Looking at Past Cheltenham Festival Trends

/in , /by

As I am penning this piece, the excitement for the upcoming Cheltenham Festival has gone up a further notch with the big days less than a week away, writes Dave Renham. In this article I will analyse some past Cheltenham race trends. Here on geegeez.co.uk we get specific race trends shared all year round with all the big races covered by Andy Newton. The Cheltenham Festival trends are available already for each day and can be accessed here.

Introduction

From 2007 to 2013 I wrote a weekly column on big race trends in the Racing & Football Outlook and over time got an excellent feel for which races suited past trends. Past race trends can be very good indicators of how a future race is likely pan out, and this is usually the case with the Cheltenham Festival. Many people use trends to help narrow down the field making the eventual selection process less daunting. If we can reasonably confidently eliminate say 50% of the field, then it drastically increases our chances of success. Obviously, there will be times when the race trends are ‘bucked’ where the winner does not fit the typical winner’s profile, but fortunately for many Cheltenham races this happens quite rarely.

For the main part of this piece, I will examine the last 20 renewals of the Gold Cup. I am going to first examine the ten Gold Cups held between 2005 and 2014 and then compare those findings with the Gold Cups from 2015 to 2024. After this I will be in a position to hopefully pick out the very strongest trends. I will also highlight some of the strongest trends from three other races at the meeting at the backend of the article.

Cheltenham Gold Cup Trends

So let's look at the blue riband race, the Gold Cup. From 2005 to 2014 these were the most powerful trends:

2005-2014 Gold Cup Trends

Market Factors: 2005-14

5 winning favourites from 10.

9 out of 10 winners came from the top three in the betting.

Horses with an SP of 8/1 or shorter produced 9 winners from 36 runners (25%); horses priced 17/2 or bigger produced one winner from 107 (0.9%).

 

Last Race Factors: 2005-14

7 of the 10 winners won last time out (LTO). Those seven winners came from 44 qualifiers (15.9%); horses that finished 2nd or worse LTO provided three winners from 99 (3%).

All of the 10 winners came from one of three tracks – Leopardstown, Newbury or Kempton. This equates to 10 wins from 65 (15.4%). Other courses combined were 0/78 (0%).

All of the 10 winners were priced 8/1 or shorter LTO. Those 10 wins came from 103 runners (9.7%). Those priced 17/2 or bigger were 0 wins from 40 (0%).

Racing in a Grade 1 race LTO produced seven winners from 47 (14.9%). Those racing in Grade 2 or lower were three wins from 96 (3.1%).

 

Other Factors: 2005-14

Horses that had won previously at the Cheltenham Festival produced five winners from 37 (13.5%). Those with no previous Festival win were 5/106 (SR 4.7%).

Horses with an Official Rating of 166 or more produced seven winners from 37 (18.9%); those rated 165 or less were 3/96 (3.1%).

In terms of age, 10yos or older were 0 from 40 (0%). Nine of the winners came from horses aged 7, 8 or 9.

Horses that had previously won at least once that season produced eight wins from 83 qualifiers (9.6%). Horses that had not scored that season won 2/60 (3.3%).

 

Conclusion: 2005-14

During this ten-year time frame, the Gold Cup was dominated by the front end of the betting market. 2014 was the outlier with a 20/1 winner in Lord Windermere and placed runners at 16/1 and 14/1. A win LTO was a plus as was an OR of 166+. All the winners came from either Kempton, Newbury or Leopardstown and all the winners were priced 8/1 or shorter on their previous start.

It was also preferable to have raced in Grade 1 company LTO, to have previously won at the Festival and to have won that season. In terms of age, it was best to avoid horses aged 10 or older.

 

*

 

Let's now compare the data from 2005 to 2014 with that for the most recent ten-year period, 2015-2024.

2015-2024 Gold Cup Trends

Market Factors: 2015-24

5 winning favourites from 10.

Seven out of 10 winners came from the top three in the betting (nine came from the top four).

Horses with an SP of 8/1 or shorter produced eight winners from 40 runners (20%); horses priced 17/2 or bigger produced two winners from 88 (2.3%).

 

Last Race Factors: 2015-24

Eight of the 10 winners won LTO. Those eight winners came from 59 qualifiers (13.6%); horses that finished 2nd or worse LTO provided two winners from 69 (2.9%).

Five of the 10 winners raced at Leopardstown LTO from 42 qualifiers (11.9%); Newbury LTO produced two winners from 10 (20%). Kempton LTO runners produced 0 winners from 16 (0%). All other courses combined were three wins from 60 (5%).

All of the last 10 winners were priced 10/3 or shorter LTO. Those 10 wins came from 63 runners (15.9%). Those priced 17/2 or bigger were 0 wins from 65 (0%).

Racing in a Grade 1 race LTO produced five winners from 65 (7.7%). Those racing in Grade 2 or lower had five wins from 63 (7.9%).

 

Othere Factors: 2015-24

Horses that had won previously at the Cheltenham Festival produced five winners from 42 (11.9%). Those with no previous Festival win have scored five times from 86 (SR 5.8%).

Horses with an Official Rating of 166 or more produced eight winners from 65 (12.3%); those rated 165 or less were two from 63 (3.2%).

In terms of age, 10yos or older were 0 from 22 (0%). Nine of the winners came from horses aged 7 or 8.

Horses that had previously won at least once that season produced all ten wins from 90 qualifiers (11.1%). Horses that had not previously won that season won 0 from 38 (0%).

 

Conclusion: 2015-2024

During this ten-year time frame, this race was once again dominated by the front end of the betting market. Five wins for favourites and nine of the ten winners were priced 8/1 or shorter at SP. A win LTO was a plus as was an OR of 166+, while a run at Leopardstown or Newbury LTO could be seen as a positive.

Previous Festival winners comfortably outperformed non Festival winners, while a win that season was paramount with all ten winners having that stat. An even stronger positive stat was horses priced 100/30 or less LTO as they produced all the winners from roughly 50% of the runners. Less horses aged 10yo+ took part during this time frame but once again they drew a blank.

 

*

 

The Gold Cup Comparison

Overall, the vast majority of the key trends from 2005 to 2014 were seen again between 2015 and 2024. The race has been strongly dominated by the more fancied runners. That includes ten winning favourites during the past 20 years, and backing all favourites would have yielded a profit to SP of £14.12 (ROI +70.6%).

Below is a graph mapping the market rank of all 20 winners:

 

 

This is a neat way of illustrating the front end of market dominance. 18 of the 20 winners have come from the top four in the betting so it looks best to concentrate there.

15 of the last 20 winners won LTO – this is a strong positive that has ‘held’ during both ten-year periods. Essentially, a LTO winner has been five times more likely to win the Gold Cup than a horse that failed to win LTO. The graph below shows the A/E indices for different LTO positions:

 

 

These indices are another indication as to why a last day win before the Gold Cup has been a strong positive.

Sticking with last time out factors, all 20 winners were 8/1 or shorter on their most recent start with the last ten being 100/30 or shorter. Horses priced LTO 17/2 or bigger are 0 from 55. Now it is important to note that the vast majority of these 55 losers were decent prices come the big day, but only three of the 55 placed so if we are looking for a big priced placer, which can happen, the trends suggest that we should steer clear of this subset.

A previous Festival win has been a positive in both time frames. Overall, a previous Festival winner has been 2.4 times more likely to prevail in the Gold Cup when compared with runners who had not previously won at the Festival.

Based on the success of the top end of the betting markets it should come as no surprise that higher rated horses have been the most successful. An OR of 166 or more has produced 15 of the winners – this equates to 75% of the winners coming from around 38% of the total runners.

The age dynamic in terms of older horses (those aged 10 or older) has remained constant with these runners failing to register a win since Cool Dawn in 1998. In terms of horses aged nine or younger the last ten years has seen a slight switch with 7 and 8yos winning nine of the renewals.

A previous win that season was a positive in both time frames and that should be something to look out for again this year.

There are, however, a couple of 2005-2014 trends that did not repeat between 2015 and 2024. The first is those horses that raced in a Grade 1 event LTO. In the first ten years it seemed a strong positive if a horse ran in the highest class possible LTO. During that spell, they were roughly five times more likely to win than horses that raced in a Grade 2 or lower LTO. Fast forward to the latest ten-year period and there has been parity between both groups with no edge to horses that raced in a Grade 1 contest LTO.

The second pattern that did not repeat was the LTO Kempton one. This was a positive from 2005-2014, but actually since 2012 no LTO Kempton runner has gone on to win the Gold Cup. This is partly due to the fact that most runners in the past have come from the Boxing Day meeting at Kempton straight to the Festival. Nowadays more horses seem to fit in another run between these two big meetings.

One area I have yet to look at in terms of this race is trainers, and specifically Irish trainers versus British trainers. I will fix that now!

From 2005 to 2014, just 15.5% of the runners in the Gold Cup were trained in Ireland. In contrast, from 2015 to 2024 this has increased to 48.4%. The Irish trainers have dominantly outperformed British trainers over both time frames in terms of overall win rate. The graph below illustrates this:

 

 

Irish trainers have maintained their strike rate and with far more runners in the 2015–2024-time frame, it means they have provided the winner eight times in the last ten years (and all of the last six). British trainers have really struggled in recent years.

Splitting the data into two ten-year time frames for this race has shown that this is a race where many of the strong past trends remain the same. Generally, Grade 1 races for experienced horses are good races from a past trends perspective. However, as we have seen there has been a change in a couple of the trends highlighted between the two decades. As punters we need to be aware that this can happen and obviously react accordingly. Patterns change over time but the Gold Cup retains some very solid looking patterns which for this year’s renewal should help to narrow down the field to a small group of the most likely winners.

 

**

 

I now want to pick out a few other races and highlight the very strongest past trends based on the last 20 years.

Supreme Novices' Hurdle

This is the first race of the meeting, and the strongest trend is around LTO placing. Simply, we want to be looking for horses that won last time. They have provided 16 of the 20 winners from 145 runners for a break-even situation to SP (well a 48p profit to be precise). Horses that finished 2nd or worse LTO have won 4 races from 173 runners for a loss of £108.50 (ROI -62.7%).

Not only that, we have had consistency in both 10-year groups with eight LTO winners from 2005-2014 and eight from 2015-2024. The win & placed (Each Way) percentages also strongly favour the LTO winners’ group. They have been over three times more likely to finish in the first three than horses that failed to win LTO.

Sticking with the win & placed theme, the graph below shows the consistency of performance of LTO winners when tackling the Supreme. I have grouped the LTO winners in five-year batches or groups to show their win & placed percentages in each period.

 

 

The percentages have not fluctuated much with most five-year groups around the 30% mark. Clearly, for the Supreme Novices’ Hurdle, we should be focusing our attention on LTO winners. Of course, a non-LTO winner may be successful this year as was the case last year, when Slade Steel won the race. However, the LTO 1st stats/trends are strongly in our favour.

 

Champion Hurdle

The Champion hurdle is the highlight of the first day and one recent trend that stands out is concerned with unbeaten horses that season. All of the last ten winners fitted that profile, and there were only 18 horses that qualified under that rule going back to 2015. This equates to a 55.6%-win strike rate. In the previous ten years there were also 18 qualifiers, but only three won. Having said that, from 2005 to 2014 horses unbeaten in that season were still three times more likely to win compared to horses that had lost at least once in the season.

As with the Supreme, last day winners are far more likely to win than those that failed to win LTO, amassing 17 successes from 101 runners (16.8%), and an A/E index 1.01 for LTO winners, compared to 3 wins from 134 (2.2%), A/E 0.45 for non-winners. In terms of the ten-year splits, 2005-2014 saw seven wins for LTO winners, 2015-2004 saw all ten wins.

 

Albert Bartlett Novices' Hurdle

This staying novice event is run on Gold Cup day and has one trend that has shifted dramatically in the last ten years. Let us look at the last 20 winners and their SPs:

 

 

The table neatly shows the difference between the ten years from 2005 to 2014 and those from 2015 to 2024 when it comes to the winning SPs. In the first ten-year period (lower half of the table) eight of the ten winners were priced in single figures with four favourites prevailing. In the most recent ten-year period nine of the ten winners were double figure prices and no favourite won.

The profit and loss figures for single figure priced runners during the two-time frames could not be more contrasting:

 

 

This type of switch-up reminds us once more that patterns and trends can change and that we cannot solely put our faith in all trends from past races. As punters we need to be aware that many trends will remain constant while a handful will not. Being able to adapt is part of what helps to make a punter successful over time.

Also, we are dealing with a smallish number of past races which again can seem to make trends fluctuate from time to time, whereas sometimes it was simply that the pattern was coincidence in the first place: we need to use skill and judgement to decide what is a trend and what is an accident of fate. Looking for reasons to justify a trend is a very good starting point in that regard.

- DR

Specific Course/Distance Analysis: Lingfield 1m2f

/in /by

I am a great believer in specialising when it comes to betting on horse racing, writes Dave Renham. When I ran my tipping service back in the early 2000s, I focused solely on five- and six-furlong handicaps. At the time I was doing a huge amount of research into draw bias, and it was when there was still a strong edge to be had over some course and distance combinations.

 

Introduction

Draw biases tend to be more prevalent over shorter distances hence the 6f cut-off point in terms of my tips. Focusing on a specific pool of races also meant I got to know many of the horses inside out, as sprint handicappers tend to run regularly during the year. Therefore, when I began to analyse a race I would have a solid knowledge of many, if not all, of the horses. Over time I started to spot other key patterns which would aid my selection process.

In this article I am going to look at one specific all-weather course and distance (C&D), making a deep dive into the plethora of related facts and figures. One could argue that looking for patterns for races from a specific C&D is a type of trends-based approach; I would agree. Trends, as a route into the horse racing puzzle, is much more fashionable than it was 30 years ago. Now we see 10-year race trends regularly in newspapers, and of course they've recently been added to the racecards here on Geegeez (as well as editorially more long-term for the big races, thanks to Andy Newton's contributions).

As I said, at the beginning of this year a TRENDS tab was added to the racecards which displays a range of information about the most recent renewals of the relevant race. Obviously not all races go back ten years, but it is a really useful addition to an already outstanding racecard. Essentially, then, this article could be considered a C&D trends piece looking at hundreds of races rather than just ten.

I am going to focus on handicap races only, ignoring nurseries (two-year-old handicaps) with data taken from 2018 to 2024, seven years' worth. Profits will be calculated to Befair Starting Price (BSP) with returns adjusted for commission. Looking at the results from a specific course and distance should hopefully give us good insight and potentially an edge over fellow punters in such races. For this article, I have chosen Lingfield over 1m2f.

Choosing a C&D on the all-weather means we are guaranteed plenty of qualifying races each year and Lingfield still hosts such races in the summer alongside flat turf contests. Indeed, there are three planned AW meetings in June in the height of the turf season and probably a couple of meetings where turf and AW racing is combined at the course. One or more 1m2f handicaps occur at most meetings.

This 10-furlong trip at Lingfield is not one I have looked at in depth before, mainly due to the fact that personally I still focus on shorter distance races when betting ‘on the level’. So, let’s find out more!

 

Betting market

I'll start with the betting market. The prices shown are to Industry SP, and the splits are shown below:

 

 

The value has been with horses sent off at industry SP's of between 13/2 and 12/1 with a solid overall profit to BSP. In fact, this group also snuck into Industry SP profit, too, albeit only just. Shorter priced runners have performed quite poorly and, looking specifically at favourites, they have lost over 14p in the £ to BSP. That compares very badly against the average for all-weather favourites at all courses in handicaps which stands at just over 6p in the £ during this time frame.

If I adjust the price groups slightly to create fewer price bands, we can see more clearly where the ‘value’ has been on the following graph which tracks A/E indices:

 

 

The graph also helps to confirm the earlier table's findings whereby the bigger price runners (14/1 or bigger) have been exceptionally poor value.

 

Position Last Time Out

Let's now see if the finishing position last time out (LTO) has offered any useful pointers:

 

 

In the time frame from 2018 to 2024 horses that finished first or second LTO have a good record when racing over 1m2f at Lingfield. The strike rate for both LTO winners and LTO runners-up are above the norm, as are the A/E indices. For both of them to be in BSP profit is impressive. When analysing 1m2f handicaps at Lingfield it makes sense to give this subset of runners at least a second glance.

Sticking with LTO winners/runners-up, those that raced at Lingfield LTO have the highest strike rate, at 24.5% (61 wins from 249), showing a BSP profit of £37.62 (ROI +15.1%). These runners would have secured a profit in five of the seven years.

 

Course LTO

We have seen already that a LTO run at Lingfield was a plus if the horse finished in the first two on that prior start. So what about when we look at all horses? How do the stats for LTO course stack up? To give a fairer picture I have restricted the qualifiers to horses priced 12/1 or less. This avoids the BSP bottom line being potentially skewed by huge priced winners. The table below shows the splits:

 

 

No course stands out as a super negative for the LTO run. The LTO Newcastle and Southwell results have been good albeit from modest samples. It is not a surprise that the most runners in Lingfield 10f handicaps also ran at Lingfield last time out; however, for that cohort to be (marginally) profitable from over 600 qualifiers is noteworthy.

