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.

Punting Angles: Kempton Park

/in /by

Kempton Park is dripping in racing heritage, having staged its first event more than 140 years ago, writes Jon Shenton.  However, it is the polytrack racing that has been the most prominent fixture from 2006, and that will form the content for today’s piece. There are plenty of data to get stuck in to, hardly surprising considering the number of fixtures at the venue.

The course map reminds us that Kempton is the only right-handed all-weather track in the UK, and it also highlights the existence of two racing loops. Only the five-furlong and 1m 2f trips use the inner ring, the other distances all charting the outer course.

As a supplementary starter, if you want a real expert opinion on the track, David Probert’s blog was published on geegeez a few months ago and contains some very useful first-hand snippets from a rider’s perspective.  It certainly sets the scene nicely for this article if you have time.

https://www.geegeez.co.uk/catching-up-with-david-probert/

Kempton AW Trainers: Richard Fahey

As usual, let us first delve into the performance of trainers at the track. Before getting into the positive angles it’s worth noting a high-profile and generally prolific yard that appears to a have a few challenges at the Sunbury circuit.

The above data represent the powerhouse Richard Fahey team at Kempton from 2012 onwards. A strike rate of less than 4% is not fantastic by any measure and such runners should perhaps be given second thoughts prior to investment. That said, earlier in 2019 George Bowen was a Class 2 winner from just three runners this year.

Kempton AW Trainers: General

Moving into positive territory, below are the best performing trainers (still active) at the track since the same 2012 date.

To qualify for the table, 75 runners are required with minimum at SP’s of 20/1 or less and a bar of an A/E of over 1.10 needs to be overcome.

Frankly, the list is quite underwhelming in terms of potential angle development. All are probably worthy of further analysis, but nothing really jumps off the page.

Kempton AW Trainers: Rae Guest

However, for some reason it feels impolite to move on without at least a cursory glance at the top of the list. So, with that in mind, an evaluation of Rae Guest’s numbers is in order.

I find that a key factor to always consider when analysing all-weather data is the time of year. I’m now into my fourth annual wagering cycle and am getting a better feel for performance variation and seasonality impact within my portfolio. As I’ve mentioned in previous articles all-weather punting is my staple diet and where most of my effort is centred.

However, being brutally honest, my all-weather angles generally under-perform over the summer months. It may be usual variance but each summer I watch my bank (from AW) glide downwards to then power up over the the winter. It makes sense, the majority of AW racing occurs through the colder months with many yards gearing around the season, or potentially focussing their efforts elsewhere during the summer months.

The Rae Guest info does show some of the hallmarks of that fallow summer performance. The below table illustrates the yard results at Kempton for May to August (inclusive)

Granted, not a huge number of runners, but not the best record either. It seems logical to check this record by opening the data to the yard’s performance across all AW tracks over the same period to see if there is a general downturn or if it’s course specific.

It’s a slightly better record, but still somewhat underwhelming as a collective.  The companion data (from the other months) across the artificial tracks may be of interest and is as follows:

That’s a pretty impressive record relating to over 300 runners and indicates the Guest yard is generally one to track on the artificial surfaces.

Delving deeper, here is a view of performance by race class.

The data above show a 1-from-18 record in Class 1 to 3. That’s most likely a representation of the materials available to the yard in terms of equine talent rather than any training limitation. It might be argued that Class 4 races are marginal from a betting perspective, too, with a strike rate of 11.6% and an A/E of 0.72 but for now, at least, they remain included.

There is also something very interesting when splitting out Guest runners by gender as the numbers below illustrate:

Taking the not specified gender (I assume missing data) out of the equation over 80% of the horses competing for Guest are female. This is quite unusual and even more interesting is that these female animals are outperforming their male counterparts, at least in market terms (A/E 1.30 vs. 0.98).  It must be noted that strike rates and IV are broadly similar.

In general terms, fillies and mares underperform on the artificial surfaces compared to colts and geldings. Strike rates for females are approx. 12.5% vs 14.2% for the male runners with A/E measuring 0.85 vs 0.88 since 2012, that’s an evaluation of 145,000 runners. Therefore, the Rae Guest yard seems to buck the trend and consequently there could be value in backing his fillies as a result. Perusing their website for horses currently in training, the majority are fillies so perhaps it is as simple as specialising in the development and training of the fairer sex. Nevertheless, it is worth noting all the same.

Suggestion: Back Female Rae Guest All Weather runners from September through to April in Class 4-7 races at an SP of 20/1 or less

 

Draw at Kempton

To search for clues in terms of which race distances to drill down into, the table below contains a summary of all distances up to a mile and a half using the Draw Analyser tool from the Gold toolkit.

Essentially the numbers demonstrate by race distance the average IV3 number (Impact Value of a stall and its nearest adjacent stalls) for each draw. It’s not perfect, but it does offer solid indications regarding where to look more closely, as well as giving a good reference table for general study. A summary of the key findings are:

  • The low draw bias looks most acute on the inner-course 5-furlong trip
  • Inside/low draws also appear to be beneficial for other distances up to 7-furlongs
  • Races at a mile and above show a slight accent to favouring more mid-range draws, with perhaps the most pronounced being for the mile and a quarter (10f) trip around the inner loop.

On the back of that it seems prudent that a detailed analysis of the two inner-course trips would be the most sensible use of word count.

Kempton 5 Furlong Draw and Pace

Firstly, a point of order: with all races at Kempton a low draw is closest to the inside rail and all data from here on relates to Standard and Standard/Slow going using actual stall position (not card number), that is taking out non-runners.

Over the minimum, at least half of the burn-up takes place around the inner course bend, so a low draw can mean travelling a shorter distance than the competition because claiming a spot close to the rail should be a simpler task.

The above table shows the numbers in more detail by specific field sizes (the column RN means number of runners). It’s in the usual format for regular readers. If you’re new to it then the left-hand section shows the IV3 number for each stall position by number of runners; the right-hand table shows performance in relation to early track position, i.e. pace, for the same field sizes.

Firstly, draw. The green colours are largely concentrated in the lower stall numbers, confirming the reasonable bias towards these positions. Interestingly, the greater the number of runners the more pronounced the bias appears to be. Incidentally, the maximum number of entrants over the five-furlong distance is twelve; however, the volume of races with a full field is very small so I’ve ignored them within this analysis.

The pace data is very interesting. In very basic terms, the horse that gets to the front early has at least twice the chance of emerging victorious: early speed is a huge advantage.

Given what we know about the five-furlong course topology, we’d expect to see that. If an animal can get to the front around the tight inner course loop it’s going to be in pole position, given the almost constant turning nature of the trip.

Early pace is undoubtedly a great asset, a low draw is also a great asset. So, combining both, surely must be a licence to print money? Well, yes and no, it’s not quite as simple as that. Why? Because it’s widely understood that a low draw is advantageous on the Kempton polytrack, so it’s probable that stall position is factored into available prices.

To establish the effect of the draw on value, the below table contains the equivalent A/E information for the race set ups covered in the IV3 table. As a quick reminder, A/E is an index of market value where 1 is neither good nor poor value, and a number above or below is good or poor respectively. The further away from 1, the better or worse things are.

The numbers do arguably ratify that the market has stall position covered in its starting prices.  The average (AVG) data confirms that A/E performance, whilst marginally better in the lower draws isn’t market busting by any means with averages for stalls 1-3 around the 1.00 mark: eking out a profit from picking low drawn runners may be a long-term challenge despite the clear higher propensity for providing winners, at least at industry SP.

If draw doesn’t necessarily give the edge that is craved, perhaps pace can. To try and get under the skin of the impact of pace by stall position, Gold’s Query Tool can assist.

The next table is using the tool data purely with the purpose of analysing only front runners by field size and starting gate. The reason for doing this is to try to understand if there is any commercial advantage in identifying these leaders by stall position.

The filters used in QT are:

Distance:            5-furlongs

Course:               Kempton

Race date:          1/1/2012 or later

Pace score:        4 (which is used to designate the early speed/lead horse)

The data is split by number of runners and again shows the A/E (performance against market expectation).

Initially, it appears that it’s a stiff ask to win from the widest draws even if the horse is an early speed merchant.  There is the most sizeable of sizeable caveats here though: the data samples are miniscule in places (so, for example, horses in stalls 9 and 10 in field sizes of 10-11 have only led in six races at this distance, with no leaders from stall 11).

These numbers confirm that front runners beat the market under all conditions apart from the aforementioned widest of the wide (the zero in stall 4, field sizes 6-7 is simply a quirk of a small data set). The numbers do, however, indicate greater value in the mid to wide gates, particularly in bigger fields. Small samples notwithstanding, this is worth due consideration.

To illustrate this point as a final check, here is the raw data from the Draw Analyser tool for races of 9-11 runners. The data contained within the blue dotted line illustrate the fate of the early pace (led) horse by draw position, split into thirds.  Win% across low/med/high is consistent at 22-25%, IV is marginally better in the lower drawn animals, emphasising they are more likely winners. But A/E is comfortably at its strongest in the higher drawn leaders at 1.81.

Looking for speed first, draw second and not self-talking myself out of a value play because of a wide stall is the main lesson I’ve taken from this info. Very similar to the last article on Chelmsford in that respect.

Suggestion: Try to identify the early leader in five-furlong races at Kempton

 

Kempton 1m2f Draw and Pace

Before wrapping up, a quick overview of the Kempton mile-and-a-quarter landscape is in order. A reminder that, if anything, there was a mid-to-high draw bias indicated in the initial numbers which piqued interest levels, and also keep in mind that this range also uses the tighter inner loop with the shorter finishing straight.

Below is the now standard format for assessing the pace and draw data.

The data seem to illustrate a reasonably fair and flat draw profile, apart from perhaps the outer stalls in large fields where it seems there may be too much to do.

The lowest gate numbers become increasingly difficult when the number of runners increases to 11 or greater. That is probably when horses are starved of room in the larger herd when forced/taken back during the early stages.

There is no doubt that a mid to “quite” high draw is no bad thing over this course and distance which is a mild surprise given the tight nature of the inner loop. However, in relative terms there is ample time from the starting position to the first bend, and up the back straight, for most horses / jockeys to find a position and avoid a wide trip.

These mid-range draws seem to offer greater flexibility in the run, giving lead animals the chance to get out in front, while hold up horses have less propensity for being trapped at the business end of the race.

Again, early pace is advantageous, as it is in most circumstances. However, the benefit isn’t quite as marked as some of the other trips or courses analysed in this series. In fact, the Hold-Up and Mid Div numbers hold up (!) relatively well considering there will likely be plenty of also-rans contained therein.

Using the draw analyser summary for the 11-14 field sizes (where low draws seem to underperform), the blue dotted box shows the challenge faced by a held-up low drawn horse.  Ridden for luck appears to be generally unlucky in this case. Any horse that is generally slowly away or repeatedly held back at the start should be treated with the utmost caution over this trip if its stall number is low.

Yet again, though, there appears to be some value to be gained from high-drawn leaders if they can be discovered (red dotted line). The prominent high-drawn animals don’t perform too badly either in market terms.

Hopefully the above ruminations will assist during the upcoming winter nights when poring over the Kempton form.

 - JS

 

Silly Question Friday: The Gold Edition

/in , /by

In the third part of Silly Question Friday, where the only silly questions are the ones you didn't ask, I cover your unknowns in relation to Geegeez Gold.

Parts 1 and 2 can be found here.

This is in a video format and covers, amongst other things:

- Tips on using the Tracker tool
- Things you can (and can't) do with Query Tool
- Geegeez Gold vs Proform
- How to use the ratings features
- How draw 'thirds' are calculated
- Overcoming small draw/pace sample sizes
- and much more

I hope you find something of value in it.

Matt

Punting Angles: Chelmsford City Racecourse Part 2

/in /by

In the previous article I focused on some angles for playing the polytrack at the Essex course at Chelmsford City, writes Jon Shenton. To be brutally honest, keeping the word count down to something sensible proved impossible and stumps were drawn as the light was fading late in the evening.

However, after a short break it’s time to pad up again, get back to the crease and finish building this meaningful innings. If you missed Part 1, or want to revisit it, you can do so here.

First up today, let’s look at some stallion data.

Stallion performance at Chelmsford

Using geegeez.co.uk’s Query Tool and evaluating all runs at Chelmsford with SP’s of 20/1 or shorter we get the following list of stallions with A/E values of greater than 1.00 (where they have had 100 runners or more).  The data is sorted in descending A/E order.

 

These articles have already discussed the merits of Lope De Vega progeny on all-weather surfaces, especially at Gosforth Park, Newcastle. That stallion also has a perfectly respectable Chelmsford record. Analysing “Lope” runners by race distance at Chelmsford gives the following picture:

 

There appears to be a distinct variance in performance between races of a mile or shorter and those longer than the 8-furlong trip. His progeny’s record beyond a mile is 4 wins from 33 whilst the numbers at up to a mile show a highly competent 18/72.

 

It’s not the most conclusive, or robust, angle in the portfolio but is worth tracking as it may develop into something a little more solid over time. If you have time, do re-visit Lope De Vega at Newcastle (see article link above), the stats are stronger for that course.

Top of the table is Medicean, so it would be impolite to move on without further reference to his progeny.  Again, here are the numbers based on race distance in the table below:

 

Like Lope De Vega, there is a split at around the mile distance: 6/47 at the longer trips and 20/92 over shorter.

Medicean retired from stud duties a couple of years ago so this angle has a limited shelf life, in truth it is probably reducing in relevance already. However, there are still winners to be had (Sharp Operator went in on the 24th September for example). It’s one to keep an eye on, rather than build as a cornerstone of a punting portfolio. Interesting yes, unmissable no.

 

5 furlong races

Let’s go back to the specific race distances, starting with the fast and furious five-furlong burn ups. The course map illustrates how they break near the bend at the end of the back straight.

Like some other courses I’ve evaluated in this series, the Chelmsford five has all the hallmarks of suiting a low drawn early pace speed merchant.

Evaluating in more detail using the tried and (semi) tested approach from part 1 sheds light on the hypothesis.

 

For those not familiar with the layout;  the table is a combination of draw bias in the left hand box (using the draw analyser IV3 numbers) and the Pace profile (Pace Analyser with IV) consolidated on one table on the right hand side, by number of runners in a given race.

For more detail on the numbers and what they mean I noticed Matt had addressed this particular subject in his “Silly Question Friday part 2” post, which you can find here.

The tables above cover all races over five furlongs at Chelmsford on Standard or Standard/Slow surfaces (very small number of events on the latter going) and relate to the actual stall position, not the drawn stall number (this simply adjusts for non-runners). It’s quite helpful that the maximum field size at this trip is 12 meaning there is a bit less eye-bleeding data manipulation to get through (secretly enjoyed!).

First impressions are that the bias is less apparent than I was expecting. In my mind I expected to see a sea of green to the left on the draw table (good) and an expansive pit of red on the right (bad).   Whilst there is undoubtedly a tendency towards those drawn on the inside, with stall 1 looking very healthy, it’s far from a binary profile. Plenty of animals are prevailing from wider stall positions. That said, the outside two stalls marginally underperform in almost all field sizes.

Pace, however, is much more clear cut. Shifting our gaze to the table on the right, we can see early leaders are universally green in nature with IV performance of a minimum of 1.5 in all cases. To be clear for those still not au fait with Impact Value (IV), that means early leaders are at least one-and-a-half times more likely to win than horses adopting other run styles.

Prominent runners fare reasonably well but those raced more steadily through the early stages generally have it all to do at the sharp end.

The main inference from these data, in reasonably strong terms, is that pace is of greater importance than stall position at five furlongs.

The best / easiest way of performing a quick check-in to see if this holds true is to use the heat map on draw analyser. In this case below I’ve taken data for field sizes of 8 and 9 (illustrating IV). However, it is straightforward to check other field sizes using the tool. As always drop me a note in the comments or on twitter if you need any guidance.

The exact numbers are always interesting; however, the colour coding shows you really what you need to know. The map does show that a low draw is perhaps more forgiving if an early leading position is not secured, but there is no doubt overall that ‘(early) pace wins the race’.

Whilst all of this is nice and makes perfect sense there is another side to the coin: the value side.

My pre-conceived belief was that low draws would be where the action is. When I wager at Chelmsford this is ingrained in my psyche and is always the first thing I look for. Whether this has been picked up through media talk, using Geegeez, or typically what I’ve seen at other tracks I’m not sure. But if I believed it, I surely can’t be the only one?

If I’m not alone then it’s highly possible that a low draw at Chelmo is in danger of being overbet. If the claim that pace is more important than draw holds true then maybe wider drawn, pacy animals are a great betting opportunity. Yes, sure, winners are more likely to be unearthed from lower stall positions, but perhaps the value is elsewhere with the market underestimating higher gate numbers.

