Draw Bias 2022: Part 1

/in /by

It has been a couple of years since I wrote some articles on the draw and, with the flat season hitting stride now, it is a good time to revisit the subject, writes Dave Renham. The draw will always have special place in my heart because it was essentially where my racing journey began.

Sprintline 2002: The Effects of the Draw - co-authored by Dave Renham

Sprintline 2002: The Effects of the Draw - co-authored by Dave Renham

While at university I became interested in horse racing stats and I soon realised that there was a potential betting edge in focusing on certain sections of the draw at a few specific courses. Back then, in the late 80s and early 90s, the courses and distances with the strongest biases were at Beverley over five furlongs, Thirsk over five and six furlongs (especially on firmer ground), Chester from five to seven furlongs, Lingfield (turf course) five to seven furlongs, and Sandown over five furlongs when the stalls were placed on the far side. The beauty back then for draw punters like myself was that there was a decent edge for those of us who considered ourselves ‘in the know’. I was able to find plenty of betting opportunities that represented good value.

Unfortunately, if predictably, it was not long before draw biases started to be shared in racing articles which were then followed by comprehensive books on the subject. Indeed, I co-authored one of them!

As with many things, when a good source of highlighting value bets is found, within a few years the edge starts to disappear. This is very much a horse racing trait: good ideas have their initial edge because the majority of people are not aware of that value finding approach. As time goes on, however, the betting public and the bookmakers catch up and, as a result, prices tend to contract and the value begins to erode. This has happened to some considerable extent with the draw over recent years.

Using Chester’s five-furlong trip as an example, let us examine what has happened to the prices of the ‘best’ two stall positions over the past several years. The stalls in question are draws 1 and 2, those closest to the inside rail. I am looking here at handicap races with eight or more runners where draw bias tends to be more consistent:

 

 

Chester’s tight track has long shown a bias to lower draws and this has generally been well documented and widely understood. However, nowadays your average punter has had more exposure to draw biases than they did twenty years ago which explains the diminishing price pattern. The graph above shows that horses drawn in stall 1 had an average decimal SP price of 6.58 from 2003 to 2007, dropping to 5.19 over the most recent five-year period. Likewise, we have seen the prices of horses drawn in stall 2 dropping from 9.06 to 6.46.

Some statisticians may observe that despite the relatively solid sample sizes average prices can be skewed by an occasional bigger-priced runner. That would certainly be possible, so it make sense to compare the median prices as well. To remind you of your school maths class, median is the middle value when all are ordered from lowest to highest. This gives us another type of average, the findings of which are here:

 

 

Once again we see the same pattern: the prices for both draws 1 and 2 have dropped quite significantly over the period of study.

A further measure to illustrate how the draw affects the prices at Chester is if we look at all stall / draw positions from 2017 to 2021 and compare their average prices. We already know that the average for horses drawn in stall 1 has been 5.19 and stall 2 is 6.46. I have graphed the average prices for each stall over 5f at Chester, although due to small sample sizes in higher drawn runners I have combined those drawn in stall 8 or higher:

 

 

As we can see, despite a slight ‘blip’ with stalls / draws 6 and 7, the average price increases as the stall position increases (and is thus further away from the favoured inside rail). Looking at these data, we could confidently argue that at Chester over 5f the draw impacts on price more than any other factor.

 

I briefly want to go back to discuss the price reduction we saw earlier in the lowest two stall positions when comparing 2003-2007 average SP prices with 2017-2021. This has actually not coincided with the draw bias getting stronger; in fact, the draw bias has stayed roughly the same. This can be illustrated when breaking our draw data into three time frames between the years 2003 and 2021. The actual draw positions are also split into three: low third, middle third and high third.

 

 

As can be seen, low draws have continued to dominate in each time frame. This is further evidence of the fact that the price reduction is almost certainly down to more punters being aware of how fundamentally important the draw is to the business of finding winners at Chester over this minimum 5f trip. From a betting perspective, therefore, much or all of the value in lower drawn horses has now evaporated. This can be illustrated in terms of percentage returns (ROI%) if backing all horses from the bottom third (low) of the draw over different time frames.

 

 

I still find it remarkable that up to 2015 you could have made a blind profit at SP by backing all low drawn horses in 8+ handicaps over five furlongs at Chester. All good things come to an end, however, and that has not been the case in recent years. In the five year period 2016 to 2021, losses accrued were 13.7% of stakes. Ouch.

Appreciating and therefore deploying draw bias is not merely about looking at the performances of different sections of the draw; no, we also have to be acutely aware of how the market adjusts for such factors.

Being able to exploit the draw to one's advantage has also been affected in recent years by racecourse officials using other means of negating any potential bias. One way this can be done is by moving running rails which potentially changes part of the ground over which races take place as well as sometimes subtly changing the race distance by a few yards. The other, more notable, fly in the ointment has been the change in watering systems that most tracks now use. Some 20 or 30 years ago many course watering systems were badly affected by wind speed and direction, and hence certain parts of the track remained drier - and therefore quicker - giving rise to draw biases. Nowadays, though, the equipment has become more sophisticated and the water is spread much more evenly.

I mentioned earlier that Beverley over five furlongs used to be one of the strongest draw biases back in the day, and this can be seen when you look at the data. From 1998 to 2003 in 8+ runner handicaps the low third of the draw housed the winner 63.3% of the time, while the highest third won just 10% during that period. From 2004 to 2009, the strength of this bias appeared to dip a little but the low third still accounted for 53.4% of all the winners (high won a still dismal 15%). However, from 2010 to 2015 the low win percentage dropped to just under 42%, while high had narrowed the gap with 23.1% winners; and, from 2016 to 2021 it dropped to 40.8% low and 26.5% high. Over time, that's quite a big change. Yes, low draws are still favoured but the huge edge that there once was is no more.

Exactly why this has happened I cannot be sure; it is probably down to better watering and maintenance of the track. However, what is interesting is the fact that the prices on the best drawn horses have not changed much. Comparing the 2003 to 2007 segment with 2016 to 2021 here are the average prices for stalls 1 and 2:

 

 

Horses drawn in stall 1 have, on average, started at slightly shorter prices in the last five seasons (12 versus 11.42); stall 2 has seen an increase but a modest one when you consider the draw bias is nowhere near as potent these days. The median prices back up the raw average data as the table below shows:

 

 

What seems to be happening here therefore is the market at Beverley is still assuming the draw bias is as strong as it was back in the early 2000s. Unlike the Chester market, which has adapted as one might expect, this Beverley market has not: in reality, the odds should on average be higher than they currently are. The bitesize takeaway is that lower draws are generally poor value.

Another thing that has changed markedly in the past few years is the general appreciation that draw bias does not only occur over sprint trips. Pontefract, for example, over a mile and a mile and a quarter, boasts two of the strongest draw biases currently in play. Looking at 8+ runner 1 mile handicaps at Pontefract, it can be seen that this is a case of the betting market now cottoning on to the draw bias. This is in stark contrast to data gathered in 5f handicaps at Beverley.

Let’s compare once again the same two time frames - 2003 to 2007 with 2017 to 2021. Here are the average prices for stalls 1 and 2:

 

 

The average price of horses drawn in stall 1 has nearly halved; the figures for horses drawn in stall 2 have also contracted quite noticeably. Once again the median prices correlate strongly:

 

 

What this means, therefore, is that although low draws hold a significant edge over 1 mile at Pontefract the current prices on offer are so low on average, that they too are now generally poor value. We can see this in black and white when I share the fact that from 2009 to 2013 backing all low drawn horses at Pontefract over 1 mile in 8+ runner handicaps would have yielded a 13% profit; from 2017 to 2021 this flipped to a 22% loss.

This Ponte pattern mirrors the change we saw earlier in the Chester 5f prices and subsequent poorer value of low drawn runners in recent seasons.

In order to fully make the most of draw bias, or indeed perceived draw bias, it is clear we need to be aware of market factors, not just the raw draw data splits. Let us close with a look at Catterick over six furlongs – again focusing on 8+ runner handicaps. Because this six-furlong trip is contested around a bend there is a perception that lower draws have a slight edge. This is borne out when we compare the combined average prices of the three lowest drawn runners with the three highest drawn runners going back to 2016.

 

 

A difference on average of two and a half points. That may not seem much of a difference but over several races it can make a critical difference to our bottom line. During this time frame both sections of the draw have won virtually the same number of races (26 versus 27), implying that there is no bias to lower drawn runners at all. At least partly as a consequence of this perception, backing the three lowest drawn stalls would have produced crippling losses of 45.8% to SP, while blindly supporting the top three stalls would have produced a profit of 10.5%.

One observation when comparing odds over time might legitimately be that field sizes truncating has had a bearing on prices. While that impact should be spread across the full range of stalls anyway, this final chart also helps to imply that field size is likely not the main factor at play here.

 

 

It is a little 'busy', but essentially we have two lines which we might expect to be correlated - perceived win chance (expressed as SP) and actual strike rate (expressed as win %). Although the win strike rates jump around a bit, the blue dotted 'trendline' shows no advantage; compare that, however, with the orange trendline for average win odds which rises from low to high.

 

*

The aim of this article is to illustrate the important links between draw position and price, and to highlight the changing nature of some draw biases. Profitable betting is about getting value – well drawn horses only offer us value if the price is right. Also, we need to be aware that 'poorly' drawn horses can also offer value, but again only if the price is right.

- DR

Racing Systems: Flat Trainers, Part 3

/in /by

In the past couple of articles - here and here - I have been researching and sharing some trainer-based systems for flat racing (turf and all weather combined), writes Dave Renham. And in this piece, I have one more group of flat trainer systems to share. Once again, the focus will be on UK racing from Jan 1st 2009 to Dec 31st 2021 with all profits quoted to Betfair Starting Price (less 5% commission).

As a researcher and writer I feel my job is to share facts and figures and, from there, the reader can make an informed choice. Systems do not have to be rigid: we can use them that way of course, but we have options that allow the selection process to be more flexible. With that said, here are the final four of twelve trainer angles for the flat.

 

Ralph Beckett – The 3yo system

Ralph Beckett was discussed in an earlier article when the focus was solely all weather racing. Here is a different system which could be employed on both the turf and the sand. It has very few rules:

  1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
  2. Trainer – Ralph Beckett
  3. 3yo runners

I have discussed before that in general the simpler the system the better – this is a case in point. Here are the overall stats for the last 13 seasons:

 

 

These are sound figures overall, especially across nearly 3000 qualifiers, and the system has produced returns in excess of 8%. Here are the stats broken down by year. The graph below shows the yearly Return on Investment % to BSP. I am using ROI% as I tend to do with bigger sample sizes:

 

 

There have been nine winning years and four losing ones, with three of the losing years back in 2012 or before. The last five years have all returned a profit so there's some good overall consistency, which is backed up when we look at the yearly win strike rates of these 3yos:

 

 

In twelve of the 13 years, Beckett has returned a strike rate of 15% and above, and only in 2009 did he not exceed this figure (SR was 14.1% in that year). This gives greater confidence in the base line figures.

Digging a little deeper we can see there is further consistency when we split the results by distance. Dividing into three we get the following:

 

 

All distance ranges have made a profit and the returns have been similar at that.

This angle in its raw form will give us a decent number of qualifiers each year. For me it is a case of looking at each qualifier on an individual basis and examining the races they are contesting in more detail. From there I will decide if the horse looks a value bet or not.

Andrew Balding – The 2yo non-handicap system

Andrew Balding has successfully followed in the footsteps of his father Ian starting back in 2003. His strike rate in all races is solid, averaging around the 15% mark, and he is at or near this figure year in, year out. The system I want to share with you relates to his juvenile runners. The rules are:

  1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
  2. Trainer – Andrew Balding
  3. 2yos in non-handicaps

 

This system has produced the following results:

 

 

That is an absolutely huge profit over the past 13 years. There have been a good number of bets again and here is the annual breakdown data, via Return on Investment (ROI%):

 

 

As can be seen from the upward spikes, there have been several extremely profitable seasons, with ten in the black and just three losing years. However, as you might suspect, this system has been blessed by several big-priced winners: in fact, ten winners have returned at a BSP of over 50.0! Clearly, then, a good proportion of the overall profits are down to these runners. The results are definitely a touch skewed.

However, before thinking this may not be the system for you, it should be noted that horses whose industry SP has been 10/1 or shorter have made a profit as well. OK, we are only talking about 9%, but if your shorter priced runners are making a profit, then I think this type of approach has ‘legs’. To reproduce the amazing profits of the past 13 years it will need the odd big-priced winner, but even if these are less frequent, there is a good chance this system will still make a long-term profit.

Finally I want to share the Balding stats in terms of ground conditions (going). He has been profitable on all types of turf going as well as making a profit on the sand:

 

 

Clive Cox – The 3yos in 3yo+ races system

Clive Cox has saddled over 850 winners and, last year, saw his highest tally of winners, 79. Indeed, since 2009, if you had backed ALL of his runners in every single race you would have made a profit of 8p in the £. Not bad considering the sample size is in excess of 5,200 runners. Also, six of the last seven years would have produced a blind profit which is impressive.

Clive Cox has done especially well with his three-year-old (3yo) runners since 2009, especially when they are racing in 3yo+ races. The system reads:

  1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
  2. Trainer – Clive Cox
  3. 3yos in 3yo+ races

Again, there are very few rules which, as I have stated before, is important for the logic to stand up. The overall results show good profits:

 

 

Looking at the annual breakdown, the below figures using BSP profit to £1 level stakes:

 

 

2009, 2010, 2017 and 2018 were all very profitable and these years are why the system has an overall profit. What is interesting, though, is that Cox has not really had any bad seasons. Even in 2019 and 2020 the losses were very modest considering the raw nature of this system. So, despite four seasons contributing to virtually all the profit margin, this system shouldn’t in my opinion be written off due to inconsistency. Whether it is the type of system for you, only you will know. Again my personal approach would be to highlight qualifiers using the rules and then take a more pragmatic approach by doing further research into the horses in question and their rivals in the highlighted race.

A couple of extra pointers: firstly Cox has done better at shorter distances (less than 1m 1f). Secondly, horses that finished in the first five last time have produced 126 winners from 609 runners (SR 20.7%) showing a profit of £299.44 (ROI +49.2%). Breaking the annual results down for this second subset of runners sees an impressive twelve winning years out of 13. Of course we need to ask, is using a last time out finish in the first five back-fitting? Possibly, but even with extra stipulation this angle still has very few rules. Also, if you had restricted to a finish in the first three last time out, the results would have been similar.

There is no easy answer sometimes to whether an extra rule or two is a good idea to a very simple system. If the additional rule(s) has logic then you could argue it either way; if it is not logical then there is no argument – it is definitely back-fitting!

Mick Appleby – The 3yo handicap system

Mick Appleby started training in the summer of 2010. He had just three winners that year followed by 15 in 2011. From 2012 his stable increased in size and, over the next two seasons (2013 & 2014), he saddled 101 winners. In the last five years, Appleby has saddled at least 90 winners each time.

The system is thus:

  1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
  2. Trainer – Mick Appleby
  3. 3yos in handicaps

 

Again a system with very few rules. They have produced some decent returns as we can see in the table below:

 

 

This time we have a slightly lower strike rate than the other angles I have shared, but in handicap races this is generally likely to be the case. Here is the annual breakdown.

 

 

It's a bit of a roller-coaster, truth be told. 2016 and 2021 were huge years but both had one very big-priced winner which helped the bottom line considerably. In 2016, Mick had a winner that effectively paid 253/1, while in 2021 he had one that paid around 194/1 (prices adjusted to account for commission). This takes the overall profit figure down to £246 which still equates to a tidy profit of 18p in the £.

Regarding outliers, Appleby had only one other winner that paid over 50/1 (it paid 70/1 after commission). Restricting the Oakham trainer's runners to an industry SP price of 14/1 or less, his figures remain good: 156 winners from 919 runners for a profit of £154.52 (ROI +16.8%).

Another point worth sharing is that his record is considerably better in 3yo only handicaps. In such contests, the strike rate increases to 14.2% and profits stand at £655.45 (ROI +94.7%). Overall it would have given a much smoother ride from a yearly perspective.

Most systems that solely use handicap races are likely to fluctuate somewhat and hence come with risk. Thereafter, it is the old risk / reward conundrum. For me, once again this system is a case where I would be noting the qualifiers and undertaking further research to determine whether a horse is a betting opportunity or not.

*

So there you have it, the last four trainer systems from a group of 12. It will be interesting to see how they fare over the next two or three seasons. Time will tell.