 

Sex of horse

Anybody who has read previous articles penned by me on all-weather racing will know that males tend to outperform females in this code from a win rate perspective. That is the case again here as the table below shows:

 

 

Despite the SR% edge though, female runners have provided better returns. However, this is mainly due to two winning fillies going in at BSP odds of 110.0 and 145.1. If we restrict the results as before to horses with an SP of 12/1 or shorter we see the following:

 

 

Males have outpointed their female counterparts across the board here with a higher win percentage, bigger profits and a much higher A/E index. All in all, I would prefer the horse I was backing to be male over this C&D. One final stat worth sharing before moving on is that females aged five or older have struggled even within this price bracket. They secured just 18 wins from 160 runners (SR 11.3%) for a BSP loss of £38.26 (ROI -23.9%).

 

Class change from last race

Let's next examine whether a change in the class of the race has made a difference. Below I share the win strike rates for each group: those who have dropped in class from LTO, those that are racing in the same class, and those that have been upped in class:

 

 

Horses that have been upped in class have the best strike rate by far and they also have the highest A/E index across the three groups at 1.02. Horses dropped in class have an A/E index of 0.90, while those racing in the same class are at 0.80.

Horses upped in class have also made a decent profit to BSP of £122.76 which equates to a return of over 28 pence in the £. If we restrict these 'up in class' runners to those priced 12/1 or shorter to avoid potentially skewed results, they have still returned over 25p in the £. The evidence has a clear winner here.

 

Distance change from last race

Does the distance raced LTO have a bearing on results when running in a handicap over 1m2f at Lingfield? Let’s take a look:

 

 

Horses keeping to the same distance as last time out looks to be a positive. In fact, if we again use the same odds restriction (SP 12/1 or less) the LTO same distance subset have provided 149 winners from 812 runners (SR 18.3%) for a profit at Betfair SP of £83.49 (ROI +10.3%).

One very strong negative stat to share is that horses dropped in trip by more than two furlongs have won just 4.1% of the time (6 wins from 145) for huge losses of £110.16 (ROI -76%).

 

Course form

Does past course form count for anything? Well, if we compare previous course winners versus non-course winners there does seem to be a difference. In terms of win strike rate course winners have won 13.6% of the time compared to 9.8% for horses that have yet to win at the course. The A/E indices correlate with these figures as the bar chart below shows:

 

 

Now the ‘non-course winners’ group does involve a proportion of horses that have yet to run at Lingfield before. However, the A/E index for non-course winners that have raced at the track before is actually lower than the overall figure standing at just 0.79. Therefore, previous course winners have a definite edge over those that have yet to win at the Surrey venue.

 

Draw bias

Over longer distances the draw often becomes irrelevant, but it is always best to check some data rather than assume that is the case. The optimum draw position here seems to be from stall 5 to 7. This group of stalls has provided a strike rate of 13.4% with an A/E index standing at a very decent 1.03. Compare this to horses drawn 8 or higher whose strike rate is only 7.3% and the A/E is 0.71. The lowest draws meanwhile (1 to 4) have secured a strike rate of 11% with an A/E index of 0.82.

The chart below shows PRB3 (the average percentage of rivals beaten of a stall and its immediate neighbouring stalls), which corroborates the A/E narrative around stalls 5-7 (and indeed 8) being favoured.

 

 

As can be seen from the course map below, the mile and a quarter start is close to the winning line and thus presents only a short run to the first turn. This may explain why high draws are significantly unfavoured, with middle drawn horses perhaps able to find and hold a position close to the lead without using up too much energy so to do.

 

 

Although the draw is not perceived by many to be that important over this C&D, the numbers seem to suggest that higher draws (8+) are somewhat of a negative, with an ideal berth being five to seven stalls off the inside rail.

 

Run Style bias

In many previous articles I have shown the importance of run style. Run style can have a big say in shorter distance races on the flat/AW where front runners/early leaders often have an edge. Let's see whether there is any run style bias over 1m2f at Lingfield? Firstly, let us look at the win percentages for each group. Because each run style group has a different number of runners, we essentially use a wins to runs ratio to calculate the win% rate:

 

 

Front runners do not enjoy an edge here and are in fact only the third best group in terms of win ratio. It seems that a position close to the pace or in midfield is best. The percentages for win and placed runners also suggest prominent runners are the best group, and by a more significant margin.

 

 

These two sets of percentages are suggesting that a prominent sit is best over this C&D with a spot in mid-division more preferable than taking the early lead or being near or at the back early. It should be noted that combining the run style with the positive draw section of stalls 5 to 7 we get the following splits:

 

 

Hence if drawn in one of the favoured stalls - five, six or seven - it is definitely advantageous to race prominently or mid-division. This is further demonstrated in the PRB (percentage of rivals beaten) draw / run style heat map below:

 

 

Key takeaways

Below is a summary of the main findings from this delve into Lingfield 1m2f handicaps:

1. SP price range of 13/2 to 12/1 has been positive. Favourites have offered bad value. Horses 14/1 or higher have performed very poorly

2. LTO winners / runners-up have a very good record

3. Male runners priced 12/1 or shorter outperform their female counterparts

4. Horses upped in class have done best

5. Horses racing over the same distance to LTO are the best LTO distance group to concentrate on, especially if priced 12/1 or less

6. Past course winners have a definite edge over horses that have yet to win at the track

7. Horses drawn 5 to 7 have outperformed those drawn lower or higher

8. Prominent racers/mid division have a better record than holdups / front runners.

 

**

Undertaking this type of specific course and distance research can throw up some excellent insights to potentially aid the selection and betting process. If you have a specific C&D you'd like to see some key stats for, please drop a note in the comment section. I will do my best to do some initial digging.

- DR

More on Price Movement in NH Markets, Part 2

/in /by

Last week I wrote the first of two articles looking at price movements from Opening Show odds to SP in National Hunt racing, writes Dave Renham. This is the follow-up piece expanding on that initial research. As before, the data has been taken from the last five full years, covering 2020 to 2024. I have used William Hill bookmaker prices, and I will use ‘OS’ to denote the Opening Show odds.

To begin, I would like to look at differing race types. Specifically, I want to compare chases with hurdles to see what percentage of these runners shortened in price, lengthened in price (drifted), or stayed the same price, when comparing their OS to their SP.

 

 

As the graph indicates, there was a bigger percentage of drifters in hurdle races compared to chases, and hence fewer hurdlers shortened in price compared to chasers. If we look at non-handicap hurdle races versus handicap hurdle races it can be seen that in non-handicaps 49.4% of all runners drifted, whereas in handicaps the figure stands at 46.2%. Interestingly, this percentage ‘swing’ is reversed when we look at non-handicap chases versus handicap chases. The splits this time see more drifters in handicap chases (44.7%) compared to 41.1% for non-handicap chases. This is a good example of where we can see the importance of digging down into the long grass. We saw this in the first article when noting the differences between certain courses, in the splits for class of Race, and in how the OS odds affect the likely direction of any potential price movement.

I also looked at bumper (NH Flat) races where 47.9% of runners drifted from OS to SP compared with 38% that shortened (just 14.1% remained the same price).

Next, I would like to see there is anything material in terms of day of the week. I am going to concentrate solely on the percentage of drifters on each of the seven days my suspicion being that Saturday will have the lowest percentage, due to having stronger markets. Let’s see:

 

 

Saturday does indeed have the lowest figure which correlates with the race class and course data shared in part one last week. Saturdays tend to have better races when the day is viewed as a whole, and more of the top tier courses are in action on this day of the week, too.

In that prior piece it was noted that Cheltenham was the racecourse that had the smallest percentage of drifters out of all the courses. With the Cheltenham Festival roughly three weeks away, I thought it might be helpful to see what the splits are in terms of runners that shortened in price, lengthened in price or stayed the same price, when comparing their OS to their final Starting Price Odds at the Festival. Here they are:

 

 

This is quite a change from what we have seen so far. Horses remaining the same price from OS to SP have occurred more than either of the other groups. Horses that lengthened in price have a figure 16% lower than when looking at NH races as a whole. I had expected the percentage figure for drifters to be somewhat lower than the norm due to the strength of the Festival markets, but I had not anticipated as much as 16%. I also did not expect the 'stayed same price' group to come out clearly ahead of the others. It has made me think that maybe I write an article where I do a deeper dive into the Cheltenham Festival in terms of price movements, incorporating early morning odds moves too. More of that to come perhaps.

Time to switch attention now to some trainer data. To begin with here are the trainers with the highest percentage of runners that have shortened in price between OS and the ‘off’. To qualify a trainer must have had at least 200 runners during the period of study:

 

 

13 of the 20 trainers have higher percentages for shorteners than for drifters. When I looked at flat trainer data back in the Autumn only two trainers managed that feat. Four of the ‘big guns’ - Nicky Henderson, Paul Nicholls, Willie Mullins and Dan Skelton - are absent from the list, so what about them? Here are their splits coupled with a selection of some other familiar names not seen as yet (again the table is ordered by % of shorteners):

 

 

It is quite interesting to see Skelton, Nicholls and Henderson with the smallest percentages for horses that have shortened in price from OS to SP. It is also interesting when we compare their shorteners with their drifters in terms of value by using the A/E index. The graph below shows the splits:

 

 

For all three there has been far better value in their runners that were backed in between OS and SP compared to those that drifted. Indeed, you would have made a tiny profit to BSP on all Paul Nicholls runners that shortened in price from OS to SP.

In terms of negatives beware Henderson drifters in chases: of the 283 chasers that drifted 43 won (SR 15.2%) but they accrued losses of £58.26 (ROI -20.6%) to BSP. In addition, Henderson non-handicappers (any NH race type) that drifted have also proved to be poor value losing over 18p in the £.

As far as Paul Nicholls is concerned a drifter is a bad sign if ridden by stable jockey Harry Cobden. Although just over 20% of them have still won, backing all 834 qualifiers would have seen a loss to BSP of £184.51 (ROI -22.1%). Conversely, drifters from the Nicholls yard not ridden by Cobden have won more often (21.5%) and proved profitable to BSP to the tune of £108.80 (ROI +19.3%). These runners would secured a blind profit to Industry SP of around 6p in the £ as well. Meanwhile, if a Dan Skelton runner drifts at Cheltenham, beware, as only four of the 87 have won for losses of over 66p in the £.

My final piece of ‘drifting’ data for these three trainers comes in the form of their record in Class 1 races when this occurs. Their results are shown below:

 

 

Henderson’s record is modest but not terrible, but for the other two the figures are very poor. I would not be keen in the near future to back a Skelton or Nicholls drifter in a Class 1 event.

Sticking with these trainers and Class 1 events, let us see their performance when their runners shorten in price before the ‘off’. Unsurprisingly, we see a contrasting picture to the earlier one:

 

 

All three have edged into profit with solid figures across the board. Clearly, for these three trainers in top level races the strength of their runners in the market just prior to the off is very important.

Olly Murphy is another trainer who has a couple of stats worth mentioning. Interestingly, his drifters have won almost as often as those that have shortened in price – 18.2% versus 20.6%. Given those numbers, it won't shock to learn that his drifters made a positive return of 5p in the £ whereas his shorteners lost 20p in the £ (to BSP). Sticking with those runners that have shortened in price, when they started favourite they broke even. When they were not favourite losses have been 27p in the £.

Lastly in this piece, I want to focus on Irish maestro Willie Mullins as there are a few useful titbits when it comes to his stats. There are three powerful stats of which we ought to be aware:

1. Any Mullins drifter at the Cheltenham Festival is not a good sign. 100 horses have drifted from OS to SP at the March showpiece of which only 11 won (SR 11%) for a BSP loss of £43.36 (ROI -43.4%).

2. Don’t be lured in by bigger-priced runners from Mullins ‘being backed’. Horses that shortened in price from an OS of 18/1 or bigger are 0 from 54.

3. When one of Mullins' horses shortens in price from OS to SP take note of the jockey. The table below shows why we want Paul Townend on board:

 

**

This article has highlighted some interesting patterns in terms of how the market moves during that brief period between the opening show and the start of the race. I think some of the trainer data for Messrs Henderson, Nicholls, Skelton, Murphy and Mullins could prove really useful and help to point us in the right direction when contemplating the timing / placing of our bets.

- DR

 

More on Price Movement in NH Markets, Part 1

/in /by

Back in October I wrote an article that examined some betting market data whereby I investigated patterns of price movement from early morning odds to SP in UK NH racing. I felt now was good time to revisit the idea but switch attention to movement between opening show and SP.

This is first of a two-parter with data taken from the last five full years covering 2020 to 2024. I have used William Hill bookmaker prices and, for the remainder of this article, I will use ‘OS’ to stand for the Opening Show Odds.

As I mentioned in earlier work, the OS for most races occurs around 10-15 minutes before the race is due to start. Each horse will have its opening price and then, as money is wagered in the period before the race starts, the prices will begin to fluctuate. Some will go up, some down, some will end up the same price as they started. Price changes are also driven by what happens on the betting exchanges.

As I did for the previous research let me start by sharing the figures for all runners over this time frame to see what percentage shortened in price, lengthened in price (often known as drifting), or stayed the same when comparing their OS to their final Starting Price Odds (SP).

 

 

 

These percentage splits are very close to those I found for flat racing with far more horses lengthening / drifting in price than shortening in price. Once again, the smallest percentage figure occurred with horses staying the same price.

Market movement during this short period before the start of the race is a good indicator of a horse's chance of winning as the graph below shows when we examine the win strike rates of the three groups:

 

 

 

Horses that shorten in price have won more frequently, edging towards twice as often as those that drift. In terms of returns, to Industry SP horses that have lengthened in price (drifters) would have lost you a hefty 30p in the £, while those that have shortened in price would have lost you around 15p in the £. To BSP the gap is much reduced with an 8.6% loss for drifters and a 5.6% loss for ‘shorteners’.

Let me now share the yearly percentage of runners splits for the three groups in terms of comparing their OS odds to their SP odds:

 

 

As we might have hoped the splits have been similar year on year. Readers may notice that 2020 is slightly out of kilter, but my guess is that Covid was a key reason behind this. No spectators at racecourses for around eight months in 2020 meant we had an unusual situation come Opening Show with no oncourse bookmakers taking money. It is also the case that, since Covid and 2020, the starting price is framed more significantly around off-course liabilities than on-course, reflecting where the majority of betting action happens nowadays.

For the next part of this piece, I would like to focus on the percentage of horses that lengthened / drifted in price showing a course-by-course comparison. The courses are ordered highest percentage to lowest. As a reminder, the overall figure for all courses was 46.5%:

 

 

I have highlighted in red those courses that had the smallest percentage of drifters and what immediately stands out is that these tracks are universally considered to be top tracks. In fact, if we look at the list of courses that have held the most Graded races over the past five seasons we see the following:

 

 

These same seven courses showed the lowest percentages for drifters. I suspect there are two main reasons for this. Firstly, stronger markets exist at these courses – more money is wagered (off course, on the exchanges, and on course); and, secondly, there tends to be better overall knowledge of the horses that race at these tracks due to the average class level, making early markets more efficient / accurate.

Thinking about class of race, based on my second theory noted above, we might hope that if we look at the percentage of runner splits within each class, the higher classes of race would see a smaller gap between horses that shorten in price from OS to SP compared with those that lengthen/drift.

I have lumped Class 6 races in with Class 5 purely because there are very few Class 6 races in National Hunt racing. In addition, I have added an extra column which shows the percentage difference between horses that have shortened compared with those that have drifted. Here are my findings:

 

 

As hoped, the theory has held, with the highest class of race (Class 1) seeing by far the smallest gap between shorteners and drifters of 5.3%. As can be seen, once we get to Class 4, the gap extends to 16.7% for Class 4 races and 14.9% for Class 5/6 races. Hence, for those of us who may still take a bookmaker’s price between OS and the start of the race, the stats for Race Class and the previous course ones should help inform us more accurately about the chance of our selection drifting or shortening in the ten minutes or so before the race. For punters, having the overall stats gives us a good 'feel', but breaking things down into subcategories can offer more knowledge and understanding of how prices may move.

My focus now is to look at price movement from Opening Show to SP within different price bands. The figures are split by percentage of qualifying runners:

 

 

These price bands are based on huge sample sizes so we can be confident that these types of figures are likely to be replicated in the future. Possibly the most eye-catching percentages are those for bigger priced runners. Once we get to an Opening Show of 18/1 or more, over 50% of such runners have drifted in price. There also seems to be no difference to the overall norm when it comes to those priced up between 9/2 and 6/1. The percentages between shorteners and drifters are close to parity with a slight edge to shorteners. To see this more clearly let me graph the comparison:

 

 

The graph clearly shows this ‘close to parity’ situation with the 9/2 and 6/1 Opening Odds price band. Expanding this slightly, it also shows that the percentages are closest from 100/30 to 8/1 compared with everything else. We knew already that drifters occur more often than shorteners but seeing these price splits offers further appreciation of how likely a horse may be to shorten or drift. Looking back at the flat article I wrote we witnessed a similar pattern in terms of how the overall graph looks.

