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

Punting Angles: Beverley Racecourse

/in /by

Now the 2019 Royal Ascot carnival is confined to history, my attention once again turns to finding some interesting insights on some of the UK’s less glitzy racecourses (which, in their defence, is all of them!), writes Jon Shenton.

Ascot may well be a full bodied, world-class (and expensive) Michelin star racing experience, but sometimes a hearty pub meal and a couple of pints hit the spot like nothing else.

So, clumsy metaphor out of the way, for this edition of punting angles, I’ll be focusing on the picturesque Yorkshire track of Beverley.

I enjoy this particular northern circuit. Fast and furious large field sprints spring to mind, as well as a large cast list of trainers, jockeys and owners which should lead to some reasonable angles and opportunities.

Let’s first take a look at the course map:

 

The diagram illustrates a couple of seemingly devilishly tight turns.  There is also a stiff uphill finish, the little red triangle pointing upwards indicating the highest point on the course is shortly after the finishing post, the lowest point being diagonally opposite. Thus, the final two and a half furlongs are a gradual climb, testing stamina as well as speed over shorter distances. Horses competing at the 5-furlong trip face an uphill task literally almost every step of the way.

 

Beverley trainers

Before analysing specifics regarding race distance profiles, a customary evaluation of trainer performance is in order. My starting filter is that all races from 2012 are included, but only where the runner SP is 20/1 or shorter.  50 runners are required to qualify in the table.

 

To be perfectly honest there doesn’t appear to be too much on here to get overly excited about.  The duo at the top of the table, plus potentially David O’Meara are probably the ones to focus on, if any.

Taking Richard Guest as an example, there is a definite point of interest from a punting perspective.  The Wetherby based operation has had only one solitary winner where there has been a SP of between 11/1 and 20/1 as the numbers below display:

 

The 10/1 or shorter row is a clear indication that market support for a Guest representative is a significant factor in assessing the likely performance of a stable runner.

Not much more to say on that, in truth.

However, whilst I was evaluating runners at the skinny end of the market, I noticed something that I think is worth bringing to your attention. Step forward, Mrs Ann Duffield. Hers is a yard I haven’t really taken a great deal of notice of previously from a data perspective: despite being a regular on the circuit I’ve never established anything robust in stats terms relating to runners from this stable.

 

The table above displays Duffield runners at the track, segmenting them between fancied and less well fancied runners. The delta between the two is noteworthy: just two winners from 127 runners at 6/1 or greater with a painful A/E of 0.25, IV 0.26 and a bankrupting ROI of -61%. Compare this to a strike rate of 35%, 54% ROI and IV of 3.05 for the shorter-priced entries and it’s looks like it’s potential party time when Duffield horses are towards the top of the market.

We can go slightly further:

 

This table shows the 11/2 or shorter SP data by odds rank, i.e. the position of the horse in the market, 1 being favourite. It may be an arbitrary point, but it certainly appears as though there is a differential between the horses residing in the top two of the market and ones further down the pecking order.

 

I’ve earmarked an alert in my portfolio to track any Duffield shorty that is at the top 2 of the market at Beverley and is less than 11/2 in price.

 

I’m learning that this game is all about constant evolution, by nature I generally search for horses at the more speculative end of the market. However, the more data I crunch the more I’m learning to appreciate these sorts of shorter priced opportunities. They offer balance and, in a world of risk and reward, such angles can keep the wheels turning when the more ambitious plays are stuck in their inevitable ruts. At least in theory, anyway.

There are other trainers (Brian Ellison, Michael Bell to name but two) where market support appears to be of significance. The table below is for your reference and contains the Beverley A/E performance for each trainer for each odds bracket. To qualify, a minimum of 25 runners in the 6/1 or less category are required. These data hopefully show how I stumbled onto the Duffield angle.    This approach will, I think, become a staple of how I evaluate trainer and market support in the future.

 

That’s enough about trainers, maybe a bit too much in fact! Turning the focus, now, to a couple of the specific race distances that the course hosts during the summer months.

  

Beverley Five Furlongs

Over the minimum trip of five furlongs, races start from a chute beyond the home turn at the bottom of the home straight. It is not around a bend as such, but there is a pronounced dogleg to the right at about halfway and a general curvature in that same direction for much of the trip. This ordinarily would point to a low draw bias, as the low stall numbers are situated towards the far rail, therefore offering the shortest route to the finishing post.

As a result, it would make sense that low draw numbers generally prevail in 5f contests at Beverley given that topology of the trip. The numbers confirm the theory.

Draw bias (IV) at Beverley for races at 5f by field size on Good to Firm, Good and Good to soft ground

 

Using IV for races with ground conditions of good to firm, good and good to soft, the above table certainly points towards a low draw as being the place to be; or perhaps more accurately a high draw is the place to avoid.

There seems to be an indication of a low draw becoming more advantageous as the number of runners increases. This certainly makes some sense, any advantage from the general curvature of the track from a low draw should increase as the physical distance in starting position becomes greater between the low and high wings.

There is always (or should be) a companion piece when analysing the draw, namely pace. We already know that early speed in a general advantage in these sharp sprint races from Dave Renham’s excellent series on early speed.

Again, Impact Value (IV, or how often something happens in relation to its peer group, where 1 is ‘normal’ and the further away from 1 is better or worse) is my weapon of choice. The visual below is an attempt at recreating the heat map within the draw analyser but for multiple field sizes in the same table. Its content again covers the more rank and file ground conditions from good to firm through to good to soft. [When the ground is soft or heavy, the draw bias at Beverley can reverse with runners often making a beeline for the near side running rail].

 

To my eye, early speed is important almost irrespective of stall position. It does reaffirm that the larger the volume of competitors the more challenging it is to prevail form a high draw. The big fat zero for Led, High Draw and a field size of 14+ relates to 10 runners, 0 wins and only 2 places.   Not big numbers but a nil is a nil. More importantly, logic supports the notion that these runners are significantly inconvenienced by race conditions.

Prominent runners do remain competitive throughout, perhaps with a notable bias to the lower side of the draw in the medium and large fields. Horses with mid-division and held up run styles face both a literal and metaphorical uphill battle and a lot to overcome.

Of course, nothing is impossible, and any horse can win any race, as our editor is always reminding us! Even the red ‘danger zones’ in the table are generally populated with numbers above zero, meaning at least some winners are found even in these relatively hostile environments. It’s about playing the percentages, however, and hopefully by using data such as these, small incremental improvements can be attained to improve long term results.

 

Beverley 7.5-furlong races

I’m acutely aware that there is a danger of sounding like a broken record here.  However, the adage of pace wins the race is seldom more apt than in relation to events over the 7.5-furlong distance at Beverley.  The actual official distance is 7f and 96 yards so do bear that in mind as it can be advertised as a plain old seven. Those extra 90-something yards can be of critical importance, especially with the stiff uphill finish coming into play.

To get a feel for the track I find it’s a sensible idea to sit back, perhaps with a cold Peroni (or other suitable equally enjoyable beverage) and take in a few race replays. The course map shows those tight turns but by perusing visual evidence it’s much easier to comprehend and, ultimately, to bring data to life.

Even without the support of stats this trip has all the hallmarks of being a front runner’s playground.   Happily, this can be checked using Query Tool to confirm the hypothesis or disprove it.

I’ve used QT in this case (as opposed to the pace analyser) as I want to compare our subject matter course with other tracks in the UK.

 

The table above contains data relating to the fate of front-running animals at a 7f trip (to the nearest furlong). The query filters are simply, all races from the 2014 season up to 7th June 2019, Distance 7f and a Pace Score of 4 for the runner to denote front running status; and I’ve sorted by win percent.

In the UK, only Chester has a bias towards pace greater than Beverley at this distance.  It’s a great benchmark as we all know the benefit of early speed at the Roodee. For Beverley to be in the same ballpark is a pleasant and potentially useful surprise. The trailblazers have a very strong record with close to 30% maintaining their advantage at the line, 56% hitting the frame, a very high A/E of 1.61 and a super high IV of 2.68. That’s a rock-solid foundation to build upon.

Expanding on this a little, the numbers in the green and red table below represent the overall pace profile of the 7f trips of the courses in question.

 

 

It’s very interesting to note that not only does Beverley have a confirmed and pronounced front running bias, a prominent running style also scores well in comparison to the other tracks.

In simple terms, it’s more important at Beverley to pick a horse with a prominent or pace-setting profile than virtually everywhere else (at this distance). Even if a horse doesn’t lead, the closer it is to the front of the pack the better.

The corollary of this is that hold up horses have a very moderate record over the course and distance (A/E 0.45), the poorest of all the listed tracks.

Field size is worth consideration when analysing front runners. It’s logical to assume (and an obvious point to make) that it’s easier to get a lead in a field of 4 than of 14 for example. The graph below shows the A/E performance of leaders at Beverley over the 7.5 furlongs range based on the number of competing horses.

 

I’ve excluded a handful of data in the graph related to races with 4, 15 and 16 runners across a total of 7 events, as it’s not helpful given sample sizes are extremely small.

The performance line tracks upwards, demonstrating that A/E improves as the number of runners increases. This works from a sense point of view as horses racing off the pace have a huge challenge to overcome, and simply, there is more of them in bigger fields. An abundant volume of runners means less racing room, so picking up and sweeping by the field is a big ask with a relatively short straight of only 2-and-a-half furlongs: advantage front runners. Importantly, with A/E being a measure of implied profitability, these data show that if you can consistently predict the front runner(s) in larger fields at this course and distance there will be due reward.

That’s all for this edition of Punting Angles. Hopefully there’s plenty to put to work in your own Beverley betting, and don’t forget that the tools here on geegeez.co.uk – especially Draw, Pace, and Query Tool – can give you this sort of leg up at any track you care to look into.

Please feel free to drop me a line with your suggestions, questions or comments. I’d love to hear from you.

  • JS

 

Using Query Tool to find Heavy Ground Angles

/in , /by

It's been raining. Rather a lot. Those courses which have dodged the abandonment bullet are largely racing on heavy ground just now, and that presents a challenge for us punters because most horses have little or no form on such a testing surface.

So how do we mitigate for this? Plan A for most is to guess. Not ideal.

Plan A for Gold subscribers should be to do a little digging; and in this shortish video I'll show you a couple of ways - via Instant Expert and the Query Tool - to home in on those sires whose progeny might be worth marking up when the mud is flying.

 

Hope that's useful.

Matt

p.s. It's Royal Ascot next week - whoop! - and if you haven't yet secured your Gold subscription, you can take a £1 trial here (new users only, please). Alternatively you can access a short-term seven-day sub for just £12 by clicking here. Good luck!

Yes, Sire: The Top Royal Ascot Stallions

/in , /by

Every year during late June, Royal Ascot showcases the very best of British - and, increasingly, global - racing. As well as the heritage, the social aspects and the racing, opportunities abound for colts to advertise their worth as potential stallions when their track careers are over.

Curiously, perhaps, the leading Royal Ascot sire of recent generations never graced the meeting, though he did win the King George and Queen Elizabeth Diamond Stakes at the course a few weeks later, in 2001. I refer, of course, to Galileo, who was between Derby victories at Epsom and the Curragh when the Berkshire jamboree was playing out.

Here's how the sire table stacks up since 2009 (ten renewals of Royal Ascot, and therefore 300 races in total):

Top Royal Ascot sires, 2009+

Top Royal Ascot sires, 2009+

 

Galileo

In the interests of completeness, it should be noted that prior to the start of the study period, Galileo was already on the scoreboard with a Queen's Vase winner - his inaugural Royal Ascot stallion strike - courtesy of Mahler in 2007, and a brace of Jim Bolger-trained fillies, Cuis Ghaire (Albany) and Lush Lashes (Coronation) in 2008.