- DR

Racing Systems: Flat Trainers, Part 2

/in /by

In my last piece I looked at trainer based systems in flat racing (turf and all weather combined), writes Dave Renham. I will be revisiting the same idea in this article and in one more that follows next week. As before I have analysed UK data from January 1st 2009 to December 31st 2021 with all profits quoted to Betfair Starting Price.

In terms of the systems discussed here, my plan is to provide some facts and figures from which we may make an informed choice. Systems can be flexible; nobody is ‘forcing’ us into backing every selection!

The first trainer offering this week is based on an idea that I shared last time with a different trainer. Then it was Roger Varian; this time it's...

Saeed Bin Suroor – Six month system

Saeed Bin Suroor somewhat exploded onto the racing scene with the Godolphin outfit in the mid-1990's. He had won four UK trainer titles by 2004 and looked unstoppable. As the years have passed, however, his success in Group races has diminished; nevertheless, he still regularly hits a strike rate of over 20% (all races) in Britain. In fact, since 2009, in ten of the 13 seasons bin Suroor has achieved this. Overall his strike rate is an impressive 22% and backing all his runners to BSP would have yielded a loss of only around 3p in the £.

That is a fairly good base therefore to find a profitable system. Here are the rules I have used:

  1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
  2. Trainer – Saeed Bin Suroor
  3. 180 days or more since last run
  4. SP 10/1 or less

Let us have a look at how this system has fared since 2009:

 

 

These are a very solid set of figures comprising an impressive strike rate, good profits, and a healthy return on investment. His overall results are quite similar to the Roger Varian equivalent angle, but bin Suroor has a slightly stronger bottom line with returns equating to an extra 3p in the £.

For the record, all his horses priced exactly 10/1 lost (17 in total) but I was not going to change the SP cap just to improve his results. As stated in previous articles, back-fitting is to be avoided at all costs if you want to have any confidence in your research.

The chart below shows the annual breakdown using profit figures to £1 level stakes.

 

bin Suroor has enjoyed ten winning years out of 13 and, importantly, shows excellent year to year consistency. The counter, however, is that two of the last four seasons have ended up in the negative. 2020 was the worst but, as I have mentioned before in other articles, we have to be a bit wary about 2020 data due to COVID and the truncated flat season that ensued. 2018 saw the Godolphin trainer hit the post several times including a spell when he had four seconds from four starters so he could easily have posted a small profit that year. He certainly bounced back in 2021 producing returns of 62p in the £.

Another barometer of consistency is when we look at his results across different classes. He has made a profit at every single level:

 

 

His Class 2 results are weaker, but he is still in profit; only two runners raced in Class 6 company but he still has sneaked into profit there, too. Saeed Bin Suroor is still a trainer to have on your side and this system looks very promising.

Roger Charlton (& Harry Charlton) – 2yo system

Roger Charlton trains in my neck of the woods in Wiltshire and has enjoyed good success since he started in 1990. He served his apprenticeship under Jeremy Tree for 12 years. That was a stable that contained such greats as Rainbow Quest and Danehill. Indeed, in Charlton's first season in charge in 1990, he won the French Derby with Sanglamore and, less than a week later, he had landed the English Derby with Quest For Fame. It's only downhill from there! Nowadays, he is formally assisted by his son Harry, the pair sharing the licence.

When you look at Charlton’s overall record (all UK races) going back to 2009 he has been the model of consistency.

 

 

His strike rate has been above 16% in all but two years and, even then, the lower returns were still a highly acceptable 14.6% and 15.6%.

The Charlton stable has done particularly well with their 2yos in non-handicaps. Hence the system to share reads:

1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
2. Trainer – Roger Charlton
3. 2yos in non-handicaps

Here are the system results:

 

 

An impressive set of numbers here, with returns close to 30p in the £, and a solid strike rate considering they are juveniles. Onto the yearly breakdown by profit / loss to £1 level stakes at BSP:

 

 

There have effectively been four break-even years, two losing and seven winning years. 2017 produced just over 40% of the overall profits but even without this outlier year the figures look solid. Crucially, there have been no really bad years at all, his worst - in 2016 - losing just £6.29 to £1 level stakes.

When looking at Charlton runners in more detail, the best returns have come from debutants and those having their second career start. These runners have also made up nearly 80% of all his starters, suggesting the yard does not over-race their young horses. Males and females have both done well; males have returned 33p in the £, females 25p in the £.

If you wanted to tweak the system to give a higher strike rate and even greater consistency then you may wish to consider a price cap. As we know price caps can be tricky to implement at times, but Charlton's 2yo non-handicap starters sent off 3/1 or shorter have produced the following results:

 

 

These are similar returns to the original system but provide players with a slightly smoother ride due to the much improved strike rate. Also, there are no big priced winners skewing the results.

Working with a higher price cap, then if we use the same one as the Bin Suroor and Varian systems, 10/1 or less, the results still look good:

 

 

The Charlton system in its raw form is not one I would use blindly as personally my betting portfolio does not involve many two-year-old bets. However, I would not put anyone off using it, with or without price cap considerations.

Charlie Appleby – 3yo system

Charlie Appleby is, like Saeed bin Suroor, a trainer who operates under the Godolphin flag. He was appointed by the stable in July 2013 so the data crunched starts from then rather than 2009. His strike rate in ALL races has been an impressive 24% and in four of the last five years that win rate has exceeded 28%. The system I wish to share is as simple as it gets:

1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
2. Trainer – Charlie Appleby
3. 3yos

There have been nearly 1500 qualifiers as you can see below. This is a good chunk of data:

 

 

This system has produced very modest returns on investment of just under 3p in the £ but, considering its simplicity and Appleby's high profile, a blind profit is still mightily impressive. The graph below shows the yearly Return on Investment % to BSP. I am using ROI% due to the bigger sample size:

 

 

There have been five winning years and four losing losing ones. The overall performance is stronger since 2016, which is a positive (profit of £110.16 and returns of 13p in the £ from 2016 to 2021). Also there have been no really big-priced winners that have skewed the stats.

I see this system as an excellent starting point, with system qualifiers worth further scrutiny from a form reading perspective. Here are a few more stats / facts about Appleby three-year-olds that may help with that process:

1. Appleby has three jockeys he uses regularly – William Buick, James Doyle and Adam Kirby. Two of the three have made blind profits as the table below shows:

 

 

Combining the three would have given a profit of £121.04 with returns close to 14p in the £. Decent A/E values for all three riders add to confidence, so when one of these jockeys is booked I would see it as a plus.

2. I touched briefly on the fact he had no big priced winners previously. To give the meat on the bones, any horse that started bigger than 16/1 SP has lost. Charlie Appleby is 0 from 59 with such horses.

3. His male runners have outperformed female runners from a strike rate and profit perspective: a win strike rate of 26.2% for males and 21.4% for females, with correlating placed strike rates of 51.6% for males and 42.5% for females. Looking at returns we see males making a profit of 8p for every £ bet, whereas females have lost just over 12p in the £.

4. Horses that were odds on last time out have performed very well with 56 wins from 168 runners (SR 33.3%) for a profit of £47.90 (ROI +28.5%).

Sir Mark Prescott – Low Grade 3yo handicap system

Sir Mark Prescott is still going strong aged 74, but that might mean any Prescott system is on borrowed time. The wily baronet has always done well with 3yos in handicaps and this system exploits that fact. Sir Mark has made a decent overall profit with ALL 3yo handicappers since 2009 (£198.89 to £1 level stakes with an ROI of 15.1%), but he seems to excel when tackling lower class races. Hence the system reads:

1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
2. Trainer – Sir Mark Prescott
3. 3yo's in handicap races
4. Class 6 or 7 (NB. Just one qualifying Class 7 race, so essentially Class 6)

The results are shown in the table:

 

 

Those are some very strong looking figures, with a win rate close to 1 in 3 and returns of a whopping 41p in the £. The annual breakdown by profit to £1 level stakes to BSP is shown below:

 

 

There have been nine winning years, one break even (a 51p profit in 2019), and three losing years with those three having each seen only very small losses (less than £6 each time). Last year (2021) saw a small reverse, but Prescott had several near misses including placed runners at BSP prices of 12.7, 22.0, 15.0 and 12.5. If just one of those had won it would have been another profitable year.

The consistency can also be seen when we break the results into time of year. Splitting the years into quarters we get:

 

There were not many qualifiers in the first three months of the year but still a good profit and a remarkable ROI. Indeed, the numbers are very solid across the board with positive A/E values as well. All in all I do not think there is any need to modify this system - it's not broken, so let's not try to fix it - although, again, exactly if/how you deploy it comes down to personal preference.

*

So, four more systems for your consideration. I'll have another quartet to share next week in the final part of this mini-series. If there are any trainer-based systems you would like me to look into, do leave a comment below.

- DR

Racing Systems: Flat Trainers, Part 1

/in /by

Last week, I switched focus to flat racing (turf and all weather combined) and, as we’re now officially into the flat season, I am sticking again to the flat with attention switching to trainer based systems, writes Dave Renham.

As with the first five articles in this series I am going to look over the long term, studying UK data from Jan 1st 2009 to Dec 31st 2021 with all profits quoted to Betfair Starting Price.

As we know, systems are not for everyone, and I am not a system user per se. However, I do have a group of systems that highlight horses I will then go on to study in more detail: systems do not have to be totally rigid unless you want them to be.

As I have stated before when sharing these racing systems I am not advocating that you use some of them, or all of them; rather, the plan is to give you the facts and figures in order to make an informed choice. So let’s get cracking:

 

Keith Dalgleish – Second Career start system

Keith Dalgleish started training in 2011 in South Lanarkshire. His career strike rate stands at 12% which is very respectable and last year (2021) was his best year numerically with 93 winners in total. It was also his most profitable; backing all Dalgleish runners on the flat in 2021 would have yielded a return of over 26p in the £.

Looking at his record, he has done very well with horses having their second ever career run. Hence this system reads very simply:

  1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
  2. Trainer – Keith Dalgleish
  3. Second career start

 

Let us have a look at the raw system results:

 

 

These are solid looking results – good profit from an excellent ROI. The strike rate of nearly 17% is sound considering the type of horse we are talking about: the average win strike rate for all second time starters (all trainers) is around 12%.

Let's graph the annual breakdowns and as we are looking at relatively small yearly samples I have used profit figures to £1 level stakes. As Dalgleish started training in 2011, the data set starts from there rather than 2009:

 

 

As can be seen, Dalgleish's results were not so good in the two of the first three years, but I think we can forgive this as it was the early days of his training career. From 2014 onwards his runners having their second career start have done very well. Overall they've recorded seven winning years and four losing ones; (six out of the last eight were profitable). 2017 looks poor but he had runner up finishes that year at BSP prices of 20.45, 14.50 and 12.74. Two of these were beaten very narrowly (a head and half a length) and if a couple had managed to win, the year would have been around the breakeven point. We have to appreciate that regardless of bottom line results, luck, good or bad, can play a significant part in whether we make a profit or a loss.

There is good news that these results have not been badly skewed by numerous big priced winners; just two winners over 30.0 on Betfair and none over 50.0. Indeed, if we focus on his runners whose BSP was under 30.0 results actually are even better:

 

 

That focus brings the strike rate up nicely to nearly a win from every four runners, and returns close to 73p in the £. The yearly breakdown also improves to eight winning years and three losing ones.

As with any system involving very unexposed horses, we are playing with fire a bit. However, Dalgleish has been profitable with both his 2yos and 3yos under this system (N.B. he has had just four qualifiers aged 4 or older, one of which won). The majority of his qualifiers have been 2yos, but the 66 3yo qualifiers produced half of the profits.

So is this a system to use? Quite possibly. Obviously we are reliant on the trainer having a 2yo crop each year of similar ability to what he has had in the past as they will make up about 75% of all system qualifiers, but consistency in that regard hasn't been too much of an issue to date.

Some additional points to note. Dalgleish's female runners have been particularly successful. Also, as highlighted in this Keith Dalgleish trainer profile, his best results have come at tracks in the north of England and in Scotland. He had 31 qualifiers that raced in the midlands or further south and just two have won.

 

Hugo Palmer – 2 & 3yos that made debut at Newmarket

In my last article I shared a system that backed horses that finished in the first three at Newmarket on their debut (first ever run). Newmarket debutants are a key part to this system too. Here are the rules:

  1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
  2. 2yo and 3yo runners from the Hugo Palmer stable
  3. Subsequent runs after debut at Newmarket
  4. SP 10/1 or less

 

This is a completely different system from anything I have shared before. This is because the same horse could become a qualifier several times in different races using this system. Essentially if the horse made their debut at Newmarket, you back it on any subsequent start as a 2yo or 3yo. That might be one or two runs, it could be ten, and it could be none.

I have also added a price cap which as we know is something we cannot always be 100% sure of when betting pre-race, especially if the early price of the horse is around the figure quoted (in this case an industry SP of 10/1). For the record a BSP price cap of 15.0 would give us virtually the same results and bottom line. The good thing about this price cap is that we know the overall figures are not skewed by any huge priced winners.

Onto the system results now:

 

 

Considering the system is backing all Newmarket debutants on all of their subsequent starts up to and including the age of three, these figures look very sound. For me personally, the strike rate of over 30% is the most impressive part. Good strike rates are not a pre-requisite for a good system, but in general the higher the hit rate the more likely it is to be consistent.

I dug a bit deeper by looking to see how many individual horses qualified under this system – 57 horses did and of those 43 managed at least one win. This means 75% of all runners that started won at least once after their Newmarket debut before reaching the age of 4. That is a very high percentage (average for all trainers is 59%), which I guess explains the system’s apparent success.

Onto the yearly breakdown now – I am using profit figures to £1 level stakes again due to the relative small number of qualifiers each year. The data shared, as with Dalgleish, only goes back to 2011, as that is when Palmer started training, too:

 

 

Despite the relatively small samples for each year, Palmer has secured profits in eight of the years, had two losing years and one that broke even. When you look at the annual strike rates, they too have been impressive:

 

 

We can ignore 2013 as he only had two qualifiers but every other year the strike rate has exceeded 20% while in nine of the 11 years the strike rate has been 25% or higher.

This is definitely an unusual system as normally the system rules creates one bet for one horse. As stated earlier, with this system the same horse can be bet several times. In general, horses that make their debut at Newmarket are of a good level of ability and in Hugo Palmer’s case they certainly seem to run well early in their careers.

The one fly in the ointment with this system is that Palmer has agreed to train for ex-footballer Michael Owen at his Manor House Stables in Cheshire. That, of course, is a lot further from Newmarket than his former Kremlin House yard on the Snailwell Road, actually in Newmarket!

 

Paul Midgley – Finished in first two LTO system

Paul Midgley is definitely not a household name but in previous research I have done he is a trainer who I think is underrated. This system is very simple as the title suggests:

  1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
  2. Trainer – Paul Midgley
  3. Finished 1st or 2nd LTO

The overall results going back to 2009 are as follows:

 

 

The results are very good considering the simplicity of the system, and the strike rate is about what you would expect for this type of runner. Returns of 16p in the £ are thoroughly acceptable, too. Let’s check the annual figures now to £1 level stakes at BSP:

 

 

A small loss in 2009 was followed by a bigger reverse in 2010 but, since then, eight years of profit (albeit two only just) and three losing years. Two very good years (2012 and 2018) produced the lion’s share of the overall profits and, as with many systems, results fluctuate somewhat from year to year. Nothing is ever going to be a smooth line with system angles and this is a good example of the peaks and troughs. The key is that the peaks should Himalayan while the troughs are only small gullies!

In its raw form this not a system I would consider for backing all runners, but I would take a note of any qualifier before undertaking some further race analysis.

It is also worth sharing the fact that much bigger priced runners have performed poorly. Those with an industry SP of 20/1 or bigger have produced just one winner from 67, creating losses of £30.83 (ROI -46.0%). On the plus side this means the raw system has not been skewed in the least by big priced winners; quite the opposite in fact.

With horses that have run well last time out I am personally a fan of that good run being relatively recent – within around three weeks is normally my personal cut off point on the flat. Hence I wanted to see what difference, if any, that type of additional rule would make to the Midgley results.

Here are the findings of Midgley horses that finished LTO 1st or 2nd racing again within 3 weeks:

 

 

The strike rate has edged up and although profits are down in absolute terms by about £6 there would have been 276 fewer qualifiers compared to original system. Consequently, returns have improved from 16p to 23p in the £. In terms of annual returns, these have smoothed out a bit, too, as the table below shows:

 

 

That's ten winning years (although three were essentially break-even) and three losing years. Restricting selections to those which ran within the last three weeks looks a plausible and logical addition to the system, assuming one is happy that this is not significant back-fitting: your call. This system has possibilities for sure.