To conclude, understanding how a betting market may evolve from Opening Show to SP is an area that is rarely analysed. There are some parallel patterns with the flat findings I previously shared, as you might expect. In many ways this is a positive as it provides greater confidence that OS to SP prices will continue to move in similar ways in the next few years.

My next article will be a follow up to this one, and will look at some additional areas such as race type and trainers. Until then...

- DR

‘SR’ Ratings on the All-Weather

/in /by

There are numerous reasons why the only racecards I use are the Geegeez Gold ones, writes Dave Renham. There are several useful tabs on the racecard, three of which I always look at first: Pace, Instant Expert and Profiler. For flat and all-weather racing I will also look at the Draw tab.

Each of these tabs offers me useful and diverse information, all at simply the click of a button. In under two minutes I can decide about whether the race in question is one that merits more of my time. If it does, then I will delve into the Full Form tab to build up a bigger overall picture for myself. If I get to the stage where there looks to be a horse or horses that I may be interested in betting on, the next thing I will look at is the SR column in the main Racecard.

The number in that column is a ratings figure derived from Dr Peter May’s research. I have always had huge respect for Peter, and I will always consider his ratings when analysing a race. Having Peter’s ratings is another bonus when it comes to using the Geegeez Gold cards. And for today’s article it is Peter’s SR ratings that I am going to take a deep dive into.

Matt wrote an article in September 2023 looking at the performance of the ratings in National Hunt racing. In that piece he explained that Peter’s ratings are not strictly ‘Speed’ ratings. He wrote,

Peter's numbers are derived from a neural network: he's been doing artificial intelligence (AI) since long before it became fashionable. And they're much more than a measure of speed; they include a number of form considerations making them a sort of composite of, in Racing Post terms, RPR (Racing Post Rating) and TS (Topspeed) - both of which we also publish on geegeez.” Hence Peter’s ratings are unique.

My focus for this article is all-weather racing. I have looked at a five-year time frame from January 1st 2020 to December 31st 2024. When I refer to the ratings from now on, I will call them SR Ratings as that is how they appear on the geegeez racecards.

I have spoken to many people who have compiled ratings in the past, be they speed or ability ratings, and in every case the win rate was the key to judging the effectiveness of their ratings. The top-rated runner should have the highest win percentage, the second highest should win next most often, and so on, gradually reducing for the other runners. Obviously, it is hoped the top-rated runner is the best performer in terms of betting returns, too; however, it is important to point out that regardless of how good a set of ratings is, we cannot generally expect the top-rated runner to secure a blind profit over thousands of races. That's not the case with Racing Post Ratings, Timeform Ratings or any other public rating. Despite that, such figures are an excellent guide to which subset of horses can normally be considered contenders.

Let’s start with looking at the win percentages (strike rates) for different SR-rated runners. This covers all races on the all-weather over the five year period of study. The horizontal axis is labelled from 1 and represents the top-rated runner, 2 the second-top rated, and so on:

 

 

The win strike rate for top-rated runners is close to one win in five which is thoroughly decent, and the top three rated horses win almost half (48%) of races. The percentages correlate positively with the rated positions showing a sliding scale that we would hope for. If we look at the Each Way (win & placed) strike rates, we see a similar pattern:

 

 

The top-rated runner is comfortably clear once more, and the sliding scale is replicated showing positive correlation with the win only figures.

In terms of returns to Industry SP, the top-rated runner has performed the best although overall losses stand at 15 pence in the £. However, to Betfair SP losses stand at under 2p in the £. This is impressive considering there are around 13,000 top-rated runners in this sample.

Let me now split the races into handicaps versus non-handicaps and compare with win strike rates for the top-rated and the second rated runners:

 

 

As we can see, in non-handicaps the top-rated runner is well clear of the second rated, while in handicaps the gap is much smaller. This was to be expected, given the relatively competitive nature of handicaps compared with non-handicaps, but again it is good to see it in black and white - or should I say orange and blue!

I would like to now analyse the BSP returns of the top-rated horse in different race types. These have been split into 2yo non-handicaps, 2yo handicaps, 3yo non-handicaps, 3yo handicaps, all age non-handicaps, and all age handicaps. The graph below shows the Betfair SP return on investment percentages (BSP ROI%) for each race grouping:

 

 

Three of the six groupings (2yo non-handicaps, 2yo handicaps, 3yo handicaps) saw the top-rated secure a blind profit which is impressive stuff. All age non-handicaps showed the worst returns, still only losing 6p in the £.

Using the Query Tool on Geegeez I decided to compare the performance of AW favourites, split into those that were also top-rated on the SR Ratings versus those that were not top-rated. Here are the findings:

 

 

The Win PL (profit/loss) and ROI (return on investment) columns have been calculated to Industry SP, and we have a clear winner. In addition, the strike rate is more than six percentage points higher.

When calculating to BSP there is a similar difference between the two:

 

 

Thus, if we back favourites on the all-weather, having them top-rated on SR Ratings would have improved our bottom line. Yes, SR top-rated runners when favourite still made a loss to BSP, but it was limited to only 2p in the £ over five years. A pretty good starting point for further research.

We see a similar pattern when we look at horses second in the betting comparing their record when SR top-rated or not. Here are those splits:

 

 

Again, these are calculated to Industry SP but a clear difference, equating to around 8p in the £, can be seen. To BSP, SR top-rated horses that started second favourite secured a profit of around 4p in the £.

I would now like to look at top-rated runners in all age handicaps in more detail. The reason is that all age handicaps make up around 70% of UK all-weather races, a striking statistic. Also, from a personal perspective, these are my favourite races to bet in. I am hoping that getting a better feel for the top-rated runner has the potential to inform some of our future betting decisions.

Below is a table showing the most positive results from a BSP returns perspective in all age handicaps:

 

 

As a fan of sprint handicaps this makes very pleasing reading. The minimum distance has been a strong positive for top-rated runners in these all age handicaps. The lower weighted top-rated runners have also performed well. It should be noted that this is based on the card weight of the horse and does not consider jockey claims. A quick return is often seen as a positive and, although they tend to be overbet these days, that has not seemingly been an issue when they have been SR top-rated runners. Horses that have yet to win at the course have also snuck into profit possibly due to course winners being overbet meaning the non-winners have been slightly underbet.

I would like to finish by combining top-rated runners with Run Style/Pace. Of course, the run style figures are only known after the race is in progress but the figures follow a familiar pattern we have seen before:

 

The Win PL and the ROI can be considered to be ‘projected’ returns to Industry SP, because as we know we cannot predict 100% how the run style for each horse within each race will unfold. But if we can find a top-rated runner that is a strong candidate for leading early, then this would potentially be a decent betting opportunity. For the record, front running top-rated runners offer slightly better returns in handicaps compared to non-handicaps.

**

At the beginning of this article, I was praising the virtues of the Geegeez Gold racecards. At the end of that opening paragraph I mentioned that having Peter May’s ratings (SR) was a bonus; I hope after reading this article you will agree with me and feel better equipped to tackle the all-weather, particularly under certain highlighted circumstances, going forward.

- DR

When NH Trainers run two in the same race

/in /by

Back in July 2021 I shared some research connected with UK flat trainers when they saddled two runners in the same race (which you can read here), writes Dave Renham. In this article I will do likewise with UK National Hunt trainers. Clearly, there are occasions when trainers saddle three or more runners in a race but, to make the research and writing process easier, for this offering I will once more focus on exactly two runners saddled.

It is likely that in the past some punters have been lured by the prices on two runners from the same stable: if one is 3/1 and the other 14/1 the chances are the focus will be on the more fancied runner of the pair. I, for one, have been guilty of this before.

The data in this analysis has been taken from UK National Hunt races between January 1st 2016 and December 31st 2024. All profit and loss figures have been calculated to Betfair Starting Price less commission. For the shorter priced horse of the pair, I will call this the “first string”, the bigger priced runner will be known as the “second string”.

Overall trainer performance when running two in the same race

Let me first look at trainers who have had two or more runners in the same race on at least 100 occasions (hence at least 200 runners overall). There have been 28 trainers that qualify in the study period using that stipulation:

 

Below are the combined results of all runners for each trainer (i.e. both first and second string horses). The trainers are listed in alphabetical order:

 

 

Not surprisingly, just four of the 28 trainers show a profit when looking at both runners combined. It is unlikely that backing both runners for every trainer in every race is going to make a profit long term as the overall stats clearly show. Indeed, the four in profit owe that accolade to some huge prices going in.

Let us see what happens when we break the data down and compare trainer win strike rates between first and second string runners. The plan is not to compare the raw win percentages with each other, but to add up the winners for each of the two market ranks and work out what percentage of all the winners came from the trainer’s first string (shorter priced runners) and what percentage came from the second string (longer priced runners).

In other words, if we use Donald McCain as an example, he has had 60 winners when running two horses in the same race, of which 45 were his first string runners (75%); 15 winners came from his second string runners (25%).

To show this comparison for each trainer I have split their data into four separate graphs, so as not to overcrowd the pictorial evidence. The orange bar represents first string runners, the blue bar is for second string.

 

 

As the graphs show, the stats vary greatly from trainer to trainer. For example, Nigel Twiston-Davies has two percentages that are close together (57.1% and 42.9%) having done particularly well with second strings, whereas Phil Kirby’s figures are poles apart (95.8% and 4.2%). Overall, when combining all 28 trainers, 75.7% of the winners have come from their first string entries, 24.3% from their second string. These figures are almost a carbon copy of those calculated in the flat trainer article back in 2021.

 

Trainer performance with first string runners

Eight trainers have made a profit with their first string runners and their figures, ordered by BSP profit, are shown in the table below:

 

 

Caution is advised regarding the profit figure for Christian Williams as he had BSP winners equating to 165/1 and 179/1, and yes, they were his first string runners despite the high prices! Chris Gordon in contrast has not had any big-priced winners and overall, his record with first string runners is excellent. If you restrict Gordon’s first string runners to those priced in single figures (at BSP) his record reads a highly impressive 29 wins from 82 (SR 35.4%) for a profit of £33.90 (ROI +41.3%).

Paul Nicholls has had over 400 first choice runners in this double-handed context, and his biggest priced first string winner was BSP 13.0 (12/1). Hence his bottom line has not been skewed by numerous scorers at very big odds. If we look at all his first string runners priced BSP 13.0 or less he has secured a healthy profit of £90.23 (ROI +27.2%) from 332 qualifiers. If we look at the Nicholls profit year on year with this subset of runners we see the following:

 

 

2021 was the year that produced over half of the profit but even taking that out of the equation the performance and consistency has been excellent. Over the nine years of study, seven have shown a profit.

Phil Kirby’s figures are also not badly skewed by horses winning at big prices. Sticking to a price cap of BSP 13.0 or shorter, Kirby has secured 20 winners from 68 qualifiers (SR 29.4%) for a profit of £24.02 (ROI +35.3%).

Nicky Henderson did not secure an overall profit with his first-string runners but the jockey booking seems to have made a difference. When Nico de Boinville has been riding the Henderson first string, the results read 49 wins from 224 (SR 21.9%) for a profit of £21.67 (ROI +9.7%). When any other jockey has been on board the Henderson figures read 46 from 241 (SR 19.1%) for a loss of £74.80 (ROI -31%).

Dan Skelton is a trainer who has performed extremely well over the past few seasons across the entire National Hunt sphere, but when we focus on his first string runners (of two) in chases his stats make very poor reading. From 95 qualifiers only 11 won (SR 11.6%) for hefty losses of £46.44 (ROI -48.9%).

Trainer performance with second string runners

Five trainers have produced a BSP profit with their second-string runners. Clearly big prices have made the difference here with all strike rates under 8%:

 

 

As profits go these should largely be taken with a pinch of salt, but I wanted to share them all the same.

It may be more useful to share a list of trainers with a very poor record with their second string runners, so below are those trainers with the worst returns across the nine year review period:

 

 

Based on these figures it seems sensible to all but rule out second string runners from trainers in the above table.

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

One trainer whose data has not been shared as yet is Irish maestro Willie Mullins, simply due to him not quite saddling enough UK NH runners to make the cut. For the record his figures for both first and second strings are good with blind profits to BSP for both. His first string runners have secured returns of 26p in the £, his second string runners 28p in the £.

Harry Fry is another trainer who had less than 200 runners of this type overall, but his first string made a blind profit. Indeed, when focusing on these first string runners using the earlier price stipulation of BSP 13.0 or less, Fry has secured 14 wins from 48 (SR 29.2%) for a profit of £26.31 (ROI +54.8%).

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

Trainer statistics are used by many punters when contemplating a bet. These stats come in different forms such as course stats, recent form stats (e.g. last 14 days), favourite stats, horses on debut, etc. The ones I have shared in this article generally fly under the radar but, hopefully, you have found them useful for either pinpointing possible value bets or, just as importantly, helping to avoid poor value ones. Unsurprisingly, given the overall stats uncovered in this article, the evidence points firmly towards focusing most attention on the shorter priced first string runners.

- DR

The Maths of Multiples, Part 2

/in /by

In my previous article, the discussion moved to each-way doubles and how the makeup of certain races / markets has the potential to give punters an edge over bookmakers, certainly in terms of the place part of such a bet, writes Dave Renham. You can read that article here. In this follow up, we are going to dive deeper into the world of the ‘each-way double’.

For these bets to be profitable in the long run, we ideally need to have achieved a value price on both of the two selections, in terms of the win part as well as the place part, for every bet that has been struck. In other words, the actual chance for both parts of the bet for both selections are higher than the percentage chances on offer from the bookmaker. Technically we could also make a long-term profit if one of the two parts of the bet always offers enough value to compensate for the part that does not. It goes without saying that achieving any sort of edge is far from easy.

To try and illustrate this in numbers let us imagine an each-way double where we have place terms of one quarter the odds, and the price on both selections is 5.0 (4/1). The true percentage odds for a horse priced 5.0 to win is 20%; the true percentage chance for a place with quarter the odds stands at 50%. (N.B. a ‘win’ constitutes a ‘place’, so effectively ‘place’ means ‘win or place’). Therefore, if both horses are priced over 5.0 to win, we have a value bet.

To help crunch the numbers, I have created an excel spreadsheet to simulate a series of each-way doubles with a specific price / percentage chance for each selection. The number of simulated each-way selections for each series of bets has been set to 1000. This is a huge number of races but due to each-way doubles rarely achieving two wins, it makes sense to use such a large number. Ultimately it is easy to tweak the number of bets/races for each simulated series, so I could adjust the number of races up or down. Within each simulation I can adjust the win/place percentage chance of these ‘runners’ (above and below the ‘true’ percentage chance) to examine the long-term outcome from a profit/loss/returns perspective.

So, to kick off I'll return to the example of the two 5.0 priced runners given in the third paragraph, where we have place terms of one quarter the odds. If we assume each 5.0 price is always the ‘true’ price, then over 1000 bets we would break even. The maths look like this based on a £1 each-way stake (£2 in total) on these 1000 each-way doubles:

Races with two wins – 40
Races with ‘place’ wins (e.g. Win/Place or Place/Win or Place/Place) – 210
Races where the bet was a loser (e.g. at least one horse unplaced) - 750

Thus...

The 40 successful win bets would have paid £960 profit and £120 profit on the place part of the bet;
The 210 winning place bets would have paid £630 profit for the place part but would have lost the £210 placed on the win part of the bet, leaving a profit of £420.
The 750 losing bets would have seen a loss of both the win stake and the place stakes equating to £1500.

Adding the profits of £960, £120 and £420 we end up in credit to the tune of £1500, but subtracting the losing bet total of £1500 we arrive at that break-even situation as mentioned above.

This 5.0 / 5.0 example shows what happens when the horses win and place as often as they theoretically should do based on their odds / percentage chance. In this case we know already that a true 5.0 shot should win 20% of their races and win or be placed in 50% of them. So, what happens when these percentage chances differ from the ‘true’ percentage chances? This is where my spreadsheet comes in to save time.

The first graph will look at the effect that different win and placed percentages have on the long-term Return on Investment figure (ROI%). Remember we will be theoretically placing 1000 each-way doubles on two horses priced 5.0 with quarter the odds a place. In order to help explain the graph, the table below shows how I have adjusted the win and place percentages:

 

 

 

 

There is a neat symmetry to these results. As is shown, if we could increase the average win chance by 2% (from 20% to 22%) and the placed percentage also by 2 (from 50% to 52%) the long-term return would be a pleasing 14% or 14p in the £.

Let’s look at another example. This time we will assume both horses are priced 6.0 (5/1) but the place terms are 1/5 of the odds. I have tweaked/changed the percentages in exactly the same way as I did in the first example. For the record the true win percentage chance here is 16.7% (to 1 decimal place), with the place chance being 50%. Here is what I found:

 

 

We get a similar pattern as one would expect although not quite the exact symmetry of the previous example. It should be noted at this juncture that the 1000 bet simulation using this particular price point could show that a horse has won 39.89 times in the 1000 races! Clearly this is not possible, so I have simply rounded the ‘expected’ win or placed results to the nearest whole number. Therefore, one could argue that the 7.8% ROI for let’s say the W17.7 P51 group is not 100% accurate, but it is as near as doesn't matter in the context of these simulations.

Time now to look at two horses with different prices; I am going to consider horses priced 3.0 (2/1) and 5.0 (4/1), using one quarter the odds a place. This is more difficult to show on one graph because we now have effectively two win percentages and two place percentages being used for each ROI% calculation. Hence, I am going to share two separate graphs.

In the first of the two graphs the ROI%s shown are based solely on the win percentages for each horse changing compared to their true win percentage chances. In this case I have assumed that the place percentage chance has remained the same for both horses for this simulation. The bottom of the graph has a key which I will now explain:

TW stands for the true win percentage chance for each horse based on their prices of 3.0 and 5.0 (which 33.3% and 20%)

TW+1 stands for the true percentage win chance +1% (34.3% and 21%)

TW+2 stands for the true percentage win chance +2% (35.3% and 22%)

TW+3 stands for the true percentage win chance +3% (36.3% and 23%)

TW-1 stands for the true percentage win chance -1% (32.3% and 19%)

TW-2 stands for the true percentage win chance -2% (31.3% and 18%)

TW-3 stands for the true percentage win chance -3% (30.3% and 17%)

 

To be clear, the graph below shows the effect on the ROI% of only theoretical changes in the long-term win percentages. All place calculations are based on their true percentage place chances which for the 3.0 priced horse is 66.7% (to 1 decimal place) and for the 5.0 priced horse it is 25%.

 

 

Assuming we can improve our percentage chance of each horse winning by 3% compared to their true chance we would make close to 13p in the £ over the long term. Conversely, if the percentages for both horses dropped by 3% we would be losing just over 11p in the £.

The second graph will show theoretical changes in the place percentage while keeping the win percentages at their true figures. I will again use +1, +2 idea but this time I will use TP meaning true place percentage:

 

 

As we can see a change of 1%, 2% or 3% in the placed percentages has less influence on the ROI%. However, if we can gain a place edge while keeping parity in terms of the win percentage then we will make money over the longer term. Clearly if we can gain both a win edge and place edge your profits should mount up nicely.

It is time to look at some ‘real life’ data now, based on actual horse racing results and prices going back to 2010. I looked at all 12-runner handicaps over this time frame which covered over 90,000 runners. I looked at the prices of different runners and extrapolated their actual long-term win and placed percentages. I then used these figures to work out the potential returns on a series of 1000 each-way doubles with said percentage chances. As I was simulating 12-runner handicaps for each of the 1000 races, the place terms were set at one quarter the odds. Here is what I found:

 

 

This does not make for pleasant reading. The reason behind such poor figures is, of course, the bookmaker edge I discussed in the first article. The average prices of the runners do not reflect their true chance of winning, or indeed placing.

Readers may note that the 5.0 / 5.0 figures see a loss of 16.6%. If we go back to the first graph in this article which examined a 5.0 price / 5.0 price simulation, we can see that when the win% was set at 18% and the place at 48%, this lost 14%. Given the real-life figures gave us an ROI% just below that at 16.6% it is no surprise to know that the actual win and placed percentages based on the 2010-2024 average figures were just below these at 17.97% for the win and 46.67% for the place.

Understanding how probability works is important when it comes to betting singles, but I would argue it is even more important when it comes to combining two or more horses in a bet. Probability can be a complex subject at a higher level but, fortunately, for betting purposes it is relatively straightforward. Just remember, for those of us betting doubles, trebles, fourfolds, and so on, we need to multiply the percentage chances together to give the overall percentage chance.

*

I hope this has been an enjoyable and informative piece, and that it has tied in neatly with the previous one. Each-way doubles are bets that are worth considering given the right conditions of price to chance and race shape. I am in two minds about whether to dig a bit deeper with the potential to research and write a third piece. I will play around with some ideas in the next few weeks so watch this space!

*

Before I go, if anyone is interested in a more complex probability challenge please read on.

I would like to share a famous problem that I used to pose to my older students when I taught in schools. It is a version of what is known as the ‘Birthday Paradox’.

Imagine 30 children in a room all aged 12. What is the probability that at least two of them will share the same birthday? 

Now for those who have not heard this paradox before, then I urge you to take an educated guess at the chance of this occurring before reading on.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

When I posed this question to my classes over the years, their thinking generally went along the lines that there are 30 children, there are 365 days in a year and hence they divided 30 into 365. Having said that, most of them ‘rounded’ 365 to 300 to make the calculation easier, where 30 divided by 300 gives an answer of 10%. So, I would say 95% of all answers I received were in the ballpark of 10%. However, 10% is way off.

The actual answer is 69.68%.

Be honest now – how many saw that coming?

I am sure there will be a high proportion of readers that will be incredulous that this is the answer. However, if you Google it, you will see that the information above is accurate, and how the answer is calculated.

Until next time...

- DR

The Maths of Multiples, Part 1

/in /by

I am sure even the most disciplined of punters will have had a more ‘exotic’ bet at least once in their life, be it an exacta, tricast, placepot, double/treble, or some type of accumulator bet involving four or more selections, writes Dave Renham.

The lure of a bigger payout has a big appeal to many punters; I certainly include myself in that category in the past. I have been very lucky to have what I consider to be one monster betting payout in my life which was thanks to a tricast / CSF combo back in 2004. At the time this one bet paid the equivalent of around ten months’ worth of my take home pay from my teaching job. I wouldn’t mind that happening again now, I have to say!

The problem of course with any exotic bet is that the margin in favour of the bookmaker is usually bigger than it is if solely betting win singles. The more selections you have in an accumulator the bigger the bookmaker’s edge generally is. I am not going to dive deeply into the maths here but to give you a basic understanding of what is going on let me look at a hypothetical fourfold win only accumulator that has been placed with a bookmaker. I am going to assume that the four selections come from races with ten runners in each race and the decimal odds obtained for each horse are:

4.0, 6.0, 3.0, 7.0

In this scenario, the unlikely event of all four winning would net a profit of £503 for a £1 stake (£504 total return, including stake).

The problem is that the true odds of each of the four horses should be bigger. This is due to the inbuilt bookmaker overround/edge. On average the bookmaker’s edge in a 10-runner race will be around 20% (using a rough guide of 2% per horse). Hence when you add up the percentage chance of all the runners this will equal around 120%, not 100% which would, of course, give punters a fair playing field due to the odds be true/correct.

To find odds for these four horses much closer to their true odds we can look on the Betfair Exchange as their betting book for each horse race is always closer to 100%. This means the odds are as near to the true odds as we can get. Of course, we cannot place a fourfold on the Exchange, but I can at least borrow their ‘true’ prices to see what the winning return on this wager should pay, rather than the payout we saw earlier. Here are prices for our four horses that will be nearer to their true odds – the type of odds you would find on the Betfair machine:

4.6, 7.2, 3.25, 8.6

As can be seen each corresponding price is bigger, not by that much, but enough to make a huge difference overall. In this case, the winning profit on the fourfold would stand at a much healthier £924.70 for your £1 stake – over £420 more than would have been returned using the odds available from the bookmaker.

To make money on betting we need to get a value price. For example, if we can get odds of 2.2 on the toss of a fair coin, which should be priced at 2.0 we have value. Hence one could argue that multiple bets or accumulators can offer the punter value as long as all the selections are value prices. One immediate downside of course is that even if we are effectively getting value on each horse, we still need all of them to win!

Staying with the tossing the coin example, we can apply this to horse racing. Let’s assume that we have found four horses priced 2.2 that we believe have true odds of 2.0. If we combine them in a fourfold accumulator, the chances of all four winning equals 1 in 16. This is based on probability theory where we multiply the individual chance of each event together with each other – in this example each horse has a 50% or 1 in 2 chance of winning their respective race so we calculate thus ½ x ½ x ½ x ½ = 1/16.

Hence, we would be expected to win this fourfold bet one time in every 16 attempts. Of course it is not going to pan out perfectly like that in real life – we will not have 15 losing bets followed by a win, then another 15 losers followed by a win and so on. However, over the long term we will win with this type of bet on average around once in every 16 races (if we are correct about our true odds estimate).

But what is the edge on this bet?

Let us imagine we place £1 on each fourfold using the probability theory scenario of one win in 16. Over the 16 bets we would lose £15 on the 15 losing bets but win £22.43 on the one winning bet plus our stake back. This gives us a profit of £7.43 from £16 staked which equates to a Return on Investment (ROI%) of 46.4%.

As I have mentioned this calculation has been based on probability theory being played out perfectly in real life over 16 fourfold bets involving 64 horses priced at 2.0 with true odds of 2.2.

Let’s now compare the winning fourfold return with 64 individual win singles on these same horses using £1 stakes. With a 50% chance of winning this means we win 32 times and lose 32 times. The 32 losses lose us £32. Each win nets us a profit of £1.20 so 32 x £1.20 equals £38.40 giving us an overall profit of £6.40.

Now the eagle-eyed mathematicians will have noted that in the second example the total outlay of the bets comes to £64 and in the fourfold example it came to £16. We were correct, so comparing simply the two profit figures here is not a fair test. We need to calculate the ROI% as before by dividing the profit of £6.40 by the total stake of £64. This gives us an ROI of 10% - a good deal lower than the fourfold return. Therefore, by doing that comparison, we can see that fourfolds where we have value on each horse, potentially gives us extra value in the long term when compared to win singles.

However, this is all well and good, but a massive downside to the multi approach is finding four horses that offer value on the same day. For some of us it hard enough to find one each day, let alone four. In theory, four value selections combined in fourfolds offer us the chance to really enhance our long-term returns, but in practice it is going to be nigh on impossible to achieve it.

Even if we did find four value selections what are the chances these value selections will all be available with the same bookmaker? Not only that, but the example I gave looked at four very short-priced runners giving us returns on average once in 16 races.

If we instead consider say four horses that all had a bookmaker price of 4.0 (3/1) where their true odds were all say 4.3 (3.3/1), based on probability theory this bet is going to be landed just once in every 256 bets (because ¼ x ¼ x ¼ x ¼ = 1/256).

So, if we assume we are able to find four 4.0 priced horses with true odds of 4.3 on the same day with the same bookie, let’s say once every week, and we place them in a win fourfold accumulator, on average we will have one successful bet every 4.92 years! Perhaps this is starting to help explain why bookmakers push their multiple and accumulator bets so much!

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

There is one type of multiple that some people believe can offer us some value though and that is an each-way double. An each-way double is when we place a bet on two horses to win and/or place. If both horses win, the win part is worked out in the same way as a win double. If both horses place, or one horse wins and the other one places, we will win the place part of our each-way double. And, naturally, if one or both horses fail to at least place the bet is a losing one.

Let’s look at example with prices. We’ll assume both horses are priced at 5.0 (4/1) and the place odds are ¼ of the win odds. Here are the possible outcomes based on a £1 each-way double (£2 staked):

 

 

Advocates of this bet will say that one advantage of an each-way double compared with a straight win double is that we can get a return even if both horses fail to win, as long as they get placed. They will also say, quite rightly, that compared to the fourfold accumulators looked at earlier we only need two horses to perform well, not four. Hence the bookmaker edge / margin is less pronounced.

Personally, I do play each-way doubles from time to time. When running my tipping service back in the early 2000s I put up the odd each-way double as actual main bets/selections, and I nailed an each-way double that returned a profit of £128 for an outlay of £2. So, with the right selections in the right race, I view this bet as having potential to make money long term. However, as with anything in betting, we need lots of patience to find the right opportunities.

The ideal type of race we are looking for is when we have a race with a very short-priced favourite, with the second favourite clear in the betting of the remainder. Such a race could look like this – let us assume it is a non-handicap:

 

 

We could find that a maiden or a novice chase/hurdle race could be priced up in this way. In this example the second favourite is ideal as one of our each-way double selections, because there will be value in the place part of the bet. The chance of the place based on the bookmaker price is even money (2.0) thanks to the place paying 1/5 of the odds, but in reality, the true chance of placing is much shorter, probably somewhere around the 1.80 mark.

The maths behind proving this is complicated, so I won’t bore you with that, but after the next race I look at I hope you are able to trust me on it. Therefore, allow me to now give a real-life example from a race in October 2024 with a similar market dynamic, because you will be able to see the place value more easily:

 

The ‘shape’ of the market for this race is not quite as good as my hypothetical example purely because the second favourite is only four points clear of the third favourite in the betting. However, the top two in the betting have the same prices (30/100 and 5/1) as in the imaginary race, and if we look at the Betfair place odds we see the following:

 

 

Now I noted earlier that Betfair odds on the win market are as close to true odds as we can find. It is a similar story for the place market, especially for the top two in the betting. Hence in the Sedgefield race we can see that the ‘true’ place price for Path Of Stars was 1.72. Remember the place part of this bet, if successful, would pay 2.0 at the bookies. This gives us the edge as far as the place part of the bet is concerned because the true chance of Path Of Stars placing in percentage terms was 58.1%, a full 8.1% higher than the bookmaker percentage chance of placing which was 50%.

Hopefully that makes sense, and you can see that there can be a place edge to be found given the right race shape / market make-up.

Unfortunately, before one gets too over excited, there is an issue with a possible each-way double even if you are able to find two similar place edges on the same day with the same bookie, which is that we have not considered the bookmaker win odds versus their true odds.

Ideally, we need to find horses that not only have this place edge, but whose exchange price is as close to the bookmaker price as possible. As we know, this does not happen often, but in this real-life example Path Of Stars was only marginally above his bookmaker price of 6.0 on Betfair as the BSP was 6.16. To give you some maths here, the chance of a true 6.0 priced runner winning is 16.7%, a true 6.16 priced runner has a 16.2% chance of winning.

For the record Path Of Stars did not finish in the first two, but that is not the point. The point is that in terms of the place part of the bet, the probability/maths was in our favour and he was very much a value play.

Five-runner races offer the best value from a place perspective when two horses count for places, hence why I chose that field size to try and illustrate my point. Likewise, eight-runner races offer the best value from a place perspective in terms of three placed horses where the bookmakers pay one fifth of the odds. These races also lend themselves to getting that place edge we have seen already. Below is an eight-runner race from 10th October 2024 which was actually a handicap. The race was at Exeter:

 

 

Again, we have a short-priced favourite, and the second favourite War Lord is again priced at 5/1. With 1/5 the odds a place, the second favourite once more has a 2.0 chance of placing according to the bookmaker odds. However, when we look at the Betfair Placed Odds we see that War Lord’s ‘true’ odds are 1.76 not 2.0.

 

 

This type of race offers the same place edge as before. Unfortunately, in this example War Lord’s win price on Betfair was significantly higher at 8.55. On the upside he finished third and did land the place.

At this juncture I should mention that using five- and eight-runner races for these bets has some inherent danger. One non-runner in either would scupper plans instantly as the place terms will be altered essentially turning the bet on its head. The value place bet would suddenly become a very bad value bet. Hence, it may be better to think about six-runner or nine-runner races as an option just in case, even though these are slightly poorer value in place terms. This is assuming of course you can still gain the same type of edge within the place part of the bet.

That’s all for this article. However, my plan is to go into more detail about each-way doubles in a follow up piece. I have spent several hours creating a spreadsheet that can simulate thousands of races where theoretical each-way doubles with specific prices can be placed, and the long-term returns can be calculated based on ‘true’ win and placed percentages.

Why an article solely looking at each-way doubles? Well, as I said, bookmakers hate these types of bet: they know that there can be a place ‘flaw’ in the type of races I have discussed. Bookmakers have been known to close accounts for people they consider to be successful “each-way double thieves”. [If you value your accounts, you’ll have more success placing these bets on the high street!]

Right, I’m off to play with my spreadsheet and I looking forward to sharing some findings with you next time.

-      DR

Irish Trainers in UK National Hunt Racing

/in /by

As we start a New Year, I want to examine the performance of Irish trainers when they send runners to the UK, writes Dave Renham. The focus of what follows is National Hunt racing, and I have taken data going back ten years, to 2015. Profits/losses are calculated to both Industry SP and Betfair SP.

Now, I am sure virtually everyone reading this will be aware of the excellent record of Irish trainers versus the British trainers at the Cheltenham Festival in recent years. So let's begin by reviewing this. Subsequently, I will delve deeply into the broader picture to see if there are any angles that, as punters, we may be able to take advantage of.

Cheltenham Festival

This four-day feast of racing will be upon us sooner than we think – March may be two months away, but the time soon flies by. Below is an overall table directly comparing the Irish trainer record at the Cheltenham Festival with their British counterparts.

 

 

It's hardly breaking news, but the Irish have been so dominant in this time frame; they have a much higher strike rate - well over double - and in terms of returns they have trounced the British in at both SP and BSP. It should be noted that Irish trainers outperformed British ones in the ten years prior to that (2005 to 2014), too, but the gap was closer, certainly in terms of win percentage (Irish won 7.9% of races compared to 4.6% for the British).

 

It's time now to start a deeper dive into the overall Irish performance. To begin with here are the stats for all Irish runners in the UK since 2015:

 

 

As the table indicates, there have been blind losses to SP of around 17 pence in the £, but a small 4p return to BSP. Taking the Cheltenham Festival out of the equation produces a small loss to BSP.

Time to drill down into the Irish / UK performance across different parameters...

 

Performance by Year

From this starting point I am going to look at some yearly data. For this I have used a method based on a Nick Mordin idea that I've previously used in recent draw bias articles; this approach helps to avoid individual year fluctuations which can make possible performance changes harder to pick up. I am using rolling four-year timeframes to help spot any patterns. Here are the four-yearly data in terms of returns to BSP.

 

 

The graph shows each four-yearly time frame has produced a profit to BSP which is clearly noteworthy. However, the last couple of years (2023 and 2024) have been losers, hence the recent drop in the 2021-2024 figures. It looks as though the market has now fully 'cottoned on' to current Irish dominance.

Here are the A/E indices using the same principle:

 

The highest A/E index of 0.95 was seen in the period from 2018 to 2021 which coincides with the best period in terms of Betfair SP returns. Also, the recent BSP drop off is mirrored here.

Taking this performance as a whole, the stats are impressive. Irish raiders have consistently made punters money over the past ten years if betting on the exchanges. Of course, there are plenty of big prices that help to inflate these results but, even so, the results are highly noteworthy.

 

Performance by Course

We have seen some course data already in terms of Cheltenham, and its Festival in March. Below are the overall Cheltenham course figures along with any other course that has seen 100 or more Irish runners during this ten-year time frame.

 

 

All of the Cheltenham BSP profit was procured at the Festival. A very small loss has occurred when combining all other Cheltenham meetings together.

In terms of the other courses Aintree is one to mention: runners at the Liverpool track have done extremely well considering the BSP profit is not badly skewed by big priced winners. Indeed, focusing on Irish runners at Aintree priced at 8/1 or less (industry odds), they would have produced a profit to both SP and BSP. Specifically, 57 of them won from 246 qualifiers (SR 23.2%) for an SP profit of £21.86 (ROI +8.9%); to BSP profits were £53.19 (ROI +21.7%). As you would expect a big proportion of these runners ran at the Grand National meeting in April.

Of the lower profile courses, Perth’s positive BSP figures are entirely down to one 200/1+ BSP winner, while Cartmel’s figures are not as bad as you may initially think. When concentrating on horses priced 8/1 or less at SP, Cartmel runners have also seen a small profit to BSP to the tune of £10.05 (ROI +5.2%). The outsiders at Cartmel have been the ones to avoid with 0 wins from 75 for horses priced 14/1 or bigger.

 

Performance by Race type

I would like to compare chases, hurdle races and bumpers (NH Flat) next. Here are the splits:

 

 

 

Hurdle races have produced a healthy profit to BSP, although as one would expect this has included a few big odds successes. There have been five wins at 100/1+ BSP to be precise and all hurdlers priced in three figures have combined to produce around 75% of the hurdling profit. Having said all that, six of the ten years has seen a blind hurdling profit to BSP with two of the four losing years showing very small losses. Focusing on shorter priced runners of 12/1 or shorter would have seen a break-even scenario. Hence, it is fair to say Irish hurdlers have performed well as an overall group. Before moving away from this section, both non-handicaps and handicaps have offered positive hurdling returns. Non-handicappers have returned 16p in the £, handicappers 9p.

 

Performance by Industry SP

A look at the results in terms of SP prices now.

 

 

There have been only small losses for shorter priced runners (5/2 or shorter). One can surmise that with a little bit of additional form study one could probably have narrowed down this group of runners in terms of which ones to back, with the potential to edge into profit as a result.

At the other end of the spectrum, horses priced 28/1 or bigger would have secured a very big profit if backing them all to Betfair SP. This will come as no surprise based on the information shared to date in this article about some big prices having gone in. While I am sure many of you are writing off the idea of backing such big-priced runners due to the fact that for such a method to work you probably need let’s say those monster 100/1+ winners hitting the mark more than they statistically should; or at least the prices of most of the winners offering value. However, the point is that one or both of the above has happened.

If we compare the results of horses priced 28/1+ in terms of British runners versus Irish runners, we see that British horses have won less than 1% of the time (0.97%) and produced losses of 56p in the £ to SP, and losses of 20p in the £ to BSP. Irish-trained runners priced 28/1+, as the figures in the table show, have won over 1.7 times more often than their British counterparts and the returns have been better by 39p and 63p in the £ respectively.

Of course, it takes a brave person with a large betting bank playing to small stakes to back very big odds runners regularly. Huge losing runs undermine confidence and if the tank is not set up appropriately, it could easily run dry. However, I found that this has not been a one-off after checking the record of Irish runners priced 28/1 or bigger from an earlier time frame (2008 to 2014). I haven’t gone back further in time because 2008 was the first full year that the Betfair Starting Price was used. Overall, during these seven years the bigger priced Irish raiders won 1.51% of the time (17 wins from 1127) for a profit to BSP of £725.31 (ROI +64.4%). Excellent overall returns once again – hence I am wondering whether anyone might be tempted to back such runners in the future. I, for one, will be keeping tabs on it.

 

Performance by Race Class

I want now to assess the class of race and whether it makes any difference either positively or negatively with regards to Irish performance in UK NH racing. Let me share the Betfair SP Return on Investment percentages (ROI%):

 

 

The chart has the highest classes of race on the left, starting with Class 1 races, moving through to the lowest class of race on the right, namely Class 6. It seems the better the class of race the more profitable for backers of Irish runners. Put simply, the highest three classes have produced profits, the lowest three losses. The BSP results for the two lowest Classes (5 and 6) have produced significant losses and it looks best to avoid these races.

If we look into Class 1 races in more depth, we see that Irish runners in all three types of Graded race (1, 2 and 3) have made a profit.

 

 

Don’t be put off by the low Grade 3 win strike rate as these contests, all handicaps, have averaged 20 runners per race over the past ten years. The class / graded data suggests to me that the Irish target the better races with higher prize money. That makes sense given the travelling costs and so on.

Before moving on I want to compare these Graded results to the record of British-trained runners during this period. Firstly, let me compare the strike rates, both win and each way:

 

 

Irish runners are ahead in all six comparisons and significantly so in Grade 1 and 2 contests. Now let me compare their A/E indices:

 

Again, the Irish runners have been completely dominant over their British counterparts offering better value across the board.

 

Performance by trainer

Trainer data is always popular so I will share the results for all Irish trainers who have sent 100+ runners to contest UK National Hunt races during this time frame, as long as they had at least one runner in 2024. The table is ordered by win strike rate.

 

 

The big guns of Willie Mullins and Gordon Elliott have sent a significant number of runners across the pond with good success. However, making a profit from either is not so easy due to their reputations; rheir runners do not go unbacked very often.

A few trainers in the list have shown a profit to BSP, but Gavin Cromwell and John McConnell’s results are the most impressive as they have not had a huge BSP winner to skew their results. Here are some additional stats for these two starting with Cromwell:

1. Cromwell has sent 36 runners to the Cheltenham Festival during the study period, of which six won (SR 16.7%) for a profit to SP of £20.63 (ROI +57.3%). This increases if backing to BSP to the tune of £36.20 (ROI +100.5%)

2. Sticking with Cheltenham, Cromwell's record at all other meetings at the course stands at 10 wins from 45 (SR 22.2%). Profits to SP have been £7.60 (ROI +16.9%), to BSP £11.36 (ROI +25.2%)

3. LTO winners from the stable have fared exceptionally well thanks to a 25% strike rate (16 wins from 64). Returns to SP were nearly 66p in the £, to BSP this increases to over 90p

4. Horses that started in the top two of the betting won 33 times from 105 runners (SR 31.4%) for a profit to SP of £8.74 (ROI +8.3%); to BSP £15.34 (ROI +14.6%)

 

Now onto McConnell:

1. Horses that finished in the first three LTO have been worth following thanks to 50 wins from 167 runners (SR 29.9%) for an SP profit of £23.22 (ROI +13.9%). To BSP this improves to £46.15 (ROI +27.6%)

2. McConnell's male runners have won almost twice as often as his female runners (26.6% versus 13.7%)

3. Horses that started favourite made a small SP profit of £8.16 (ROI +10.2%) thanks to a strike rate of 52.5% (42 wins from 80). Returns to BSP have edged up to just over 14p in the £

4. Hexham has been a good course for McConnell with 11 wins from 22 (SR 50%). He is only one win from 24 at the Cheltenham Festival, but at all other Cheltenham meetings combined he has saddled 10 winners from 44 (SR 22.7%) for an SP profit to £26.88 (ROI +61.1%); to BSP +£43.06 (ROI +97.9%)

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

I hope this article has offered up some potential betting angles on Irish runners. It is widely known how well Irish runners perform at the Cheltenham Festival, but they also have competed extremely well at Aintree. In fact, Irish-trained horses' performance at Aintree is arguably more impressive than it has been at Cheltenham.

Bigger priced runners sent from Ireland to UK should not be totally written off as far more have won than statistically they should. Graded events have seen the Irish enjoy a clear advantage over British-trained runners, while the lower classes of 5 and 6 are generally races to avoid from an Irish perspective. There are two trainers that are worth keeping a particular eye on, namely John McConnell and Gavin Cromwell.

We have all heard the saying ‘the luck of the Irish’ but I think in UK NH racing terms there is a good bit more to it than that.

- DR

Starting 2025 on the Front Foot

/in /by

As we approach the end of another year, which for me seems to have gone even quicker than previous years, many of us will be examining our betting ledger and working out how we can improve in the next twelve months, writes Dave Renham. We need to understand what has worked, and what hasn’t, and tweak accordingly.

As January 1st, 2025 looms, I am sure there will be an optimistic feel across the punting community, as there will be amongst much of the training ranks, too. In this article I want to see if I can find any key trainer patterns that have occurred in the first two weeks of the year going back to 2017. To assist, I have carefully harvested trainer data from Jan 1st to Jan 14th, for the past eight years. Who starts the year quickly? Who has a Christmas hangover? I wasn’t sure if I would find anything useful but if one doesn’t dig, one doesn’t find out!

Profits/losses have been calculated to Betfair Starting Price (BSP) less 5% commission.

Overall Trainer Angles

Let me first look at the trainers with the 20 best strike rates (to qualify – 60 runners minimum):

 

 

Positive Trainer Angles

It was a surprise to see Sue Smith top the list when you consider her overall 2017-2024 strike rate stands at 11.2%. She averages only 8 to 9 runners per year in these first two weeks but nevertheless in five of the eight seasons her strike rate has hit 30%+, and two of the other three were over 20%. 2024 was a poor year by her standards with just one winner from 13, but she hit the post with a BSP 12.48 shot who finished 2nd and she had a close-up 3rd at huge odds of 73.80.

These findings encouraged me to look at Sue Smith’s record by month going back to 2017. Below is a graph plotting strike rates, both win and each way, by month. I have grouped May to September together as each month within this bracket had modest to small sample sizes, as well as basically being the ‘off’/summer season.

 

 

From my perspective this graph illustrates three things – firstly, how clearly the whole of January (not just the opening two weeks) stands head and shoulders above the rest. Secondly, that the stable takes time to come to hand at the start of each season but by December there is improvement, and this is carried through to February before it starts to tail off slightly once more. Thirdly, the form of the stable from May through to November is modest at best and I would be wary of backing any runner during this period. Before moving on, it should be noted that since the end of October 2024 Sue Smith has teamed up with Joel Parkinson so when looking for runners/results on Geegeez from that stable, you now need to look for ‘J Parkinson + S Smith’.

Going back to the first table, the Geegeez-sponsored yard of Anthony Honeyball lies in second place in terms of strike rate. It should be noted though that the last couple of years has seen a dip in success; overall, however, there are excuses as he has saddled fewer fancied runners in that time frame. If we focus on horses that were in the top three of the betting, these first two weeks of the year have been excellent for the Honeyball stable. This subset of runners has won 16 times from 36 qualifiers (SR 44.4%) for a BSP profit of £23.00 (ROI +63.9%).

Nicky Henderson lies in third place and has been consistently hitting strike rates of over 23% in six of the eight years. Only 2022 saw a really below par effort when he had just two winners from 30 (SR 6.7%). The horses to focus on for Henderson in these first two weeks are, as with Honeyball, those that started in the top three of the betting. These runners have won 53 of 143 starts (SR 37.1%) for a profit of £21.33 (ROI +14.9%).

Brian Ellison is another who has performed well in terms of wins to runs during the first two weeks of the year. Any runners at Sedgefield would have required close scrutiny thanks to eight wins from 15 but, typically, there is no Sedgefield meeting scheduled for the first two weeks of 2025! However, there is another strong Ellison stat that will have relevance which focuses on horses that finished in the top five LTO. These runners have won 13 of the 48 races (SR 27.1%) in early January for a profit of £67.89 (ROI +141.4%). It should also be noted that over the rest of the year runners from his yard that finished in the first five LTO have won 17% of their races, well below this 27.1% figure.

The start of January does seem to ignite the Ellison fires because his form in November and December is traditionally poor. Below is a graph comparing the A/E indices for the Ellison stable for the whole of January (not just the first two weeks) with November and December.

 

 

For the record, his strike rate in November over the past eight seasons has been 6.6%, for December 8.5%, but for January 21.9%.

Scottish trainer Sandy Thomson is yet another trainer who has traditionally started the year well, hitting close to a 23% strike rate. He has fared particularly well at Ayr and here are all his runners catalogued. To make things stand out the winners are in red, the placed horses in orange.

 

 

His record at Ayr in the first fortnight of the year is eight wins from 21 (SR 38.1%), with a further four placed. Profits to BSP stand at £12.33 (ROI +58.7%). As can be seen there are no big wins skewing the results, indeed the biggest winning BSP was just 7.00. There are two meetings scheduled at Ayr for early January so keep your eyes peeled for any of his runners.

Thomson has also done especially well in handicap races winning 15 of the 59 contests (SR 25.4%) for a profit to the machine of £15.87 (ROI +26.9%). Again, no big winners to skew the profits. Not only that, if you focus in on stable jockey Ryan Mania only in these handicaps the record improves to 12 wins from 31 (SR 38.7%) for a profit of £29.74 (ROI +95.9%). Thomson does look a trainer to keep an eye on in these two weeks, especially handicappers ridden by Mania, or any runners at Ayr.

Olly Murphy is another trainer with a good strike rate and excellent returns. What particularly impressed me was that he has had winners at 19 different courses and drawn a blank at just seven others. He has sent a sole runner to four tracks – Fontwell, Ffos Las, Plumpton and Sedgefield - and all four won. Murphy is also three from three at Bangor. Of those seven courses without a winner he has sent single figures in terms of runners to each. For the record, he has only had two runners at Kelso, three at Southwell, four at Wincanton and five apiece at Taunton and Donny, six at Chepstow and eight at Kempton.

Negative Trainer Angles

On the flip side, there are some trainers who seem to have a hangover from Christmas as the New Year starts. Kim Bailey is in this camp having sent out just 11 winners from 115 (SR 9.6%) for hefty losses of £78.07 (ROI -67.9%). The prices of his horses have been similar to those in any other period of the year, indeed 60% of his runners were in the top four of the betting. Digging deeper, if we ignore bumper races and focus on chase and hurdle races only Bailey’s record looks even worse – just seven wins from 99 (SR 7.1%) for losses of £78.64 (ROI +79.4%).

I felt it worthwhile to look at Bailey's monthly strike rates (both win and each way) as with Sue Smith earlier, to see how January as a whole fits into his overall monthly profile.

 

 

As with Sue Smith I combined the summer months (May to September) as one. January as a whole (not just the first 14 days) has been comfortably the worst month; not only the win strike rate but the each way strike rate too. The A/E index for January is down at 0.61 and losses were 24p in the £ worse than the second worst month.

Sometimes, as we know, trainer stats can be skewed due to prices / market position etc. Below, then, is a table of Kim Bailey’s monthly performance with horses from the top three in the betting:

 

 

As might have been expected based on the previous evidence, January’s performance is the worst. Compare that with the outstanding October record where the strike rate is basically double that of January with returns of nearly 50p in the £.

Looking at monthly data for trainers can be useful, especially as some do seem to display clear patterns. Bailey is one such handler, starting the season strongly in October and keeping that going into November as well. A slight dip in December is followed by a bigger blip in January after which he recovers with solid months from February to April. It seems the months of May to September are less important to the stable.

David Pipe is another trainer who has struggled to kick start the New Year with a high level of success. He has saddled just 13 winners from 154 runners (SR 8.4%) for a BSP loss of £75.20 (ROI -48.8%). One subset of his runners that have performed particularly poorly are his runners aged 8 or older, which collectively recorded just one win from 62 (SR 1.6%) for losses of over 82 pence in the £.

Of these runners less than half of them were bigger than 10/1 Industry SP, so it’s not as though they were all outsiders – far from it. A couple more negatives for Pipe in this period relate to individual courses: at Taunton he is 0 from 27, and at Plumpton one from 20 with nine of the remaining 19 runners failing to complete the course. Plumpton has two New Year meetings scheduled, for the 5th and 14th January 2025, and I personally will not be backing any Pipe runner regardless of how strong other factors may be.

