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.
In today's video, you can catch a first glimpse of not one, but two, new things!
First off, want to know where geegeez.co.uk is now based? The introduction to this video reveals all - fancy Italian coffee shop included 🙂
More importantly (perhaps, what is more important than coffee?!), today I reveal for the first time how Gold subscribers will be able to interact with the sectional data we're soon to publish.
Please don't worry if you're new to sectional content, and/or if it doesn't really make sense at this stage. Over the next year and beyond I/we will be doing lots to bring certain sectional scenarios to life so that you not only understand what the data are saying, but also when they're saying something notable in the context of today's race.
I'm not a sectional expert; rather, I'm a publisher and a student of (old style) form looking to cut my teeth in this new time-based world. It will be an interesting journey for all of us, and it starts for you - if you want it to - with the video below...
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/sectionalsquid.png320830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2019-12-12 12:06:592019-12-12 12:06:59Video: Sectional Data Overview
Sectional timing has finally become a thing in British racing having been a staple around the globe for - literally - decades. In this post, we'll explore what sectional timing is and, more to the point, for what it can be used in the racing and betting context.
What is sectional timing?
Sectional timing is, as the name suggests, a record of how fast something happened within a part of a race. In Formula 1 or track and field, this would be lap times within an overall race time; in skiing or cycling time trials, it would be the time a competitor took within a specific segment - or section - of the race.
In all cases, it is a snippet of information about a chunk of a race which can be used to broaden our understanding of how a competitor is performing, or has performed. In and of itself, sectional timing is no more than that.
By collecting this information for lots of similar events, however, we can start to build up a picture of how to do things optimally, which inevitably means how to win more often.
Why bother with sectional timing?
Let's take a stupid example. Like, a really stupid example. Let's say I was going to run a marathon (already pretty stupid), and let's further say that I decide to sprint the first 200 metres. How do you suppose the remaining 26 miles 185 yards are going to go for me? Not well; I've blown much of my available energy before the race has even started.
Now let's take a slightly more real world example, the 2018 Arkle Chase won by Footpad. Even if you don't watch the video, much of what you need to know about this race is shown in the still image below. Petit Mouchoir (purple Gigginstown colours) and Saint Calvados (white, blue, red Brooks family colours) did something not far removed from my preposterous marathon analogy above.
Guess what happened to the 4/1 third- and 11/4 second-favourites respectively?
They were absolutely whacked by the finish, allowing Footpad - in the green, running at a much more sensible, and sustainable, speed - to win as he liked. Second home was Brain Power, white and black colours, and also restrained away from the duel ahead.
The two scrapping protagonists finished 15 lengths third and 53 lengths fourth of five, only beating a totally outclassed rival who jumped poorly.
After the race, the media went mad about Footpad's demolition job: here we had the new Champion Chase favourite, the next generation of untouchable speed chaser...
Only we didn't. And, with a stopwatch (or even a bit of common sense in a setup as blatant as this), it was obvious that this was not a coronation procession, but rather a case of one very capable horse benefiting from the lunacy inefficiency of two other very capable horses and their human support acts.
Footpad did go on to win the equivalent Grade 1 at Punchestown as the 2/5 favourite on his next start. But there he beat a broken Petit Mouchoir - who'd also rocked up at Aintree in between times - and a gaggle of Grade 3 (at best) rivals. Thereafter he was beaten on all three starts in what should have been his breakthrough season in non-novice company. On each occasion he was sent off favourite, twice at evens or shorter. Connections ultimately swerved Altior and the Champion Chase in favour of the Ryanair, in which Footpad finished a distant eighth of twelve.
Even allowing for a solid race in the middle of that trio, he was still beaten by an 11-year-old called Simply Ned that day.
Back to sectional timing, and what it would have told us about that race. In point of fact, it told us that Footpad ran extremely fast. But he also ran extremely efficiently as a result of sitting off the crazy fractions set by Petit Mouch and Saint C. He was able to maintain his consistently quick pace where those two could not sustain their overly rapid early dash.
Subsequently, in more sensibly run contests, Footpad was less able to bring his high-cruising one pace to bear: the notion that he quickened in the Arkle is plain wrong, he merely slowed down far less markedly than his main rivals on the prevailing heavy ground.
But still we've not got to the nub: why bother with sectional timing?
Because, at the most fundamental level, it helps us to understand what happened far more reliably than our eyes. Sectional information acts as a permanent record where our eyes / brains have a more temporary or transient ability to capture, store and re-process such intel across a wide range of races.
And, most importantly, the collection and collation of this timing data enables us to make inferences that were hitherto not possible, or at least to make them with more certainty and/or confidence.
If we know that an unexposed two-year-old was all at sea early but covered the last two furlongs in a very quick, relatively, time that is worth noting. All the more so if the horse in question didn't win the race and may not be obvious to the betting public.
If we know that an exposed handicapper invariably runs his best races when recording even fractions off an overly fast pace, and the pace map suggests plenty of early zip today, that is very much worth noting.
If we know a horse like Footpad had a perfect setup to bring his A game, and that such a scenario is unlikely to present itself too often, we can risk taking a chunk out of the market by betting against him subsequently. [By the way, I really like Footpad; for him to do what he did in the Arkle having absolutely walked through one of the fences on the way round was awesome. But my affection for the game and its warriors resides in a separate compartment - let's call it my heart - to the one from where my punting intent manifests, and rarely the twain doth meet].
How can I use sectional timing?
As with all pieces of the puzzle, the most important thing to say is that you don't have to use sectional data to make good betting decisions. If you currently get on just fine using form profiling, trainer patterns, pace/draw, or any other methodology, feel free to carry on regardless.
But, just as I have long banged the drum for the value of a greater awareness of early pace in races, I think sectional information takes us to another level of comprehension of what happened and why - and, far more importantly, perhaps, what might (or might not) happen today as a consequence of what we understand of the previous days.