 

Roger Varian – Six month system

Roger Varian was assistant trainer to Michael Jarvis for a decade before taking over the reins in 2011 (making him the third trainer in this article to have started in that year). He has been a very consistent trainer and seems able to get runners fit regardless of time off the track. Here is the Roger Varian system:

  1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
  2. Trainer - Roger Varian
  3. Six months (180 days) or more since last run
  4. SP 10/1 or less

Some trainers are adept at getting their runners fit after a long break and Roger Varian certainly falls into that category. I have included the same price cap as I used earlier for the Hugo Palmer system. This attempts to avoid the inevitable price cap ‘back-fit’ trap that many system punters fall into; sticking to the same price cap is the way to go.

Onto the results for this system (2011-2021):

 

 

The table shows that roughly three in every ten qualifiers have won which, considering the time off the track, is impressive. Here is the annual breakdown:

 

 

It's a fairly consistent set of results with eight winning years and three losing ones. Each losing year lost less than a tenner at £1 stakes, the worst being £8.13. Further signs of consistency can be found when we look at a breakdown of qualifiers by age:

 

 

Each age group can boast a profit, strike rates are consistently good to outstanding, and all A/E values  are at 1 or higher. This system looks one to follow and, at the time of writing, Varian has had seven qualifiers in 2022, two of which have won at BSP prices of 2.29 and 9.92, and a further three of which ran second, boosting the overall profits by a further few quid.

 *

And so we come to end of this latest piece, the first of three focusing on flat trainer system angles. Hopefully you have found a few useful snippets above, and next time I’ll be digging under the headline numbers of four more flat trainers.

- DR

Racing Systems: Flat Season Angles

/in /by

With the turf flat season about to start, I thought now was a good time to start looking in detail at some potential flat racing systems, writes Dave Renham. As with all articles in this series I am going to look over the long term, studying UK data from Jan 1st 2009 to Dec 31st 2021 with all profits quoted to Betfair SP.

When sharing these racing systems I am not advocating that you use them 'as is' necessarily, but my plan is to give you all the facts so you can make an informed choice. As we know systems are not for everyone, but for many readers there will be something to take out of this research. See what you think...

The "Good Newmarket debut" system

For years I have noticed that horses that had their first ever flat run at Newmarket are worth a close look in their next race. Indeed, backing all Newmarket debutants in their next race would have yielded a BSP profit of £801.39 to £1 level stakes. This equates to a return of more than 17 pence in the £. All looks fine and dandy! However, digging deeper we can see that in 2010 a horse won at odds of 814.82, which even after 2% commission returned a profit of around £798 for a £1 bet. Take that winner out and profits end up at just £30 for the 13 seasons. Not quite so exciting!

With one winner effectively wiping out all the profits, it is not a system we can confidently use in its raw form, but it is still impressive to note how well this simple idea has done. Perhaps we can implement a sensible and logical system rule or two to it, and find a potential system. Clearly we need to eliminate that big priced winner and the most logical way to go is to stick to horses that impressed on their debut run at Newmarket. My first thought, then, was to look only at horses that had finished in the first three on their debut run. My system now reads:

  1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
  2. Second career start having made debut at Newmarket
  3. Finished in the first three on debut

Here are the results of this system (2009-2021):

 

 

The baseline figures look good – returns pushing 17p in the £ is the same as the raw system produced. The strike rate is really good as well, with horses winning at a rate of better than one race in every three. As I have mentioned before, we need to look for consistency and one of the best ways of doing this is to study the yearly results. The BSP returns are plotted yearly in the graph below:

 

 

There have been ten winning years out of 13, and the losses in 2012, 2013 and 2016 were not bank breaking in the least. What is pleasing is that the results match the system logic, this logic being that races at Newmarket which involve debutants are usually well above average in terms of standard for the specific race type. Maidens in particular see most of the top stables sending out what they perceive to be their best unraced horses. Hence, horses that finish in the first three on their Newmarket debut are not only well thought of pre-race, but they have produced the goods early on the track too.

More positive news is that the overall results are not skewed by any huge priced winners and this is illustrated if we implement a maximum price rule. For a price rule it is easier to use traditional SP and if we limit selections to horses that had an SP of 12/1 or less we get the following overall figures:

 

 

These results show that the vast majority of qualifiers started at 12/1 or less and, ultimately, this backs up the fact that the system has been consistent and not skewed by big priced winners. We still see the same ten winning years out of 13, and the losing years now produce smaller losses in each of the three years.

To me, this looks a playable system and one you might consider utilising in some way, be it following the rules blindly if that way inclined, or looking at system qualifiers and making a judgement call based on your own form/race reading.

The "Fit and in form" system

Going back to the 80's and early 90's there were successful systems based on horses that returned to the track quickly. In those days, with little or no computer data to crunch, punters and most of the betting fraternity were unaware that horses were often inclined to run well after a very short break. I suppose the misconception was that such horses would need more time to recover. However if we look at the strike rates of all runners in all flat races we can see that when we break down the data, the more recent the last run the better:

 

 

Horses returning to the track within four days have a far superior strike rate to any other group, scoring 15.4% of the time. Nowadays, the punters are aware of this quick returning bias, which is why blind profits cannot be made any more. Having said that, even now, backing all such runners returning to the track within four days would have lost you less than 1p for every £ bet – so almost a break even scenario. That is from nearly 18,000 runners!

So the system I want to share is based around quick returners, focusing on horses that appear in form. The system rules read:

  1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
  2. Days since last run 1 to 4 days
  3. Finished in the first five in both of their last two starts.

Note, for the last rule I could have chosen finishing in the first three in their last two runs, or I could have chosen a top six finish. In fact, I decided on top five before checking the results. For the record, the results would have even better if I had included a top 6 finish in their last two runs, but this is simply back-fitting and the increase in profitability would very likely be down to luck. Similarly, I could have chosen top three – they also made a profit when I checked and with a much better strike rate. However, although there is some logic in picking slightly better performances on their last two starts this again would potentially be back-fitting.

This angle's strike rate has fluctuated a little, as one might expect, ranging from a low of 10.4% in 2019 to a high of 23.7% in 2020. However, 2019 was the only year the strike rate dipped below 14.5%, and in eight years the strike rate has exceeded 20%. The overall bottom line reads as follows:

 

 

That's a good looking strike rate which most punters would be comfortable with and sound profits, too, showing a 7p in the £ return. Let us now look at the yearly breakdown by BSP Returns (ROI%):

 

 

There have been nine winning years and four losing ones with the worst year actually being last year. That said, losses were less than 10% so it wasn’t a disaster. In terms of big priced winners, there were a couple but almost all price brackets showed a profit which is comforting.

Is this one a system I would personally use? Not in its raw state, no, as it averages over 500 bets a year which is too many for my style. However, I do often look for quick returners, so this system for me is a case of note the qualifiers and do some further digging.

The "3yos versus older horses in long distance races" system

Not the catchiest title in the world for this one! However, I have long noted that 3yos seem to perform well in longer distance races when racing against older horses. So here is the system.

  1. Flat racing (Turf / All weather)
  2. Male 3yos
  3. Races for horses aged 3 and older
  4. Distance 1m6f or more

3yo males seem more robust than 3yo females when it comes to running longer distances. The male strike rate since 2009 is over 5.5% higher than the female one, which is why I've included the male rule. Perhaps the reason 3yos run well against their elders in long distance races relates to the sliding weight for age scale; I’m not sure, but the overall stats look decent:

 

 

As ever, we need to look at the annual breakdown by BSP ROI% to give us a fuller picture:

 

 

There have been nine winning years out of 13, which shows reasonable enough consistency but, as we can see from the graph, 2021 has really skewed the overall numbers. Of the £274.10 profit to £1 level stakes, 2021 contributed £212.76. That equates to 77% of the overall profit.

Moreover, if we look closely, 2009 to 2012 produced good results – profits of £142.98 to £1 level stakes. Since then, and taking out that 2021 outlier, there would have been a loss of £81.64. Now that is only a loss of 7p in the £ so not terminal, but this system looks quite risky in terms of backing every selection.

So what options do we have? Well, as I have mentioned before, you do not have to back every selection. If you are a punter who does their own research and race analysis then you can look at each system selection and deploy your usual race reading criteria to decide whether it is a possible bet or not.

It is worth noting that system qualifiers that drop back in distance from last time out have performed below the norm; this is probably what we should expect as the system logic is based on the fact that the younger horses are less exposed over longer distances. System qualifiers that dropped in trip from their last run would have lost you 22p in the £. However, despite the logic, I did not add this to the original system rules as one could argue this is back-fitting (and it is also possible to argue that it is not in this instance).

For me, this is not a system to use in its raw form, but again I would note qualifiers and see if there are other compelling reasons which would potentially produce a betting opportunity.

The "Ran in the Oaks LTO" system

This is a very simple system that has performed well for many years. It is much more a niche or micro system as you will only get a handful of qualifiers each year. For this system I have included runs in Ireland next time out along with the UK, as of course a good proportion of Irish runners take part in the Epsom race. For the record, runners that race in the UK next time make a profit of 80p in the £; those that raced in Ireland next time returned a more modest, but still not to be sniffed at, 12p in the £. Thus, I am adding the Irish course results despite the fact they lower the overall return percentage. For me I feel this system needs to include all runners.

Here is the breakdown:

 

 

As you'll have gathered from the ROI comments above, these are very strong looking figures and, even at traditional SP, would have seen returns of 31p in the £. Let’s look at the annual breakdown. As we are looking at small samples this time I have used profit figures to £1 level stakes rather than ROI%:

 

 

The 2020 race was delayed due to COVID and was run in July with a small field of eight. Overall, there have been nine winning years out of 13. Small losses in four years but considering the small sample size these yearly results look positive. I was also able to back check the previous five seasons to this (2004 to 2008); four of those five years made a profit, too. Profits in those five years would have equated to around 60p in the £; so very similar. So, going back to 2004, we have 13 winning years out of 18.

The system does not rely on a good run in the Oaks, in fact horses that finished fifth or worse have proved the best value, still scoring around 20% of the time and producing returns of approximately 100 pence in the £.

I like this system and it is clear horses that ran in the Oaks require very close scrutiny next time. For the record, horses that ran in the Derby last time out have also made a profit going back to 2009, but one big priced winner has skewed the overall profits somewhat. Taking that winner out would have left you with a very small overall loss. Going all the way back to 2004 backing all qualifiers would have seen you break even.

I hope you have enjoyed this latest probe into system betting. In the next article the focus with be flat racing once again and I will be analysing some trainer statistics.

- DR

Racing Systems: All Weather Angles

/in /by

In my previous article I explored the idea of using trainer systems in National Hunt racing, writes Dave Renham. This time I have turned my attention to the all-weather with a view to finding some more profitable trainer patterns.

As with the last piece I am going to look over the long term, studying UK racing trainer data from Jan 1st 2009 to Dec 31st 2021. If trainers have proved profitable over such a long timeframe then we should have more confidence that this will continue to happen. As ever, though, racing systems are only dealing with past results: those of us not blessed with clairvoyance cannot be sure of what will happen in the future!

OK, let's get to it.

Ralph Beckett – the ‘Blind’ system

Ralph Beckett is a trainer that I think punters in general underrate. Year in, year out he seems to produce the goods. He has good figures for turf racing, but on the all-weather they are even better. Indeed, let's start with possibly the simplest system one could create:

  1. Trainer Ralph Beckett
  2. All races on the all-weather

That’s it – bet every single Beckett runner on the sand. The graph below shows the yearly breakdown of Beckett's Return on Investment to Betfair SP.

 

 

The Kimpton, Hampshire-based trainer has enjoyed 11 winning years out of 13, with the losses in 2018 very small in reality. His strike rate has fluctuated a little as one might expect, ranging from a low of 10.4% in 2019 to as high as 23.7% in 2020. However, 2019 was the only year it dipped below 14.5% and in eight years the strike rate has exceeded 20%. The overall bottom line reads as follows:

 

 

That's extremely impressive at first glance. Things do need clarifying a touch, however, in that his profits have been helped by some big priced winners; but these winners actually occurred on a regular basis. Indeed, Beckett has had 45 winners priced at a BSP of 12.0 or bigger since 2009, with at least two such scorers annually, and the graph below shows how these have been spread out over the years:

 

 

Whenever we look at system results we need to ensure that random big-priced winners do not skew the overall results. This is a case where I believe random big-priced winners are not skewing the results but, instead, are a feature of the result set.

Another positive in terms of consistency is when we examine the individual course data. The table below gives us the Beckett breakdown for the six UK all-weather courses:

 

 

Strike rates are consistent across the piece, and all courses show a profit at Betfair SP. This reliability can also been seen when we break down results by month. Ten of the 12 calendar months have shown a profit as we can see:

 

 

December and January, peak all-weather season in fairness, are the only two negative months. Maybe it is a time of year that Beckett targets a little less. It is interesting that ‘returns’ wise Beckett has done particularly well in the spring and summer months, definitely something worth noting when most people's focus is on flat turf racing.

Some readers may not be comfortable betting all Beckett runners ‘blind’ so are there any additional rules we can add that do not smell of the dreaded back-fitting? Well, some kind of betting market rule may help, especially if you are concerned that the results are slightly skewed due to big-priced winners. If we add the following rule:

- stick to horses from the top five in the betting

This would cut the number of selections by around 350, increase the strike rate to 22.8% and keep profits relatively high – a profit to £1 level stakes of £291.23 (ROI +21.2%). The year by year returns retain their consistency, in fact 12 of the 13 years now show a profit using this market restriction.

All in all, if there is one all-weather trainer to keep on your side it is Ralph Beckett.

Let’s check out some other trainers now.

 

Hugo Palmer – the Market system

Hugo Palmer has a decent record on the sand since he started in 2011. If we use a market restriction we create a potential system to follow. The rules are:

  1. Trainer Hugo Palmer
  2. All races on the all-weather
  3. Top five in the betting.

 

Using the same market restriction I used with Beckett, Palmer’s overall figures look solid:

 

 

Using this top five in the betting rule once again means the figures are less skewed by big-priced winners, which as previously mentioned is important, but it also means we often cannot know the market rank of a runner unless it is near the very top of the betting or an outsider.

Breaking the figures down by year shows a fair amount of consistency. I have used profit figures to £1 level stakes to illustrate this:

 

 

Palmer incurred small losses in his first two seasons, but given he was still cutting his teeth in the game these can be forgiven. Since then there have been eight winning years out of nine. 2019 was a poor year but he did actually the post with several seconds that year and I think we can reasonably overlook that.

Looking at his course by course  data with runners in the top five of the betting, he has made profits at Kempton, Newcastle, Southwell and Wolverhampton; broke even at Chelmsford, and made a loss at Lingfield. Again, that's fair enough consistency.

There are other options in terms of adding system rules, but this Hugo Palmer system definitely has a decent chance to remain profitable for the near future at least. Hence no need for me to change to it. You may like to research further, however!

 

Mark Johnston – Older horses, lower class system

Mark Johnston has averaged about 400 runners per year on the all-weather in recent years and hence it gives us a huge sample size to break down. His annual strike rate has been super consistent in recent times hitting around the 15% mark every year:

 

 

Now, most top trainers in the country, like Johnston, tend to focus more on their younger horses as they are going to be the ones that are likely to have a chance at stud (and are not exposed as moderate or in the grip of the handicapper). It is noticeable that the runners Mark Johnston (and joint-licence holder son, Charlie) keeps in training past three years old perform well as a whole on the all-weather. They make up only 23% of his runners on the sand, but if backing all such runners (4yo and up) ‘blind’ they would have broken even over the past 13 years. The route to profit seems to be in lower class races, Class 5 or below. Hence the system reads:

  1. Trainer Mark (and Charlie) Johnston
  2. 4yo+ running on the all-weather
  3. Class 5, 6 or 7

Running older horses in lower class races is relatively rare for trainers like Johnston but the overall stats still look promising:

 

 

A good strike rate edging towards one win in four, and returns of 32p in the £ are appealing. Let's break the data down by year and, as always, we are looking for consistency. The graph uses profit figures to £1 level stakes:

 

 

Overall there have been decent results across the piece, with just three losing years. 2020 could have been impacted by COVID so that is something that potentially we might take into account. Another positive is that in the same time frame this ‘system’ would have made a profit for Johnston in turf flat racing too; not as big a profit, but a positive return nonetheless. Hence I am hopeful that this angle should offer a good chance of making further profits in the future.