Just a further Queen's Vase victor followed in the next two years before, in 2011, the racing world was set alight by a couple of colts who had met the year before on their respective racecourse debuts. The winner of that somewhat above average (cough) maiden was a chap called Frankel, and he was no more than a half length too good for a lad named Nathaniel.

Both Frankel (St James's Palace) and Nathaniel (King Edward VII) enhanced their burgeoning reputations with wins at the Royal meeting, the unbeaten-in-fourteen-lifetime former enduring the closest finish of his career (debut aside) when less than efficiently ridden to get the better of Zoffany.

The smart filly Maybe also prevailed in 2011, beating the boys in the Chesham, a juvenile race over seven furlongs.

A year later and Frankel was flying the flag for Galileo once more, this time in the straight mile Queen Anne, one of the most exhilarating performances I've ever had the privilege to witness in the flesh. Just a wow moment, even now.

At a slightly less rarefied altitude, Gatewood doubled Galileo's 2012 score in the Wolferton Stakes.

A blank in 2013 was followed by a single in 2014, Telescope bagging the Hardwicke for Sir Michael Stoute.

And then the floodgates opened. Royal Ascot 2015 witnessed a hat-trick for the pre-eminent stallion, courtesy of Curvy (Ribblesdale), Aloft (Queen's Vase) and, most notably one of this year's freshman sires, Gleneagles (St James's Palace).

In 2016, a nap hand was completed by Churchill (Chesham), Kinema (Duke of Edinburgh), Sir Isaac Newton (Wolferton), Sword Fighter (Queen's Vase) and Order of St George (Gold Cup).

Two years ago, it was another treble thanks to Idaho (Hardwicke), Winter (Coronation), and Highland Reel (Prince of Wales's); before a double last season in the Ribblesdale (Magic Wand) and, for a fifth time no less, the Queen's Vase (Kew Gardens).

Phew!

There are a couple of noteworthy sub-texts to the overall Galileo figaro's (sorry, couldn't resist).

Not many two-year-old Galileos are mature enough to race so early in the season but, from the eleven to do so in the last decade, two won (both in the seven furlong Chesham). [NB As mentioned above, Cuis Ghaire also won the six furlong Albany Stakes in 2008]

Aidan O'Brien has trained 94 of the 184 Royal Ascot Galileo runners since 2009, which is as close to half as doesn't matter. He's bagged 13 of the 20 wins, which is as close to two-thirds as doesn't matter. O'Brien has further backed that up with 37 of the 60 placed horses, again pretty close to two-thirds.

The bad news for those of us who like to wager is that, no matter how you cut it, there's no profit to be had from this super sire... with one possible exception: Galileo has sired five winners of the Queen's Vase, four at the old two-mile trip and the most recent of the two at the reduced 1m6f range last year. Backing all Galileo progeny in the Queen's Vase would have netted a profit of 30.83 points on 22 bets. Alas, that is all down to a single winner, 33/1 Sword Fighter, and is thus a most unreliable angle for all that a far shorter-priced Galileo may again prevail next week.

 

The three D's

A mate of mine has a saying. In betting, he preaches, all you need is the three D's: discipline, discipline, and discipline. While that is a key factor, there is more to life than discipline, just as there is more to the Royal Ascot stallion roster than Galileo.

Here, the D's are Dubawi, Dansili and Danehill Dancer. Which is actually four D's now I think about it.

Dubawi

In any other era, Dubawi would have lorded it over his progenitor peer group in the way that 'the big G' does. Even in that one's considerable shadow, the Darley flag-bearer wields vast power. His 13 Royal Ascot winners in the past decade is second in the table, yielding a small profit for blind backers (who are these people?).

The battle lines between Coolmore and Darley have been drawn and repeatedly retraced over the past two decades. Evidence exists all over racing's landscape, none more so than in the microcosm of those skirmishes, Royal Ascot.

Dubawi's numerical deficit in terms of winners is mitigated somewhat by a higher winning strike rate. However, just a single Group 1 winner - Al Kazeem in the 2013 Prince Of Wales's Stakes - attests to the gulf in class between these captains of their industry.

 

Backing Dubawi progeny outside of the top grade is a no brainer 'in', and it would have yielded 12 winners from 79 bets for an SP profit of 28.63 points (circa 50 points at exchange prices). That said, last year's 1 from 16 (-10.5 points) would have dented confidence.

As an aside, we can see from the above that dodging Galileo's outside of Pattern class (1 win from 54 starters) looks a very smart strategy, his Royal runners seemingly either very good or, well, not very good.

Dansili

Dansili is perhaps a slightly less fashionable stallion, though clearly one capable of producing smart racehorses: the likes of The Fugue and especially Harbinger were capable of brilliance on their day. From a betting perspective, Dansili has more entries in the handicaps than the aforementioned super sires and that hurts his overall statistics.

Focusing only on Pattern runners, Dansili has eleven winners from 58 runners (+10.23). Again, though, he's 0 from 13 in the last three years, which tempers enthusiasm.

Danehill Dancer

And the D's are concluded by Danehill Dancer, whose strike rate of nearly 16% is impressive. He has very few runners now, having died in 2017 aged 24. Three interesting snippets are that his eleven winners in the past decade include three dual scorers (Qemah, Duntle and Forgotten Voice); seven of the wins were by fillies (Qemah and Duntle two each, plus Osaila, Lillie Langtry and Memory); and eight of the wins were at a mile.

 

More Recently...

Although the top sires have longevity, all around them fashions change almost from season to season. So it is worth homing in on a shorter time window, in this case the last five years, to see if any patterns are emerging.

King of the hill remains Galileo (14 wins), but Dubawi is joined in second place by Scat Daddy (seven wins apiece).

Again we're in double territory as both Lady Aurelia and Caravaggio notched twice for this very high strike rate stallion who sadly died in 2015, aged just 11.

Shamardal, whose team is headed by Blue Point, and Sea The Stars, captained by Stradivarius, are next best on five wins, with Frankel, Mastercraftsman, Zoffany and Invincible Spirit on four.

Those nine stallions were responsible for 54 of the 150 winners at the last five Royal Ascot festivals, from just 414 of the 2409 runners. That's 36% of the winners from 17% of the runners.

Leading Royal Ascot sires, 2014-2018

Leading Royal Ascot sires, 2014-2018

 

The least successful

It is always dangerous making predictions on the basis of small datasets but such is the lot of the punter. A horse has only a few (relatively) runs in its career, a stallion throws only a few Royal Ascot runners, and I've backed only a few Royal Ascot winners!

So, in spite of it making little sense to data philosophers like Taleb, we plough on in search of micro angles which may - just may - have some crumb of legitimacy (or luck, the outcome being the same) about them.

To that end, consider the case of Cape Cross, one of the finest stallions of his generation. Three winners in 2011 seemingly heralded the start of a glittering career at the Royal meeting. Another winner in each of the next two seasons kept the dream alive but, since 2014, it's been an unbroken run of defeats, 37 and counting for the Darley A-lister. In fairness, plenty were at huge prices and a couple did run second, but a place rate of 19% is some way below the level of most of those in the table above.

Other 'name' stallions on zero wins in the last five years include Mount Nelson (23 runners), Rock Of Gibraltar (19), Zebedee and Sir Percy (18 each), Tamayuz, Arcano, Azamour and Medicean (all 17), Lawman (16) and Dandy Man (15).

The quartet of Bahamian Bounty (14), Royal Applause (13), Pastoral Pursuits and Dream Ahead (10 each) have failed to record even a placed runner in the last five years.

Any of that might change next week but, on balance, it's better to be aware of such numbers than not. It might save us a quid or two.

 

The Last Word

Galileo is expected to retain his stranglehold on proceedings next week, though there will likely be little nourishment from a wagering viewpoint. Dubawi, especially outside of G1 class, is worth a look in spite of his clunker last year; and so too may be Mastercraftsman and Zoffany.

To add these to your Query Tool Angles, select:
DATE - Month: June (change 'to' date to 30th June 2029)
RACE - Course: Ascot
RUNNER - Sire: Dubawi, Mastercraftsman, Zoffany (plus any others you like the look of)

Next, click Generate Report. Then go to the ANGLES tab, enter a title (say, Royal Ascot Sires) and click 'Add Angle'. Voila!

As the five day entries come in you'll see potential runners in the Angles tab (when you've selected the appropriate angle); and then from the 48 hour declaration stage, you'll see qualifying runners listed both on your QT Angles report and behind the blue QT Angles numbers on the racecard. See the User Guide for more info.

Good luck!

Matt

Punting Angles: Goodwood Racecourse

/in , /by

With the Goodwood May festival upon us it seems as good a time as any to apply a little focus to the Sussex track, writes Jon Shenton. The hope is we'll discover a few snippets of info along the way to boost our chances of a profit at the course over the rest of the summer and beyond.

Racing has been an integral part of Goodwood history since 1802. The track is synonymous with the Glorious Goodwood festival with its three Group 1 races taking a prominent position in the racing calendar. There’s much more to racing at the course than that shiny centrepiece, however, and there are plenty of other meetings and notable races to enjoy throughout the flat season.

As usual, let’s start with the training performances at the track.

Goodwood trainers

The table below shows the trainers who have high-quality records at Goodwood. The data within relate to runners with a maximum SP of 20/1, and are sorted by descending A/E and include all races from 2012 onwards. To qualify the yard must have had a minimum of 50 runners during the period.

 

For those of you who have been following these articles over the recent past, you may remember the Mark Johnston editions. I don’t want to trample over old ground but suffice to say Johnston handicappers who have had a recent run (last 25 days) are a serious proposition. Whilst this angle wasn’t as lucrative in 2018 as previous years the performance has been consistently impressive over time. Those are horses to keep on your side. A link to that article is here.

The other notable name to take from the trainer table is William Haggas. It’s the Impact Value of 2.52 which immediately draws the eye, especially on what is a healthy relative volume of runners. As you might expect with stats such as these there is a general all-round excellence contained within.  The only significant and justifiable enhancement I could establish is associated to the age restrictions of races.

The data show, amongst other things, that his record with 2yo's and in 4yo+ races is perfectly respectable. It isn’t, however, quite as sharp as the races containing horses aged 3. It’s low volume stuff though, with the place performance consistent across all  groupings indicating that I might be looking for something that is not there. As a result, I’m not convinced that there is an angle beyond keeping Haggas horses firmly in your cross-hairs at Goodwood.

Moving on, those yards which currently have less than desirable records at the track we get the following picture:

I was very surprised that Saeed bin Suroor is top (or bottom) of the pile with an A/E of just 0.52. Messrs Fahey, Varian, Hannon and Balding are all on the list too with Fahey’s runners returning a strike rate of a meagre 6.6%. Perhaps these yards are too proficient to stay on this cold list indefinitely and the cream will rise to the top in due course. Here and now, though, the numbers demand we proceed with caution.

To complete the trainer view, the table below contains the best trainers (in terms of A/E) for Goodwood during the month of May, perhaps offering a couple of clues for the next few days. Not that I’d advise anyone to back runners from these yards blindly but there are some impressive numbers in here, Roger Charlton most notably.  That said, there is a danger of the data reverting towards the mean based on such small volumes.

 

 

Jockeys

In terms of the pilots, the data below show all active riders with an A/E of greater than 1.00. William Buick probably has the stand-out record. Again, all round excellence means dedicated deeper focus angles are difficult to find.

The deadly duo of Norton and Fanning have a very close association to the Goodwood-friendly Johnston yard. Therefore, it would be reasonably logical to assume that their records could be attributable to the trainer connection. The intel below shows that whilst that is undoubtedly true, when they are jocked up on rides for other trainer, performance remains largely in line.