The most effective way to check in the toolkit is to repeat the table format, but this time using the A/E number (again, details of A/E, Actual / Expected, can be found here). As with IV, the higher the number the better, with 1.00 being par performance (in a perfect world with no over-round for the bookies).

 

Interesting? The picture is choppy for sure, mainly due to the small datasets derived by analysing each stall position based on field size (manifesting a few zeroes, for example).

However, I’m confident that there is a greener hue to the right side of the table than the left; maybe not rainforest green but certainly including tinges of Kermit in comparison to the Bert-and-Ernie-like yellowness of the left-hand side.

This table is effectively confirming that the low stalls are broadly over-bet.

Taking stall one as an individual case study, in the first table in this section this berth has an IV3 of 1.28. It’s not a perfect measure but it sufficiently makes the point that winners are quite likely to originate from the inside box when compared to the average. The A/E comparison scores for stall one are all below that level (illustrated by the blue dotted outline), in some cases significantly.

The bottom line is that by backing trap one blindly in five-furlong races winners should be plentiful but cash will probably be conceded: the market has sussed it already.

To re-enforce / labour the point, below is a cut from the draw analyser which splits the draw into low/mid/high segments in field sizes of 8+.

The image confirms the assertion, namely generic low draws have an IV of 1.04 but an A/E of only 0.73. Conversely, high stall positions struggle in relative terms with IV (0.8) but have a higher A/E at 0.88.

However, when considering run style, we can see that those which led early – especially from wider out – have been very profitable to follow. Indeed, breaking fast from a wide draw may enable a horse to cut the first corner and carry more speed into that turn.

 

What does that mean? Simply that value can be found in the wider stall positions when there is early pace thereabouts.

In conclusion, with regards to the Chelmsford five-furlong range:

  • Finding the early leader (or at least a horse that is prominent) is the key factor in establishing a likely winner of the race
  • A lower drawn horse is more likely to prevail over the distance; however, there is evidence that the market overcompensates for the low draw.
  • A horse drawn in a middle to high stall is more likely to generate a long-term profit, especially if able to show early speed.

 

6 furlong races

Moving up by a furlong to the three quarters of a mile trip, runners start well down the back straight, thus giving jockeys and horses more time and room to sort out their positions before the bend. The maximum field size over this distance is 14. However, there have only been 31 races with a combined 13 or 14 runners so I’m going to leave these on the bench for the data analysis.

 

The table shows that, arguably, the bias over six towards low stalls is stronger than that over five. Most of the stall 1 and 2 data is green in nature, indicating that winners are more likely to originate from those positions than anywhere else. This holds true particularly well where there are 9 or fewer horses taking part.

Where there are ten or more participants the picture is less clear. It may be related to sample size (22 races with 12 runners compared to say 60 with 8 entrants), or it may be related to greater scope for congestion; but there isn’t anything too obvious – in my mind at least – to explain why the larger field sizes shape differently.

One thing that is not open to question is the effect of pace on the outcome of six-furlong races: yet again, being at the front end early pays handsomely.

Based on both the draw and pace details you’d expect a low drawn trailblazer to be of primary interest and, whilst that is true, as with the minimum trip pace seems to be the kingmaker. The heat map below shows IV performance for field sizes of 8-10, and is unambiguous in terms of how most winners race.

 

In this case the low drawn early speed combination appears to be almost unbeatable, but the enduring message is that if a runner is held up, dropped in or generally in the hustle and bustle of midfield it’s a big ask to pass the speed horses.

The same assertion made for five furlongs about lower draws being overbet could hold true over this course and distance too. I did repeat the full table treatment but for the sake of brevity here is the same broad-brush view covering all field sizes that have been analysed.

It’s the same story again, low draw equals higher overall probability of winning (IV 1.18) but the A/E doesn’t match it at 0.81.  But overlaying pace onto the equation is the route to profit, especially away from the ‘obvious’ inside berths.

A footnote on Pace

This may or not be of interest to some of you but it’s worthy of inclusion in my view.  When I started working with pace there was something gnawing away that didn’t sit right with me.

It comes down to the fact that any given race there is only one horse that is tagged as led/leader and there can be several tagged as held up, mid-division or prominent.

It is logical horses that also-rans are far more likely to be contained within the held up (or mid-division) classification. They start near the back and stay near the back! Could it be, then, that these no-hopers skew the data for the off-the-pace categories and in fact a quality hold up horse has the same chance of winning as a quality front-running animal?

To scratch this itch, analysing the performance of favourites by how they are ridden is a logical method. And what better way to do it than by evaluating the five- and six-furlong races at Chelmsford contained in this article?

The below table shows the performance of favourites in sprint races by early run style:

The pace aspect holds up! Leader favourites outperform the market with an A/E of 1.27 and a whopping IV of 3.89! Those market toppers which are dropped in have an A/E of just 0.62, which equates to a negative 40% ROI. Ouch. These data satisfactorily allayed my own curiosity and fears, anyway!

That about wraps up this Chelmsford two-parter covering as it has trainers, sires, and delving into races over 5, 6, 7 and 8 furlongs in fine detail. I hope you’ve found at least of something of use.

The regularity of racing at the all-weather tracks means data are more readily available than their turf counterparts and I’d fully recommend the geeky/curious amongst you to get stuck in to analysing racing on the artificial surfaces as a starting point.

  • JS

Silly Question Friday: Part 2

/in /by

Welcome to Part 2 of Silly Question Friday. If you missed Part 1, it's well worth a look and can be found here. In these Friday posts, I will respond to those long-term unanswered irritations you might have.

Eyes down, look in, then...

 

What do the values in IV and A/E actually stand for and what are good or bad values?

From: Paul S

What do the values in IV and A/E actually stand for and what are good or bad values?

Paul

Geegeez writes...

This is a good starter for part 2 of SQF, because these numbers are everywhere across geegeez.co.uk and I'd like to have a reference point for people to read and understand why we use them, and how they can help your betting.

In the simplest terms, IV - Impact Value - is a measure of how often something happens in a given situation compared to all of the times it happens. For instance, how often a jockey wins races compared to how often all jockeys win races.

A/E - Actual vs Expected - is a measure of whether a statistic might be profitable going forwards.

In both cases, a figure of 1.00 is 'par' or standard. A number above 1 is good, a number below 1 is not so good, and the further above or below 1 the number, the better or worse it is. Thus, an A/E of 0.4 is likely to be extremely damaging to one's bankroll over time, whereas an A/E of 1.4 would be an exciting find (if on a vaguely meaningful sample size and with logic to support the statistic in question).

So that's what IV and A/E stand for, but how are they calculated?

Let me start by saying that you absolutely do not need to know this: if you only know that 1 is standard, more than 1 is good, less than 1 is less good, and the further away from 1 the better or worse a statistic is... then you know all you need to know.

But, for the curious, here are how the numbers are arrived at...

How to Calculate Impact Value

IV is slightly easier to calculate, as follows. Let's say we want to know how often Mark Johnston wins with his 2yo first time starters at Goodwood compared with the average win strike rate for Goodwood 2yo first time starters overall.

First, we need to know Johnston's record which, for the last five years at time of writing, is six wins from 30 such runners.

Next, we need know the runners, winners and, therefore, strike rate, of all such runners in the same time frame. Those figures are 30 winners from 367 runners, 8.17%

The formula for Impact Value is

IV = %age of winners fitting criteria / % of runners fitting same criteria

In our example, that means %age of Goodwood 2yo 1st time 5 year winners trained by M Johnston / %age of Goodwood 2yo 1st time 5 year runners trained by M Johnston

 

The first bit, %age of winners fitting the criteria, is 6 MJ winners / 30 all such winners = 20%

[Mark Johnston has trained 20% of the 1st time starter Goodwood 2yo winners in the last five years]

The second bit, % of runners fitting the criteria, is 30 MJ runners / 367 all such runners = 8.17%

[Mark Johnston has trained 8.17% of the 1st time starter Goodwood 2yo runners in the last five years]

 

Therefore, the IV for Mark Johnston-trained 2yo 1st time starters at Goodwood is

20 / 8.17 = 2.45

Mark Johnston is nearly two-and-a-half times (2.45x) more likely to have a 2yo first time starter winner at Goodwood than par. And that is IV, a measure of peer-contextual probability.

 

How to Calculate Actual vs Expected

While IV tells us whether we are more or less likely to get a return from a given approach, it doesn't do anything to help us understand whether the long-term returns from said approach will be positive or negative. Clearly, betting on horses is about both staying in the game (backing an 'acceptable' number of winners), and trying to make a profit (backing horses at acceptable prices). This is where A/E comes in.

Using our Johnston 2yo 1st timer at Goodwood scenario, to calculate A/E we first need to know the actual number of Johnston's winners which, in this example, is six.

Next, we need know the expected number of winners. Wait? What?!

To do this, we use a simple formula based on the starting price (you could just as easily use Betfair Starting Price or even tote return if you were sufficiently minded - here I've used SP which is the A/E to which all geegeez quotes refers), thus:

 

Actual number of winners / Sum of ALL [entity] runners' SP's (in percentage terms)

which we know at this stage to be 6/ Sum of ALL [entity] runners' SP's (in percentage terms)

 

To establish a runner's SP in percentage terms, we do the sum 1/(SP + 1).

For instance, 4/1 SP would be 1/(4 + 1), or 1/5, which is 0.20.

And 1/4 SP would be 1/(0.25 + 1), or 1/1.25, which is 0.80.

And so on...

The sum of Johnston's expected 2yo 1st time Goodwood winners, calculated in the above manner, is 4.5312.

 

Thus, Actual / Expected is 6 / 4.5312 = 1.32

 

This is a positive figure.

 

Using IV and A/E in concert

As punters, depending on our attitude to risk and to losing runs, the optimum combination is something which is more likely than 'normal' to happen, and which has a positive value expectation (i.e. is expected to be profitable).

By using these figures and isolating statistics with numbers above 1 for both IV and A/E, we have potentially attractive betting propositions. Of course, we can - and should, where time allows - invest in checking suitability of conditions, pace, and so on, based on form in the book (where there is form in the book).

But these numbers are powerful by themselves in terms of understanding whether something is a quirk, or skewed by a single big-priced winner, or is a little thread of gold to be woven into your betting fabric.

Hopefully that's useful. Next question...

*

Is Richard Johnson’s record of riding odds on chances the worst of all the jump jockeys?

From: ANTHONY K

Matt

Is Richard Johnson’s record of riding odds on chances the worst of all the jump jockeys?

Tony

Geegeez writes...

No, not by a long chalk. When talking about best or worst records, I guess we ought to start with two concepts: winning strike rate, and betting profitability. These can be evaluated with our old mates, IV and A/E respectively. Let me illustrate with the top ten NH jockeys riding odds on shots in UK races in the last five years (as at 25th September 2019 - figures from geegeez's Query Tool)

This first view is sorted by IV - Impact Value - on the right hand side, and we can see that Richard Johnson is in fourth place. It is important to keep in mind that the jockeys at the top, who are four to five times more likely to ride an odds on winner, are also much more likely to ride a horse at 1/6 as opposed to others in the sample whose only exposure to odds on rides is at, say, 4/5 or 10/11. In other words, 'odds on' is a broad church and most of the steering jobs go to the biggest names.

That sort of anomaly gets flushed out when using a market barometer, so let's re-sort the list based on A/E, Actual vs Expected.

For context, I've included the full set of jockeys to have ridden 25+ odds-on shots in UK NH races in the last five years. Johnson is in 11th place, with an A/E as close to 1 as doesn't matter. Backing all of his odds on runners on an exchange or with early BOG prices would have made a profit. Not a life changing one, but then what are you expecting from this approach?

Incidentally, does the fact that Paddy Brennan is bottom of the A/E pile make him a bad jockey? No, NO, NO! He's just not been profitable to follow in this, somewhat contrived, context.

Next!

*

How do you manage to narrow the day's racing down to just one Stat of the Day?

From: Norman A

How,with all the racing we have these days, do you manage to narrow it down to just one stat of the day?

Very successfully I may add…

Norman

Geegeez writes...

Straight over to Chris, aka Mr Stat of the Day, for this one:

So, essentially, here’s how I work…

I have loads of saved angles in Horseracebase and geegeez Query Tool.

That gives me a list of potential qualifiers for the next day.

I then sort them into race order, delete all those in races that I don’t like to get involved in (i.e. novice races on the flat, median auction races, novice hurdles and bumpers).

Then I get rid of any race with over 14 runners, as there's too much scope for hard luck in running.

This leaves me with a more workable shortlist of races.

From there, I go through the races using the geegeez cards & tools to see what I think might win that race. If the horse I like is on my list of angle qualifiers it gets shortlisted as a potential Stat of the Day pick.

I then remove all those priced 5/2 & shorter and finally go with the one I feel has the best chance of winning at a price that can stand a bit of movement. NB: it’s only at this point that I look at prices.

It’s probably a more long-winded process than it needs to be, but as it also generates the Stat Picks selections, it justifies the time.

Chris

*

How are odds for virtual racing calculated?

From: David G

Hi Matt,

Your starter for 10 then (20 if you count it as two questions). How are odds calculated for virtual racing, and when is the result "known"?

David

Geegeez writes...

Not such an 'off track' question as it might first appear.

Odds for virtual events are, in a value sense, irrelevant as these are games of pure chance. There is no form to consider, there is no means of gaining an edge. The result is determined by a random number generator loaded based on the odds of the runners in the race.

As an example, a 3/1 favourite (theoretical 25% chance before overround is applied) might be given a 20% chance of winning by the number generator. A 9/1 shot (theoretical 10% chance) might be given an 8% chance of winning, and so on. The difference between the chance given by the algorithm and the odds available is bookmakers' margin. In the same way that a casino may lose on any single spin or any single day on the roulette tables, they know that their edge over time makes virtual a guaranteed profit product.

The result is known instantly because virtual racing is unencumbered by such things as stewards' enquiries, weighing in light, taking the wrong course and so on.

If you like betting games like roulette, you might as well have a crack at virtual racing. But if you prefer to put past history and racing statistics to work for you, keep it geegeez and dodge the virtual!

*

How does a commentator know whether a horse is on or off the bridle?

From: Michael K

How does a commentator know whether a horse is on or off the bridle?

Michael

Geegeez writes...

If a jockey is sitting quietly on a horse, without getting lower in the saddle or exercising his arms, that horse is on the bridle.

If a jockey has his head and torso closer to the horse and is moving his arms to shake the reins a little, the horse is coming off the bridle.

By the time horses are contesting a finish, normally all horses will be firmly off the bridle and the jockeys will be working hard to encourage them to run as fast as they can.

It is worth remembering that being on or off the bridle is not necessarily a good or bad thing: some horses come off the bridle early habitually but find plenty for pressure and still win races, whereas others - sometimes called 'bridle horses' - travel beautifully through their races but, when it comes to putting their head in front at the business end, they find very little for their rider's encouragement.

*

How long should I persevere with a tipster before throwing in the towel?

From: Andrew F

Hi Matt

Several months ago geegeez recommended a service so naturally I researched it and subsequently subscribed to it.

The first month was great then three disastrous months! I decided enough was enough so I wrapped it in. This seems to be the general pattern for me when subscribing to a tipster, so my question is how long should I persevere with a tipster before throwing the towel in bearing in mind I always research the last 12 months results before I sign up to anyone.

Many thanks

Andy

Geegeez writes...

A GREAT question!

So here's how this works: nothing goes up and up and up. We all know that, right?

And past performance is the best barometer of future performance, without being a guarantee of replication. We all know that, too.

So it can be that something which has fared very well historically is unable to replicate that success.

Naturally, the more evidence we have in the past, the more confident we can be about the future. Not certain, but more confident.

What the past is especially good at, when there's a body of evidence, is telling us about the patterns we can expect. It's not surprising, given how sales copy tends to be, that we're invited to focus on the positive; but good investment discipline is about always understanding the negative.

Following a system or service is a form of investment, and should be treated as such.

That means a betting bank. A separate betting bank.

It means disciplined staking.

It means awareness of potential drawdowns (losing runs).

It means retaining focus and discipline during those drawdowns - and during upswings, too.

In other words, it is not for everyone. In fact, such an approach is probably not for most of the people it attracts.

In my view, you've done everything right before getting involved, specifically a) learning about a service through a trusted portal (geegeez), and b) researching the long-term results set.

But in the execution, is it possible that you've not set up your betting bank appropriately? I'm assuming that the drawdown is in line with what might have been expected based on the previous year's results. (Incidentally, a year may not be enough: it very much depends on how many selections are in that sample, what average odds, and so on).