 

Charles Hills – Fancied Males system

It should be noted that male horses outperform female ones on the all-weather, with overall figures for all horses from all trainers seeing males win 11.8% of the time, females only 9.1%. There is a much bigger discrepancy though when you look at the runners of Charles Hills splitting them by gender. His male runners have won 19.3% of the time, whereas female runners have triumphed just 11.4% of the time. Hence the Hills gap looks extremely significant.

So here is another potential system in which we are using a limited number of rules. Again I want to implement the same market rule as I have used previously to avoid the bigger-priced winners skew dilemma. Hence our system reads:

  1. Trainer Charles Hills
  2. All races on the all-weather
  3. Top five in the betting
  4. Male horses only

His results, like Hugo Palmer’s, only go back to 2011 but the basic figures look strong:

 

 

He has seen a good strike rate as you would expect with a system that uses market factors as one of its rules. Decent returns, too, of around 26p in the £.

Once again though we need to look at the yearly data in a bid to establish consistency. Broken down this time by BSP ROI%:

 

 

2011 looks bad but he had only six runners in that first season with a licence, and all lost, hence the -100% ROI. We can see a subsequent steady improvement over time with 2012 to 2014 essentially breaking even, while every year from 2015 to 2021 has ended up with positive returns.

I had a sneaky look at his results so far in 2022, and at the time of writing (7th March), the system has generated 20 qualifiers, 10 of which have won (SR 50%) showing a BSP profit of £15.31 (ROI +76.55%). The signs remain very promising.

The beauty of all-weather racing is that it happens all year round and hence these four systems can potentially be exploited regardless of whether the main focus is on National Hunt or flat turf racing: we can just carry on finding nice winners on the sand!

*

That's all for this article. If you have any system ideas you’d like me to investigate, please leave a comment below.

- DR

Racing Systems: NH Trainer Angles

/in /by

When Matt sent a survey out to Geegeez members in January he got some interesting and refreshing responses, writes Dave Renham. In this article I will combine trainer angles with system research, two areas that surveyed members wanted to see more of.

A system based approach using trainer data / patterns is a tried and tested formula which has long been very popular with many punters. Indeed, in the first article of this series I shared a John Gosden system that had been successful on the flat in recent years. In this article my focus is going to be on National Hunt racing where I'll be looking for profitable trainer systems within this sphere.

I am going to look over the long term studying UK racing trainer data from Jan 1st 2009 to Dec 31st 2021. If trainers have proved profitable over such a long time frame then we have a potential system to use. From there, though, we may need to drill down further to try and determine the likelihood of an angle continuing to perform well. Of course we cannot know what the future will bring results wise and, as all of us are aware, past results may not be replicated in the future. So, with those messages in place, let’s start:

Rebecca Curtis – ‘Close’ season system

Rebecca Curtis started training in 2008 and quickly established herself as a trainer to keep a close eye on. In 2012 she had 47 winners from 189 runners which equates to a strike rate of 24.9%. Also in 2012 she had the first of her five Cheltenham Festival winners when Teaforthree won the Diamond Jubilee National Hunt Chase. Everything continued smoothly until 2017 when she split from her bloodstock agent, Gearoid Costelloe. That year she struggled, mainly due to losing roughly 50% of her horses. By 2019 she was back on track hitting a yearly win strike rate of 26.4%, but since Covid in March 2020 the performances from the stable have dipped again.

However, despite the more recent ups and downs, Curtis has continued to produce the goods in the warmer months. Focusing on May to August, the Pembroke-based handler has been consistently impressive all the way back to 2009. So our first trainer system to look at reads:

  1. Trainer Rebecca Curtis
  2. National Hunt UK racing – May 1st to August 31st

These are the annual strike rates for this micro angle:

 

 

At first glance the chart line may look a little volatile but the strike rate has exceeded 20% in all bar two years (2009 and 2016). It should also be noted that she had no runners in 2020 (due to the pandemic). Even last year, when she had a very modest overall 12 months, she still managed a strike rate of 29.4% making profits to BSP of £23.05 to £1 level stakes (ROI +135.6%).

From 2009 to 2021 the overall system results were:

 

 

A highly impressive bottom line and we know the strike rates have been decent year in, year out – so let’s look at the annual BSP profit figures:

 

 

Overall, then, it's nine winning years and only three losing ones, which is pleasing to see – consistency is something that we should all look for in systems.

Breaking the data down like this does highlight that 2016 must have had a huge priced winner or two. In fact it was a just one winner that after Betfair commission would have paid a remarkable 155/1. Thus, the original bottom line of +£220 to £1 level stakes does not look quite as impressive now. It is important to realise that big priced winners can skew results markedly and potentially turn a system on its head. Using Query Tool, the A/E metric will help here, and this - along with other metrics used extensively on geegeez.co.uk - is explained in more detail in this post.

All things being out in the open now, I would still hope this system has potential for the future. Even without that huge priced winner the figures remain solid. My biggest concern in reality is whether Rebecca Curtis will have the ammunition to produce such positive results in the future, but of course nobody can answer this.

There are other options for those who want to narrow the system down further, though - as we saw in my second article in this series - basic is generally best.

That said, if you had focused only on Curtis runners that started clear favourite you would have witnessed 47 winners from 78 runners giving an exceptional strike rate of 60.3%. They have naturally proved extremely profitable securing profits of £35.33 at BSP to £1 level stakes (ROI +45.3%). These market leaders also produced profits in all but one year. Adapting the system to focus just on favourites may be a way to go for some of you. (For the record, Ms Curtis has also saddled six qualifying joint-favourites, two of which won, giving a small profit also).

Before moving on, it is interesting to note that Peter Bowen, a trainer Curtis worked for prior to securing her own license, also has a good long-term record with his runners in the ‘close’ season. His overall performance from 2009 in the months of May to August reads:

 

 

Like Curtis, one big-priced winner in 2018 (220/1 after commission) has clearly helped. However, even removing that winner from Bowen's figures, the overall bottom line still looks rosy. I am more circumspect about Bowen, though, because if you take out that big priced winner and look at the more recent years 2014 to 2021, he has only made a small profit. Further, in 2020, he had just one winner from 63 starters! Now, of course, Covid really impacted the 2020 season for many, so that may just be a blip, but it is/was a big blip.

 

Paul Nicholls – Claiming jockeys in hurdle races

Paul Nicholls has been one of the top National Hunt trainers since the turn of the century but making profits from his runners is easier said than done. Top trainers are by definition unable to fly under the radar and finding value can be tricky. However, one area where Nicholls has performed relatively well is with horses ridden by claiming jockeys. Since 2009, Nicholls has used claiming jockeys on 1513 horses, of which 308 have won (SR 20.4%). Backing all these runners would have shown a loss to BSP but only £15.98 which equates to just a penny in every pound wagered. Compare this to his runners ridden by professional jockeys which would have lost £243.95, equivalent to losing 4p in the £.

Thus, claiming jockeys look a potential route to profits. Here is the system I have come up with:

  1. Trainer Paul Nicholls
  2. Hurdle races
  3. Horse ridden by claiming jockey
  4. Jockey has ridden the horse before

I chose hurdle races simply because there ought to be less chance of an inexperienced jockey falling. In addition I felt that if the jockey had ridden the horse before it would probably be a plus given these riders' general greenness. Again, I have very few rules in the system which hopefully avoids the dreaded back-fitting issue. The overall results from ’09 - ‘21 are in the positive range:

 

 

A strike rate of just over one in four and returns of 27p in the £ is a really good outcome. Let’s see how consistent the system would have been by looking at the annual strike rates first:

 

 

For this type of system we are more likely to see a volatile strike rate year to year but, as can also be seen, the figures have been stronger in recent years. Six of the past eight seasons have seen a strike rate in excess of 29%.

All well and good, but what of the bottom line? Below, we are looking at BSP profit to £1 level stakes. Looking at ROI% would be far too volatile due to sample size.

 

 

There have been nine winning years and four losing ones; but, since 2013, that reads eight winning years and only one losing year. The overall placed percentages are slightly above what I would expect which offers a further layer of confidence.

Sticking my neck out here, I would expect this system to prove profitable over the next five years, assuming nothing changes drastically within the Nicholls set up. The system has been relatively consistent with a decent overall strike rate; the trainer is one of the best in the business and the system has not been skewed due to big priced winners.

 

Venetia Williams – Chasers coming off a break

Venetia Williams has consistently been more successful with her chasers compared to her hurdlers over the years. Her overall strike rate in chases going back to 2009 stands at just under 16%; in hurdle races this drops to around 12%. In addition to this, for years now I have noticed that Ms Williams' horses seem to be fit regardless of how long they have been off the track. Hence I have devised a system that can take advantage of this. The rules are:

  1. Trainer Venetia Williams
  2. Chases
  3. Horse off track for five months (150 days) or more

I have chosen five months or more because that is roughly the break between the official end of the NH season in late April/early May and when the next season starts to get into full swing around late September/early October. [For the record, if I had chosen six months instead the figures would be very similar]

In terms of days therefore the five months equates to a break of more than 150 days. The overall results from 2009 look strong:

 

 

The yearly results are consistent, too – nine winning years, three losing ones and one that broke even. Indeed, two of the three losing years occurred in 2009 and 2011 so, since 2012, there has been just one year producing negative returns.

More positives can be found when we examine the prices of the winners. The pie chart below breaks down the 87 winners into Betfair SP price brackets.

 

 

As is shown, the vast majority of winning prices were at the shorter end of the market. 23 winners were 4.00 (3/1) or lower, while 60 were 10.00 (9/1) or lower. Just five winners were bigger than 20.00 BSP (19/1), and the two biggest priced winners were both under 40/1 BSP. This again helps explain why results have been consistent over the years.

Runners off a long layoff is an underused pattern for some punters. However, there are some trainers, like Venetia Williams, who are able to make a break more of a positive than a negative. It is interesting to note that Ms Williams has made profits at all distance ranges as the table below shows:

 

 

Strike rates are similar across the board, but the biggest returns by far have been in the longest distance races (3 miles or more), returning nearly 88p profit for every £1 bet. Yes, the strike rate has been marginally higher in that group, but I think this is more an example of punter bias. I think many punters are put off backing horses that are running at long distances after a decent length break. Their thinking, (which is logical), is that they surely won’t be fit enough to be competitive in a really long contest. Hence the prices available become slightly higher than they should be due to that lack of betting interest. Venetia Williams is clearly adept at getting horses fit and that gives us betting opportunities that represent value.

 

Other potential system ideas to look into further

I have looked above in some detail at three potential systems that I think could and should continue to be profitable for the next few years. To finish, I want to share four more potential systems that you, the reader, might want to use, or indeed to dig around a little deeper:

 

Anthony Honeyball – Lower Class races

Anthony Honeyball, whose yard is sponsored by geegeez.co.uk, is a trainer that has performed extremely well in lower grade races in recent years. Focusing on class 5 or 6 races only, Honeyball has secured a strike rate of 23.5% (105 wins from 446 qualifiers) showing a profit to £1 level stakes of £148.14 which equates to returns of 33p in the £. There were eight winning years out of 13, while ten of the 13 seasons saw a strike rate of 20% or more.

 

Nicky Henderson – Debutants in hurdle races

Henderson is one of the best in the business and before sharing the system, if you haven’t done so already please check out Matt’s excellent trainer profile article he wrote on him.

Henderson has produced decent profits since 2009 with horses making their debut in a hurdle race: 78 winners from 201 runners (SR 38.8%) is remarkable. BSP profits stand at £94.49 to £1 level stakes (ROI +47.0%), and eight of the last ten years have shown a profit.

In particular, keep an eye on the shorter priced runners: horses which were sent off at 3.5 (5/2) or less on Betfair have produced 53 winners from 83 runners (SR 63.9%) for a profit of £30.71 (ROI +37.0%).

 

David Pipe – winners returning within 10 days

David’s father Martin was one of the first trainers to realise that National Hunt horses could return to the track after a very short break and perform well. David has continued to some extent in his father’s footsteps, certainly in terms of success, although not perhaps in volume of runners. When David Pipe winners return to the track within 10 days, their strike rate has been close to 40% with returns of around 31p in the £. There have been ten winning years from 13, but in recent years qualifiers per season have been in single figures. Hence this system will not make you fortunes, but when a runner crops up it commands close scrutiny.

If you want to increase the number of runners, Pipe’s record with winners returning to the track within 20 days is decent also.

 

Gordon Elliott – handicap hurdle races

Gordon Elliott is a trainer who has excelled in handicap hurdle races since 2009. He has saddled 93 winners from 459 runners (SR 20.3%) showing a BSP profit of £167.99 (ROI +36.6%). A couple of biggish priced winners have made up roughly half of these profits, but it is interesting to note his record if we ignore any horse priced greater than 20.0 (Betfair price).

Doing so means the figures are not hugely skewed in any way. Focusing on these runners (shorter than 20.0) sees Elliott's record read 89 wins from 374 (SR 23.8%) for a profit of £108.59 (ROI +29.4%). That is comprised of nine winning years out of 13 with three of the losing years producing extremely small losses.

It is worth noting that Elliott's record in Ireland in handicap hurdles is much poorer. As an aside, and maybe a point worth further research, the vast majority of his handicap hurdlers in the UK ran in Ireland last time.

-----------------

I hope you have enjoyed this article and fingers crossed the systems shared will continue in the same profitable way. Nothing is guaranteed but I remain hopeful!

- DR

Racing systems: Using systems to create shortlists

/in /by

In my first article I gave readers an introduction to racing systems, writes Dave Renham. In this follow up I am going to look at a slightly different way of using systems, namely for shortlisting. and we'll use the Cheltenham Festival as an example.

Most people prefer the clear cut system method: a set of rules from which, when a horse qualifies, you simply back it; the theory is that this system has proved profitable in the past, and should continue to do so in the future.

However, for those system punters out there, not all systems remain profitable despite past results. I discussed in the previous article that many systems, even very good ones, are likely to have a limited shelf-life in terms of profitability. Meanwhile some other past ‘winning’ systems are basically flawed due to poor construction and have only proved profitable essentially because of luck or back-fitting.

But systematic approaches can also be used in a broader sense, for instance to create shortlists for specific races. Let’s review how that could work.

 

Creating a Cheltenham Festival system

With the Cheltenham Festival around the corner I thought I'd offer a shortlisting system idea that gives us a chance to make a profit at the meeting. This system will produce a shortlist of runners that is about as easy as you could get. The system rules are these:

  1. Non-handicap races at the Cheltenham Festival
  2. Top four in the betting

That’s it. The focus is just on the top four horses in the betting in these races. You may be thinking how is this system potentially going to make me a profit? Well the strange thing is that if you had bet all runners from the top four of the betting in every non-handicap festival race since 2009 you would have made a blind profit to Betfair SP. If you had placed £10 on every selection you would have made a profit of £661.50; a return of just over 7 pence in the £. The graph below how each year would have panned out from a return on investment perspective:

 

 

Nine of the 13 years produced a profit; and losses in the other four years were far from damaging. Strike rates were pretty consistent, varying from 14% in the ‘worst’ performing year to 20% in the best.

One issue with systems that use market factors is that it is not always possible to be 100% sure which horses will finish where in terms of position in the betting market. Of course, the later you place the bet or bets, the easier it is to be confident the horse will end up in the top 'x' of the betting. I appreciate, though, for some people this is not an option; but the good news is this ‘shortlisting system’ would have worked equally well if you had used the top four of the betting forecast in the Racing Post.

Before examining what we can do next with our shortlist of four runners, let me quickly discuss why I think this idea might have worked in the past. The one thing we know about the Cheltenham Festival is that trainers and their horses will be giving 100 per cent. In non-handicap races we are going to get fewer shocks and more races running closer to form. Yes, the races will be competitive, but even so wins for outsiders will be rare. Indeed, horses priced greater than 25/1 have won just 11 times in the 13 years from 1197 runners. Backing all of them would have secured a loss of 20p in the £ to BSP.

In terms of longevity, this top four in the betting idea should not have a shelf-life per se, as the prices of these runners are going to be very similar in years to come. So, as a shortlisting method, focusing on the top four in the betting in these races looks a highly logical starting point.

From here it is a question of personal preference in terms of what to do next and how much time you wish to spend on each race. For those who have no real time to devote to form study there are two possible options. The first option is that you could just back all four runners each time. A second option is to look for one further rule to incorporate into the system. Once found, assuming one can be found, the selection process is short and swift.