 

Whilst this may be of limited interest in isolation, I think it may lead towards a question of pace. In general, Fanning and Norton are considered to be enterprising riders at the front of a race. Perhaps they prosper at the track irrespective of who is employing them because of their propensity to effectively judge pace from the front? More on that shortly.

 

Straight track pointers

As the course map below illustrates, Goodwood has a complex array of starting points, routes and undulations.  The least confusing element is perhaps the confirmation on the map that there is a straight track for races up to 6 furlongs in distance.

 

Before searching for clues on how best to tackle the straight course, it must be noted that analysing the factors of pace and draw (like I’m going to here) in a broad way is a challenge. There are several variables that need due consideration, field size and ground conditions being the primary drivers of variance in determining how the race unfolds from a pace and draw perspective.

Fields here can range from 2 to 20-something, and underfoot conditions obviously can vary meaning that many multiple permutations can exist. All the same, there is merit in attempting to decode the data.

 

Draw

First let's look at the draw.

Using the draw analyser tool in Geegeez Gold the table below shows the performance of horses, by draw segment and based on the number of runners in the race, using Impact Value. I’ve only analysed races with six or more runners and I've used the actual drawn position (i.e. accounting for the effect of non-runners) rather than the race card drawn number.

 

The data covers all race ground from Firm through to Soft.  As noted in the above paragraph going conditions can have a significant impact on draw stats. However, in the case of Goodwood it’s fair to assert that the numbers on display are reasonably representative of the whole spectrum of ground challenges faced by the animals.

Here is a graphical representation of the very same data.

 

I include this as I think it illustrates a clear picture: horses that are drawn in lower or middle stalls are far more likely to prevail than horses drawn in high stall numbers on average. This applies to all nearly all field sizes (apart from arguably in 8-10 runner fields where the delta appears marginal) and to both 5- and 6-furlong distances.

The red line (representing those animals with a high draw) deteriorates the larger the field in general terms, especially if the race comprises of 11 or more participants.

The highest drawn are stationed on the stand side rail, nearest the cameras, the numbers thus progressively moving lower towards the centre and beyond to the far side. Racing usually develops between the middle and that stand side rail as a few horses generally tack across in that direction.

A rail is often an asset to have nearby but for this track it appears to be far from the case. Let’s complement this with a sprinkling of pace data using the Pace Analyser tool in Geegeez Gold.

The table below is based on the same conditions as the draw data above:

 

It is perhaps unsurprising that being on the speed early is an advantage over the sprint distances.

Putting both pace and draw together you’d expect a low/middle draw with a prominent or front running run style to be optimal. We can validate this by checking the draw/pace heat map (in Geegeez' Draw Analyser).

This picture covers  5- and 6-furlong races, on Firm through to Soft where there is a field size of 9 through to 12.

Interestingly, it appears as though a high draw is acceptable if the horse can zip out of the gates and secure an early lead. It could be claimed, using this data, that pace is of more importance than draw. High drawn horses who get to the front are 1.43 times more likely to win than the average in spite of the ostensibly challenging stall position.

That makes sense: racing room can be at a premium at Goodwood and it’s very feasible that horses get boxed in, especially in a big field. Those high drawn animals can have nowhere to go if horses congregate and the race develops on or around that rail or side of the track. The jockeys starting their journey from the low and middle numbered stalls should have more options to avoid trouble in running; unless of course the field sizes are so large that the low numbered stalls are situated on the far side rail as in, for example, the Stewards' Cup.

A heat map taking account of field sizes of 14 or more confirms the thinking:

 

In large fields even prominent racers struggle to get the run of the race from a high stall position, probably due to the relative lack of options in running. Horses drawn low retain a degree of flexibility in how they approach the race and can win from off the pace. Now all that remains is to find the right horse that this might apply to on race day!

 

Round course and longer distances

The 7-furlong trip has just shy of a quarter of a mile from the stalls to a tight right-hand bend into the straight. Most races develop on the far rail, the opposite to the straight track races.

Again, early speed holds sway. Attaining good track position at the bend is clearly of primary importance. Evaluating the draw for the trip over seven using the graphical format (below) shows the significance of stall position.

Whilst it’s reasonable to say that low draws generally have an advantage it only appears to become a concerted one in double digit field sizes. In these larger fields low drawn speed merchants around the bend are very much of primary interest!

In smaller fields pace is still an advantage but, naturally enough, draw appears to be less relevant. Like the straight course, high draws are perfectly fine if you think your horse can get to the front early and control the fractions. In basic terms, if you can pick the leader early in the race consistently over seven furlongs at Goodwood you will have a strong hand to play over time. The same principles apply over the mile too.

 

Distances greater than a mile

The races between nine furlongs and two miles are represented from a pace angle in the data presented below. There is perhaps a marginal preference for front running speed in general apart from the shorter relative distances (9 & 10f) where early speed is a significant advantage.

It’s repeating the same message: the major takeaway from the data is the reinforced view that it is  difficult for hold up horses to win in larger fields.  That makes perfect sense given the tight and undulating nature of a track where hard luck stories seem commonplace. Let’s hope that you’re not on  one that falls out of the stalls!

 

That’s it for another edition, I hope you find things of interest in the above and I’ll certainly be watching Goodwood races with a keener eye than usual over the next few days and months. Good luck!

- Jon Shenton

New Gold Features: Rate a Race, Pace Average

/in , /by

We've added some new features to Geegeez Gold, and updated some existing ones. The video below explains all, but here is a brief summary of what's new:

- Added Weight For Age (WFA) consideration to ratings calculations (and updated existing ratings to reflect the WFA scale)

- Added the ability to rate a race, and to price it up, from within the card

- Published user ratings within the inline form on the racecard

- Added option to view pace maps based on last 2, 3 or 4 races

 

Check out this short video which demonstrates the new features...

Dave Renham: More Thoughts on 2yo Sires

/in /by

In my last article I examined some data pertaining to sires in 2yo races, writes Dave Renham. In this article I'd like to share more sire stats with you with a view to identifying both positive and negative angles from which we can potentially take advantage. The data once again cover the last six seasons including the first few weeks of the current flat season.

As with the first article in this series, I am comparing sire strike rates under different circumstances; in the first article I compared turf SR% with all weather SR%; debut run SR% with 2nd start SR% and I also compared colts with fillies. I called this the Comparison Strike Rate (CSR), the idea being that the CSR would help to show any significant differences in performance (according to the relative strike rates). Once again I will be using the CSR concept at points during this article.

Before I start in earnest, I stated in my first article that when ’drilling down’ in an attempt to pinpoint positive (or negative) angles it can sometimes feel a bit 'convenience fitted'. This needs to be flagged again as there are some stats below that one could argue fit into that category. It is for the reader to decide which, if any, of the information presented is of utility.

2yo Sire Performance by Race Distance

To begin with let us compare sire performance in terms of race distance. I am going compare performance in juvenile sprint races (5-6f) with longer distance contests (7f+). I have looked at sires that have had at least 70 runs in each category and the first table, below, highlights sires who have better records over sprint distances:

 

It is perhaps no surprise to see considerably more runs in the 5-6f range as compared to 7f+ for most of those in the list. Trainers do know a little bit about breeding (!) and hence they are more likely to enter runners by ‘speedier’ sires over shorter distances.

Showcasing is a sire that I would like to expand on a little. Backing ‘blind’ all of his 2yo runners over 5 & 6f (637 in total) would have yielded a small profit at SP and a 30%+ profit at Betfair SP. I would not advocate backing future runners ‘blind’ but it was something worth pointing out considering the decent sample size. Showcasing’s A/E index stands at 1.00 and over 5f it is slightly higher at 1.06; over 6f the A/E index is 0.96. Showcasing's 5f SR is 18.1% compared to 12.5% over 6f.

Camacho, Equiano and Dandy Man are others sires who have a higher SR% over 5f as compared to 6f. Camacho’s 5f figure stands at 14.3% as compared to 8.9% over 6f; Equiano has a 5f SR% of 13.3% while his 6f figure drops to 8.7%; Dandy Man is 13.9% v 8.7%.

Now a look in reverse at the sires of 2yos that perform significantly better over 7f+ as compared to 5-6f:

 

The data is quite limited for some of these sires and that is important to appreciate. There is no ‘ideal’ sample size but clearly the more runs to compare the better. Unfortunately when dealing with sire stats, sample sizes are sometimes less than ideal. For the record, Sir Prancealot has an A/E index over 7f+ of 1.29 which I believe is also worth noting.

 

2yo Sire Performance by Going

Let us move on to look at how the turf going affects the SR%'s of sires. The following table is in a slightly different format to the others – it looks at the relative strike rates across four types of turf going: Good to firm or firmer; Good; Good to soft; Soft or heavy. For the record, if the sample run size is less than 50 runs on the particular type of going I have highlighted the SR% in red (I will continue to highlight smaller samples in red for the rest of the article). These figures additional caution due to the small sample size.

From this initial table I will delve deeper into the more interesting findings:

Horses with similar strike rates across the board are clearly versatile in terms of ground conditions, and hence when the progeny of these sires run you can be fairly optimistic that the going will not be a hindering factor in their performance. There are others, however, who do seem to display a going preference.

Let us first consider sires who seem to prefer firmer conditions, at least according to their win SR%s. There are seven that catch my eye – Captain Gerrard, Compton Place, Dutch Art, Equiano, Havana Gold, Makfi and Sir Percy. I have pulled up the relevant stats from the original table. It should be noted that I have added a column using a Comparison Strike Rate (CSR) in relation to good to firm or firmer going SR% versus all runs SR%:

 

Let us now look at the A/E indices of these sires in terms of good to firm or firmer going:

 

Makfi’s good to firm data are limited, but the other six sires have very positive good to firm /firm stats.

Soft/heavy data are limited for some sires so this needs to be taken into account. The following table looks at the sires whose softer ground stats look positive even if some of the sample sizes are relatively small. Again I have pulled these stats from the original table and added the CSR figure for soft/heavy SR% versus all runs SR%:

 

Let us now look at the A/E indices of these sires in terms of soft/heavy going in 2yo races. The figures in red again are from samples of less than 50 runs:

 

The majority of A/E indices are above 1.00 which can be taken again as a positive, but it is important to dig a bit deeper especially if the sire one is interested has limited data with which to work. Looking at the soft/heavy ground performances with 3yo runners and above may be a sensible starting point.

2yo Sire Performance by Race Class

For the final part of this article I am going to share some sire SR%s and A/E indices connected with race class. I have ignored the lowest class of race (6) and elected to focus on class 1 to 5 contests. The first table examines class 1 to 3 races; the second table classes 4 and 5. The sires in the following tables are all sires that have had over 600 runners in total in all 2yo races during the period of study. I have highlighted potentially positive A/E indices in green and as earlier, those smaller samples of less than 50 qualifying runs are coloured in red (highlighted in relevant SR% column):

 

The progeny of Dutch Art have struggled in class 1 events with just 1 win in 42 starts. Only 4 others placed and with exactly half of the runners starting 12/1 or shorter I would be wary of backing Dutch Art runners at this level, despite it clearly being a small sample. The progeny of Kodiac on the other hand are worth a second glance. They have provided 27 winners in total from 240 runners and the A/E index of 0.98 is decent enough. What is interesting is Kodiac’s performance improves as the distances increases. At 5f his SR% in class 1 races stands at 6.6% (6 wins from 91 starts); when we combine his 7-8f figures we get 8 wins from 35 (SR 22.9%). Small sample? Yes. Worth being wary? Yes. But it should also be noted that a further ten runners were placed meaning over 50% of his runners won or placed.

