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

 

Hat Trick (Plus) Seekers in NH Racing

/in /by

Some horses are better, or better handicapped, than others and, as a result, have been able to run up winning sequences, writes Dave Renham. In this article I will uncover some profitable angles in relation to horses that have won at least their most recent two races; that is, which are chasing a hat-trick, four-timer, five-timer or more.

The focus will be horses bidding for a hat-trick plus specifically in the National Hunt sphere. I have taken data from 1st Jan 2017 to the present day (end of October 2024) for UK National Hunt racing. Profit/losses in all tables/graphs is calculated to Industry Starting Price, but I will quote Betfair SP where appropriate.

All NH Hat-trick+ Seekers

Let me begin by looking at the starting base figures of ALL horses trying to complete a third win in a row:

 

 

As might be expected, we see a strong win rate of close to one in every four starts, but losses to SP stand at over 13 pence in the £. To BSP this improves considerably but losses still exceed 4p in the £. Here is how that breaks down on an annual basis:

 

 

The results have been a little better in the last three years, but it is unclear whether this a trend or simply an anomaly. My suspicion is that it is the latter.

So, what about the type of NH contest - Chase, hurdle, or bumper (NH Flat)? Let’s see the splits:

 

 

Hat-trick+ seekers in bumpers have seen the best returns (close to parity) but in truth the sample size is modest. The chase and hurdle figures are similar to each other, with perhaps hat-trick+ seeking hurdlers a marginally better proposition than chasers.

NH Hat-Trick+ Seekers by Race Class

I want to examine class of race next. Below is a graph looking at the class of race these hat-trick+ seekers ran in comparing their win strike rates within each class:

 

 

This is interesting – from a win perspective at least it seems much harder to win in the two highest classes of race (Class 1 and 2), which stands to reason given horses have likely progressed from lesser contests. Below is a chart illustrating return on investment (ROI) by race class:

 

 

We see positive correlation between the ROI%s and the win strike rates, with hat-trick+ seekers racing in Class 1 and Class 2 events providing the worst value to punters. It should be noted that there have only been a handful of Class 6 races in comparison to the other five classes so we should not get too carried away with the 18p in the £ returns. Having said that, I did back check hat-trick seekers in Class 6 events between the years 2009 and 2016 and they proved profitable to SP in that time frame with an even better win strike rate of 43%. However, since 2018 NH racing no longer has Class 6 events except for some hunter chases.

If we focus on handicap hurdle races at Class 5 level, the lowest grade, hat-trick+ seekers have won 85 times from 253 qualifiers (SR 33.6%) for an SP profit of £15.33 (ROI +6.1%); to BSP +£37.76 (ROI +14.9%). [And once from one run since the research was completed, a 3/1 scorer at Chepstow on 6th November]

The Betting Market for NH Hat-Trick+ Seekers

The betting market is my next port of call. Below are the SP results for different price groupings:

 

 

The best returns - as is usually the case - have come from shorter priced runners (6/4 or less) and to BSP, losses for these runners stand at 1.7%, not far from break-even. The 17/2 to 12/1 group have offered the poorest value and even losses to BSP have been quite steep at 18p in the £ (-18.2% to be exact).

Horses priced 14/1 or bigger win rarely but they have proved profitable to BSP (+£160.38; ROI +24.8%). This has not been due to any ridiculously priced winners: it is basically down to 14/1, 16/1, 20/1 winners paying much more on the Betfair machine.

NH Hat-Trick+ Seekers by Days Since Last Run (DSLR)

I wanted to next check the data for days since last run (DSLR) which of course was a winning run. Here are the findings:

 

 

Horses returning to the track within two weeks have made a small profit to SP. Indeed, to BSP horses off the track for 14 days or less produced a tidy profit of £108.33 (ROI +14.4%). In addition to this, these horses have been quite consistent over the years, with their yearly strike rate always exceeding 30% and five of the eight years proving profitable to BSP. If we look at their yearly A/E indices we can see that six of the eight years saw a figure above 1.00, indicating value. Only 2021 saw a modest A/E index:

 


 

I have added a trendline (dotted) which helps further to show the consistency. It seems that hat-trick+ seekers returning to the track within a fortnight have offered punters good value in the recent past and perhaps this is an area we can exploit this winter.

NH Hat-Trick+ Seekers by Trainer

It’s time to look at trainers now. Which handlers are most adept at finding that good opportunity for their charge to continue a sequence of two or more wins? Here are the trainers with at least 50 qualifiers (ordered alphabetically):

 

 

Oliver Greenall & Josh Guerriero, Alan King, Neil Mulholland and Nigel Twiston-Davies look to be four stables to avoid in this context; their strike rates as well as returns are lower than their peers in this cohort. Below are some highlights from a few of these trainers, with some positive angles but also some negatives, too.

Kim Bailey – has a virtually identical record with his hat-trick+ seekers in handicap and non-handicap races:

 

 

The profits to BSP for non-handicaps reads +£13.34 (ROI +32.5%) and in handicaps it is +£12.53 (ROI +29.8%). His record in chases is much better than over hurdles with 16 wins from 40 (SR 40%) for a profit to SP of £26.57 (ROI +66.4%); to BSP it stands at £33.54 (ROI +83.9%).

Bailey has also done well when his runners have been fancied – horses starting either favourite or second favourite have combined to win 25 times from 55 runners (SR 45.5% for a profit to SP of £12.94 (ROI +23.5%). To BSP this improves slightly to +£15.53 (ROI +28.2%). Kim Bailey looks a trainer to keep an eye on.

 

Nicky Henderson – Nicky Henderson is one of the greats, a fact rarely lost on the market. Steer clear of any hat-trick+ seeker from Seven Barrows racing in a handicap. They have won just eight times from 64 attempts (SR 12.5%) for a loss to SP of £37.68 (ROI -58.9%). To BSP he was only marginally off, and losses remained at over 55p in the £.

 

Willie Mullins – The majority of Willie’s hat-trick+ seekers looking to complete the trio in the UK raced at the Cheltenham Festival, and they returned the Irish maestro 22p in the £ to SP and 38p in the £ to BSP respectively. He also had a 38% strike rate with horses that had won at Leopardstown last time out, returning 49p in the £ to SP and 58p to BSP.

 

Fergal O’Brien – O’Brien has made a profit in both handicaps and non-handicaps. He has also made a profit with his bumper runners, hurdlers, and any runner that has started favourite. However, his most eye-catching stat might be his record with fillies and mares as the table below shows:

 

 

Returns of over 63p in the £ coupled with a strike rate of over 40% is remarkable. To BSP his profit stands at £42.37 (ROI +81.5%).

 

Nicky Richards –Richards has excelled outside Class 1 and 2 company. In Class 3 or lower his hat-trick+ seekers have won 35.9% of the time (19 wins from 53) for a profit of £22.49 to SP. This equates to returns of 42p in the £. To BSP the profit climbs considerably to £41.19 (ROI +77.7%). His handicappers have provided all of the profits, with his hurdlers outperforming his chasers.

 

Dan Skelton – Skelton has a surprisingly poor record with hat-trick+ seekers. Any Skelton qualifier that starts as favourite should be treated with caution. These runners would have lost you 23p in the £ to SP, 19p to BSP. Hat-trick+ seeking chasers are also ones to about which to be wary having lost 43p in the £ to SP, 41p to BSP.

 

Venetia Williams – Miss Williams has sent out 71 hat-trick+ seekers in chases of which 17 have won (SR 23.9%) for an SP profit of £24.81 (ROI +34.9%); to BSP this improves considerably to +£59.37 (ROI +83.6%). However, before getting too carried away, there was an SP winner of 40/1 that paid over 70 on Betfair in the sample; taking that winner out, Venetia's figures have produced a loss. It always pays to check for skewed data.

