A January Random Roundup

1. 

   Russ says:

   22 January 2026 at 11:12 am

   Hi Matt,

   Apologies for the length of the reply here but I want to explain why I think your post is extremely important on the sectional times front.

   The provision of sectional times for the rest of the UK tracks is massive as far as I’m concerned. I don’t think you laboured the point too much at all as there is ‘gold in them thar hills’ now!

   The importance of pace is universally recognised and this new provision helps in two keys ways. One is truly knowing what today’s pace is likely to be and the other is judging a horse’s suitability to the likely pace scenario. By having the ‘Show Sectionals’ box ticked in the full form, we can cast clear light on the two scenarios.

   Although we have the pace maps (and their value can never be underestimated) the sectional picture can tell us even more precisely how fast each horse might run today. We have the running lines where we can note the 2nd figure as well as the 1st to get a fuller picture early in a race. Also the early pace (coloured boxes) in conjunction with how far behind the horse was gives us watertight information about whether the horse will lead or press. If you have 3 or 4 leaders or pressers in a race, you can pretty much say the pace will be a decent one. A lack of them can denote a steadily run race.

   With the predicted pace nailed down, the running lines can tell us who will be suited to that pace. For this we need to look at WHERE the numbers go lower and check what the pace was. For instance, if the early pace is denoted as FAST or Q FAST and a horse’s numbers descend steadily without rising again then it’s very likely to need a fast pace.

   Another example of how to use the running lines in this context is to detect ‘speed’ horses who want a slower pace. Example would be a horse who MORE THAN ONCE IN IT’S CAREER has improving numbers as race matures but then numbers worsen in the final stage (eg, from 1st to 2nd or 3rd). If this pattern repeats itself, we very likely have a horse who races in ‘bursts’ rather than deliver a sustained effort. I would consider this as being a horse who prefers a slower pace.

   Clearly you need to bring the whole picture together for a horse to make a judgement but it’s quick to do with practice. The more you look at the data in this way, the more you can piece together races and cast horses to one side including many market leaders. It really is gold dust.

   One very useful pointer if a horse is lightly raced or where you are not sure on what kind of pace the horse needs is to use the Sire data in the Profiler section of the race card. Always have the HCAP radio button selected to keep to handicaps for accuracy click on the SIRE section. In the ‘Field’ section, note the PRB figures for 2-7, 8-11, 12-15 and 16+ field sizes. Do this for all horses quickly jotting these down the 4 figures in a horizontal line for each horse. Horses whose sires have some bigger PRB numbers in bigger fields could very likely need their progeny to run in faster pace scenarios. Conversely a bigger number in the 2-7 section could denote a ‘speed’ horse. Once you have this in a block, it’s extremely enlightening and can be very significant indeed. Again the more you do this, the more quickly you will see the patterns and understand the horses.

   Sorry for the long rant Matt but the value the Geegeez is providing in these areas is absolutely huge. I win money by looking at these types of things so I can personally vouch for them!

   Keep up the great work!

   Cheers
   Russ

   Log in to Reply
   • 

     Matt Bisogno says:

     22 January 2026 at 7:10 pm

     Hi Russ

     Thanks a lot for your message and the sage wisdom therein. Your point about contextualising the sectional data – that is, looking for horses who have performed well against a similar pace scenario as the one projected today (or poorly, when looking to oppose top of the market) – is bang on.

     The part about running lines is interesting and something I’ve not fully looked into yet, but it certainly makes logical sense.

     Thanks again for your comment.

     Matt

     Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply