Read all sorts of commentaries and tips across a range of racing disciplines on the most popular horse racing blog in Britain, from staff and guest writers.

Clock Watcher: Some Breeze from Wind

/in , /by

It's Wednesday and time for another edition of Clock Watcher, a weekly roundup of interesting performances from a sectional timing perspective. In focus this week is an impressive middle distance newcomer to the Nottinghamshire beach; a perfect example of upgrades in action; and an explanation of the concept of OMC. Plus, a new column in your Gold form denoting sectional upgrades. Woof!

We start with a couple of noteworthy efforts on a deeper-than-normal Southwell circuit last Thursday. While geegeez.co.uk eyes were on Forseti, one of our syndicate horses, who was recording a double at the track, clock watchers were treated to a brace of striking efforts for contrasting reasons.

One for the All 'Weather'

The first was in a three-runner Class 3 three-year-old handicap over a mile, where Forseti's stablemate at Mick Appleby's yard, Merryweather, was given a peach from the front by Ali Rawlinson. Where he'd been patient aboard Forseti half an hour earlier, riding our lad efficiently and coming through late, here he took ownership of the pace, dictating a pedestrian overture.

Thereafter, Rawlinson and his willing partner turned the screw, accelerating markedly in the final three furlongs. His Topspeed figure of 45 is moderate but an upgrade of a whopping 43 gives him a composite score of a more than useful 88. This is a fine illustration of how understanding how the race was run in a more objective, granular manner gives us a handle on what might have otherwise been considered a muddling affair.

The race time was unimpressive - 1.1 seconds slower than Forseti in the preceding contest - but the finishing effort of all three runners, most obviously the winner, was rapid. That final three furlongs was completed in 35.53 seconds, compared with 39.69 for Forseti's closing three-eighths.

On a perennially stamina-sapping strip at its most testing, direct comparisons may be unfair; nevertheless, Merryweather - who was completing a hat-trick for her owners, The Horse Watchers, the last two at Southwell - remains one to keep on side.

Wind Breezes By

The very next race was a cracker: three Southwell specialists - Blowing Dixie, Angel Lane and Azari - lined up, the first named sent off the strong 4/6 favourite (and about that price, if not shorter, in my book). As it transpired, Dixie had five-and-a-half lengths and more on his field... with the exception of fibresand firster, Calling The Wind.

A winner twice on the Chelmsford speedway for Sir Mark Prescott in 2018, the son of Authorized changed hands last summer for £32,000, heading to Richard Hughes's yard. He was entitled to need his debut spin for the barn at the very end of last year, but showed a ready alacrity for this marmite surface, breezing alongside Blowing Dixie before moving decisively ahead. Calling The Wind achieved a decent Topspeed of 64 to which is added a strong sectional upgrade of 31 for an impressive composite of 95. He will be very hard to beat over this course and distance in a similar pace setup: that is the fastest course and distance composite score in our database by a full five points.

A Claim to Fame?

Nothing much to note in the novice ranks last week, but there was a fascinating claimer run at Lingfield on Friday. The finish was contested by the 6/5 favourite, Lets Go Lucky, and 5/2 second market choice, Hong Kong Dragon. They finished in that order, the pair most of five lengths clear of the rest, and with the second looking a little unlucky in the run.

That was how the 'judges' saw it, too, with no fewer than eight claims made for the runner up, including his (now former) trainer, George Scott, and fellow handlers Tony Carroll and Mick Appleby - plus at least one twitter shrewdie. He was secured for the claiming tag of £5,000 by Gareth Maule, whose runners mostly race with Christian Williams.

What was interesting about this contest is that they went very quickly early before a war of attrition - the winner being the one who slowed down the least - in the final section.

The sectional percentage 'by furlong' chart shows how closely matched the two protagonists were:

The red line is winner Lets Go Lucky, green is Hong Kong Dragon, and black is par, an expression of how to optimally run a race at this course and distance. Their composites are similar, with the winner getting a marginally higher speed rating and the runner-up a fractionally higher upgrade number. Both performed above expectation for the grade and it is a mystery - to me at least - how the second took eight claims where the winner took none!

What does it mean: OMC

Who doesn't love a bit of sectional jargon? (rhetorical)

And, as if there aren't enough new concepts and terms to get ones head around, we invented (at least) one more!

Say hello to OMC.

OMC stands for Opening, Midrace, Closing and is simply a means of splitting a race into a beginning, middle and end in order to better understand what happened and roughly when.

You can see from the trios of colour blobs above a chart how races have been run, and from the same colour blobs in the result itself (when the 'show sectionals' button has been clicked) how individual runners have divided their energies. Thus, the two claiming pugilists were involved in a race that was fast early, even in the middle and very slow late.

The notion of fast and slow in this context is based on the percentage of the race time spent in each section, compared with those percentages for all races run over the same course and distance.

This is important because it means we are not interested in the actual times. Rather, we are interested in the ratio of time spent in each part of the race, or section. Hopefully that makes some sort of sense because there's more.

The notion of fast and slow is also not a specific percentage but rather a comparison of the par percentage against this race's/runner's sectional percentage. So, in the claiming race example above, the O(pening) section had a sectional percentage of 101.9%. That is to say that it was completed pro rata in 101.9% of the overall race time; but that was fully 6% quicker as a sectional percentage than par for this course and distance, thus our algorithm deems it as FAST. [Remember that horses race from a standing start in the stalls and, thus, they need to go from 0 mph to their cruising speed, so we'd normally expect opening sections to be below 100%, depending on how long that opening section is.]

What you actually need to know

That's somewhere between obtuse and downright baffling for many, no doubt, so here's what you actually need to know.

If the blobs are green, a horse, or race (and its rider, or leaders) went evenly, using their energies sensibly across the spectrum of the distance.

Where the early blob is blue (slow), expect one or both of the later blobs to be orange/red (fast).

And vice versa: where early pace is fast (orange/red), as in the claimer example, expect the late sectional blob to be blue or possibly greenish.

Horses that finish fast are useful allies in subsequent races that look to be muddling in pace terms. Horses that can run evenly out back off faster than optimum tempos may be interesting closers in such pace setups, especially on the straight track at Newcastle. (These comments are mainly, though not exclusively, in relation to all weather racing).

A New Number on Gold

You've seen various references to upgrade figures in the above: they are the traceable heartbeat of sectional timing. They quantify objectively - notwithstanding that different scales of objectivity will find different numbers, as with xG in football - the extent to which a performance should be marked up.

There is no marking down with upgrades: a horse either ran efficiently, in which case it gets a zero, or it ran inefficiently. The less efficiently it ran, the bigger the upgrade figure.

Naturally, there are all sorts of nuances - such as horses that need to be ridden inefficiently (speedball frontrunners), but which can still win by making their rivals act even less optimally - which time and experience will help us figure out.

No data element, or group of data, is the panacea to solving the puzzle; but each new element enhances our understanding of the actors and our ability to quantify the value propositions before us. Sectional data, and upgrades, are clearly no different.

Here's how they look in your racecard once switched on, UP column right hand side:

And in the Full Form, this time with the 'Show Sectionals' option checked:

They also appear on the right of the Full Result a couple of days after the race, once we've received the information from our provider, Total Performance Data.

 

To switch sectional upgrade figures on, go to the Race Card Options section on your My Geegeez page, and check the box in the Ratings sub-section.

 

That's all for this week. I appreciate there's a lot to take in - for those who wish to - but the key is not necessarily to understand the mechanics; instead, focus on the utility: what is this stuff saying about what happened, and how does that inform me going forwards?

Often the answer is very little or nothing; frequently it is 'only' an empirical confirmation of that to which the peepers already alerted us; but occasionally these numbers switch us on to an effort far more positive than at first sight. That's the real juice.

By the end of the year, we'll all be more comfortable around these ideas, so take your time and dip your toe in when the urge takes you. Don't force it, no good comes of that. Oh, and please do ask questions. Here in the comments is best, so that other people might see the answers.

Thanks for reading, and good luck.

Matt

Novice Hurdles: What’s the form worth?

/in , /by

As regular readers of these Punting Angles articles will know, most of the focus is on the staple diet of UK day to day racing, writes Jon Shenton. This is at least partially deliberate. Firstly, there is lots of it and therefore more data to crunch. Secondly, it makes at least some sense that higher class racing is  watched more, tracked more closely, better understood and that it is consequently harder to find an edge from data. After all, there is wall to wall coverage of the big days and events.

Better late than never, it’s time for us to get involved in the upper echelons of the sport. For one or two editions it’s going to be less about Plumpton, Sedgefield and Southwell (with all due respect) and more about Cheltenham, Leopardstown and the like.

This article, the first of two, is solely focusing on Graded novice hurdle races, exuding the mares' programme.  I will be evaluating most of the key dates in the calendar from Chepstow in October up to the festival at Cheltenham in March, with one eye on trying to find contenders for those mega spring festivals. This means events such as the Aintree and Punchestown festivals in April are not included.

To do this, I’ve pulled together data on Graded (Grade 1, 2 and 3) novice hurdles from both sides of the Irish Sea. In all honesty, the process has been quite a long one, and painstaking at times, manually checking race data and inputting it into a spreadsheet. However, it’s been a fantastic education and ultimately a rewarding exercise.  Whilst there are no usual point and click recommendations, I hope it’s of some use in your punting: the process has certainly opened my eyes to the world of novice hurdling.

Approach and method

Don’t worry, it’s not a science paper!   However, I do think it’s important to outline the process that I’ve used as a basis for much of this article.

To the best of my knowledge every Graded novice hurdle race since autumn 2015 (run in October to March of those years) has been evaluated to establish how runners performed over the subsequent 365-day period. That intel has then been pulled into a data table.  Based on key criteria a rating has then been generated to measure the quality of that race based on the future results of participants.

It only includes data up to 16th January this year so doesn’t contain any of the races from the most recent weekend, the Rossington Main, for example.

 

An example using the Tolworth

Sandown's Grade 1 takes place in early January and was won by Fidderontheroof earlier this month.   It is  run over a 2-mile trip and the question I’m trying to answer objectively is whether the race form is worth following or not based on the recent history of the race.  The below table shows a breakdown, by renewal, of the subsequent performance of all competing horses over a 90-day and 365-day period.   Horseracebase has been used to obtain the data.

Hopefully the column names make at least a modicum of sense. But, to explain further, the columns numbered 90 and 365 relate to form for that length of time, in days, after the Tolworth was run. So for example, the 6 in the 90run column for 2019 means that there were 6 runs from horses that ran within 90 days of the Tolworth in that year, the next column (90win) illustrates the number of winners from those 6 runners, 90pl the number of places and so on. Already this table gives a flavour as to whether this may be a race to follow in general terms.

The second part of the standing data shown in the table is evaluating the quality of the future form in terms of wins and places over 365 days, the column headers have “365” titles for clarity.

It is of intrigue that by backing every Tolworth runner blind for 90 days after the race at SP you’d walk away with a profit of £26.20 to a £1 level stake, a 72% return! (The P&L numbers are marked in yellow)

Volume of wins and places is interesting, but it’s helpful and important to understand the quality of those victories. So again, evaluating the Tolworth form in terms of the breakdown of those W’s and P’s in relation to the class they have been attained in, the below table gives the split.

The table shows the number of subsequent runs in Graded races at any level (GPrun) then working across from left to right:

  • G1W – number of G1 wins
  • G2W – number of G2 wins
  • G3W – you’ve guessed it, number of G3 wins
  • OthrW – wins in all other classes (inc. Listed)
  • G1PlOnly, G2PlOnly and G3PlOnly are the number of places attained in those grades, not inclusive of any winners

Summarising, the data paints a picture that, from 2015, there have been 49 runs from horses that competed in the Tolworth who then ran in Graded company during the following 365 days.  Of those, there have been four Grade 1 wins, three at Grade 2, three at Grade 3 and the column OthrW represents 19 wins in Listed or lower classes.

For information, the G1 victories are;

  • 2018 - Summerville Boy in the Supreme Novices Hurdle at Cheltenham
  • 2017 – Finians Oscar in the Mersey Novices Hurdle at Aintree
  • 2016 – Yorkhill in the Neptune (Ballymore) Novices Hurdle at Cheltenham and the Mersey Novices Hurdle at Aintree

These three animals prevailed in the Tolworth, all progressing to festival success and rubber stamping it as a race to follow.  You’d be right in thinking that fancy data is not required to confirm that the Grade 1 Tolworth is a strong contest.  However, understanding how the race compares against other quality races in terms of future form is of potential interest.

To contemplate its relative strength against other events, finding a way to rate or score each race is required. As a result, a relatively straightforward race rating has been constructed to do the job. The race rating system is highly subjective and there is a strong suspicion that if a hundred people did it, no two individuals would do it in the same way!  The exact method isn’t too important though, as the objective is to evaluate without bias which novice races are best to follow. A relatively simple (even with flaws) rating system still should give enough detail to be a bridge to further analysis.

Below is a breakdown of the ratings for the Tolworth, 2015 to 2020.

Here is a quick run-down of the columns and what they represent;

365%Score – this relates to the general quality of the race.  It’s calculated in the following way.

(The Win % of the race form for 365 days) + (the Place % of the race form for 365 days divided by 3)

A real example, the 2019 has 3 winners and 8 places from 19 runs (data in the first table), resulting in a winning percentage of 15.8% and the place percentage of 42.1%. Therefore the 365%Sc is calculated as below

15.8 + (42.1/3) = 29.8. All scores are rounded to the nearest number. A minimum of 10 runners in each race is required to generate a rating. 

GPWScore – this represents a rating generated from the subsequent winners over the next 365 days from each race.  The scores are comprised of;

  • Grade 1 win 10
  • Grade 2 win 6
  • Grade 3 win 3
  • Other Win 1

GPPLScore – this is the score value generated from the placed horses (excluding winners) over the following 365 days

  • Grade 1 place 3
  • Grade 2 place 2
  • Grade 3 place 1

GPScore = GPWScore + GPPLScore (i.e. a combined score from the win and place data)

RTNG  = the overall rating for the race in question, adding 365%Score + GPSccore

RaceRNK – is the overall rank of the race in terms of quality from the 163 races evaluated.   The lower the number the better.

Therefore, in the case of the Tolworth, the 2016, 17 and 18 renewals were relatively strong, with the 2016 renewal having the 7th best race rating in the dataset. 2015 and 2019 were disappointing with rankings of 122 and 97 respectively.

And that’s the process, fully transparent and easy to follow, I hope.

That’s quite a long scene set and explanation, but necessary in my view!

Onto the results...

 

Novice Hurdle Race Ratings

The below table is a consolidated summary of all of the analysed races from the years 2015 to present day and, as explained previously, only contests that have 10 or more subsequent runners are included in the data (the number of qualifying races is shown in the column titled QualR).

The table is sorted by the highest average rating of the race over the 5-year period.

 

There is unsurprisingly a large variance in quality based on subsequent 365-day form, from the Prestige, averaging a rating of 32.8, to the Chanelle Pharma, previously known as the Deloitte, averaging 96+ at the top of the pile.

It is at least mildly reassuring that the Grade 1’s feature in the higher end of the table in general. The Tolworth ranks in joint 7th confirming the view from the opening section that it’s a solid race to follow.

As someone who struggles to keep on top of the racing calendar and track the key movers and shakers, these data focus the mind. The bad news is that from here onwards there are no easy answers or instant takeaways: the only truly effective way to progress to a deeper understanding is good old-fashioned hard work and metaphorical elbow grease.

Having said that, interestingly, the 365P&L column shows in yellow where backing every subsequent runner from the events in question for 365 days post-race has been profitable to a level stake of £1 at SP. The fact there are so many is a pleasant surprise and worthy of more focus; there may be something to consider for building profitable angles, but ideally more than five years of race data would be needed to have the necessary confidence to invest.

For now, as a starter for ten, a quick dive into a couple of the prevalent races to follow seems a sensible path to follow.

Chanelle Pharma Novice Hurdle

This rating system shows that the Chanelle Pharma Novice hurdle (Deloitte until 2019) at Leopardstown is a clear and obvious winner with an average score of 96.2. That's higher than the second placed Cheltenham Classic Novices Hurdle by over 18 points! The Chanelle Pharma is now contested over a 2-mile trip since the newly-formed Dublin Racing Festival became reality in 2018 (it was previously run over 2m2f) and it is well known as a good pathfinder towards the Supreme and Ballymore in March.

This novice event has racked up 44 subsequent winners from 200 runs with a £1 level stake loss of £18 if you’d backed every one blind up to a year after the race.

Below is the view by renewal year, using the key columns described earlier.   Immediately the eye is drawn to the RaceRNK column, confirming that this contest had the 1st (joint), 3rd and 6th best individual races in the novice sphere since 2015.

Significantly, 19 of those 44 wins were delivered in elite Grade 1 company. That’s a whole ten more than any other race on the list and obviously worth delving into.

On closer inspection, those 19 triumphs are attributable to 11 individual horses. Nicholls Canyon with 4 of the victories (from the 2015 renewal), Sharjah with 4 (2018), Le Richebourg (2018) & Petit Mouchoir (2016) with 2 each. With sole G1 wins secured by Klassical Dream (2019), Samcro (2018), Barcardys (2017), Bellshill & Coney Island (2016), Windsor Park & Identity Thief (2015).

Perhaps surprisingly, there are only a trio of same season Cheltenham Festival winners after competing in the Chanelle Pharma for the analysed races. Klassical Dream won the Supreme last year with the two other two Prestbury Park winners coming in the Ballymore, Samcro in 2018 and Windsor Park in 2015.

It is noted that the 2019 renewal has had a relatively disappointing outturn. The law of averages perhaps would nod to a better 2020 vintage.

The Ballymore Novices Hurdle (Classic Novices Hurdle)

The second race on the list by some distance is the Ballymore Novices Hurdle (Classic) run at Cheltenham on Trials Day, which is very much on the radar for the upcoming weekend. Arguably, this race is a better one for the trackers than its Leopardstown counterpart as it’s delivered a £1 level stake profit of £57, through backing all runners each time they took to the track over the subsequent 365-day period.  That’s nearly a 36% return which seems utterly insane for 5 years-worth of renewals encompassing 159 total runners.   Perhaps it is the fact that it’s a Grade 2 which may drive some of that potential future value. Whatever the reason it’s a race about which to sit up and take notice.

I’ve added the 365P&L column to this table showing the value of backing all runners blind at SP for each renewal of the race. This event has a solid feel in terms of consistency, and whilst there have been 12 fewer G1 wins than the Leopardstown race previously discussed, the overall number of winners is only one fewer at 43, from a much smaller number of runs too: 159 compared to 200 in the Chanelle Pharma. Each Classic renewal has generated its share of future winners, with the 2016 version being the cream of the crop with a RaceRNK of 7.

Considering it’s an event which occurs on Cheltenham Trials Day, a good starting point would be to check how horses go on to perform at the big event.

It’s no silver bullet based on the last five years' data, that’s for sure. Not a single winner has been drawn from this race at the Festival in the same year, although it must be stated that five years is not a significant sample size. Also, in fairness, the crossbar has been rattled several times with Yanworth and Black Op coming close in the Ballymore, and Santini, Champers on Ice and Wholestone hitting the frame in the longer distance Albert Bartlett. Black Op and Santini did go on to enjoy Grade 1 victory at the Aintree Festival a month or so later in the Mersey and Sefton respectively. Several horses have developed into Festival winners in future years too.

On the point of future winners, whilst trawling through the results it was very easy to spot some eye-catching names finishing in eye-watering places in this contest historically. It’s best represented by this result card from the 2015 renewal.

Whatever happened to some of those also-rans failing to complete or trailing in 60 or so lengths behind the winner (whatever happened to the winner too?!)?

Whilst it’s a stretch to claim this picture is typical there are a whole raft of horses in this event who go on win on much bigger stages, often chasing ones too. In no particular order, Topofthegame, Elegant Escape, Slate House, Poetic Rhythm, Royal Vacation, William Henry and, going back further, Whisper, Coneygree and The New One have all cut their teeth in this race. That is an impressive roll call, which bodes well for Birchdale, Brewin’upastorm and Jarvey’s Plate from the mildly disappointing up to now 2019 crop.

Originally, I planned to go into more detail, but the powder will have to remain dry for a second part (this is already too long!) where I’ll cover the potentially profitable races to follow in more detail; including analysis of a horse's next run only after competing in one of these Graded novice hurdles.  I’ll also be evaluating the winners of the novice hurdles at Cheltenham to ascertain if there are any patterns linking back to the races included in this article.

- JS

p.s you can read PART TWO of this novice hurdle analysis here

Clock Watcher: Keep Kaser Onside

/in /by

Welcome to week three of the Clock Watcher feature, illustrating performances of interest from a sectional timing perspective. Geegeez Gold has a range of sectional data to assist curious bettors, including sectional percentages, finishing speed percentages, and running lines: we'll discuss the last named in more detail in this article. But first, a few races and runners whose efforts can be marked up from the bare ratings.

King Kaser A Keeper

The David Loughnane-trained Kaser is hardly a dark horse, having won five of his 15 - and three of his last five - all-weather starts, but the five-year-old still looks to be progressive based on the way he finished in his most recent victory. That one, like the other four, was achieved at Wolverhampton and, like three of the other quartet, over the extended nine furlongs.

A feature of this win, in a Class 3 handicap on 13th January, was his ability to quicken off a fairly steady gallop. Indeed that is the hallmark of all five of his wins, most notably in his penultimate run where he went from last to first in the final furlong and a half (making up more than six lengths off an even gallop!), an attribute which makes it hard for the handicapper to accurately peg his ability: since August last year he's won four times, starting off 75 then 78, 83 and 85. Now on a career high mark of 88 he may not be done yet, especially over that nine-and-a-half furlong range at Wolverhampton.

*

Novice to note: Tommy De Vito

It was a quieter week on the novice stakes front, with no Waldkonig's nor even a Union about which to eulogise. Nevertheless, Tommy De Vito, no relation to Danny, caught the eye when sprinting away from his rivals over six furlongs on Newcastle's straight track.

The chart shows how closely matched he and second-placed Never Dark were through the middle of the race before Tommy, red line, opens up, his final furlong almost half a second quicker than the odds-on favourite (see individual times inline below chart).

This performance represented progress from his debut second, over the same course and distance, where he again made a big move off a slow pace two from home before flattening out a little in the final furlong. He should step forward again and it will be interesting to see where he heads next.

*

What of Wanaasah?

Much was made of Wanaasah's all the way victory last Wednesday at Wolves, mainly because of the manner with which it was achieved. The running lines are unambiguous:

In this two mile race, we can see that Dylan Hogan was 16 lengths clear after half a mile (S-12 1,16). But the second horse, Fearless Warrior, was also clear of the third. Indeed, with a mile to go - 12-8 running lines - favourite Purdey's Gift was 47 lengths - FORTY-SEVEN - behind the leader.

The issue here is that, although Hogan went reasonably quick in the first quarter of the race, he then steadied things up quite a bit, leaving enough in the tank to comfortably repel his never-sighted rivals.

Georgia Dobie deserves some credit for sitting somewhat closer to the leader; but the rest of the riders got a beasting from Hogan here, the third-placed horse finishing 16.5L (officially, more like 18 lengths) behind the winner.

Amid the all-too-predictable cries of "hang 'em out to dry" from the kangaroo courts of social media, it should be borne in mind that a) this was an apprentice race where, by definition, riders are inexperienced, and b) this was a most unconventional setup over a trip which probably requires more tactical awareness than shorter races.

I'm personally of the view that the winning jockey deserves praise for his enterprise, the second should be recognised for being alive to the situation, and the rest will learn from this contest. That, after all, is the main point of apprentice races.

*

Follow Fizzy Feet's Foes

The 11th January, ten days ago, was a meeting for which the sectional data arrived to us a little tardily. Pity, as there were a couple of noteworthy sectional skirmishes on the Lingfield card that day, which are belatedly reviewed below.

First up, Fizzy Feet notched a good win in typical jump-and-run fashion. Representing the same Loughnane/Lowe/Hoyland connections as Kaser, Fizzy Feet dictated from the front and lasted out in this six-furlong Class 3 handicap. But the placed horses must be wondering what might have been as all of the second, fourth and fifth were given too much to do; again, in fairness, this was probably more about the Kingscote masterclass, bossing steady fractions and kicking at the right moment, than any major clangers in behind.

But each of Total Commitment, Lady Dancealot and Count Otto - perhaps even Second Collection - might have won this on another day. Third placed Typhoon Ten, under David Probert, was given what might be considered a slightly more optimal ride, the horse ultimately not good enough to either dictate the pace or quicken in the circumstances.

Count Otto has run once since, finishing runner up in a race he tried - uncharacteristically but as a result of it being paceless - to dominate from the start.

I'll be watching this cohort closely in the coming weeks.

*

Silent May Be Golden, So Too Goring

On the same card, a Class 2 mile handicap went the way of Silent Attack, resisting the strong challenge of Goring. Bought for just £10,000 at the Ascot August sale last year, the ex-Godolphin seven-year-old picked up very nearly twelve grand for this score alone, a fine piece of opportunism by trainer Tony Carroll.

This time I've highlighted the early pace-setter, Red Mist (light blue line), who faded to a long last, as well as the winner (red line). Ben Curtis, runaway leader of the all-weather jockeys' championship, was always in the right place here: tracking the favourite in a length or two second, he took control before the quarter mile pole and readily held off the late-charging Goring.

Both Silent Attack and Goring look highly capable at this level when the early tempo is steady, as does third-placed Ultimate Avenue, who came from further back and could never really land a blow. The trio all recorded sub-22-second final quarters.

*

What Does It Mean: Running Lines

A feature of every American formbook, as well as many others around the world, running lines in the UK have hitherto been confined to greyhound racing only. Historically, the main reason for that was the lack of availability of data. But Total Performance Data's accurate tracking of all horses' positions throughout a race has enabled us to display both the horse's race position and its distance behind the leader (or in front in the case of the race leader).

How running lines look on American racecards

How running lines look on American racecards

We could provide this information on a 'by furlong' basis, but have instead adopted an American style 'points of call' (or POC) approach. This breaks races into five sections, the first of which always begins at the start of the race and the last of which always ends at the finish line. Unlike American POC, where there is more focus on the home straight - something which largely relates to the concentration of race distances of around a mile and shorter - we have elected to divide the sections somewhat more evenly, as can be seen from the table below.

What do running lines tell us? They can tell us things like run style preferences, or how much ground a horse made up and, approximately, when. They can help us piece together a pace map. They can help us better understand, largely at a glance, what happened to a horse in a race. Of course, they lack nuance with regards to things like trouble in running or wide trips, but so too does any data-driven snapshot approach. If you want the real fine detail, watch the replays! [But even then, don't trust your eyes exclusively; rather, corroborate/refute the visuals with the data]

Here's an example of a horse running today with a pronounced run style: Warrior's Valley is a one-dimensional speedball. He wants to get out first and try to stay in front. On days when the race lacks pace contention he has his best chance, all other things being equal. He has stall one this afternoon, and only one other likely pace horse; as he slowly drops down the weights his day ought to be close when he gets the run of things.Perhaps it might be today.

 

With Geegeez Gold running lines, hovering over the performance in question reveals more 'traditional' information. Here's an example, taken from Warrior's Valley's run on 21st December 2019. The blue box tells us the jockey, position/field size, distance won/beaten, winner/second, [odds], weight carried, equipment, and in-running comment.

 

As a completely new convention to most, it may take some getting used to, but running lines offer far more granularity on a horse's race position than the in-running comments generally do. The optimum, of course, is to use them in tandem such that any 'bad trip' incidents noted in the comment can be factored in.

*

That's all for this week's Clock Watcher. I hope there was something of interest in the above and, if you've any questions, do leave a comment below. I'll be happy to answer them.

Matt

p.s. a gentle reminder that there is much more intel on sectionals - and how they're laid out on geegeez.co.uk - in the User Guide. Click here to download the latest version.

Clock Watcher: State of the Union

/in /by

The intent of this Clock Watcher series is primarily educational, though obviously with some entertainment value lobbed in as well. It is not really meant to be a tipping piece for all that example horses are generally presumed to have potentially more ability than immediately meets the eye. That said, when trying to extol the virtues of sectional data it certainly helps, from a credibility perspective as much as anything, if some of the mentioned animals win in their near futures.

It was heartening then to see National Anthem, flagged in the inaugural episode of Clock Watcher, win yesterday - and do so in similar vein to his bullet-from-a-gun effort ten days previously. To have doubled up after overcoming trouble at the start was more meritorious than a winning margin of three-quarters of a length implies. With a further four lengths back to the third and three more to the fourth it will be interesting to see how the handicapper reacts.

National Anthem was available at 5/2 overnight before returning a heavily-supported 11/8 favourite and, after two taxing runs in ten days following an absence of 471 days, he may need a little time before his next assignment.

Union one to follow

Onwards, and a horse who caught the eye last week, sectionally speaking, was Union, a three-year-old New Approach colt. Sent off at 6/5, it seemed that very few people had missed the finishing-strongly nature of his Kempton debut: that day he was held up before making up ground late. Sadly we don't yet have sectional data for Kempton but happily we do have them for Newcastle; and this is what they tell us about Union.

Let's start with the chart. The black line is par, an expression of what an efficient expenditure of energy looks like, furlong by furlong. Note that the opening section is always relatively slow because the field begins from a standing start. (This is different from, for example, America where there is a distance of 'run up' before the clock starts).

The red line is Union's sectional percentage by furlong, We can see from the comparison of the lines that the early part of Union's race was run on the slow side of even before he began to quicken from the half mile (actually from between the five and four furlong markers, as can be seen by the upward curve).

There was a notable injection of pace from the two to the one after which the race was in the bag, Union eventually coming away by a couple of lengths from two or three other promising types.

As can be seen from his sectional blocks below the chart, his final quarter mile was very fast against par. That, of course, is largely as a result of having gone steadily early; and he still recorded a Topspeed figure of 70 in spite of that inefficiency. Adding his upgrade of 19 gives a composite figure of 89, the largest such rating in the review period.

The second, Blow Your Horn, lays claim to an 81 for what was his debut. Given some greenness and keenness early on, he should at least nearly win a similar race next time.

Global makes Giant stride

Another name to note is one of John Gosden's high class winter team, this time a rare trainer switch into the yard. Global Giant won a small field conditions race at Wolverhampton over most of a mile and a quarter: in what was quite a slowly run affair, the son of Shamardal passed his three rivals in short time and accelerated right away in the final furlong.

Below are the OMC (Opening, Midrace and Closing) sectionals for the race (at the top) and the individual runners (within the result table). They tell us that three of the quartet finished 'very fast', with Global Giant's final three furlongs almost 10% above par.

The '44441' running line (which, confusingly - sorry, is based on the five Call Points) tells us that Gosden's new recruit went from near two lengths last to nearly four lengths first in the final quarter mile. His Topspeed of 61 is unremarkable - a function of the tactical nature of this race - but an uplift of 27 is chunky and aggregates to 88. He might be one for the Easter Classic on All Weather Finals Day, though he'll need to find more to be competitive in that winter season centrepiece.

 

What does it mean: Sectional Percentage

Sectional percentage is the time taken within a part of the race, in percentage terms relative to the total race time. It tells us how a horse was ridden: did it do too much too soon, did it finish with more to give, or was it ridden optimally throughout? The answer is normally one of the first two, though to wildly varying degrees.

There are race sectional percentages and runner sectional percentages, the former comprised of the sectional times for the race leader at the end of each section.

To calculate sectional percentage, you need to know the following:

- Length of race (A)
- Length of section (B)
- Time to complete race (C)
- Time to complete section (D)

Using Global Giant's 2-0 sectional percentage (note that any sectional percentage where the section runs to the finish, as in this case, is also known as finishing speed percentage) from the image above, we can give values to A, B, C and D.

A = Length of race = 1m 1f 104 yds, or 2084 yards
B = Length of section = 2 furlongs, or 440 yards [we're looking at the 2-0 section]
C = Time to complete race = 118.4 seconds
D = Time to complete section = 22.1 seconds

The formula is as follows:

(100 x B x C)    /    (A x D)

Applying values gives us:

(100 x 440 x 118.4)    /    (2084 x 22.1)

or

5,209,600    /    46,056.4

= 113.1

Here is the Call Points view of the result, with that 2-0 sectional percentage displayed.

 

This is a simple sum which can easily be configured in a spreadsheet program like Excel:

 

In the image above I've highlighted the calculation cell so that you can see the Excel notation for the formula. [The 'overall distance' field is a calculation of Yards/220 to get furlongs]

Things to note about sectional percentage

When looking at the coloured rectangles, deviation from green means inefficiency with stronger blues and reds implying a highly inefficient effort and, therefore, an upgrade figure indicating a horse is capable of significantly better. In the example above, Global Giant gets an upgrade of 27; but in the example below, Will To Win's rider, Jack Mitchell, has produced an almost perfect effort from the front.

 

One important footnote: whilst sectional percentages - and their ratings expression, upgrades - can point towards good or bad rides, such consideration should always be undertaken in the context of any known run style preference the horse has, and/or the way the race panned out.

For example, Rab Havlin could not be said to have ridden a poor race on Global Giant for all that the horse is presumed by its upgrade figure to have much more to give. It must always be remembered that the objective for a jockey is not to get a '0' upgrade but rather to win the bloody race!

More next week...

Matt

p.s. I encourage you to interact with the data yourself. Check out last week's post for more on how to get started.

Clock Watcher: Rise for National Anthem

/in , /by

Welcome to a new weekly feature, Clock Watcher, where we'll shine a light on a few horses that might be interesting to follow from a speed and/or sectional perspective. It is my hope that this column will also serve to introduce, embed and reinforce various concepts which may be unfamiliar at this stage.

Generally speaking, a run considered of sufficient merit to appear here will have two components: the horse will have recorded a time which is at least reasonably quick for the conditions; and the horse will have recorded a noteworthy upgrade on that performance.

The first component is fairly self-explanatory even if defining what is "at least reasonably quick" is highly subjective. Geegeez.co.uk doesn't currently produce its own speed ratings (and there is no plan for that to change at this stage), so for our purposes we will use Racing Post's Topspeed figures, which are published under license on this site.

The second component requires a bit more introduction. What is an 'upgrade', how does a horse achieve one, and how is this quantified?

What is an upgrade?

Track and field athletes run at their most efficient level - enabling them to produce their fastest times - when they travel at a constant speed. For instance, when Kenenisa Bekele broke the 5000m world record in 2004, a record which still stands today, his 1000m split times - or sectional times - were as follows:

12:37.35 (2:33.24, 2:32.23, 2:31.87, 2:30.59, 2:29.42)

Let's tabulate that:

A few months later, in the Olympic 5000m final, they covered the first 4 kilometres in 648.62 seconds, almost 41 seconds slower than the world record pace. Bekele, overwhelming favourite for gold, was readily out-sprinted and had to settle for silver, the winner recording a final time of 794.39 seconds, 37 seconds slower than the world record.

In a race where they crawled (relatively) and then sprinted, Bekele was unable to produce his best form. He could not run inefficiently to the same effect as his vanquisher, the Olympic 1500m champion Hicham El Guerrouj, whose superior kick facilitated his victory.

We know what is 'efficient' based on the body of similar historical races, and we call this par.

In simple terms, any deviation from efficiency - or par - whether fast early then fading, or slow early with a rapid finish, earns an upgrade. Thus, in this case, both the winner and second - as well, indeed, as the third through to sixth placed finishers - would have received upgrade figures.

An upgrade, then, is a recognition of the degree to which a horse raced inefficiently.

It should be noted that racing inefficiently will not necessarily prevent a horse, or an athlete, from winning. Indeed, El Guerrouj 'got the run of the race' back in 2004, that slow time suiting his questionable stamina but stronger kick. The primary objective is, after all, not to break records but to win the race.

What about par?

There is more detail in the User Guide around what may be new terms to some readers, and I'd encourage you to check that document (page 63 onwards in the current version, click here).

However, for the purposes of expediency, a quick line on par here. Par is the threshold against which all subsequent races over a course and distance are measured. From the User Guide,

Par is an assessment of the optimal energy distribution – based on relative time – between the sections of a race. It is not an average of all sectional times. Rather, it follows a fairly complex formula which uses an ‘nth percentile’ race as par. Further information can be found in Simon Rowlands’ excellent Sectional Timing Introduction report, available at this link. Indeed, that document is highly recommended for anyone keen to get a head start with the applications of sectional information.

So, in simple terms, par is a baseline, a means by which we may better understand the context of a performance.

Let's look at some examples.

 

An obvious one...

We'll start with a sore thumb, a horse on everyone's radar regardless of whether via visuals, sectionals or form. The very well related Waldkonig made his debut in a run-of-the-mill Wolverhampton novice stakes for two-year-olds on 7th December. A Kingman half-brother to Arc winner Waldgeist, he was sent off 6/4 favourite over the extended mile trip.

In the end, he won by nine widening lengths; the data offer some interesting footnotes to that emphatic victory.

 

There is a lot going on in this image, so let's take it step by step. First up, note that I have selected 'Call Points' (a five section breakdown) top left and I have clicked the 'Show Chart' button, which then changes colour and displays 'Hide Chart', the action that would happen upon a further click. So those are my selected parameters. (I also have the data view selected from my My Geegeez page, check the User Guide for more on that).

Beneath the blue buttons is a line of five coloured rectangles. These are the Call Points sectionals for the race. That is, they relate to the race leader at five points during the race, specifically the six-furlong, four-furlong, three-furlong, two-furlong and finishing posts.

The colour of the rectangles indicates the relative speed of each section, on a cold/slow/blue to hot/fast/red scale. Thus, this race was even (green) early, slow (blue) in the middle, and fast (orange) late. The OMC (Opening, Midrace, Closing) view below captures this more succinctly and is a better place for newbies to start, due to there being fewer data points.

Getting back to the main image, and the main part of it, we see a chart. This chart is highly configurable but the image shows the default, which is the sectional percentage data, by furlong, for the winner - and with the black par line also displayed. Any/all runners can be added or removed to/from the chart by clicking their name underneath or using the 'toggle' button top left.

Next to the toggle button is a statement of how many races comprise the par calculations and, therefore, the degree of confidence in par. In this case - indeed in the vast majority of all-weather race cases - confidence is high. At this stage, confidence is more limited elsewhere while the body of data grows as more races are run over various courses and distances.

The chart reflects what the coloured rectangles are saying: that the leader went even-ish (slightly above par) early, slowed up notably in the middle of the race, before finishing very strongly - well above the black par line.

Beneath the chart is the full result table, which has a familiar look to it. I have clicked on the winner's finishing position (i.e. on the text that says '1st') to reveal his sectional data - coloured rectangles for Call Points (including split times, aggregates time, and sectional time as a percentage of overall time, i.e. sectional percentage), running lines (the horse's position in the field and distance behind the leader, or in front if the race leader) - and in-running comment.

The rightmost column in the result table is 'UP', and it contains the upgrade figure. In this example, Waldkonig was calculated as having an upgrade of 29 by our algorithm. Again, in terms of quantifying ability, this tells us little more than that, like his father, Waldkonig is able to quicken impressively off a steady pace.

Waldkonig was given a Topspeed rating of 47 for his time performance in the race. That is far from a standout rating and would not highlight the horse's effort as noteworthy, though of course the nine length winning margin would be missed by nobody. By applying the upgrade figure to a representation of the time performance we get closer to an understanding of the merit of the effort: clearly it takes more ability to quicken off a fast pace than a slow one, with the degree to which a horse quickens also worthy of note.

We've been playing with combining various numbers to produce some sort of 'composite' time/performance rating, though I must declare at this stage that I'm not 100% certain that adding upgrades to Topspeed is a sensible thing to do.

We are currently trying to establish whether it improves the predictive ability of the raw speed figure: they are calculated on different scales so it is probably not entirely sensible to simply add the two together.

Nevertheless, there is some indication in the work done to date that this somewhat contrived 'combo' number has merit. In the case of Waldkonig, his 47 gets an extra 29 for a 76 overall. That is a better reflection of his performance, though probably not of his ability given this was a debut on a track that was likely not ideal. In any case, what it tells us unequivocally is that, in a race where the pace scenario looks muddling, Waldkonig is capable of a searing turn of foot.

 

A (slightly) less obvious one...

At a slightly less 'could be anything' level, trainer David Brown rewarded his and connections' patience when National Anthem, off the track for 417 days since running poorly at the same venue, blasted home in a six-furlong novice event at Southwell. Brown is the horse's third trainer in three career starts spanning 821 days and a wind operation!

Sent off at 15/2, fifth favourite of six but not completely unfancied, his performance was very different in sectional terms to that of Waldkonig, as the image below illustrates:

 

Here we see from the running line that National Anthem jumped very alertly and maintained that advantage, albeit that it was diminishing in the final furlong. He was better than four lengths in front after a furlong and fully nine lengths clear with an eighth to go. Little wonder that he tired close home. Also little wonder that he's entered over five furlongs at the same track on Monday where it will be very interesting to see how he goes in a handicap off a mark of 75, if taking up his engagement.

 

Far more speculatively...

Meanwhile, down in the basement, a horse called Disruptor might pop up at a price some time soon. He ran on 30th December at Lingfield, finishing third, and as can be seen from the below he ran an almost polar opposite race to par - based on the five Call Point sections:

 

This lad has had a few goes - twelve, including one since, to be precise - and has showed much improved form when leading or racing prominently recently. Prior to his run on Monday, where his inexperienced (14 rides) jockey shot up in the air as the stalls opened and then got sandwiched between two no-hopers for most of a furlong, he'd run his three best races from the front.

If/when he can get a slightly softer advantage - note the undesirable red zone section from five to four in his running data above - he has a chance to see his race out more effectively, albeit very likely in low grade company and with a more experienced pilot on top.

That said, looking more closely at the draw (DR) column below, it is worth noting that he has been consistently fortunate with his stall position in recent starts.

[NB note also that, in 'Show Sectionals' mode, races without sectionals have blanks. Hovering over the running lines segment displays details of the performance, including comments, position, distance beaten and jockey].

 

That's all for this inaugural edition of Clock Watcher. I hope it has provided food for thought and that, over time, it will support your understanding of the new data we are beginning to provide and how you might best take advantage of it for yourself.

Until next time...

Matt

p.s. as of Wednesday 8th January, sectional data is now live for Gold subscribers on geegeez.co.uk. You will need to enable it from the Race Card Options section of your My Geegeez page. On that page, you will also find a link to the most recent version of the User Guide, in which there is a comprehensive outline of sectional timing and how it is published on this site.

The current coverage comprises Total Performance Data tracks, as it is from them that we license our data. We hope to be able to integrate both Ascot and RTV (UK) tracks in due course. To be clear, we have no in house sectional aggregation function. Rather, we license 3rd party data as a publisher and aim to add value in the visualisation of that data. I very much hope by mid-year we have a far more comprehensive provision in terms of track coverage.

2020 Vision: Some Thoughts on Betting Better

/in /by

It's the New Year and, depending on your reading of the calendar, a new decade, too. What better time then to commit to self-improvement and renewal? Out with the old and in with the new, resolve strengthened by the turning of the page.

That's the fantasy of a billion beings on Jan 1, only for the reality of the pain of change - in the midst of what are often the coldest, darkest, most financially stretched days of the year - to bite.

But some people do keep to their resolutions, and they do achieve their goals. Size 12, personal best 5k, profitable for the first time, whatever: the secret (such as it is) that separates the achievers from the make-believers is planning and execution.

Talk is cheap, thoughts are free; planning takes time and effort, but also locks in personal commitment.

I wish you whatever you wish yourself in 2020. If a part of it is to improve your betting, maybe you'll find some nutrition in what follows...

1: Understand generally where you are now

Why do you bet? Why do you bet win singles, each way doubles, Lucky 15's, or whatever? How often do you bet? How much? And why do you bet on horses rather than football, tennis, poker, roulette or bingo?

Is it to make a profit? If you're a Gold subscriber (or indeed pay for information from any source), it probably is, to some degree at least. But that's also very likely not the only reason.

From surveying readers on this site over many years, I know that any and all of passing time, solving puzzles/being proved right, and general engagement are common - and perfectly valid - reasons for betting. None of these, however, is specific to betting on horse racing. The same as betting for profit. So there must be more to it. Why racing? Why?

Perhaps it's the regular predictable availability of puzzles/profit opportunities; maybe it's the colour and pageantry; possibly it's the array of data enabling a deeper understanding and a chance of an edge. As with most things in life, it is almost certainly a combination of some or all of these elements.

Understanding ones general relationship with betting on racing is helpful because it finds a place for everything that follows: it offers a global context which, for many/most people, doesn't really have much to do with money at all.

Still, it is a legitimate question to ask oneself: am I betting on racing for profit primarily?

My answer is NO. There are lots of ways I could make a few quid (and a good few more quid than I do from betting on racing) in roughly the same amount of time I invest in looking for horses I like.

I bet primarily for enjoyment - for fun. But I do it with a profit expectation. Betting for fun and profit are not mutually exclusive. And don't let the dry arses tell you otherwise.

If you don't understand the underlying reasons for your racing betting, you may be chasing the wrong objectives and, consequently, a futile or frustrating relationship with the game.

Suggestion #1: Take time to understand the REAL reason(s) you bet on racing

 

2: Measure where you are now

If you can't measure it, you can't improve it

That quote is credited to Peter Drucker, a management consultant. It could have been uttered by a sports coach, a nutritionist, a headmistress, or a punter. It applies to any pursuit where we have a desire to move towards the right of whichever continuum consumes us.

But here's the tricky bit. What should we measure?

Again, the default is profit and loss, and that of course is something about which we all need a solid understanding. Doubtless these words contain enough pedagogy - pontification, perhaps - without a sermon on responsible gambling. So let us assume that we all understand those boundaries and operate within a range of acceptable loss to profit.