Other NH Hat-Trick+ Seeker Pointers

I have looked at most of the key areas but, before closing, there are a couple more findings I would like to share with you. Firstly, I want to look at how far winners won by last time out (LTO) in terms of lengths. When examining these LTO winning margins I found a clear pattern. Let me share the win strike rates first – I’ve split the LTO winning margins into three groups: won by 2 lengths or less; won by over 2 lengths up to and including 5 lengths; won by more than 5 lengths. Here are the splits:

 


As can be seen the horses that won by further performed best on their next run, from a win percentage perspective at least. But how does that translate to profitability measures?

 

 

Horses that won by over 5 lengths LTO not only have more chance of completing the hat-trick, but they provided the best returns by some way: both to SP and BSP.

Secondly, and in my final offering for this article, I want to share the stats for hat-trick+ seekers that are racing at a track where they have a previous course and distance (shown on the racecard as 'CD') win to their name. There were 745 past CD winners of which 234 won (SR 31.4%) for very small losses to SP of £9.18 (ROI -1.2%). To BSP these runners made a profit of £80.75 (ROI +10.8%). Their A/E index stands at very respectable 0.97.

 

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

Summary

Positives

In this article we've seen that some hat-trick+ seekers potentially offer value to punters, especially if backing to BSP (and/or, probably, to early prices with best odds guaranteed).

These include:

  • horses returning to the track within 14 days
  • horses that won by more than 5 lengths LTO
  • handicap hurdlers racing at Class 5 level
  • previous course and distance winners

Also, there are a few trainers to note positively including:

  • Kim Bailey
  • Willie Mullins
  • Fergal O’Brien
  • Nicky Richards (Class 3 or lower, handicaps)

Negatives

In terms of negatives, it seems best to ignore hat-trick+ seekers which:

  • are running in Class 1 or Class 2 events
  • are priced between 17/2 and 12/1
  • won by 2 lengths or less LTO

Some trainers look worth swerving in this contextand these include:

  • Oliver Greenall + Josh Guerriero
  • Alan King
  • Neil Mulholland
  • Nigel Twiston-Davies
  • Nicky Henderson handicappers
  • Dan Skelton chasers and/or favourites

So, it is time to wrap this up, and for me I am off to do some digging for my next article. I hope you enjoyed this one.

- DR

Sires on the Sand: All Weather Stallions To Note

/in /by

It has been a while since I have looked at sire stats so, with the winter all-weather (AW) season just getting underway, I felt now was a good time to revisit this area, writes Dave Renham.

Introduction

I know from past experience that certain sires perform better on the all-weather than on turf and vice versa. Other sires have distance preferences, some come to hand early with their two-year-olds, and so on; spotting key sire patterns can therefore help our betting, especially with less exposed runners and those trying a surface (or distance or going) for the first time. My main focus in this piece will be on the racing surface, to try and uncover some patterns rather than look purely for bottom line profits. Obviously, I will share profit and loss data where appropriate, both Industry SP and Betfair SP.

I have looked at UK all-weather data going back to the beginning of 2017, although I have ignored Southwell fibresand results as that surface is defunct now in Britain and Ireland. For the record, the last fibresand race at Southwell was held on 15th August 2021. Since then, specifically the 7th December 2021, they have raced on a tapeta surface.

For those unfamiliar with sire articles, let me briefly offer some background. Sires are the fathers of the respective horses and they generally have some sort of influence on their progeny (offspring).  For example, if the sire was originally a sprinter there is a good chance that his progeny will perform better at sprint distances than over, say, marathon trips. Sires also vary in quality which will obviously influence the horse in terms of inherent ability. Some sires, for example, achieve around one win in every five starts with their progeny, others are nearer one win in 20.

Let's now look at some individual sire stats with a view to all-weather racing.

All-Weather Sires

Aclaim

Aclaim had his first runners in 2021 having last raced on the track in 2017. He enjoyed an excellent racing career winning seven of his 15 starts including a Group 1 success in his last ever race. As a three-year-old he raced primarily over 6f, but his two Group wins (as a four-year-old) came over 7f. In his second year as a sire, he landed his first Group 1 success when Cachet won the 1000 Guineas, and already in his fledgling sire career there seem to be some emerging patterns. Firstly, his two- and three-year-olds have performed better over 5f to 7f than they have over further. Secondly, and importantly as far as all-weather racing is concerned, there seems to be a big difference in performance as regards Polytrack versus Tapeta.

 

The sample size is decent and other metrics correlate with these figures. Firstly, the A/E index sees Aclaim’s Polytrack figure at 1.08, the Tapeta figure is down at 0.83. Secondly, the PRB (Percentage of Rivals Beaten) figures for Aclaim’s Polytrack runners stands at 55.8 with the Tapeta one only 49.2. Aclaim’s current record at Southwell has been particularly poor with just 6 wins and 9 placed runners from 80 runners – the PRB figure is a lowly 41.2.

A comparison I would like to share now is comparing horses that produced a decent performance on Tapeta last time out (LTO). This table contains data for horses that won or finished less than three lengths off the winner on Tapeta last time out, specifically focusing on which surface they raced on next time after that good run on Tapeta:

 

 

Those runners switching to Polytrack have done extremely well, albeit from a small sample. The PRB figure helps to give smaller datasets more credence as it stands at a mighty 65.9% of rivals beaten. Those remaining on their seemingly unfavoured AW surface of Tapeta have really struggled to back up that good run.

Another noteworthy difference can be seen when we examine the performance of male horses versus female horses. The win percentage strike rates are in the graph below:

 

 

Male runners have outperformed their female counterparts with a strike rate that is nigh on double. As a general rule males win more often than females on the sand, but the overall difference is nowhere near this stark. Also, when we examine Aclaim’s turf gender stats we see that there is only 0.6% between their respective strike rates (male 10.9% v female 10.3%).

Aclaim is a relatively new sire but there seem to be some strong AW patterns that we need to be aware of over the coming months.

Belardo

Belardo won two Group 1s in his racing career - the Dewhurst as a juvenile, and the Lockinge as a four-year-old. As a sire his first runners graced the track in 2020 and he has performed well to date, scoring around once in every eight starts. However, there is a big difference between his record on turf and all-weather, as the table below highlights:

 

 

The win-and-place percentages correlate well with the win only percentages, standing at 35.4% for turf runners and just 28.2% for AW runners. Likewise, the A/E indices reflect this disparity, at 1.03 (turf) and 0.75 (AW) respectively. Belardo progeny when starting favourite on the sand have struggled, as one might expect, winning 11 of 55 starts (SR 20%) for hefty losses of 48p in the £ to SP, 45p to BSP.

There is also a difference when it comes to AW surface. Belardo progeny have not enjoyed the Polytrack surface whereas Tapeta win and placed figures are much stronger. The bar chart below illustrates this fact:

 

 

There is one important stat to share before moving on and that is when it comes to distance. Belardo runners are much better over further when racing on the AW as the table below shows:

 

 

If you are looking to back a Belardo runner this winter, I would focus on distances of 1m2f or more. It should be noted that we see the same distance bias with his progeny on the turf.

Dark Angel

Dark Angel’s life on the racecourse lasted just one year when, as a two-year-old, he won four times including the Group 1 Middle Park Stakes at Newmarket. Dark Angel is now 19 and edging towards the end of his stud career, but his fee remains high at £60,000. Dark Angel progeny seem equally effective on the all-weather and the turf which means we can be hopeful that good turf form for any of his progeny will be replicated on the sand. Indeed, horses that have been previously won and/or been placed on turf and which are now having their first run on the AW have won an impressive 24% of the time. However, backing all 176 qualifiers would not have turned a profit but it does support the earlier comment about being equally effective on both surfaces.

Dark Angel was a speedy juvenile racing primarily over 5f and 6f, and his progeny seem to prefer sprint distances, too. Here are the distance splits for Dark Angel’s runners since 2017 on the sand in terms of win percentage:

 

 

Runners over six furlongs or shorter have won twice as often as those trying trips beyond 1m3f. We see a very similar distance pattern on the turf although it is slightly less pronounced.