If this is an outlying drawdown - in other words, if it is worse than has been the case in recent memory - then you should expect some commentary about that from the service provider. But if it is not out of the ordinary, it is simply one of the things that happen on the way to profit. And those who don't have an investment mindset will draw stumps before the next upswing.

One other point about sales copy for betting services - all investment services in fact, just look at unit trusts and the like! - is that they ALWAYS pitch on the back of good recent results.

Again, as everyone knows, after a good run, what should we expect? A bad run. And, if a service is proven and decent (think Stat of the Day), what should we expect after a bad run? You're ahead of me now 😉

I've tried to keep this reply generic because it is an excellent question and something with which a lot of people struggle. I hope I've touched on some of the possible reasons why.

Mindset, primarily.

But also, and again, this can easily happen in regulated markets like share trading, forex and unit trusts, sometimes services which have performed well historically simply fail to replicate that performance in the future. Nothing is guaranteed. Nothing is risk-free. But setting up with an investment mindset, undertaking due diligence first (as you have done), and executing your investments stoically and dispassionately even if it means going deep into your betting bank... this is the way to give yourself every chance of success.

I do not follow services, because this approach doesn't work for me. I love the puzzle. I want to find my own answers. And I want action bets along the way. Regular small bets for action, less frequent bigger bets for fancies. Ultimately, I probably don't have the discipline for following services, and in any case it doesn't 'scratch my itch', which is to engage with the puzzle and, to some degree, 'to be right'.

Everyone bets for different reasons, and understanding a little about our motivations - in the context of what is possible, and what is required from a given approach - gives us the best possible chance of satisfying those motivations, whether they are to pass time, to solve the puzzle, to be right, and/or to make some money.

Phew, hopefully the above makes sense and offers something upon which to mull.

*

Have you done any work/given advice on bankroll management?

From: Phil M

Hi Matt,

Have you done any work/given advice on bankroll management? From how to build a bankroll from scratch to what to do when you have one... working out whether a system/method is scalable?

Cheers

Phil

Geegeez writes...

The short answer is 'no'. I don't generally like to offer advice on bankroll management, but on this occasion I will elaborate a little.

The reason I tend to steer clear of such advice is that it borders on financial advice, for which I'm not regulated. Moreover, such advice differs from person to person based on attitude to risk, available funds, discipline/mindset, betting approach, average odds, backing/laying/dutching, and so on.

Staking advice is a step further into the unknown, and the general principle here is that, if it isn't profitable to level stakes, bin it. Trying to get creative with staking is generally akin to trying make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

How to build a bankroll is an interesting question, and it involves discipline and small incremental gains. The simple fact is that if you have a 'short stack' to start with, it will take some time to get to a place where you have a bankroll more in line with what you'd like. Again, this taps in to discipline and money management and, further, it begs the fundamental question: why am I betting?

If betting for fun as well as profit, you're in good shape building a small bankroll into a larger one, because the fun element will nourish you when the incremental profit gains are small.

If profit is a primary motive, I don't really feel qualified to comment. I'm not a professional investor. I do bet with a profit expectation, but I bet primarily for fun. The two, as I never tire of saying, are NOT mutually exclusive. Betting primarily for profit may involve the dark arts of bad each way, bonus abuse, and any number of routes to profit which are not really related to the enjoyment of betting. Like I say, I don't feel qualified to comment on such approaches.

The above is more than I generally offer on this subject, though perhaps less than you might have hoped for. I hope at least you understand my reasons for falling short with this particular reply.

*

Whatever happened to Nick Mordin?

From: Terry B

Hi Matt,

This has been bugging me for a couple of years now - whatever happened to Nick Mordin?

Is he still 'involved'?

Cheers

Terry

Geegeez writes...

I'm given to understand Nick Mordin has retired. In truth, he's not been around for quite a long time. Last I knew, he was writing a weekly piece for the Irish Field and, before that, the Weekender. I heard a rumour that he was advising some larger gambling syndicates and had spent some time in north America (New York, I think). But I really don't have anything but hearsay and conjecture to add, which is to say I don't have anything to add.

*

Which UK horses have a chance in the Melbourne Cup?

From: Graham F

Hi Matt

Which UK horses have a chance in the Melbourne Cup? A friend of mine thought Basanti might be a rough chance. See it is running at Doncaster tonight.

Cheers

Graham

Geegeez writes...

Not really an area on which I focus. The main reasons are that a) the Melbourne Cup comes hard on the heels of the Breeders' Cup, into which I pour a lot of energy and b) I don't have any handle on the Oz form. Also, c) the final field emerges very late in the day with qualifying races happening as close as the week before the Cup.

That said, the record of Euro, or ex-pat Euro, horses is exceptional. Cross Counter last year led home a British 123, with Europeans also filling out 5th, 8th, 9th, 11th and 12th in a field of 24. Only two Euros finished in the second half of the field and one of those pulled up lame.

In 2017, Rekindling, trained by Joseph O'Brien, prevailed. It was another 1235, with Euros also in 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th places.

And in 2016, the ex-French Almandin just edged Irish-trained Heartbreak City into second, with ex-British Hartnell third and Charlie Appleby's Qewy in fourth.

The problem, as you've hinted at in your question, is that a lot of Euros head south. However, with average winning odds of 9.7/1 from the five Euro victors since 2010, you can afford to back three or four each way and still hope for a return. Good luck!

*

Are there any good tipsters who give tips out in the morning, and who make a profit at BFSP?

From: Ian B

Are there any tipsters, maybe with your good selves who give tips out am, not the night before which is hopeless, and who make a profit at bfsp?

Ian

Geegeez writes...

There are a number of good tipsters, most of whom - as you say - send out selections the night before.

One notable exception is Hugh Taylor on the ATR website. His picks are usually online around 10am and, while the traditional bookie prices go quickly, I'm given to understand he shows a small profit at BFSP.

Of the reviews we've undertaken, those which were favourable can easily be viewed here and, by clicking into them, readers may understand about their suitability for their individual betting style. (N.B. an update to that table is overdue, and will be published imminently).

**

That's all for this first edition of SQF. I hope you now know at least one thing you didn't when you started reading this! If you've any more questions on racing, betting, Geegeez Gold, and so on, please do drop me a line and I'll add it to the list!

Matt

Tony Keenan: Focus for Optimal Betting Decisions

/in /by

Over the summer, I read a book called ‘The Organized Mind’ by Daniel Levitin, a handbook of sorts on how to get by without being overwhelmed in an age of information overload, writes Tony Keenan. Levitin’s central idea is that we should offload information from the brain onto the physical world, be it in the form of compiling a to-do list if we struggle to recall all that has to be done or simply buying a key hook if you constantly lose your car keys.

Along with simple advice like that, there are detailed explanations on the importance of sleep and illusion of multi-tasking: Levitin is ‘death’ on the latter, saying that rather than increasing productivity, multi-tasking leads to less work and sloppier work. Multi-tasking is all about trying to do too much at once, asking the brain to make lots of decisions when there is a finite limit on the amount of information it can absorb.

This, I think, is where betting comes in as it is essentially a decision-making game. For Levitin, the best decision-making comes from using something called optimal complexity theory, the idea that too little information is no good but so is too much. This applies with any decision we make, like buying a house or car say. Having too many parameters to consider leads to confusion in decision-making, with humans apparently unable to process more than ten variables for any choice, the optimal number being closer to five.

Consumers (and punters) make better choices when they get to control the parameters they get but that isn’t always easy as research shows that people are unable to ignore information that isn’t relevant to them. This is one of the dilemmas facing the modern racing punter. Racing has always been a complicated sport and is getting more complicated, or at more more information rich; whatever your thoughts on sectionals, striding and horse weights, there is only going to be more data coming.

Sorting between what is important and what is noisier is the challenge, especially when most analysis of an individual race is time-bounded from declaration stage to post-time. With all this in mind, I spoke to three experienced punters about the handful of factors they believe are optimal for their analysis and some variables they believe are overrated.

Nick is a UK-based punter who has been betting for nearly 40 years and tends to focus on better handicaps, dismissing maidens, juvenile races, claimers and anything below Class 4 with the aim of being what he calls ‘a happy backer with uncluttered thinking.’ Watching replays of races is at the core of what he does, paying more attention to the first half of the race than second.

“First of all, I see the performance [on the day] and think what is the right kind of race or track for the animal in question. In the end you must live or die by your judgment even if it is sometimes wrong, there are certain horses you see and think that’s got County Hurdle or Ayr Gold Cup written all over it.”

He uses niche angles (my term, not his), “trying to look at things in a different way and the more you look or read, sometimes these things come to you.” He cites the example of the old Breeders’ Cup Marathon when one of the commentators jokingly mentioned that the US horses would ‘need oxygen’ over the staying trip which put him onto the non-US horses that won several of the later renewals of the race.

He is less keen on the usefulness of the draw. “With rail movements and selective watering, draw biases are changing so much unless it’s on a round course and even then there are places like Chester that can have their rail so far out that it wasn’t a disadvantage to be drawn high. Sometimes it doesn’t pay to be too dogmatic about these things and keeping up with every course is difficult.”

Pre-race pace analysis is another variable Nick thinks is of questionable value. “Analysis of how the race might be run is probably read by all now, including connections, and I think this leads to races being run differently to how we might think. There seem to be fewer pace burn-ups than there used to be, and I can’t remember many big handicaps being won by hold-up horses; my tracker is full of them to my cost!”

Like Nick, Irish-based ‘Paul’ (not his real name) says “the number one is watching the replays of all the races and while it can be a grind nonetheless it has to be done.” He goes on, “I don’t tend to spend much effort on time or sectionals as there is little or no data available on Irish racing anyway so there’s no point in worrying too much about it.”

Handicaps are among his favourite races to play in though he rarely backs a horse first time in one as “a lot of horses coming from maidens have never really been asked to race hard. Most of them might never have been ridden out in a finish with four or five taps of the whip, and a first run in a handicap is usually much more competitive than anything they’ve been doing in maidens.” He does like “horses dropping in grade from a 0-75 handicap into a 0-65”, something that can be missed a little.

With such variety among the Irish tracks, ‘Paul’ often looks at “horses for courses with the quirky tracks like Tramore, Galway and Kilbeggan.” The weather also plays a part in his betting with the Met.ie website in constant use. “The ground can change very quickly at places like Roscommon which can be helpful when backing ones in the morning knowing the rain may be due and softer ground will hamper the market leaders.”

In common with the previous two punters, ‘Matthew’ (again, not his real name) believes in the value of replays, watching “pretty much every race, every day” while making as many notes as possible, but knowing that obviously unlucky horses aren’t going to be much use as he bets late and that information will already be in the market. Betting mainly on UK races, he places a lot of importance on “knowing the track quirks” and “any biases caused by pace, wind, kickback or uneven going can be rich source for finding bets.”

‘Matthew’ was a relatively early adopter of sectional times, on board since the early part of this decade, and says they “are very useful when looking at lightly-raced types because most maidens and novices are so sl0wly-run that speed figures don’t cut it.” With young horses, he looks out for “ones that are held up and/or slowly-way and the pace has a [finishing speed] of say 105% or more, but they make a move into the race and maybe flatten out with the overall time-figure not looking great.” He cites A’Ali on debut at Ripon as a good example of this where “Spartan Fighter dictated against a favoured rail while A’Ali made up a couple of lengths on the bridle in the hot part of the race which is typically the three-furlong pole to the one-furlong pole in most slowly-run races.”

‘Matthew’ uses a database and he says “it is great for throwing out bad theories you have as well as working out when angles are being adjusted to by the market.” He also uses it for sire and trainer stats as well as “pace stats by course and distance which can point in the direction of more biases.”

As with Nick, he finds “the draw is an overrated factor by pundits [and] normally the market has adjusted for it and if anything tend to over-adjust so wide draws can be a smidgen of value.” Another factor he thinks is overbet are “horses that look like they will improve going up in trip” and he much prefers “a horse that’s gone too fast recently dropping in trip.”

So that is what some of the judges think are optimal factors for making betting decisions, what about you?

- TK

Silly Question Friday: Part 1

/in /by

Thank you so much for your headscratchers, and welcome to the very first Silly Question Friday article. In this and subsequent Friday posts, I will respond to those quandaries large and small which have been rattling around your craniums (crania?) unanswered.

There is a vague 'subject matter' format, with this week's questions relating to RACING and/or BETTING.

Let's get straight to it...

 

How does a jockey judge the pace of a race?

From: Simon B

Morning Matt, I've always wanted to know, how does a jockey judge the pace of a race?
Especially over 2 miles and further when one horse scoots clear by 20 lengths or so?
Cheers mate,all the best, Simon

Geegeez writes...

Pace in UK and Irish horseracing remains somewhat subjective, though with more information being published, jockeyship can be expected to improve in this area in coming years. Pace maps, sectional timing and the like will be powerful allies to those riders who seek to improve the accuracy of 'the clock in their heads'.

Regarding how a jockey judges pace in a race, it will generally be the case that the horse they are riding will indicate to them whether the clip the leaders are going is too fast or too slow. If a horse refuses to settle, moving its head from side to side as the jockey attempts to restrain it, that is an obvious sign they're going steadily. This can be ratified by sectional split times on Sky Sports Racing (and other channels soon, hopefully).

If the leaders have gone off too fast, the field will generally be strung out with some runners being asked for effort to stay with the field.

The difficult scenario is the one you've outlined, where a single (usually) horse steals a march on its field. If the horse is travelling comfortably it has a reasonable chance to win, especially in a small field. However, often such runners have scooted clear because they are over-racing and will fail to see the race distance out. Look for how much control the jockey seems to have over the horse, and also the fluency of its jumping (if it's a jumps race, obviously; if it is jumping in a flat race, that would be a bad sign 😉 ).

Jockeys don't have the benefit of split / sectional timing, but we do; and we increasingly need to take these numbers on board. Elsewhere in the racing - and indeed sporting - world, such data is a fundamental staple of the game. It will be here soon, too. Embrace it.

*

What does ‘exposed’ mean in horse racing? And what is a ‘Conditional Handicap’?

From: Bill S

Hi Matt

Two questions which immediately come to mind.

First what is meant when a horse is referred to as being exposed or not exposed?

Secondly, what is a Conditional Handicap?

Great idea to introduce SQF

Best,

Bill

Geegeez writes...

'Exposed' is a term that means a horse has demonstrated its level of ability and is unlikely to improve markedly on that level. For instance, a horse with 20 flat runs, ten of them in mile and a half handicaps, would be considered exposed if running in another mile and a half handicap... unless there was something notably different this time, such as a first try on very different ground/all weather etc.

Even horses with lots of runs in the book can step forward for a change of race code, such as switching from flat racing to hurdling; in that context, the pedigree can offer some clues to try to fill the next context 'formbook void'.

An unexposed horse, then, is one that has had little public racing and, consequently, has the scope to improve beyond its hitherto demonstrated level of ability. Obvious examples, and horses to always give a second glance, are those running in a handicap for the first time after three runs down the field. This is especially the case if anything else is different today. For example, three runs at six furlongs in maiden races, then a first (or second or even third) run in a handicap over a mile and a quarter: this set up, especially if there was a break since the last run, might lead to an improved effort in a very different race scenario.

A conditional handicap is simply a handicap open only to conditional riders. Conditional riders are the National Hunt (jumps racing) equivalent of apprentice riders on the flat. So a conditional handicap will tend to be a handicap hurdle (occasionally chase) for inexperienced riders.

*

How are horses rated? How are races classed?

From: Ian L

Hi Matt

Two basic questions that I think would be useful in this context:

1) How are horses rated?

2) How are races classed?

Cheers

Ian

Geegeez writes...

In order to receive a rating a horse must first run a few times in 'open' company; for example, in maidens or novice hurdles. That gives the handicapper, whose job it is to rate horses, a chance to see which horses a given animal has beaten and which horses have beaten it - and by how much. From this limited evidence an initial stab at a horse's ability - in ratings terms - is arrived at.

As horses race more, so they mature and their rating becomes a more likely reflection of true ability. This article, written in December 2014 but still as current now as it was then, explains more on ratings and the handicap system.

Races are classed based on the quality of animals expected to compete. In handicaps, this is simple: ratings bands, for instance 0-75, are used to restrict the runners to those rated 75 (or, in fact, 77 due to a recent +2 rule change) or lower. Depending on the top end of the rating band, a Class is attributed - in this case, Class 5 or occasionally Class 4.

In non-handicaps, the Class will be related to prize money on offer, race conditions, and so on.

Class 1 races are Listed and Group/Grade 1, 2 or 3 races, the Group/Graded races making up the 'Pattern', and Listed races showing it. All are bestowed such a classification by the European Pattern Committee. Such races can move up or down the Pattern and, occasionally (though probably not often enough), can be removed from the Pattern. More information on the Pattern can be found here.