But how much are you losing, or winning? And how accurately do you know this? What is your method of calculation?

For me, I do an annual - six-monthly if I feel it's going especially poorly or well - review of account deposits and withdrawals. This tells me nothing about volume of bets, average stake size, race or bet types in which I excel or fail lamentably; but it gives me the most fundamental financial metric of up/down.

I've shared this info for previous years numerous times in the blog on this site.

Here's my 2019:

 

That's a good bit better than most years, due almost entirely to a couple of chunky wins in March. [The weird 'pence' figures relate to conversions from euro on Irish tote bets, in case you're wondering]

But note also the 'game of two halves' nature of the year. There is a reason for this, but I won't dwell on it here. Suffice it to say that betting when not in a sound mental state is more likely to lead to losses. On we go...

If I'd not had those spring draws, I'd have won about a grand. But it is important and fair to note that part of my betting approach is to tilt at windmills: to play 'gettable' multi-leg pools where there is the prospect of a disproportionate return on investment. As I've written elsewhere on here before, finding value is often more about fishing in the right (both literal and metaphorical) pools than backing the right horses.

My annual profit target, such as it is, is about £2,500; but really my target is to enjoy the process of finding bets. It's a time-consuming process and the investment of time is far more material than the cash (because the percentage of my time used for betting is more material than the percentage of my funds).

That's a verbose way of saying I have to enjoy it to justify the hours deployed. Maybe you have more time available than me, maybe you have less. Maybe you have more funds available, maybe you have less.

Therein lies the key to measuring success: choose the right metrics for you and measure where you are with them.

Time is always the kingpin metric for me, so if I don't have time I either won't bet or, more likely, I'll only make a casual action play. More on that in due course.

Suggestion #2: Understand your key metric(s) and quantify where you are against it/them as of the end of 2019

 

3: Pause for breath

There is a temptation at this time of year to decide to do something - lose weight, change job, et cetera - and then charge ahead on this new life-changing trajectory.

Generally speaking, that is probably sub-optimal. Better, once a new objective has been determined, is to establish how to get there. But before that it is good to mull quietly the what and why of the resolution.

For example, it might be perfectly acceptable to lose £1000 over the course of a year betting on a sport in which hundreds of hours of recreational time are enjoyed. After all, that's £20 a week, the price of not much beer and increasingly little caffeine and froth. Of course it would be nice to save the 'bag of sand' but if it involves upsetting the pleasurable equilibrium of perusing form, striking wagers and watching racing, then perhaps it's not a price worth paying.

Decide what is important for you, not what others might tell you is important.

It might be enjoyment before profit.

It might be winners (i.e. being right) before profit.

It might be profit at all costs.

And, again, it very well might be a combination of all three.

Suggestion #3: Before moving forward, take some time to allow your understanding of the current status quo to inform your next move

 

4: Set up to succeed

If, after pausing for thought, the route forward still looks different from the path hitherto then it is time to take action. Action works best when it is considered, informed and documented. I know, boring, right? All I'm really saying is that we have a better chance of success when we set up to succeed.

Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best

This quote, attributed to the German statesman Otto von Bismarck, could easily have supplanted the word 'politics' with 'Betting on horse racing'; but I don't suppose OvB was much of a punter, at least not of equines.

He was, however, a man of action; a man who believed that words were secondary to deeds. We probably all believe that, but we have to live it, too.

Getting back to it, betting on horse racing is the art of the possible, the attainable. It is very often the art of the next best. In other words, forget lottery win utopia (unless you play, and win, the lottery) and instead work on incremental improvement of approach.

For example, if you want to live off betting income but you're currently a losing punter, stage one is to either lose less or break even. It is not to live off betting income.

For example, if you want to look at more than four races a day but only have twenty minutes to do it, be aware that you will have to sacrifice the amount you can discern at the altar of covering much ground.

For example, if you need lots of winners to retain confidence, betting longshots more than occasionally is going to be incompatible.

For example, if you want to take a value betting approach (hint: you should if you want to improve your bottom line), failing to watch racing and/or use the best information sources will make it hard for you to know anything not already completely subsumed within the market.

Suggestion #4: Have time, bank, strategy and tools in place to optimise - and elevate - your desire outcome

 

5: Review, Review, Review

Your bet just lost. Or won. What now? On to the next one? No, not for the improvers.

Like everything in life, to be better we have to do more of what works and less of what doesn't. And, to do that, we have to understand what works and what doesn't.

A bet is a record of effort expended, of a decision made and, ultimately, of money won or lost. How often do you ask yourself whether the reasons for choosing a particular horse, one component of which should always be price for the value player, proved accurate? How often do you see a horse fail to win for a reason you predicted but which you felt was over-stated in the available odds? Was it then a good bet, or a bad bet?

Which other horse(s) caught your eye during the race? Were any unlucky in running? [NB ignore perennial hard luck horses: they're overbet and don't win nearly enough to legitimise the volume of trackers in which they reside]. What happened at the start of the race? [Plenty of horses cannot win after getting mangled at the start, such unlucky runners almost always missed by the in-running comment writers].

Use a tracker, and add horses - with comments - to it. Or use the notes feature in your chosen form tool.

Here is a snap of my Tracker for those entered in the next few days:

 

And a Tracker note, complete with dreadful pun for my own later pleasure, displayed when hovering over the gold star on the race in question:

 

As it turns out, Kraka has run four times since on the all-weather and lucked out hugely with the draw, see the DR column below. Now rated 64, he'll win soon (I hope), though I'd definitely prefer his chance at six furlongs rather than this seven panels affair.

 

Another great means of improvement is to review your bets as a body of work. I have to say I do not personally do this, mainly because of the time but also because of the nature of my betting (often incompatible with Bet Tracker constraints). Mainly, though, because I can't be bothered. This is what I mean by working within your capabilities. I have to measure all sorts of things for business reasons and, when it comes to my betting, I just want to know my bottom line.

Could I improve if I cut out areas of weakness? Of course! But the opportunity cost - the time spent recording, which could be spent watching races, or with my family, or reading a book, or kicking a ball, or in the pub - is too great for me.

Others will relish the opportunity to dissect their wagers by any number of parameters. Geegeez has a free bet tracker which allows just this. Introduced only last year, it has been wildly popular: the feedback - words - has been effusive and the number of users tracking their bets - actions - has actually taken me a little by surprise. Clearly many have a stronger desire to understand the nuances of their wagering set, and fair play and the best of luck to them. They give themselves every chance.

Here's an example - anonymous - of one geegeez.co.uk Bet Tracker user (a free subscriber as it happens), who has recorded almost 400 bets to date:

By Handicap or Non-Handicap

By Race Distance

 

Non-Handicaps up to 7 furlongs

 

Yes, of course it's a tiny sample size and possibly, maybe even probably, just noise. But there's a near 100% chance that this user previously did not know they might be quite good at identifying value in this context...

Suggestion #5: Review what you're doing, not just for signs of improvement but to ensure you're not sterilising something which used to be fun

 

6: Action vs Fancy: Enjoy the GAME

At the end of the day, the most important thing for me is to enjoy the game. To be involved, through this website, with sponsoring jockeys (David Probert, Callum Rodriguez, Rex Dingle, Mitch Godwin) and a training yard (Anthony Honeyball), and to syndicate racehorses (ten currently, with Anthony, Olly Murphy, Mick Appleby and Wilf Storey) so that other like-minded souls can also get closer to the action, is a genuine 24 carat bona fide 100% pleasure. To call it work is a truly great fortune.

Betting on racing is not incidental to me, but it is a pleasurable pursuit. I bet most days, some days more than others, and sometimes staking more or less.

When I have the time to really get stuck into a card, and I identify a sore thumb of a bet, I will wager accordingly. Never massive but big enough to justify the perceived opportunity.

When I have less time and/or I spot a few of mild interest, I'll have action bets.

I don't want to look at the card for an hour or two and not have a bet. That's what the arid bottoms suggest we do. No ta. If I don't have a strong view, or I think the market about has it, I'll make a cup of tea bet; and if I like more than one I might strike a sticky bun wager as well. But I will be invested in some small way in the outcome.

It is generally obvious whether a horse should be a cup of tea or a Dom Perignon stake; where it isn't, it should probably be somewhere in between erring towards the 'Rosie' urn. For me anyway.

The point: enjoy the ride. Or what is the point?

After all, if it's not fun, we might as well go and get a(nother) job.

Suggestion #6: bet in line with the strength of your fancy (and always in line with your means, obvs). And enjoy it: one day all this might no longer be possible

 

Matt

Stat of the Day: The 2019 Review

/in /by

*IMPORTANT: the email I sent this morning opened with "Let me start with the caveat. Free, potentially, yes; but risk-free"

It should have said "Free, potentially, yes; but NOT risk-free" - sincere apologies. Matt

Last Tuesday marked the end of SotD's eighth full calendar year since its inception as a non-tipping piece back in November 2011, so thank you to those of you (including Matt) for putting up with me all that time!

The logic behind this daily feature is to take a slight step from the normal form book/ race card approach to betting, since form is temporary at best and race cards are still largely inadequate, although Matt's efforts here at Geegeez are the exception to the rule.

My brief is to give some statistical pointers as to how you could frame a bet from another angle and whilst we don't expect all of them to win, we do expect a decent run for our money and often the stats we quote will pinpoint winners elsewhere too. So it's really more than a tip, it's a way-in to a bet that you can use over and over again.

We attract lots of new members to the site every year, thanks mainly to the continual improvements made to the racing toolkit and partly due to SotD's success, and this is bringing in more savvy punters looking for better data, information and racecards than they'll find anywhere else on the 'net, so here's briefly how I "do my bit"...

My first port of call is find runners who fit a stat (or usually a number of stats) suggesting they will go well. I have quite a large portfolio of saved micro-systems and angles (our Query Tool is brilliant for this) and they generate a list of possibles each day. I also look at the Shortlist report and the qualifiers generated from the Report Angles facility and I end up with a fairly long list of horses/races to assess.

I then cross off the races that I don't even want to consider and only then do I start to look at a race card. Where I have multiple selections in a race, I'll then make a decision on which would be my preferred runner in the race. At this point, I should now have less than 10 races/horses on my shortlist, I then put them in an order that I think reflects their likelihood of winning and at this point, I look at the prices.

Once I've got the prices, I cross out those that don't offer me enough perceived value and then the one that now stands top of the list is the daily selection. We aim to have the selection online in the early evening before racing (preferably by 6.00pm) where possible but occasionally due to home-life, travel plans and/or holidays, it can be later, but there's a selection every day except Sundays and we don't take Bank Holidays, Easter nor Christmas off!

That said, we are currently trialling a morning of racing delivery of Stat of the Day, with the pick generally online by 8.15am.

I try to find runners priced around the 11/4 to 6/1 mark at BOG prices and look for some value in the odds achieved, but sometimes I have to stray outside those parameters a little. A large proportion of selections are sent off at much shorter odds than advised, and constantly beating SP is a key in making long-term profits. Basically, our profit figures aren't massaged by some freakishly long-priced winners, nor is our strike rate bolstered by a string of odds-on jollies.

What we do have is a consistent approach that aims to highlight one value selection per day and although this "one-a-day" stats-based approach to bet selection suffers all the obligatory peaks and troughs associated with betting on horses, we did manage to make a profit yet again in 2019, but it was a real tough slog towards the end of the year, if I'm brutally honest.

Normally at this point, I'm typing this out with a fairly satisfied smile on my face, but the final quarter of the year gave us little to smile about. Nevertheless, the bigger picture is that we managed to secure yet another yearly profit, our eighth on the bounce. We're quietly proud of our record of profit in every year since SotD's inception, for what is essentially a free add-on to the Gold toolbox package, but we're also aware that recent form has been below long-term levels... although I think I said that form was only temporary anyway!

A full month-by-month analysis of SotD's results can always be found at
http://www.geegeez.co.uk/stat-of-the-day-month-by-month/ , and the overall picture for 2019 was as follows:

Number of bets/selections/pts wagered: 290 (two fewer than 2018)
Winning Bets: 66 (67 in 2018)
Strike Rate: 22.76% (2018 = 22.95%)
Average payout from winning bet : 3.93/1 (2018 = 3.57/1)

Yearly Profit: 35.46pts (2018 = 14.16pts)
Profit on Stakes Invested: 12.23% (2018 was 4.85%)

From inception in November 2011 to end 2019: +531.87 points

The overall bottom line is still, we think, impressive and one that both Matt and I (it's a team game) are happy with; and, although I've been quite vocal in expressing my disappointment about the way 2019 fizzled out, a 12.23% return actually shows us in a good light against many of our peers.

We're already up and running for January, a month that has traditionally been kind to us, so fingers crossed for more of the same and a good year overall.

Many Thanks for being a part of Geegeez and SotD,
Chris, Matt and the whole Geegeez team.

***Stat of the Day is just one component of the excellent package available to all Geegeez Gold Members, so if you're not part of our community already, why not take your £1/30-day trial now?

Click here for more details.

A Decade in the Life of geegeez.co.uk

/in /by

It's that time of the year, of the decade, when retrospectives are all the rage. So, while I appreciate you've probably had more than your fill of such self-congratulatory mush in recent days, what follows will add to the pile. For regular readers who have joined at any point after 2010, there may be some interesting factoids in the below.

geegeez.co.uk first saw the light of day in August 2008, as a one man - me - blog. Now, more than eleven years later, I still drive the bus, though with co-pilots, mechanics and conductors aplenty. This remains a boutique site, it remains funded by your Geegeez Gold subscriptions (as opposed to bookmaker revenue share, which is a different model from basically every other major racecard/form provider), and it remains privately owned with an ethos that focuses on you, our loyal reader/subscriber, rather than 'shareholder value'.

Right, self-righteous back-slapping out of the way, on with the show...

Before the decade began

As mentioned, geegeez.co.uk actually began life in the second half of 2008, when we were all a little younger and faster. It looked very much like this, and sat - for those of a vaguely techie nature - on google's blogger platform. High art it was not...

 

January 2010

Moving on, and the first of many failed cosmetic enhancements was applied in early 2009. The site retained this look at the beginning of the decade, having now moved from blogger to WordPress which, ten years later, is the de facto platform for such content hubs and used by the likes of cnn.com.

The red, white and blue banner was in situ at this point but the site remained a blog funded by affiliate commissions from products we reviewed, as well as those sold ourselves such as Trainer Track Stats.

July 2011

By July 2011, there had been another facelift - things were looking a lot more professional now - and we also had a small team of writers including Ross Birkett (amateur jockey and assistant trainer to his mum, Julia Feilden) and Mal Boyle, the placepot guru.

On reflection, that front page looks better than the current one - a job to be addressed early in 2020! - and the box bottom right hints at a change in direction for the site towards what you currently know and, hopefully, love.

 

January 2012

Inexplicably, to me at least, the previous look failed to appeal to site users, so we reverted to linking from the home page to bundles of content. At this time, Ian Sutherland was writing news articles as well as some 'what's in a name' insights on horses and lost racecourses, and we were still reviewing betting products as we continue to do to this day (albeit on a smaller scale).

The eagle-eyed amongst you will notice the third item down in the middle column, Stat of the Day. This feature was incepted in November 2011, meaning we recently passed eight years of service, every one of them profitable thanks, almost exclusively, to one man, Chris Worrall. He has been as important a member of the team as anybody during this past decade and I'm extremely grateful to him for his help and support, as well as his - generally - calm influence. Thanks Chris!