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

I hope this article will contribute to you getting a head start as we tackle the first days of 2025. Beginning the year strongly from a punting perspective can offer us more confidence to tackle the year as a whole, so good luck with your betting and may I wish you a Very Happy New Year.

- DR

Revisiting All-Weather Draw Biases

/in /by

It has been a while since I looked at all-weather draw biases so with plenty more racing on those surfaces to come this winter it seemed a good time to revisit the stats, writes Dave Renham.

Introduction

When I think about draw biases in turf racing, they tend to be far less predictable or consistent than draw biases on the all-weather (AW). There are a few reasons why this tends to be the case:

1. Some turf courses are increasing the number of meetings and they move rails to alter where the horses run. This can nullify or even change a draw bias.

2. The positioning of the stalls can change at some courses altering the track location that the horses are running from each draw. For example, on a straight track a horse could be drawn 1 when the stalls are positioned far side and be next to the far rail, but if the stalls on are the stands’ side the horse drawn 1 could be out in the middle of the course. Hence, if we hypothetically assume that the ground next to the far rail is quicker than the ground down the centre, then a horse drawn 1 could have a big advantage if the stalls are placed far side. Conversely if the stalls are stands' side, then the horse drawn 1 does not have this advantage. Moreover, running against a rail is generally more of an advantage than running in the middle of the track.

3. Turf courses use watering which potentially can change the going on certain parts of a track: that may then have an impact on any bias.

As far as the AW is concerned, these three reasons are not much of an issue. At AW courses the rails are fixed so moving them is not an option, and the position of the stalls doesn’t change either. Also, the going tends to be very similar on all-weather – the surface they race on is clearly the same each time, and whether it rides ‘standard’ or slower than ‘standard’ depends on the specific course surface, any additional harrowing undertaken and possibly the weather conditions.

The table below shows the percentage of races at each course in the past three years that has ridden either ‘standard’ or ‘standard to slow’. Those are the only two going descriptions we have had since the start of 2022.

 

 

As can be seen most of the courses primarily race on ‘standard’ going. At Chelmsford, Lingfield and Wolverhampton they rarely race on slower going. Kempton has raced on ‘standard to slow’ at every meeting over the past three years (indeed every meeting since 11th July 2018 - when does that become the new 'standard'? - Ed.), while Southwell sees slower ground about one meeting in five.

Newcastle is the course where there is the most even split with just under two-thirds of meetings having raced on ‘standard’, the other third on ‘standard to slow’. It should be noted that between the months of June and September around 60% of the Newcastle meetings have been on ‘standard to slow’, so one could logically surmise that either drier or warmer weather has the most impact in terms of the going there. All the course data points to the fact that how an AW course rides is rarely affected by significant changes in going.

In addition to all of the above, four of the six UK AW tracks see all races run around a bend. This can help in terms of consistency when it comes to the draw. Running around a bend means horses running closest to the rail having to run a shorter distance, thus on round courses lower draws tend to have an edge because they are drawn closer to the inside.

This introduction has made the hypothetical case for more consistent draw bias on the artifical surfaces, so let us see if this has actually been the case. The draw data I have collated goes back to the start of 2017 with the focus on 8+ runner handicaps, which are the best races to analyse when it comes to the draw. I will be looking at four course/distance combinations in detail, arguably the four strongest AW draw biases, starting with the minimum trip at Chelmsford.

Chelmsford 5f

The 5f distance at Chelmsford should favour lower draws because the bend they run starts little more than a furlong into the race and then sweeps round for two further furlongs until they turn into the straight. The racecourse map is shown below:

 

 

Let us look at the draw splits for the whole-time frame in terms of win percentages within each third of the draw:

 


 

As expected, lower draws have an edge over middle drawn runners, who in turn enjoy an advantage over high draw runners. If there was no bias all these figures should be close to the 33.3% mark. The lower the draw the better with horses drawn 1 winning 31 races (18.3% of all races), horses drawn 2 winning 24 (14.2%). Combined, the two lowest draws have won 55 races, compared with the two highest drawn horses in each race who have collectively won 22 between them.

This suggests that horses drawn in the lowest two stalls are 2.5 times more likely to win than those drawn in the highest two stalls. This disparity increases when the number of runners increases, peaking at 4.3 times more likely when the field size is 11 or 12. It should also be noted that horses drawn 1 have made a profit to SP and BSP, as have those drawn 2. The profits are very small to SP, but with 169 runs for each stall position this suggests there is some value backing these two draws.

In terms of Percentage of Rivals Beaten (PRB) there is positive correlation with the win data with low on 0.54, middle 0.52 and high down at 0.45.

If we now look at the record of the lowest third of the draw by individual year we might expect to see big fluctuations, due mainly to small sample sizes and standard variances. To counter that, I have grouped the annual data in a slightly different way using a method I first saw in Nick Mordin’s excellent book, Winning Without Thinking. He looked at data in batches / groups of years, which is a good way to compare things more effectively due to more reliable sample sizes. You can also see patterns changing more easily – if indeed they do change. He used five-year batches; I’m going to look at four-year batches. Below is a graph comparing the win percentage for the lowest third of the draw using the batch/group method:

 


 

The bias has remained fairly consistent with all four-year batches showing 40%+ figures. The graph suggests that there may be a slight strengthening of the bias over the last eight years but, regardless of whether that is true, it is clear I hope that this bias is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Before moving on, there seems to be a draw bias ‘cut off point’ at stall 7. Specifically, horses drawn 7 or lower have won 144 races from 1183 runners (SR 12.2%). Those drawn 8 or higher have won 25 races from 424 runners (SR 5.9%). In addition, over this track and trip, horses drawn 11 or 12 (the maximum field size is 12) are 1 win from 50 (SR 2%).

My betting strategy as regards the draw over 5f at Chelmsford is to primarily focus on horses drawn 1 and 2, but I am prepared to look at horses drawn as high as 7. Those drawn 8 or higher will get a line through them unless they have several strong factors to bring to the table.

 

Chelmsford 6f

Remaining at Chelmsford we move up a furlong to six. With the bend being an additional furlong away from the start, one would expect that the low draw bias might be less potent than it is over 5f. Let’s look at the win percentages by third of draw first:

 


 

As expected the edge for low draws is less strong and, also, high draws have fared much better at this trip in terms of wins compared with 5f. However, in Percentage of Rivals Beaten (PRB) terms the figures are more akin to the 5f cohort, especially looking at the low third and the high third. The PRB for low draws stands at 0.55 (0.54 over 5f), middle lies on 0.49 (0.52 over 5f) and high at 0.46 (0.45 over 5f). These figures suggest low’s advantage over high is similar to that of the minimum distance. The win & placed figures are also very similar when comparing the draw thirds over the two distances. Essentially, I would say that from a win perspective, the bias is less strong over six furlongs while in terms of getting placed it is similar.

It should also be noted that the maximum field size over 6f is 14, two more than over five furlongs. It is rare that 13 or 14 runners come to post here but, for the record, no horse drawn 13 or 14 won in the eight-year period from 38 runners to try.

Looking through the value lens, however, using A/E indices, higher draws have scored best. Their figure of 0.92 is well above the low figure of 0.81 and middle one of 0.82. Perhaps bookmakers and punters perceive the bias to be stronger than it is at this distance.

My betting strategy as regards the draw over 6f at Chelmsford is to only rule out horses drawn 13 or 14. Hence for most races that means I would not be put off by any draw position. Indeed, as the A/E indices showed there is probably value looking higher than lower. [In fact, run style is arguably much more material at this course and distance - see this article (from late 2021), partially replicated below.

 

 

Kempton 6f

Traditionally this range at Kempton has produced the strongest and most consistent draw bias on the AW. For years low draws have held sway. There is a similarly strong bias over 5f, but qualifying races are rare with only three in the past three years (that trio were won by horses drawn 1, 1 and 2). Let us look at the win percentage splits for each third of the draw going back to 2017:

 

Low draws have won 46.5% of all races which is the biggest percentage for any all-weather course and distance combination using the 8+ runner handicaps condition. Additionally, the number of races during this time frame was 400 so a strong sample size. Backing horses drawn 3 or 4 would have yielded a profit to BSP of 10p in the £. In terms of Percentage of Rivals Beaten (PRB) these figure correlate positively showing that clear edge to lower drawn runners:

 


 

The low to high comparison of 0.57 to 0.42 further illustrates the strength of this bias. From a punting perspective low draws offer the best value as well, with an A/E index of 0.93 compared with 0.88 for middle draws and a lowly 0.68 for high.

Earlier I discussed a Nick Mordin idea of grouping data in yearly batches to give more accurate comparisons over different time frames / years. As I did with Chelmsford over 5f earlier, here are the four-year win percentages over 6f at Kempton for the lowest third of the draw using this grouping method:

 


 

As can be seen this bias has remained consistently strong over the whole of the eight-year time frame. I also used this idea for the PRBs, across all three sections of the draw, and we see excellent consistency once more.

 

 

Before moving on, it should be noted once more that the low draw bias increases as field size increases. The maximum field size is 12 and looking solely at races contested by 11 or 12 runners, the lowest third of the draw won more than half (52.2%) of the races with a PRB of 0.59; the highest third won just a sixth of the time with a PRB of 0.41.

 

Wolverhampton 5f

The fourth and final course/distance combination takes us to Wolverhampton and their minimum trip. Let's start with a look at the draw splits based on win percentage by third of the draw:

 

The implication is again of a decent low draw bias, with a repeat of the pattern seen above in terms of the lower the better. The PRB figures correlate positively with the win percentage splits as the graph below illustrates:

 


 

All things considered one would much rather be drawn low than high.

Let us now compare 2017-2020 with 2021-2024 rather than the 4-yearly groupings I used earlier. I am doing this for two reasons: one, to mix the article up a bit; and two, to clearly highlight the more recent struggles of higher draws. This would have been shown using the earlier Mordin method, too, just so readers know I’m not moving the goalposts in any way:

 


 

The chart illustrates how higher draws have diminished nearly 8% in terms of win success across the two four-yearly time frames. This is quite a steep decline but it is not easy to understand why. One reason may be because the average price of the highest three drawn runners has been slightly higher in the 2021-2024 period compared with 2017-2020. However, the average price difference is negligible really and it could be a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' due to this bias being subsumed in the market, so perhaps something else is going on. Maybe it is down to statistical variance? It is impossible to say.

My final graph this week shows the win success rate of each individual stall / draw position at Wolverhampton over 5f.

 

 

This presents a clear indication that stall 4 is probably the cut-off point for top bias. In fact, if you had backed stalls 1, 2, 3 and 4 blind over the eight-year review period you would have ended up with a profit to BSP of £102.79 to £1 level stakes. This equates to a 7p in the £ return.

Summary

To conclude, the draw biases shown have been highly consistent especially in terms of the strongest stall positions which, in each case, has been the lowest drawn third.

Wolverhampton 5f has been less consistent with its high draw data, but overall, the draw biases at these four track/range combos have virtually remained the same throughout the eight-year period. In addition, there is no reason to suggest this might change any time soon (although markets are likely to eventually further cotton on and adjust prices accordingly).

Finally, and the most important thing from a punter’s perspective, low draws continue to offer the best value at each of Chelmsford 5f, Kempton 6f and Wolverhampton 5f, while fielding against the bias with higher draws over 6f at Chelmsford - especially with runners capable of a forward run style - looks the way to go.

Until next week.

- DR

Seeking Future Profit from Last Day P’s

/in /by

Did you know that over 9% of National Hunt runners in the UK are pulled up? That equates to 15,000 horses when looking at a UK National Hunt data set covering the period from 1st Jan 2019 to 30th November 2024, writes Dave Renham.

In this article I am going to see if any patterns emerge from horses that return to the track in a National Hunt race having been pulled up on their most recent start. Profits/losses will be quoted to Betfair SP (BSP).

Pulled Up LTO by Race Code

Firstly, let us look at the race type last time out (LTO) comparing hurdle races with chases. [It should be noted that 93 horses were pulled up in NH flat races (bumpers) LTO of which only three went on to win next time (SR 3.3%). That small subset of runners lost a whopping 75p in the £ to BSP].

Onto the LTO hurdle races versus LTO chases splits:

 

 

We need to be careful when looking at raw stats like this, especially if majoring on the profit and loss column. Profits can be easily skewed using BSP as there are occasionally huge prices winning. This can often totally change the bottom line. Hence, I thought it would be prudent to use a price cap on the pulled-up runners LTO to offer a fairer comparison. Specifically, I have chosen to narrow the qualifiers only to horses that were returned at an Industry SP of 8/1 on that last day run. That is, they were expected to run well rather than be pulled up.

The change in the splits now is quite noteworthy:

 

 

This is quite a change from the first table. Now there are healthy returns for horses that were pulled up when racing over hurdles LTO having been priced 8/1 or shorter in that pulled up contest. Betting all such runners cleared nearly 22p for every £1 bet.

There were still some big priced winners that helped to create those returns but, when focusing on horses that were priced BSP 5.0 or less in this follow-up run yielded an impressive 35% winners for a profit of £22.49 (ROI +12.4%). Therefore, this group of runners still made a profit with their shorter priced qualifiers.

It seems that horses that were pulled up in a hurdle race LTO when having an ISP of 8/1 or less in that specific contest have been good value on their follow-up start. In fact, if we look at this subset of runners that returned to a hurdle race next time the figures are even better:

 

 

Not only that, but five of the six years turned a profit to BSP. The graph below shows the yearly return on investment (ROI%) for this group of runners:

 


 

I would not necessarily advocate backing such qualifiers ‘blind’ in future but it seems that over this recent time frame it is likely that many/most of these runners have gone off at higher than their true price. Betting is about getting value, and the stats suggest that these runners have offered good value.

 

Pulled Up LTO by DSLR

I next want to switch attention to days since that last pulled up run (DSLR). I have adjusted the days off track splits to try and give enough runners in each grouping as well as using sensible periodicities. The table includes all race types/LTO race types:

 

 

As you may have noticed, I have added a Place% column. This is just to highlight that the 151+ days group had not only the best win strike rate, but the best win & placed SR% too. Sticking with this group all of which were off for around five months or more, as the table indicates they have secured a big profit.

This figure is badly skewed, however, as there were nine 100/1+ winners on Betfair. That said, it should also be noted that to Industry SP this group of runners lost 19p in the £ less than all the other groups combined, making them the best option by some margin. Indeed, if we avoid the really big BSP prices and look at a BSP of 19.0 (18/1) or lower, the 151+ days off group still secured a steady profit of £111.46 (ROI +8.3%).

The other main finding from ‘days since last run’ is the poor returns of the 10 days or less group. They lost nearly 36p for every £1 wagered during the study period.

 

Pulled Up LTO by Going

Moving on, I would like to examine what effect, if any, the going LTO had. My perception was that we might expect to see more runners being pulled up on heavy ground, so these runners potentially had a 'better' excuse. I looked first at the A/E indices of LTO pulled up horses based on the going LTO. Here are the figures:

 


 

As the graph shows, horses that raced on heavy ground LTO ended up clearly being the best value out of the five groups next time. Their figure of 0.97 is close to the magic A/E index of 1.00. I will now share both the Industry SP and the BSP Return on Investment percentages which follow a similar pattern:

 


 

Horses pulled up on heavy ground LTO lost just under 11p in the £ to Industry SP, while the other four going descriptions showed far worse returns. When we look at the BSP figures the ‘LTO heavy group’ made a positive return overall:

 


All this points to the fact that some horses that were pulled up LTO on heavy ground may be worth another chance.

I am sure you have also noticed on these graphs the poor performance of horses that were pulled up LTO on good to firm ground. As you would expect their win to runs record is poor but to be fair there were only 123 qualifiers so a small sample size in comparison. Having said that only two of those 123 went onto win next time!

 

Pulled Up LTO by Number of Race Non-Completions

My next port of call was to look at something I have never looked at before and that is the number of horses that failed to complete the course LTO in the race that contained any of our pulled up LTO runners. Hence these ‘non-completers’ would include not just horses that may have been pulled up in that race, but those who fell LTO, unseated LTO, and so on.

To be clear, I was still only looking at the next time out results of horses that had been pulled up LTO. Here is what I found:

 

 

To explain this table a little further, the ‘1’ group contains pulled up horses LTO that were the only horse in their specific race that failed to complete. I would have expected those figures to be poor, and they are.

As can be seen, once we get to four or more non-completers in a race, the next time out performance of any LTO pulled up runner improves. This makes sense as the more horses that failed to complete a race, the more likely that there may have been an underlying reason why so many failed to finish. Examples I can think of include particularly testing conditions (which correlates with the LTO heavy stats seen earlier), or possibly the race was run too quickly from the start and therefore tiring horses either made late mistakes or just ran out of gas. There will be other reasons but both of the above are logical to me and I’m confident both are valid.