*

Is a rated race a stakes race? What is the equivalent going to yielding, etc?

From: Stuart H

Hi Matt,

In Irish racing is a RATED RACE stakes or Hcp?

In Irish racing what are the equivalent going in UK for the Irish going, eg Yielding etc?

Regards

Stuart

Geegeez writes...

A Rated Race in Ireland is a race where horses are eligible to run based on specific race conditions, usually associated with their official rating. They are generally stakes races rather than handicaps.

Irish racing has the same going range as UK racing, with the exception of yielding (and its gradations into good or soft) and soft to heavy.

Yielding is generally held to be similar to UK good to soft.

*

What is a patent? (and other bet types)

From: JOHN C

Hi Matt

Can you explain to me what a Patent Bet is, because recently I had a Patent Bet, each way, which came home at what I thought were reasonable odds, but for this £7x2 bet, where possible returns were shown as £113.50, I received just under 20 quid, with Bet 365.

I expected this bet to be something special, so this is why I would like clarification.

Many thanks,

John

Geegeez writes...

A couple of things here. Firstly, if you're ever unsure of how/why a bet has been settled, it is important to take it up with the bookmaker that settled it. They are normally correct. But they are not always correct. Don't give up until you understand what they have done. If you are unhappy with the settlement (i.e. believe it to be wrong rather than just wished it came to more money!), you can contact IBAS for dispute resolution purposes. [NB if your bet was each way, it would have been a £1 e/w patent rather than a £2 patent]

Regarding bet types, a patent consists of seven bets across three selections as follows: three singles (selections 1, 2, and 3), three doubles (12, 13, 23), and one treble (123). This is an example of a full cover bet with singles. Others are Lucky 15 (four selections), Lucky 31 (five selections), Lucky 63 (six selections). The full cover variants excluding singles are trixie (three picks, doubles and treble), yankee (four picks, doubles, trebles and fourfold), super yankee (five picks), and heinz (six picks).

More information on bet types can be found here.

*

What is your favourite racecourse?

From: Arthur H

Morning Matt,

Which is your favourite racecourse (in the UK)? And why?

Good luck with this idea, I like it!

Arthur

Geegeez writes...

My favourite UK racecourse is either Sandown or Goodwood. Both are beautifully situated (though for different reasons), both epitomise much of the joy of the flat game, and both have pretty good viewing facilities.

But it's a tricky question. For different reasons, I love all of Ascot, Cheltenham, Fontwell, Plumpton, York, Beverley, Chester and many more.

For me it's true what they say: a bad day at the racetrack is better than a good day at the office!

*

How to play multiple system selections in the same race?

From: Paul L

Hi Matt,

I’ve got a question about systems betting particularly when the systems you use throw up more than one horse in a race.

How would you typically play this kind of scenario?  Do you just back them all because that is what you should do with system bets?  Do you take into account draw/conditions/form etc., all the things you would normally consider in selecting a bet, and use those to potentially dismiss one or more of the horses?  I’m particularly interested in situations where the prices are such that if one of the horses wins you are still down because the price of the winner doesn’t cover the loss on the other horse(s)?  I guess a similar scenario presents when back all the horses would return a profit if one wins - would you still back them all if all the other decision making factors would typically point to a no-bet or reduced bet situation?

Sorry that is actually a good number of questions, but all related.  As you might have inferred I’m wrestling with system bets based on angles I’ve set up using the Query Tool (absolutely brilliant by the way, although I’d love to be able to add some notes and use days since last run as a filter) and am probably not currently disciplined enough to use the approach to best effect so your input and feedback would be much appreciated.

Cheers,

Paul

Geegeez writes...

The idea of systematic betting is a good one: in theory it removes sentiment and helps retain sanity through the peaks and troughs of any sequence of wagers. However, it requires a certain mindset to follow qualifiers unerringly.

The results of systems are arrived at by adding the profit and loss of all qualifiers during the research period. That much is obvious. So it should follow that in order to expect a replication or continuation of performance, one must also back all qualifiers thereafter, regardless of how many appear in the same race.

If you are rigidly following a system, the answer is simple: back all qualifiers level stakes.

However, increasingly, bettors are not following systems blindly but, rather, using them to identify potential runners of interest. Thereafter, a user may eliminate runners on the basis of form considerations or vary stakes for the same reason.

I personally use Query Tool to flag runners of interest and to add further considerations into the 'fixed format' output of the racecards, draw and pace, Instant Expert and reports.

I do not follow systems blindly because I want to have more control over my betting. For others, this is exactly the reason they like to follow systems blindly.

Regardless, all mechanical angles should be regularly reviewed to ensure that they remain profitable and that the underlying logic still holds.

*

I have just had my account severely restricted after just 17 days. Is this a record ?

From: Bob G

Morning.

I have just had my account severely restricted after just 17 days. I haven't made any money and I am ten quid down.

Is this a record ?

Bobbob

Geegeez writes...

No, this is not a record. Bookmakers restrict accounts more often based on the price movements of the horses you've backed than the amount of profit you've made. Obviously the latter is also a factor, but if you end up on 'shorteners', you'll be caught in the algorithmic dragnet that says you're a shrewdie, and restricted accordingly.

Horseracing Bettors Forum and others are working with bookmakers to counter this, both by a 'right to reply' / feedback loop and by way of a Minimum Bet Liability (i.e. allowing bettors a bet to win at least a certain amount, usually £500). But not all bookmakers are yet receptive to such 'level playing field' concepts, sadly.

*

Why do some bumper horses have an OR?

From: Alan C

Hi Matt

I’m interested in bumper races. I asked the BHA if a horse can be handicapped on bumper form. Their answer is ‘a horse must run over obstacles to qualify for a handicap mark’. When I look at the race results on GeeGeez, ATR etc  for the bumper championship races at Chelt and Aintree, the runners are all shown with OR figures. For example, The Glancing Queen is shown with OR 124 for the G1 Champions Bumper at Cheltenham (she was 5th) and OR 122 for the G2 mares championship bumper at Aintree which she won. When I look up the OR on the BHA Ratings Database there are no results for the bumper horses. My question is where do the published OR ratings come from if they don’t officially exist?

Thanks for the chance to ask my ‘silly question’

Best regards

Alan

Geegeez writes...

This is an interesting question. As far as I'm aware, the BHA now publish 'performance ratings' for Graded National Hunt Flat (NHF, or bumper) races only. There is a distinction between a performance rating and official rating, notwithstanding that the former is used to arrive at the latter in the normal run of things.

The issue with bumpers is that they are considered a distinct racing code, and it is a code which has no handicap races. Thus, such published ratings can be considered 'for information purposes only'.

The BHA handicappers are not allowed to take account of bumper form when allocating opening hurdles (or chase) marks, meaning horses need to qualify for an initial mark in one of those before being able to race in a handicap hurdle (or chase).

Bottom line: the published NHF figures are NOT 'Official ratings' but rather they are 'performance ratings'. Official ratings in bumpers do not exist.

*

What does ‘is he off?’ mean, and how do we know the answer?!

From: Eddie F

Great stuff....

So lets light up the Q's

Starting with a full explanation (uncensored!) of "IS HE OFF?"

Cheers

Eddie

Geegeez writes...

'Is he off?' means 'is the horse trying its best today?', to which the answer should, according to the rules of racing, always be, 'yes'.

I tend to believe that generally horses are trying their best. [If you don't believe that, then betting on horses is probably not a sensible option...]

However, the better question is whether the race distance, ground, class, fitness level and so on are a 'best fit' for the horse. That is where the toolkit at Geegeez Gold (other services are available) comes into its own, and where value bets are isolated.

*

Thoughts on backing last time out beaten favourites?

From: Liam C

Hi Matt,

I do quite well backing last time out beaten favourites in lucky 15s . Ok I'm kept in the black a lot of times by the one winner bonus paid by my bookie, but have had some nice pay days and rarely lose my whole stake. Would be nice to hear your take on this, perhaps a list of last time out beaten favourites in your race card.

Thanks

Liam

Geegeez writes...

From the start of 2015 to mid-September 2019, last time out beaten favourites won about 5000 of about 27000 races. That strike rate of 18.6% was worth an SP loss of 3800 points, or a negative 14% ROI. Not good.

However, as you say, by using an approach like double odds on a single winner you've a chance of getting close to parity. More pertinently perhaps, you'll stay in the game longer and sustain your enjoyment as a consequence.

Following last day beaten favourites, or indeed any other approach predicated on a single data item, is not an approach I'd recommend; but each to their own.

BF is not something we plan to add to Geegeez cards.

*

When is the best time to bet?

From: STEPHEN C

Silly Question

When is the best to bet?

Had most of my BOG so have to rely on a guess when to bet. Never seem to get it right. When I bet early the price goes out. When I wait it always seems come in. Is some type of analysis around that might help and average out early or late?

Kind regards,

Steve

Geegeez writes...

Really good question. The first thing to say is that what 'seems' to be the case almost certainly isn't, inasmuch as you probably frequently get close to the best of the odds differential but remember the reversals more than those which go your way.

Regardless of that, the general point about when is best to bet is a good one, to which I don't have a great answer sadly.

The article here highlights some of the considerations to factor in, most of which are outside of our control. Sigh.

One thing I try to keep in mind in this context is what I know about a horse/trainer/jockey that the market will know before off time. For example, I might see that a horse is a 'lone pace' angle in a race, or has a superb record on today's heavy ground, etc. These things are rarely lost on the closing market but often take time to filter into the pricing. Here, I'd bet early.

However, with a handicap debutant from a trainer with a good HC1 record I'd probably wait to see how the market went. Trying to second guess whether a horse is just not very good or has been placed in maiden races to acquire a workable handicap mark is a volatile pursuit where the market can certainly guide. Usually, because very little money is taken overnight, such moves don't manifest until early to mid-morning.

It is at best an inexact science, but certainly an area where we should endeavour to be as expedient as is practical.

*

What in a horse’s run style suggests it wants further?

From: John

Hi Matt

What is it - apart from the obvious- that suggests in a horses style of running it needs further?

John

Geegeez writes...

Run style is not normally something which would highlight a horse's distance preferences. A trainer might want the horse to be held up if it feels the runner has suspect stamina at today's race distance. Equally, a horse with one pace but who gets the trip well might be ridden forcefully from the front. But neither suggests the horse needs further.

More characteristic might be that the horse in question gets outpaced at a point in the race - though this may just mean the animal is moderate, or perhaps unsuited by other factors (the pace of the race, ground, course constitution) - or, most obviously, if it finishes the race well.

Further clues can be gleaned from the pedigree: does the sire generally get horses that stay further? Over what sort of trip did the mare win? Was the damsire an influence for stamina?

It's not an easy question to answer; but generally I'd not be looking for anything other than finishing well, in terms of run style, to indicate a horse might want a longer race distance.

*

What does CSF stand for?

From: Aodhan O'C

CSF in results stands for ? straight forecast?

Geegeez writes...

CSF stands for Computer Straight Forecast, a nod to the computerised and formulaic calculation of the dividends.

You may request a copy of the formula from the Association of British Bookmakers, I understand, though it runs to many pages of A4 according to racing legend.

*

Does anyone really make a living from betting or trading?

From: Jeffrey O

Hi Matt

I have been trying to make money from gambling trading etc for 20 plus years and the best I can do is break even footy horses about the same.

Do you think anyone really does earn a living from it?

Jeff

Geegeez writes...

YES! I am absolutely certain some people make a living from betting and/or trading. But the key phrase here is 'make a living'. They have it as an occupation and invest a lot of time into the activity. Increasingly, that time is reduced by computer legwork, such as the kind that Geegeez Gold provides its subscribers.

More than the knowledge, as fundamentally important as that is, those whose living comes from betting or trading have an investment mindset.

That's a key point because not all of us have - or indeed want - such a mindset. For example, I bet recreationally but to make a profit. Betting is not, and never will be, my primary source of income; but I still have a positive expectation from it. I allow myself loads of action bets, and then make more 'robust' wagers when I really like a horse and its value proposition.

Lots of people are making a living from betting, but they invest a lot of time and energy both into finding the right wagers and getting those wagers on. They also have a supportive bankroll which will generally run into at least tens and normally hundreds of thousands.

*

How is the order of stalls loading determined?

From: Chris J

Hi,

My question is how do the decide what order to load the horses into the stalls. They don't seem to do it in order of draw and I don't think they do it in even then odd order either so how exactly do they decide? Quite often a commentator mentions that a particular horse is hanging back to be loaded last but surely it can't be down to the jockey to decide?

Chris

Geegeez writes...

I asked geegeez.co.uk-sponsored jockey David Probert for an answer to this one. He told me:

"The odd numbers are loaded first: stall 1, then 3, 5, 7, etc. Then the evens, 2, 4, 6, etc.

The exceptions are that all horses wearing a hood or wearing a rug for stalls entry must load first unless the trainer has 'taken a ticket', which entitles them to go in last"

So there you have it!

**

That's all for this first edition of SQF. I hope you now know at least one thing you didn't when you started reading this! If you've any more questions on racing, betting, Geegeez Gold, and so on, please do drop me a line and I'll add it to the list!

Matt

More on Pace in NH Racing

/in , /by

With the National Hunt season soon to spring fully into action, I thought I would look further to see if there were any pace angles we could take advantage of, writes Dave Renham.

In the past I have written two articles for Geegeez on this topic focusing on handicap chases over 2m 1½f or less and from 2m 6f – 3m 2f. This article looks more generally at pace in National Hunt races to begin with before focusing on all chases at all distances.

I know many of you reading this would have read some or all of my previous articles, but for new readers it is important to explain what pace in a race means here, and how we measure it. When I look at pace my main focus is the initial pace in a race and position the horses take up early on. www.geegeez.co.uk has a really useful pace tool and the stats I am sharing with you in this article are based on the site’s pace section data. The pace data on Geegeez is split into four – Led (4), Prominent (3), Mid Division (2) and Held Up (1). The number in brackets are the pace scores that are assigned to each section.

The first set of data I’d like to share with you shows overall pace stats for all National Hunt races in the UK from 1/1/16 to 31/8/19, just over three and a half years’ worth:

 

Across all races there is a front running bias – an A/E index of 1.06 for front runners is positive, as (more so) is an Impact Value of 1.66.

Also if we simply compare strike rates we can see that the figures correlate with early leaders out performing prominent runners who in turn out perform those who run mid pack, while horses held up at the back have the poorest strike rate. (Plenty of horses with no chance at all spend the majority of their race at the back of the field, something which is worth keeping in mind whilst not detracting markedly from the general point about early race position and its impact on finishing position).

Of course it is important to remember that the number of runners in each pace group varies – there are far more runners in the prominent and hold up categories. Hence more important than the raw strike rates are the Impact Values (IV) and the A/E index (Actual winners/Expected winners).

See this post for more on what A/E and IV mean.

Impact of Run Style in NH Races, by Field Size

Let us break these data down by number of runners in a race. Here are the breakdowns:

2 to 5 runners

6 to 8 runners

9 to 11 runners

12+ runners

 

You should notice that the strike rates correlate once again across all groups, while the strongest front running bias seems to be in races with 12 or more runners (highest A/E index and IV figure), notwithstanding that the overall strike rate is the lowest – simply because there are more horses in these races.

On that face of it this is counterintuitive as one would assume that with more runners, there would be more challengers to eventually pass the front runner(s). From a betting perspective if you had magically been able to predict the early leader (front runner) in races of 12 or more runners you would have made a profit of £231.62 to £1 level stakes. This is based on SP returns, using Betfair SP this figure would be considerably bigger.

Sadly, such a magic predictor is not yet available; however, Geegeez Gold pace tabs provide a closer approximation than I’ve seen anywhere else.

Impact of Run Style in NH Races, by Race Code

Now it is time to split the races into codes: chases, hurdles and NH flat races.

Steeplechases

 

Chase races are where front runners have the greatest edge in terms of National Hunt races. They have the highest A/E index and IV figures. Again if your crystal ball could predict the early leader in each such race you would have been over £1100 better off to £1 level stakes to SP.

 

Hurdle races

 

Leaders have the edge in hurdle races too, but the edge is less strong. In addition you would not have made a profit backing all front runners even if you could predict them unfailingly!

NH Flat races

 

Again early leaders have the edge, but the bias is not quite strong enough to give us, as punters, a strong edge. Moreover, nearly all horses in such races have little or no form on which to base early pace assessments.

 

Cherry Picking

Now if we combine chases with decent size fields (12+ runners) the front running figures look very strong:

 

Being able to correctly predict the front runner in these races is probably the place to focus attention as if we had been able to accurately back every front runner, we would have returned a profit of 55p in the £ to SP. Handicap chases with bigger fields do have more of a front running edge than non-handicaps, but in general there are very few non handicap chases with such big fields.

