets (Live Conti, Faivoir), Nicky Henderson saddles Joyeuse, Alan King brings Helnwein, and the O'Neill family duo Wilful and Wreckless Eric. Joe Tizzard's Alexei and the Moore brothers' progressive four-year-old Mondo Man complete a stellar cast. The market has coalesced around three principals: Mondo Man (11/4 favourite), Alexei (9/2), and Wilful (11/2) — but in a competitive handicap off soft ground, the wisdom-of-the-crowd might be missing something.

Betfair's early weight-of-money suggests punters fancy the younger legs and progressive profiles, with Mondo Man attracting significant support despite his lowly official rating of 123. The ballot is full at thirteen, meaning no reserves — what you see is what you get. Let's see how our panel navigates this festive puzzle.

🎙️ Philip Opens

Philip: Right then, welcome back to the Hippos panel for what promises to be a cracking competitive handicap at Ascot tomorrow. Thirteen runners, soft ground, and enough class horses to fill a Christmas stocking. Mick, you've been monitoring the social media chatter and early market moves — what's your memory bank telling you about this one?

🗂️ Mick — Memory Lane

Mick: Cheers, Philip. Look, I've seen this movie before, and it usually ends with the top yards carving up the spoils. Dan Skelton's running a 55% run-to-form rate this season — the bloke's on fire — and he's got two in here. Live Conti at 14/1 catches my eye. Four-year-old, lightly raced, won his last two before a break. Harry Skelton in the saddle, 11st 10lb, and the Skelton stable knows how to plot a horse through the winter. That's my safety each-way play.

But here's where it gets interesting, mate. The crowd's all over Mondo Man at 11/4 — yeah, he's progressive, yeah, he's a four-year-old getting weight from the older horses, but 123 official rating in a race where the top weight's on 147? That's a massive ask, even with the Moore brothers' 53% run-to-form rate. I'm not saying he can't win, but the value's evaporated faster than beer at a barbie.

My main fancy is Alexei at 9/2. Joe Tizzard's yard is ticking over nicely at 63%, and this horse has been knocking on the door all season — form reads 48-211. He's a five-year-old by Tai Chi, proven on soft ground, and Brendan Powell knows Ascot like the back of his hand. The RPR of 149 suggests he's well-handicapped off 147, and 9/2 feels generous given he's only been beaten a length or two in his last three. That's my win bet.

For the value swing, I'm looking at Sticktotheplan at 22/1. Olly Murphy's 48% run-to-form rate isn't spectacular, but this horse ran a blinder at Cheltenham last time — form reads 212113, so there's consistency. Sean Bowen's booking suggests connections fancy him, and at 11st 9lb off 142, he's getting a proper pull in the weights from the top-rated horses. The market's sleeping on him because he's not from a fashionable yard, but I've seen this pattern before — quiet stable form, solid jockey booking, big price. That's where the value hides.

The social media punditry's split, by the way, which tells me the market's fragmented. When there's no consensus, that's when the shrewd money finds the gaps.

Approximately right beats precisely wrong every time, mate. Give me the plotted horses from in-form yards over the sexy narratives.

🎙️ Philip to Pearl

Philip: Fascinating, Mick. So you're essentially betting on stable form and collateral patterns rather than, shall we say, the structural fundamentals of the race itself. Pearl, I suspect you might want to dig a bit deeper into the causal pathways here. What does your DAG tell you about this race?

🔗 Pearl — Meaningful Musings

Pearl: Thanks, Philip. Let's start with the causal structure, because Mick's right that stable form matters, but we need to understand why it matters and whether it's a true cause or just a correlated signal.

The key mediator in this race is pace positioning. Ascot's two-mile hurdle track has that energy-sapping climb from Swinley Bottom, which means horses need to be within striking distance turning for home. If you're too far back, you're asking for a superhorse effort. So the causal pathway runs: Early Speed → Good Position → Energy Conservation → Late Kick Available. Horses without early pace are structurally disadvantaged, regardless of their raw ability.

Now, let's talk about confounders. Age and weight-for-age are confounding the market's assessment here. Mondo Man at 11/4 is a four-year-old carrying 10st 4lb, getting a full 24lb from Alexei. That's a massive weight advantage, and the market's correctly pricing in the weight-for-age benefit. But here's the collider: Class ← Weight → Handicap Mark. Mondo Man's on 123 because he hasn't achieved much yet, while Alexei's on 147 because he's been competing at a higher level. The handicapper's already adjusted for ability, so the raw weight differential is partially illusory. The market might be double-counting the age advantage.