If you already use the geegeez pace maps, sectional timing information will help you understand more fully what happened. It will contextualise one horse's performance in the race macro. And that will help you make better, more informed betting decisions.
Why are you telling me all this?
Two reasons, one narrow and one broad. Broadly speaking, knowledge is power when betting. A company called Total Performance Data has been recording sectional timing information for more than three years at some of the all-weather tracks. They have more recently extended their coverage to all of Sky Sports Racing's tracks (with the exception of Ascot).
Racing TV's umbrella company, Racecourse Media Group (RMG), has - via its own supplier, CourseTrack - also been gathering sectional timing information since late summer.
A year from now sectional timing data will be available for all tracks in UK (with the possible exception of Chelmsford) and, via the specialist racing channels first - but with some noteworthy interjections in terrestrial coverage - the language of sectionals and their implications will find their way into the conversation.
Five years from now, sectional data will be mainstream. Talk of how races will be run will be fundamental cornerstones of the form debate, rather than the last word before a race goes off: "xyz is lining up at the front of the field and he looks like he might lead".
The more narrow point is that geegeez.co.uk will soon start publishing sectional timing information in its Gold racecards. It won't clutter the view for those who have no intention of engaging with it (yet), but it will be there for Gold subscribers of a more curious / time-based nature.
Here are some artist's impressions of how things might look:
Full Result
Full Form
Cards Inline
What next?
At some point before Christmas, sectional timing information for Total Performance Data / Sky Sports Racing tracks will appear within the Geegeez Gold racecards. It will be switched 'off' as default, but with options in your My Geegeez profile to turn it on, either in visual or data format.
Sectional data will be part of the existing Gold provision at least until the end of 2020, after which it may become a paid 'add on' for those who derive value from it. (This content does not come cheap, even before the months of development time/cost have been factored in, and it's been something of a gamble to take it on. That is my problem, of course, and we'll see how things go, but I want to be clear at the outset about the potential to charge separately for this at some point far down the line. Fair enough?)
Alongside the release of sectional data on site, there will be a number of explainer videos and a section (no pun intended) in the User Guide to help you get your feet under the table.
Thereafter, we'll have regular editorial picking up on races of interest from the previous week or fortnight. Sometimes these will be big races, and sometimes they will be races which might have otherwise snuck under the radar.
Super Important
One really important point in closing: I am not by any manner of means expert in inferring sectional content. I know plenty about running lines and points of call from my exposure to US racing, and I have got up together on such as finishing speed percentages and pars more recently as a result of grappling with their inner workings to help my developers.
I am still learning how best to infer the data, and how best to use it for punting purposes. To that end, I very much welcome comments from those who maybe already use this intel from other sources. And, also to that end, I very much welcome your tolerance if/when I/we make a mistake in presentation.
When the sectional content arrives on site it will be in BETA mode. That means it might be imperfect, and I welcome your support in resolving any glitches.
This is an innovative new frontier as far as British racing - and geegeez.co.uk coverage of it from a form perspective - is concerned. I'm excited to see where it takes us...
Matt
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/matterhorn_wissahickon_AW_Classic.jpg318830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2019-11-29 09:14:142019-11-29 09:14:31What is the point of sectional timing in horse racing?
You may have missed the announcements recently that a new team has taken over the UK tote. They have a progressive outlook and some exciting plans in train for the near future; but their first foray is the revival of a much missed old favourite, the Ten to Follow competition.
The idea is simple: you pick ten horses which score points based on various things, such as the class of race they win and their winning tote dividend. Further details on that are below.
There are prizes down to 100th place in the main game, and there is also a free to play game with a £10,000 first prize. Whoop!
As well as that, I'm given to understand that the tote guys are working super hard to get league functionality up and running before the competition starts this weekend. Assuming that happens, there will also be prizes for the winners of the geegeez league. I will of course keep you updated on progress there.
For now though, here's everything you need to know...
Ten to Follow: What is it?
The Ten to Follow (TTF) was a fondly-remembered paper-based competition run for many years as a joint venture between (the old) tote and Racing Post. It disbanded maybe ten years ago, and was sorely missed, not least by me (even though I never got that close to the top of the leaderboard).
With technology moving forward apace in the interim, the competition has returned and is now a digital game, making entry and administration much easier.
The aim of TTF is to score as many points as you can from your 'stable' of ten horses. Points are scored for winning - and in some cases, running well in - races from this Saturday 30th November through to Saturday April 25th 2020 (bet365 day at Sandown, the official season end). All National Hunt races run in UK and Ireland count for scoring purposes; races run in France or elsewhere overseas do not count, nor do flat races or point to points.
The competition is open only to residents of UK and Northern Ireland this year (admin restrictions, sigh).
What can I win?
There are a number of prizes, the headlines for which are as follows.
The main game, which costs £5 per entry, has a guaranteed minimum first prize of £175,000. One hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds. Nice. There is a further £75,000 minimum guaranteed to be shared between 2nd and 100th places, with the 10th place finisher guaranteed at least £1,500.
As well as the main game, there is a free to enter version. Here, there are four monthly £1,000 prizes as well as a main prize of £10,000 to the winner. Pretty good for free entry!
And, as well as the prizes sponsored by tote, if the league functionality is up and running, we'll have a geegeez league and that will have some awesome prizes too. I'm planning to offer the winner of the free geegeez league, a year's free access to Geegeez Gold; and the winner of the main game geegeez league, a lifetime Gold membership. This, again, assumes that it will be possible to differentiate between the two in the not-yet-available league setup. Watch this space.
UPDATE - LEAGUES NOW AVAILABLE. HERE'S HOW TO JOIN THE GEEGEEZ SUPER LEAGUE
Once you've registered your account, click the Ten to Follow link and create your stable.
Unlike Fantasy Football, there are no values associated with horses, so you can pick the very top horses without fear of over-spending. And there are no concerns of financial impropriety as with the likes of Supreme Racing and Phoenix Thoroughbreds, the brazened toads. I'll share my stable in a second.