Dark Angel is known by anyone who uses sire stats in their betting to be a sire whose offspring perform best at sprint trips, but the AW value has been with those racing over 1m½f to 1m 2f. The graph above shows that the win strike rate holds up well, and backing all Dark Angel runners over this distance band would have yielded a profit of £65.38 (ROI +18.3%) to BSP. To SP you would have suffered very small losses but remember this is assuming we are backing all qualifiers blind without any other considerations. The A/E index for this distance group is 0.96 which suggests to me that some of these runners at least have started at value prices, possibly due in part to the prejudice about Dark Angel progeny attempting slightly longer distances. It seems clear to me that Dark Angel progeny have the scope to be effective up to 10f; anything longer and then their lack of stamina does start to come into effect.

Fountain Of Youth

Fountain Of Youth is not a particularly well-known sire, and that may be all the more reason to take note. He has not really fired as a sire just yet, and this especially true on the all-weather. Here are his turf versus AW progeny data:

 

 

The BSP profit figures for the turf do not jump out at me as much as the success rate. On the sand progeny of Fountain Of Youth have scored around 2½ times less often than they have done on the turf. Not only that but he has sired some well fancied runners on the sand despite this overall record. 57 horses sired by Fountain Of Youth have run on the AW when positioned in the top three of the betting, but only six have won (SR 10.5%) for SP losses of £31.17 (ROI –54.7%). Even to BSP the figures are dreadful showing a loss of £29.65 (ROI -52.02%). He's a sire to avoid this winter but maybe to keep a closer eye on when the grass action resumes in the spring.

Frankel

The great Frankel should need no introduction. As a racehorse he won 14 races from 14 starts, ten of those were Group 1s. He was definitely one of the greatest ever horses to grace a racetrack. As a sire he has done extremely well to date, his progeny winning over 18% of their races. On the turf his strike rate stands at 18.8%, on the AW a smidge lower at 18.2%. The main reason I wanted to highlight Frankel is the consistency his runners have displayed across the six UK AW tracks. His win strike rate across them varies only by 3.3% between the ‘best’ and the ‘worst’, while five of the six hit over 18%. The graph below shows the splits:

 

 

For the record, the lower strike rate at Kempton is mainly down to the fact that when Frankel’s progeny have run there the average field size has been bigger than at the other tracks.

Frankel’s offspring have struggled, however, once they hit the age of six. The table below shows the age stats and there has been a serious drop off once they reach that age:

 

 

Focusing in on the age six-plus group, such horses that started in the top three in the betting won just five times from 43 qualifiers (SR 11.6%) for SP losses of 68p in the £ (66p to BSP). I would be very wary of backing Frankel’s runners aged six or older this winter and market confidence would not change my mind.

Before moving on, in terms of distance preference, 1m4f to 1m7f proved the most successful by far on the sand for Frankel progeny. Horses that ran within this distance range, when starting favourite or second favourite, won an impressive 51 times from 113 (SR 45.1%) for an SP profit of £21.60 (ROI +19.1%); to BSP this improves a little to +£29.31 (ROI +25.9%).

Harry Angel

Harry Angel was a top sprinter that won five of his 12 starts comprising two Group 1 successes and three Group 2s. He had his first runners as a sire in 2022 and he has already had eight Group winners across the globe including a Group 1 success in Australia with Tom Kitten.

Let us look at turf flat versus all-weather results for Harry Angel; they make interesting reading:

 

 

We can see much stronger figures on the AW and the A/E indices correlate with 1.13 for the sand versus 0.84 for the turf. It should be stressed that it is still early days in his sire career and the gap between the AW and turf numbers may close. However, any horse that has acted on the turf is highly likely to act on the sand. Indeed, horses that finished first or second LTO on the turf, when switched next time to the all-weather, have won 11 of 26 starts (SR 42.3%) for returns of 19p in the £ to SP, 26p to BSP.

I for one will be looking out for horses sired by Harry Angel this winter.

 

Lethal Force

Lethal Force as a racehorse was a top sprinter winning the Diamond Jubilee Stakes and the July Cup in the same year (2013), both Group 1 status. As a sire he has performed solidly with a win rate of around one in nine, and on the turf his progeny definitely prefer a firmer surface. On good to firm or firmer his win rate improves to one win in seven.

In terms of the all-weather, like Aclaim, Lethal Force offspring seem to prefer Polytrack over Tapeta:

 

 

The differences are arguably not as strong as they were for Aclaim, but they seem significant especially considering the big sample size. The PRB figures also favour Polytrack with a 52.6% figure compared to the Tapeta figure of 48.6%. Also, if we focus on runners that started in the top three in the betting, the correlation is positive with the overall splits as follows:

 

 

Clearly, fancied horses do better on the Polytrack when it comes to the progeny of this sire.

Another stat worth sharing is that his male and female runners have performed equally well in terms of their AW strike rate. In fact, the females have shaded it (10.9% v 10.7%), and if we compare their A/E indices we see that the fillies and mares have an excellent figure of 0.99; the males are down on 0.81. Female runners have offered good value.

Lethal Force no longer stands as a sire, so make the most of the next couple of years as there will be fewer opportunities thereafter to take advantage of the Polytrack/female edge.

Wahington DC

Washington DC is another sire early in his career, but the initial stats suggest a bias to all-weather racing. Here are the current splits:

 

 

As I said previously, it is early days in terms of sire data for Washington DC, but all the positive signs are currently pointing towards the AW. The tapeta record to date is particularly good with 19 wins from 107 (SR 17.8%) for an SP profit of £40.51 (ROI +37.9%); to BSP it stands at an enhanced +£84.28 (ROI +78.8%). It should also be noted that male Washington DC runners on the AW are currently winning twice as often as female runners.

 

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

Sires In General

To finish this article I'd like to share some general data for a bunch more sires who we should see appearing regularly on the sand this winter. I have published win percentages (Win SR%), each way percentages (win & placed %s) and A/E indices. First let us look at some gender-related stats for each:

 

 

Australia, Night of Thunder and Zoustar all see stronger male stats than female stats across the three metrics. Havana Grey is one of two sires where the trend is with female progeny outperforming males across the board, Too Darn Hot being the other. Havana Grey’s female runners have turned a small blind profit to BSP, and their performance has been particularly good on Polytrack, more especially at Lingfield.

Now let’s compare Polytrack with Tapeta stats:

 

 

Too Darn Hot is the stand-out in terms of Polytrack outperforming Tapeta across all three metrics. Blue Point progeny seem to have an edge on Tapeta. The remaining sires seem roughly as effective on both surfaces.

Finally, a look at the two-year-old and three-year-old data:

 

 

Blue Point’s three-year-olds have stronger stats across the board compared to his juveniles; likewise, Kingman. Invincible Army’s win stats suggest 3yos have completely outshone their younger counterparts but the each way stats imply something nearer parity. Calyx is a young sire, and it looks currently that his 2yos perform exceptionally well. Zoustar has figures that correlate with the fact that his 2yos are better betting propositions than his 3yos.

Sire research is an inexact science, but I hope this piece has given readers some interest and hopefully you will take some useful nuggets away to help your AW betting this winter.

- DR

Statistics for National Hunt Racing in November

/in /by

The National Hunt season starts to move up a gear as we roll into November, writes Dave Renham. We have the Paddy Power meeting at Cheltenham; the Grand Sefton Chase at Aintree; the Betfair Chase at Haydock featuring the first Grade 1 of the season; the Fighting Fifth Hurdle at Newcastle; the Ascot hurdle, Haldon Gold Cup at Exeter, and on.

In this article I will look at November stats and trends for National Hunt racing in the UK going back as far as 2017. Profit and loss has been calculated to Industry Starting Price (SP), but I will quote Betfair Starting Price (BSP) where appropriate.

Betting Performance by Market Rank, November, 2017-2023

Let's start off by looking at the betting market and the returns to SP (ROI%). Below is a graph with an overview of the top market ranks versus the rest:

 

Favourites lost the least in terms of return on investment, while horses 5th or bigger in the betting have proved very poor value. To BSP, losses for favourite backers would have been only 1.56% so not far from a break-even scenario.

