It's honestly not "my sort of race" at all.

I have plenty of respect for Bill Hartston, though (interesting that the Daily Mail call him a "mathematician", there - he's worked as a psychologist for most of his life, I thought. He's also a former British Chess Champion).

There's an interesting chapter on the National in Nick Mordin's very old book "Betting For A Living", in which he explains his own research (together with the claim that using historical/statistical parameters can usually effectively reduce the enormous field down to 4/5 runners, and show a profit by "dutching" them all).

Paul Jones' comments are here: At The Races guide to the Grand National: Racecards, Video Previews, Odds, Form, Hugh Taylor, Gary O'Brien, News, Reports, Live Results

It's not one I'll bet on, myself, though.

What do you fancy, in this race?

My grandmother said you pick a mid-weight horse. She could look at the horses and tell more between the couple of horses at mid-weight, by their coat, eyes, the way they were holding their ears and head. She won a hella lot more that lost.

Not scientific - but then, not everything we win at is.