Onto class 4 and 5 races now. The data set is very decent for these runners – all sires have had at least 185 runners in class 4 races, in class 5 races this increases to 250+ for all.

 

Dandy Man, Equiano, Exceed And Excel, Kodiac, Kyllachy and Poets Voice have positive A/E indices in class 4 events and all are worth closer scrutiny. Dandy Man’s progeny should be noted over the minimum trip of 5f in Class 4 events – SR% is just under 20% with an A/E index of 1.33. Likewise, Exceed And Excel has an excellent record in 5f Class 4 events – an even more impressive SR% of 25.8%; A/E 1.20. Kodiac has notable figures on easy ground: in Class 4 races on good to soft or softer his progeny have won 28 races from 134 (SR 20.9%); A/E 1.29.

I hope you have found both articles interesting and potentially useful. Sire stats are undervalued still and although the data is by no means ‘perfect’, it does offer punters some extra stats to potentially use to their advantage.

Punting Angles: Windsor Racecourse

/in /by

I was toying with a couple of subjects on which to base the content of this article, writes Jon Shenton, when I read a highly enjoyable edition of David Probert’s thoughts on this very site, which you can find here.

My eye was drawn to the section on Windsor.  It’s a course that historically I’ve had a patchy record when betting, so, inspired by Mr Probert’s words, I elected to dive into the deep Windsor / Thames waters to try and find some data driven treasure.

The course is a staple of the flat season: with its regular Monday slot in the calendar it forms an important part of the campaign due to the high volume of meetings and central location for many trainers. For the army of 9-to-5'ers like myself it also offers a chance to kick back and watch some racing due to the usual evening nature of the meet.

The fate of the favourites

Whilst researching, the first factor that made me sit up and take notice was the performance of the jollies. Using geegeez Query Tool (odds SP rank = 1, races from 2012 season onwards) the below table shows the tracks with the best performance by favourites ranked by A/E.

The numbers are certainly of interest regarding the Berkshire course. Surprisingly, backing the horse (or horses if joint favourites) at the top of the market in every single race during the last seven years would have returned a 4% profit, with close to a 37% strike rate.

It’s one thing understanding that favourites generally do well but why is that the case? Sadly, I have no answer, only several hypotheses. The evening nature of the meeting gives punters longer to study? The clientele who frequent the meeting are casual punters who back proportionately more outsiders, therefore boosting the value at the shorter end of the market? The “vibes” behind the fancied runners are stronger at the track? Or maybe the nature of the track plays to form more than others. It’s difficult to pinpoint specifics; the volume of data does make it hard to ignore however.

Before delving into further detail (and as a bit of public service) here is the view of UK tracks which have the worst performing jollies over the same time period.

 

Earlier I raised a potential hypothesis in relation to the time of the meeting being a factor, more study time effectively meaning the market becomes more efficient. It doesn’t feel like it could be a credible factor? Well, data talk! If we take our info and analyse it by meeting time, there is perhaps a surprising outcome (using horseracebase for this aspect).

Favourites prevail 4.5% more often at evening meetings than at afternoon fixtures! An 8.3% ROI has been attained during the later meetings, opposed to small loss during the earlier timeslots.

In truth, I’m not sure what to do with this intel, and it could obviously be mere happenstance, but thought it to be a worthwhile detour and if you have any theories please do share them in the comments. I did check other courses with a significant number of night meetings and the difference was certainly less noticeable than for this track. Perhaps this is evidence of potentially reading too much into data with no sound reason behind it.

Parking the time of day theme, for now at least, and getting back to evaluating the market leaders in Windsor races, I next assessed the age of the protagonists. This starts to paint a picture of where additional focus may be a rewarding exercise.

 

Two-year-old favourites at Windsor

The younger end of the age spectrum appears to be the area to concentrate on; it’s certainly where there is a greater demonstrable value. Again, we’re into conjecture about why that may be the case but, equally, the data are clear and compelling.

Starting with the 2YO group first, a logical extension would be to analyse the data based on the experience of the horse through checking the number of previous runs.

 

According to the info a first time out horse which is sent off favourite is worth taking on, generally speaking. The numbers are undoubtedly inferior to the animals that have at least a modicum of racecourse experience. Removing the debut runners, we’re left with 120 wins from 223 runs, A/E of 1.22 and a return of 24.4% on funds invested.

 

The table above shows the consistent out-turn of this angle. It’s not my usual hunting ground but I have to say I’m extremely interested in seeing how this one pans out over the glorious British Summer.

 

Suggestion: back all 2YO favourites at Windsor if they have had previous racecourse experience

 

Before moving on, there is one potential fly in the ointment. Knowing which horse will be at the head of the market at post time is not an exact science. Realistically, having to take the rough with the smooth (unless you have the luxury to back at the last possible moment) will be the nature of an angle such as this. In other words, there will inevitably be a few winners missed. However, particularly with BOG, there will be plenty of returns at prices better than SP, or at least you’d hope so. Swings and roundabouts.

 

Three-year-old favourites at Windsor

Moving on to the 3YO Classic generation, there is a clear distinction between handicap and non-handicap races.

That’s a stellar win rate for the non-handicaps at around 44%. However, market expectations are higher leading to an A/E performance of just 1.02 and there is only a single point of SP profit from the 206 runners. As a result, it’s a tough gig attempting to find value there, albeit winners will be plentiful. The market appears to be exceptionally efficient.

However, the handicaps offer a degree of hope, an A/E of 1.09 and 14% return are reasonable if sustainable.

It seems highly plausible that an unexposed 3YO favourite against potential older rivals in a 3YO+ race may perform better than a favourite running against the same unexposed rivals in a 3YO only race. Therefore, a check on the performance by age restriction of the race would make sense.

Sure enough, the numbers support this theory. Again, a potentially reasonable angle with a high strike rate and, in the context of betting on horses, relatively low risk. I’m less sure about the 3YO only races but it’s a matter of personal taste.

 

Suggestion: back 3YO favourites at Windsor in 3YO+ Handicap races

 

Windsor Trainers

Departing from the favourite theme there are several stables that seem to be synonymous with strong Windsor form.

The data above show the top eight yards using runners with a maximum SP of 20/1. The A/E is ahead of the market for all of them at greater than 1.  Having said that, and frankly speaking, the only two that really appeal in terms of further analysis are Ed Walker and Roger Varian. The IV’s (Impact Value, a measure of how much more often than the group - trainers at Windsor, in this case - perform as a whole, where a figure greater than 1 is better than standard) for both are very strong. The rest of the cast are probably worth another check at some stage but time (and word count) precludes such deliberations today.

Firstly, there is something rather remarkable regarding Ed Walker’s runners:

That’s a striking difference in performance based on SP. Not a single winner at 13/2 or greater from 43 darts thrown.

To check if this is happenstance or a general trait of the stable it’s best to compare the performance by SP for all runners (not just Windsor) for the yard. Evaluating all runs from Walker;

  • 3 victories have been notched from a total of 342 attempts at 18/1 or greater (A/E of 0.27)
  • 31/839 at 8/1 or larger (A/E 0.59).

These numbers indicate that the Ed Walker stable tends to know what chance its runners have, and should be noted for the “don’t back without support” list.

Thus, in general a supported runner representing Ed Walker at Windsor is a serious proposition (this article and data does not include the most recent winner from the yard on Monday 29th April, He’s Amazing at 5/1).

 

Suggestion: back Ed Walker horses running at Windsor with an SP of 6/1 or less

 

Secondly, Roger Varian is clearly an elite trainer whose horses often appear to be in the winner's enclosure on a hazy summer evening. His performance is solid all-round, arguably aside from his 2YO’s who seem a little under-powered at 2/14.  Taking those out of the equation we again have a similar story to Walker in terms of supported animals delivering much better performance than the relatively neglected entrants.

Same rules apply...

 

Suggestion: back Roger Varian horses aged 3 or greater running at Windsor with an SP of 6/1 or less

 

There is a cautionary note however in the case of Varian: 2018 returned one victor from nine attempts, a much lower number of winners and runners than previous years. It may be that Roger V has targeted other races/courses in recent times so monitoring of the situation will be required. 

 

Windsor Jockeys

Reading though Mr Probert’s blog it certainly helps pinpoint the value of having the right pilot on board. I have very few jockey angles, my primary belief being that factors such as horse and trainer ability (or patterns) have much more weight in assessing the likely outcome of a race. However, perhaps there is untapped potential to consider here.

The table below shows a Famous Five using the same criteria (races from 2012 at 20/1 SP or less), again sorted by A/E.

 

The top two, Harry Bentley and Andrea Atzeni, stand head and shoulders apart, the IV’s are impressive but so are all the other numbers. Atzeni is allied to the Varian operation which accounts for 16 of his 44 wins (51 runs, IV 3.22).

Finding variables to sharpen the focus is difficult though given that so many of the inputs to a horse's performance are non-jockey related. You could argue that a pilot’s performance could vary depending on ground, race distance, pace, and/or number of runners, but Atzeni is strong across all factors. There is no real angle beyond taking an Atzeni-ridden runner very seriously.

With regards to Harry Bentley, it’s more straightforward to find opportunities. The below graph offers interesting insight, namely that races over shorter distances are less productive, at least in terms of A/E and IV.

At races over the minimum trip through to 6 furlongs Bentley is only 4/49 with an A/E of less than 0.5. The results at distances at a mile or greater are a polar opposite: 22/59, A/E 1.93, IV 3.44 and ROI of 113%

That will do as a nice micro to test.

 

Suggestion: back horses where Harry Bentley is the jockey at Windsor at distances of 8 furlongs or greater (SP 20/1 or less)

 

That about wraps it up for this edition. I plan to dive into some other UK courses over the coming weeks and months which I hope will be of interest (and potentially utility). I did plan to evaluate pace/draw, course experience and other factors but lost the battle with time on this occasion.

- Jon Shenton

BIG New Additions to Geegeez Gold

/in , /by

I'm really pleased and excited to be able to announce some significant upgrades to Geegeez Gold today. They are:

  • User notes and ratings
  • Instant Expert inline form, and 'select a rating'
  • *IV3* Draw feature

The video below demonstrates how they work and, below that, I've copied sections from the User Guide for those who prefer to read rather than watch/listen.

I'm already using the new features myself every day and I'm sure many of you will soon find them as indispensable as I do.

 

Here are the relevant User Guide sections...

Instant Expert Inline Form

As of April 2019, users may now select a particular form ‘block’ with a click or tap and view the related form lines.

For example, clicking anywhere in the ‘[2][2][100]’ Course block for Flying Verse opens an inline block with that horse’s two course runs in the selected context. The chosen block is highlighted.

Click the block again to close the inline form, or select another block to view further form.

IV3 Data

Introduced in April 2019 is IV3. IV3 stands for Impact Value 3, and is simply an average 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.

N.B. Stall 1 is calculated as the average IV of stalls 1 and 2, as is the highest stall.

This simple calculation helps to smooth the curve on our draw charts and isolate genuine biases, as in this example:

 

User Ratings and Notes

A major new addition in April 2019 is the ability for users to add notes and up to two ratings per horse performance.

Ratings Setup

Before adding ratings, many users will elect to create scales which enable auto-calculation. These are simply pounds-per-length calculations based on distance and optionally going. This is undertaken via the My Ratings Settings page, found in the Notes & Ratings dropdown on My Geegeez.

My Ratings Settings

The My Ratings Settings page looks like this:

Each of the blocks represents a different combination of race code and going range. These are the default settings, and ratings are calculated based on the priority sequence of the blocks (in case of overlap between race code/going range).

Users are able to add or remove blocks using the buttons; re-sequence the blocks by dragging and dropping them; and also to restore the defaults.