 

May 2013

This guy turned up in 2013, and I kind of liked him. But, in the end, he became a victim of the corporate culture as he was deemed not sufficiently professional looking for a site with upwardly mobile aspirations. Sigh.

 

Anyway, he was cool!

 

 

 

January 2014

In the middle of 2013, geegeez.co.uk published its first racecards. They were pretty basic and they were free. There was a problem with this: I couldn't afford the data and development costs to keep them going. So, after much soul searching, I decided they needed to be a premium product based on a monthly or annual subscription. The initial fee was set at just £12 a month, a figure that recognised both my discomfort at charging for something I'd expected to monetise in other ways and the fact that there wasn't a huge amount of depth to them at that stage.

Here's how a card looked back then:

However, what we did have - in its embryonic format - was Instant Expert. Here is a very early incarnation - at that time called Race Analysis Report, or RAR - of what has become a cornerstone of form profile punters' betting activity.

Of course, Alder Mairi won this race, and below are early images of both Full Form (Filter) and the Result.

 

To be perfectly honest, it was successes like this one that gave me the confidence to plough on with Geegeez Gold. The end of 2013 was a pivotal time for me and the site, as the stress of making a commercial go of what had become a significant cost base was leading me to wonder if I hadn't made a massive mistake.

I'd written this post - https://www.geegeez.co.uk/a-new-beginning-for-geegeez-co-uk/ - at the end of 2013 when it had "all come on top" as Arthur Daley used to say, and I was looking for a buyer. What an error that would have been, in so many ways, for me personally; and I'm glad that people didn't see the future value in the site that I did.

 

September 2015

By the end of 2015, the Gold service was very much the core of what we did, as it has been ever since. I tend not to blow my trumpet too much in public (though this article may contradict that!), but I had privately decided I wanted to make Geegeez Gold the best racecard and form tool service in Britain and Ireland. Five years from September 2015 - i.e. in nine months' time - I think I'll be happy we've achieved that.

Here's how the main features on Gold shaped up roughly four years ago:

 

January 2018

The site continued to provide cutting edge data driven editorial from incisive and pithy writers such as Tony Keenan, as well as Fleet Street denizens like Tony Stafford. And Geegeez Gold continued its feature accumulation, with the following being added since autumn 2015:

Meanwhile, geegeez.co.uk had evolved visually once more, into something close to its current aesthetic:

 

January 2019

And so to 2019. The 'look and feel' is fresher, with the red being dropped from the branding in favour of the white/blue combination. Content has been a little quieter this year, though where quantity has been limited we've deliberately focused on quality.

 

January 2020

And so to a new decade. Where are we?

From those humble beginnings as a little blog site with, as the excellent Robin Gibson of Racing Post's Surf and Turf feature once said, "a few serviceable posts", we've created a community of racing fans, and a betting information hub with few - arguably, no - peers.

During that time, we've syndicated horses and enjoyed numerous winners; we've sponsored jockeys such as David Probert, Rex Dingle and Callum Rodriguez, and the ever-brilliant Anthony Honeyball yard; and I/we continue to re-invest pretty much everything that doesn't put bread on my family's table into this website.

Whether it's top class editorial from the Tony's, Keenan and Stafford, Jon Shenton, Dave Renham, Andy Newton, and of course Stat of the Day Chris and myself; or new features within Geegeez Gold, such as sectional timing, additional reports, and greater user configurability (all built by the peerless Nige and our new database whizz, Jean-Francois), the subscriptions you pay contribute directly to the ongoing development of the service and the site.

*

December 2020

We've a very busy year of development planned. Here's what's on the menu for 2020 and where I hope we'll be by this time next year:

- Hiring some content and marketing people to help share what we have with existing and new readers

- Bringing sectional timing to life, an ongoing project

- A revamped Query Tool allowing for far greater depth and analytical tinkery-pokery

- Betfair exchange data and interface to wager directly into the exchange

- A raft of smaller upgrades including PRB (percentage of rivals beaten), a trainer 'days since last run' report, graphical race visualisations, overrounds, HC2 and TC2 (2nd start in a handicap or for a new trainer), ROI calculations in reports and draw/pace content, and plenty more besides

*

Finally, a very heartfelt word, directly from me to you.

For allowing me to live my dream for more than a decade now, I cannot thank you enough. Whether you've been here since the get go or have stumbled upon us more recently, THANK YOU. Thank you. Thank you. I hope that the content on these virtual pages attests to the sincerity of my gratitude.

Here's to the next decade!

Matt, and all of the team at geegeez.co.uk

Jon Shenton: Some Thoughts on Action vs Angle Bets

/in /by

I’ve been penning on these pages for well over a year now, writes Jon Shenton. As a novice who has never written anything for public consumption previously, it’s been very challenging. It’s also been highly enjoyable, and I’ve learnt plenty regarding racing, and basic grammar, along the way!

For regulars, you'll know the form: a bit of data, a chunk of blurb and perhaps a few nice angles (and some occasionally less nice ones) on the journey.

But this edition is a bit different, a little more reflective and general in nature, aiming to mull some of the challenges associated with a systematic betting approach. I very much hope that it’s not too self-indulgent [it's not. Ed.] and is of some interest to the data driven bettor.

 

Angles and Demons

My name is Jon Shenton and I have 679 angles / betting systems saved in my portfolio. Many aren’t active but most are.

I’ve been building, maintaining and running angles since April 2016. Prior to that, an annual trip to Gold Cup day was my only exposure to racing and resulted in nine straight years without a hint of trouble for the bookies. However, three winners at Cheltenham on a Friday in March, using detailed but on reflection misguided study, changed everything. My success that day was without doubt 100% attributable to good fortune rather than skill, but in my mind I was up and running.

From that moment, I spent seemingly every spare second researching, analysing and listening in order to develop a deeper understanding of racing.   I began betting only pennies (paper trading is not for me!) initially, but over time those pennies have turned into a few pounds as confidence levels and results have improved.

It all sounds perfect, doesn't it? Making a small amount of pocket money on the nags is something that never seemed to be a realistic proposition; having a leisure activity, that hands out a bit of spendo is a wonderful pursuit.

However, in recent times my enjoyment levels from racing, and betting on it, have been waning a little. I haven’t given it a huge amount of thought until now. But when I was challenged to write this article it became a catalyst to think about the bigger picture and to step back from the day to day noise. It was then that I realised that I haven’t really been plugged into the sport in the same way over the past few months.

Ultimately, I think it’s because the process of systematically wagering on racing through angles is exceptionally transactional in nature. Zooming out and evaluating from a distance it can feel - and had started to feel - in large part like a glorified admin function. And, frankly, there aren’t many people in the world who relish a good bit of relaxing admin in their own spare time.

A typical weekday starts in the evening when all the following day's qualifying bets are written down from the relevant website(s) and tools. Then, at 5.15am on the day of racing, the alarm delivers its familiar but always rude awakening. A quick shower, and with a cup of tea all bets are placed for the day. Then it’s out of the door bright and early to the day job.

Working full-time as I do, it’s nigh on impossible to keep across racing during working hours (deliberately avoided for obvious reasons hopefully) and I check the results when I get home. Then it’s the treat of recording all of the results on a tracking spreadsheet and repeating the process. Every single day.

Some days are quieter than others: in 2019 thus far there have been north of 3,200 angle-generated bets that have been struck. Not sure how I feel about that in the cold light of day - perhaps I need to be more selective - but it certainly illustrates the associated admin challenge.

The graph below shows the result of these type of wagers from that start point in 2016.

Predominantly, these numbers have been delivered through win only level stake betting (more on staking later): it’s non-emotive, low engagement wagering; and there is very little in the way of subjectivity or personal thought in the process. That process is rigid: identify a qualifier, write it down, place a bet, check the result and record the outcome.

The results are strong undoubtedly, with margin ordinarily 10-15% over the course of a year. At this point it should be noted that a portion of this return is attributable to best odds guaranteed. Transacting at early prices with BOG presents an element of 'natural value' with the relatively high volume of bets that are placed. The retreat of this offer to later in the day is creating a hurdle that in time will need to be overcome to maintain my current margin. Placing bets any later than 6am is not going to be possible due to other commitments, so I’m going to need to find a way to evolve or accept a lower rate of return.

Putting these thoughts to print has helped me to recognise that it’s the research, number crunching and theory testing that keeps the fire burning. Sure, the results have a certain satisfaction associated with them, but there is no doubt that the overall process is a little cold, clinical and mechanical.  The highly structured, highly disciplined, admin heavy approach works financially but my level of engagement with the sport is lacking.

 

Action Man

The alternative to stuffy system/angle betting is the good old emotional roller coaster of traditional wagering: taking stock of all the usual elements and variables of a given race and pinning your colours to the mast around one animal.

I am partial to a “normal” bet too, the general parlance used on geegeez.co.uk is “action” betting so we’ll stick with that terminology from here on in.

Angle/system betting is the rhythm section of the gambling universe, whereas action bets might be seen as the freewheeling, edgy lead guitarist.

Here is a graph illustrating the outcome of my guitar licks over the past 2-and-a-half years.

Not exactly Slash or Hendrix is it?

The graph follows a profile like a Next Big Thing that burns brightly for a time before hitting the skids and hurtling back into relative obscurity.

2019 has clearly been the year of excessive drink, substance abuse, creative differences and a spectacular fall from grace (metaphorically, of course) for my action bets. For context, there have been 645 of them in 2019 to date with 81 successes (counting an E/W collection as 0.2 of a win). Depressingly, I’m not entirely sure why this year has been so difficult, though I suspect there is an element of attempting to be too smart and punting beyond my means and capabilities. A little knowledge can be dangerous, especially when there is a natural attraction to against the crowd punting and (ostensibly) generous prices!

A result of the downturn has been an easing back on the volume of action bets. Roughly speaking, I’ve had less than half the action bets over the past three months that I would have had based on the previous two-year volume averages.

Easing off on the action seems a sensible approach. A brutal personal assessment (stats don’t lie?) is that my race reading ability is not in the same league as the cold data-driven angle approach; so why bother wasting time trying to pick winners when the angles do it better? There is certainly limited financial reason to play in action betting, based on the recent numbers, and locking money away in a cash ISA would make more sense commercially. But not even Derren Brown could convince me that a risk-free return in a tax-free saving account was more fun than poring through race cards, form, pace maps and whatever else.

Through trying to get under the skin of a race and piecing it together, it affords an opportunity to further learn and to develop a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in racing - and in betting on racing. It is sport after all, and an action bet can solidify the link to it. The spectacle and sense of occasion obviously stands on its own merit but evaluating a race closely (betting or not) creates a deeper and more vested interest in the outcome. Most importantly, it generates interest, excitement, and fun.

My life has revolved around sport since I was knee high to the proverbial green jumpy insect. However, my career has generally revolved around the use of data. Racing is perfectly positioned to straddle both. The rational side of me struggles with undue risk and losing money; the sporting and emotional side connects with the characters, animals and theatre of the event, and wants to be financially implicated.

But a recent conscious choice to withdraw from action betting had resulted in less time invested in the sport and, as a result, my previously voracious appetite to consume as much information and knowledge as possible has ebbed a little.

On introspection, then, I know that action betting must be here to stay: I just need to get better at it! It’s a wonderful sport, and to measure the enjoyment of it by financial return and transactions alone is the wrong way of looking at it. Being less uptight about action bets is key. And keeping them separate / treating them as fun, rather than angle-driven investments, is a clear and necessary way forward.

 

Action Learnings

The single biggest challenge with action betting is finding the capacity to do it properly. Finding time to study in any depth is difficult for me due to other commitments, like - you know - work and family! Undoubtedly, that’s where the toolkit on geegeez assists hugely in cutting through some of the noise.

What geegeez cannot do is support with the mental challenges associated with a ticking clock and wagering. It’s a personal thing but occasionally in the evening I’ll put on ATR or Racing TV and decide to have a quick check of the card just before the off. The intent is to evaluate the race at high level and see how that goes. Who’s going to lead? Who has course form? And so on...

However, it’s hard not to get attracted to a bet even in that very short window. Each to their own, but over the past couple of months I’ve refrained from these type of wagers as, for me, they invariably end in disappointment.

A similar limitation related to time, laziness or general apathy is that once pinpointing a “good thing” it can be devilishly difficult to walk away without a wagering commitment. It is the potential opportunity cost of reversing from a successful bet where the problem lies. A race comprises of many possible winners, certainly not just the one identified as having the course form, front-running potential, good draw or whatever edge seems to be apparent. Finding contenders isn’t the main challenge. No, my main challenge relates to understanding how the highlighted horse compares against the rest of the field and knowing when to step back rather than ploughing in regardless.

I’ve committed to at least evaluating the top four or five in the market before making an action bet now. It sounds basic and obvious, but part of the process of trying to improve is assessing why things aren’t working. My hope is that, by implementing this basic rule, there will be an upturn in action-based performance. We’ll see.

 

General angle betting thoughts

Getting back to angle betting, I have a few other observations to share.

Firstly, should all qualifiers get backed blindly or not? A lot of people use an angle as a starting point and then apply subjective judgement to that qualifier in determining whether to put the money down.

This does not work for me. I am an advocate of backing blind. Here's why: the angle works because it’s not subjective, and it can throw up contrarian winners to which the market is largely blind. By applying a judgement filter there is a danger of conforming to the market view and losing the angle's edge.

Below is a case study that burns, even today.

This race from 2017 is taken from my 'I know better' phase where I’d evaluate each qualifier and exclude some from a bet based on my opinion.

The qualifier in question is Guishan from a Mick Appleby sprint angle, number 3 on the card above.  This animal was discounted due to its sub-optimal draw in box 11 of 12.  Everyone knows a horse can’t win from that draw over a sprint trip at Chester, don’t they? Anyway, as I sat down to watch it with a nice cup of tea and a smug feeling of avoiding an inevitable loss, I was gripped by unfolding sense of horror. Guishan tacked over from a high draw, secured a reasonable position and swept by all-comers in the home straight to win with a degree of comfort. At 25/1. There are lots of other case studies with resemblance to this one but I'll spare you - and me! - the details.

Moving on, if there is a good reason to adapt an angle I will. For example, certain trainers may qualify at specific tracks or under certain conditions but they have a poor record with horses first or second time out. In such a situation, I would have no qualms adjusting or improving the angle by excluding these, because that decision would be evidence-based. But those subjective, opinion-based exclusions need to be consigned to the wheelie bin of history.

 

Staking Plan

Before closing, a line or two on staking. There are countless words available on this subject and no doubt the vast majority are better informed than what follows. However, I hope my relative inexperience can be of some reassurance to those of you who are still finding your way.

Quite frankly, in terms of staking, keeping it simple is the most important for me. I have researched and read a fair amount on optimising stakes but, in all honesty, I don’t understand a great deal of it! I certainly have no real idea how much value there is in each bet to adjust stakes accordingly, and I’d be guessing if applying something like the Kelly Criterion in the real world. I’ve tried measuring value by creating my own tissue prices but I’m a million miles away from making that work for me effectively.

Basically, the less I think about from a staking perspective the better. In general, level stakes keep it a thought free process for me. That said, there is some room for manoeuvre, depending on the category of bet and my track record with them. My current staking plan is as follows:

  • 2 points win – All-weather premium angle
  • 1.5-point win – All-weather standard angle
  • 1.5-point win – Flat turf premium angle
  • 1-point win – Flat turf standard angle
  • 1-point win – National Hunt angle
  • 1-point win / 0.5 points EW – Action bet

The only subjective part is what makes a premium or standard angle. That’s down to performance and chi score (one for another day) which is a statistical measure to indicate the likelihood of results being attributable to chance or not.