Favourite Performance, by Race Code, November, 2017-2023

Sticking with favourites let us see the splits when it comes to race code. For the record there were 11 races held on the all-weather that were classified as National Hunt Flat races so I have combined these results with the overall NH Flat race numbers:

 

 

Favourites in chases proved the best value – an A/E index of 0.97 is close to that magic 1.00 figure. In contrast, favourites in NH Flat races struggled a fair bit. Even at Betfair SP losses were over 12p in the £ (-12.2%). Be wary of any favourite in a NH Flat race in November which finished 2nd or worse LTO. 70 horses have started favourite after this LTO placing of which 18 have won (SR 25.7%) for a loss of £23.70 (ROI -33.9%). Losses to BSP were still steep at £19.51 (ROI -27.8%).

Favourite Performance, by Race Type, November 2017-2023

A look now at handicap market leaders versus non-handicap favs. Here are the splits:

 

 

There is quite a difference here: market leaders in handicaps got to within touching distance of a break-even situation and, to BSP, handicap jollies made a small profit during the study period of £61.52 (ROI +2.8%). Both handicap chase favourites and handicap hurdle favourites proved profitable on 'the machine'.

While I’m discussing favourites, it should be noted that of the 30 such horses in Grade 3 races in November only two have won. A small sample for sure, but one to be aware of.

Performance by Last Time Out (LTO) Finishing Position, November, 2017-2023

I want to look at LTO performance next in terms of finishing position. Here are the numbers:

 

 

Last day winners were the best of a modest bunch in betting performance terms. Having said that, if betting to BSP, LTO winners only lost 2% of stakes (2p in the £). Sticking with LTO winners, if the horse won LTO when making its seasonal debut - and was thus having its second start of the campaign - such runners recorded a profit at BSP of nearly 5p in the £.

Another LTO winner group worth noting is that of those returning to the track after less than three weeks. This cohort won 90 times from 246 (SR 27.6%) with a small loss to SP of £11.01 (ROI -1.2%), but a profit of £88.87 (ROI +10%) to BSP.

It looks worth almost blindly avoiding LTO runners that fell, were pulled up, or unseated their riders. Their figures are extremely poor (perhaps not surprisingly).

Trainer Performance, November, 2017-2023

Time to look at trainer stats now and below is a table containing the trainers with the top 20 overall win strike rates during November since 2017. This covers all runs in the month and all prices:

 

 

Eight of the 20 handlers notched a blind profit to SP, five of which (Greenall / Guerriero, Fergal O’Brien, Twiston-Davies, Venetia Williams and Symonds) were particularly impressive as they did not have big-priced winners skewing their results. The big guns of Nicky Henderson and Paul Nicholls had plenty of success, but neither offered value across their full runner cohort.

As I have mentioned before, we need to be careful sometimes with trainer data as big-priced winners can skew the profit figures. Hence, I have taken trainers in the above table and compared their A/E indices across two price bands – 9/1 or shorter, and 10/1 or bigger. The first graph shows the trainers whose A/E indices are higher with their shorter priced runners:

 

For this group of trainers, therefore, we can be more trusting in their overall figures. The A/E indices for horses priced 10/1 or bigger are generally poor. Indeed, Messrs. Greenall and Guerriero had no winners from 30 from that group, and Nicky Henderson managed a solitary score from 81 starters.

Most of these trainers have decent A/E indices with their runners priced 9/1 or shorter. Anything 0.95 or higher I would deem as positive and those trainers with that range of A/E index are shown below along with their complete stats for runners priced 9/1 or shorter:

 

 

Five of the nine proved to be profitable while the SP losses for Richards and Henderson were small.

Now let me look at the remaining trainers from the original table whose A/E indices are higher with their bigger priced runners:

 

Kim Bailey, Jimmy Moffatt and Tom Symonds all had decent A/E indices for both groups, whereas the other four trainers - Newland, McCain, Thomas and Thomson - did not. The overall figures for both Thomas and Thomson in the ‘all runs in November’ table showed good profits, but this graph highlights neatly that their figures were skewed. Indeed, the pair enjoyed a winner apiece at 66/1, while Thomson also saddled a 25/1 winner.

Additional Trainer Statistics

Below are some additional trainer stats that could prove useful to follow this November:

1. Paul Nicholls at Wincanton. This was especially so with horses priced 9/1 or shorter. With this cohort he had 30 winners from 79 (SR 38%) for a profit to SP of £16.09 (ROI +20.4%). To BSP it reads +£24.83 (ROI +31.4%).

2. Nicky Henderson runners priced 9/1 or shorter having their second start of the season. This group produced a 30.2% strike rate (35 wins from 116) for a profit of £23.01 (ROI +19.8%). To BSP this improved to £32.24 (ROI +27.8%). Staying with Henderson, his hurdlers at Newbury produced a 31% strike rate and returns to SP of 18p in the £, 27p to BSP.

3. Three trainers have performed particularly well with horses making their seasonal debuts and their results are shown in the table below:

 

 

None of the three have had big-priced winners skewing their results so they are worth keeping an eye out for this November.

4. Chris Gordon at Plumpton. Gordon recorded 11 winners from 39 (SR 28.2%) for a profit to SP of £4.68 (ROI +12%); to BSP £10.45 (ROI +26.8%). When his runners were in the first three of the betting the figures improved to 11 wins from 26 (SR 42.3%) for a profit of £17.69 (ROI +68%) to SP; £23.45 (ROI +90.2%) to BSP.

Trainer Performance, 60+ Runners at 9/1 or shorter, November, 2017-2023

Finally in this piece let me share a good chunk of trainer data in one table. Below are the figures for all trainers that have had 60+ runners that have started at an SP of 9/1 or less. Nine of the trainers have had their data displayed above but I have included them here, too, as it makes more sense than to leave them out. The table is ordered by win strike rate:

 

 

There are 66 trainers there, so plenty to get your teeth into!

Let’s hope the recent historical data in this piece help to point us in the right direction over the next few weeks. It would be nice to win a bit of extra money with Christmas around the corner!

- DR

Run Style Bias in Handicap Chases: 2024/25 Season Update (Part 2)

/in /by

This is the second of two articles where I am revisiting run style bias, writes Dave Renham. As with the first piece, which can be read here, the focus is on handicap chases with seven or more runners, and all data has been sourced from UK NH racing between 1st January 2017 and 6th October 2024. I looked mainly at the distances of 2m1f or less and 2m3f-2m4f last time; in this follow up I concentrate on races of 2m5f-2m6f and 2m7f-3m2f.

Before getting into the numbers here is a quick recap of which type of horse fits each run style profile:

Led – horses that lead or dispute the lead early, usually within the first furlong; known as the front runner.

Prominent – horses that race close to pace tracking 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.

Front Runners in UK Handicap Chases (7+ Runners)

Let us begin by comparing the A/E index for the ‘Led’ group (early leaders/front runners) versus the other three groups combined (Prominent, Mid Div, Held Up) across different field sizes for ALL distances.

 

 

This graph is illuminating. It clearly shows that the front running edge in handicap chases becomes stronger as the number of runners increases. The Impact Value comparison shows the same trend:

 

 

Once we get to 11 or more runners the front running bias becomes extremely potent, strengthening further still as we hit 14+ field sizes.

It’s time now to look at the stats over 2m5f-2m6f.

Run Style in UK Handicap Chases, 2m5f-2m6f (7+ Runners)

My first port of call in terms of this distance band is a comparison of the win strike rates for each run style group. It is important to note that these figures are based, as in the previous article, on the wins to runs ratio within each specific run style group. Here are the splits:

 

As with the first article we see a bias towards front runners, and a tapering related to early race position thereafter; but at 2m5f-2m6f prominent racers were not far behind front runners. Horses that raced further back early in the race continued though to struggle.

Let me share the A/E indices next:

 

There is good correlation with the wins to runs ratio here. The 1.15 figure for front runners indicates good value but it is less impressive than the 2m1f or less figure of 1.23, and also the 2m3f-2m4f figure of 1.31. Prominent racers are within 0.01 of the magic 1.00 figure. The held up A/E of 0.63 is low and has offered punters really poor value.