 

Pulled Up LTO by Trainer

The last main area I want to examine is trainer performance with horses that were pulled up LTO. Trainers with more than 100 qualifiers have been put in the table and I have ordered it alphabetically:

 

 

15 trainers in the list made a profit with their LTO pulled up runners to BSP, of which seven almost managed a profit to Industry SP. There are some weird and wonderful profit figures for some – again mainly down to the odd huge price going in.

Of all in the list, Paul Nicholls caught my eye most, mainly due to his excellent strike rate of nearly 19%. He has proved profitable, too, returning just over 13p in the £. If a runner from the Nicholls stable had been pulled up on soft or heavy ground LTO they bounced back well scoring 18 times from 93 (SR 19.4%) for a profit on 'the machine' of £48.67 (ROI +52.3%).

Nicky Henderson’s profit figure has been skewed somewhat by a BSP 84.91 winner, but nevertheless his overall record is very solid. There a couple of Henderson stats worth sharing. Firstly, LTO pulled up Hendo horses running in a chase next time have won 19% of the time compared with a 10.2%-win rate for his hurdlers. Secondly, horses from his yard that were raced on good ground when they were pulled up LTO have gone on to win just four races next time from 69 starts (SR 5.8%).

There are several trainers to avoid it seems including Charlie Longsdon, Sue Smith and Tim Vaughan to name but three.

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

Summary

Horses that were pulled up last time out do not win very often on their next start, but this article has highlighted some situations which are better value than most. They include:

1. Horses that were pulled up in a hurdle race LTO when priced 8/1 or shorter next time, again in a hurdle race.

2. Horses returning to the track that were pulled up LTO more than 150 days previously.

3. Horses that were pulled up LTO on heavy ground.

4. Horses that were pulled up LTO when at least three other competitors failed to finish that race (meaning 4+ non-completions in total).

 

Before closing, I do have a couple of additional stats to share – both strong negatives.

Firstly, horses aged 3 or 4 that were pulled up LTO have a dreadful record when returning to the track. They have won just 3.1% of the time (18 wins from 599 runners) for BSP losses of £261.60 (ROI -43.7%); A/E 0.68.

Secondly, horses that were pulled up over a short NH distance LTO (2m 2f or shorter) have gone on to win just 136 times from 2897 runners (SR 4.7%) for BSP losses of £1006.57 (ROI -34.8%). In fact, the LTO distance does seem to have some relevance because those that were pulled up LTO in races of three miles or more had a SR% of 7.6% and broke even to BSP. Also, if we compare the win & placed % figures we see a marked difference – those pulled up over 2m2f or less LTO have an 'each way' strike rate of 13.8%, whereas those who raced over three miles-plus hit 20.5%.

It's time now for myself to get pulled up; the next piece of research is calling!

- DR

Top Ten All-Weather Front-Running Biases

/in /by

A few weeks back I looked at some recent run style data in National Hunt racing, writes Dave Renham. You can view part one here and part two here. It has been three years since I last looked at all-weather run style biases so, in this article, I will re-visit that topic and share the top ten front-running biases in terms of course and distance (CD) combinations. Well, my top ten anyway.

Data has been taken from 1st January 2020 to the present day with the focus on UK courses. I have concentrated on handicaps with seven or more runners which gives us a decent sample size for each CD. It should be noted that the surface at Southwell changed at the end of 2021 so for this course I have taken data from that later point.

Introduction

Regular readers may skip the next couple of paragraphs to the dashed line, as I explain the terminology and methodology. What we mean by run style is the position a horse takes up early on 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 tab, as well as an individual race view within the 'Pace' tab on each racecard. The research tools are the Pace Analyser and the Query Tool which Gold subscribers can use to undertake this type of research. Running style is often linked with the word ‘pace’ because the early pace shown by horses in a race determines what position they take up within that first furlong or so. Hence, for many, the words run style and pace are interchangeable. 

The stats I am sharing here are based on this site’s pace / run style data. The data on Geegeez is split into four brackets – Led (4), Prominent (3), Mid Division (2) and Held Up (1). The number in brackets is the run style score that is assigned to each bracket.

The numbers are really helpful as they enable us to drill down into them to 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.

 

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

Top Ten All-Weather Run Style Biases

It is time to start the countdown:

10. Kempton 7f

Over 7f at the Sunbury-on-Thames track front-runners have won 56 of the 289 races which equates to 19.4% of the sample. Hold up horses have won one more, giving them a total of 57 winning races (19.7%). However, on average there have been three to four hold up horses in each race (actual average for Kempton 7f = 3.54), whereas front-runners have (led or contested the lead) averaged 1.23 runners per race. This means that an individual front-runner has been nearly three times as likely to win as an individual hold up horse.

Looking at the A/E indices for all four run styles helps to demonstrate the front-running edge:

 

 

An A/E index of over 1.00 indicates ‘value’, so 1.25 means front-runners are good value. Hold Up horses, however, at a lowly A/E index of 0.6 have offered very poor value to bettors.

 

9. Lingfield 6f

Staying in the south we move to Lingfield. Splitting the run style results by A/E indices again, we see similar figures for front-runners and hold up horses at the 6f trip there to those we saw for Kempton’s 7f trip:


 

Here we have the more traditional run style graph sloping down from left to right when there is a front-running bias ‘in play’. In the graph for Kempton’s 7f, the 'mid-division' figure was higher than the 'prominent' one, which is slightly unusual.

At Lingfield over six furlongs, just over 20% of all races have been won by the front-runner(s). If, pre-race, you had predicted the early leader(s) in every qualifying 6f handicap you would have made a profit to SP of £65.05 to £1 level stakes. This equates to returns of just over 25 pence in the £. Of course, it's not always that simple.

 

8. Chelmsford 1m

This is only time a mile race distance makes the list. Generally, the shorter the distance the stronger the front-running bias. Chelmsford is the only course to have four different distances in the top ten and is a very strong contender for the most front-runner favouring circuit. Below is a table comparing the wins to runs ratio within each run style group, as well as their each way stats, A/E indices and Impact Values (IVs): 

 

 

As the table shows, front-runners are clearly best across all metrics. They have won over 16% within their group, which due to the occasional race where two horses vie for the early lead, actually means that 20.6% of all races have been won by these pace setters. The A/E index of 1.30 is the highest we have seen so far.

 

7. Kempton 6f

Back to Kempton now and the slightly shorter 6f trip. 21.2% of all races over this track and range have been won by the front-runner(s), and if you had backed them pre-race at £1 level stakes using your crystal ball, this would have turned a profit of £99.05 (ROI +30.6%). Compare that with backing all mid-division runners (ROI -36.7%) and/or all hold up performers (ROI -38.7%). If we look at the Impact Values, we see how strong the bias has been.

 


 

Front-runners have secured the highest IV to date, winning roughly 1.7 times more often than the average, while prominent runners have also performed well. Indeed, backing all horses that raced prominently would have returned a small 5p in the £ profit. In terms of A/E indices the front-running figure is high again at 1.25, prominent stands at 0.98, with mid div at 0.70 and hold ups at 0.73.

 

6. Chelmsford 6f

The second Chelmsford distance to hit the top ten is the 6f trip. Below is a graph showing both the A/E indices and the Impact Values for each run style group:

 

 

These are the highest figures seen so far for front-runners on both of these two metrics. Also, the hold-up numbers are extremely low in comparison. Front-runners have a significant edge at this trip winning a quarter (25%) of all races. Essentially an individual front-runner has been 3.6 times more likely to win than an individual hold up horse.

Not only are the win stats powerful for front-runners but the each way stats are extremely strong for this CD as well. If able to predict all front-runners’ pre-race one would have made a profit of £80.75 to £1 win bets, equating to returns of just under 30p in the £. Betting front-runners each way, the profit would have stood at a highly impressive £150.93.

 

5. Wolverhampton 5f

The first and last appearance for Wolverhampton in the top ten is over the minimum trip of five furlongs. Here are the A/E indices over this CD:

 


 

This front-running bias is similar to the last two CD combinations but when we look at the potential returns, we will see why I have put it above those two:

 

 

Front-runners would have returned close to 50p in the £ to £1 win bets, while prominent runners were close to breaking even. Backing all hold up horses would have lost you a whopping 72p in the £. Going back to front-runners, they have been able to win from any draw position and middle to higher drawn front-runners have been much better value than low drawn front-runners.

In terms of other distances at Wolves, front-runners do have an edge over 6f here at the Midlands track (A/E index 1.19), while over 7f prominent runners have the edge and hold up horses really struggle.

 

4. Chelmsford 7f

The third entry for Chelmsford, this time over 7f. I have graphed both the A/E indices and the Impact Values for each run style group to help illustrate the strength of the bias:

 


 

Strong positive correlation with both lines virtually mirroring each other. Front-runners have provided excellent value, while prominent racers too have edged above the magic 1.00 A/E figure. It is hard to win over this CD when taking up an early position in midfield or further back.

It is also worth sharing some data for Chelmsford 7f when combining the draw with run style. Below is the heat map which was generated from the Draw Analyser on the Geegeez site showing the A/E indices:

 


 

Somewhat surprisingly perhaps, the front-runners drawn widest (the high group) have fared exceptionally well and presented far better value than those horses drawn middle to low. The win percentage stats back this up, too:

 

 

 

Nearly 30% of the horses drawn in the top third of the draw have won when they have taken the early lead. These runners have won 16 races from 54, with a further 14 finishing 2nd or 3rd. The long run to the first bend, which gives the whole field a chance to make the lead, may be a factor:

 

 

The last stat to share for this CD is that each individual front-runner has been 3.93 times more likely to win than an individual hold up horse. As the heat maps above show this disparity becomes more potent the wider the draw.

 

3. Southwell 5f

This is the sole appearance for Southwell, and it is a top three entry over their straight 5f track. Let us start by comparing the wins to runs ratio within each run style group:

 


 

A very clear bias to front-runners and these figures correlate strongly with the A/E indices as shown below:

 


 

The 1.6 value for front-runners is comfortably the highest to date, while the prominent figure is the lowest.

It should be noted that front-running favourites have performed extremely well winning 43.9% of the time, while front-running second favourites are not far behind winning 37%. Compare this with favourites that were held up who have won less than 19% of the time and held up second favourites have won just 7.7% of the time!

 

2. Chelmsford 5f

The minimum trip at Chelmsford is second on my list but, to be fair, the top two CD combinations could have been reversed. To begin with let me compare the A/E indices and the Impact Values for each run style group:

 


 

The A/E index for front-runners is huge hitting just under 1.7, while prominent runners have also performed very well. Indeed, if you had backed horses from both run style groups pre-race you would have seen returns of 46p in the £ for front-runners and 18p in the £ for prominent racers. Meanwhile midfield runners lost 36p in the £ and hold-ups 42p.

In terms of Percentage of Rivals Beaten (PRB), front-runners stand at a huge 0.67 (67% of rivals beaten), whereas hold up horses are down on just 0.40. Finally, front-runners that were in single figures (SP 9/1 or less) won 39 races from 109 (SR 35.8%), whereas those priced in double figures (SP 10/1 or more) won just one race from 58 (SR 1.7%). Clearly front-runners that have started in single figures in the betting have offered punters enormous value over the past five years.

 

1. Lingfield 5f

Top of the tree (just) is the 5f distance at Lingfield. The A/E indices show that front-runners have offered better value here than at any other CD:

 


 

If pre-race you had predicted the front-runner or front-runners in every qualifying 5f handicap you would have made a hefty profit to SP of £128.03 to £1 level stakes. This equates to returns of 86 pence in the £! All the profits/returns quoted in this article have been calculated to Industry SP, so just imagine what the Betfair SPs would have paid.

Finally, I want to share some draw data for this CD when combining the draw with run style. Below is the heat map showing the PRBs – again this can generated by using the Draw Analyser - available to both Gold and Lite subscribers - on the Geegeez site:

 

 

 

Front-runners drawn middle to high have ridiculously high PRBs above 0.70. In contrast, hold up horses have very poor PRB figures regardless of draw position.

 

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

Conclusion

The positions in the top ten for each course and distance are, to some degree, subjective and there are few ‘next door’ positions that could easily have been placed the other way around. However, regardless of whether my order is 'correct' or not, what is clear, is that these ten combinations give front-runners a strong edge. Conversely, hold up horses are always at a serious disadvantage. The flat racing pattern that we have seen before, where the shorter the distance the better for front-runners, has been in evidence again here with four of the top five being 5f distances.

Of course, in terms of each individual contest, the run style groupings cannot be calculated until after the race, because before the race we do not know who will lead, who will track the leader, etc. Hence any profit figures or returns quoted can only be calculated after the event also. When quoting the profits / returns in this piece my aim has been to highlight why front-runners are potentially such good value.

As we know, predicting the front-runner is far from an exact science but the pre-race pace/run style figures found on the Geegeez Racecard are a very good starting point. Indeed, just for fun I have started to check some results of the top-rated pace/run style runners at Chelmsford in 5f handicaps. Currently I have back checked the last 63 races, which covers two years, of which the top-rated horse has won 11 times from 67 for an SP profit of £11.28 (ROI +16.8%). An encouraging start.

For the eagle-eyed amongst you, the reason there have been 67 top rated runners in 63 races is because in a handful of races there were joint top-rated runners and hence both were included. Perhaps even more exciting is that, if you had placed a £1 reverse straight forecast on the top two rated runners over these 67 races, you would have had six winning bets securing a profit of £106.26. Betting the Exacta instead would have been even more successful hitting a profit around the £150 mark. This type of research is labour intensive as one needs to check one race at a time, but over the next few weeks and months I plan to slowly trawl through more all-weather track/trip combinations to see whether a profit can be made using the racecard pace/run style figures.

Until next time...

- DR

 

Post Script: Using Pace on Geegeez

In support of Dave's excellent article, I've (Matt) recorded a short video to illustrate different ways you can see which horses are likely to lead over these potent track/trip combo's.

And a reminder that our Winter Special offer - big discounts on both Lite and Gold subscriptions - closes tomorrow (Thursday). So go here now if that's of interest.

- Matt

National Hunt Racing Systems for 2024/25

/in /by

One approach to betting on the horses is to use systems, writes Dave Renham. Some punters are drawn to racing systems because once developed they are straightforward and easy to implement. No burning the midnight oil studying the form which can definitely be seen as a plus.

Introduction

Most use a methodical approach, sticking to a rigid set of rules, and essentially users back whatever the system or systems suggest without any further thoughts. They are not swayed by the fact that the trainer may not have had a winner for a month, or that the jockey booked has not ridden a winner for the stable this year; they have a selection via their system and that is good enough. These users put their money on and have the rest of the day to themselves.

Geegeez Gold subscribers can create and then test certain systems using the Query Tool, and once a system that looks promising enough to follow is identified, it can be saved as a 'Query Tool Angle' – this means any qualifiers will appear on the racecard and in the member's personal QT Angles Report, only visible to them.

At this juncture it is worth remembering that not all people are fans of using systems. Some will say that systems lack flexibility and that they rarely perform as well ‘live’ as they do in testing. Non-system punters also believe that profitable systems have a limited shelf life and, more often than not, they are right. A perennial problem for system punters is that determining the likely shelf life of a system is virtually 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 their value edge, and eventually start making losses. One of the main reasons this occurs is that the betting market adjusts, so although the strike rate essentially stays the same the prices on offer contract (shorten) and the profit margin disappears.

Therefore, as a system punter one cannot sit back on one's laurels once a collection of ‘winning’ systems has been created. We need to be constantly monitoring our results over the short, medium and long term to see whether that system should continue to be used. I wonder though, how many system punters do keep abreast in this way? It would be interesting to know.

Personally, I do not use such an archetypal system approach. I use ‘systems’ in a broader sense to create shortlists for specific races. I look for a group of rules or parameters that gives me maybe four or five horses to focus on rather than just one. It is a more general approach that works for me, closer perhaps to patterns than systems. It is far from the only betting strategy I use but it is the closest I get to using systems.

For this article I have concentrated on National Hunt racing in the UK from 1st January 2016 to 17th November 2024. I will share with you some systems that would have proved profitable to Betfair SP during this time frame. I also will share Irish data where appropriate.

 

System 1 – "Back so soon?"

Quick returning Last Time Out (LTO) winners

When, back in the 90s, I first looked at systems horses that returned to the track quickly (within a few days) generally performed above the expectations of punters and bookmakers alike. Maybe there was some prejudice at the time in terms of thinking that the horse had not had long enough to recover from its recent exertions. We now know that some horses actually thrive when returned to the racecourse quickly. So, onto the system:

1. Won LTO

2. Last race was 5 days ago or less

That’s it! Just the two rules. Generally, the fewer the rules the better in terms of systems. Too many rules can mean you can fall into the dreaded back-fitting trap.

Here are the overall results:

 

 

This ultra-simple system has produced a very impressive strike rate of close to 47%, especially when you consider all LTO winners in NH racing win on average only 21% of the time. Below I have graphed by year the win and each way (win & placed) strike rates for this system:

 

As you can see the win SR% has been over 40% in all but one of the years, while the each way SR% has been above 63% in every year bar one.