Looking for an extra system rule brings into focus the trap of back-fitting so one needs to be careful. I think before testing any further ideas out, we ought to draw up a list of possible rules that make sense. Here are some ideas to that end:

  1. Look for horses that have won that season
  2. Look for horses that were sensibly priced last time out
  3. Look for horses that have not been off the track for too long
  4. Look for horses with sound sire stats

This is not an exhaustive list, but for the purposes of this article it makes sense not to examine too many. Let us consider them one by one.

Horses that won earlier in the season

It makes sense to me to focus on horses that have won at least once earlier in the season. I am someone who generally looks for horses that have won before and at this level I think it is crucial. The problem of course, as you may have guessed, is that it will not trim the shortlist much! For horses to be in the top four of the betting at the Cheltenham festival it is likely that they have shown a decent level of form that year. This extra system rule knocks out just over 100 qualifiers and overall profits improve by £3.56!! This equates to an improvement in terms of returns on investment by around 1p in the £. All in all, not a system rule I would be too fussed to add.

Horses priced 'sensibly' last time out

Looking for horses that were not huge prices last time is something I do if I am focusing my attention on the front end of the betting market in non-handicap races. My reasoning is that horses that were big prices last time out were clearly not fancied. If they ran well and outran their odds I think there is sometimes an overreaction next time and their odds in the current race may end up being shorter than they perhaps should be, thereby offering little or no value.

The difficulty for any system punter once they come up with a rule that involves price in some form or other, is to choose the right price. Not only that, this is where back-fitting can easily raise its head. It is so tempting to look at the stats, see the price bracket that gave the best profit and choose that. But, as we know, this is a doomed approach. We should choose a price that seems to make sense and stick with it, regardless of what the data spits out. In non-handicap races I would rarely back horses priced 12/1 or bigger, so the price limit I would use here is LTO price 11/1 or shorter.

Looking at the results of adding this system rule we get a similar pattern to the basic system:

 

Overall returns improve a little to 9p in the £, but ultimately only 52 horses were ‘knocked out’ from the original group of just over 900. So again, for me, it would make little sense to use this rule.

Days since last run

When dealing with the fitness of horses, I am always a little sceptical about runners that have been off the track for too long, especially if it is later in the season like the Cheltenham Festival is. Again the problem is choosing the right time frame, and sticking to it. With Cheltenham taking place annually in mid-March I would not choose a specific days since last run figure, but simply use January 1st as the cut off. So what happens if we stick to horses that have run at least once in the calendar year? Here are the stats:

 

 

We have trimmed the number of selections a bit more here. This extra rule would mean backing three horses in each race on average. However, the figures have not really improved. A slightly better ROI%, but due to losing 200+ selections actual profits have dropped by around £110 if betting £10 level stakes. Overall this might be an option for some people but, once more, it's not one for me.

Sire Stats

Using a sire rule for a system is a rarity for most, but actually sire stats are quite detached from the usual system rules punters use. They also don’t really clash with other rules/variables, that is there are not normally any 'related contingencies'. For that reason, I often like to investigate sire angles. Moreover, sire data is not as accessible for many punters as the more bog standard racing data.

So what parameters to use for the sire system rule? I will keep it relatively simple by sticking to sires that have had a strike rate of at least 10% in the last year, assuming they provided over 25 winners during that period. I could have chosen a near infinite number of sire stat combinations, but this is relatively simple to check so that helped in making my decision. The results for the top four of the betting combined with this sire rule present quite a rosy picture, at least on the face of it:

 

 

We now have just over two bets per race on average and profits have soared. To £10 level stakes you would have been in profit to the tune of £1645.80. This gives returns of nearly 34p in the £. The yearly returns are broken down below:

 

 

The pattern remains similar to our original graph but this one is more volatile, as might be expected: 2014, for example, saw a strike rate success of just 5.1% (two winners from 39) which is the reason for the low ROI% figure for that year, whereas 2015 saw a strike rate of 34.5% (10 winners from 29). The more you drill down into systems the more likely they are to show volatility. It is down to personal preference whether that is tolerable or not.

The question now is, ‘should we incorporate these additional sire parameters into the original system?’.

Well, there is no easy answer. I must admit I have doubts this adapted system would perform as well over the next 13 Festivals securing profits of over 30p in the £, but I certainly do believe it has a good chance of showing some sort of profit long term.

With systems, racing, and betting, there is no "right way", no single correct answer. However, there are plenty of wrong ways and wrong answers and, as punters, we need to avoid them as often as possible. System based betting continues to divide opinion, but using the sound logic of a basic system as a starting point does make for some solid options.

As mentioned earlier you don’t have to go down the route of additional rules that I have looked at here. Instead, you may simply focus on the quartet that head the betting and treat it as a four runner race, using your usual race reading techniques to land on a selection or selections. This more flexible approach will appeal to some of you, I hope.

Before finishing, I want to remind you of two NH systems I mentioned at the end of my first article.

System 1: Won at Cheltenham LTO

Just one rule. This system had a bumper 2021 making huge BSP profits. Before that, from 2009 to 2020, it made a small BSP profit of £100 to £10 level stakes. However, anything as basic as this which has broken even or better over a long period of time is a really good starting point from which to build.

Cheltenham winners in general are pretty smart which is probably why results have been good over the long term – also these last time out Cheltenham winners go on to win 25% of their next races, which is greater than 4% above the average figure for last day winners.

System 2: Quick returning winners

  1. Won last time out
  2. Last ran 5 days ago or less

Quick returners have been the basis of many systems in the past and this is one that has continued to prove profitable in recent years. Specifically, it has achieved BSP Profits of £924.70 to £10 level stakes since 2009.

Both of these systems, with profit and volume of runners, offer good starting points from which to investigate further. Good luck!

- DR

Racing Systems: An Introduction

/in /by

I have been involved in racing and betting for over 25 years now and when I hear people mention the words ‘betting system’ it takes me right back to the early days, writes Dave Renham. When I started betting on horses, systems made up a significant part of my overall betting approach or strategy. I was at university at the time and as a Maths student I had plenty of work that involved following complex rules to answer difficult mathematical problems. The reason I was drawn to racing systems, then, was the simplicity of it compared to the work on my degree course. All I had to do was create a few logical rules in order to come up with a ‘system’ that would pinpoint a selection or selections. Then it was time test the idea – look at the stats, trends and results. Again, stats and trends as mathematician ‘floated my boat’ as it were.

Now, at that time - the mid 90s - computers were still in their infancy and hence checking past results was an issue. Initially I used form books, but soon realised that although the idea of creating systems was relatively straight-forward, back testing data was unbelievably time consuming. Then came the game changer – racing systems builder. RSB as it was known revolutionized creating racing systems. You suddenly had years of data at your fingertips (going back to 1986 from memory); numerous variables you could test, either in isolation or combined in a ‘system’. AND it was quick – so quick for the time. Put in your variables, click a button and within seconds the results of your systems were on the screen. I must have tested thousands of systems with this software.

These days things have come a long way and now there are numerous ways to test systems with computer programs, website databases, etc. As a result, racing systems are still very popular. Many punters are still drawn to systems for basically the same reason I was drawn to them all those years ago - because they are straight-forward and easy to implement: no long drawn out form study or daily race reading, no real emotion to come into the equation each time you place a bet.

Once you have your system or systems, the work is basically done. Here at geegeez.co.uk, we have Query Tool which allows you to create and then test certain systems, and once you find a system you want to follow, you can save it as Query Tool Angle – this means any qualifiers will appear on the racecard and in your daily QT Angles Report.

Not all people though are system fans. They will say that systems can be too rigid and that they rarely perform as well ‘live’ as they do in testing. In addition many non ‘systemites’ (and indeed some system fans) believe that profitable systems have a limited shelf-life, and more often than not this is the case. One problem for system punters is that determining the likely shelf-life of a system is nigh on impossible. Horse racing and the betting market are continually changing and hence certain systems that have been profitable in the past at some point start to lose profitability, and eventually start making losses. One of the main reasons why this occurs is that the betting market adjusts, and although the strike rate essentially stays the same, the prices on offer contract (shorten) and hence the profit margin disappears.

Thus, the system punter cannot sit back on her laurels once she has created her collection of winning systems. Such players need to be constantly monitoring results over the short, medium and long term to see whether that system should continue to be used.

 

Racing System Myth Busting

Before moving on I think it is important to bust a couple of system myths. If you type in ‘horse racing systems’ on any internet search engine you get a plethora of links. Some of those links share so called free ‘winning’ systems, but as we know in life, we need to be initially wary of anything that is ‘free’. On one site for example it offered several ‘winning’ systems, two of which I had seen before.

System 1 – Back Beaten favourites

The theory is simple, horses that were favourite last time out but lost are likely to start a bigger price next time, and the argument often goes along the lines that there were probably excuses for its latest defeat. There is some logic in this, I guess, but the long term results produce significant losses. Below shows the yearly return on investment to Betfair Starting Price if you had backed all horses that were beaten favourites last time out. This includes flat, all weather and National Hunt:

 

Just the two profitable years out of 13. Backing all runners since 2009 would have yielded a loss of £4192 to £1 level stakes. Ouch. Losses were consistent across the three formats although flat races saw the biggest percentage losses of over 6%. For the record SP losses amounted to 15% (15p in the £).

Now this does not mean some beaten favourites can be value and worth backing, but it is clearly not as simple as backing all such runners.

System 2 – Long distance travellers

This old chestnut is where it is believed that if a trainer is sending a horse on an extremely long round trip then there must be a reason for it; the reason being it is expected to win! According to some this is even more of a certainty if only one horse is taken that far. Again, definite logic behind the idea, but it is unlikely to guarantee you long term profits. I have looked at horses that have travelled on a round trip of 400 miles or more when they are the only horse running for that trainer on that course on that given day. Over the last ten years these runners would have lost you nearly 8p for every £1 bet. 2013 and 2018 did see miniscule profits, but the other years all showed losses. Now, you may be able to refine the idea to find some value and I guess some trainers are better to follow than others. However, this is not my type of system.

 

How to Create Racing Systems: Avoid Back Fitting

When it comes to building racing systems, the general rule is “the simpler the better”. Unfortunately even if you keep it simple there is a very high chance that the system will not be profitable in the long term. Also, critically, you need to beware of back-fitting. Back-fitting is essentially making the system fit the results. In other words a system punter thinks of a basic idea, examines the data and then looks at numerous factors and adds only those that improve the results. This is clearly an unsound way of creating systems and will lead to poor results in the long term.

It is worth giving examples of some back fitting ideas:

Only back the horse when priced between 6/1 and 12/1

Why only this price bracket? Why not 5/1 and 14/1 for example? If you are going to implement price constraints it only makes sense if you use a maximum or minimum figure only. For example only back if the horse is 10/1 or shorter. Even then, there is likely to be a degree of 'convenience' about the chosen threshold.

 

Don't back 3yo or 5yo horses

Why not 4yo and 6yo? If you are going to use an age bracket it needs to make sense with a full range, including all age groups in the range – e.g. only back horses aged 7 or younger.

 

Only back the horse if it has run exactly three times that season

Why three races? Why not two or four? In terms of seasonal runs, for me the only variable that makes any sense is when the horse is having its first run of the season.

 

How to Create Racing Systems: Some Building Blocks

Essentially any rule you incorporate in a system needs to have some logic behind it. Also, I personally think systems need to show a level of consistency year in, year out. Some ‘profitable’ systems are only profitable due to freak winners at big prices. Hence I like to see most years making a profit; the more the better.

OK, let's try and come up with a couple of ideas and then from there create a system. I will discuss my thinking and why certain rules or variables have been chosen. Then I’ll test them. Obviously I am looking for long term profits where possible, but one has to accept that the vast majority of good ideas will not necessarily create a winning system - far from it!

1 Utilizing draw bias

It is unlikely that any serious punter is not aware of the historical draw bias at Chester. The tight configuration of the track has seen lower drawn horses (those drawn closest to the inside rail) have the edge for as long as they have used starting stalls there. However, is it possible to profit from this? Bookmakers are fully aware of the bias and naturally factor the draw into their prices. So is that enough to take any potential profitable angle away?

Those who have read my draw based articles will know that I focus on handicaps when trying to uncover biases. This is because the races are more competitive; and in these pieces I focus on handicap races with at least eight runners. The reasoning behind this is more down to the fact that bigger fields accentuate the negative bias of horses drawn furthest away from the favoured draws. Hence the first three basic rules for my potential system are going to be:

  1. Course – Chester
  2. Handicaps only
  3. 8 or more runners

From here I need to add a distance rule and a draw positioning rule. From my experience of studying draw biases for 25 years, I know that shorter distances tend to see the strongest biases. I also know that you need to focus on a small group of favoured draws – probably no more than three or four stalls. So let’s add the minimum trip only (5 furlongs) and stick to the four lowest drawn horses. It is best to quantify the draw position in that way rather than draws 1 to 4, as non runners mean that occasionally horses originally drawn in stall 5 or even stall 6 become one of the lowest four.

Note that in recent years some Chester sprints have been run over the ‘extended 5’ which equates to 5½ furlongs. However, here I am going to stick to the absolute shortest distance of 5f.

So our full system now reads:

  1. Course – Chester
  2. 5f Handicaps only
  3. 8 or more runners
  4. Lowest four drawn horses

This is a nice simple system with not too many rules. Some people will argue the 8+ runner rule is back-fitting, but I have explained why this rule makes sense to me and I would maintain this is not back-fitting, although it is an arbitrary number, and I could perhaps have chosen seven or nine runners: sometimes a degree of discretion is required. One could argue this is a slightly unusual system due to the fact that it is going to pick four horses each race, and that clearly won't work for those who insist on only backing one horse in a race. Personally, I'm seeking long-term profit, regardless of how many horses I bet to that end!

Now it's time to test it out. Firstly, I will look at the long term data going back to 2009 and then split it up into two blocks, 2009 to 2014 and then 2015 to 2021.

Data from 2009 to 2021 gives the following results:

 

These are the results generated from the Geegeez Query Tool. The profits shown (Win PL) are to traditional SP. If backing to Betfair SP this would have increased to £103.16 (ROI +40.3%).

So a positive start, but now let us compare the two time frames. 2009 to 2014 first:

 

And now 2015 to 2021:

 

The periods have very similar strike rates which is good to see, and both time frames have been profitable; however, the more recent period has been less so. The yearly returns on investment are shown below:

 

Yearly profits for any draw based system are going to be more volatile than many systems partly due to the relatively modest sample sizes. The chart shows eight profitable years and five unprofitable ones to BSP although 2016 and 2021 losses were negligible.

In the past two years the results have been less good and I mentioned in a Chester draw and pace article back in April 2020 that sprint biases at Chester may be getting less strong mainly due to the fact that course officials have added a false rail to the home turn at more and more meetings. This rail movement allows more space on the inside in the short straight and I believe this means that more horses drawn wide are able to challenge on the inside, thus saving ground, rather than having to race wide for the whole race and essentially running a longer distance. This, of course, was the intention of the course administration: good news for them, less so for us draw system players!

 

 

At this point it is still conjecture to some degree. But, as can be seen from the graph, 2011 and 2012 results seem to mirror those for 2020 and 2021, and as we can see profits bounced back in 2013, 2014 and 2015. So it is something to monitor and it goes back to what I mentioned earlier about the shelf life of any system. Maybe this potential system is coming to the end of its utility and long term profitability. In fact, there may even now be an angle in opposing inside draws until the impact of the false rail becomes more widely understood.

 

2 Utilizing trainer patterns

Trainer systems are extremely popular for many reasons. Many punters believe that trainers are creatures of habit and hence patterns both good and bad are likely to replicated form season to season, and over the longer term. There is also plenty of scope with volume trainers (i.e. those who send out a lot of runners) to utilise different variables – courses, age of horse, race type, jockey bookings etc.

I am going to focus on one my favourite trainers, John Gosden. For the record Gosden Senior now shares his training license with son Thady and hence when researching Gosden on the Query Tool you need to tick the following:

 

Another reason for choosing John Gosden is because I perceive that he is a very consistent trainer from year to year, as well of course as a very good one. To illustrate my point, here are his yearly strike rates for all UK races going back to 2021:

 

As you can see his strike rate has been consistently high and his overall strike rate stands at an impressive 21.6%. Backing all 8000+ runners between 2009 and 2021 would have yielded an SP loss of around 8% (8p in the £), but to Betfair SP you would have made a small profit of £185.55 (ROI +2.3%). That is quite remarkable and a good starting point to drill down into this data set.