Onto the Impact Values now:

 

The same sloping pattern can be seen again, displaying good correlation across all three metrics. The 1.5 Impact Value for front runners is, like the A/E number, below the figures achieved at the two shorter distances examined in the first article (1.65/1.75). However, the front running bias is still in evidence, such types winning 50% more than might be expected.

Now I want to examine the individual course run style stats over 2m5f-2m6f. Less than half of the UK NH courses race over this trip so there are only 15 courses to share. Below is a table comparing the wins to runs ratio within each run style group, as well as their A/E indices. As with the first article I have colour coded it to help make the biases clearer. Numbers in green are positive, numbers in red are negative.

 

 

Aintree didn’t make the table due to a small sample size of races. Having said that, four of the 14 races were won by front runners and the average field size was 20. Hence, from limited data, front runners at Aintree look to have an edge.

The strongest front running biases from the other tracks appear to be at Cartmel, Kelso, Sedgefield and Taunton. Ffos Las consistently played against front runners at the shorter distances reviewed in part one, and this has again been the case. Front runners have also struggled at Leicester.

Before moving onto the longer distance races let me share the run style figures over 2m5f-2m6f restricted to horses from the top three in the betting. These stats also share potential profit and loss amounts to SP:

 

 

This table helps to show the positive correlation between the A/E indices with the ROI column. Horses from the top three in the betting that have taken the lead early have been excellent value and profitable to follow; those that raced midfield or were held up early have been very poor value.

 

Run Style in UK Handicap Chases, 2m7f-3m2f (7+ Runners)

Once again I’ll start by sharing the strike rates for each group (wins to runs ratio):

 

Even at longer distances horses that get to the front early have a strong edge. The same pattern across all run styles continues with ‘L’ outcompeting ‘P’ which in turn out outcompetes ‘MD’ with ‘HU’ bottom of the pile once more. Horses that led in handicap chases at this distance range won twice as often as horses that raced in midfield.

The A/E indices are next up:

 


 

These indices suggest that the front running bias is stronger for races between 2m7f and 3m2f than it is at those from 2m5f to 2m6f. Indeed, if one had correctly predicted the front runner(s) in each race from 2m7f-3m2f one would have profited to SP to the tune of £842.05 (ROI +31.6%). Finally let me share the Impact Values:

 


 

These values confirm how strong the bias is, so now may be a good time to compare the A/E indices and Impact Values for front runners across the four distance bands covered in the two articles:

 

 

This confirms the consistently strong figures across the board, with the 2m3f-2m4f distance edging it in terms of having had the strongest bias over the period of study. But there looks to be value and a well above average strike rate at all distances reviewed.

Back to the longer (2m7f-3m2f) distance band and let me share the run style stats when restricting to those horses that were in the top three in the betting only.

 

 

Front runners from the top three in the betting have performed extremely well showing how profitable they could have been. Again, we have terrible returns for mid division and held up runners.

It’s time now to look at the 2m7f-3m2f course run style splits looking at wins/runs and A/E indices. The format will be familiar by now:

 

 

The courses with the strongest front running biases in this distance bracket have been at Ayr, Cartmel, Catterick, Cheltenham, Chepstow, Exeter, Hereford, Hexham, Ludlow and Musselburgh, while front runners have struggled at Bangor, Carlisle and Haydock.

Overall Front Running Biases in UK Handicap Chases (7+ Runners)

There were eight courses that showed a consistently strong bias across all distances. They were Cheltenham, Doncaster, Exeter, Hexham, Kelso, Musselburgh, Sedgefield and Southwell. Two courses saw front runners at a disadvantage overall, those being Bangor and Ffos Las. The remaining courses offer front runners some sort of edge although its strength varies from track and trip to track and trip.

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

Summary

That concludes this two-parter. In summary, since 2017 in handicap chases of 7+ runners, front runners have enjoyed an edge at all distances and at nearly all courses. The strength of the bias has been as strong in 2023 and 2024 as it has ever been so when analysing such races make sure you consider how the race is likely to be run from a run style / pace perspective. I have no doubt it will improve your bottom line.

And, if you're not using the pace maps on this site, you are at a distinct disadvantage to those who are. The maps on geegeez.co.uk are more accurate than any other pace maps I've used, and are worth the subscription fee alone in my opinion.

- DR

Run Style Bias in Handicap Chases: 2024/25 Season Update (Part 1)

/in /by

It has been three years since I looked at run style bias in National Hunt racing, so I felt now was a good time to revisit the topic, writes Dave Renham. Personally, I use run style bias for around 50% of my National Hunt bets so it is an area that I feel is extremely important. This article is the first of a two-parter.

The focus for both articles will be handicap chases with seven or more runners. Data has been taken from UK NH racing spanning from 1st January 2017 to 6th October 2024. I have split the races into four distance bands – 2m1f or less, 2m3f-2m4f; 2m5f-2m6f and 2m7f-3m2f. In this piece I will concentrate on the two shorter distances of 2m1f or less and 2m3f-2m4f. There is a relatively small number of handicap chases at 2m2f and these have a micro-section below.

As a reminder, geegeez.co.uk offers some powerful resources and the stats I am sharing with you here are based on the site’s pace / run style data, which can be found within individual racecards, a separate Pace Analyser tool, and in the highly configurable Query Tool. The run style data on Geegeez is split into four groups – Led (4), Prominent (3), Mid Division (2) and Held Up (1). The number in brackets is the run style score assigned to each group. Below is a basic breakdown of which type of horse fits which type of run style profile:

Led – horses that lead early, usually within the first furlong or so; or horses that dispute the early lead. The early leader is often referred to 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.

Race Leaders in Handicap Chases

Let me start by comparing the win percentages for the ‘L’ group (early leaders/front runners) versus the other three groups combined (Prominent, Mid Div, Held Up) across all distances by Year:

 

 

As the graph indicates front runners have a definite edge when it comes to strike rate. It is important to be aware that the number of runners in each run style group differs: prominent and hold up categories usually have more runners within their groups. 'Leaders' is the smallest group as usually you only get one early leader in this type of race, occasionally two when there is a battle for the early lead.

Hence although raw strike rates have significance, it is may be instructive to look at metrics like Impact Values (IV) and the A/E index (Actual winners/Expected winners). More information on these IV and A/E metrics can be found here.

First here are the A/E index splits by year:

 

 

These figures correlate positively with the strike rates. The ‘L’ group of race leaders have recorded consistently high A/E indices ranging from 1.09 to 1.33. The three other run style groups combined have ranged from 0.76 to 0.82. Anything above 1.00 for A/E indices suggests good value so front runners have consistently offered punters good value year in year out. Onto the Impact Value comparison now:

 

 

This is to all intents and purposes a carbon copy of the A/E graph. These initial findings already highlight why run style bias is important in handicap chases and something that needs to be factored in to your form study. It is time now to break the stats down into the distance bands as mentioned earlier. Let me start by examining the shorter distance handicap chases.

Handicap Chases of 2m1f or less

To begin with l will share the win strike rates for each group. Note that these figures are based, as before, on the wins to runs ratio within each specific group. Here are the splits:

 

Based on what we have seen already in this article in terms of the overall stats, these figures should come as no surprise. The ‘led’ group is comfortably clear of the rest in terms of win rates. Thereafter, the graph slopes from left to right implying that the nearer a runner is to the front of the race in the early part the better. We will see this pattern tend to recur across all race distances. Let me share the A/E indices for these shortest distance handicap chases next:

 

This is another demonstration of how the 'Led' group have offered punters excellent value. 1.23 is a strong A/E index figure on a significant sample size. We again see the sloping pattern from left to right, giving us the correlation statisticians are always looking for. The IV splits complete the set:

 

There is strong positive correlation once more, emphasizing the edge front runners have over 2m1f or less. Indeed, if you had sourced a crystal ball in perfect working order and been able to predict all the horses that led or contested the lead early in these races you would have secured a huge £1 level stakes profit of £330.21 (ROI +29.9%). This is just to Industry SP; to Betfair SP you could probably double that figure.