Once any setting revisions have been saved, ratings for beaten horses will be calculated automatically based on these settings and the winner’s given rating.

 

Adding Notes and Ratings

Notes and ratings are added from within a race result. The default layout is for the functionality to be hidden. Clicking ‘Show Ratings’ to display the ratings features.

Once ‘Show Ratings’ has been clicked, the page re-formats as follows:

Adding Notes

Notes may be added at the MEETING, RACE or HORSE level. Notes are auto-saved when a user clicks elsewhere on the page, but it is strongly recommended to use the ‘SAVE’ buttons provided.

Adding Ratings

To add a rating, enter the winner’s figure into the box Rating 1. The Lbs/Length box is pre-populated based on the Rating Settings page data but may be over-written if required.

By default, R1 and R2 are both checked, which allows a user to create two ratings at the same time. However, the ratings would be calculated using the same Lbs/Length scale. If, for example, R1 was a form-based rating and R2 was a time-based rating, a user may want to use different figures for the winners but have the beaten horses’ figures calculated from the same Lbs/Length scale.

If a different scale is required, the user must uncheck R2 whilst producing the R1 ratings; and then uncheck R1 (and check R2) to produce the R2 ratings. Most users will only produce one set of ratings.

Once the winner’s rating has been entered and the CALCULATE button pressed, the beaten horse’s figures are automatically calculated. Click ‘SAVE RATINGS’ to save.

Viewing Notes and Ratings

Notes and ratings may be viewed within the Full Form tab. Ratings are displayed on the right-hand side. N.B. Users must opt to display the ratings from the My Racecard Options section on the My Geegeez page.

 

Notes are displayed by hovering over elements of the form line, as follows:

Date – meeting note

Race / Conditions – race note

Race Outcome – horse note

Exporting Notes and Ratings

Users may export any generated notes and ratings content to csv from the My Geegeez page. Select the ‘Notes & Ratings’ section, and then click DOWNLOAD CSV.

**

For the lowdown on all features inside Geegeez Gold, check out the latest edition of the User Guide which can be found on your My Geegeez page.

And if you're not currently a subscriber to Geegeez Gold, you can take a 30 day trial for just £1 by clicking here.

Matt

Dave Renham: Some Thoughts on 2yo Sires

/in /by

In this article I have moved away from pace research and will instead be focusing, for the first time on the virtual pages of geegeez.co.uk, on 2yo races, writes Dave Renham.

2yo races are contests where horse form is extremely limited and many punters shy away from them for that reason. Indeed, 50% of all 2yo runners are either making their debut or just having their second career run (see prior runs table below). Thus, we need to look at additional information if we are going to bet on such contests. One avenue is to look at sire data.

Number of prior 2yo starts, January 1st 2013 to April 14th 2019

 

Sires are the fathers of the respective horses and many sires have a strong influence on their offspring. Why certain racehorses cost more money than others before they have even raced is almost exclusively down to their breeding and the sire is the strongest influence in that genetic makeup.

Taking a human example may help explain why some punters feel sire stats are important. Picture a mythical 100m sprint race between the offspring of Usain Bolt and the offspring of someone else of the same age living in the same town as Usain. Without having seen either child run before, where would you put your pound at even money? Most likely you would asses that Usain Bolt’s son had the stronger sire stat, and that is where your money would be likely to go. That would be especially the case if the two fathers had had children a year earlier, and the son of Bolt had won against the son of A N Other.

This article will look for positive and negative angles using sire stats from UK 2yo races. The data have been taken from 1st January 2013 to 14th April 2019 and all profits/losses have been calculated to Industry Starting Price.

 

2yo sires by strike rate

Firstly let us look at the sires with the highest strike rates in all 2yo races during the period of study (minimum 100 runs):

 

As one can see backing sires blind is the proverbial quick way to the poorhouse. Of course these figures could be improved by using Betfair SP, but as we know with Betfair SP, the occasional huge-priced winner can skew the stats. The key stat to look at in the table is the A/E index: the higher the A/E index the better things may be from a backing perspective; any figure above 1 suggests a positive scenario. Archipenko stands out with not only an A/E of 1.31 but, with over 300 runs, this is a decent sample size too. Interesting, Archipenko roughly breaks even if backing all runners ‘blind’.

 

Now a look at the sires with the lowest strike rates:

 

Not surprisingly these results produce dreadful returns for backers and in general also have very low A/E indices.

These raw stats indicate a huge discrepancy across the spectrum of sires. Having an appreciation of sire data should help inform our betting considerably in 2yo races so let's dig a bit deeper.

 

Top Turf 2yo Sires (compared to AW performance)

Firstly let us look at turf versus all weather and a look at sires of 2yos that perform significantly better on the turf compared to the all weather. The table below compares the turf strike rate (SR%) with the all weather SR%. In the final column I have divided the turf SR% by the all weather SR% to give us a type of Impact Value. It is not a ‘true’ IV so I’ll call it a Comparison Strike Rate (CSR). The higher this figure the stronger the sire’s liking for turf over the sand.

 

 

The two sires at the top, Piccolo and Gregorian, have not had one winner on the all weather in the UK in the study period; however their turf strike rates are both also low and that should be taken into account. Sixties Icon and Dream Ahead are the two sires that initially catch my eye; mainly due to decent sample sizes. Those two, along with Dutch Art, are sires worth further exploration. If we look at the respective A/E indices for turf 2yo races there are some sires in the list that achieve a score of 1 or more:

 

It is promising to see Dutch Art and Sixties Icon in this table; for the record Dream Ahead’s A/E stands at 0.86. Delegator has an impressive figure and also looks worthy of closer scrutiny.

 

Top AW 2yo Sires (compared to Turf performance)

Now a look in reverse at the sires of 2yos that perform significantly better on the all weather compared to the turf.

 

Once again there are some eye catching figures in the table. Dragon Pulse has an impressive record on the sand albeit from a relatively modest sample of 73 runs. However, if we focus on his runners that had previously run at least three times his record reads an impressive 13 wins from 46 (SR 28.3%) for an SP profit of £44.26 (ROI +96.2%); A/E index 1.62. Lethal Force is another interesting sire on the sand especially when you compare his male runners to female runners – male runners have won 22.9% of their races (11 wins from 48), while female runners have won just 6.9% (4 wins from 58).

A look at the A/E index for these runners on the all weather makes for positive reading:

 

Just Lethal Force slips below the 1.00 figure, and even then only just. It is clear that these sires are a group to keep an eye on in 2yo all weather races.

 

2yo 1st vs 2nd start

Let us move on to look at the difference between horses making their debut compared to those having their second career start. It will come as no surprise to see a big improvement in strike rates from first to second career start. Looking at all 2yo runners the debut SR% is 7.07% and the 2nd start SR% is 11.81%. Dividing the second percentage by the first we get a CSR. of 1.67. This is our baseline CSR for comparing the figures in the table below.

I have used a minimum of 50 debut runs to give us enough data to work with and the sires in this list have the highest CSR. figures:

 

 

These sires clearly improve markedly between first and second career starts. There is also some more positive news when we examine the A/E index of their second career starts. There are several sires who have achieved a score 1.00 or more:

 

Approve (0.99), Iffraaj (0.98), Rip Van Winkle (0.97), Medicean (0.96) and Sir Percy (0.95) were all close to the 1.00 figure. Only Galileo has a poor A/E (0.70), primarily because he's such a very well known 'mega stallion' which filters into the betting markets.

 

There are a handful of sires that buck the trend in terms of 2nd run improvement and have a higher SR% on debut compared to next time out. Such sires are few and far between but the five in the table below are worth sharing with you:

 

The A/E indices for these five sires with runners on debut are shown below:

 

Australian bred Epaulette is potentially a sire to note on debut it seems, as is the other Aussie sire in the sample, Helmet. Interestingly, perhaps, when priced 10/1 or shorter Epaulette’s offspring have provided 7 wins from 20 for a profit of £27.38 (ROI +136.9%).

 

2yo Sires: Male vs Female runners

For my last comparison in this piece let us look at male runners versus female runners. Taking all 2yo races into account male runners slightly outperform their female counterparts (12.2% to 10.1%; S.I 1.19). If we ignore geldings then the colts (males) have a slightly stronger edge over the fillies (females) – 13.2% to 10.1%; CSR. 1.31.

Let us look at those sires whose males have a particularly strong record according to their CSR. figure:

 

If we now look at the A/E indices we see that 6 of the sires have achieved scores in excess of 1.00. Delegator has a very high figure at 1.93:

 

Delegator is a relatively new sire (2019 will be his fourth full season), hence data is in fairly limited supply. Having said that, if you ignore debut runs his 2yo colts record to date has been 10 wins from 45 (SR 22.2%). Focusing on those starting 14/1 or shorter this improves to 10 wins from 25 (SR 40.0%); A/E 2.63. This feels a bit 'convenience fitted' but it may be worth keeping an eye on going forwards.

 

Now a look at the sires where their mares outperform the colts – a smaller list:

 

The top three in the list - Hellvelyn, Power and Siyouni - have extremely high Comparative Strike Rates although Siyouni has only had 30 runs for fillies so these figures may level out over time.

 

Conclusions

Using sires to help unravel 2yo races is a ‘must’ in my opinion, though with generally limited data to work with we are forced into forming loose opinions which may later prove unfounded. Such is the nature of equine competition forecasting!

Of course there are other factors to consider, trainers being the most obviously important one. However, in order to get an edge on our fellow bettors, we must never ignore sire data when wagering in unexposed juvenile races.

- Dave Renham

A correlation between trainer and sire?

/in , /by

stallion DUBAWI at Dalham Hall Stud, Newmarket
31 Jan 2019 - Pic Steven Cargill / Racingfotos.com

A couple of weeks ago, I began thinking about this article and was trying to work out what I was going to research in terms of content and subject matter, writes Jon Shenton. For quite a while I’ve felt that it’d be interesting to evaluate prolific sires whose progeny train on (or otherwise) from the age of two to three. I started work by “messing around” on Query Tool (I believe that’s the most accurate description of the activity) trying to determine whether the data were material enough to construct an article from.

As I explored, a part of the data jumped out at me, exhibiting something that I hadn’t really considered previously. I wasn’t quite sure if it made sense, and to some extent I’m still not, but the more I think about it the more I think there is a possibility that it is underwritten by a degree of discernible logic.

I’m talking about the so far unconsidered and unheralded angle of trainer / sire combos!

Before you start sniggering, let’s work this through. Many of us consider trainer/jockey combinations a cornerstone of punting. Nothing wrong with that, I love a good old review of TJ combo data as much as the next man or woman.  But why would trainer / stallion be any less relevant? After all, the bloodline is essentially the raw material that a trainer crafts, shapes, develops and races. You could argue that if a trainer has expertise with a specific bloodline or stallion, they may have an edge on knowing how to get the best from those related animals; or that prior success leads to the acquisition of similarly bred horses.

I realise this may sound fanciful, but for now we ought to suspend any such reservations and see what can be unearthed.

The data utilised in the article are restricted to horses running at the ages of two or three, the rationale being that generally racecourse evidence will take precedence over breeding as a primary indicator of performance in older horses. Of course, there may also be merit in looking at the more experienced cohort but that’s for another day.

Starting with a broad-brush the below table shows simply the stallions that are ubiquitous in flat turf racing. The dozen detailed in the table below have accounted for over 24,000 runners since 2012.

There is one name on the list that stands out like my thumb after a rare and clumsy day of DIY, Dubawi. The Darley Stud resident checks in with a current price tag of a cool £250,000 per covering, which is the third most expensive in the world (behind Galileo and Deep Impact). His progeny reads like a hall of fame with a monumental 38 Group 1 wins. Current leading lights include Too Darn Hot and Quorto, ably supported by Benbatl, Wild Illusion, and Kitesurf in terms of recent G1 victories.