There are not many trainers that you could potentially run a group of different systems against and still stand a good chance of most being profitable, but the Gosdens probably come into that category. For this piece though I am going to offer just one such system, and one which is about as simple as you can get.

I have always noted that Gosden has performed well with horses that stay in training beyond their three year old campaign and, in general, I have also felt he does better in races of longer distances. Hence this system has just three rules:

  1. Trainer – John Gosden / John & Thady Gosden
  2. Horses aged 4 or older
  3. Race distance of 1 mile 4 furlongs or more

Looking at the results as a whole from 2009 to 2021 we get the following breakdown:

 

An overall strike rate of aroundone1 win in every four races coupled with profits of just over 34p in the £ (to SP). If backing to Betfair SP this would have increased to £264.62 (ROI +60.0%).

Looking good so far – now to compare the two time frames. 2009 to 2014 first:

 

And now 2015 to 2021:

 

As we can see, the more recent past has seen a higher strike rate, but lower profits. However, overall I think we should still be pleased with the general feel of this system. For the record the Betfair SP profit since 2015 stands at £96.33 which still equates to impressive returns of just over 40p in the £.

The yearly Betfair SP returns on investment (ROI%) for 2015 onwards are shown below for context:

 

Six profitable years out of seven is pleasing even if the system performance has dropped off a little compared with the period 2009 to 2014.

Now this system could be improved further from a pure profit perspective; indeed if you extend the distance frame to 1 mile or more, overall profits increase from £264.62 to £323.35, but this a classic example of back-fitting the system to the results. Hence I am sticking with 3 simple rules, because they work and they fit my own perception. In reality, it is likely that somewhere in between the convenience of one mile (the shortest distance to make a profit in the research) and 1m4f (my initial perception) is a legitimate extension of my first pass system.

Finally I want to look at something that may be familiar to many readers...

 

3 Back the outsider of three

Earlier I looked at busting some system myths. However, one long standing betting angle that some punters have sworn by over the years, backing the outsider in a three-runner race, actually has held up well since 2009. So the system reads:

  1. All UK races, (flat, all weather, National Hunt)
  2. 3 runner races only
  3. Third in the betting

 

Here is a breakdown of the results alongside the performance of the favourite and second favourite:

 

The outsider of 3 (third favourite) has virtually broken even at starting price. Favourites meanwhile would have lost you over 8p in the £.

Not surprisingly, the third favourites have secured a Betfair SP profit over this time frame. Indeed, you would have made £181.87 to £1 level stakes which equates to an ROI% of over 10% (10p in the £). These Betfair SP returns on investment (ROI%) are shown below broken down by year:

 

As can be seen, performance is a little volatile, which one might expect: overall, there were eight winning years and five losing ones. All in all, though, there are definitely worse systems to follow. It is certainly worth noting that virtually all the profits have occurred in National Hunt racing. Sticking to NH only would have yielded a return of just over 17p in the £ over the same 13 year time frame.

 

System Building: Summary

I hope this article has whetted your appetite for more system articles in the future. System betting has the potential to be fraught with danger, but that of course applies to all betting in reality. I will be back soon with another system article. Please do leave a comment with anything specific you would like me to look at and I will do my best to accommodate your wishes.

- DR

Wolverhampton Racecourse Run Style Bias

/in /by

In this final instalment in a series of articles looking at run style bias at individual all weather tracks, we journey to Wolverhampton racecourse in the Midlands. Previous chapters can be found from the links below.

 

To view other all-weather track run style biases, choose from the below:

Chelmsford Racecourse Run Style Bias
Kempton Park Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Lingfield Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Newcastle Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Wolverhampton Racecourse Run Style Bias

 

What I mean by run style is the position a horse takes up early on in its race, usually within the first furlong or so. So far in this series the statistics have shown that early position can be really important especially over shorter distances. Run style is often replaced by the word pace – this is because the early pace shown by horses in a race determines what position they take up early in the race. Some people argue that the word pace is the wrong word to use because it is slightly ambiguous. Hence for this article I will generally stick to run style.

Geegeez.co.uk has something called the Query Tool which can also be used to investigate run style along with other factors such as the draw, trainers, jockeys, class, going, etc. My research for this piece has primarily come from using this excellent resource. The run style data (known as pace in the Query Tool) is split into four sections (led, prominent, mid-division, held up). Each one is also assigned a numerical value. The values go from 4 to 1, as follows: led gets 4 points, prominent 3, mid-division 2 and held up 1.

As with the previous articles in this series I will be looking at individual distances - primarily the shorter ones - with the focus being 8+ runner handicaps. The data has been taken from 2016 up until 30th September 2021.

Wolverhampton 5 furlong Run Style Bias

We begin with a look at the shortest trip, five furlongs, where races feature a shortish run to the single bend. The figures for Wolves (max field size is 11) are thus:

Wolverhampton Racecourse: five furlong run style bias

 

Horses that have led early (front runners) have the advantage here, a point which correlates with all other all-weather courses we have looked at. All have shown a good to strong front-running bias over 5f.

This advantage to early speed can also be seen when we drill down into the non-handicap data as shown in the table below:

Wolverhampton Racecourse: five furlong non-handicap run style bias

 

In fact the bias is far stronger, which is likely down to the fact non-handicaps are usually less competitive than handicaps; as a result, the better horses are likely to have the natural speed to be front-runners, and are likely to have fewer challengers over the course of a race.

Returning to 5f handicaps, let us look at the draw data for all runners. I have split the draw into three parts to compare the percentage of winners from each third of the draw:

Wolverhampton Racecourse: five furlong draw bias

 

There is a small edge to low drawn runners as can be seen, but ultimately the draw seems relatively fair: high drawn runners still win more than one in every four races. Front runners are able to win from any draw berth, both in handicaps and in non-handicaps, so there is no real edge to be found by combining run style with draw.

Onto to 5f favourites at Wolverhampton and their performance across all running styles. For the vast majority of course and distance combinations we have looked at in this series, front running favourites have outperformed other run style favourite counterparts:

Wolverhampton Racecourse: five furlong favourite run style bias

 

Once again front-running favourites do best, but the gap to the next two early position groups is smaller than we have previously seen. Having said that, favourites that were held up have a dreadful record once again. Indeed, backing these held up favourites over five furlongs would have yielded a loss of over 51p in the £. For the record, backing front-running favourites would have produced a decent profit of 22p in the £.

This market / run style bias is replicated when we focus on horses from the top three of the betting over this 5f trip. This time a graphical representation, where we can see a beautiful linearity:

Wolverhampton Racecourse: five furlong top 3 in betting run style bias

 

The number of runners does not seem to make any difference to front running performance over the minimum at Wolves. However, hold up horses have performed better in smaller fields – in 8 runner races their A/E value is 0.78, in 11 runner races this drops to 0.54. The sample sizes are solid so I imagine this finding is a sound one.

Over 5f, therefore, in both handicaps and non handicaps, predicting the front runner in as many races as possible is likely to provide a potential avenue to profits.

 

Wolverhampton 6 furlong Run Style Bias

Moving on to 6f handicaps now, where the maximum field size rises to 13. The stalls are positioned in a chute at the far end of the back straight, allowing the field a good amount of time to settle and find a position. Here are the data - there is a good chunk of races to analyse:

Wolverhampton Racecourse: six furlong handicap run style bias

 

This represents a change of picture compared with 5f contests. Front runners and those racing prominently have very similar figures and it is clear that, as a group, they hold an edge over horses that race mid division or are held up. Having said that this run style bias is relatively modest when compared with other tracks we've looked at. That view is further illustrated when looking at the favourite / run style data, which are far more even than we've typically seen:

Wolverhampton Racecourse: six furlong favourite run style bias

 

Favourites that are held up still struggle but not nearly as much as over five furlongs here, and at many other courses and distances; the other three run styles have virtually identical records.

A quick look at the draw next and as can be seen it is a very even playing field:

Wolverhampton Racecourse: six furlong draw bias

 

Before moving on to 7f handicaps, let us take a quick look at non-handicap run style data – here we do have a clear run style bias.

Wolverhampton Racecourse: six furlong non-handicap run style bias

 

There is a significant bias towards front runners, which is replicated when comparing their A/E values:

Wolverhampton Racecourse: six furlong non-handicap run style bias (A/E values)

 

In summary, over 6f at Wolverhampton, handicaps offer a small run style edge; that edge is much stronger and looks more ‘playable’ in non-handicaps.

 

Wolverhampton 7 furlong Run Style Bias

We move on to look at 7f handicaps next. The maximum field size drops to 12 here, and races start in a chute on a tangent joining the bend before the back straight:

Wolverhampton Racecourse: seven furlong handicap run style bias

 

These figures are very similar to the 6f ones. The strongest run style bias here is the one against hold up horses. Front runners have a slight edge over prominent racers who in turn have a slight edge over mid pack runners.

The performance of favourites over seven furlongs at Wolverhampton across different running styles is shown in the next table.

Wolverhampton Racecourse: seven furlong handicap favourite run style bias

 

This looks more ‘normal’ again with front running favourites performing best. Mid-division favourites have surprisingly outperformed their prominent counterparts. Held up favourites again have a dismal record, winning on average just one race in every six and racking  up losses of 43p in the £ if you backed all of them.

The draw stats are virtually even for each third of the draw so there is no edge there.

Interesting, the 7f trip, as with the 6f one, has much stronger run style stats in non-handicaps as the SR% table shows:

Wolverhampton Racecourse: seven furlong non-handicap run style bias, strike rate

 

As you might hope, A/E values largely correlate too:

Wolverhampton Racecourse: seven furlong non-handicap run style bias, A/E (Actual vs Expected)

 

The 7f and 6f run style stats across handicap and non-handicaps are very similar, in spite of the differing stall starting positions. Once again over seven furlongs, non-handicaps will probably offer better opportunities from a run style bias perspective than handicaps.

 

Wolverhampton Racecourse Run Style Bias Conclusions

Wolverhampton has probably the weakest overall bias of the five all-weather tracks we've considered from a run style perspective. However, there is a decent front-runner bias over 5f in handicaps, while in non-handicaps the same early pace bias looks significant at races up to and including 7f.

It is important to appreciate the value of avoiding bad bets as well as finding good ones. In that context, Wolverhampton should offer a few solid run style betting opportunities, but knowing how poorly fancied runners fare when held  up should put us off some bad ones, too.

- DR

p.s. if you've enjoyed this article, you can view my other contributions to geegeez.co.uk here.

Kempton Racecourse All Weather Run Style Bias

/in /by

This is the fourth article of my series looking at run style bias at individual all weather tracks and this time we'll look for run style/pace biases at Kempton Park, writes Dave Renham. Kempton is the only right handed all-weather track in the UK and all races are contested around at least one bend. There are two loops at Kempton, an inner loop used for 5f and 1m2f races, and an outer loop for all other distances.

To view other all-weather track run style biases, choose from the below:

Chelmsford Racecourse Run Style Bias
Kempton Park Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Lingfield Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Newcastle Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Wolverhampton Racecourse Run Style Bias

 

Run style refers to the position a horse takes up early in the race, usually within the first furlong or so. I have written numerous articles where the stats demonstrate that this early position can be really important, especially over shorter distances. The word pace is sometimes used instead of running style because the early pace shown by horses in a race determines their early position.

Geegeez.co.uk has numerous excellent attributes including two extremely user-friendly resources to help you investigate run style. If you head to the Tools tab of Geegeez there is the Pace Analyser. This focuses solely on run style / pace and is an excellent and quick starting point. In addition this you have the Query Tool which can also be used to investigate run style along with other factors such as the draw, trainers, jockeys, class, going, etc. I personally use the Query Tool far more because of its ability to test more angles in combination with running style.

The stats I am using for this piece are based on the site’s pace / run style data. This data is split into four sections, each one being assigned a numerical value. The values go from 4 to 1, with 4 equating to horses that lead early (front runners); 3 is given to horses that race prominently and track the leader(s); horses that race mid pack / mid-division are assigned 2 points while horses held up at, or near the back, score 1.

As with the previous articles in this series I will be looking at individual distances – primarily the shorter ones with the focus being 8+ runner handicaps. The data has been taken from 2016 up until 30th September 2021.

Kempton 5 furlong Run Style Bias

A look at the minimum trip first which, as mentioned, is run around the inner loop with competitors on the turn for a significant percentage of the race distance. Let us look at the run style (pace) figures for Kempton:

 

There is a very significant run style bias over 5f at Kempton with front runners enjoying a huge edge. Sadly though, 5f handicaps are relatively few and far between at the track, and this pattern of limited races has been repeated in non-handicaps. For the record, there have been just 13 non-handicap races over 5f with eight or more runners since 2016 – the run style bias is the same as one would expect, with 6 wins for front runners, 5 for prominent racers and only 2 for the remainder.

Going back to the 5f handicap races here is a look at front runner performance by draw:

 

The draw, as a whole, generally favours the lower stalls and hence I had expected front runners to have the highest SR% from the lowest draws. However, as the table shows, front runners seem to be able to win from anywhere. This even looking spread may simply be down to the small sample size, but more likely it is because the front running bias is stronger than the low draw bias. This means the draw almost becomes irrelevant for these trail blazers.

For draw fans, here are the overall draw strike rates for all runners, not just front runners. This time I have split the draw data into three equal parts to look at percentage of winners from each third of the draw:

 

There is a fair edge to low drawn runners as can be seen, but it is not as strong as the run style bias.

Despite the limited number of races over 5f each year, it is clear that when they do occur, we need to take note. Being able to predict the front runner in these events will almost certainly prove very profitable over time.

 

Kempton 6 furlong Run Style Bias

Onto 6f handicaps now, and there are many more races here to get stuck into. The maximum field size over 6f at Kempton is 12 and this is how run style impacts performance:

 

Kempton has the strongest front running bias over 6f that we have seen so far at an all-weather track. However, in more recent seasons front runners have fared less well as far as winning is concerned. The graph below shows quite a drop off in win strike rate:

 

The SR% from 2016 to 2018 was 22%, compared to around 15% in the last three seasons (2019 to 2021). However, if we look at win and placed stats (each way stats), the strike rates are reversed:

 

The recent data concerning the each way stats makes me think that the front running bias continues to be fairly strong over 6f. The seasons 2019 and 2020 were probably slight outliers in reality with several front runners running well, but probably not quite making it home in front. Indeed, confidence in my opinion is helped further by the fact that the last 21 front runners of 2021 (up to 30th Sept) have provided seven winners (SR 33.3%).

Onto to 6f favourites at Kempton and their performance across all running styles:

 

A strong edge exists for front-running favourites. We have seen this numerous times now with different all weather courses and distances. This market / run style bias is replicated when we focus on horses from the top three of the betting over this 6f trip:

 

All in all, then, horses towards the top of market have a very good record when taking the early lead.

Let us look at the draw next, firstly for all runners. Once again I have split the draw into thirds:

 

As we can see, low drawn runners (those closest to the inside rail) have a decent edge, slightly stronger from a draw perspective than we saw with the 5f stats. Middle draws win as many races as one would expect given a level playing field, while the wider higher draws tend to struggle a little.

The table below shows the performance of front runners in 6f handicaps by stall position.

 

As we saw with the 5f data, front runners can win from anywhere, but in general over this furlong longer trip the lower drawn the better. This can be seen more clearly if I split the stalls into two, comparing draws 1 to 6 with draws 7 to 12.

 

Hence, a potential front runner drawn 6 or lower is the type of horse that might be expected perform well. If they happen to be in the top three in the betting, then such a horse becomes a very interesting proposition. Indeed, looking at all horses that led early from draws 1 to 6 that were in the top three in the betting, the stats show that 34% of them went onto win (67% win & placed).

Finally in terms of 6f handicap run style data I want to look quickly at field size. It seems that the more runners, the stronger the front running bias. Here is front runner performance split by field size:

 

A better strike rate has been achieved by front-runners in 11- to 12-runner 6f handicap races, when compared with 8- to 10-runner handicaps, coupled with a better A/E value and Impact Value.

With so many races over 6f, one would expect some good betting opportunities to appear here considering the decent front running bias.

 

Kempton 7 furlong Run Style Bias

Let's move on to the 7f trip now. Field size increases to a maximum of 14 runners at this distance. Here are the run style splits:

 

The front running bias here is similar to the 6f one, and A/E values for early leaders at the two distances correlate closely (1.48 versus 1.44). The strike rate is lower, due to the average field size being greater over 7f.