This video shows you how to register and choose a stable. There is no sound, which will be a pleasant discovery for many of you who have heard my 'dulcet tones' before!
Scoring Points
Remember Jim Davidson and John Virgo on Big Break back in the day? Jim would say, "The object of the game is", and John would say, in his deadpan monotone, "pot as many balls as you can".
This is largely the Fantasy Racing equivalent: score as many points as you can, which can be loosely translated as win as many races - ideally big races, and at big prices - as you can.
Here are the specifics:
A Grade 1 is worth 25 points
A Grade 2 is worth 20 points
A Grade 3 is worth 15 points
Any Listed race is worth 12 points
Any other race is worth 10 points
As well as those general point rules, there are 25 bonus races, starting with the Hennessy (Ladbrokes Trophy) this week and finishing with the bet365 Gold Cup on the last day of the season, with most of the Championship races at Cheltenham and Aintree in between.
These bonus races score an extra 25 points if your horse wins and 12 points if it finishes second.
Finally, you have a notional £1 e/w tote bet staked on all runners and that dividend is added to your score.
So, for example, if you'd had Clan Des Obeaux in your team last season, his King George win would have netted you the following points:
Grade 1 win = 25 points
Bonus race win = 25 points
£1 tote win = 14.1 points
£1 tote place = 3.8 points
Total = 67.9 points
The management summary is, try to pick horses capable of winning the biggest races in the season; and try to unearth one or two that have a chance at a bigger price. (These will be selected by less people and are likely to pay a bigger tote dividend if you're right)
Boring stuff you need to know
A couple of key points I need to share, because you need to know:
- This competition is open to UK and Northern Ireland residents aged 18+ only
- geegeez.co.uk is a promotional partner of tote Ten to Follow
- This competition will be a lot of fun, and in my view you should at least enter the free game if you're eligible
- Er, that's it
My 'A' Team, and some tactics
I've entered a couple of teams already, and they adhere to the following tactical principles.
I wanted coverage across a good number of the Championship events at Cheltenham
I wanted to take a few chances away from the most obvious (i.e. ante post favourites) in those races
I wanted hurdlers and chasers with greater depth in the latter group
Here's my squad:
Obviously, picking the same ten as me will mean that the very best you can hope for is to share your prize with me (and maybe others).
[As an aside, can you image the devastation up and down the country if, one day, the winning lottery numbers are 1-2-3-4-5-6 ? 10,000 winners who get precisely what they deserve, about a 'bag of sand' each!]
Given my somewhat underwhelming history in the competition, I would not advise such a play, but it's a free country and all that..!
What next?
I think I've covered everything, but if not, do leave a comment below and I'll get you an answer prontissimo.
All that remains is for you to get registered and get your stable in before midday on Saturday, when entries close.
Good luck, and I hope you finished second (assuming I win!) 😉
Matt
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/toteTTF.png320830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2019-11-26 12:28:512019-11-28 18:18:59How to Play the Ten to Follow
After a recent focus on some of the UK’s All-Weather courses it’s time to adjust the radar to a little bit of National Hunt racing (I’ll return to the remaining AW tracks of Wolves and Lingfield in due course), writes Jon Shenton. For this edition, I’ve chosen the Staffordshire venue of Uttoxeter to focus upon, the reason being that, based on a quick query (run in Query Tool), this course has hosted the most races in the last few years. More races equals more data, and more data sometimes equals better inferences.
Uttoxeter is probably best known for the second longest race in the UK calendar, the 4m2f Midlands National. The course offers a year-round jumping programme, with 25 scheduled meetings per annum. The summer jewel in the crown is the prestigious and valuable Listed race, the Summer Cup.
Course Map
The course is left-handed and relatively sharp in nature. It is seemingly synonymous with punishing winter ground meaning the track has a reputation for suiting stamina-laden types. Although, given its relative sharpness, speed is possibly an undervalued commodity, especially on the typically firmer ground during the summer. A single circuit is approximately 1 mile 3 furlongs in length, with an unusual kink in the back straight.
Uttoxeter Trainers
We start, as usual, with a perusal of trainer performance as a way into developing betting opportunities at the track. The table below shows the record of each yard that has had 50 or more runners at the track since 2012, at a starting price of 20/1 or shorter, and with a minimum of 10 victories over that period.
There is some promise in these numbers, with the trio at the top of the list possessing phenomenal records at the track. The IV data confirm that runners from these stables are approximately 2.5 to 3 times more likely to prevail than the average at this venue, and all at a healthy margin, based on A/E or plain old profit and loss.
The Sue Smith, Evan Williams and Harry Fry data also would merit further investigation should time and word count permit, which it doesn’t for this edition, sadly!
Warren Greatrex
For Warren Gretrex, things aren’t quite as rosy as they might seem from the headline figures, as will become clear below. Firstly, it is notable that his yard hasn’t had a single winner at the course at odds above 10/1. I haven’t shown workings but if you can take that on trust, of the remaining 78 runners we get the following profile by splitting the info by calendar year.
As can be seen, performance has dipped in 2018, and thus far in 2019. In fact, there was not even a solitary placed animal this year until Elleon won on the 16th November at a welcome SP of 15/2. [As was noted in this article, the Greatrex yard suffered a big dip in fortune last campaign, and will hopefully revert to type this term].
Any projected angle from this high-level data comes with a wealth warning then. Taking the overall data at face value, 24 winners from 78 runs, a strike rate of over 30% and a reasonable return all appears to be a rock-solid no-brainer. But two victories from 22 over the last couple of years removes some of the lustre of the overall picture.
Of course, it’s possibly attributable to the usual variance and randomness (as could the over-performance of earlier years be) given the acutely small sample size. It’s the beauty / challenge / pointlessness of using data such as this to base punting on depending on your viewpoint. I’m firmly in the beauty & challenge camp if that’s not clear enough already.