An example of a premium angle is the Derek Shaw, Chelmsford Class 4-7 at 11/1 or shorter contained within the below edition of punting angles. That is proven over a period in a live environment.

https://www.geegeez.co.uk/punting-angles-chelmsford-city-racecourse-part-1/

I think staking plans boil down to understanding ones strengths and weaknesses, and betting accordingly. If you do struggle or worry about staking, then in my experience a level stakes approach takes a lot of the noise and confusion away.

In fact, I think that’s what this article is predominantly about. Strengths, weaknesses, likes and dislikes. Writing it has certainly helped me to think about my betting - specifically, what I’m good at and what I have as development areas (corporate speak).

Even if the experiences I've shared in this article don’t help directly, taking a bit of time out to reflect on your betting approach, strategies and performance is a sensible and pragmatic thing to do occasionally. And no better moment than during this break.

I hope you enjoy the festivities, and here’s to an exciting, fun and profitable 2020 racing. It really is a special sport like no other.

- JS

Video: Sectional Data Overview

/in , /by

In today's video, you can catch a first glimpse of not one, but two, new things!

First off, want to know where geegeez.co.uk is now based? The introduction to this video reveals all - fancy Italian coffee shop included 🙂

More importantly (perhaps, what is more important than coffee?!), today I reveal for the first time how Gold subscribers will be able to interact with the sectional data we're soon to publish.

Please don't worry if you're new to sectional content, and/or if it doesn't really make sense at this stage. Over the next year and beyond I/we will be doing lots to bring certain sectional scenarios to life so that you not only understand what the data are saying, but also when they're saying something notable in the context of today's race.

I'm not a sectional expert; rather, I'm a publisher and a student of (old style) form looking to cut my teeth in this new time-based world. It will be an interesting journey for all of us, and it starts for you - if you want it to - with the video below...

 

What is the point of sectional timing in horse racing?

/in /by

Sectional timing has finally become a thing in British racing having been a staple around the globe for - literally - decades. In this post, we'll explore what sectional timing is and, more to the point, for what it can be used in the racing and betting context.

What is sectional timing?

Sectional timing is, as the name suggests, a record of how fast something happened within a part of a race. In Formula 1 or track and field, this would be lap times within an overall race time; in skiing or cycling time trials, it would be the time a competitor took within a specific segment - or section - of the race.

In all cases, it is a snippet of information about a chunk of a race which can be used to broaden our understanding of how a competitor is performing, or has performed. In and of itself, sectional timing is no more than that.

By collecting this information for lots of similar events, however,  we can start to build up a picture of how to do things optimally, which inevitably means how to win more often.

Why bother with sectional timing?

Let's take a stupid example. Like, a really stupid example. Let's say I was going to run a marathon (already pretty stupid), and let's further say that I decide to sprint the first 200 metres. How do you suppose the remaining 26 miles 185 yards are going to go for me? Not well; I've blown much of my available energy before the race has even started.

Now let's take a slightly more real world example, the 2018 Arkle Chase won by Footpad. Even if you don't watch the video, much of what you need to know about this race is shown in the still image below. Petit Mouchoir (purple Gigginstown colours) and Saint Calvados (white, blue, red Brooks family colours) did something not far removed from my preposterous marathon analogy above.

Guess what happened to the 4/1 third- and 11/4 second-favourites respectively?

They were absolutely whacked by the finish, allowing Footpad - in the green, running at a much more sensible, and sustainable, speed - to win as he liked. Second home was Brain Power, white and black colours, and also restrained away from the duel ahead.

The two scrapping protagonists finished 15 lengths third and 53 lengths fourth of five, only beating a totally outclassed rival who jumped poorly.

After the race, the media went mad about Footpad's demolition job: here we had the new Champion Chase favourite, the next generation of untouchable speed chaser...

Only we didn't. And, with a stopwatch (or even a bit of common sense in a setup as blatant as this), it was obvious that this was not a coronation procession, but rather a case of one very capable horse benefiting from the lunacy inefficiency of two other very capable horses and their human support acts.

Footpad did go on to win the equivalent Grade 1 at Punchestown as the 2/5 favourite on his next start. But there he beat a broken Petit Mouchoir - who'd also rocked up at Aintree in between times - and a gaggle of Grade 3 (at best) rivals. Thereafter he was beaten on all three starts in what should have been his breakthrough season in non-novice company. On each occasion he was sent off favourite, twice at evens or shorter. Connections ultimately swerved Altior and the Champion Chase in favour of the Ryanair, in which Footpad finished a distant eighth of twelve.

Even allowing for a solid race in the middle of that trio, he was still beaten by an 11-year-old called Simply Ned that day.

Back to sectional timing, and what it would have told us about that race. In point of fact, it told us that Footpad ran extremely fast. But he also ran extremely efficiently as a result of sitting off the crazy fractions set by Petit Mouch and Saint C. He was able to maintain his consistently quick pace where those two could not sustain their overly rapid early dash.

Subsequently, in more sensibly run contests, Footpad was less able to bring his high-cruising one pace to bear: the notion that he quickened in the Arkle is plain wrong, he merely slowed down far less markedly than his main rivals on the prevailing heavy ground.

But still we've not got to the nub: why bother with sectional timing?

Because, at the most fundamental level, it helps us to understand what happened far more reliably than our eyes. Sectional information acts as a permanent record where our eyes / brains have a more temporary or transient ability to capture, store and re-process such intel across a wide range of races.

And, most importantly, the collection and collation of this timing data enables us to make inferences that were hitherto not possible, or at least to make them with more certainty and/or confidence.

If we know that an unexposed two-year-old was all at sea early but covered the last two furlongs in a very quick, relatively, time that is worth noting. All the more so if the horse in question didn't win the race and may not be obvious to the betting public.

If we know that an exposed handicapper invariably runs his best races when recording even fractions off an overly fast pace, and the pace map suggests plenty of early zip today, that is very much worth noting.

If we know a horse like Footpad had a perfect setup to bring his A game, and that such a scenario is unlikely to present itself too often, we can risk taking a chunk out of the market by betting against him subsequently. [By the way, I really like Footpad; for him to do what he did in the Arkle having absolutely walked through one of the fences on the way round was awesome. But my affection for the game and its warriors resides in a separate compartment - let's call it my heart - to the one from where my punting intent manifests, and rarely the twain doth meet].

How can I use sectional timing?

As with all pieces of the puzzle, the most important thing to say is that you don't have to use sectional data to make good betting decisions. If you currently get on just fine using form profiling, trainer patterns, pace/draw, or any other methodology, feel free to carry on regardless.

But, just as I have long banged the drum for the value of a greater awareness of early pace in races, I think sectional information takes us to another level of comprehension of what happened and why - and, far more importantly, perhaps, what might (or might not) happen today as a consequence of what we understand of the previous days.

If you already use the geegeez pace maps, sectional timing information will help you understand more fully what happened. It will contextualise one horse's performance in the race macro. And that will help you make better, more informed betting decisions.

Why are you telling me all this?

Two reasons, one narrow and one broad. Broadly speaking, knowledge is power when betting. A company called Total Performance Data has been recording sectional timing information for more than three years at some of the all-weather tracks. They have more recently extended their coverage to all of Sky Sports Racing's tracks (with the exception of Ascot).

Racing TV's umbrella company, Racecourse Media Group (RMG), has - via its own supplier, CourseTrack - also been gathering sectional timing information since late summer.

A year from now sectional timing data will be available for all tracks in UK (with the possible exception of Chelmsford) and, via the specialist racing channels first - but with some noteworthy interjections in terrestrial coverage - the language of sectionals and their implications will find their way into the conversation.

Five years from now, sectional data will be mainstream. Talk of how races will be run will be fundamental cornerstones of the form debate, rather than the last word before a race goes off: "xyz is lining up at the front of the field and he looks like he might lead".

The more narrow point is that geegeez.co.uk will soon start publishing sectional timing information in its Gold racecards. It won't clutter the view for those who have no intention of engaging with it (yet), but it will be there for Gold subscribers of a more curious / time-based nature.

Here are some artist's impressions of how things might look:

Full Result

 

Full Form

 

Cards Inline

 

What next?

At some point before Christmas, sectional timing information for Total Performance Data / Sky Sports Racing tracks will appear within the Geegeez Gold racecards. It will be switched 'off' as default, but with options in your My Geegeez profile to turn it on, either in visual or data format.

Sectional data will be part of the existing Gold provision at least until the end of 2020, after which it may become a paid 'add on' for those who derive value from it. (This content does not come cheap, even before the months of development time/cost have been factored in, and it's been something of a gamble to take it on. That is my problem, of course, and we'll see how things go, but I want to be clear at the outset about the potential to charge separately for this at some point far down the line. Fair enough?)

Alongside the release of sectional data on site, there will be a number of explainer videos and a section (no pun intended) in the User Guide to help you get your feet under the table.

Thereafter, we'll have regular editorial picking up on races of interest from the previous week or fortnight. Sometimes these will be big races, and sometimes they will be races which might have otherwise snuck under the radar.

Super Important

One really important point in closing: I am not by any manner of means expert in inferring sectional content. I know plenty about running lines and points of call from my exposure to US racing, and I have got up together on such as finishing speed percentages and pars more recently as a result of grappling with their inner workings to help my developers.

I am still learning how best to infer the data, and how best to use it for punting purposes. To that end, I very much welcome comments from those who maybe already use this intel from other sources. And, also to that end, I very much welcome your tolerance if/when I/we make a mistake in presentation.

When the sectional content arrives on site it will be in BETA mode. That means it might be imperfect, and I welcome your support in resolving any glitches.

This is an innovative new frontier as far as British racing - and geegeez.co.uk coverage of it from a form perspective - is concerned. I'm excited to see where it takes us...

Matt

How to Play the Ten to Follow

/in /by

How to Play the Tote Ten to Follow Competition

You may have missed the announcements recently that a new team has taken over the UK tote. They have a progressive outlook and some exciting plans in train for the near future; but their first foray is the revival of a much missed old favourite, the Ten to Follow competition.

The idea is simple: you pick ten horses which score points based on various things, such as the class of race they win and their winning tote dividend. Further details on that are below.

There are prizes down to 100th place in the main game, and there is also a free to play game with a £10,000 first prize. Whoop!

As well as that, I'm given to understand that the tote guys are working super hard to get league functionality up and running before the competition starts this weekend. Assuming that happens, there will also be prizes for the winners of the geegeez league. I will of course keep you updated on progress there.

For now though, here's everything you need to know...

Ten to Follow: What is it?

The Ten to Follow (TTF) was a fondly-remembered paper-based competition run for many years as a joint venture between (the old) tote and Racing Post. It disbanded maybe ten years ago, and was sorely missed, not least by me (even though I never got that close to the top of the leaderboard).

With technology moving forward apace in the interim, the competition has returned and is now a digital game, making entry and administration much easier.

The aim of TTF is to score as many points as you can from your 'stable' of ten horses. Points are scored for winning - and in some cases, running well in - races from this Saturday 30th November through to Saturday April 25th 2020 (bet365 day at Sandown, the official season end). All National Hunt races run in UK and Ireland count for scoring purposes; races run in France or elsewhere overseas do not count, nor do flat races or point to points.

The competition is open only to residents of UK and Northern Ireland this year (admin restrictions, sigh).

What can I win?

There are a number of prizes, the headlines for which are as follows.

The main game, which costs £5 per entry, has a guaranteed minimum first prize of £175,000. One hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds. Nice. There is a further £75,000 minimum guaranteed to be shared between 2nd and 100th places, with the 10th place finisher guaranteed at least £1,500.

As well as the main game, there is a free to enter version. Here, there are four monthly £1,000 prizes as well as a main prize of £10,000 to the winner. Pretty good for free entry!

And, as well as the prizes sponsored by tote, if the league functionality is up and running, we'll have a geegeez league and that will have some awesome prizes too. I'm planning to offer the winner of the free geegeez league, a year's free access to Geegeez Gold; and the winner of the main game geegeez league, a lifetime Gold membership. This, again, assumes that it will be possible to differentiate between the two in the not-yet-available league setup. Watch this space.

UPDATE - LEAGUES NOW AVAILABLE. HERE'S HOW TO JOIN THE GEEGEEZ SUPER LEAGUE

Whilst logged into your account, go to https://tote.co.uk/ten-to-follow/play/leagues/join-league and enter the PIN 000026. [If the link doesn't work, go to the menu top left and click the 'LEAGUES' option]

Then choose your best stable - NB it looks like you may only enter one stable into the league, so good luck!

Geegeez Super League prizes will be as above, as well as those on offer from the competition itself.

How to enter

Entry is straightforward. You first need to register an account at tote.co.uk. NB: This is the new setup, it is NOT the same as totesport, with whom you may already have an account.

Once you've registered your account, click the Ten to Follow link and create your stable.

Unlike Fantasy Football, there are no values associated with horses, so you can pick the very top horses without fear of over-spending. And there are no concerns of financial impropriety as with the likes of Supreme Racing and Phoenix Thoroughbreds, the brazened toads. I'll share my stable in a second.

This video shows you how to register and choose a stable. There is no sound, which will be a pleasant discovery for many of you who have heard my 'dulcet tones' before!

 

Scoring Points

Remember Jim Davidson and John Virgo on Big Break back in the day? Jim would say, "The object of the game is", and John would say, in his deadpan monotone, "pot as many balls as you can".

This is largely the Fantasy Racing equivalent: score as many points as you can, which can be loosely translated as win as many races - ideally big races, and at big prices - as you can.

Here are the specifics:

A Grade 1 is worth 25 points
A Grade 2 is worth 20 points
A Grade 3 is worth 15 points
Any Listed race is worth 12 points
Any other race is worth 10 points

As well as those general point rules, there are 25 bonus races, starting with the Hennessy (Ladbrokes Trophy) this week and finishing with the bet365 Gold Cup on the last day of the season, with most of the Championship races at Cheltenham and Aintree in between.

These bonus races score an extra 25 points if your horse wins and 12 points if it finishes second.

Finally, you have a notional £1 e/w tote bet staked on all runners and that dividend is added to your score.

So, for example, if you'd had Clan Des Obeaux in your team last season, his King George win would have netted you the following points:

Grade 1 win = 25 points

Bonus race win = 25 points

£1 tote win = 14.1 points

£1 tote place = 3.8 points

Total = 67.9 points

The management summary is, try to pick horses capable of winning the biggest races in the season; and try to unearth one or two that have a chance at a bigger price. (These will be selected by less people and are likely to pay a bigger tote dividend if you're right)

 

Boring stuff you need to know

A couple of key points I need to share, because you need to know:

- The full rules can be found here

- This competition is open to UK and Northern Ireland residents aged 18+ only

- geegeez.co.uk is a promotional partner of tote Ten to Follow

- This competition will be a lot of fun, and in my view you should at least enter the free game if you're eligible

- Er, that's it

 

My 'A' Team, and some tactics

I've entered a couple of teams already, and they adhere to the following tactical principles.

  1. I wanted coverage across a good number of the Championship events at Cheltenham
  2. I wanted to take a few chances away from the most obvious (i.e. ante post favourites) in those races
  3. I wanted hurdlers and chasers with greater depth in the latter group

Here's my squad:

Obviously, picking the same ten as me will mean that the very best you can hope for is to share your prize with me (and maybe others).