Focusing on Chases

Chases clearly offer punters a front running edge so for the rest of this piece I am going to concentrate on all chases (all field sizes), starting with a review by course.

Front Running Bias in NH Chases, by UK Racecourse

Below is the record of horses that led early in chases at UK racecourses, ordered by market value (A/E). Any score over 1.00 is generally deemed to be positive, and the higher the score the better:

 

Only 8 courses have A/E indices under 1.00. The courses highlighted in red are the courses I would personally focus on as it seems the front running bias is at its strongest. Having said that it is worth checking a similar data set from say 2012 to 2015 to see if the course data correlates. This is a similar method that systems guru Nick Mordin used to employ when analysing time specific data.

This research is easily done using the Query Tool on Geegeez and I would recommend readers doing this to increase confidence and familiarity with the data. I have checked the 2012 to 2015 data and 14 of the 20 courses highlighted in red are in the top 20 in terms of A/E index in that time period too. In addition two other courses are positioned in 21st and 22nd spot.

Front Running Bias in NH Chases, by Going

A look now to see if the going makes a difference for front runners in chases:

 

Data for good to firm or firmer is limited so best not to read too much into those figures; it does seem that front runners on heavy ground have an increased edge, although personally I would have preferred to see stronger figures in the soft ground data to corroborate the heavy numbers. Again, as stated above, it is always worth checking another data set, and the 2012 to 2015 figures show heavy ground front runners have the same sort of edge (A/E 1.27; IV 1.74).

Front Running Bias in NH Chases, by (Selected) Trainer

Time to look at trainers now and their performance with front runners in chases. I have included all trainers that have sent at least 50 runners to the front – again the list is ordered by A/E index:

 

Readers will have their favourite trainers or at least a group of preferred ones. This table does indicate that certain trainers outperform others when it comes to horses that front run.

Staying with trainer data, here are the trainers who send out the highest percentage of front runners compared with all their runners:

Trainer Neil King is definitely a man to note – his is a huge percentage of horses which are sent to the lead early; in addition if you look at the previous table he has a decent performance record with them. Charlie Longsdon is another trainer to keep an eye on.

Selected NH Trainer Pace Tendencies

Finally on trainers, and finally for this article, I want to try and give an overall pace tendency for each trainer. To do this I have created trainer pace averages as I have done in some of my previous pace articles. I create trainer pace averages by adding up the Geegeez pace scores of all the runners for a particular trainer and dividing it by the total number of races run. The higher the average score, the more biased the trainer is to sending out horses that lead early or race close to the pace.

Here are the trainer pace averages for chases:

 

I hope this post will prove useful as the season moves forward, and I recommend you use the Geegeez pace tool to do your own research. Front running bias in racing is still an area where one can profit, as long as you put in a little research. Geegeez has the tools to make that both easy and fun.

Next time I will begin to focus on jockeys culminating in a final article on trainer / jockey combinations (similar to this flat article I wrote earlier this year).

 - Dave

Punting Angles: Chelmsford City Racecourse Part 1

/in /by

After a short summer break recharging the batteries (in theory) it’s time to get back to work and begin preparations for the onset of winter, writes Jon Shenton. That doesn’t mean National Hunt yet, I’m afraid. Rather, we’re going to get stuck into the polytrack of Chelmsford, hopefully stealing a march by doing some early research before the real all-weather schedule starts to kick in.

Chelmsford Overview

‘Chelmo’ has been a fixture of the racing calendar from 2015, ignoring its brief prior incarnation as Great Leighs in 2008, and is widely known for offering impressive prize money. In 2018 £5.2m was shared across 63 fixtures according to the official website. That, as well as the track’s proximity to the Newmarket training centre, has arguably led to a better quality of racing on this artificial surface than any of the others.

The track constitution is illustrated in the course map below. It is just about a mile in circumference and the turns are relatively broad and sweeping in nature, sufficiently so to develop a turf track to sit inside the current AW oval. There are chutes for the seven- and eight-furlong starts, more of which later.

 

Chelmsford Top Trainers

Before checking out specific race distances, we’ll adopt our usual tactic of scanning the trainer ranks for potential profit.

Usually in this series of articles data relates from 2012 to present day. However, as Chelmsford has only been up and running for four years, there are obviously less data to go on in terms of overall duration. However, that is more than compensated for by the fact that in its brief existence there have been over 17,000 runners at the track. To put that into perspective there have been fewer than 7,000 runners at Epsom from 2009 to date. All data in this article covers racing up to Friday 30th August 2019.

 

Trainer Performance

Using geegeez.co.uk’s Query Tool, the below table shows all trainers with an A/E performance of greater than 1.00, concentrating only on runners sent off at 20/1 or shorter; and there needs to be a minimum of 100 runners for a trainer to qualify.

 

 

The top pair of Charlie Wallis and Derek Shaw are certainly of interest, perhaps David Simcock too.  Aside from that at this helicopter level, there isn’t too much to get excited about.

 

Charlie Wallis

Wallis’s stable is based in Essex so the relatively high volume of runners at his local track makes sense. It’s noteworthy that the yard has a real all-weather specialism, with over 70% of their total runners appearing on artificial surfaces. Being a relatively new team (training since 2015), this may change as the operation develops and progresses. Until then, runners from the team are well worth monitoring here.

Analysing Wallis animals by the distance at which they have competed results in the following splits:

 

Sprinting is obviously a key focus. A large proportion of runs, wins and returns have been sourced over the 5- and 6-furlong ranges. For angle building I’m only interested in these short distances although you could easily argue that the sample sizes over further are insignificant and, in time, they may show similar performance to the sprints. That might be the case but I’m happy to stick with the larger samples up to three-quarters of a mile.

Wallis over 5&6 at Chelmsford puts up some nice numbers without too many more filters. If I were being a perfectionist, it’s preferable that one of his has had a recent run. Using horseracebase.com to drill down further, the yard has never had a winner (on any course) when a horse has been off the track for more than 90 days and, ideally, a run in the last 45 days would be optimal for this angle.

 

SUGGESTION: Back Charlie Wallis runners at 20/1 or shorter over 5 and 6 furlongs at Chelmsford, [Optional, exclude horses that have not run in the last 45 days.]

 

Derek Shaw

Moving on, Derek Shaw is another cornerstone of UK all-weather racing and, much like Wallis, a similar proportion (70% or thereabouts) of the yard’s activity is focused on the ‘sand’.

Checking the performance of his 248 runners by SP provides something on which to chew. The data below are for horses running at Chelmsford with an SP of 12/1 or bigger.

 

With only five winners from 81 bets and a strike rate of a smidgen over 6% in my view it’s marginal whether it would be worth fishing in that pool long term. However, taking all Shaw Chelmsford runners at 11/1 or shorter we build a potentially compelling picture when further analysing by race class:

 

It’s crystal clear that there is a division between performance in classes 2 and 3, and in classes 4-7. I think it’s not unreasonable to assert that the Shaw string wouldn’t contain the best raw materials in terms of racing talent with which to work. Perhaps some of the better class races are just a notch too high for the animals at Shaw’s disposal.

 

SUGGESTION: As always, simplicity is best and that’ll do for me, back Derek Shaw at Chelmsford in Class 4-7 races where the SP is 11/1 or shorter.

 

Without too much delving, those are two straightforward angles to file away in your QT Angles for use over the main all-weather season and beyond.

 

Ian Williams

One other worth bringing to your attention, though just bubbling under the 100-runner level (with 96), is Ian Williams. I don’t propose to go into detail here, but his numbers are worth keeping in mind (and perhaps researching yourself if you have the time).

 

Short Priced / Fancied Runners at Chelmsford

As you may have noted from previous columns, I’ve started to get a bit of a taste for angles focusing on shorter price runners. The table below simply illustrates the record of trainers where runners have an SP of 5/1 or shorter (50 runs minimum).

 

Obviously, there is some duplication with the trainer data presented earlier; Wallis and Shaw predictably are prominent (Williams too). Of the others, at first glance Messrs. Dwyer, Tate and Easterby appear to be potentially worthy of shortlisting when the cash is down. No doubt that some of these could stand alone as angles. However, before piling in it would be highly advisable to check consistency of performance. Based on samples of this relatively small magnitude it is perfectly plausible that the inclusion on this table is attributable to a golden year or two.

 

Specific Chelmsford Race Distance Analyses

One mile races

One advantage of the all-weather is that we can almost take one of the key variables in racing out of the equation. Changes in underfoot conditions are less prevalent, though weather variance can affect the surface more than the official going relates; so, coupled with the abundance of meetings on the AW tracks, there is nearly always a rich source of data regarding pace and draw to delve into.  Virtually all races at Chelmsford are on Standard, however, there are a handful of Standard/Slow contests included in the analysis from this point onwards.

Our first zoom into the profile of a specific trip is over the mile. If we refresh our memories from the course map, the start is located in a chute and there is approximately a furlong and a half of racing prior to the first left hand bend, where the runners join the main track. That does not give much time to secure a good early position, and being trapped deep on that first bend is a realistic danger.  In other words, there is a whiff of low draw bias about the set up here, especially in bigger fields.

I’ve compiled the draw and pace data and attempted to consolidate it in a single table. At first glance it may appear complicated, but hopefully with a small bit of explaining will be quite simple.

 

The table is basically a mash-up of draw bias (using the draw analyser IV3 numbers) and the pace profile (Pace Analyser with IV) consolidated on one table by number of runners.

A quick refresher of what IV3 means: it is simply the average Impact Value of a stall and its nearest neighbours. For instance, the IV3 of stall six would be the average IV of stalls 5, 6 and 7

The numbers are one thing, and the colours are another, but what does it mean and how can the insight be used to optimise our chances in finding potential winners?

Broadly speaking, the greenish tinged numbers represent good performance with the red ones conversely not so good (as Sven might say).

Without doubt, there are more green shades in the lower box numbers, indicating the expected low draw bias. This appears to hold true for all field sizes too: an inside draw is a positive when assessing the merits of an individual horse.

Moving across to the pace box to the right, the green numbers are concentrated around the leading and prominent runners.  At first glance it looks like an early-to-the-lead horse is the most desirable.  On closer inspection, however, we see that a prominent runner is arguably as valuable in terms of winning potential for most field sizes. The deep green relating to leaders in 13/14 runner races fields (data based on small samples of 24 and 20 respectively) gives a possible visual skew to the data.  What is in no doubt is that being up with the speed is highly desirable and, related, hold up horses generally have it to do.

Low daws are good, and early speed is good, but what happens when they are combined? That’s where our old friend the draw/pace heatmap (found at the bottom of the DRAW tab on flat race cards) can offer some valuable insight.

Evaluating races where the number of runners is between 7 and 10 inclusive over a mile (chosen as they are the most common field sizes so sample size is larger) and consolidating in the heat map (IV) we get the following composition.

Heat Map of mile races at Chelmsford with 7-10 runners inclusive using IV

 

The heat map paints a very clear picture:

  • Low draws are desirable irrespective of run style
  • For those drawn in the middle, a prominent or leading style is preferable
  • For those drawn high, a front running style is the only favoured approach 

 

7 Furlong races

Before wrapping up, from reviewing the course map I thought it may be interesting to use the same approach over the seven-furlong trip. The hypothesis is that a low draw may be of less relevance as horses and riders have a full three furlongs to get a position before the first turn. Thus, it ought to be possible to negate the risk of being trapped out wide and, therefore, potentially ease the sort of draw bias seen at the mile distance.

 

Alas, the hypothesis doesn’t hold true as the data indicate that there is still a form of bias towards lower stalls when viewing through the prism of IV3. That said, the draw doesn’t appear to have too much effect until field sizes of nine or more are experienced. In the broadest terms stalls 1-6 seem to be better off than stalls 7 and above in almost any circumstances.

For larger fields of 13 and 14 runners there appears to be a strong bias to the lower numbers although, again, sample sizes are smaller. Usually that can be attributed to getting out of the gates and securing good track position early on, ordinarily up with the speed and avoiding hazards in running brought about by a congested field.

Again, a quick check of the heat map can help:

Heat Map of 7f races at Chelmsford with 13-14 runners inclusive (IV)

 

This view is only comprised of 41 races but it’s clear that a horse in a low stall has a stronger hand to play than its wider-drawn competitors in the biggest field sizes. If that same low drawn horse leads it has an IV of 3.81 which means, it’s nearly 4 times as likely to prevail as the average!

In the second part of this Chelmsford epic, I’ll cover sires, jockeys, the fate of favourites, as well as the impact of draw and pace on 5- and 6-furlong races.

Until then, thanks for reading.

- Jon S

York Ebor Stats: Draw, Pace and Trainer Profiles

/in /by

It's York's Ebor meeting next week, with its smattering of Group 1 features as well as the first ever £1,000,000 handicap in British flat racing, attached naturally enough to the race which gives its name to the meeting (and which in turn was derived from the name, Eboracum, the Romans gave to a fort which resided on the site of what is now the town of York).

In view of four heady days on the Knavesmire, with what general information should punters at York arm themselves? This article, revised since last year's meeting, should help.

York Racecourse Configuration

The track at York features a six furlong straight down which races at up to that distance are run. There is a dogleg start from a chute for seven furlong races, and a pretty tight bend into the home straight for races longer than that. You can find more York racecourse insights on our dedicated York course info page.

 

York Draw Information

So what impact, if any, does the shape of the racetrack - and indeed drainage - have on draw positions? The weather is set fair for the week and the going is currently good to firm, good in places - the clerk has stated that he will water to ensure broadly that ground. Using geegeez.co.uk's Draw Analyzer tool, offers the following insights:

Five furlong draw at York

Looking only at bigger field handicaps on good to soft or quicker, we can see that there is a slight bias towards lower drawn horses. It is important, however, to check for an even spread of pace across the track: if high numbers have the most early dash, that could be enough to overcome any implied bias in the data.

 

Six furlong draw at York

Over the longest piste on the straight course, low again seem just about to have the best of it, particularly when reviewing the place data: this reveals a gradation from low (best) to high (worst). There is nothing insurmountable in these straight data but, all other things being equal, lower numbers may shade it.

 

Seven furlong draw at York

On the dogleg, there is a small advantage to be drawn middle to high. Looking at the constitution of the track, that makes sense as such runners can cut the corner of the dogleg, especially if breaking alertly. Again, though, it probably won't make the difference between a horse winning and losing, it's just a mild negative for those drawn low.

1m/ 1m1f draw at York

The mile and nine furlong trips are the first we've considered which take in that sharp bend quite soon after the start of races; that can make life challenging for those trapped wide. As a jockey, do you use up petrol trying to get handy, or take back and ride for luck? This challenge is borne out in the data, which shows those on the outside winning far less often - and placing less often - than those inside (low).

This time I've illustrated using the full draw chart table as well as a chart showing IV3, a unique geegeez perspective of draw based on the average Impact Value* of a stall and its immediate neighbours.

*Impact Value is the name given to an index created from the number of winners having a certain characteristic compared with the number of runners having that same characteristic. In this example, we are looking at the exactly 1000 runners to race in 8/9f 12-runner-plus York handicaps since 2009 (good to firm through to good to soft) which contested the 61 races in that sample.

So, for instance, we can see that the number of stall 1 winners was five, and the number of stall 1 runners was 61.

Our calculation is:

(number of stall 1 wins / number of stall 1 runs) divided by (all wins in the sample / all runs in the sample)

Numerically that's

(5 / 61)    /    (61 / 1000)

which equals

0.0819672131 / 0.061

which equals 1.34 (see the IV column, second from the right)

The IV3 for stall 4, for instance, is the mean average of the IV of stalls 3, 4, and 5. That is, (2.96 + 1.88 + 1.88) / 3 = 2.24

Of course, you absolutely do not need to understand how it is calculated to know that it is useful in probability terms. Not necessarily in profitability terms, which is a different fish entirely. (We use A/E - Actual vs Expected - more of which another day, or here).

All you need to know is that 1.00 is 'par', 'standard', 'normal' and/or otherwise unremarkable. The further away from 1.00 you get the better or worse such horses have fared, bigger numbers being better.

Management summary: numbers greater than 1.00, especially on bigger sample sizes, imply a greater probability of success.

Hopefully that makes sense - don't get bogged down in the method, but do take note of the meaning.

Draw at longer trips at York

There is no noteworthy draw advantage over longer distances at York.

 

**

York Pace Information

So that's draw, but what of pace? Are particular run styles favoured on this expansive track with its near five furlong home straight?

As with most courses, the front is the place to be in sprint handicaps: front runners at York in big field 5f or 6f handicaps win around two-and-a-quarter times as often as random, and are very profitable to back blindly. See the image below, taken from Gold's Pace Analyzer.