Presenting the data differently gives an alternative view. The graph below shows the cumulative return if you had put a £1 win single on every Greatrex runner with an SP of 10/1 or shorter at Uttoxeter since 2012.
It’s not a bad picture is it? In the context of the overall numbers the relative downturn in 2018/19 of 2/22 winners doesn’t look too damaging. The key question is, what is going to happen from today onwards? Clearly nobody knows for sure, but I’d be inclined to treat this data positively, at least for the time being, and especially in light of the recent winner.
However, if that’s not convincing enough, by looking a bit deeper under the surface there are opportunities to potentially improve the chances of success and lessen the risk based on historical data.
The table below shows track performance by the race code/type data for the yard at the course.
Did you spot it? One of those lines is very striking indeed! Chase numbers are fine; hurdle data are competitive, but not micro material. However, the National Hunt Flat race data is exceptional and irrefutably worth tracking. Sadly, for us, the aforementioned Elleon delivered the goods recently meaning a good betting opportunity was missed. The SP of 15/2 is the largest priced winner in the dataset just to add a little bit of salt to the wound! It does mean that for angle purposes a cap of 8/1 on SP will be used for Uttoxeter runners.
The Greatrex bumper (NHF) record at Uttoxeter is particularly strong, so it is a sensible step to check if the yard performs well in such races generally, or particularly at the Staffordshire venue. Analysing results by course suggests there is some definite further interest. The below table offers insight:
There is no doubt that performance is strong at the top four listed tracks, arguably five if including Ffos Las. A/E’s of the quartet at the head of the table are all above or equal to 1.22, a nice benchmark.
Is it interesting or coincidence that it could be argued that the top three are all geographically close to the trainer's base (in relative terms)? Or is it interesting that all the high-performing tracks have similarities in being left-handed sharpish constitutions? Indeed, all of the top five are left-handed circuits.
The absolute, sacrosanct rule on angle building is that every filter used to compile the angle is explainable and must make at least some degree of sense. I am aware enough to recognise entirely that the above conjecture may be stretching that point, but I have the gut feel that there is something worth noting here. Probably more based on the track layout similarities than location; after all, Lambourn to Uttoxeter is a bit of a schlep.
However, I’ll be watching Greatrex bumper entries at these tracks with great (and probably financial) interest over the coming months.
Incidentally no winners have been delivered at SP’s of greater than 15/2 in this data. While that’s risky and arguably somewhat convenient, for pure angle building I’m only going to consider those runners at 8/1 or shorter (but will personally monitor all).
The bottom line is, as always, that it is your call how - and indeed if - to play: the numbers presented are factual, but whether they are strong enough or reasoned enough for you to part with your hard earned is your choice. Caveat emptor!
Suggestions
Back Warren Greatrex horses at Uttoxeter in NHF races where the SP is 8/1 or shorter
Take note of all other Warren Greatrex runners at 10/1 or shorter at the course
If you feel so inclined, track or back Warren Greatrex runners in NHF at SP’s of 8/1 or shorter in races at Warwick, Stratford and Bangor in addition to Uttoxeter
Dan Skelton
It’s hardly new news that the Stratford-based operation has a prolific and rewarding record at the not-too-distant Staffordshire track; however, it’s always worth delving to establish if any deeper insights can be attained. The first port of call in this instance is by market price (it’s usually the first item I look at), and in the case of this intel there is some enthusiasm for a deeper dive.
The data tell us that shorter-priced animals outperform the market in terms of A/E, IV and profit (look at that 5.3 IV for animals sent off shorter than 2/1!), whilst the entrants who start at prices of 11/2 or greater just about hold their own. Shorter priced the better, then.
If a lower SP is counter-intuitively a good thing then analysing performance based on market position is a sensible step. There may be an angle containing the favourite, rather than just short priced animals.
An odds rank of 1 relates to the favourite, 2 is the second favourite and so on. It is crystal clear that a Skelton jolly at Uttoxeter is a very serious contender, with over half of them delivering, and recording an A/E of 1.29 to boot. Impressive stuff at such apparently such short prices. It proves that there can be value when fishing at the top of the market on occasion.
Obviously, knowing whether a horse is going to start at the top of the market is a bit of guesswork if you generally back the night before or early on the day of the race, but invariably you win some, you lose some and such things even themselves out over time.
Suggestion: Back Dan Skelton horses at Uttoxeter when they are positioned as SP favourites
Dr Richard Newland
Third on the trainer table is Dr. Richard Newland. The former GP and Grand National-winning trainer (2014, Pineau De Re) has an impressive record at Uttoxeter. However, focusing on the time of year gives a lot of clarity regarding when the real spotlight on his runners should occur.
The graph illustrates the volume of Newland runners at Uttoxeter, as well as the number of winners. There’s a pronounced focus on summer jumping at the track, particularly in the months of June and July.
This table shows the same data in more traditional format, with the usual supplementary info, as provided by geegeez.co.uk's Query Tool:
Admittedly, highlighting summer jumping prowess at this point in the year is terrible timing, but it’s worth keeping in cold storage until the warmer temperatures return to these lands. Again, Query Tool is your friend!
The summary version of all runners from May-Sep (inclusive) results in the below output.
That’s good enough but further optional sharpening could be attained as there is no runner that has won at odds of greater than 15/2 SP, albeit only from nine attempts (three of which placed).
I get a strong impression that there is more to find with this trainer. From a relatively small number of horses in training this is a yard worth tracking closely and getting to know in closer detail.
Suggestion:Back Dr Richard Newland horses at Uttoxeter over the summer months (May-September) at odds of 15/2 or shorter
*
Distance nuggets
As ever, let's have a quick hack around some of the race dynamics at the course.