In terms of yearly returns to BSP, six of the nine years proved profitable with one break-even year and two losing years. The same yearly profit spread occurred if betting to SP, it’s just that the profits were slightly smaller each year. Finally, horses that started as clear favourite have produced 173 wins from 312 (SR 55.5%) for a BSP profit of £47.89 (ROI +15.4%).

Checking the Irish results now we see an overall profit has been made also:

 

 

Don’t be put off by the lower strike rate as the average number of runners in races in Ireland has been much higher than in the UK. In fact, Irish races involving these quick returners have averaged four runners per race more than their UK counterparts (12.6 versus 8.6). The ROI% for Irish and UK runners has been very similar and, all in all, it seems that quick returners continue to deliver both sides of the pond.

Combining the UK and Irish results gives us:

 

 

System 2 – "The Lightly Baked Baguette"

Inexperienced French-bred chasers

Breeding in terms of the country origin of the horse can give punters an edge if they have done their research. This system utilises the fact that French-bred (French bread, baguette, geddit?!) runners seem to take well to jumping the larger obstacles early in their chasing careers. Here is the system:

1. French-bred runners

2. Non-handicap chases only

3. First or second run in a chase

4. SP 4/1 or less

French bred chasers seem to mature quickly and take to these larger obstacles better, certainly when you compare them to the other two main countries of breeding namely GB and Ireland. Here is the profit and loss table:

 

 

The high strike rate means consistent results overall – the longest losing run has been just eight. Five of the nine years proved profitable, two broke even, while two showed small losses.

As with the first system I checked the Irish results over this time frame, and they too turned a small profit from a slightly bigger data set:

 

 

These figures are a smidge below the UK ones, but they still correlate well. Combining results from both the UK and Ireland we get:

 

 

Now, GB- and Irish-bred runners restricted to the same system rules have won 34% of the time (34.2% for GB, 34% for Irish) so that's quite a significant differential to the 42% for French-breds. The domestic product have also made losses of over 4% combined (GB -3.9%, Ire -4.4%) in this context. Finally, the A/E indices come out strongly in the French favour too with their figure standing at 1.03, the GB one at 0.93, and 0.92 for Irish-breds.

If you are a punter that primarily bets horses at shorter prices, this system may be one to consider.

 

System 3 – "Rested and ready"

The trainer lay off system

Trainer systems are popular be they course based, jockey based, etc. For instance, Trainer Track Stats is one such example.

This system combines three trainers that perform particularly well with chasers returning from a long break. The advantage of a trainer system including three trainers rather than one is that hopefully the ‘journey’ will be smoother, experiencing less ups and downs from month to month, year to year. This is of course assuming that all three trainer results don’t dip at the same time, which can obviously happen. Here is the system:

1. Chases only

2. Horse off track for 180 days or more

3. Trainer: Kim Bailey or David Pipe or Venetia Williams

Let me start by sharing the individual trainer performances with these horses that have effectively been off the track for at least six months.

 

 

As you can see, all three have done extremely well with this type of runner from good sample sizes. Williams has had six winning years from nine, Bailey seven, and Pipe a highly impressive eight. Combining their results in one give us the overall system results:

 

 

I think anyone would be happy with these results when betting in over 600+ races. It should be noted that profits to Industry SP stand at over £205 and all nine years produced a profit. In terms of BSP, here are the yearly ROI percentages:

 

 

This shows the advantage of merging three trainer systems in one. Profits and good ones every year. In terms of A/E indices only one year saw the figure dip under 1.00 indicating what excellent value these runners would have been. For the record there was only one qualifying race in Ireland as these trainers ply their trade in the UK 99.9% of the time.

This trainer system hopefully has ‘legs’ to continue in positive fashion over the next few years.

UPDATE: This system has had five winners from 15 since the article was written, for a profit of £9.79 to BSP (ROI +65.3%). Including an Ascot double for Venetia Williams last Friday and a Haydock double on Saturday. Kim Bailey weighed in at Haydock as well so three from four that day - treble paid over 130-1 SP and 177/1 on Betfair.

 

System 4 – "Cotswold Champions"

LTO winner at Cheltenham system

This is a system that I first wrote about for another publication back in 2015. At that time, it had been profitable over a number of years going back to 2008, and looking at this more recent data set I see a similar performance. Here are the rules (no surprises based on the system title!):

1. LTO course Cheltenham

2. Won LTO

Here are the results going back to the start of 2016:

 

 

Returns are close to 8p in the £ which is positive. Also, it makes total sense to once again check runners in Ireland for this system considering so many Irish runners win at Cheltenham. The good news is that this subset also produced a profit:

 

 

Fewer qualifiers but double the ROI%.

Let me combine both UK and Irish results to see how these runners fared overall and on a year-by-year basis:

 

 

 

As can be seen, the yearly results have certainly fluctuated, and if taking out 2021’s excellent returns there would have been a small overall loss incurred. Hence this system could go one way or the other in 2025 and beyond. However, as I stated earlier, it also produced a profit from 2008 to 2015 so has performed solidly over nearly 20 years now.

It should be noted that horses that win at the Cheltenham festival in March are the best group of LTO Cheltenham winners to follow. No surprises there.

 

System 5 – "Lightweight Winners"

LTO winners carrying bottom weight in handicap hurdles

This is very similar to a system I heard about 25 years ago; that one focused on the weight carried rather than the position in the weights, and followed low weighted LTO winners running in handicap hurdles. From memory the system pinpointed horses carrying 10st 4lb or less.

Anyway, onto the more recent system I want to share with you. Here are the rules:

1. Handicap hurdle races only

2. Won LTO

3. Bottom or joint bottom weight

 

I should mention that I have taken any jockey allowances / claims into account, so the system is based on the actual weight they are carrying. Here are the UK results going back to the start of 2016:

 

 

This looks a promising starting point. Let us look at the BSP Return on Investment percentages by year:

 


 

2021 was the only poor year, while four others (2016, 2018, 2022 and 2023) were close to parity, three of those four managing a tiny profit; and there were four very good years.

For fun, I looked at restricting these bottom weighted runners to those carrying 10st 4lb or less (matching the weight criteria of the old system I mentioned above). Doing that would have produced 112 winners from 511 runners (SR 21.9%) for a BSP profit of £134.84 (ROI +26.4%). This additional rule takes out about half of the original qualifiers but has increased the profit. For anyone interested in using this system, whether you add this rule or not is up to you. Some would argue it is back-fitting, but in my defence, I did mention the original system criteria earlier.

Going back to the basic system without adding that weight carried rule, the Irish results have proved profitable also, but the sample size is small:

 

 

The lower strike rate is once again down to much bigger average field sizes. The profit is small, but a profit is a profit! It is also worth noting that taking the UK and Irish results individually, both would have secured a small profit to Betfair SP Place betting.

I think some horses sitting at the bottom of the weights in handicaps are under-estimated by the betting public. Perhaps this is why this system has proved profitable in recent years.

**

Summary

It is time to wind this piece up. As I said at the outset, rigid systems are not really for me but I totally appreciate why many punters use them. The five I have shared in this article have all shown positive results over a recent time frame. The UK results have also been backed up in most cases by Irish racing results lending more credence to the angles.

Of course, as with any article I write, I can only report on past data; there are no guarantees any of these systems will make a profit over the next x number of years. Hopefully they all will – only time will tell.

- DR

A Look at All-Weather Returners

/in /by

In this article I am looking at some all-weather data going back to 2019 in the UK, writes Dave Renham. At this time of year, the only flat racing in Britain occurs at the six all-weather tracks, these being Chelmsford, Kempton, Lingfield, Newcastle, Southwell and Wolverhampton. The first three named all race on a Polytrack surface, the last three on a Tapeta surface.

My initial research for this piece is connected with the last time out all-weather (LTO AW) course that a horse ran and linking it to the course they raced on next time. As you might expect, certain horses tend to stick to one specific AW track. The two most likely reasons for this are either they run better there, or their stable is close to the track in question (or both). I guess trainers with smaller yards have to keep a close eye on costs, and travelling less distance is one way to save money.

All Runners: Surface Same or Different

When thinking about AW runners that have run well LTO, my perception in the past has been that I would rather see a horse running at the same AW track as they raced last time. If the horse switches tracks, then I would prefer them to stick to the same surface (e.g. Polytrack to Polytrack or Tapeta to Tapeta). If a horse did not run particularly well LTO then any switch of track or surface could be seen to be a potential positive. Thinking about this now, I realise that I have not crunched any data comparing the LTO AW course to current AW course, so my starting point is to look at just that.

Let me begin by comparing all runners between the LTO AW course to today's AW course. It should be noted that for any data connected with Southwell, I have used only runs on the new Tapeta surface which was first deployed at the end of 2021. It made no sense to include previous fibresand results.

The table below displays win strike rates, ROI percentages (to both Industry Starting Price, SP, and Betfair Starting Price, BSP), as well as Actual vs Expected (A/E) indices. I have colour coded some of the A/E indices – those in green are deemed positive (0.95 or above), those in red deemed negative (0.79 or below):

 

 

The vast majority of LTO course to ‘this time’ course stats seem much of a muchness. However, the five A/E ‘positives’ each have one thing in common – these paired courses all have different surfaces:

 

 

I concede I was not expecting this. In terms of strong positives, I would have expected to see the two courses in question either being the same course, or at least having the same surface.

Sticking with Newcastle as the LTO course, the data seem to suggest that horses perform better next time when switching to race on Polytrack. Indeed, here are the exact splits for this:

 

 

There is quite strong evidence here highlighting that if a horse ran at Newcastle LTO, one would much prefer to see it switch surfaces next time to race at one of the three Polytrack courses (Chelmsford, Kempton, Lingfield).

Let’s now compare the A/E indices of the other five courses in terms of LTO course to the today's surface and see if a surface switch is also preferable:

 

 

As an example, the first bar represents a run at Chelmsford last time and racing on Polytrack next; second is Chelmsford runners moving to Tapeta next time; and so on.

Chelmsford (Polytrack 0.83/Tapeta 0.82) and Wolverhampton (Polytrack 0.82/Tapeta 0.83) have very similar A/E figures indicating that the next time surface makes little or no difference from a value standpoint.

However, the other three tracks have slightly bigger differentials seemingly in favour of a surface switch. This is especially true for LTO runners at Southwell. This cohort, when switching surfaces to Polytrack, has produced an A/E index of 0.91 compared to 0.84 for those remaining on Tapeta. That is not quite as potent as the figures shared earlier for Newcastle, but the differences are noteworthy given the data analysed covers thousands of races.

The overall data shared to date points firmly to the fact that a surface switch offers punters better value. This has especially been the case for horses that raced at either Newcastle or Southwell LTO.

LTO Winners: Surface Same or Different

So far, I have only looked at general cases connected with all runners. But what if we restrict the research only to LTO winners? The table below has the same columns as in section one, showing win SR%, A/E indices and returns to SP and BSP. Again, I have highlighted positive and negative A/E indices – green for positive, red for negative.

 

 

Nine of the LTO to 'today' course combinations have seen LTO winners show a profit to SP; this increases to 18 when using BSP.

Looking at the negatives we see that Southwell to Chelmsford and vice versa have both produced poor results for LTO winners. This may be worth noting.

Staying with A/E indices, here are the ten ‘positives’ (0.95 or higher) grouped together:

 

 

Again, perhaps surprisingly, nine of these ten ‘positives’ involve a surface switch. In fact, if we lump together all the results of LTO AW winners, comparing horses that have switched surfaces with those that did not, we get the following results:

 

 

All the evidence is pointing to the fact that LTO AW winners that switched surface are by far the best value and also are more likely to win compared with those that haven’t switched.

Looking at the least experienced LTO winners, two-year-olds (2yos), we can see that a surface switch (regardless of which way round) is an extremely strong positive when comparing the returns to SP and BSP:

 

 

These numbers show that 2yos that won LTO on the all-weather were far better on the wallet when switching surfaces from their last run to this one. In terms of win strike rates 2yos switching surfaces won 28.3% of the time, with those racing on the same surface having won 26.9% of the time. These SR%s are quite close together, so I am thinking it is not solely the 1.4% difference in strike rates that has affected the bottom lines. My guess is that it is also due to the fact that the market has been slightly blind, offering bigger prices on these inexperienced LTO winners when they switch surface.

 

Surface Same or Different: Trainers

I now want to look at a handful of trainers who seem to have strong patterns when it comes to comparing the LTO course surface with the course surface next time.

George Boughey

George Boughey’s runners seem to have performed better on a Tapeta surface than on Polytrack. In fact, looking at his runners on the sand since 2019 (regardless of whether they ran on the AW LTO) he has shown a blind profit to BSP at all three Tapeta courses (Newcastle, Southwell, Wolverhampton). I want to compare his record with horses that raced on Polytrack LTO and are racing on it again next time, with those that ran on Tapeta LTO and stick to Tapeta in their follow-up run. Here are the splits:

 

 

The differences are stark and the ‘betting angle’ is clear. Boughey horses staying on a Tapeta surface require very close scrutiny. Profits have been made ‘blind’ to SP; to BSP the profit stands at £50.10 (ROI +22.7%). Those returning to a Polytrack surface look best avoided. Here are some additional Boughey stats worth sharing:

1. Horses that have started favourite racing on a Polytrack surface having raced LTO on the same surface have won 9 of their 35 starts (SR 25.7%) for losses to SP of £16.07 (ROI -45.9%)

2. Horses that have started favourite racing on a Tapeta surface having raced LTO on the same surface have won 25 races from 62 (SR 40.3%) for a small SP profit of £1.67 (ROI +2.7%); to BSP this improves to +£10.54 (ROI +17%)

3. Boughey 2yos racing on a Tapeta surface having raced on Tapeta LTO have won 14 races from 50 runners (SR 28%) for a profit to SP of £24.73 (ROI +49.5%); to BSP the figures read +£32.31 (ROI + 64.6%). Compare this to his 2yos going from Polytrack LTO to Polytrack this time – these figures read a dismal 6 wins from 53 (SR 11.3%) for an SP loss of £40.97 (ROI -77.3%)

 

Charlie Johnston

Charlie Johnston has only been training on his own for a couple of years, but he runs plenty of horses on the AW, so we have sufficient data to crunch. Johnston has been the reverse of Boughey when it comes to Tapeta LTO to Tapeta this time runners. He has really struggled with these horses. Of the 159 qualifiers only 14 have won (SR 8.8%) for an SP loss of £41.10 (ROI -25.9%). The loss figures would have looked much worse but for one of his winners that scored at a very unexpected 40/1. He has saddled 24 favourites with this profile and only two have won for a whopping 82p in the £ loss to SP. His second favourites have fared little better winning three from 21, losing 44p in the £.

Compare this to a near 19% strike rate with Johnston horses racing on a Polytrack surface having raced on Polytrack LTO. Backing all runners blind to BSP in this scenario would have seen one break even. Backing favourites and second favourites combined with this profile yielded excellent results unlike their Tapeta/Tapeta counterparts. These runners have scored 16 times from 46 (SR 34.8%) for an SP profit of £8.36 (ROI +18.2%).

 

David O’Meara

O’Meara has a good record with horses racing on a Polytrack surface having raced on Polytrack LTO. 153 horses have tried, of which 28 have won (SR 18.3%) for a profit of £30.12 to SP (ROI +19.7%). To BSP this improves to +£60.66 (ROI +39.7%).

Horses switching from Polytrack to Tapeta though have been only half as successful from a win perspective, passing the post first just 9.7% of the time (17 wins from 176). It should also be noted that horses making this surface switch for O’Meara, and which started in the top three of the betting, have incurred SP losses of over 24p in the £. In addition, horses that finished first or second LTO on Polytrack before switching to Tapeta next time have won just four times from 46 attempts.

 

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

 

Concluding Thoughts

When researching huge data sets like I have for the majority of this article, the good news is we can have a fair degree of confidence with the results that are found. As a general rule, this research seems to suggest that a switch of AW surfaces from LTO run to today's run is preferable, especially when we are talking about betting value. It certainly should not be viewed as a negative. For LTO winners and especially LTO 2yo winners, a surface switch does seem a real positive. The figures shared here for both look strong and clear-cut, showing positive correlation.

So, does this mean I’ll be lumping on surface switchers this winter? No, of course not, but I will take a much keener interest in such runners than I have done in the past. Another thing this research has done is open my eyes to how punters, like me, can be blinkered in their thinking. In the third paragraph of this article, I said,

‘When thinking about AW runners that have run well LTO, my perception in the past has been that I would rather see a horse running at the same AW track as they raced last time. If the horse switches tracks, then I would prefer them to stick to the same surface (eg. Polytrack to Polytrack or Tapeta to Tapeta). If a horse has not run that well LTO then any switch of track or surface could be seen to be a positive.’

As a mathematician by trade I am a logical thinker, so what I wrote earlier made perfect sense. Well, it did at the time! Now I have researched this area I can see that, according to this recent data at least, my perception was an inaccurate one.

This process has also demonstrated to me that as punters we should be evolving and always trying to get better. If we stand still, we will fall behind the crowd. Every day is a school day!

- DR

 

Your first 30 days for just £1