My main selection is Helnwein at 10/1. Alan King's yard is running at 61% — that's not just form, that's structural competence. This horse has form figures of 372-22, showing consistency at this level. The RPR of 148 and TS of 136 suggest he's got the engine, and at 11st 0lb off 133, he's getting weight from the market principals while maintaining competitive class. Tom Bellamy's a shrewd tactical rider who understands pace dynamics. The causal pathway here is clean: Proven Class + Weight Relief + In-Form Yard + Tactical Rider = Value at 10/1.

For structural each-way value, I'm taking Fiercely Proud at 8/1. Yes, the form reads 61PP-5, which looks messy, but let's do a counterfactual check. What if those two pulls were due to unsuitable ground or distance? The RPR of 149 and TS of 143 are elite numbers, suggesting when conditions align, this horse competes at the top level. Ben Pauling's yard is at 50%, and Ben Jones is an underrated pilot. At 11st 2lb off 135, he's in the sweet spot — not top weight, not bottom weight, just properly handicapped. The market's anchoring on recent form without asking why the form deteriorated.

For progressive risk, I'll mention Wilful at 11/2. The form 4P1-23 shows volatility, but the TS of 136 and RPR of 148 indicate genuine ability. Jonjo O'Neill Jr knows this horse intimately, and at 11st 2lb, the weight's manageable. The risk is consistency, but the upside is a horse who's won at this level before.

Let's not confuse correlation with causation here. Stable form correlates with success, but the causal mechanism is preparation quality, tactical nous, and horse-to-race matching. Prediction is not explanation — we need to understand the why behind the patterns, not just the patterns themselves.

🎙️ Philip Challenges Mick

Philip: Mick, Pearl's raising an interesting point about the weight-for-age advantage potentially being double-counted in Mondo Man's price. You're backing Alexei at 9/2, but he's conceding 24lb to the favourite. How do you square that circle? Isn't the market telling you something about the weight burden?

🗂️ Mick Rebuttal

Mick: Fair question, Philip, but here's the thing — the market's not always right, especially when it's being driven by narrative rather than form. Yeah, Mondo Man's getting 24lb, but he's also a 123-rated horse trying to beat 147-rated rivals. That's not a small gap to bridge, weight allowance or not.

I've seen this pattern before: young progressive horse, sexy profile, big-name yard, and suddenly everyone's piling on because it feels like the right bet. But when I look at Alexei's form — beaten a length here, a neck there — I see a horse who's been mixing it with better company and just needs things to fall right. The 9/2 reflects market uncertainty, not true probability.

Pearl's right that we shouldn't double-count the age advantage, but I'd argue the market's under-counting Alexei's class advantage. Joe Tizzard's 63% run-to-form rate isn't luck, mate — it's preparation. And Brendan Powell's won this race before (well, not this exact race, but you know what I mean). Experience counts when the pressure's on.

Look, I'm not saying Mondo Man can't win. I'm saying at 11/4, he's no value. Give me the 9/2 about a proven horse from a red-hot yard any day. Approximately right, mate.

🎙️ Philip Challenges Pearl

Philip: Pearl, you've gone for Helnwein at 10/1, citing Alan King's 61% run-to-form rate and clean causal pathways. But Mick's point about Skelton's 55% run-to-form rate supporting Live Conti seems equally valid. How do you distinguish between genuine causal signals and just... well, noise in the stable form data?

🔗 Pearl Rebuttal

Pearl: Excellent question, Philip, and it gets to the heart of Bayesian reasoning. Stable form is a prior — it gives us a base rate expectation. But we need to update that prior with likelihood ratios specific to this race.

Alan King's 61% run-to-form rate is higher than Skelton's 55%, but more importantly, Helnwein's individual form profile (372-22) shows he's been competitive at this level repeatedly. That's a stronger likelihood ratio than Live Conti's 112-, which shows wins at a lower level followed by a break. The causal mechanism isn't just "good yard" — it's "good yard + horse proven at this grade + weight relief + tactical rider." Each component strengthens the causal chain.

Mick's Live Conti selection is perfectly reasonable as an each-way play, but the causal pathway has more uncertainty. We're assuming the break hasn't dulled his edge, assuming he can step up in class, assuming the Skelton magic translates to this specific horse in this specific race. Those are reasonable assumptions, but they're still assumptions.

With Helnwein, we have direct evidence of competitiveness at this level. The counterfactual is clearer: What if he'd had a better run last time? The form suggests he would've been closer. That's a tighter causal inference than What if Live Conti can step up?

I'm not dismissing stable form — I'm contextualizing it within the broader causal structure. Prediction is not explanation, but explanation gives us confidence in our predictions.

🎙️ Philip's Summary

Philip: Right, let's synthesize what we've got here, because there's both convergence and divergence worth noting.

Convergence: All three of us recognize this is a race where stable form and tactical positioning matter enormously. We're all wary of the Mondo Man hype at 11/4, even if we acknowledge his progressive profile. And we're all looking for value away from the market principals.