Of course, the problem is that we don't know which horse will lead until the race is underway. However, we can often project that fairly accurately based on historical run styles. Naturally, Geegeez Gold will inform you of what you need to know with a couple of mouse clicks.

There is no discernible pace bias at seven furlongs in big field handicaps, though when the going is good to firm those on the speed have a better chance of seeing it through.

Over a mile, it doesn't pay to be too far back as this somewhat linear chart attests. Although the fewest number of races were won from the front, the number to attempt that feat was commensurately small: a win strike rate of 12% compares favourably with the other run style cohorts. We can see from the table below (Place% column) that these data are backed up by those horses to make the frame.

 

There are no nine furlong races at York's Dante meeting, and at ten furlongs there is no discernible pace bias. That said, those trying to make all are 2 from 78 (-40 points, IV 0.4).

And at a mile and a half, it pays to be played later: those which led or raced prominently in big field twelve-furlong handicaps are a collective 21-374 (5.6% strike rate) for a starting price loss of £205.75.

**

Top York Handicap Trainers in August (Ebor meeting)

You may well have seen lists of trainers to follow elsewhere, and fair play to the publishers. Here I want to look at trainer performance overall, and by race type.

York Ebor Meeting: Overall Trainers, 25+ runners, 2014-2018

There are some interest headlines here. First, Mark Johnston runs a lot here but wins with very few. The 21% place rate is way down on this yard's overall rate, normally hitting the frame at around 36%.

Next, Aidan O'Brien. Tony Keenan established chapter and verse on the Ballydoyle Ebor efforts in this excellent post, and it can be seen from the below that York's meeting is not a hugely successful one for the Coolmore head handler: five wins from 56 runners, 0.65 A/E is moderate for this preeminent operation.

Richard Fahey, Brian Ellison, and Richard Hannon are others about whom to be apprehensive in the general context, though further digging below may shine a more favourable light on some sections of their entry.

On a more positive front, William Haggas, famously a Yorkshireman exiled in Newmarket, relishes the opportunity to plunder pots at his home racetrack; and he does so regularly. His 11 winners in the last five years is four better than the next best haul, with Haggas even managing to chisel out a profit and a positive A/E for followers.

And it's been a good meeting for the Godolphin blue, especially the Charlie Appleby team, which has recorded positive punting figures from seven victories. A 24% hit rate is exceptional given the depth of competition at this fixture.

Andrew Balding and Charlie Hills are both solid operators with a mildly positive wagering expectation.

York Ebor Meeting: Handicap Trainers, 15+ runners, 2014-2018

Specifically in handicaps, there is little of value to be gleaned from this table, except perhaps that the place records of Richard Fahey, Tim Easterby and notably William Haggas - whose overall record is so strong - suggest that caution is advised.

Ebor meeting handicaps are notoriously difficult to win and, as such, the hat-tricks notched by Messrs. Ryan, Balding and Appleby (C) are meritorious. In each case the place rate backs up the higher profile statistic.

 

York Ebor Meeting: Pattern (Listed or better) Race Trainer performance, 10+ runners, 2014-2018

In the good races at the Ebor meeting, we see the emergence of Charlie Appleby as a main man. Just nine runners in such races have yielded three winners, and a further placed effort. Although those numbers are unlikely to be completely lost on the market, there may remain some punting nutrition in his Pattern entries.

William Haggas has claimed two wins from ten runs, with four more placed: excellent figures and testament to the 'target' nature of this meeting for his better horses. Note that Haggas has saddled a 20/1 winner and a 14/1 second in that small group.

Nobody else has managed more than two winners.

On the downside, Mark Johnston's zero from 11 is poor, as is an 18% place rate. I'd be against them, on balance. Aidan O'Brien has an overall win rate in UK Pattern races of 15.78% (16th August 2014 to present), which makes his 5.56% Ebor Festival hit rate highly unsatisfactory. Indeed, just three places from 18 runners in this context in the last five years suggests the meeting is not a material consideration for Coolmore.

 

York Ebor Meeting: Class 2 or lower Non-Handicap Trainer performance, selected, 2013-2017

Here we are essentially talking about maiden and/or novice races, and we can see that man Haggas sits top of the tree. Richard Hannon's otherwise middling record at the meeting is solid if not bankable in this race type.

Local lads Ryan and Fahey look to be largely entertaining owners at their marquee home fixture and their entries can be pretty much overlooked in this context, though the latter did hit his mark with 33/1 Red Balloons last year - which paid for a lot of losers!

 

Ebor Trainer Summary

Overall, one does have to be careful with small sample sizes and current trainer form. But, accounting for those, the main trainer takeaways from the last five Ebor meetings are:

- Beware Johnston, Fahey, Ryan and O'Meara. They've collectively won 19 of the 127 races at this fixture since 2014, having saddled 353 of the 1660 runners. An Impact Value of 0.70 compares with their overall five year IV of 1.23 across more than 24,000 runners. It's likely they'll win four or five of the 25 races, but they're also likely to send out around 70 runners most of whose prices will be more indicative of the 'better than peer group' global IV rather than the poorer local IV. That's a verbose way of saying they'll represent poor value overall.

- William Haggas is the man to follow in non-handicaps.

- Charlie Appleby runners should be given two looks without exception.

- Aidan O'Brien appears not to target the meeting, so his runners may make the market for anything else you fancy.

2019/20 Football Season Preview / Bets

/in /by

2019/20 Football Season Betting Preview

As has become traditional, each season I share my long-term positions for the new footy campaign. And in this post I'll reveal the teams which carry my hopes - and cash - for 2019/20. Also, further down, you'll find details of the Geegeez Super League Fantasy Football competition for those of you who like to get involved with such things.

Before all of that, though, how did last season's wagers fare? You can review last year's post here

And the returns were as follows:

I actually did two trixies last year, meaning I duplicated the Huddersfield relegation/Sunderland promotion double. On the face of it that didn't end well, with the Black Cats suffering stoppage time heartache in the playoff final. But the situation had presented an easy hedge opportunity, which was taken. A loss of £62.50 on the £400 stake for both trixies became a decent profit of £300, thanks entirely to Sunderland taking the lead in that Wembley disappointment.

 

This is exactly why I love the promotion markets: even if you're only nearly right, you still have a solid chance of a hedge during the playoffs. Obviously it's easier if your team makes the playoff final, and easier still if they go in front, but you get the idea.

**

To this term, and my approach remains the same: a team from the Premier League to be relegated, a team from League One to be promoted, and one or both of two teams from League Two - where there is an extra promotion place - also to go up a division.

Those four teams are played in a perm trixie, that is doubles and trebles (seven bets).

Here's who I'm siding with...

Premier League Relegation

Brighton have the dubious honour of being my pick to get dumped from the top league. I know a lot of Seagulls fans and am unlikely to be endearing that tiny subset who care a jot for my opinion on round-ball-related wagering; but the facts are clear:

- Manager Graham Potter's only exposure to English football management is one season at Swansea where he steered the Welsh side to tenth place. Given that they were one of the favourites and he had almost the entire pre-season to assemble his squad, that's hardly stellar.

- Top scorer last season, with a perfectly respectable 13, was Glenn Murray. The former Bournemouth (and many other clubs) front man will be 36 next month.

- Brighton's 14 points in the second half of the season was better only than Huddersfield (relegated, bottom) with the next two poorest teams in that 19-match ranking also getting relegated.

The untested in Britain Leandro Trossard looks an interesting acquisition, as does former Championship striker, Neal Maupay; but they have zero Premier League experience between them, a problem which proved beyond recent big name signings such as Andone, Jahanbaksh and Balogun. That trio could improve for their first season in the top English flight, but the south coast side were woeful in the latter part of last term, almost getting collared by Cardiff at the death.

As always, it's how you feel about the promoted sides that makes the market, and I'm fairly positive about both Villa and Norwich: the former has spent liberally and - in places - shrewdly, the latter I feel has a fair amount of under-rated class even if they will need to be not nearly so reliant on potential one season wonder, Teemu Pukki. Sheffield United may try to play a very attacking style of football - they've certainly acquired plenty of forwards - and, while that could go calamitously wrong, they've a chance of dodging the drop.

Either way, I reckon there are two established Prem sides treading on eggshells and I'm betting that Brighton are one of them.

League One Promotion

I'll keep this (a little) briefer. Portsmouth are my pick. They were arguably the best attacking team in the division last season, with the possible/probable exception of champions, Luton. But their second half performance was sub-par. They've lost key players (notably player of the season, Matt Clarke) but look to have recruited well, especially in the wide positions.

An opening day 1-0 defeat at Shrewsbury barely tells the story: they had 15 shots compared to the hosts' three, and 61% of the possession to back it up. Of course, you need to hit the goal to score so a 20% on target ratio tells the tale. The late dismissal of new boy Ross McCrorie wouldn't have helped either, but they steadied the ship - and how! - in midweek with a 3-0 thumping of Birmingham City (50% shots on target) in the League Cup.

They ought to be a force.

I'm against Sunderland who I don't believe have nearly enough creativity. They were woefully unimaginative last term and are reliant on 33 year old Aiden McGeady to an alarming degree. Relegated Ipswich may find this level far more to their liking but it's hard to pick out another side with similar credentials to those referenced already. Which is not, of course, to say that there is not one, or indeed many.

League Two Promotion

Three auto promo places and another via the playoffs means it makes sense to have two stabs at the promotion market in this division. Salford are well (and famously) financed by the ex-ManU mob and their mates, and the Conference runners-up were tempting to make a double jump which has been achieved a number of times in recent memory. Graham Alexander is a top manager at this level, too.

But I ended up siding with Plymouth and Mansfield, the best of last season's relegated sides and the best placed un-promoted side from this division respectively.

There's a fair chance Plymouth are just too good for these even allowing for the loss of a handful of their best players, particularly Ladapo. But they've got ready made L2 experience in the form of last season's second placed team's manager, Ryan Lowe, and a number of his promoted players. That mob have 'stayed behind' because of the saddening financial issues at Bury. It is to be hoped that club can be saved - as a Cherries fan I've been there and it's horrible, but where we are now shows what is possible if fending off the immediate - but right now they're being asset stripped as players look to secure their career futures. Argyle got their season off to a flyer with a clinical 3-0 away win at Crewe, though the game was a good bit closer than the scoreline suggests.

Mansfield were favourites to win this section last campaign and ran a meritorious fourth. However, the manner of their failure to get promoted - beaten on the last day by MK Dons, who went up at the Stags' expense; and then losing on penalties in the playoff semi-final - may have left some wounds. Nevertheless, it is hard to escape the feeling that a repeat of last season's efforts will be enough to get them in the three this time around. They have goals galore in their line up and showed resilience to come back from a 2-0 deficit at half time and grab a 2-2 draw on opening day, all the more so when down to ten men for most of the last half hour. Again, though, they were second best on the match stats and will need to step forward. That should happen as the new faces familiarise themselves with their team-mates and tactics.

The wager

All teams are around the 2/1 mark - or were before last weekend. They remain similar prices overall.

It's a bit of faff to separate out the constituent bets in the perm trixie but it does make a significant difference to the bottom line should they all, or even any of them, cop.

[Note, I split the treble into £20 and £30 bets as a small odds boost was available up to a score]

 

 

 

Total stake of £350 which, for a whole season of entertainment, is a sum I'm prepared to invest; especially as in the last three seasons I've managed one all-correct perm trixie which returned £3,500 and last year's profit of circa £300 from the hedge. But obviously you can do £5 lines (£35) or 50p lines (£3.50) or simply laugh at my terribly bland selections... 😉

**

Fantasy Football: Geegeez Super League

With the Premier League starting on Friday night - gotta love a bit of Friday night Prem action - it's time to mention the Geegeez Super League Fantasy Football...

If you've entered in previous years, and you've got a team in the official FFL game, you'll be automatically entered into the league (there's already 200 odd teams in the league!) - do check though, just in case.

Here's how to join in

Go to https://fantasy.premierleague.com

Create your team, then...

Go to https://fantasy.premierleague.com/leagues/join/private and enter this code:

ohc84f

That should be you registered as part of the league. And there's a prize!

The winner will receive the indescribable kudos of being the Geegeez Super League Champion 2019/20.

Oh, and an annual Gold subscription, worth £297. Whoop!

So get yourself entered today - remember, the season starts this FRIDAY EVENING, not Saturday lunchtime as usual.

Good luck!

Matt

Punting Angles: Haydock Racecourse

/in /by

For this edition of Punting Angles, I’m going to concentrate on the enigmatic Haydock Park, writes Jon Shenton. Whilst the course is home to both National Hunt and Flat racing, it is the latter that I’ll be evaluating in this edition given the time of year. For whatever reason, it’s one of those tracks that seems difficult to read, racing developing on both rails and atop a seemingly unique range of underfoot conditions, "Haydock Soft and Heavy" almost becoming an official going description in its own right. The track is synonymous with horses slogging through bottomless ground in pursuit of glory.

 

Haydock Going

Although there isn’t too much of punting value in it, I still felt it would be of interest to benchmark how Haydock shaped compared to the rest of the UK in terms of the official going for races over the last five years.

The below graph illustrates the ground conditions for UK flat races.

 

Immediately, the orange bars relate that Haydock proportionately has much more racing on the easier side of good: it’s nearly four times as likely to race on heavy than the UK flat average too.

Knowing that may not directly help in the pursuit of profit; however, searching for mud-larks or horses whose sires loved sploshing around in the deep ground may be a pragmatic activity in preparation for a wet Haydock meeting.

 

Haydock Course Constitution

What about the course itself? The map below illustrates a tight loop with a straight up-to-6-furlong run. Based entirely on the map alone, curiosity is piqued with regards the draw for the 7-furlong trip. The journey from the stalls to the first bend appears to be an exceptionally short one implying that a wide berth could be a problem.

 

 

Haydock Trainer Angles

However, before checking that out and getting into individual race specifics, let’s first take our usual glance into the world of trainer performance. Using Query Tool, I'm evaluating all runners from 2012 with an SP of 20/1 or shorter. A minimum of 50 runs is required at an A/E of greater than 1 to secure a position in the top trainer table below.

 

 

There is much upon which to mull here.

Despite the relatively small number of runners, Hugo Palmer's figures offer something to satisfy even the most voracious appetites in angle finding.

Keeping it simple by analysing the yard's runners by market strength, the following split in performance is observed.

 

There is a very clear dichotomy here in terms of a Palmer runner which has been supported versus one that has not. Notably, with a place record of 70% on those runners sent off at 11/2 or shorter it has been even more profitable to back each way, albeit to double the stake.

Of course, on a sample size like this, it only takes a single 20/1 winner on the next day to create a profitable “unfancied” segment. The cliché of fine margins applies without doubt and there is a chance (probably a 20/1 one) that I'll endure an element of regret as a Palmer animal bolts up at a big price here in the near future. However, with my cool data-driven mind I’d rather sup regularly in moderation than binge excessively once in a blue moon. Albeit there is a place for both, I’m sure!

Suggestion: back Hugo Palmer runners at Haydock where they’re supported in to 11/2 or shorter

 

Second stop on the trainer list is the seemingly ubiquitous Tom Dascombe who has a prolific volume of runners at the track.  It’s impressive in terms of pure scale but to beat the market with an A/E of 1.15 over so many runners is quite a rare feat.

Looking a little more closely, there is a noteworthy split along race class lines.

 

The competitive stuff of class 1 and 2 racing is obviously more of a challenge and it is likely that these races attract more top yards and animals thus making it tougher for the Dascombe runners to prevail even with home advantage. Whilst the performance of his charges is perfectly respectable in those upper echelons, I’m happy to pass them over in punting angle terms.

There is also a clear distinction between relative performance in handicap / non-handicap races in the Class 3 to 5 races, as can be seen below:

 

The table is unambiguous: handicap racing is where it’s at for Tom Dascombe's Haydock horses.

Suggestion: back Tom Dascombe Handicap runners at 20/1 or shorter in Class 3, 4 and 5 races

 

[As a footnote, it’s not unheard of that the yard fires in the odd big-priced scorer at the track. If you’re inclined to play with fire, there are worse places to go than a Haydock Dascombe runner to satisfy those punting pyromaniac tendencies. In C3-C5 races he has had 6 winners from 65 at SP odds of 20/1 or greater across all race types, which is somewhere between great and probably unsustainable!]

 

Ordinarily sticking with a deep dive in to the record of two trainers from the top table would be enough, but seeing John Gosden playing a prominent role means it would be negligent to let him pass by without further evaluation.