Now I want to examine the individual course run style stats over 2m1f or less. Courses that had a handful of qualifying races have not been included. Below is a table comparing the wins to runs ratio within each run style group, as well as their A/E indices. I have colour coded it to help make the biases clearer. Numbers in green are positive, numbers in orange or red are negative.

 

 

The strongest front running biases look to be at Cheltenham, Doncaster, Hereford, Hexham, Sedgefield, Southwell and Stratford. Other courses where the bias is still very significant include Cartmel, Huntingdon and Plumpton.

I did a little extra digging into the Cheltenham and Sedgefield run style stats because, as we know, it is all very well having a front running bias, but it is not easy predicting who will lead a race early. Looking at the Cheltenham numbers first, five of the 27 winners were top rated pre-race in the PACE section of the geegeez.co.uk racecards, while 12 of the 27 came from the top three in the pace ratings. If you had backed ‘blind’ the top three pace rated horses in all qualifying races at Cheltenham, you would have made a profit of £29.18 to SP (ROI +36%). Looking at Sedgefield, where there were more qualifying races (44), the top-rated pace horse won 12 times and backing them blind would have secured an SP profit of £16.55 (ROI +37.6%). The second rated pace horse won eight times for a profit of £28.04 (ROI +63.7%). So, 20 of the 44 races were won by one of the top two rated pace horses in the pre-race pace cards. That is extremely impressive going.

Clearly, I have delved more deeply into just two courses and distances as regards analysing the performance of the pre-race pace ratings, but the initial signs are promising. The problem with this type of research is that it is quite time consuming as you can only cross-check one race at a time. However, when I get some time, I will analyse some more.

In terms of courses where front runners ‘under achieve’, these include Carlisle, Ffos Las, Newbury, Sandown, Uttoxeter and Warwick. As punters, it is important to recognise the uniqueness of British horse racing in terms of how different course configurations can be. Courses can be left- or right-handed, sharp or stiff, undulating or flat, while the circumference and shape of each track differs too. Fences are placed in different positions and the length of run ins also varies. Some of these factors may help to strengthen or indeed weaken any front running bias.

Now it is time to switch to the next distance band.

Handicap Chases at 2m2f

Briefly, there were 86 races at this specific distance in the near eight year study period. The breakdown is below and, happily, the pattern is repeated: horses that lead do much the best, though those racing midfield have outperformed prominent runners. Hold up runners have found life difficult.

 

 

Of the five qualifying tracks with 7+ runner handicap chases at this specific distance, Kempton was by far the best performing for front runners.

 

 

Handicap Chases of 2m3f to 2m4f

I am going to start with this cohort by looking at the strike rates for each run style group as I did before. Keep in mind that these are wins to runs ratios calculated within each group.

 

These figures mimic closely those for the 2m1f or less distance band. Front runners would have again been a licence to print money should you have been able to predict them pre-race. Backing the front runner during this timeframe, would have made a profit of £548.82 to £1 level stakes (ROI +33.3%).

Onto the A/E indices now:

 

These numbers suggest the front running bias is stronger than over the shorter distance. Let’s see if the IV figures back up that assertion:

 

The chart does correlate with the slightly improved A/E indices. To save readers scrolling up and down to compare the two distances, the table below shows these stats in one place to make the comparison easy:

 

 

The led and prominent figures are higher for both metrics at the 2m3f-2m4f distance, while the mid div and held up figures are lower. All of this points firmly to an even stronger run style/pace bias to front runners.

Time to examine the individual course data for the 2m3f-2m4f group now, and below is another table comparing the wins to runs ratio within each run style group, as well as their A/E indices. It’s colour coded as before:

 

 

It is interesting to see that Cheltenham, Doncaster, Sedgefield and Southwell have strong front running biases again as does Plumpton. Other courses that have displayed a good edge to early leaders include Carlisle, Musselburgh, Perth and Uttoxeter. There are three courses where front runners have been at a disadvantage which were Bangor, Ffos Las and Lingfield. The Ffos Las figures for 2m1f or less were also poor for front runners.

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

And that is where we will leave the first of this two-parter. It will be interesting to see how strong the front running biases are at the two longer distance groups - find out next week! Until then...

- DR

More on Price Movement from Opening Show

/in /by

A few weeks back I wrote an article, which you can read here, that featured an introduction to patterns of price movement from Opening Show odds (OS) to SP odds, writes Dave Renham. In this piece I want to revisit the topic and expand my research. I have taken data from 2021 to 2024 (up to and including September 21st) for UK flat and all-weather racing and I have used William Hill odds as representative of the general bookmaker community.

As I mentioned in my earlier piece, 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 that period before the race starts, the odds will fluctuate. Some will shorten, some will drift, and some will either not move or end up back at the same price they started.

Price Movement: All Runners

I will begin by sharing the figures for all UK flat/all-weather runners during the study period to see what percentage of these runners shortened in price, lengthened in price, or stayed the same price when comparing their OS to their final Starting Price (SP). There is an extra chunk of data compared to the original article here, but the splits are virtually identical (within 0.2%):

 

 

We can use these figures as our baseline when comparing different angles. As can be seen, nearly half of all runners lengthen in price from OS to SP, compared with just under a third that shorten. Around one fifth of all runners end up having the same SP as their OS price.

Original Article Summary

Before moving on let me quickly recap the other main findings from the original article:

1. Horses that shorten in price win roughly 1.7 times more often than horses that lengthen in price.

2. Horses that lengthened in price when their OS was 7.0 (6/1) or less, lost only 1.5% to BSP.

3. Horses with an OS starting point of 18/1 or bigger have lengthened or drifted in price more than half of the time.

4. Horses with an OS of between 100/30 and 13/2 have similar percentages when it comes to shorteners and drifters. All other prices see a big differential as shown in the overall figures (see graph above).

5. The five trainers with the highest win strike rates of the period, namely Charlie Appleby, John & Thady Gosden, William Haggas, Saeed bin Suroor and Roger Varian combined to make a BSP Return on Investment of 5.5% when combining all of their horses that shortened in price from OS to SP.

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

 

Clearly if we can improve our chances of predicting the price movements of horses we are planning to back in the time between OS and the start of the race, then it has the potential to improve our bottom line.

Price Movement by Trainer

My first port of call in this piece is to examine more trainers in detail.

Positive Price Movement by Trainer

To begin with here are the trainers with the highest percentage of runners that have shortened in price between OS and SP:

 

 

The top 20 are listed and Jane Chapple-Hyam heads the list. She is one of only two trainers who had more horses that have shortened in price than lengthened, John Gallagher being the other. Focusing on her runners with an opening show price of 9/1 or shorter we get the following splits:

 


 

Over 45% of her shorter priced runners hardened in price in the 10-15 minutes before the start of the race. Compare this to the average figure for all trainers with this price stipulation which stands at 37%. That is a noteworthy differential but John Gallagher’s splits see more than 50% of his runners priced at single figures on the opening show shortening in price. His stats are thus:

 

What is quite bizarre, however, is that the Gallagher runners that drifted in price won more often than those which shortened. Not only that, but the drifters made a tidy BSP return of over 30p in the £; his horses priced 9/1 or less on the opening show that shortened to SP showed a huge loss of 44p in the £ at exchange prices.

All of the other 19 trainers in the above list had the reverse with their shorteners winning more often than their drifters, which is the pattern one might expect based on the overall data. Jane Chapple-Hyam’s performance fitted this far more typical profile, and the results of her shorteners were much more impressive than for those that drifted as the table below shows:

 

 

Chapple-Hyam’s horses that shortened also made a small profit to Industry SP. It should be noted that her 159 runners whose price remained the same also made a profit to BSP.

Negative Price Movement by Trainer

Time to look now at those trainers whose horses have drifted / lengthened the most in percentage terms from OS to SP.