The front running bias has been consistent over the past six seasons as can be seen when we compare the front running SR%s in three yearly blocks:

 

A slightly stronger performance has transpired over the past three seasons but nothing statistically significant.

Favourite performance in 7f handicaps is next on the list: will the same type of front running favourite bias manifest over 7f?

 

An even more potent market / run style bias can be seen here. Indeed, front running favourites have returned profits of 23p in the £ in the study period. Compare that with favourites that were held up early, a group that lost a whopping 44p in the £.

Looking at the top three in the betting and combining them with a specific run style produces a similar result – backing all relevant front runners would have yielded a profit of 26p in the £; hold up horses from the top three in the betting would have lost 21p in the £.

Next stop a look at the draw – firstly for all runners and run styles:

 

Horses drawn closest to the inside rail (low) have an edge but it is not as strong as over 6f.

Now focusing on solely front runners and the draws they come from.

 

In general, more of the lower drawn horses lead early, but it seems that front runners are able to win from any draw. Front runners drawn 2 have an excellent record but this is an anomaly when comparing with draws 1, 3 and 4.

The last thing to discuss in terms of 7f handicap run style data is field size. We saw over 6f that bigger fields increased the front running bias. Is it the same over an extra furlong?

 

The strike rates are similar, but races with fewer runners should produce higher strike rates for the front runner. We need to look at the A/E value and to a lesser extent the Impact Value. Both figures show a higher performance value from front runners in bigger fields, which correlates neatly with the 6f findings.

Taking all this data into account, punters that use run style as a key component in their betting should be looking closely at qualifying handicap races here over 7f. Potential betting opportunities await.

 

Kempton 1 Mile Run Style Bias

Onto the mile distance now, where runners have the full length of the back straight to establish a position, and the maximum field size moves up to 16.

 

Over this fairer constitution, we are moving towards run style parity. Front runners still have a very slight edge but not one we can easily take advantage of.

There is one extra statistic I wish to share with you at this distance, however, which is looking at run style bias in conjunction with the race favourite. Once again we see the same pattern as before, even though the overall front running bias is minimal:

 

Front running favourites have won roughly twice the number of races compared with favourites that were held up.

 

Kempton Run Style Bias at 1m2f and 1m3f

There were only 16 qualifying races at a mile and a quarter going back to 2016, this distance being contested on the tighter inner loop, so the data set is far too small to try and analyse. However, over an extra furlong, 1m3f, it is worth a scan of the handicap data as the figures surprised me a little (max field size is 16):

 

There does appear to be a slight run style bias with front runners again performing pretty well. I cannot really explain this, except that perhaps the proximity of the first bend gives those on the lead an edge in terms of distance travelled and/or luck in running. When betting in such contests I would definitely prefer to be on a horse that is near the front early than held up at the back.

 

Kempton Run Style Bias: Conclusions

Kempton's all-weather circuit is a track where run style bias is relatively strong from 5f to 7f; these are the distances I would mainly concentrate on. Front runners have a good advantage across all three, while prominent racers are preferable to those racing further back early. Once again I would not be wanting to back a horse that is likely to be held up.

- DR

Run style analysis of a selection of National Hunt trainers

/in /by

Regular readers will know of my interest in the impact of run style and, in this article, six National Hunt trainers come under the spotlight as I look for running style patterns which might lead to profitable angles, writes Dave Renham. The trainers in question are Paul Nicholls, Nicky Henderson, Jonjo O’Neill, Donald McCain, Venetia Williams and Alan King. I have looked at data between January 1st 2015 and December 31st 2021, seven years in total.

Before I start in earnest, however, a quick recap of running styles for all new readers and how Geegeez can help with understanding them.

The first furlong or so of any race sees each horse take up its early position and soon the horses settle into their racing rhythm. Normally these positions do not change too much for the first part of the race. The position each horse takes early can be matched to a running style - www.geegeez.co.uk has a pace section on its racecards that highlights which running style each horse has taken up early in a race. There are four run style groups, as follows:

Led – horses that take the early lead (the front runner). In National Hunt racing you generally get just one front runner, but occasionally there may be two or more horses disputing the early lead;

Prominent – horses that track close behind the leader(s);

Mid Division - horses that take up a more midfield position;

Held Up – horses that are held up near to or at the back of the field.

These running styles are assigned a numerical figure ranging from 4 to 1; Led gets 4, Prominent 3, Mid Division 2 and Held Up 1. Having numbers assigned to runners helps greatly with analysis as you may have seen in previous articles.

 

Run Style Analysis: All races

To begin with, let's take a look at all National Hunt races combined, breaking down the running styles of all horses for each of our six trainers. Connections, most notably the trainers, can clearly have a significant influence on the running style of their horses: most will give instructions to their jockeys before the race telling them how they would prefer the horses to be ridden.

Below, the table shows which percentage of each trainer's runners displayed one of the four running styles. I have included the figure for ALL trainers (1527 trainers combined!) as the 'control':

 

As can be seen there is quite a contrast; both Alan King and Jonjo O’Neill are clearly largely averse to sending their runners into an early lead. In contrast Donald Mc Cain, Venetia Williams and, to a lesser extent, Paul Nicholls seem happy to send a decent proportion of their runners to the front early.

In terms of their success with early leaders / front runners – all of them exceed 20% when it comes to strike rate (see graph below). For the record, 20% is the average winning figure for front runners in all National Hunt races.

 

Henderson and Nicholls have a simply stunning record with front runners – a strike rate for both of pushing 40%. Now I have mentioned before that if as punters we had access to a crystal ball pre-race to see which horse would be taking the early lead, it would be a license to print money. Here are the hypothetical profit/loss figures for the front runners of the six trainers to once again prove that point:

 

Combining all trainers in the list would have yielded an SP profit of £394.91 to £1 level stakes. Now, as we know, predicting which horse is going to take the early lead is far from an exact science. However, with some detailed analysis of the trainers in the race, as well as the horses concerned there will be opportunities to maximise our chances of nailing down the likely front runner.

 

Run Style Analysis: Chases

I have noted in previous pieces that front runners in chases make the biggest profits in terms of National Hunt racing, so let us see how our six trainers perform in these races. Here are their win strike rates with front runners in chases. In the table I have included their All races front running SR% to facilitate comparison:

 

Similar figures for each trainer although Alan King’s figure drop about 5%.

And here are the hypothetical profits from identifying and backing these front runners in chases over the course of the seven years in the sample:

 

All six trainers would have been in profit to SP – a combined profit of £350.38 to £1 level stakes indicates why chases are so ‘front runner’ friendly.

I have also looked at the percentage of their runners which displayed a front running style in chases – as with the All Race data I shared earlier, two trainers (King and O’Neill) are far less likely to send their charges to the front early:

 

It still staggers me every time I see trainers that send a low percentage of their runners to the front early. Just one in twelve of Jonjo O’Neill’s runners goes into an early lead in a chase. However, when they do, they win nearly 25% of the time (one race in four). Compare this to his record with hold up horses in chases. Nearly 45% of all Jonjo O’Neill’s runners in chases are held up early – but just 11% go onto win. It’s nuts! [For all that there might be other reasons for holding certain horses up on some occasions - Ed.]

Hold up horses do not perform well in chases either – to illustrate this here are the chase records of the six trainers with their hold up runners:

 

The summary on hold up horses is low strike rates and huge losses all round. This group will, of course, include a subset of no-hopers though, in relation to such high profile trainers, there will be fewer of these than for most other handlers.

 

Run Style Analysis: Hurdle races

Generally speaking, hurdle races do not offer as strong a front running edge as chases, but it is still preferable to lead early compared with other running styles.

With that in mind, let us review the hypothetical profits from our trainers' front runners in hurdle races:

 

Some good strike rates for Nicholls, Henderson and King, but not the wall to wall profits seen in the chases analysis.

It is noticeable that, as a whole, the six trainers send out a smaller proportion of front runners in hurdle races as compared to chases. This will be in part due to typically smaller field sizes in chases then in hurdles, but that doesn't fully account for the differentials. The graph below illustrates:

 

Alan King has sent just less than 4% of his hurdlers into an early lead despite these runners scoring 35% of the time. As a comparison, his held up runners (which account for 37% of all King's hurdlers) won just 13% of the time.

 

Run Style Analysis: Full Summary

To conclude, I'd like to share the individual trainer win strike rate data across all four running styles in different race types. I have included National Hunt flat races, too. These races do not give front runners as strong an edge although they still perform better than any of the other three running styles.

The table below gives a very clear picture as to why run style is so important. It shows the significant edge front runners have overall; it also shows that prominent runners perform far better than horses that race mid division or are held up.

 - Dave Renham

 

Lingfield Racecourse All Weather Run Style Bias

/in /by

This is the third article in a series where I am looking at run style bias at individual all weather tracks. Today, Lingfield Park run style bias is coming under scrutiny.

To view other all-weather track run style biases, choose from the below:

Chelmsford Racecourse Run Style Bias
Kempton Park Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Lingfield Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Newcastle Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Wolverhampton Racecourse Run Style Bias

 

What I mean by run style is the position a horse takes up within the first furlong or so of the race. There are two powerful resources to investigate run style in the Tools tab of Geegeez. The first is the Pace Analyser which looks solely at run style / pace, and secondly the Query Tool which can also be used to extend this type of research. I tend to use the Query Tool simply because I can examine a few more angles in relation to running style.

Running style is often linked with the word pace because the early pace shown by horses in a race determines their early position.

The stats I am using with you here are based on this site’s pace / run style data. This data is split into four sections; each section is assigned a numerical value:

Led (4) – horses that lead early, horses that dispute the early lead. I refer to the early leader as the front runner;

Prominent (3) – horses that lie up close to the pace just behind the leader(s);

Mid Division (2) – horses that race mid pack or just behind the mid-point;

Held up (1) – horses that are held up at, or near the back of the field.

For this piece I will be looking at individual distances – mainly the shorter ones with the focus being 8+ runner handicaps.

The data has been taken from 1st January 2016 up until 30th September 2021.

Lingfield 5 furlong Run Style Bias

Handicaps

A look at the shortest trip first. Let us look at the run style (pace) figures:

 

These figures virtually mirror those for Chelmsford 5f run style with a clear advantage to front runners. It should also be noted that front runners have reached the frame nearly 58% of the time. Prominent runners are next best; meanwhile horses that were held up or raced mid pack early have been at a big disadvantage.

The front running bias has been consistent at this track for many years and if we look back further into the past, from 2012 to 2015, I can tell you the front running record was virtually identical – strike rate during that period was 23.42%; A/E value was 1.60 and the IV stood at 2.11.

As far as the draw is concerned front runners prefer a middle to lower draw as the graph below shows. Having said that wide drawn front runners still perform well above the expected norm.

 

 

Let me now share the data of 5f handicap favourites at Lingfield with you across all running styles:

 

These stats are not as potent as the Chelmsford 5f equivalent, but even so, as a favourite backer it is clear you would prefer your horse to lead early.

 

Non-Handicaps

As regular readers will know I prefer to stick to handicap stats for things like run style or draw bias, but it is sometimes worth sharing non-handicap data, too. Over 5f at Lingfield in 8+ runner non-handicaps, the run style bias is extremely potent as the graphs below show. Firstly a look at strike rate across the four categories:

 

 

The front running bias is stronger in non-handicaps – probably down to the fact that some non-handicap races lack the depth of competition that handicaps typically possess.

A quick look next at the A/E comparisons for run style in non-handicap 5f events:

 

 

There is clear correlation between strike rate and A/E values. All in all, then, front runners have a strong edge in 5f races at Lingfield, be it handicaps or non-handicaps. Prominent racers do pretty well, too, and it is clear that horses that race midfield or at the back early are putting themselves at a significant disadvantage.

 

Lingfield 6 furlong Run Style Bias

Onto 6f handicaps with 8+ runners. The run style (pace) figures are as follows:

 

The overall stats suggest a front running bias, with hold up horses continuing to struggle. However, if we look at year by year records for front runners, a significant change seems to have occurred in recent years:

 

2016 and 2017 saw a huge front running edge, but from 2018 onwards front runners have started to actually look to be at a disadvantage. The more recent stats (last two seasons) are favouring prominent racers with horses that race mid-division outperforming front runners. Strike rate data shown in the graph below shows this latest pattern neatly:

 

 

What is equally as quirky is that in the last two seasons in 6f non-handicap races (8+ runners), the front running bias has been enormous:

 

 

During this time frame in non-handicaps, 9 of the 21 races were won by the early leader / front runner, while horses that raced mid division or were held up combined to produce just one winner from 136 runners!

There are times when you cannot explain certain anomalies and this recent conflicting 6f data is one such occasion. Perhaps is simply a weird function of a small dataset: I can only recommend a watching brief this winter.

 

Lingfield 7 furlong Run Style Bias

Up to 7f now and the run style splits for this distance at Lingfield (8+ runner handicaps):

 

Again the overall six year stats give front runners a solid edge, with the performance of prominent runners much stronger than those running mid division or near/at the back early. However, as with the 6f stats, the front running performance was much better in 2016 and 2017. The ‘drop off’ has not been anywhere as bad over 7f as it was over 6f, but looking at the 2018 – 2021 data possibly gives a more accurate run style / pace picture.

 

I can say with some confidence that over 7f there is definite advantage to run in the front half of the field in the early part of the race. Front runners and prominent runners clearly outperform mid division/held up runners.

Moving on, I want to look again solely at favourites and their run style over the past six years or so. We can see that front running favourites outperform every other type of favourite in terms of run style:

 

A very impressive set of figures for front running favourites; once again favourites that race off the pace early tend to underperform. For the record, from 2018 onwards the front running win percentage was just under 40% and is still clearly better than the rest.

Now, it's time to study more market data – let's look at front runners in terms of their market rank. We have already seen that favourites have done well but what about the rest? At Chelmsford we noticed a strong market bias pattern, which is replicated over 7f here at Lingfield:

 

Second favourites (or joint-/co- second favourites) who lead early manage to win roughly 1 in every 3 races which is impressive. As we can see once we get to 6th or bigger in the betting, front runners simply do not generally have the class or ability to win. This shows once again that racing is not just about one aspect, we have to combine factors to give us a clearer picture. Run style is often one of the key factors, but we cannot rely solely on this regardless of how the strong the bias may seem.

Looking at the draw, front runners have struggled a little from middle draws. Not sure why this may be the case, especially as wide drawn front runners have actually done the best of any draw section. Perhaps it is due to the distance to the first bend in the race, about two furlongs, which may enable those wider drawn that want to lead to get across their middle-drawn counterparts; but it's unclear, to be honest.

The graph below shows the strike rates for the draw (max field size of 14):

 

 

Overall the 7f trip does offer an edge from a run style perspective – I would definitely prefer to be backing a horse that is going to race up with or close to the pace early.

 

Lingfield 1 mile Run Style Bias

This is where the run style stats start to even up at Lingfield. Below are the splits for 1 mile at Lingfield (8+ runner handicaps):

 

Hold up horses continue to struggle although their record is better at this distance compared with the three shorter trips. Front runners still score more often than they statistically should but it is becoming more marginal; prominent racers and horses that race mid division have virtually identical records.

 

Lingfield 1m2f+ Run Style Bias

Lingfield has a few distances of 1m2f or further and I have lumped the data together as it is very similar across each race trip. As you would expect, front runners are now not favoured and have become only the third most successful run style:

 

Preference therefore at longer distances is for prominent racers / mid pack runners. Having said that, I would not be personally using run style as a key ingredient to try and sort out races beyond a mile.

Lingfield All Weather Run Style Bias Conclusions

Over 5 furlongs at Lingfield on the all weather, front runners have a very strong edge and prominent racers perform well too.

I would keep a watching brief over 6f for the time being as the data appears somewhat contradictory in recent seasons.

At 7 furlongs I definitely want my horse to be nearer the front than the back early, while the mile trip is not one I personally play very often, but in general my advice would still be to avoid hold up horses unless you have some compelling form data to the contrary.

Good luck!

- DR

Newcastle Racecourse All Weather Run Style Bias

/in /by

In this second article of a new series where I have been looking at run style bias at individual all weather tracks, we travel up North (from where I'm writing, at least) to Newcastle, writes Dave Renham. Newcastle changed from a turf flat course to an all weather one in 2016, employing a Tapeta surface for the new project.