The graph above is very simply the strike rate of Dubawi stock in comparison to the other prolific stallions contained in the table.  Performance is significantly higher than the others, nearly 5% ahead of his nearest rival, Sharmadal.

If you’d backed every 2&3-year-old Dubawi runner over the last 7 summers at SP you would have yourself a tidy 7% profit which, quite frankly, seems ridiculous. It casts any cash ISA onto the naughty step in comparison (1.45% easy access, 2.3% fixed were the best I could find if you’re interested!).  Incidentally, just for the avoidance of doubt, the small print states that in no way am I advocating a Dubawi investment fund as a tax-free alternative to an ISA...

In terms of TS combo the table below shows Dubawi’s by trainer:

 

No huge surprises in where the majority of Dubawi offspring end up plying their trade. The boys in blue take the lion’s share of the animals, particularly Charlie Appleby.

There is without doubt promising data contained therein. As you’d expect, an elite stallion’s progeny in the hands of elite trainers results in elite level performance (aside from perhaps the Varian operation based on this intel). The non-Godolphin duo of John Gosden (who does inform buying decisions for Godolphin) and Sir Michael Stoute stand out a little though. Key data items of A/E, win% and ROI all point towards further investigation.

 

John Gosden / Dubawi TS combo

The baseline performance of 44 wins from 148 runs, A/E of 1.15 and a SP ROI of 42% may well be good enough, but it’s always worth examining in more detail to establish if we can find any legitimate enhancement.

A logical starting point of refinement with this data is by horse age. We might expect with Gosden better 3YO numbers than the 2YO equivalent, given his general focus on the Classic generation. The numbers in the table below support that.

At first glance it would seem to make sense to sharpen the focus by building the angle around the 3-year-old’s only, that would be a very reasonable approach.  However, in this case there may be another factor that could be of equal, if not greater, importance.

We know that in general terms Gosden is not a renowned trainer of sprinters so it would make sense to check the profile of these 2 and 3-year-old animals against race distance.

The graph above shows the average strike rate by distance of Dubawi progeny (orange line), which is pretty consistent across all distances. A Gosden-trained Dubawi, however, appears to underperform versus the average at distances up to a mile; but, from that 8-furlong distance up to 12.5 furlongs, Gosden strike rates are roughly 10-15% greater than the overall Dubawi benchmark (the unhelpful spike of 100% for 9-9.5f is derived from a perfect 1/1 record at that distance so can be discounted as meaningful data).

Taking only these races of a mile up to an extended mile and a half the table below illustrates the annual performance:

 

For me, using distance rather than age is a better approach in this case. It’s a subjective call though. Gosden’s mastery of middle distances feels instinctively more important than the age of the horse but it could certainly be cut both ways.

I’ve included both factors individually in this article to try and share some of the thought processes and considerations I use when inching towards data-driven conclusions. It’s seldom that I take a linear approach to building an angle and I always check several factors to try to work out what is driving it and then make a call accordingly.

As a final call-back here are the 108 runners across both age bandings at those key distances of 8-12.5 furlongs. Clearly Johnny G Is peaking with the classic generation but to throw out all 2YO’s based on the higher-level data could be an erroneous conclusion to reach, especially on a small sample.

 

Back John Gosden 2 or 3-year-old runners sired by Dubawi at race distances of 8-12.5 furlongs inclusive, or all 3YO Gosden Dubawi runners if preferred

 

Sir Michael Stoute/Dubawi TS Combo

Secondly, let’s address the subject of the TS Combo of Stoute/Dubawi (so much for my usual focus on the smaller underdog operations!). With 15 Classic wins and 10 Champion Trainer awards there aren’t too many unknowns when evaluating Sir Michael’s imperious record on turf.

Starting with horse age again makes complete sense. It’s probably edging into cliché territory regarding Stoute’s famously patient approach to the training of thoroughbreds, but it would be expected that the older grouping demonstrates stronger performance than the juveniles.

Sure enough, in this case it certainly appears as though the numbers support the view that a slow and steady progression is the preferred mode of the stable. Unlike with Gosden, I’m not motivated to search for something in the 2YO grouping. 3 wins from 25 tells its own story and as a result I’m content to leave a Stoute juvenile alone.

Again, SMS is generally not a trainer associated with the sprint division.  Splitting Dubawi 3YO progeny performance paints the picture below.

The data contained in the red box are of great interest: 39 runs, 19 wins, A/E 2.04 and ROI of 94% to SP, albeit on a small sample size. This could be construed as a nano-angle as micro seems too grand for it in terms of scale, but the statistical basis of it is sound enough.

In very specific terms Stoute had three 2YO Dubawi offspring making their racecourse debuts in 2018: Karnavaal, Calculation and Vivionn. I doubt very much that we’ll see huge prices on them when they race at three years of age, but they’re in my tracker and if they run between 10-12.5 furlongs during 2019 they’ll certainly be of interest.

Back Sir Michael Stoute 3YO Dubawi runners between 10 and 12.5 furlongs inclusive

 

So, where does that leaves us in terms of trainer/sire combinations? In Formula One, the best cars generally are piloted by the best drivers; as a result they win with almost tedious regularity. I suppose calling out Gosden/Stoute & Dubawi is not hugely left-field and maybe isn’t dissimilar to asserting that Mercedes/Hamilton will perform well in the predictable world of F1. Not that backing that F1 combo will lead to a profitable outcome, their dominance heavily factored into the market.

I feel the data are very interesting and that there is at least a modicum of logic supporting this route in. After all, as stated earlier, the raw materials of the racing game are provided by the bloodlines of the animals, trainers can only work with what’s there already and if premium stables are working with exceptional bloodstock that surely must be a positive? The only real surprise may be that their appears some value in the market for these high-profile trainers and benchmark stallions, at least hitherto.

Finally, by way of wrapping up the TS Combo subject I’d like to share a bigger data table showing the raw info of the most productive combinations in terms of A/E from 2012 onwards (75 runs to qualify). I did check the stand out Dalgleish/Kodiac axis but the number of qualifiers in 2018 was low (only 2) so it’s one to keep a watching brief on. Clearly there is further research to get stuck into if you are so inclined – do share if you go down that route, and thanks!

- Jon Shenton

 

 

 

 

 

Colossus Bets Review / Demo

/in /by
Please user Refer A Friend code, geegeez, when opening an account at Colossus Bets

Please user Refer A Friend code, geegeez, when opening an account at Colossus Bets

Colossus Bets Review / Demo

Colossus Bets is a pool betting platform for wagering on UK and Irish racing as well as many other sports. It is much loved by geegeez.co.uk subscribers for its flexibility. Players on Colossus may syndicate, or crowdshare, their bets; they can cash out all or part of their bets; and they can receive consolation payouts for being 'nearly right'.

If you like playing multi-leg place or win bets, like the placepot, I think you'll really love Colossus Bets. And if you sign up for a Colossus account, please use Refer A Friend code, geegeez - we receive a small percentage of your staked amount, which I put to good use in building new bells and whistles on this site (as well as an occasional cappucino for yours truly..!)

IMPORTANT There are very few betting companies we promote. The reason I am happy to promote Colossus is that, unlike traditional bookmakers, you don't have to lose for me/us to get a small referral fee. Rather, Colossus fund that from their takeout, the same as any other pools provider. That means we (obviously) want you to win!

Check out this video, which shows how Colossus Bets works, and why I love it so much...

And then signup for a Colossus account here (they'll offer you some bonus signup chips based on your first three days' spend)

 

Matt

Jockey Pace Profiles

/in , /by

In this article I am once again looking into the subject of pace or running styles, which regular readers will know is an area of research in which I have a great interest, writes Dave Renham. As I have mentioned before, knowing how a race is likely to pan out in terms of a potential pace angle can be extremely useful for us as punters. It might help us highlight a value bet or, just as importantly, help us swerve a losing bet that we might have backed had we not realised there was a negative in terms of pace. I have used the pace angle more and more in my personal betting be it pre-race or ‘in running’ and although I am not a millionaire yet, it is the one betting angle where I consistently get an edge.

My pace articles to date on Geegeez have focused on specific distances with course biases being a key part of my research. For this article however, I will focus on jockeys. The reason I have decided to look at jockeys is that I believe that a jockey can make a difference in any race, especially when it comes to pace or running styles. How many times have you cursed a jockey for leaving it too late to make his final surge? How many times have watched a jockey set a clever pace up in front and manage to hang on for a pillar-to-post victory? Hopefully this article will identify some jockey ‘nuggets’ which will go on to help us with betting decisions we make on a daily basis.

For this article I have looked at five years of data (1/1/14 to 31/12/18) including both turf and all-weather racing, in the UK only. I have looked at all races (handicaps and non-handicaps) with six or more runners up to and including 10f (a mile and a quarter).

 

Keen To Lead

As a starting point let us see which jockeys took the early lead most often, in percentage terms. I have included jockeys who had at least 300 rides over this five-year period:

For comparison purposes the average for all jockeys in terms of taking or sharing the early lead is 13.7%. Hence Richard Kingscote takes the lead early nearly twice as often as the average.

Let us look at how successful Kingscote has been when he has taken the lead early in races at up to a mile and a quarter. I have broken the data down by race distance:

These figures are quite promising as Kingscote’s success on front runners is also above the average: his overall front running win rate was 19.9% in the study period, compared with an average win rate for all front running winners of 18%. So not only does Kingscote like ‘taking it on’ from the front, he is evidently pretty good at it too. I should point out that his record is particularly good at 8f to 10f, so take note when he is riding a potential front runner around that distance.

Joe Fanning lies third on the list in terms of percentage of front running rides. This should come as no surprise perhaps as over 40% of his total rides have been for trainer Mark Johnston. Johnston is a trainer who is no stranger to allowing his horses to front run. Indeed, when Fanning rides for Johnston he has taken an early lead over 33% of the time (494 rides from 1487). Let us now look at how successful in terms of win percentage Fanning has been when taking the lead early:

His overall win rate on front runners is actually better than Kingscote’s at 20.8% (when riding for Mark Johnston this increases to 23.5%); and he has recorded good figures across the board apart from the mile distance, which is probably an anomaly.

 

Reluctant Leaders

Now let us look at the jockeys that took the early lead the least (in percentage terms). As before I have included jockeys that have had at least 300 rides over this five-year period:

 

These jockeys appear reluctant to take their mounts to the front early, or perhaps ride a lot of horses who are simply not quick enough to get to the front. If I was planning to back a potential front runner, or indeed be planning to trade it, I would have serious second thoughts if one of the jockeys in the table above was on board.

Jockeys who get their runners to front run more often than most are definitely worth noting, but the jockey win percentages when on front runners are just as important if not more so. For example, if a jockey had taken the lead in 20% of races but won only 5% of them then this is far from ideal from a betting perspective; though from a ‘trading in running angle’, it is not so much of a concern. A jockey that has led in 12% of races but won 25% of the time when taking the early lead is potentially one to note from a betting perspective.

Therefore, let us now look at the top performing jockeys in terms of win rate when on a front runner (70 front running rides minimum):

 

For comparison purposes the average win rate for all jockeys riding front runners in the review period was 18%.

William Buick tops the list with a highly impressive strike rate of over 30% of front running rides. He has been consistent across all distances, but especially in sprints, as the following table illustrates:

 

Silvestre de Sousa is a jockey I have long thought rides well from the front and his figures seem to back that up. His performance in small fields is particularly noteworthy: in six runner races when SdS has led early, he has gone onto win 35 times from 82 rides (SR 42.7%); in seven runner races his front running figures read 38 wins from 97 (SR 39.2%). To illustrate how good these stats are, we can compare de Sousa’s stats to the front running average win rate for all jockeys - this stands at 23.8% in 6 runner races and 21.9% in 7 runner races.