 

 

As you might expect, most of the trainers on the list are lesser name trainers whose horses tend to operate at the lower end of the ability spectrum. This is reflected in a tendency to saddle bigger priced runners which we know from previous research means they are more inclined to drift than mid- to shorter range priced runners.

There are a couple of additional stats I’d like to share. Firstly, Grace Harris when sending her horses at Wolverhampton has seen 66 of the 99 runners lengthen in price, exactly two-thirds. Secondly, Linda Perratt runs more horses at Ayr than at any other track, but her runners drift in price more often than her average: just under 61% of her Ayr runners drifted in price from OS to SP, and of these 133 runners just five won, showing significant losses. At Hamilton, where Perratt also runs a good proportion of her horses, she sees a similar percentage, 64.3%, drift from OS to SP.

Before moving on from this table of trainers, it is quite a surprise to see George Boughey in this group. It is also interesting to note that his shorter priced runners have similar percentages to his overall ones. Below, there is a graph that shows the percentage splits for runners that were 5/1 or shorter at OS:

 


 

Using this OS price stipulation across all trainers sees 43% of runners drift in price. Boughey’s figure is over 10% above this. So why do so many of Boughey’s shorter priced runners drift in price from OS? That is the 66 million-dollar question, I guess; most likely is that they are frequently over-bet earlier in the day, which leads to a correction 'on the show'.

Why Do Horses Drift?

In fact, now is perhaps a good time to discuss some of the reasons why a horse may lengthen in price in the period close to the ‘off’. Firstly, it is partly due to the bookmaker’s overround being slightly bigger on OS compared with the final market overround, in order to defend against a horse which might have been offered at the wrong price - a rick, in the parlance.

Secondly, how a horse behaves before its race can influence the price, normally in an outward direction. For example, horses that sweat up in the paddock or behind the stalls are noted and this tends to be a negative which often pushes the price out. Also, some horses get very agitated in the parade ring and that warning sign tends to see the price start to drift also. Other horses get to the start fine but then become a problem, usually making it difficult for the handlers to load them in the starting stalls. Another factor can be that a horse is difficult to restraint when going to post,  expending too much energy before the start. And yet another reason for horses drifting is when a different horse in the same race is well backed. In that scenario and in order to balance the market, bookmakers will ensure that at least one horse, often more, move out in price to compensate.

Why Do Horses Steam?

Horses that are being backed close to the off can be down to a mix of reasons also. One obvious reason is because the owner and/or stable are expecting a very big run from their charge. Another reason for contracting price movements is when a horse is shortened deliberately by the bookmakers because they have 'running on' liabilities from multiple bets should the horse win. A third reason could be paddock demeanour - fitness, behaviour, physical well being and the like. And there will be a few times when it is simply not easy to explain a late market move be it positive or negative.

Price Movement by Owner

I want now to look at a selection of owners and consider the percentage splits for those whose horses have run the most during the study period. I have ordered them by the highest percentage of horses that have shortened in price:

 

 

There is a huge difference between Marc Chan at the top and Antony Brittain at the bottom. Chan’s runners do very well when they shorten in price, hitting a strike rate of 29% and producing a profit to SP of £38.77 (ROI +56.2%) and to BSP of £48.65 (ROI +70.5%).

Horses from the Shadwell ownership have also made sound profits when concentrating on their runners that have shortened from OS to SP. Of the 437 such runners 116 have won (SR 26.5%) for a profit to SP of £48.29 (ROI +11.1%). To BSP this improve to profits of £89.39 (ROI +20.5%).

One of the most interesting findings from my point of view is that Godophin’s runners are not that strong in the market. Personally I would be betting a Godolphin runner as late as possible or at BSP if fancying one of them.

Price Movement by Horse Gender

I want to look next at the sex of the horse to see if that makes a difference to the how the price changes from OS to SP. You hear comments especially about younger male horses such as ‘he is acting very coltish’, etc. Hence, I thought it was worth looking at the figures for colts, geldings, fillies and mares.

 


 

There are some differences here with fillies drifting in price more than the other three – over 50% of all fillies have drifted in price. Is this partly down to their behaviour / composure in the paddock, going down to post and behind the starting stalls? I’m not an expert in animal behaviour so I cannot say, but it definitely gives food for thought.

Price Movement in Selected Horses

Finally let us look at some individual horses – I have chosen to share the data for just over 50 horses currently in training. The ones in green are horses that are often backed and hence tend to shorten more from OS to SP; those in red tend to lengthen in price most of the time. The number of qualifying runs in 2021-2024 must have been 30+ to make the list:

 

 

Given how frequently these horses run it is no surprise that there are familiar names in the list including sprinter Summerghand. It may be interesting to note that he is rarely backed late and has drifted from opening show to starting price in nearly 60% of his races. My personal plan is to dig deeper into each horse in the table to see if I can find logical reasons why their stats are as they are. What those are could be down to one key factor, or a group of factors; it might be horse behaviour pre-race, or linked to trainers or owners, or perhaps due to the price range the horse goes off at. I think there are likely to be reasons why the stats for each horse are as they are because they are all far from the ‘norm’ at either end of the % splits spectrum.

That's all for this second helping of price movement from opening show to the off. I hope it has given you some further insights into how the market may shape up in those last few minutes before the start of the race.

- DR

A Study of Owners in UK Flat Racing, Part 2

/in /by

This is the second of a two part series looking at some owner data for UK flat horse racing, writes Dave Renham. The period of study covers 1st January 2019 to 8th September 2024. Profit and loss figures have been calculated to Industry Starting Price (ISP), but I will quote Betfair SP (BSP) when appropriate.

In the first piece I shared data for the major owners who had the top 25 strike rates during this time frame and drilled into three - the Godolphin operation, Shadwell Estate and Cheveley Park Stud. To begin with in this piece, I will review the man with the second-best strike rate overall.

Mark Chan

Backing Marc Chan-owned horses in Britain during the study period has returned a tidy profit to SP of £34.12 (ROI +20.1%) with a strike rate close to one win in every four. Chan, a Hong Kong businessman, has a small but select group of horses that race in the UK. Initially, he owned and raced horses solely in Hong Kong, however in more recent years he has spread his wings. Saturday August 26th 2023 is a date that will be etched in his memory forever, as he landed an impressive treble that day with Angel Bleu winning the Group 2 Celebration Mile at Goodwood, Kinross the City of York Group 2 contest at York just 20 minutes later and then, 55 minutes after that, Lezoo prevailed in the Listed Hopeful Stakes at Newmarket. Three Class 1 wins at three different courses in just 1 hour and 15 minutes.

Most of Chan's horses are trained by Ralph Beckett and their record together reads: 38 wins from 144 starts (SR 26.4%) for a profit of £27.37 (ROI +19%). To BSP this improves to £44.34 (ROI +30.8%). Chan also has a couple of horses in training with John and Thady Gosden. Currently the Chan/Gosden combination has seen 4 wins from 11 starts.

Mark Chan Runners by Gender

One stat that stands out with Chan’s horses is the difference in success between his male runners and his females. Let’s look at the strike rates first:

 

 

Male horses have been 1.8 times more successful in terms of winning races than female horses. There have been more male runners, but still a fairly even split (94 male; 76 female). In terms of returns to SP there is a considerable difference:

 

 

That disparity equates to around 63p in the £ between the SP returns for male horses compared to female ones.

Other Mark Chan Runner Stats

There are three further subsets of stats I’d like to share:

1. Chan’s runners performed well when priced 6/1 or shorter. This group of runners secured 36 wins from 96 (SR 37.5%) for a profit of £35.62 (ROI +37.1%); A/E index 1.31.

2. Focusing on the Grade 1 tracks (Ascot, Doncaster, Epsom, Goodwood, Newbury, Newmarket, Sandown, York), Chan secured a 21.5% strike rate (20 from 93) for an SP profit of £13.60 (ROI +14.6%); A/E index 1.29.

3. Chan-owned two-year-olds have performed extremely well with the benefit of at least one previous run. These juveniles have won 16 of their 43 starts hitting a huge strike rate of over 37%. Returns have been 34p in the £ to SP, 44p to BSP. Compare this to his 2yo debutants who have scored only three times from 21 (SR 14.3%).