A good starting point with Gosden, Stoute, Charlie Appleby and the like is always to check performance by distance given their predominate modus operandi is to dominate the middle-distance division. Checking Gosden entrants at Haydock by race length gives the below breakdown:

 

Sure enough, sprint race performance is less compelling. Plenty of winners, yes, strong IV, definitely; but finding winners doesn’t always mean value.  Despite a strike rate of over 20% the return over 5, 6 and 7 furlongs is not a positive one. To eke out profit it appears as though an even healthier strike rate of over 30% is required. Happily, this has been apparent at distances of a mile or greater: 31 winners from 93 runs, a nice round third. A 68% ROI is not to be sniffed at either.

Suggestion: back John Gosden runners ay Haydock at 20/1 or shorter from races of 1 mile or greater in distance

Haydock by race distance

Moving on from the trio of trainers, let us now evaluate the shape of races at the track.

7 furlong races

As you will recall, I was particularly interested in the 7-furlong trip based on the course map. The left-hand bend which is seemingly close to the start could result in some interesting pace and draw snippets, with an expectation that low draws close to the rail should have the best of it.

Using the Draw Analyser Tool and combining the heat maps for draw position and field size for Impact Value (how likely a horse will win from that position with 1.00 being par) we get the below data to evaluate relating to the whole spectrum of ground conditions.

 

 

Conclusions are probably less obvious in the data above than they have been in previous articles. However, there are still some noteworthy and useful outputs to consider.

Firstly, evaluating hold up runners, there is a big stripe of red (Red Stripe?) confirming that it’s a tough gig for a horse that’s held up to win from a high draw. This also applies to middle stall positions in larger sized fields (see the top of the dotted black box).

In general terms it is spoken often that a high stall position is less relevant for animals who race by stalking from the rear as they can drop in and wait. However, these data show that adopting the waiting tactic from wide over seven at Haydock is not generally a good plan. This is surprising, or at least mildly counter-intuitive, as the home straight is over half a mile in length, giving hold-up horses plenty of time to wind up and make their move. It is hard to argue with the facts, though.

The data also appear to indicate that it’s not a productive strategy to try and secure an early leading or prominent position from a wider draw in middle- to large-sized fields (the red coloured zeroes on the table). Through watching race replays this starts to make sense. Horses sharply away from wider stalls have only a small run to get across to the rail / near the front prior to the the bend; if they fail to get a front berth quickly enough, they face the issue of being trapped wide and covering significant additional ground.

Even if they get out apace, given the proximity of the bend, all it takes is for one or two from inside stalls to be away well and it’s difficult for the wider drawn speedster. As the turn develops, our wide trailblazer has the choice of burning through more juice to get to the front or travelling further: both potentially terminal to the chances of him or her winning the race.

When investigating this, I expected a variance based on ground conditions. Surprisingly though, and broadly speaking, the conclusions work in all racing circumstances. If anything, high draws have it even tougher as the going deteriorates though data is quite sparse from which to draw anything more than lukewarm conclusions.

Low drawn and/or early pacers look to be generally the best bet on a consistent basis (the blue dotted boxes), as expected. Although, like a lot of other courses, it appears as though early speed is of more importance than draw, unless the horse has a starting position in the proverbial car park in a big field, as already mentioned.

 

Haydock Straight Track races

As noted previously the straight track at Haydock stretches for trips up to six furlongs in length.  Evaluating the draw using the analyser tool again for all ground conditions and number of runners for the straight track paints the following picture:

The data displayed relates to the IV3 calculation. I’ve picked this to try and smooth out variance and noise to help illustrate a general pattern. A definition of IV3 is simply an average Impact Value of a stall and its nearest neighbours. For instance, the IV3 of stall six would be the average IV of stalls 5, 6 and 7.

There is an indication that, irrespective of the number of runners, there is a definite bias to horses with higher stall numbers. The red and amber colours represent draw positions which are less likely to house the victorious horses. Green is good and it would be anticipated that based on historical performance horses that prevail are more likely to start from these stalls.

There is a line displaying the straightforward mean average (AVG) for each stall position which reminds me of the pH chart from my gruelling chemistry lessons in times gone by (even though it’s the wrong colour). Anyway, progressing from low to high the hue gravitates from an angry dark orange to a lovely tree-hugging green, showing that, on balance, low stalls are not the place to be drawn.

With that intel in the bank we can add a bit of spice by applying some complementary pace data.

Taking the minimum trip alone in the first instance.

 

The data is split by field sizes, and the information shown represents the IV data for each run style by underfoot conditions. The column entitled "races" simply represents the number of races that are included in each line of data. You can then draw your own conclusions based on sample size.

The field size 12-16+ (data on the left) has a limited sample size contained therein so firm conclusions are not sensible. Having said that, on a sounder surface it appears to be a challenge to win from the very rear; instead front runners boss proceedings. Whilst on the sludge of a Haydock soft or heavyTM surface, hold up (and mid division) run styles seem to be the way to go.

Is there something in that? Maybe, but I’m not sure as we only have eight races to go on for those relatively deep ground conditions. Sectional timing may help us understand these things one day as it may be that too fast a pace has collapsed setting things up for the closers on these small samples.  As things stand, it’s a bit of a leap of faith to assume it’s a true representation. Nonetheless, it is interesting.

The smaller field size data contradicts it, sadly. Broadly speaking, it pays to be on the pace over the five furlong range, where the prospect of less pace contention and, therefore, an ability to rate energy more efficiently is manifest.

Moving onto 6-furlong races, we get the following:

 

There is a little more data to go at over this distance. For all field sizes, horses that lead or are prominent early are most likely to win across all surface conditions. In larger fields there is an absolute bias to the lead horse.

 

Closing thoughts

In conclusion, when evaluating a Haydock race on the straight track the first item to look for is early speed, the second item should be a high-ish stall number. If both those boxes are ticked then it could be a good play, depending on the animal, of course.

A Dascombe or fancied Palmer runner on the straight track with early speed and a high draw would be a very exciting prospect, until it misses the kick anyway!

 - JS

Report Angles: How To Find Value Bets in Seconds

/in , /by

Report Angles is a very powerful element of Geegeez Gold. It enables users to see only those qualifiers from hand-picked reports they want to see, and it homes in on value bets time and time and time again.

In this short video, I show you what Report Angles is; how to set it up for the two main types of users ('find me a bet' and 'give me more detail on this race'); where to find the information; and a few tactics you can put to work for yourself.

I hope you like it.

Matt

Tony Keenan: Blinkered Thinking

/in /by

When I first got into racing seriously way back when, I remember being absolutely death on horses with temperament, writes Tony Keenan. High head carriage, tail flashing, hanging, you name it, I wanted to be against it and lord help anything wearing blinkers as I subscribed to the old belief that they were the badge of a rogue. My attitude has softened somewhat since (though not totally) as I have realised that like most things in racing, the use of headgear is far more complicated than that though the universal truth that horses in headgear win less and are generally worse bets than those without still applies.

The table below covers all Irish flat racing from 2010 to 2018, turf and all-weather, a total of nearly 10,000 races and is broken down by different types of headgear. Unless otherwise stated, all figures in this article refer to that nine-year period.

Performance by headgear worn, Irish racing 2010-2019

Performance by headgear worn, Irish racing 2010-2019

 

Different headgear is used for different reasons: blinkers, cheekpieces and visors typically used to sharpen horses up, hoods often intended to have the opposite effect and settle a buzzy type. They are used on all sorts of horses too, among them lazy horses, out-of-form horses, temperamental horses and keen horses and can on occasion have a transformative effect.

For the purposes of this article, I decided to look at how the main Irish flat trainers (and by ‘main’ I mean the 30 trainers who have had most runners on the level this decade) tend to use headgear. I won’t bore you with the full 30 trainers but below are the top five and bottom five along with other relevant people in order of how frequently they use headgear.

 

The top five would all be regarded as mainly training handicappers and with such horses small margins matter; a little tinkering around the edges with headgear, trying something new here and there, could make the difference between getting a win out of a horse in a season or not. Dermot Weld stands out as the main user of headgear of the bigger yards with most of the other major trainers in the bottom half of the table, Kevin Prendergast someone who seems to avoid using equipment like this if possible.

Trainers often have strong preferences one way or the other about which headgear they use and during the rest of the article I’ll go through the main four headgear types (blinkers, cheekpieces, visors and hoods) and look at who does and doesn’t use them. Just because a trainer uses headgear a lot, it does not mean that they are successful with it; I wonder if, like doctors who tend to prescribe the same treatment when they see a certain set of symptoms, trainers too have their default or ‘go-to’ headgear.

 

Blinkers

Use of blinkers, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

Use of blinkers, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

Dermot Weld is a prolific user of blinkers considering the make-up of his stable, if not a particularly discerning one: his overall win strike rate and actual over expected are 16.9% and 0.85 respectively in the period covered but they drop to 11.6% and 0.68 with the blinkers. He basically never uses cheekpieces with just two winners and four places from 36 runners though Falcon Eight did improve on that record at Sandown last weekend.

On the other hand, Andy Slattery is someone who seems to manage both volume and efficiency, returning a high actual/expected despite running lots of horses in blinkers, though a lot of that is down to his stalwart Ucanchoose who has won seven times wearing that accessory. When his horses take to blinkers they really take to them though and Cityman is one that has improved for their application lately.

It is interesting to see both Johnny Murtagh and Michael Mulvany both have good actual/expected figures considering how sparingly they use blinkers while it also worth pointing out the negatives, the following yards having sub-0.6 actual/expected numbers in blinkers: John Murphy (0.6), Kevin Prendergast (0.58), Pat Martin (0.58), Pat Flynn (0.5),  Andy Oliver (0.34) and Tracey Collins (0.27).

 

Cheekpieces

Use of cheekpieces, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

Use of cheekpieces, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

 

Kevin Prendergast clearly won’t even let cheekpieces into his yard, having not run a single horse in them since 2010, while it is interesting to note that both Slattery and Weld, who use blinkers regularly, rarely go for this piece of kit.

Michael Halford is just outside the top five in terms of cheekpiece usage rate at 19.5% (versus using blinkers only 4.0% of the time) and several of his better horses in years past - like Quinmaster, Russian Soul, Hujaylea and Invincible Ash - ran in them.

Adrian McGuinness uses blinkers an awful lot but his record with cheekpieces is much better; with blinkers he has a win strikerate of 6.4% and an actual over expected of 0.65 whereas with cheekpieces he is 11.6% and 1.11. Saltonstall – previously a high-class handicapper with Halford – seems to have come back into form for the cheekpieces on his last two starts.

As to the negatives, the following trainers all have sub-0.60 actual/expected figures with cheekpieces applied: Weld (0.52),  Joe Murphy (0.51), Pat Flynn (0.5), and Slattery (0.42), Tracey Collins (0.36) and John McConnell (0.28).

 

Visor

Use of visor, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

Use of visor, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

The visor is much less extensively used than either blinkers or cheekpieces and I didn’t include the bottom five here in usage rate as some trainers don’t bother with them at all; the likes of Jim Bolger, Ger Lyons, John Murphy and Andy Slattery have never used them in the period covered.

It is worth mentioning that the visor is a positive with Aidan O’Brien-trained runners (15 winners from 61 runners with an actual/expected of 1.23) and Patrick Prendergast also does well with it (21 from 138 runners for an actual/expected of 1.16) so perhaps we will see more John Oxx-trained horses in it going forward.

 

Hood

Use of hood, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

Use of hood, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

Like the visor, hoods are still not all that widely-used but Edward Lynam is a name that interests me here as the hood is the piece of headgear that his horses run best in; his actual/expected rates with blinkers, cheekpieces and visors are 0.63, 0.74 and 0.45 respectively which jumps to 1.03 with the hood. That would fit with his reputation as a trainer of sprinters.

Garvan Donnelly is the name that doesn’t make the top 30 Irish trainers in the period covered but he does well with his hooded runners (10 winners from 85 runners with an A/E of 1.2) while last mention must go to the blinker king Andy Slattery whose horses have not responded well to the hood (1/41 with an A/E of 0.21).

- TK

Dave Renham: Top jockeys’ pace profiles

/in /by

In this article I will revisit my love of pace in horse racing, focusing again on jockeys – more specifically the top 10 jockeys in terms of strike rate, writes Dave Renham. My first article on jockeys focused mainly on how they had performed on front runners – this article is a broader piece looking at all running styles. The data presented herein were produced from the excellent Query Tool, a part of Geegeez Gold.

 

Recap

To recap, on the Geegeez website the pace data is split into four categories - Led, Prominent, Mid Division and Held Up. Here is a breakdown on what they essentially mean:

Led – horses that lead early, usually within the first furlong or so; or horses that dispute or fight for the early lead;

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

Mid Division – horses that race mid pack;

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

On Geegeez these running/pace styles have a number assigned to them – led (4), prominent (3), mid division (2) and held up (1). This helps number crunchers like me when it comes to research.

 

Overview

For this article I have looked at a large period of data (1/1/14 to 6/7/19) including both turf and all weather racing (UK only). I have initially looked at all races and all distances (handicaps and non-handicaps).

The jockeys in focus are shown in the table below alongside their overall record in all races and with all running styles combined. They are listed in alphabetical order:

Top 10 UK Jockeys, Overall Performance 1st Jan 2014 - 6th July 2019

Top 10 UK Jockeys, Overall Performance 1st Jan 2014 - 6th July 2019

 

Below are are some base figures from which to work and to use as a comparison when breaking the jockey data down. In this table are the aggregate figures for all jockeys in terms of their record with different pace/running styles*:

*NB The difference between the 36,467 runs in the first (jockey) table and the 35,792 runs in the second (pace) table is accounted for by runs which are deemed not possible to score from the in-running comment. Geegeez Gold's database currently has around 96% coverage of pace scores overall, whereas in these samples the coverage is a little over 98%.

Aggregate performance of top ten jockeys, by run style, all scored flat runners 1/1/14-6/7/19

Aggregate performance of top ten jockeys, by run style, all scored flat runners 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

Those who have read previous articles on pace will know both that more races are won from the front than any other position, and that it is much easier to win from the front over shorter distances. The pace results for all jockeys clearly indicate that the nearer to the front they ride the more likely they are to win. It is much harder in general to win from the back half of the field, a point worth taking away from this piece if it was not already ingrained in your betting thoughts.

 

Front Runners

Let us now look at how these jockeys fared individually when they took the early lead:

Top 10 Flat Jockeys, performance when leading, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Top 10 Flat Jockeys, performance when leading, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

Very good records for all riders as one might expect, but the higher A/E values for Atzeni, Buick, de Sousa and Tudhope catch the eye. In addition their strike rates and returns on investment are all above the average figure for the ten jockey superset. Let us break down their front running figures by distance. Firstly Andrea Atzeni:

Andrea Atzeni, Front Runners 1/1/14-6/7/19

Andrea Atzeni, performance on front runners, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Andrea Atzeni, performance on front runners, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Atzeni has stronger figures over sprint trips, as would be expected from what we know from previous pace articles on this site, but he is very solid at any distance (limited data over staying trips) - a good and successful jockey from the front, and a candidate to 'mark up' when riding a probably pace setter you like.

William Buick, Front Runners 1/1/14-6/7/19

Now William Buick:

William Buick, performance on front runners, 1/1/14-6/7/19

William Buick, performance on front runners, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Very strong figures from 5f up to 9f, more especially at sprint distances; but rock solid over any range.

 

Silvestre de Sousa, Front Runners 1/1/14-6/7/19

Onto de Sousa:

Silvestre de Sousa, performance on front runners, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Silvestre de Sousa, performance on front runners, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Personally I’m a big fan of de Sousa – I think he is a great rider from the front and to me he is an excellent judge of pace. His figures support that: very consistent across all distances and impressive A/E.

 

Danny Tudhope, Front Runners 1/1/14-6/7/19

Finally onto Danny Tudhope:

Danny Tudhope, performance on front runners, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Danny Tudhope, performance on front runners, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Tudhope’s figures are much better at shorter distances (9f or less), although the data for 10f+ is fairly limited.

 

A Frankie Snippet

Before moving on from front running data there is one more stat to share and that concerns Frankie Dettori. He seems a particularly good judge of pace in small fields when leading early.

In races of 6 or less runners, when Dettori has taken the early lead he has won just under 50% of the time (33 wins from 67 rides; A/E 1.28). Compare that with the overall figures for all top ten jockeys whose combined strike rate is 35% with an A/E index of 1.