 

At the other end of the scale we have the jockeys with the lowest win % when on a front runner. Once again only jockeys with at least 70 front running rides qualify for the list:

 

These jockeys seem unable to take advantage of the general bias to front runners, though of course a number of them will generally be riding horses where market expectation is not high. If I was backing a potential front runner, I would prefer that none of these jockeys were on board! If planning to trade in running on a potential front runner however, I would still consider them.

 

Jockey Pace Averages

In order to give us a more complete picture I have produced jockey pace averages – in exactly the same way that I have created course pace averages in the past. I simply add up the Geegeez pace points for a particular jockey and divide it by the number of rides. The higher the average the more prominent the jockey tends to race. Here are the jockey pace averages (click the image to open in a new tab/window) :

 

For comparison purposes, the average pace figure for jockeys stands at 2.25.

Note the correlation between the highest averages here and the percentage of front running rides data shared earlier. Kingscote, Fanning and Norton are in the top three of both groups.

Many readers will also not be surprised to see Jamie Spencer at the bottom – he is a jockey renowned for holding his mounts up and his 1.86 average illustrates this perfectly.

How one uses the information in this article to aid their personal betting is of course down to the individual, but for me, someone who is often looking to predict the front runner in a race, this jockey pace data is very useful. Previous articles have noted that huge profits would be made at certain distances if you could consistently predict the horse that is going to take the early lead and front run. Hence, I have added these jockey data to other factors such as the recent pace profile of each horse, a longer-term horse pace profile as well, the draw and the trainer. It is all about building up the best pace profile of a race that you can.

  • Dave Renham

Geegeez Gold: Introducing Bet Tracker and New Ratings

/in , /by

In today's video post, I'm delighted to share with you TWO brand new features we've added to Geegeez Gold. Like everything else in your Gold subscription, both are designed to assist you in making your betting more fun and more profitable; and, also like everything else in Gold, we've tried to make them as configurable and user-friendly as possible.

So, what are these new features?

Bet Tracker

The Bet Tracker has been in development for a little while now and I'm really excited to share a 'beta' version within the live Gold service. Beta means there might be a few bugs we've missed and, with your help, we'll get those ironed out as soon as possible. Having said that, for a major new feature, I think - at least I really hope - it's in pretty good shape.

So what is Bet Tracker? It's an unobtrusive means of recording your daily betting activity and subsequently monitoring your performance. As the video below demonstrates, you'll be able to drill down into your overall racing betting to see where you're most effective and, just as importantly, where you're losing more than perhaps you ought to be. You can review your history by course, distance, field size, trainer, jockey, race code, handicap or not, race class and more besides.

Bet Tracker can be accessed from the Tools menu, or by clicking this link.

More details are available in the User Guide, downloadable from your My Geegeez page.

Watch this shortish video to discover more about our brand new feature, Bet Tracker:

 

Bet tracker software is selling for £100 a year - that was the first result I saw in a google search - but you get it bundled with your Gold subscription. And this is just Phase 1. In future, we plan to add Betfair SP functionality as well as more analysis variables and output options. For now, though, I hope you like the Geegeez Gold Bet Tracker.

*

 

Two New Ratings

Establishing how good a horse is can be a most subjective matter. Collateral form and official ratings help, of course, as on Geegeez Gold do Peter May's SR figures. To those, I'm pleased to be able to share with you two further sets of ratings, provided by Racing Post. They are Racing Post Ratings and Topspeed ratings.

Both of these sets of numbers, as well as OR and SR, can be switched on or off to suit your personal preferences. The short video below reveals (and hides!) all.

 

For those of you who like ratings, I hope this is something you'll find valuable as part of your Gold subscription.

CLICK HERE TO TAKE A 30 DAY TRIAL OF GEEGEEZ GOLD FOR JUST £1

Matt

Your first 30 days for just £1

Early Season Turf Pointers

/in , /by

April trainers

With Cheltenham now a fading speck on the horizon our next scheduled stop is the cavalry charge of the Lincoln in only a few days time, writes Jon Shenton. The shackles of winter are off (hopefully), Spring has sprung, and the flat turf season is well and truly on the way.

It’s without doubt my favourite time of year, certainly in terms of the racing calendar. The promise of the long, warm summer nights and a plethora of punting challenges stokes the fires like no other.

Conventional wisdom is that bettors should tread very carefully in the opening few weeks of the season whilst form-lines are built. Whilst that might be true to an extent if you’re a pure race reader it is certainly of less relevance to the data driven approach that I primarily use.

Horses having long absences, an array of new talent on show and highly variable underfoot conditions all contribute to devilishly difficult puzzles. Data can be your friend and ally under these circumstances and it can give you an edge on the general population.

A sensible point to start would be evaluating trainer angles for April performance.

The below table shows the April numbers, sorted by A/E and only including the usual SP of 20/1 or shorter animals. All races since 2012 are analysed.

 

One can clearly delve into any of these further. It’s certainly of interest that the highly populated Fahey yard is profitable over a high volume of runners. The same applies to Gosden, O’Meara, Appleby (Charlie), Haggas and Beckett. If they’re delivering runners to the track in April, then these data give a degree of confidence that they are likely to be competitive.

In pole position, however, is the veteran trainer Mick Easterby. He will be 88 years-old at the end of this month! If at a similar age I’m lucky enough to be around, I’d be hugely disappointed to be still working (understatement!) so it surely shows the enthusiasm he has for the game. Those rich experiences over the years certainly seem to have been put to good use in getting the yard's runners blasting out of the stalls early.

The April output is impressive with an A/E of 1.61, a nice strike rate (19%) and an ROI of 41% is more than welcome.

Evaluating performance against SP there is no winner at 18/1 or 20/1 from 26 attempts so from an angle point of view I’m going to exclude those personally. I do realise entirely that this may be folly, mathematically you’d only expect 1-ish winner from 26 attempts at those odds. But given the number of angles I operate and the relatively high number of daily bets I’m always happy to be more selective and potentially leave a winner or two on the bench.

Taking the 16/1 (SP) or shorter only it leaves 129 runs, of which 123 are in handicaps of some description. The remaining half-dozen non-handicappers have failed to register a single win. It’s clearly a yard focussed more on handicap racing so I’m happy to trim the angle accordingly again.

I also want to understand if April performance is uncharacteristically positive against the rest of the year. It could be that the basis of this angle applies to other months.

The graph below effectively puts the notion of strong other periods of the year to bed. It overwhelmingly illustrates the peak month for Easterby is April, with spikes in both win and placed rates in the month. It’s generally downhill from there as the season progresses.

 

Finally, to understand the consistency of the potential angle, a check of performance by year is helpful. Doing so we get the following split:

 

29 wins from 123 runs, 1.79 A/E with a 78% ROI. That’ll do for me. With no fallow year since 2014 this goes into my active angles as one to follow. Ordinarily these should go through a bit of testing before committing, but where’s the fun in that? I’ll be live with this in April, trying to get early prices. A high volume, small stakes approach mitigates the risk to some degree and enhances the entertainment value exponentially!

Back Mick Easterby in April handicaps at 16/1 or less on turf

*

Working down the list sequentially, the second-best performer in terms of A/E is John Quinn. The Yorkshire stable is a powerhouse of racing in the North. Around two thirds of his April runs are on relatively local Yorkshire tracks.
Starting with the April performance vs. rest of year this time we have the following by win strike rate:

 

On the chart I have marked the April data point with a red circle. Like Mick Easterby, it is clearly a landmark month for the stable.

A point of note, the March number is only representative of a handful of runners (15), and the same applies to November’s apparently phenomenal peak (17) so it’s easy ignore these months given the paucity of data.

Also, like the Easterby angle there is no winner at 18/1 to 20/1 so a small snip to the criteria to only take account of SP’s 16/1 or shorter is my personal choice. Looking at the annual performance there are two poor yyear, 2013 and 2014, which weirdly are also the same as Easterby. It might be that those were particularly cold or wet springs, leaving the horses a little short in their work, though that is no more than conjecture.

 

 

I’ve poked around looking for other trends or items of note with these data. In truth though, nothing stands out and there is usually little point in forcing it, such efforts usually leading to at least a degree of backfitting. Simple is best.

Back John Quinn runners at 16/1 or less on turf in April

*

Maiden & Novices

The onset of a new season means an absolute battalion of untried, untested and unraced 2YO’s will all hit the track for the first time. Like a lot of readers I don’t generally play in this type of race. Paddock judging is out personally, aside from worldly insight such as “that’s a big horse” and “that one looks a bit fired up” I have nothing to offer in this field, though I very much respect those who can read the confirmation, maturity and fitness of these babies. I have limited sources (i.e. none) of yard and course chat so the only thing in my armoury is my old mate, data.

From 2012 to date there have been no less than 14,911 horses making their racetrack debuts on turf as two-year olds in maiden or novice races. Changes to the novice programme in 2017 do make individual analyses on Maidens or Novice races more difficult on a like for like basis which is the reason that I’ve compiled them together.

This time I’m going to evaluate yards with a high number of runners, searching for the good and the not so good. The relatively massive table below shows first time out trainer performance in maiden and novices from 2012 onwards. I have elected to leave an SP filter out of the equation for this data set. The logic behind that is with debutants you could argue that the market is more likely to get it wrong and big priced winners could be more prevalent. This may or may not be true but that is the rationale for leaving the data as “pure” as possible.

 

As you might expect, there are some wild variations in performance. Firstly, the ones to potentially avoid, out at least around which to be wary.

Messrs Bell, Stoute and Easterby (Tim not Mick!) have a quite frankly appalling record under these conditions. In fact, the volume of combined winners is of such paucity that I can add it up confidently in my head without consulting any technology.

41 wins from 743 runners (I did have to check the runner number with a calculator). A strike rate of just 5.6%, with a combined loss of about 46% in terms of ROI. Good luck with that!

Of course, we know that SMS famously nurtures his charges along at a careful pace, so it makes complete sense for him to be here. The others are possibly more surprising. Geegeez Gold is of huge assistance in alerting you to these red flags on the trainer icon on the racecard, showing FTO performance of that trainer for the last two years.

Back to the macro-level data in the table relating to the last 6 years. The only trainers eking out a profit in the list are John Gosden and Andrew Balding. Gosden has the most impressive strike rate, 18.6%, on the table too. I must confess, I did find this a tad surprising so with a degree of curiosity I investigated it further.

Zooming in on monthly performance is logical in my mind. The early season calendar is rife with sprints. Short distance blasts are not something you’d ordinarily associate Johnny G with so might expect performance to be less positive early in the season in maidens/novices;

Sure enough, volume of runners, strike rate and ROI all improve as we  move into and through through the hot summer (ha ha). Indeed, Too Darn Hot (August), Cracksman (October) and Coronet (September) all prevailed on their debut run in recent years.

In general terms you might think that Gosden’s strong hand of 2YO’s will be focussed towards the future, and specifically their 3YO campaigns. In fact, it’s quite common that he waits until his charges are three before giving them their first run: La Ti Dar is perhaps the best recent case in point.

To be honest, despite knowing all this there is not enough here to generate a sufficiently strong angle for me. I have evaluated race class, sex of horse and a number of other variables but there is nothing of huge significance. That said, I’d always be very mindful of a Gosden debutant once we get beyond the summer solstice and maybe play on that basis, but it’s certainly not for me in terms of a discreet “system” to run with.