[As an aside, can you image the devastation up and down the country if, one day, the winning lottery numbers are 1-2-3-4-5-6 ? 10,000 winners who get precisely what they deserve, about a 'bag of sand' each!]

Given my somewhat underwhelming history in the competition, I would not advise such a play, but it's a free country and all that..!

What next?

I think I've covered everything, but if not, do leave a comment below and I'll get you an answer prontissimo.

All that remains is for you to get registered and get your stable in before midday on Saturday, when entries close.

ENTER YOUR TEN TO FOLLOW STABLE HERE >>>

 

Good luck, and I hope you finished second (assuming I win!) 😉

Matt

Punting Angles: Uttoxeter

/in /by

After a recent focus on some of the UK’s All-Weather courses it’s time to adjust the radar to a little bit of National Hunt racing (I’ll return to the remaining AW tracks of Wolves and Lingfield in due course), writes Jon Shenton. For this edition, I’ve chosen the Staffordshire venue of Uttoxeter to focus upon, the reason being that, based on a quick query (run in Query Tool), this course has hosted the most races in the last few years. More races equals more data, and more data sometimes equals better inferences.

Uttoxeter is probably best known for the second longest race in the UK calendar, the 4m2f Midlands National. The course offers a year-round jumping programme, with 25 scheduled meetings per annum. The summer jewel in the crown is the prestigious and valuable Listed race, the Summer Cup.

Course Map

The course is left-handed and relatively sharp in nature.  It is seemingly synonymous with punishing winter ground meaning the track has a reputation for suiting stamina-laden types. Although, given its relative sharpness, speed is possibly an undervalued commodity, especially on the typically firmer ground during the summer. A single circuit is approximately 1 mile 3 furlongs in length, with an unusual kink in the back straight.

 

Uttoxeter Trainers

We start, as usual, with a perusal of trainer performance as a way into developing betting opportunities at the track. The table below shows the record of each yard that has had 50 or more runners at the track since 2012, at a starting price of 20/1 or shorter, and with a minimum of 10 victories over that period.

 

There is some promise in these numbers, with the trio at the top of the list possessing phenomenal records at the track. The IV data confirm that runners from these stables are approximately 2.5 to 3 times more likely to prevail than the average at this venue, and all at a healthy margin, based on A/E or plain old profit and loss.

The Sue Smith, Evan Williams and Harry Fry data also would merit further investigation should time and word count permit, which it doesn’t for this edition, sadly! 

Warren Greatrex

For Warren Gretrex, things aren’t quite as rosy as they might seem from the headline figures, as will become clear below. Firstly, it is notable that his yard hasn’t had a single winner at the course at odds above 10/1. I haven’t shown workings but if you can take that on trust, of the remaining 78 runners we get the following profile by splitting the info by calendar year.

 

 

As can be seen, performance has dipped in 2018, and thus far in 2019. In fact, there was not even a solitary placed animal this year until Elleon won on the 16th November at a welcome SP of 15/2. [As was noted in this article, the Greatrex yard suffered a big dip in fortune last campaign, and will hopefully revert to type this term].

Any projected angle from this high-level data comes with a wealth warning then. Taking the overall data at face value, 24 winners from 78 runs, a strike rate of over 30% and a reasonable return all appears to be a rock-solid no-brainer. But two victories from 22 over the last couple of years removes some of the lustre of the overall picture.

Of course, it’s possibly attributable to the usual variance and randomness (as could the over-performance of earlier years be) given the acutely small sample size. It’s the beauty / challenge / pointlessness of using data such as this to base punting on depending on your viewpoint.  I’m firmly in the beauty & challenge camp if that’s not clear enough already.

Presenting the data differently gives an alternative view.  The graph below shows the cumulative return if you had put a £1 win single on every Greatrex runner with an SP of 10/1 or shorter at Uttoxeter since 2012.

It’s not a bad picture is it? In the context of the overall numbers the relative downturn in 2018/19 of 2/22 winners doesn’t look too damaging. The key question is, what is going to happen from today onwards? Clearly nobody knows for sure, but I’d be inclined to treat this data positively, at least for the time being, and especially in light of the recent winner.

However, if that’s not convincing enough, by looking a bit deeper under the surface there are opportunities to potentially improve the chances of success and lessen the risk based on historical data.

The table below shows track performance by the race code/type data for the yard at the course.

 

Did you spot it? One of those lines is very striking indeed! Chase numbers are fine; hurdle data are competitive, but not micro material. However, the National Hunt Flat race data is exceptional and irrefutably worth tracking. Sadly, for us, the aforementioned Elleon delivered the goods recently meaning a good betting opportunity was missed. The SP of 15/2 is the largest priced winner in the dataset just to add a little bit of salt to the wound!  It does mean that for angle purposes a cap of 8/1 on SP will be used for Uttoxeter runners.

The Greatrex bumper (NHF) record at Uttoxeter is particularly strong, so it is a sensible step to check if the yard performs well in such races generally, or particularly at the Staffordshire venue. Analysing results by course suggests there is some definite further interest.  The below table offers insight:

 

 

There is no doubt that performance is strong at the top four listed tracks, arguably five if including Ffos Las. A/E’s of the quartet at the head of the table are all above or equal to 1.22, a nice benchmark.

Is it interesting or coincidence that it could be argued that the top three are all geographically close to the trainer's base (in relative terms)?  Or is it interesting that all the high-performing tracks have similarities in being left-handed sharpish constitutions? Indeed, all of the top five are left-handed circuits.

The absolute, sacrosanct rule on angle building is that every filter used to compile the angle is explainable and must make at least some degree of sense. I am aware enough to recognise entirely that the above conjecture may be stretching that point, but I have the gut feel that there is something worth noting here. Probably more based on the track layout similarities than location; after all, Lambourn to Uttoxeter is a bit of a schlep.

However, I’ll be watching Greatrex bumper entries at these tracks with great (and probably financial) interest over the coming months.

Incidentally no winners have been delivered at SP’s of greater than 15/2 in this data. While that’s risky and arguably somewhat convenient, for pure angle building I’m only going to consider those runners at 8/1 or shorter (but will personally monitor all).

 

 

The bottom line is, as always, that it is your call how - and indeed if - to play:  the numbers presented are factual, but whether they are strong enough or reasoned enough for you to part with your hard earned is your choice. Caveat emptor!

Suggestions

  • Back Warren Greatrex horses at Uttoxeter in NHF races where the SP is 8/1 or shorter
  • Take note of all other Warren Greatrex runners at 10/1 or shorter at the course
  • If you feel so inclined, track or back Warren Greatrex runners in NHF at SP’s of 8/1 or shorter in races at Warwick, Stratford and Bangor in addition to Uttoxeter

Dan Skelton

It’s hardly new news that the Stratford-based operation has a prolific and rewarding record at the not-too-distant Staffordshire track; however, it’s always worth delving to establish if any deeper insights can be attained. The first port of call in this instance is by market price (it’s usually the first item I look at), and in the case of this intel there is some enthusiasm for a deeper dive.

 

 

The data tell us that  shorter-priced animals outperform the market in terms of A/E, IV and profit (look at that 5.3 IV for animals sent off shorter than 2/1!), whilst the entrants who start at prices of 11/2 or greater just about hold their own. Shorter priced the better, then.

If a lower SP is counter-intuitively a good thing then analysing performance based on market position is a sensible step.  There may be an angle containing the favourite, rather than just short priced animals.

 

An odds rank of 1 relates to the favourite, 2 is the second favourite and so on.  It is crystal clear that a Skelton jolly at Uttoxeter is a very serious contender, with over half of them delivering, and recording an A/E of 1.29 to boot. Impressive stuff at such apparently such short prices.  It proves that there can be value when fishing at the top of the market on occasion.

Obviously, knowing whether a horse is going to start at the top of the market is a bit of guesswork if you generally back the night before or early on the day of the race, but invariably you win some, you lose some and such things even themselves out over time.

Suggestion: Back Dan Skelton horses at Uttoxeter when they are positioned as SP favourites

 

Dr Richard Newland

Third on the trainer table is Dr. Richard Newland. The former GP and Grand National-winning trainer (2014, Pineau De Re) has an impressive record at Uttoxeter. However, focusing on the time of year gives a lot of clarity regarding when the real spotlight on his runners should occur.

The graph illustrates the volume of Newland runners at Uttoxeter, as well as the number of winners.  There’s a pronounced focus on summer jumping at the track, particularly in the months of June and July.

This table shows the same data in more traditional format, with the usual supplementary info, as provided by geegeez.co.uk's Query Tool:

Admittedly, highlighting summer jumping prowess at this point in the year is terrible timing, but it’s worth keeping in cold storage until the warmer temperatures return to these lands. Again, Query Tool is your friend!

The summary version of all runners from May-Sep (inclusive) results in the below output.

That’s good enough but further optional sharpening could be attained as there is no runner that has won at odds of greater than 15/2 SP, albeit only from nine attempts (three of which placed).

I get a strong impression that there is more to find with this trainer. From a relatively small number of horses in training this is a yard worth tracking closely and getting to know in closer detail.

Suggestion: Back Dr Richard Newland horses at Uttoxeter over the summer months (May-September) at odds of 15/2 or shorter

*

Distance nuggets

As ever, let's have a quick hack around some of the race dynamics at the course.

Hurdle races – 2 miles

I’ve concentrated on hurdles primarily due to the volume of data; the chases are a little sparser in frequency so harder from which to draw even moderate conclusions. Initially, then, let's pick up the two-mile distance for larger field sizes (nine or greater) the following profile is generated:

The table illustrates the Impact Value (IV) performance of horses by the various underfoot conditions and by pace profile. The column “races” simply contains the number of races that relate to those going descriptions. This is included primarily to demonstrate the sample size of each data set so you can draw your own conclusions to the relevance when assessing a race.

The data clearly shows that front end pace is important and it’s better to be at the head than biding time in the relative back positions. This is a general truism for all races on all goings at all courses.

There is a suggestion that racing prominently is of greater importance as the ground becomes more testing, with the strongest two numbers in terms of IV relating to leading in Soft (1.81) and Heavy (2.55) conditions, abeit on smaller sample sizes. Making up ground from the cheap seats is tough in all conditions, especially so in the sticky stamina-sapping Staffordshire mud.

 

Hurdle races – 2m 4furlongs

The data for the two-and-a-half-mile trip is reasonably similar to it’s shorter two-mile counterpart, namely that leaders and prominent racers are generally favoured. The green-tinged data is on the right-hand side of the table where the speed is, the redder/orange numbers relating to horses who are ridden patiently is towards the left. There isn’t the same profile in terms of front-running mudlarks getting an even better time of it, perhaps stamina becomes of greater importance than track position over the extra half-mile. Irrespective of reasons or rationale, backing a horse that is likely to be in the leading ranks seems a sensible approach when assessing a race at this distance.

 

Hurdles - 3 miles

Finally, a focus on the longer distance of the 3-mile trip. The first thing to say is that there are fewer races at this distance, but there is no doubt that based on the information available, the box seat seems to have shifted towards the prominent racers, not the horses who cut out the running.

Whilst the front runners perform perfectly well on average, it seems logical that to lead without cover for this longer distance is a more difficult proposition. The low sample sizes do not help, but there is a flavour of it becoming increasingly difficult to make all as the ground gets more testing.

Broadly speaking the optimum position is tucked in nicely behind the leaders; however, based on the overall sample sizes it is not a strong conclusion. Taking the good ground data (where there is the biggest sample, 71 races) the pace profile is relatively flat in comparison to some of the numbers we’ve seen on other tracks. However, caution is advised on likely leaders in deeper underfoot conditions.

*

I hope that is of some use to you over the winter and beyond. Forget the Derby, I’m already looking forward to Dr. Newland at Uttoxeter next summer!

- JS

An Overview of NH Jockey Pace Profiles

/in /by

In my last article I examined pace in general in National Hunt racing, writes Dave Renham. I looked at some overview stats for all race types before focusing on chases, as the figures suggest these races offer the strongest front running edge. In this article I am going to focus on jockeys to see if there are any noteworthy patterns or trends from which we may be able to take advantage.

For new readers, when looking at pace I’m looking at the initial pace in a race and the position that horses take up early on. In National Hunt races I am generally focusing on the time between the start and the completion of the first obstacle, though it may be a slightly longer section than that sometimes. The pace section on geegeez.co.uk is the basis for my number crunching, and that can be found within any racecard in the PACE tab, as well as in its own tool, the Pace Analyser. The data is split into four run styles – Led (4), Prominent (3), Mid Division (2) and Held Up (1). The number in brackets is the pace score that is assigned to each run style. Hence the higher the score the nearer to the front a horse has been in the early stages of a race. I think it is important to note that these early positions tend to remain fairly similar for the first half of the race at least.

The data set I am going to use is the same as I used in my last article – I am looking at all National Hunt races in the UK from 1/1/16 to 31/8/19.

In terms of the position a horse takes up early in the race one could argue that the most influential factor is the jockey. In National Hunt races there are no starting stalls and hence it is up to the jockey how near to the front he/she is when the flag falls and the race starts. They also have a key influence in the first furlong, in terms of how quickly they want their horse to run and what position they want to be in the field. Now of course the trainer may have given the jockey instructions as to how they want the horse to be ridden so this can be a factor as well. Also, we need to appreciate that certain horses do have a preferred running style, and this will be taken into account by both trainer and jockey.

My starting point in terms of data is a look at the figures for all runners during the period of study (these are the same figures that were used at the start of the previous article). They give us base figures from which to work:

The advantage of racing up with or close to the pace is clear to see. However, I believe that this front running bias is still not fully recognised or appreciated by many trainers and jockeys.

Baseline established, I now want to look at jockey performance in more detail. As a starting point let us see which jockeys took the early lead the most (in % terms). I have included only jockeys who had at least 200 rides (all running styles) during the time frame specified. (For comparison purposes the average percentage figure for all jockeys is just under 16%.)

Matt Griffiths heads the list – he has ridden most for trainer Jeremy Scott and, when they team up together, he takes an early lead just over 30% of the time. Now these percentages are interesting and useful for betting / trading purposes, but it is also important to appreciate how successful a jockey is when going to the front early. It is no good taking your horse to the front a significant proportion of the time, if you rarely go on to win the race.

Going back to Griffiths riding for Scott, of these front runners, 25% have gone on to win. Compare this to a 7% success rate on horses that are held up for this jockey/trainer combination. Hence it makes sense to look at the jockeys who have secured the highest win percentages on their respective front runners:

Harry Skelton has an exceptional 36.5% success rate on front runners. His win strike rate on front runners is similar across chases (37%), hurdles (36.1%) and bumpers (36.8%). In lower class races his strike rate increases further – in races of class 4 or 5 Skelton has produced a front running win percentage of 43.6%. For the record, Skelton rides primarily for his brother Dan and it seems this combination really appreciate the potential advantage front runners have.

Moving back to jockeys and how often they take the early lead, let us look at the jockeys who have led early less than 10% of the time (well below the average).

Top jockey Barry Geraghty, retained by leading owner JP McManus in Britain, has remarkably low figures – he has led early in just 11 races from a total of 533. I find that staggering. Of those 11 he won on 4 of them (36.4%). He does have an excellent strike rate on prominent runners (34.9%) and perhaps he just prefers tracking the pace rather than setting it. For the record, his win strike rate on horses that race mid pack is 14.2% and on hold up horses is 18.7%.