 

Prominent Runners

Let us next review prominent runner data. Firstly for all ten jockeys side-by-side:

Top 10 Flat Jockeys, performance when racing prominently, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Top 10 Flat Jockeys, performance when racing prominently, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

Frankie Dettori, Prominent Runners 1/1/14-6/7/19

Again, that man Frankie Dettori’s figures are extremely solid when it comes to racing prominently. Solid but not profitable from a punting perspective. However, one area where Dettori seems to excel, when he races close to the pace, is in better class races, as the table below clearly shows:

Frankie Dettori, prominent runners by race class, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Frankie Dettori, prominent runners by race class, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

I suspect Frankie's strong record in Group and Listed races is due to the fact that he knows the horses he is riding at this higher level extremely well. Hence he is able to judge when to challenge from his pace tracking position. Noting these figures, it should also come as no surprise that Dettori has a much better record in non handicaps compared to handicaps as shown:

Frankie Dettori, prominent runners by handicap or non-hcap, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Frankie Dettori, prominent runners by handicap or non-hcap, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

Jim Crowley, Prominent Runners 1/1/14-6/7/19

Jim Crowley has the best A/E index as well as strong stats all round when he races his mounts prominently. Crowley seems to do best at middle to longer distances in this context: focusing  on races between 10 and 14 furlongs his record reads an impressive 103 wins from 419  rides (SR 24.6%) with an A/E index of 1.28. It is also worth mentioning that Crowley has a remarkable record when racing prominently at Nottingham, scoring 46% of the time (24 wins from 52 rides). Limited data yes, but interesting to note nonetheless.

 

Midfield Runners

Time to switch to the mid-division data for our top jockeys:

Top 10 Flat Jockeys, performance when racing midfield, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Top 10 Flat Jockeys, performance when racing midfield, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

As would be expected from our understanding of pace position and its impact on win prospects, there is significant drop for all riders; but Dettori, Moore and Tudhope retain reasonable records. Dettori remarkably scores over 24% of the time in races of 10f or more (23 wins from 94 rides; A/E 1.12); meanwhile Ryan Moore has done well when riding for Aidan O’Brien - shock, horror - with 19 wins and 18 places from 66 runners.

 

Held Up Runners

And so to the top ten jockey records when their horses have been held up off the pace. Here are the base figures:

Top 10 Flat Jockeys, performance on hold up horses, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Top 10 Flat Jockeys, performance on hold up horses, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

As with the midfield data these figures are relatively moderate. Rather than calling out our top riders, this highlights the difficulties jockeys face when riding waiting races. Not only have they got ground to make up on the front rank, but often they have to negotiate traffic problems when trying to do so. It should also be said that, within the 'hold up' dataset are horses who may be green/unfancied in their early starts or for whom it is a case of 'not today'.

It is interesting when looking at bigger field data for these jockeys with all running/pace styles considered. In races of 16 or more they still win 18.1% of the time on front runners, but on hold up horses this drops to just 6.7%. William Buick has a particularly poor record in these big field races on hold up horses scoring just 3 times in 77 attempts (SR 3.9%).

 

TJ Combo by Run Style

Finally in this piece I have looked at trainer / jockey combinations – reviewing the relationships with specific trainers for which each jockey has ridden the most. I have two columns which show the breakdown by pace/running style and the relevant pace percentages for each pace/running style. For example if a jockey had ridden 200 times for the trainer and led in 46 of the races this would equate to 23%.

 

Andrea Atzeni / Roger Varian 

Atzeni/Varian Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Atzeni/Varian Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

It may be interesting to note that the Atzeni / Varian combination do not seem great fans of sending horses out into an early lead, with little more than 10% of their partnership being asked to dictate. They seem to be much happier tracking the pace.

 

William Buick / Charlie Appleby 

Buick / Appleby Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Buick / Appleby Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

The Buick / Appleby pairing has an excellent record when sending out their runners to the front early on – over 40% have gone onto win. It comes as no surprise therefore that they have taken an early lead in just under 1 in every 5 races, almost twice as often as Atzeni/Varian by contrast.

 

Jim Crowley / Charles Hills 

Crowley / Hills Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Crowley / Hills Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

I wonder if the data connected with hold up horses for this combination is known to either Crowley or Hills. Surely if they saw these stats they would NOT hold up 33.3% of their runners! Having said that, there's a strong possibility that many of these are immature types running for experience: an A/E of 0.53, while pretty mediocre, suggests that not a huge amount more of these are expected by connections to win. Nevertheless, it's a big red light for such runners.

 

Frankie Dettori / John Gosden 

Dettori / Gosden Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Dettori / Gosden Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

Check out these two masters of their respective crafts: strong stats throughout as one might expect. Johnny G front runners with Frankie on board will keep the wolf from the door!

 

James Doyle / Charlie Appleby

Doyle / Appleby Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Doyle / Appleby Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

As with the Buick / Appleby combination we see a decent percentage of runners that take an early lead (20.56%). In addition, a very high percentage race prominently for this combination (44.24%). However, the profit/loss figures are less impressive, making them avoidable if not necessarily opposable. 

 

Adam Kirby / Clive Cox

Kirby / Cox Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Kirby / Cox Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

A first mention for Adam Kirby, who has demonstrated strong ability aboard front runners, particularly for Clive Cox with whom a high A/E index of 1.39 is bankable. Kirby is a hard man to pass on the front end!

 

Ryan Moore / Sir Michael Stoute

Moore / Stoute Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Moore / Stoute Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

A good strike rate for hold up horses, but this is probably more down to the fact that Sir Michael has numerous top quality horses that could win regardless of running style (as well as Ryan Moore being a superlative jockey). Only 1 in 9 horses are sent  into an early lead, despite the impressive 35.9% strike rate from this approach.

 

Oisin Murphy / Andrew Balding

Murphy / Balding Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Murphy / Balding Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

The Murphy / Balding combo have done very well when taking the early lead or racing prominently. When backing a horse from this pairing I would want to be fairly sure that the horse was likely to race up with or close to the pace. 

 

Silvestre de Sousa / Mark Johnston

de Sousa / Johnston Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

de Sousa / Johnston Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

Anyone familiar with the Mark Johnston modus operandi will not be surprised to see the high percentage of front runners – just under 1 in 3 have been sent to the front early. This is far more than any of the other nine 'top pair' combinations in the sample. He is a trainer who understands the importance of racing up with the pace and, with his fit horses and a top pace judge in de Sousa, they are a front end dream team.

 

Danny Tudhope / David O’Meara

Tudhope / OMeara Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

Tudhope / OMeara Combination, by run style, 1/1/14-6/7/19

 

Excellent front running stats once again here, with supportive A/E and IV figures. Horses expected to adopt any other run style will not be marked up on the basis of pace, though they do still consistently more than might be expected (see IV column).

 

Summary

I hope some of the data / thoughts shared in this article will prove useful in your punting. My personal betting revolves around pace more than any other factor; be it for straight betting or in-running plays.

I firmly believe pace offers an edge that is difficult to find anywhere else these days, and readers are encouraged to acquire as many pace angles to support their betting as is practical. The Geegeez Query Tool (QT) is ideal for this, and angles such as the above can be saved within the QT and flagged both in a daily report and within the racecard.

[Editor's note: when using QT for pace, it is - of course - not possible to know which run style a horse will deploy before the race has been run. As such, angles should be set up with a note in the title, e.g. 'when leading', and the pace maps consulted for such potential qualifiers]

- DR

Geegeez Annual Survey 2019: Results

/in /by

I asked you last week for your thoughts on geegeez.co.uk and your betting in general. Almost 500 of you were kind enough to take a few minutes to reply, your responses forming the basis of what happens next on the site.

So, what exactly were your responses?

In what follows, I'll share much - but not all - of the summary data. Some elements are a tad 'commercially sensitive' (although in reality that's probably more me being 'personally sensitive' and a tad paranoid!), but I'm happy to share most by way of appreciation of you taking time to assist in your hundreds.

'Length of service'

As you can probably see from the header image, 80% of you have been visiting this 'ere corner of the webosphere for more than a year; which means a fifth are more recent arrivals. All, naturally, are equally welcome but that 'stick rate' is noteworthy.

 

Membership level

56% of you are Gold subscribers of one ilk or another, with a further 38% enjoying the benefits of free membership. A small handful (6%) are not registered as members at all, and I hope you guys will take the free plunge at some point when you feel there's enough value for your, ahem, no money! 😉

 

 

How long have you been a Gold subscriber?

Again, accentuating the 'stick rate' (i.e. how long you hang around once you've tried us out), almost three-quarters of you have subscribed to Gold for more than a year, and less than five per cent of respondents are three months or less into their Gold journey.

 

Would you recommend Gold to a friend?

This sort of 'L'Oreal' question - you know, the banal survey lines on hair colouring ads that say "72% of 56 people felt their hair had more bounce and sheen" - is really important to me. We work very hard to ensure you are happy with what we offer but, more than that, with the way we offer it and go about our business. It is quite hard for me to put in to words how much pride I derive from the below response, which needs no further embellishment. All I will say is that we'll continue to do our very best to over-deliver for you.

 

How often do you use...

It was no surprise that the most popular elements of Gold continue to be our cards, Instant Expert and pace features, as well as Stat of the Day.

But I was a little surprised that Full Form is not more popular - it should be in my opinion - and I'll have a think on how to make that powerful tab more accessible. Clearly, right now, it's not as easy to use as I thought!

Features like Query Tool are a little more niche, so I am quite pleasantly surprised at the amount of interest that one gets. We will be upgrading it towards the end of the year with some long promised - and long delayed - additional features.

 

Do you think Gold offers value for money?

Again, this is a very important yes/no question for me. I want to provide the best service I possibly can at the most accessible price point. There is a ridiculous amount of expense associated with Gold these days which means the subscription cost has to cover those outgoings. The quid pro quo is that we continue to develop what we offer, much of which is inspired by your suggestions, and we will always continue to do that while I'm in charge.

Anyway, you think we do a solid job of offering value for money. This figure is another home run as far as I'm concerned and, while some marketing men would immediately conclude "he's not charging enough", that's not the way I see the world. Never will be.

 

What new stuff would you like?

This bit was interesting, as it is always is, and drives our development agenda, as it always does.

 

 

I expected the Bet Finder keenness: after all, that's a fairly simple tool with a good amount of power to sift through a day's runners (a big job for even the most dedicated and professional punter).

I was less prepared for the appetite for sectional timing data. That one is much trickier for us to integrate - for reasons of licensing and then figuring out how best to present the information in the most consumable, usable format - but be assured that I hear you!

A somewhat distant third is data visualisation, with between a quarter and a third of you interested in each of Betfair odds data, some form of inbuilt betting automation and percentage of rivals beaten metrics.

All of these are feasible, though some are more difficult/expensive than others. Again, be assured that I hear you and that our priorities have been set by you.

 

If you had a magic wand, which single thing would you like to introduce to Geegeez Gold?

This was the first free format question, so aggregating the replies is tricky. But there's a thing called a word cloud, which emphasises that text which appears most frequently. Here's a word cloud for the answers to this question.

 

Do you read geegeez.co.uk tipster reviews?

One of the things which is not quite so congruent with where geegeez is now compared to where it was when the site started in 2008 is the review content. Originally this was a review site, with a few of my own products, but more recently we've gone down a different path focusing on 'manufacturing' data into something of value.

I was toying with the idea of shelving the tipster review side of things. Until I read your responses to this question, which were a genuine eye opener.

I still feel we're not quite right in terms of the co-habitation of the Gold side and the review side, and that needs more thought from me. But we'll certainly continue to provide content that many of you look to.

 

How often do you read the following?

The editorial shape of the site has changed considerably in the past 12-18 months. We've done away with daily news content, recognising that we simply cannot compete with the dedicated news desks of many online publications. Frankly, if you want to read about a failed dope test or a jockey injury or whatever, you are far more likely to head to Racing Post or ATR or wherever. We are not resourced for that.

Where we can - and do - compete is with data-driven incisive deployable research: so called 'longer reads'. The likes of Dave Renham's pace pieces and Jon Shenton's number crunchers are well received by a majority of respondents.

On the editorial side of things, we're probably not quite hitting your mark currently. This was another thing which came as a mild surprise: I read everything on the site and I love things like Social Discourse, which give me a quick digest of the biggest races around the world in the past week as well as some of the major talking points.

But we've some work to do to draw you in, dear reader (as I used to begin every post when I first started online on another little site 14 years ago!).

This is the biggest head scratcher of the whole survey for me. I'm really not sure what to do. We could squirrel the blog away behind a link and have some other daily racing related content on the home page, and perhaps some of the editorial needs a rethink. I won't be in a rush to change things, but I am aware that we're not consistently where we want to be in terms of satisfying you.

 

Overall, what do you like *most* about geegeez.co.uk?

Another free format question. Word cloud inbound!

 

It's not always easy to see things in these type of displays but, believe me, they're a lot more readable than 335 individual responses to the question!

The big words on here are 'Instant Expert', 'racecards', 'ease' [of use], 'honest', 'everything', 'depth', 'angles', 'pace', 'reports', and so on.

This is very awesome. Thank you!

But, of course, as sure as night follows day...

 

Overall, what do you like *least* about geegeez.co.uk?

Over to the lexic0-cumulostratus...

This was a harder one to answer in one or two words if there is something not liked. So, while many people gratifyingly replied 'nothing', there is plenty to take from the slightly longer form answers - usually specific irritations, many of which we can address. Minor irritations start wars eventually!

I'll work through them and add the ones I think we can deal with to our 'small changes' workstack.

 

On which social media do you follow geegeez.co.uk?

We're not massive on facebook. Or on twitter for that matter. But I/we do a bit more on the tweetie than the book of bipolar faces (no offence intended, but it does tend to show humanity at one extreme or the other: I've found it increasingly hard work in the last year and rarely go there now. Just a personal view! Twitter also can be a cesspit of rage, where keyboard warriors go to 'out-dickhead' each other, but it has more intrinsic news value for me).

Anyway, a third of you follow us on twitter and only an eighth or so on facebook. Most of you can't be doing with that social stuff, which is probably related to demographics, a serendipitous segue if ever there was one...

 

In which decade were you born?

One of my favourite questions, as it enables me to see the changing face of geegeez visitors over the years. We've always attracted a more experienced reader, something which the sport as a whole aligns with. The challenge for everyone in racing, then, is not to ignore those who are our current lifeblood but to simultaneously pivot to a younger audience who will be the experienced players a generation from now. That is a difficult challenge for many reasons, but essentially because the two groups are almost different breeds of human in how they consume information, spend their time, and spend their money.

I'll stop short of saying it's not my problem, because it actually is, in the microcosm of this site; and items such as Social Discourse are an attempt to draw a new audience to the game.

Now I'm off on one, indulge me a moment more: racing's insatiable infatuation with short-termism could be its undoing. The funding of the sport via operators whose only priority is mug punters with disposable income - themselves disposable customers - is patently unsustainable. The marketing team behind getting people on to racecourses are fixated with the horse and the big day. Nothing wrong with either of those per se, but there's a denial of the betting element in the conversation. And it is that element which funds the sport.

The regulator's persecution complex, allied to its ability to self-harm, frequently puts it in a position of defence, when the strongest form of defence has always been attack - or at least holding one's ground with confidence.

There is so much work to be done to encourage future generations into our brilliant sport, but the crushing levels of self-interest across the major stakeholder groups are facilitating what may soon be irreparable damage to racing.

*puts soapbox away*

Right, where was I? Ah yes, in which decade were you born?

 

 

More than 48% of respondents were born in the 1950's or earlier. That is, around half of readers are 60+. About a third of you are in your fifties, which means just less than a quarter are younger than 50.

Or, put another way, more than three-quarters of geegeez.co.uk site visitors are 50+.

This is true of racing as a whole. A recent HBF survey reported similar findings.

It is a genuine concern, which is not being addressing anything like fully enough in the wider context.

All that said, we actually have a few more younger subscribers than has historically been the case; and, of course, everyone is welcome here, regardless of age, gender or anything else. Which leads nicely on to...

 

Gender

Again, racing has a big problem here. Its core demographic is almost its only demographic: male, 50+

I'm not picking on you, by the way. I'll be 50 in a couple of years and should still be male then.

I'm also white European, and I really don't want to go there - hence no ethnicity question, but look at the human mix in other sports and look at the uniform crowds at race meetings in UK.

It. Really. Needs. To. Change. Soon. Or else.

 

 

 

How long have you been betting on horses?

This is an important question for me, because I know that, generally speaking, newcomers to betting on racing don't pay for information. They will use the free provisions elsewhere until they either fall out of love with the game or realise there is more to know than is being provided by what might legitimately be termed thin content hubs for bookmaker affiliates. Oops, another soapbox moment.

So it's appropriate that most geegeez visitors are more experienced bettors. All are equally welcome but we do tend to cater to those who want to dig a little more deeply, and to ask a few more pointed questions of the form book.

 

Conclusions

As always, I have been enlightened and informed, as well as instructed regarding who you are and what you want. This is not an exercise in academia but, rather, a targeted attempt to establish the immediate future direction of the site.

We are already working on your feedback and I hope to have a big announcement to make in the coming weeks about some exciting new content.

So, thank you for your contributions to the survey, and watch this space!

Matt

Your first 30 days for just £1