Hurdle races – 2 miles
I’ve concentrated on hurdles primarily due to the volume of data; the chases are a little sparser in frequency so harder from which to draw even moderate conclusions. Initially, then, let's pick up the two-mile distance for larger field sizes (nine or greater) the following profile is generated:
The table illustrates the Impact Value (IV) performance of horses by the various underfoot conditions and by pace profile. The column “races” simply contains the number of races that relate to those going descriptions. This is included primarily to demonstrate the sample size of each data set so you can draw your own conclusions to the relevance when assessing a race.
The data clearly shows that front end pace is important and it’s better to be at the head than biding time in the relative back positions. This is a general truism for all races on all goings at all courses.
There is a suggestion that racing prominently is of greater importance as the ground becomes more testing, with the strongest two numbers in terms of IV relating to leading in Soft (1.81) and Heavy (2.55) conditions, abeit on smaller sample sizes. Making up ground from the cheap seats is tough in all conditions, especially so in the sticky stamina-sapping Staffordshire mud.
Hurdle races – 2m 4furlongs
The data for the two-and-a-half-mile trip is reasonably similar to it’s shorter two-mile counterpart, namely that leaders and prominent racers are generally favoured. The green-tinged data is on the right-hand side of the table where the speed is, the redder/orange numbers relating to horses who are ridden patiently is towards the left. There isn’t the same profile in terms of front-running mudlarks getting an even better time of it, perhaps stamina becomes of greater importance than track position over the extra half-mile. Irrespective of reasons or rationale, backing a horse that is likely to be in the leading ranks seems a sensible approach when assessing a race at this distance.
Hurdles - 3 miles
Finally, a focus on the longer distance of the 3-mile trip. The first thing to say is that there are fewer races at this distance, but there is no doubt that based on the information available, the box seat seems to have shifted towards the prominent racers, not the horses who cut out the running.
Whilst the front runners perform perfectly well on average, it seems logical that to lead without cover for this longer distance is a more difficult proposition. The low sample sizes do not help, but there is a flavour of it becoming increasingly difficult to make all as the ground gets more testing.
Broadly speaking the optimum position is tucked in nicely behind the leaders; however, based on the overall sample sizes it is not a strong conclusion. Taking the good ground data (where there is the biggest sample, 71 races) the pace profile is relatively flat in comparison to some of the numbers we’ve seen on other tracks. However, caution is advised on likely leaders in deeper underfoot conditions.
*
I hope that is of some use to you over the winter and beyond. Forget the Derby, I’m already looking forward to Dr. Newland at Uttoxeter next summer!
In my last article I examined pace in general in National Hunt racing, writes Dave Renham. I looked at some overview stats for all race types before focusing on chases, as the figures suggest these races offer the strongest front running edge. In this article I am going to focus on jockeys to see if there are any noteworthy patterns or trends from which we may be able to take advantage.
For new readers, when looking at pace I’m looking at the initial pace in a race and the position that horses take up early on. In National Hunt races I am generally focusing on the time between the start and the completion of the first obstacle, though it may be a slightly longer section than that sometimes. The pace section on geegeez.co.uk is the basis for my number crunching, and that can be found within any racecard in the PACE tab, as well as in its own tool, the Pace Analyser. The data is split into four run styles – Led (4), Prominent (3), Mid Division (2) and Held Up (1). The number in brackets is the pace score that is assigned to each run style. Hence the higher the score the nearer to the front a horse has been in the early stages of a race. I think it is important to note that these early positions tend to remain fairly similar for the first half of the race at least.
In terms of the position a horse takes up early in the race one could argue that the most influential factor is the jockey. In National Hunt races there are no starting stalls and hence it is up to the jockey how near to the front he/she is when the flag falls and the race starts. They also have a key influence in the first furlong, in terms of how quickly they want their horse to run and what position they want to be in the field. Now of course the trainer may have given the jockey instructions as to how they want the horse to be ridden so this can be a factor as well. Also, we need to appreciate that certain horses do have a preferred running style, and this will be taken into account by both trainer and jockey.
My starting point in terms of data is a look at the figures for all runners during the period of study (these are the same figures that were used at the start of the previous article). They give us base figures from which to work:
The advantage of racing up with or close to the pace is clear to see. However, I believe that this front running bias is still not fully recognised or appreciated by many trainers and jockeys.
Baseline established, I now want to look at jockey performance in more detail. As a starting point let us see which jockeys took the early lead the most (in % terms). I have included only jockeys who had at least 200 rides (all running styles) during the time frame specified. (For comparison purposes the average percentage figure for all jockeys is just under 16%.)
Matt Griffiths heads the list – he has ridden most for trainer Jeremy Scott and, when they team up together, he takes an early lead just over 30% of the time. Now these percentages are interesting and useful for betting / trading purposes, but it is also important to appreciate how successful a jockey is when going to the front early. It is no good taking your horse to the front a significant proportion of the time, if you rarely go on to win the race.
Going back to Griffiths riding for Scott, of these front runners, 25% have gone on to win. Compare this to a 7% success rate on horses that are held up for this jockey/trainer combination. Hence it makes sense to look at the jockeys who have secured the highest win percentages on their respective front runners:
Harry Skelton has an exceptional 36.5% success rate on front runners. His win strike rate on front runners is similar across chases (37%), hurdles (36.1%) and bumpers (36.8%). In lower class races his strike rate increases further – in races of class 4 or 5 Skelton has produced a front running win percentage of 43.6%. For the record, Skelton rides primarily for his brother Dan and it seems this combination really appreciate the potential advantage front runners have.
Moving back to jockeys and how often they take the early lead, let us look at the jockeys who have led early less than 10% of the time (well below the average).
Top jockey Barry Geraghty, retained by leading owner JP McManus in Britain, has remarkably low figures – he has led early in just 11 races from a total of 533. I find that staggering. Of those 11 he won on 4 of them (36.4%). He does have an excellent strike rate on prominent runners (34.9%) and perhaps he just prefers tracking the pace rather than setting it. For the record, his win strike rate on horses that race mid pack is 14.2% and on hold up horses is 18.7%.