Divergence: Mick's backing experience and proven class with Alexei at 9/2, while Pearl's seeking structural value through weight relief and consistency with Helnwein at 10/1. Mick's each-way safety is Live Conti at 14/1 (Skelton stable plot), while Pearl's is Fiercely Proud at 8/1 (class on its day). And Mick's value swing is Sticktotheplan at 22/1, while Pearl's progressive risk is Wilful at 11/2.

Let me probe a bit further. Mick, you mentioned Sticktotheplan at 22/1 as a value swing, but Pearl hasn't addressed him. Pearl, what's the causal case against Sticktotheplan? Is Olly Murphy's 48% run-to-form rate a red flag, or is there something structural you're seeing?

And Pearl, you've gone for Helnwein at 10/1, but Mick's focused on Alexei at 9/2. Is the extra half-point in the odds worth the trade-off in proven top-level form? Or are we splitting hairs here?

Actually, you know what? I think both of you are circling the same truth from different angles. The market's got this wrong by over-backing the favourite and under-appreciating the depth of class in the field. Whether that manifests as Alexei's proven form or Helnwein's structural value, the principle holds: there's value away from Mondo Man.

For my selections, I'm going to blend your approaches:

Win/Main: Alexei at 9/2 — Mick's convinced me that proven class and in-form yard trump the sexy narrative. Joe Tizzard's 63% run-to-form rate is too strong to ignore, and this horse has been knocking on the door all season.

Each-Way Backup: Helnwein at 10/1 — Pearl's causal pathway makes sense. Alan King's 61% run-to-form rate, weight relief, and consistent form at this level offer genuine structural value.

Risk Add: Fiercely Proud at 8/1 — I'm buying Pearl's counterfactual argument. Those pulls might be explainable, and the RPR of 149 suggests elite ability when conditions align.

As Heraclitus might say, "No horse steps in the same race twice, for it's not the same race and he's not the same horse." Or something like that. The point is, we're betting on change — on horses improving, on conditions aligning, on value emerging from market inefficiency. And in this race, I think the inefficiency is clear: the crowd's chasing youth and narrative while overlooking proven class and structural value.

Now, before we wrap, let me indulge in my weekly exercise in speculative hubris...

🧢 Weekend Warrior — Live Longshot

Philip: For my Weekend Warrior pick, I'm going with Hardy Du Seuil at 28/1.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Philip, he's an eight-year-old carrying 10st 9lb off a mark of 128, and his form reads 503-31. What are you seeing that the market's missing?"

Here's the narrative angle: Jamie Snowden's yard is running at 60%, and this horse has an RPR of 150 — that's elite-level ability when he's on song. The last run was a win, which suggests he's finding form again after a couple of disappointing efforts. Isabelle Ryder takes the 7lb claim, which brings him down to effective 10st 2lb — suddenly he's one of the lightest in the field.

He's not in Mick's memory bank because he's inconsistent. He's not in Pearl's model because the causal pathway's too noisy. And he's not in the market because punters have written him off as past his best. But at 28/1, I only need him to run to his RPR once, and he's got a squeak.

If he lands a place, I'll be insufferable until Boxing Day at the earliest. You know the drill.

📋 Quick Racecard Crib

Race: Ascot Rotary Club Festive Handicap Hurdle
Course: Ascot (soft ground, undulating two-mile circuit)
Date: 20 December 2025, 15:35
Runners: 13
Prize: £71,188 to winner
Key Yards: Skelton (2), O'Neill (2), Henderson, King, Tizzard, Moore
Market Principals: Mondo Man (11/4 fav), Alexei (9/2), Wilful (11/2)
Ground Bias: Soft going favours proven handlers of cut
Tactical Note: Early pace positioning crucial due to Swinley Bottom climb

🎯 Guide Odds — Panel Selections

Horse	Odds	Mick	Pearl	Philip
Alexei	9/2	WIN		WIN
Helnwein	10/1		WIN	E/W
Fiercely Proud	8/1		E/W	RISK
Live Conti	14/1	E/W
Sticktotheplan	22/1	VALUE
Wilful	11/2		RISK
Hardy Du Seuil	28/1			WARRIOR
Mondo Man (fav)	11/4	OPPOSE	OPPOSE	OPPOSE

🌐 Web Sites (Alphabetical)

Attheraces: attheraces.com
Betfair: betfair.com
Racing Post: racingpost.com
Sporting Life: sportinglife.com
Timeform: timeform.com

Good luck, and may the soft ground be kind to your selections. See you in the post-mortem.

Generated by Hippos Handicapping Preview Panel - Poe API v1.00.00 [ https://vendire-ludorum.blogspot.com/ ]