And finally for this article, I have created average pace figures for jockeys. Essentially, I have added up the pace scores of each jockey and then divided by the number of races they have ridden in. The higher the average score the more likely a jockey is to ride up with or close to the pace. The table below shows the top 40 jockeys in terms of average pace figure:

Danny Cook tops the list and is a jockey that I think is worth keeping an eye on if riding a horse that is likely to front run. He has a decent win record on front runners, and has even won from the front on 33/1 and 50/1 outsiders.

Of course, this type of article can only scratch the surface, but the Geegeez platform really allows you to go into much greater detail should you wish to. If you are keen to dig further, using Query Tool, expect it to really help your long term betting success; and it would be great if readers were happy to share their findings with other members on the forum or even in the comments below.

- Dave Renham

Breeders’ Cup 2019: Five Takeaways

/in /by

The 2019 Breeders' Cup returned to Santa Anita for the tenth time. Much of the preamble to the weekend was familiar, then, but this year there was a difference. A near palpable atmosphere of anxiety and introspection pervaded proceedings; and, in spite of forensic levels of veterinary scrutiny, BC36 was not to sail smoothly across its troubled waters. That story, amongst others, is recounted in these five takeways from the meeting.

1 JOSEPH & HIS AMASSING TECHNICOLOR PALMARES

Where were you in your career path when you were 26? For most of us mere mortals, college days were behind us and we were taking our first fledgling steps in a job or career. Joseph Patrick O'Brien, barely past the quarter century, has already summited a career in the saddle which began promisingly but perhaps little more with a piece of a three-way tie for the Irish Champion Apprentice title in 2010.

The following year, he enjoyed Classic success with Roderic O'Connor in the Irish 2000 Guineas, and rode another two UK or Irish Group 1 winners, the last of which was Camelot in the Racing Post Trophy. A fortnight after that Doncaster highlight, O'Brien raised his own bar by scoring aboard St Nicholas Abbey in a Churchill Downs edition of the the Breeders' Cup Turf at the age of 18.

2012 was Joseph's - and Camelot's - year as the pair won the first two legs of the Triple Crown, the 2000 Guineas and Derby, before being cruelly denied victory in the St Leger by a horse trained by the subsequently disgraced Mahmood al Zarooni who admitted charges of using performance enhancing drugs on his horses.

That year, 2012, Joseph proved he could do quantity as well as quality as he won his first Irish Jockeys' Championship, an award he retained with a record score in 2013.

By 2016, still aged just 23 - twenty-three! - he swapped the saddle for the demands of training and, to nobody's surprise, hit the ground running, his first Group 1 win coming in the Moyglare Stud Stakes of the same year with Intricately. [It was rumoured that he had also trained Ivanovich Gorbatov to win the Grade 1 Triumph Hurdle in March that year, but let's stick to published record].

As a trainer, in less than three years and at the age of 26, he already has an Irish Derby, a Melbourne Cup and now a Breeders' Cup win to his name. The game triumph of Iridessa - who bounced out of the stalls from box one and got a great position under Wayne Lordan - in the Filly and Mare Turf on Saturday was Europe's sole victory at the meeting, and made Joseph the youngest trainer to win a Breeders' Cup race.

Naturally, given his prior exploits aboard St Nick, he is also the youngest person to record a Breeders' Cup win as both a jockey and a trainer. The sole other member of that most exclusive of Breeders' Cup clubs is Freddie Head, the French horseman who won two multiple Miles with both Miesque (as a jockey, aged 40 and 41) and Goldikova (as a trainer, aged 61, 62 and 63). Chapeau to Freddie, but Joseph is emerging as an altogether different jus.

 

2 AIDAN OFER'BRIEN

While O'Brien Jr was further enhancing his CV, father Aidan was enduring what might legitimately be dubbed a minor crisis. To some that may sound preposterous, so allow a little context: this year, Aidan has trained 15 Group or Grade 1 winners, last year the international G1 tally was 14; but in 2017 it was 28, in 2016 it was 22 and in 2015 it was 17.

At such rarefied altitude and on such small sample sizes it is perfectly reasonable to account for the differential as the dreaded variance - statistical slings and arrows if you will. And that's probably right enough.

But, in the microcosm of the Breeders' Cup, Aidan has now gone 35 runners without a victory since Mendelssohn prevailed in the opening race at Del Mar, the Juvenile Turf, in 2017. Again, it's a small sample. And he was dealt the rummest of rum deals at the post position draw with almost all of his nine entries exiting a double digit stall.

But Bricks And Mortar won the Turf, with a troubled trip, from nine when Anthony van Dyck lost from five. In the same race, Mount Everest, presumed the pacemaker (which may be incorrect), fluffed the start and was never nearer than at the line. Uni won the Mile from stall 11 where Circus Maximus was drawn nine; Just Wonderful missed the kick and was never nearer than fifth in the Filly and Mare Turf from stall 11; Tango and Etoile, drawn eight and 14 respectively, finished eighth and tenth having both broken moderately and struggled to get track position; Arizona, drawn 12 in the Juvenile Turf, was slow at the gate and never nearer than his final position of fifth; Fort Myers ran respectably in seventh from 13 in the same race, though he too was no better than tenth as they passed the stands first time; and King Neptune actually broke alertly in the Juvenile Turf Sprint but wasn't persisted with for a position and entered the turn in seventh place before finishing eleventh.

What is the recurring theme? In fairness, there are two, and one of them is the draw, which is out of the hands of the trainer. The other is the number of times Aidan's horses - again, in fairness, most European horses - broke slowly and were simply in a borderline insurmountable position on a tight inner turf track which was riding like lightning. Even when the races were a little more tactical on the turf, a slow start meant as many as a dozen horses in a 4 x 3 or 3 x 4 phalanx ahead: it is very, very difficult to overcome a pedestrian beginning.

Aidan quite rightly says that he spends all year trying to get horses to settle and relax, and that is the way to win European races. But if a horse doesn't have early tactical toe in order to secure a position, it is almost game over in double-digit US fields. It has been suggested that perhaps he should use American jockeys who are more accustomed to pinging a horse from the gate but, firstly, it's not necessarily something a jockey can influence especially, and secondly, the local lads would generally need to take care not to spurn their bread and butter.

While chatting with one New York punter the somewhat harsh soubriquet Aidan Ofer'Brien was coined, ofer meaning zero for, as in zero for 35 since Mendelssohn in 2017. It is fantastic, and likely extremely important, that Ballydoyle continue to send top division horses to the meeting - it would be an event lighter on entries, far less interesting from a European perspective, and less compelling as a wagering proposition, too, if he didn't - but if they are to be more than making up the numbers, gate speed 101 looks in order. Here's hoping the peerless trainer of his generation reverts to his longer-term type at Keeneland in 2020.

 

3 THE TRACKS

It doesn't matter where you are in the world, if your horse is unsuited to conditions it is unlikely to win. So let's discuss the tracks, the already mentioned in despatches turf course first.

It was lightning fast. They haven't had meaningful rain in LA for six months, a fact evidenced by the desperately unfortunate wildfires that are raging in the north of the state. Sure they've watered the course and continued to hydrate it. But the temperatures have been 30C+ for much of the past fortnight and before. The water table is non-existent. It was suggested by a Clockers' Corner wag that, when going to inspect the turf track in white shoes, the horseman in question returned with green soles. Well that's one way to make brown turf look green!

Of course that's almost certainly just bluster - as easy on the ear as it is - but the fact remains that if you don't have a horse that can handle Bath firm, you probably don't have a horse for the race when the Cup heads west.

Another point on the turf track, specifically in relation to the Juvenile Turf Sprint. In its inaugural running in 2017 (on the undercard), Declarationofpeace - for Aidan O'Brien, in the opening race on the Saturday - led home a Euro superfecta from 'our' only four entries. The winner had the best Euro form around a turn, and was slowly away in a race run too fast, the pace collapsing.

Last year, when none of the Euro entries had winning form around a turn, we did no better than third. This year, although Europe did even less well, the best finisher - fifth-placed Dr Simpson, a rank outsider on the US tote at close to 60/1 - was two from two on turning tracks, by seven lengths at Chester and then in a Group 3 against the boys. She is also a fast starter. Although she wasn't good enough to win, that's the sort of horse you want for this gig. If Dr Simpson's trainer, Tom Dascombe, had sent lightning breaker and turning track specialist Kachy across, he would have been seriously interesting in the Turf Sprint.

In bigger fields and at longer trips, it is often the 'best trip' - that is, the horse which gets least interference excluding front runners whose record is terrible, that wins. There is so much traffic and misfortune to factor into pricing these races up from a value perspective that they are almost a blanket 'no bet'. The sensible approach to hardier punters is to back an American horse with a British bookmaker and hope for a good trip. Races like the Mile are peppered with big-priced winners through their history, Tourist (US horse, 11/1 US tote, 33/1 UK books), Karakontie (French, 29/1 US tote, 16/1 UK books) and Court Vision (US, 64/1 US tote, 50/1 UK books) being three since only 2011 in that particular event.

The DIRT track had been harrowed very deep, and rode slow. The Classic was a truly run race and it was won in a time of 2:02.80. The previous Santa Anita Classic, in 2016, was won in a time of 2:00.11, and the Santa Anita Classic's before that in 1:59.88, 2:00.72, 2:00.11, 2:00.32 (Zenyatta, Pro-Ride), 1:59.27 (Raven's Pass, Pro-Ride), 1:59.88, 2:00.83, and 2:00.40.

Appreciative that this is labouring the point but, to spell it out, the 2019 Classic was two seconds - something like eight lengths - slower than the next slowest of seven Santa Anita dirt Classics, excluding the slightly quicker Pro-Ride surface which was controversially installed and even more controversially ripped up again in and around 2008/9.

And yet Vino Rosso was given a legit number for his win. Timeform US had him on 133, six spots higher than the next best winner at the meeting; Beyer had him at 111, a point behind Mitole (his closest pursuer on the Timeform numbers). That's by way of reaffirming the slowness of the track.

There were good reasons for that, which we'll get to. But what it meant in racing terms was that it was extremely difficult to win from off the pace. You still needed stamina and no little class to get the job done, but only one horse - Blue Prize - was able to win from some way off the pace across the seven dirt races.

The best parallel for British and Irish bettors is that the surface was something akin to Southwell: deep, with serious kickback, where early speed is sustained more often than not and very little comes from far back. This year's Breeders' Cup was, for a lot of dirt race entries, like coming from a fast track qualifier at Lingfield, Chelmsford or Kempton to Finals Day on the Rolleston beach.

It was a necessary step to harrow the course that deep but, in many racing ways, an unsatisfactory one.

 

4 WELFARE

Here's why it was necessary. California is a liberal state and a perfect example of the emerging anti-racing sentiment we are seeing in Britain and in other jurisdictions around the world, notably Scandinavia. There is a war raging between traditionalists and revisionists inside of racing. It's a lop-sided skirmish outside of the bubble.

Governor Gavin Newsom in September called racing at Santa Anita "a disgrace". Newsom wasn't pulling any punches in this New York Times article where he was quoted as saying,

“What happened last year was unacceptable, and all of the excuses be damned. We own that going into the next season, and we’re going to have to do something about it. I’ll tell you, talk about a sport whose time is up unless they reform. That’s horse racing. Incredible abuses to these precious animals and the willingness to just to spit these animals out and literally take their lives is a disgrace.”

That was in response to news that more than thirty horses had been put down as a result of injuries sustained either training or racing at the Arcadia track. Despite the trash talk style (notably, emotive language like "precious animals"), there is plenty of substance behind this soundbite, politicians on both sides of the Atlantic now tapping into an animal welfare zeitgeist among their constituents. Indeed, California's senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein, is of the same view and has publicly expressed it.

That's obviously bad news for racing.

What is worse is that some of the reasons for fatalities may have been avoidable. I see three main factors as conspiring: a fashion for breeding precocity and speed at the expense of durability and stamina; over-training young horses whose limbs cannot yet sustain the level of work demanded of them; and the increasingly sophisticated use of medication to patch up injuries and/or supplement punishing training regimes.

Clearly I'm not a vet and I present the above as no more than conjecture - my take, if you like. I'd very much welcome an educated rebuffal of any or all from any reader qualified to do that.

For me there are two bottom lines on the racing welfare debate. Firstly, whilst fatalities are inevitable - a point racing has to defend explicitly and unequivocally - the current levels are very likely unsustainable. And not just in California, or even America as a whole.

Second, this is an extremely complex debate peppered with flexible morality codes. Anyone who feels vehemently one way or the other probably hasn't given the subject enough thought.

 

5 WHERE NEXT (LITERALLY) FOR BC?

It was in the aftermath of Governor Newsom's comments that extensive vetting was implemented ahead of this year's Breeders' Cup. That led to the high profile scratchings of Imperial Hint, Fleeting and Suedois among others, on veterinary advice. Last year at Churchill Downs, Polydream, favourite for the Mile at the time, was withdrawn under similar circumstances.

Thus, naturally but even more than ever, organisers were praying for an incident- and injury-free Breeders' Cup. They almost got it.

Going into the Classic, the final race of 14 across two absorbing days of pageantry and sport, horsemen and administrators alike would have been justifiably feeling like a job well done. Alas, for racing just now it seems, if it wasn't for bad luck it wouldn't have any luck at all.

The perfect Mongolian Saturday... in Kentucky

The perfect Mongolian Saturday... in Kentucky. But not in Santa Anita

In amongst the millionaires and the billionaires and the silent powers of horse racing exist an ownership group called the Mongolian Stable and their trainer, Enebish Ganbat. They love their racing, are passionate about it, and share their passion with anyone who feels similarly. In 2015 at Keeneland, they enjoyed their greatest day as Mongolian Saturday won the Breeders' Cup Turf Sprint. He raced without Lasix, the near ubiquitous diuretic said to restrict the likelihood of a horse bleeding. He was the only horse in the field not to receive it.

These guys don't sit in a box quaffing Veuve; they are out in the cheap seats in full national dress posing for pictures and glad-handing anyone and everyone. They, and people like them, are what the sport needs.

In the Classic, they had sportingly supplemented Mongolian Groom, who had beaten Classic favourite McKinzie over the Santa Anita track in their respective final preps, and who it should be noted did run on Lasix.

Their horse broke well and was second throughout the first mile, a length off pace-setting War Of Will, with last day foe McKinzie right there as well. But disaster struck for Mongolian Groom, Mongolian Stable, Ganbat, the Breeders' Cup and American racing, as the horse suffered an injury to his left hind leg which could not be treated. Very sadly, he was taken into the horse ambulance and euthanized.

It was deeply distressing on so many counts, primarily for connections, whose love of the game and for their animals is more transparent than most top tier ownership collectives; and all the more so that the ramifications of this event, as another inquest will inevitably be held, will overshadow their own feelings of loss.

The next Breeders' Cup is in Keeneland, far from the madding Californian crowd, then nominally at Del Mar in 2021. But Del Mar is in Southern California, and Churchill Downs may again be on standby as it was reported to be earlier this year in case matters at Santa Anita became irreconcilable.

So yes, Keeneland and Del Mar have been officially unveiled for 2020 and 2021, but will the Breeders' Cup return to Santa Anita in 2022, as was widely expected? Indeed, in light of the political firestorm expected to play out in the state, the question may be whether the Breeders' Cup will ever return to Santa Anita.

Your first 30 days for just £1