And finally for this article, I have created average pace figures for jockeys. Essentially, I have added up the pace scores of each jockey and then divided by the number of races they have ridden in. The higher the average score the more likely a jockey is to ride up with or close to the pace. The table below shows the top 40 jockeys in terms of average pace figure:
Danny Cook tops the list and is a jockey that I think is worth keeping an eye on if riding a horse that is likely to front run. He has a decent win record on front runners, and has even won from the front on 33/1 and 50/1 outsiders.
Of course, this type of article can only scratch the surface, but the Geegeez platform really allows you to go into much greater detail should you wish to. If you are keen to dig further, using Query Tool, expect it to really help your long term betting success; and it would be great if readers were happy to share their findings with other members on the forum or even in the comments below.
- Dave Renham
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/MattGriffiths_JeremyScott_DashelDrasher.jpg319830Dave Renhamhttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngDave Renham2019-11-07 19:57:202019-11-07 19:57:20An Overview of NH Jockey Pace Profiles
The 2019 Breeders' Cup returned to Santa Anita for the tenth time. Much of the preamble to the weekend was familiar, then, but this year there was a difference. A near palpable atmosphere of anxiety and introspection pervaded proceedings; and, in spite of forensic levels of veterinary scrutiny, BC36 was not to sail smoothly across its troubled waters. That story, amongst others, is recounted in these five takeways from the meeting.
1 JOSEPH & HIS AMASSING TECHNICOLOR PALMARES
Where were you in your career path when you were 26? For most of us mere mortals, college days were behind us and we were taking our first fledgling steps in a job or career. Joseph Patrick O'Brien, barely past the quarter century, has already summited a career in the saddle which began promisingly but perhaps little more with a piece of a three-way tie for the Irish Champion Apprentice title in 2010.
The following year, he enjoyed Classic success with Roderic O'Connor in the Irish 2000 Guineas, and rode another two UK or Irish Group 1 winners, the last of which was Camelot in the Racing Post Trophy. A fortnight after that Doncaster highlight, O'Brien raised his own bar by scoring aboard St Nicholas Abbey in a Churchill Downs edition of the the Breeders' Cup Turf at the age of 18.
2012 was Joseph's - and Camelot's - year as the pair won the first two legs of the Triple Crown, the 2000 Guineas and Derby, before being cruelly denied victory in the St Leger by a horse trained by the subsequently disgraced Mahmood al Zarooni who admitted charges of using performance enhancing drugs on his horses.
That year, 2012, Joseph proved he could do quantity as well as quality as he won his first Irish Jockeys' Championship, an award he retained with a record score in 2013.
By 2016, still aged just 23 - twenty-three! - he swapped the saddle for the demands of training and, to nobody's surprise, hit the ground running, his first Group 1 win coming in the Moyglare Stud Stakes of the same year with Intricately. [It was rumoured that he had also trained Ivanovich Gorbatov to win the Grade 1 Triumph Hurdle in March that year, but let's stick to published record].
As a trainer, in less than three years and at the age of 26, he already has an Irish Derby, a Melbourne Cup and now a Breeders' Cup win to his name. The game triumph of Iridessa - who bounced out of the stalls from box one and got a great position under Wayne Lordan - in the Filly and Mare Turf on Saturday was Europe's sole victory at the meeting, and made Joseph the youngest trainer to win a Breeders' Cup race.
Naturally, given his prior exploits aboard St Nick, he is also the youngest person to record a Breeders' Cup win as both a jockey and a trainer. The sole other member of that most exclusive of Breeders' Cup clubs is Freddie Head, the French horseman who won two multiple Miles with both Miesque (as a jockey, aged 40 and 41) and Goldikova (as a trainer, aged 61, 62 and 63). Chapeau to Freddie, but Joseph is emerging as an altogether different jus.
2 AIDAN OFER'BRIEN
While O'Brien Jr was further enhancing his CV, father Aidan was enduring what might legitimately be dubbed a minor crisis. To some that may sound preposterous, so allow a little context: this year, Aidan has trained 15 Group or Grade 1 winners, last year the international G1 tally was 14; but in 2017 it was 28, in 2016 it was 22 and in 2015 it was 17.
At such rarefied altitude and on such small sample sizes it is perfectly reasonable to account for the differential as the dreaded variance - statistical slings and arrows if you will. And that's probably right enough.
But, in the microcosm of the Breeders' Cup, Aidan has now gone 35 runners without a victory since Mendelssohn prevailed in the opening race at Del Mar, the Juvenile Turf, in 2017. Again, it's a small sample. And he was dealt the rummest of rum deals at the post position draw with almost all of his nine entries exiting a double digit stall.
But Bricks And Mortar won the Turf, with a troubled trip, from nine when Anthony van Dyck lost from five. In the same race, Mount Everest, presumed the pacemaker (which may be incorrect), fluffed the start and was never nearer than at the line. Uni won the Mile from stall 11 where Circus Maximus was drawn nine; Just Wonderful missed the kick and was never nearer than fifth in the Filly and Mare Turf from stall 11; Tango and Etoile, drawn eight and 14 respectively, finished eighth and tenth having both broken moderately and struggled to get track position; Arizona, drawn 12 in the Juvenile Turf, was slow at the gate and never nearer than his final position of fifth; Fort Myers ran respectably in seventh from 13 in the same race, though he too was no better than tenth as they passed the stands first time; and King Neptune actually broke alertly in the Juvenile Turf Sprint but wasn't persisted with for a position and entered the turn in seventh place before finishing eleventh.
What is the recurring theme? In fairness, there are two, and one of them is the draw, which is out of the hands of the trainer. The other is the number of times Aidan's horses - again, in fairness, most European horses - broke slowly and were simply in a borderline insurmountable position on a tight inner turf track which was riding like lightning. Even when the races were a little more tactical on the turf, a slow start meant as many as a dozen horses in a 4 x 3 or 3 x 4 phalanx ahead: it is very, very difficult to overcome a pedestrian beginning.