To view other all-weather track run style biases, choose from the below:

Chelmsford Racecourse Run Style Bias
Kempton Park Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Lingfield Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Newcastle Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Wolverhampton Racecourse Run Style Bias

 

Run style is connected with the position a horse takes up early in a race, usually within the first furlong. This early position can be really important over certain course and distance combinations as we have seen in many of my previous articles on the subject; and not just on the flat, but in National Hunt racing too.

Geegeez.co.uk has two key resources to help you investigate run style. In the Tools tab of Geegeez there is the Pace Analyser which looks solely at run style / pace, and you also have the Query Tool which can be used to investigate run style / pace along with other factors such as going, draw, trainer, class, etc. For all of these articles I use the Query Tool because, as previous noted, it can test more angles in combination with running style. Running style is often linked with the word pace because the early pace shown by horses in a race determines their early position.

The stats I am using for this piece are based on the site’s pace / run style data. For those of you unfamiliar with this data it is split into four sections, each of which has a numerical value. The highest is 4, which equates to horses that lead early, down to a value of 1, which is given to horses that are held up at, or near, the back of the field early. Horses that race prominently (just behind the leader) score 3, and horse that race mid pack / mid division are assigned a 2.

As with the previous article in this series I will be looking at individual distances - primarily the shorter ones - with the focus being 8+ runner handicaps. The data has been taken from 17th May 2016, the first meeting on the Newcastle tapeta surface, up until 30th September 2021.

 

 

Newcastle 5 furlong Run Style Bias

We'll start with a look at the shortest trip. Let us look at the run style (pace) figures for Newcastle:

 

The 5f front running bias is a solid one, but not as strong as some other all-weather minimum distances. Also hold up horses, which struggled badly elsewhere, have been much more competitive here. This is probably down to the fact that Newcastle’s 5f is run on a straight track whereas others we have looked at are run round a bend.

The strike rate for front runners has been relatively consistent when splitting into groups of three years (2016-2018, and 2019-2021):

 

Front-running strike rates have been relatively consistent at between 15 and 16%, assuming field size has remained largely constant, which it has.

 

Onto market leaders next. Let me share the data of 5f handicap favourites at Newcastle with you across all running styles:

 

As with the previous favourite stats I have shared in this series, front running favourites fare exceptionally well, albeit in this case from a small sample size. Overall, favourites have struggled over this course and distance losing 18p in the £, while front running favourites would have yielded returns of 76p in every £1!

 

Newcastle 6 furlong Run Style Bias

Onto 6f handicaps now. The run style (pace) figures are as follows:

 

The overall stats again suggest a front running bias, but it is little less potent than it is over 5f. Having said that, front runners have a similar edge when you combine the win and placed stats (each way stats) for each grouping as the graph below shows:

 

One area where there is big difference in terms of front running performance comes when we look at field size. In smaller (8 to 10 runner) fields, those on the front have done much better than in bigger fields (11 to 14).

 

These stats are quite contrasting; it may be down to the fact that hold up horses (which make up comfortably the bigger run style section) are much more competitive than is usual over 6f. Bigger fields means more hold up horses, of which only one needs to come through to win. To offer more confidence in these findings, the front running win and placed stats (each way) correlate with the win percentages as this graph below shows:

 

Looking at the fate of favourites over six furlongs at Newcastle and I'll start with their performance across all running styles:

 

This is the first time we have not seen an edge for front running favourites. That might be down to the relatively small sample of 25 runners; and we do get a more familiar picture if we combine the top three in the betting when looking across all running styles:

 

Front runners from the top three in the betting have re-established a significant advantage. Indeed, if you had access to a crystal ball pre-race, knowing a) who was going to lead early and b) if those leaders would be in the top 3 of the betting at the off, you would have made a profit of 61p for every £1 wagered. Sadly, it's not always the easy to discern (though, naturally, the tools on geegeez give you a far better chance than Joe Punter).

All in all, front runners remain the most interesting group in 6f handicaps at Newcastle from a run style perspective.

 

Newcastle 7 furlong Run Style Bias

The 7f trip is also run on a straight course and here are the run style splits:

 

We are now edging towards parity in terms of run style win performance with a relatively even set of figures. Horses that race mid division have the poorest record, but hold up horses are now almost on par with front runners in terms of SR% and A/E values.

Interestingly though, front running favourites conform to the ‘usual model’ of easily outperforming their counterparts as the table below illustrates:

 

A 45p in the £ profit could have been achieved by backing all favourites that took the early lead. Interestingly, favourites that were held up also would have made a small profit of 6p in the £, though their win strike rate has been notably lower than the trailblazers.

In conclusion 7f at Newcastle is not a combination where a run style / pace edge is easy to find.

 

Newcastle 1 mile Run Style Bias

This is the longest distance where horses race on the straight track at Newcastle. Here are the figures:

 

In contrast to what we've seen so far, though perhaps hinted at by the 'changing of the guard' seven-furlong range, front runners struggle over this mile trip, whereas hold up horses actually perform best. Indeed if you had backed all 1114 hold up runners you would have actually made a starting price profit which is impressive. Let's see if we can find any angles where the hold up run style bias strengthens.

One area where hold up horses do seem to have a stronger edge is when the field size gets close to or up to maximum. 14 runners is the ceiling, and if we look at 13 or 14 runner handicaps the hold up bias strengthens. First a comparison of the SR%s.

 

Hold up horses have roughly double the strike rate of the other three pace categories. Their A/E [market performance] values correlate perfectly too:

 

This is a very impressive A/E value of 1.21 for hold up horses in bigger field mile handicaps at Newcastle. The other three run style categories labour at between 0.56 and 0.60, where 1.0 is a par score.

In terms of market position, hold up horses that were in the top three in the betting perform well: of the 289 runners, 68 won equating to a decent strike rate of 23.5% (A/E 1.14; IV 2.70).

Compare this to hold up horses ranked 4th or lower in the market and the strike rate collapses to 5.82% (48 wins from 825 runners), while A/E value drops to 0.93 and IV drops markedly to 0.67.

As far as favourites go, let me compare the performance of each specific run style.

 

Hold up horses that start favourite perform well but they been marginally out-performed by prominent racing favourites. What is interesting is the dreadful record of front running favourites, albeit from a small sample, with just a single winner from 27 to attempt to make all.

So the mile trip definitely favours hold up horses; keep an eye out for maximum or near maximum sized fields which seems to strengthen the bias.

 

Newcastle 1 mile 2 furlongs Run Style Bias

This is the first distance where the horses race on the round course.

 

In truth, I had expected a more come from behind profile to be effective at this course/distance combination. However, prominent racers have fared best and relatively comfortably best at that.

 

Newcastle 1 mile 4 furlongs Run Style Bias

Finally a look at the 1½ mile trip:

 

Prominent racers again have the best of it and that close-to-but-not-on-the-speed run style looks the preferred approach on the turning track in 8+ runner 10-12 furlong handicaps.

Newcastle Run Style Bias Conclusions

Over five furlongs front runners have a very decent edge and they also fare best over 6f. However, over 7f the front running edge has all but disappeared, while hold up horses have the call in mile races. Finally, over the longer distances of 1m2f and 1m 4f, run on the round course, it is prominent racers who have an overall advantage.

- DR

 

Chelmsford Racecourse Run Style Bias

/in /by

Welcome to the first article of a new series where I will be looking at run style bias at individual all weather tracks, writes Dave Renham. All weather racing is now a ‘staple’ of our winter racing diet and there will be plenty of betting opportunities, starting today, in the coming months for punters at all of the six British courses, as well as Dundalk which I'll not be covering. For this series of articles, I will also not investigate Southwell as they  changed the surface from fibresand to tapeta from 7th December 2021.

To view other all-weather track run style biases, choose from the below:

Chelmsford Racecourse Run Style Bias
Kempton Park Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Lingfield Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Newcastle Racecourse (AW) Run Style Bias
Wolverhampton Racecourse Run Style Bias

 

What I mean by run style is the position a horse takes early in the race, normally within the first furlong, which often defines its running preference. geegeez.co.uk has created some powerful resources to look at run style in the Tools menu tab. There is the Pace Analyser and the Query Tool which can be used to undertake this type of research for yourself. Running style is often linked with pace because the early pace shown by horses in a race determines their early position. Hence, for many, the words run style and pace are interchangeable.

The stats I am sharing here are based on the site’s pace / run style data. These data on Geegeez are split into four sections – Led (4), Prominent (3), Mid Division (2) and Held Up (1). The number in brackets is the score assigned to each section. The numbers are really helpful as you can drill down into them to help build a better picture and understanding of how important run style can be.

Below is a basic breakdown of which type of horse fits which type of run style profile:

Led – horses that lead early, horses that dispute the early lead. I refer to the early leader as the front runner;

Prominent – horses that lie up close to the pace just behind the leader(s);

Mid Division – horses that race mid pack or just behind the mid-point;

Held up – horses that are held up at, or near the back of the field.

 

Chelmsford City Racecourse is the first all-weather track under the microscope. I will be looking at individual distances with the focus being 8+ runner handicaps. The data have been taken from 1st January 2016 up until 30th September 2021, five years and nine months' worth.

 

Chelmsford 5 furlong Run Style Bias

We'll start with a look at the minimum trip where the race start is close to the bend (see image at the top of this post). Let us look at the run style (pace) figures:

 

These figures clearly illustrate that the advantage is to horses that have led, or disputed the lead, in Chelmsford 5f handicaps. Horses that have race mid-division or further back early have a relatively poor record, both in win terms and profitability. As the shortest race distance, 5f races allow the least amount of time for runners to make their challenge from the back. Hence at most courses, both all weather and turf and especially around a turn, there is a strong front-running bias.

The success of front runners has been fairly consistent as the graph below shows; here I have looked at the winning strike rates (SR%) of front runners split into two year groupings (2016-2018 and 2019 to Sept 30th 2021).

 

As you can see there has been a similar front running performance in terms of strike rate: marginally better between 2016 and 2018 but probably not statistically significant. The A/E values correlate in the same way:

 

Again these were slightly higher in the 2016 to 2018 period (1.69), compared with an A/E value of 1.57 over the past three years. One might expect that market edge to erode further in coming years but there still appears plenty of 'juice' for now.

The draw for front runners does not seem to make too much difference – interestingly it is not the very low drawn front runners who have secured the highest strike rate, it is those drawn 5 to 7. In truth though, individual stall data provide a relatively small sample size so we should not read too much into them.

It is also interesting to look at the performance of front runners in terms of their market rank (position in the betting).

 

As we can see, front runners who are favourites have won more than half of their races. In general, horses that are relatively unfancied (those 7th or higher in the betting market) have been unable to retain their early lead. This of course makes sense, but it shows that it is something we need to factor in if we are thinking about backing a potential front runner: race position is best when coupled with some kind of ability, as predicted by the betting markets!

While digging into market factors I noticed that front runners that were priced 5/1 or less won 24 times from 59 races. This equates to a strike rate over 40%. Not only that, a further 20 placed giving an impressive win & placed percentage figure of 74.6%.

Now you might be reading this thinking that OK, we’d expect this type of market bias. However, let me share the data of 5f handicap favourites at Chelmsford with you across all running styles:

 

Looking at this, do you want to be backing a favourite that is likely to be held up? Or even one that is projected to race mid-division? Naturally, we cannot 100% predict what run style a horse will show in any one race - and sometimes horses miss the break or adopt a surprising tactic - but most tend to conform to a favoured style which helps steer us in the right direction.

Finally in this 5f section I’d like to split the data down further by number of runners – specifically, races with 8 or 9 runners compared with races of 10 or more runners. Here are the relevant A/E value comparisons for each running style:

 

It seems that bigger fields give front runners a slightly stronger edge and hinders hold up horses even more.

 

Chelmsford 6 furlong Run Style Bias

Moving up a furlong to the second sprint trip of 6f at Chelmsford, where they have a longer run to the turn, let us look at the run style (pace) figures:

 

The front running bias is not as strong over this extra furlong but it remains fairly significant. As with five furlong handicaps, the nearer you are to the early pace the better.

The bias has remained relatively consistent since 2016 and the average SR% for front runners over the past two seasons has been 19% (slightly above the 6-year average). Draw wise, front runners are again able to win from low, middle or high – there is no clear draw/pace angle here.

Looking at market rank there is also a similar pattern to the 5f data. Front runners from the top three in the betting have provided 36 wins from 114 runners (SR 31.58%); the rest of the betting market has provided 14 wins from 187 (SR 7.49%). Comparing the A/E values we can see there is much more value in front runners who come from the top three in the betting:

 

It is rare to talk about shorter priced runners being ‘value’ but these front runners seem to be.

Looking again solely at the overall performance of favourites by run style, we can see that front running favourites outperform every other type of favourite in terms of run style:

 

The bias to front running favourites is far less potent than it was over 5f, but nonetheless if you were the owner of the jolly and your horse was sufficiently versatile, which run style would you like the jockey to try and deploy? It’s still a no brainer when front running favourites are 1.67 times more likely to win compared to held up favourites.

As I did earlier with the 5f data I am going to split the 6f data down by number of runners, comparing races of 8 or 9 runners with races of 10 or more runners. Here are the relevant A/E value comparisons for each running style:

 

We see a similar pattern here with 10+ runner races strengthening the front-running bias as well as making it harder for hold up horses to be successful.

In general, it's very good to see the 5f and 6f figures correlate so well.

 

Chelmsford 7 furlong Run Style Bias

Up to 7f now, races at which distance start in a chute and cover the entire back straight before turning for home, and the run style splits for this distance:

 

Surprisingly perhaps, given the longer run to the turn, the front running bias at Chelmsford is actually stronger over 7f than it is at 6f. This is unusual as at most courses the bias to race leaders diminishes as the distance increases, especially when the distance to a bend is greater. This stronger front running bias is difficult to explain; it might be because the 7f races start from the chute and after the initial jostling for an early position the horses on the early speed are able to slow things down a little once meeting the main part of the course. Sectional timing data could possibly help here; but Chelmsford is the only UK racetrack at which an official timekeeper is not permitted to record such information.

Having said all that, in 2021 front runners have actually really struggled, winning just 1 of 22 races. This is something we need to keep an eye on, but I am guessing (hoping perhaps!) it is simply an anomaly. One stat that backs up my theory is that the placed figures for front runners stands at 44.4% in 2021, which correlates almost perfectly with the overall 6-year front running place percentage of 44.9%.

Over 5f and 6f we saw a stronger front running bias in fields of 10 or more runners. Over 7f there seems little difference. The front running A/E values are 1.45 and 1.40 for 8-9 runners and 10+ runners respectively.

As far as the draw is concerned front runners have again had success regardless of stall position. That said, when the front runner has come from the inside stall (draw 1) they have been particularly successful winning 12 of 41 starts (SR 29.27%).

Now a look at front runners in terms of their market rank. Let’s see if the same pattern emerges that we’ve seen at the two shorter distances:

 

A slight outlier with front runners who were 6th favourite aside, the same general picture is painted. Front running favourites do extremely well and let us again review the performance of favourites in terms of their specific run style:

 

The message the numbers continue to hammer home is if you are backing the favourite in a Chelmsford sprint handicap, you really would like it to front run, and you certainly do not want it to be held up.

 

Chelmsford 1 Mile Run Style Bias

It is rare to see very strong front running biases at distances of a mile or more. Let’s see whether early leaders have an edge over Chelmsford's mile, which starts in a doglegged chute, and if so by how much:

 

As expected the front running bias is diminishing – you would still prefer to see your horse leading early than rather midfield or near the back, but run style becomes less of a determinant of success. I am not going to delve deeply into this trip because there is little utility, but I will share the record of the favourite combined with running style:

 

There is not the strong front running bias seen at other trips here but clearly favourites who lead or race close to the pace (prominent) early in the race are much better betting propositions than those who race mid pack or near/at the back. If you had happened to back all favourites that were held up or raced mid division you would have lost 30p in every £ wagered. If you had backed all favourites that raced prominently or led early you would have a tiny overall profit.

 

Chelmsford Racecourse Pace / Run Style Bias Conclusions

All in all Chelmsford has a strong run style bias across multiple distances with front runners having a clear edge. The 5f trip offers the strongest, closely followed by 7 furlongs and then 6f. This group as a collective can be used as a betting angle, and then overlaid with form considerations.

The bias is still evident over a mile but it is relatively modest.

Let me close with a graph that helps illustrate this neatly: it compares the A/E values for front runners / early leaders (4, blue bars) with those for hold up horses (1, orange bars) across the four distances. The disparity at the shorter trio of distances is stark, where over a mile the gap has been been all but closed.

 

- DR

Your first 30 days for just £1