As I’m writing this, Kinross has just won for a tenth time (eighth for Chan) winning the Park Stakes (Group 2) at Doncaster.

 

Sheikh Mohammed Obaid Al Maktoum

I want to concentrate on the past three years for this Dubai-based owner as his team has excelled during that timeframe. Sheikh Obaid's prizemoney earnings have exceeded £1.5 million in each of the three years, and each year has seen his strike rate north of 20% (21.4% in 2022, 20.9% in 2023 and an impressive 24.7% so far in 2024). Backing all runners ‘blind’ in the past three years would have seen a £85.28 profit to SP; to BSP it stands at a very healthy +£164.41 (ROI +26.6%). It should also be noted that his figures are not skewed by several big-priced winners.

At the front end of the market, Sheikh Obaid has proved profitable to follow, with his favourites and second favourites having combined to win 92 races from 256 (SR 35.9%) for an SP profit of £18.20 (ROI +7.1%). To BSP this improves to £36.03 (ROI +14.1%).

Sheikh Obaid Runners by Age

Moving onto age of horse now and here are the splits:

 

 

Two-year-olds have an excellent record as have those aged four. What is interesting about the 2yo results is what happens when we compare win strike rates based on number of career starts. Normally 2yo debutants score much less frequently than those that have run before. However...

 

 

...as can be seen here, Sheikh Obaid-owned juveniles on debut have won more often than any other subset and, at a ridiculously high 29.9% strike rate for 2yo debutants. The average strike rate for all 2yo debutants in the past three years stands at just 8.4%. Here are the full figures for these 2yos on debut:

 

 

To BSP these figures improve further to  profit of £99.37 (ROI +129.1%). Backing Sheikh Obaid-owned debutants has been a license to print money in the past three seasons.

Sheikh Obaid Runners by Trainer

It’s trainer time next and here are the stats for all runners from any stable that has saddled more than 40 runners for Sheikh Obaid:

 

 

Karl Burke looks the stand-out performer and, if ignoring his bigger-priced runners (14/1 or more), the overall profit improves by £26 to £87.08. His 2yos have been exceptional winning over 36% of the time (16/44) and returning 42p in the £ to SP, 60p to BSP.

Kevin Ryan has a good record in novice events for the Sheikh, scoring ten wins from 36 (SR 27.8%) for a tidy profit of £19.40 (ROI +53.9%). To BSP the profit stands at £30.46 (ROI +84.6%). Sticking with Ryan, when his runners have been in the top three in the betting they have won over 30% of the time (17 wins from 56) returning 39p in the £ to SP, 56p to BSP.

Roger Varian also has a couple of positive stats to feedback to you. Firstly, when Jack Mitchell has ridden their record reads 12 wins from 40 (SR 30%) for a profit of £10.83 (ROI +27.1%). To BSP that improves by a further 9p in the £. In Class 5 events Varian has a 35.7% strike rate thanks to ten wins from 28. Returns to SP stand at 18p in the £, 31p in the £ to BSP.

Unfortunately for Varian, and to a lesser degree for us punters, Sheikh Obaid removed all of his horses from Varian's Carlburg Stables last month.

Sheikh Obaid Runners by Race Class

There has been excellent consistency over the last three years from the runners of Sheikh Obaid which is highlighted nicely by an analysis of race class. His runners have produced profit to SP in every single class of race as the graph below shows:

 

 

Obviously, to BSP these figures improve still further. Sheikh Mohammed Obaid Al Maktoum is by all accounts a demanding owner, but he does seem to be one to keep a close eye on at present.

 

Amo Racing Limited

Amo Racing Limited was founded by football agent Kia Joorabchian and they have had over 200 winners in the past six seasons. However, this year has not gone so well hitting a strike rate of below 10% compared with over 16% when combining the years 2019 to 2023. There have been plenty of ups and downs already with horses being taken away from trainers and jockey Kevin Stott being sacked after eight months of an initial one-year contract; Joorabchian certainly seems to do things his way.

To date he has one Group 1 success courtesy of King of Steel in the 2023 Qipco Champion Stakes. However, it was his 150-1 winner, Valiant Force, at Royal Ascot in the same year that perhaps he is best known for.

Amo Racing by Trainer

In terms of trainers both George Boughey and Alice Haynes boast a 20%+ win strike rate, although this year, as with all his trainers, this figure has dropped.

Perhaps the most potent stat is for favourites: jollies wearing the distinctive purple and white livery have won 103 of their 249 starts (SR 41.4%) for a profit to SP of £28.59 (ROI +11.5%). To BSP this stands at +£44.60 (ROI +17.9%). For the record Amo-owned favourites have edged into profit to BSP even during this poor year of 2024.

*

Trainer Performance by Price Movement

In some other recent articles I have written about price movement, so I thought I would check for any owners who have fared particularly well with horses that have shortened in price from Early Morning Odds (around 9am in the morning) to final Starting Price. The idea was to try and establish which owners may be worth 'following in' if you see a horse of theirs being backed.

Positive Price Movement

There are six owners who have achieved an A/E index of over 1.00 with at least 75 horses that have shortened in price during this time frame. They are shown in the graph below:

 

 

Two owners that I have discussed earlier, Marc Chan and Sheikh Mohammed Obaid, both appear in this list of six. All six from the chart above - the others being David Armstrong, Valmont Racing, Qatar Racing and Paul & Clare Rooney - have been profitable to SP as well as BSP, impressive considering all the horses shortened in price during the day. Hence, a positive market move for any of these owners should be seen as material.

Negative Price Movement

It is interesting when looking at the A/E index of Paul & Clare Rooney with horses that do the reverse and drift from Early Odds to SP. When this has happened their A/E index was way down at 0.59. Such runners showed hefty losses to SP standing at over 55p in the £. But when their horses have been backed, they have produced a return to SP over nearly 7p in the £, with an A/E index of 1.01 (as can be seen in the graph). The strike rates between the two groups vary massively, too, going from 18.9% for horses that shorten to 6.7% for horses that drifted in price.

There is a similar pattern when comparing ‘shorteners’ and ‘drifters’ for Qatar Racing Limited. Here are their splits:

 

 

There is a noteworthy difference here again, much bigger than the norm. Are certain owners really in the know? It’s obviously difficult to tell, but if I was thinking about backing a horse owned by Qatar Racing, I’d prefer to see it strong in the market than weak.

 

Additional Owner stats

For the final part of this article I'm going to share some individual owner stats that I believe are worth knowing:

1. Opulence Thoroughbreds have an excellent record with their 2yos when racing on the all-weather, scoring over 37% of the time and producing returns to SP of 22p in the £.

2. Kirsten Rausing has a good record with her 2yo runners trained by Andrew Balding. Eight of the 24 runners in the study period have won securing an SP profit in every year from 2020 to 2024.

3. Middleham Park send out on average over 600 runners every year hitting a win strike rate of 12%. They spread their horses across numerous trainers and the stand-out handler for them has been Robert Cowell. Of his 67 runners 17 have won (SR 25.4%) for an SP profit of £48.23 (ROI +72%). No other trainer for Middleham has exceeded an 18% win rate with most of them between 10% and 14%.

4. The Cool Silk Partnership has an overall strike rate of 14% but with runners from the Archie Watson yard this jumps to 20.1% (19 wins from 93). Also keep an eye out for the jockey booking because when Hollie Doyle has taken the ride the stats read nine wins from 27 (SR 33.3%) for an SP profit of £16.26 (ROI +60.2%). To BSP it jumps up to +£22.78 (ROI +84.4%).

5. Sticking with Archie Watson and The Cool Silk Partnership, runners sent off first or second favourite have produced outstanding results: 15 wins from 31 (SR 48.4%) for a profit to SP of £24.15 (ROI +77.9%).

*

And that concludes the second of two owner articles. I hope you enjoyed both pieces and have gained some useful insights to help inform your betting where certain owners are concerned.

- DR

Your first 30 days for just £1