Aidan quite rightly says that he spends all year trying to get horses to settle and relax, and that is the way to win European races. But if a horse doesn't have early tactical toe in order to secure a position, it is almost game over in double-digit US fields. It has been suggested that perhaps he should use American jockeys who are more accustomed to pinging a horse from the gate but, firstly, it's not necessarily something a jockey can influence especially, and secondly, the local lads would generally need to take care not to spurn their bread and butter.
While chatting with one New York punter the somewhat harsh soubriquet Aidan Ofer'Brien was coined, ofer meaning zero for, as in zero for 35 since Mendelssohn in 2017. It is fantastic, and likely extremely important, that Ballydoyle continue to send top division horses to the meeting - it would be an event lighter on entries, far less interesting from a European perspective, and less compelling as a wagering proposition, too, if he didn't - but if they are to be more than making up the numbers, gate speed 101 looks in order. Here's hoping the peerless trainer of his generation reverts to his longer-term type at Keeneland in 2020.
3 THE TRACKS
It doesn't matter where you are in the world, if your horse is unsuited to conditions it is unlikely to win. So let's discuss the tracks, the already mentioned in despatches turf course first.
It was lightning fast. They haven't had meaningful rain in LA for six months, a fact evidenced by the desperately unfortunate wildfires that are raging in the north of the state. Sure they've watered the course and continued to hydrate it. But the temperatures have been 30C+ for much of the past fortnight and before. The water table is non-existent. It was suggested by a Clockers' Corner wag that, when going to inspect the turf track in white shoes, the horseman in question returned with green soles. Well that's one way to make brown turf look green!
Of course that's almost certainly just bluster - as easy on the ear as it is - but the fact remains that if you don't have a horse that can handle Bath firm, you probably don't have a horse for the race when the Cup heads west.
Another point on the turf track, specifically in relation to the Juvenile Turf Sprint. In its inaugural running in 2017 (on the undercard), Declarationofpeace - for Aidan O'Brien, in the opening race on the Saturday - led home a Euro superfecta from 'our' only four entries. The winner had the best Euro form around a turn, and was slowly away in a race run too fast, the pace collapsing.
Last year, when none of the Euro entries had winning form around a turn, we did no better than third. This year, although Europe did even less well, the best finisher - fifth-placed Dr Simpson, a rank outsider on the US tote at close to 60/1 - was two from two on turning tracks, by seven lengths at Chester and then in a Group 3 against the boys. She is also a fast starter. Although she wasn't good enough to win, that's the sort of horse you want for this gig. If Dr Simpson's trainer, Tom Dascombe, had sent lightning breaker and turning track specialist Kachy across, he would have been seriously interesting in the Turf Sprint.
In bigger fields and at longer trips, it is often the 'best trip' - that is, the horse which gets least interference excluding front runners whose record is terrible, that wins. There is so much traffic and misfortune to factor into pricing these races up from a value perspective that they are almost a blanket 'no bet'. The sensible approach to hardier punters is to back an American horse with a British bookmaker and hope for a good trip. Races like the Mile are peppered with big-priced winners through their history, Tourist (US horse, 11/1 US tote, 33/1 UK books), Karakontie (French, 29/1 US tote, 16/1 UK books) and Court Vision (US, 64/1 US tote, 50/1 UK books) being three since only 2011 in that particular event.
The DIRT track had been harrowed very deep, and rode slow. The Classic was a truly run race and it was won in a time of 2:02.80. The previous Santa Anita Classic, in 2016, was won in a time of 2:00.11, and the Santa Anita Classic's before that in 1:59.88, 2:00.72, 2:00.11, 2:00.32 (Zenyatta, Pro-Ride), 1:59.27 (Raven's Pass, Pro-Ride), 1:59.88, 2:00.83, and 2:00.40.
Appreciative that this is labouring the point but, to spell it out, the 2019 Classic was two seconds - something like eight lengths - slower than the next slowest of seven Santa Anita dirt Classics, excluding the slightly quicker Pro-Ride surface which was controversially installed and even more controversially ripped up again in and around 2008/9.
And yet Vino Rosso was given a legit number for his win. Timeform US had him on 133, six spots higher than the next best winner at the meeting; Beyer had him at 111, a point behind Mitole (his closest pursuer on the Timeform numbers). That's by way of reaffirming the slowness of the track.
There were good reasons for that, which we'll get to. But what it meant in racing terms was that it was extremely difficult to win from off the pace. You still needed stamina and no little class to get the job done, but only one horse - Blue Prize - was able to win from some way off the pace across the seven dirt races.
The best parallel for British and Irish bettors is that the surface was something akin to Southwell: deep, with serious kickback, where early speed is sustained more often than not and very little comes from far back. This year's Breeders' Cup was, for a lot of dirt race entries, like coming from a fast track qualifier at Lingfield, Chelmsford or Kempton to Finals Day on the Rolleston beach.
It was a necessary step to harrow the course that deep but, in many racing ways, an unsatisfactory one.
4 WELFARE
Here's why it was necessary. California is a liberal state and a perfect example of the emerging anti-racing sentiment we are seeing in Britain and in other jurisdictions around the world, notably Scandinavia. There is a war raging between traditionalists and revisionists inside of racing. It's a lop-sided skirmish outside of the bubble.
Governor Gavin Newsom in September called racing at Santa Anita "a disgrace". Newsom wasn't pulling any punches in this New York Times article where he was quoted as saying,
“What happened last year was unacceptable, and all of the excuses be damned. We own that going into the next season, and we’re going to have to do something about it. I’ll tell you, talk about a sport whose time is up unless they reform. That’s horse racing. Incredible abuses to these precious animals and the willingness to just to spit these animals out and literally take their lives is a disgrace.”
That was in response to news that more than thirty horses had been put down as a result of injuries sustained either training or racing at the Arcadia track. Despite the trash talk style (notably, emotive language like "precious animals"), there is plenty of substance behind this soundbite, politicians on both sides of the Atlantic now tapping into an animal welfare zeitgeist among their constituents. Indeed, California's senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein, is of the same view and has publicly expressed it.
That's obviously bad news for racing.
What is worse is that some of the reasons for fatalities may have been avoidable. I see three main factors as conspiring: a fashion for breeding precocity and speed at the expense of durability and stamina; over-training young horses whose limbs cannot yet sustain the level of work demanded of them; and the increasingly sophisticated use of medication to patch up injuries and/or supplement punishing training regimes.
Clearly I'm not a vet and I present the above as no more than conjecture - my take, if you like. I'd very much welcome an educated rebuffal of any or all from any reader qualified to do that.
For me there are two bottom lines on the racing welfare debate. Firstly, whilst fatalities are inevitable - a point racing has to defend explicitly and unequivocally - the current levels are very likely unsustainable. And not just in California, or even America as a whole.
Second, this is an extremely complex debate peppered with flexible morality codes. Anyone who feels vehemently one way or the other probably hasn't given the subject enough thought.
5 WHERE NEXT (LITERALLY) FOR BC?
It was in the aftermath of Governor Newsom's comments that extensive vetting was implemented ahead of this year's Breeders' Cup. That led to the high profile scratchings of Imperial Hint, Fleeting and Suedois among others, on veterinary advice. Last year at Churchill Downs, Polydream, favourite for the Mile at the time, was withdrawn under similar circumstances.
Thus, naturally but even more than ever, organisers were praying for an incident- and injury-free Breeders' Cup. They almost got it.
Going into the Classic, the final race of 14 across two absorbing days of pageantry and sport, horsemen and administrators alike would have been justifiably feeling like a job well done. Alas, for racing just now it seems, if it wasn't for bad luck it wouldn't have any luck at all.
The perfect Mongolian Saturday... in Kentucky. But not in Santa Anita
In amongst the millionaires and the billionaires and the silent powers of horse racing exist an ownership group called the Mongolian Stable and their trainer, Enebish Ganbat. They love their racing, are passionate about it, and share their passion with anyone who feels similarly. In 2015 at Keeneland, they enjoyed their greatest day as Mongolian Saturday won the Breeders' Cup Turf Sprint. He raced without Lasix, the near ubiquitous diuretic said to restrict the likelihood of a horse bleeding. He was the only horse in the field not to receive it.
These guys don't sit in a box quaffing Veuve; they are out in the cheap seats in full national dress posing for pictures and glad-handing anyone and everyone. They, and people like them, are what the sport needs.
In the Classic, they had sportingly supplemented Mongolian Groom, who had beaten Classic favourite McKinzie over the Santa Anita track in their respective final preps, and who it should be noted did run on Lasix.
Their horse broke well and was second throughout the first mile, a length off pace-setting War Of Will, with last day foe McKinzie right there as well. But disaster struck for Mongolian Groom, Mongolian Stable, Ganbat, the Breeders' Cup and American racing, as the horse suffered an injury to his left hind leg which could not be treated. Very sadly, he was taken into the horse ambulance and euthanized.
It was deeply distressing on so many counts, primarily for connections, whose love of the game and for their animals is more transparent than most top tier ownership collectives; and all the more so that the ramifications of this event, as another inquest will inevitably be held, will overshadow their own feelings of loss.
The next Breeders' Cup is in Keeneland, far from the madding Californian crowd, then nominally at Del Mar in 2021. But Del Mar is in Southern California, and Churchill Downs may again be on standby as it was reported to be earlier this year in case matters at Santa Anita became irreconcilable.
So yes, Keeneland and Del Mar have been officially unveiled for 2020 and 2021, but will the Breeders' Cup return to Santa Anita in 2022, as was widely expected? Indeed, in light of the political firestorm expected to play out in the state, the question may be whether the Breeders' Cup will ever return to Santa Anita.
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/BC_Aidan_Joseph.jpg319830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2019-11-04 22:45:402019-11-05 07:23:02Breeders’ Cup 2019: Five Takeaways
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.
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
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/sodslaw.jpg319830Jonny11https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngJonny112019-10-23 13:57:572020-06-02 10:13:40Punting Angles: Kempton Park
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.
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
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/SQF.png320830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2019-10-11 05:04:412019-10-11 06:15:20Silly Question Friday: The Gold Edition
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.
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
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/chelmsfordracecourse.jpg319830Jonny11https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngJonny112019-10-02 08:30:092019-10-02 08:30:09Punting Angles: Chelmsford City Racecourse Part 2
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 runnersfitting 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 expectednumber 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
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/SQF.png320830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2019-09-27 08:00:082019-09-27 10:41:43Silly Question Friday: Part 2
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
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/optimalcomplexitytheory.jpg320830TonyKeenanhttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngTonyKeenan2019-09-24 13:14:092019-09-24 13:14:09Tony Keenan: Focus for Optimal Betting Decisions
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).
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
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/SQF.png320830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2019-09-20 05:42:332019-09-20 08:22:48Silly Question Friday: Part 1
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 pacein 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).
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 chaseswith 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
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Hexham_chaser.jpg320820Dave Renhamhttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngDave Renham2019-09-17 09:22:222019-09-17 09:22:22More on Pace in NH Racing
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
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/chelmsfordracecourse.jpg319830Jonny11https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngJonny112019-09-06 16:11:542019-09-06 16:13:20Punting Angles: Chelmsford City Racecourse Part 1
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.
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/york_racecourse-1.jpg320826Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2019-08-20 15:03:412019-08-29 12:10:21York Ebor Stats: Draw, Pace and Trainer Profiles
geegeez.co.uk uses cookies to improve your experience. We assume that's OK, but you may opt-out from the settings. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