Given the sheer heft of runners (633) and the worthy A/E attainment (0.99) it would be slightly remiss not to comment on the Fahey operation a bit further. In a similar way to Gosden it’s hard to find a robust angle to recommend although there are some clues and pointers worth drawing out.

Firstly, the earlier in the season the better as the graph illustrates, April and May are very strong in comparison to the rest of the year.

 

There is also interest when evaluating at the SP’s of all the stable's Maiden and Novice runs. The line graph below illustrates the cumulative profit or loss position by SP. In basic terms it shows that it is most profitable if Fahey’s first time out animals have been backed to 4/1 or shorter. Virtually every banding bigger than that is loss making.

 

Backing all 4/1 or shorter runners would result in a £26 profit to a £1 level stake (represented by the green arrow on the graph), whereas backing all 9/2 or greater would return a £97 loss (red arrow on the graph). We know two things about Fahey Maiden and Novice performance. Firstly, April and May performance is good. Secondly, horses at 4/1 or shorter are profitable. So, if we take April/May runners at 4/1 or shorter at SP I’d be optimistic we’ll find a reasonable angle. The table below gives us our answer:

There we have it. A small number of prospective bets, and at 4/1 or shorter it should be relatively low risk if unspectacular. It’s not really my sort of usual angle or bet (I tend to favour Hollywood odds long shots) but if you are inclined to have a bet in a maiden and novice race a short priced backed Fahey charge in the spring wouldn't be a bad place to start.

Back Richard Fahey First time out horses at 4/1 or shorter in Maiden/Novice races in April and May

*

I hope in the above I've offered a few potential pointers for success at the start of the British flat turf season. Do feel free to play around with Query Tool on some of the other names in the big tables, and leave a comment if you find anything of note.

- Jon Shenton

Festival Reflections 2019

/in , /by

The stands have once again fallen silent after four breathless days of racing on Cleeve Hill, and the Cheltenham Festival 2019 is now confined to the memory banks and the history books. It was a captivating, challenging, emotional roller coaster of a week; these are my Festival reflections.

Champion Hurdler?

In the build up to the opening day, pundits and punters alike were relishing a duel between Apple's Jade and Buveur d'Air - or in some cases a three-way-go including Laurina - but what came to pass was one of those everyday 'you couldn't script it' scenarios for which racing's glorious uncertainty is known.

First, Apple's Jade was taken on at a helter-skelter lick by Melon, her chance seemingly compromised by this manoeuvre as she faded tamely into sixth. Meanwhile, reigning two-time champ, Buveur d'Air - with his trademark slick low jumping - took a liberty, and a consequential tumble, at the third flight. In so doing, he brought down Sharjah.

With the top two out of the race, as well as one of the key form line horses, surely it was Laurina's Champion Hurdle to lose? Lose it she did, the talk of her ascendancy proving some way wide of the mark. She was the only one of the supposed main three that had the chance to run her race, and she failed big time on this step up in grade. No obvious excuses there.

For Apple's Jade, it was a fourth visit to Cheltenham and a third defeat at a track where she seems to be beset by misfortune whether it's being in season, getting compromised on the lead or something else. It is not unreasonable to assume, given the full body of her work, that she is unsuited by the track.

And what of the winner and the placed horses? Espoir d'Allen, a progressive five-year-old bringing an eight-from-nine career record to the party, enhanced that to nine out of ten on this second attempt at Grade 1 company. He was soundly enough beaten in the Spring Juvenile Hurdle, his sole previous G1 effort, in February last year but may have been unsuited to the steady pace there.

This was fiercely run. Mark Walsh sat in midfield, away from the crazy tempo up top and, avoiding the fallers, came through almost in his own time to saunter fifteen lengths clear of a gallant but spent Melon, with 80/1 poke Silver Streak back in third.

Handicapping the race is difficult, especially for those intent on literal interpretations. Fortunately, some clever bods - notably Simon Rowlands in this piece on the ATR website - have confirmed what the peepers were suggesting: that they went way too fast early and slowed up dramatically late.

To contextualise that, Rowlands notes that the Champion Hurdle was run four seconds - about twenty lengths - faster to the third flight, and yet the differential at the line was a mere two-and-a-half lengths. Pace collapse territory. That enabled Mark Walsh and Espoir d'Allen to record even fractions throughout in a sort of tortoise and hare setup - if it's not beyond rude to refer to a Champion Hurdler as a tortoise!

The fact that Melon, spoiler-in-chief for the favourite, was able to cling valiantly to second in spite of running remarkably inefficiently anchors the form in my book. Five-year-olds have a notoriously weak record in the Champion Hurdle and, while that alone is far from sufficient to crab the victor, the nature of the run of the race with - as Rowlands again notes - the first six home in the Supreme bettering the Champion Hurdle runner-up's time leads me to downgrade the race in form terms.

Projecting to this time next year, Espoir can certainly win another Champion Hurdle: he'll be a year older and stronger, and he has that crucial track experience to boot. But he's a lousy price at 7/2 in a place (6/1 tops still not enticing). Buveur d'Air will be nine next year, an age that didn't stop Hurricane Fly or Rooster Booster this century, and won't stop him if his appetite is undiminished after this spill. Apple's Jade will surely not contest this again; ditto Laurina. Melon at 25/1 could be interesting each way though he's shown himself to be beatable, albeit in very different setups and where he's run above himself both times.

But the one which might be most appealing for long-range forecasters is City Island. The Ballymore winner has a much better record than the Supreme winner in the Champion Hurdle, and Martin Brassil's six-year-old was comfortably the best with all the right horses close enough behind to suggest there was no fluke to the performance. Enthusiasm for the 33/1 is tempered markedly by connections referencing the Stayers' Hurdle (for which he is 20/1) as his target in post-race debriefs; with that in mind, splitting stakes may be more sensible (if taking a price 359 days before an event is ever sensible).

*

National Hunt Chase 'Disgrace'

The National Hunt Chase is the second oldest race at the Festival, after the Grand Annual, but it has been run the most times due to the latter named being dropped for a chunk of the late 1800's - so wikipedia tells me, anyway. I also learn there that the race was considered the second most important, after the Grand National, in the calendar until the 1930's.

It is a four mile race for novice chasers ridden by amateur riders. For as long as I've been blogging and previewing Cheltenham - which is eleven years now, gulp - I've made mildly condescending noises about it. That's because I'm not a traditionalist, you see; I view most races through the prism of the sport as I see it and, naturally, as a wagering conduit.

This year, with welfare and good intentions aforethought, a number of jockeys in the race - notably Declan Lavery, who rode third placed Jerrysback - got into hot water with the stewards for persisting when their horses were considered by the arbiters to be too tired. These decisions have been roundly lambasted by horsemen of all vintages.

I am neither a traditionalist, as mentioned, nor a horseman, and additionally I have sympathy with the less militant parts of the welfare lobby, which leads me to an often conflicted head space on jump racing, a pursuit I love more deeply than flat racing. In that confused context, here's where I've got to: there WAS a problem in the National Hunt Chase - there simply has to be when, despite changes to attract a better class of horse and despite amateur jockeys being closer to their professional counterparts in ability terms than at any other time in history, eighteen horses set out and only four finished.

Of the fourteen non-completions, eight fell, one of which sustained fatal injuries.

Quite frankly, that is bullshit.

I happened to watch the race with a fairly senior member of the BHA, and we both audibly winced when the wonderful mare Atlanta Ablaze came down two out. It was a bridge too far for a pair of hardened NH spectators.

Here's the thing: this race is hideously anachronistic. It is probably twenty years past its sell by date, hence the ongoing tinkering with its conditions.

I know that the trads will lobby for its retention and I understand the reasons why. But it cannot be countenanced for another year in its current format. Blaming the jockeys for trying their best in a race which makes extraordinary demands of both humans and equines, each group inexperienced in the context of the meeting as a whole, is big-time deflection.

The issue here is the race, or rather its conditions. Here is a suggestion, not intended as a 'we should do this' blueprint, but as a strawman starting point to be discussed, pulled apart, iterated and refined.

The National Hunt Chase should be run over three and a half miles. It would still be the longest main track race at the Festival but it would be one-eighth less attritional. It should be contested only by horses with a defined level of experience and also, potentially, with an approved level of jumping ability. It should have a ratings ceiling to prevent the dilution of the RSA Chase, and a floor to prevent horses being outclassed and put at risk. Horses should be six or older (almost all are), and carry eleven stone rather than 11-06 (and jockeys will have to be able to do the weight without wasting/fasting). Jockeys should have a defined level of ability/experience to ride.

All of the above would make the race less testing; none of the above would make the race less compelling. Let's sort this crap out and stop blaming jockeys for the errors of history and the programme book.

*

Joyful Thursday

If racing has a propensity to shoot itself in the foot, it also continues to produce human (and equine) interest stories of almost universal appeal. Last Thursday's racing looks set to be as enduring as it was endearing - it truly was one of the great days of racing.

Victory for the resurgent former Triumph Hurdler, Defi Du Seuil, was a terrific start. JP McManus is one of the more likeable of racing's mega-rich, for all that he is domiciled in Switzerland for tax efficiency purposes (he does distribute funds across a number of sports in Britain and Ireland which, I guess, is a more expedient direct contribution to racing), and his colours were worn to victory three times on this day.

Defi is a bit of a forgotten horse in a way. Considering he's won eleven of his sixteen races, and five of seven races at Cheltenham, he has been spoken of in somewhat disrespectful tones in the lead up to the JLT Chase. But he showed his usual class and some of his more occasional mettle to repel a regular rival, Lostintranslation, and confirm the Scilly Isles Novices' Chase form. This was the first winner of the Scilly Isles to double up in the JLT, breaking a sequence of second places.

That was but an amuse bouche for a couple of scintillating main courses. Before those, there was the Geraghty master class on Sire du Berlais, a horse that was sent off 4/1 favourite but traded as high as 240 in running. He looked cooked but BJG conjured a magic ride to get by one challenger and repel another in a tight finish.

Then came those delicious appetisers, starting with the Ryanair. This is a race which has been - rightly, in my view - called out in the past as a hiding place for second tier Champion Chase or Gold Cup prospects; but the 2019 renewal was a proper horse race, one packed with legitimate two-and-a-half-milers and legitimate Grade 1 horses.

From the veteran Un De Sceaux to Gold Cup non-staying fourth, Road To Respect, to Arkle victor, Footpad, to Cheltenham specialist, Frodon, all were worthy players for whom, with the possible exception of Footpad, this was undoubtedly the right race. Chuck in last year's winner Balko des Flos and another winner from Festival 2018, The Storyteller, as well as high class second season chaser, Monalee, and it was truly a deep and classy field.

Sometimes such setups disappoint, runners failing to show their true ability left and right. Not this time. It was a super race from start to finish, with a fairy tale outcome.

Frodon, incredibly, has only recently celebrated his seventh birthday and yet seems to have been around forever. Since joining Paul Nicholls he's made Cheltenham home, winning five of nine chase starts at the track. That palmarès was rounded off prior to Joyful Thursday by a huge performance off 164 (and top weight) in handicap company, and a battling victory in the Grade 2 Cotswold Chase over a trip beyond his comfort zone. Here he added a first Grade 1 success in typical front-running heart-on-sleeve style.

In the aftermath it was left to Frodon's rider, Bryony Frost, to speak for her horse. Her affection for their partnership, her joy at what they'd just achieved together, and her youth and exuberance are the sorts of PR racing can't buy. Her post-race anthropomorphism of Frodon to any microphone that was turned on was beautifully sincere, faintly bonkers and, frankly, absolutely bloody marvellous. That Bryony adorned many of the newspaper front pages as well as their other covers on Friday morning was a much-needed shot in the arm for a sport sometimes struggling for relevancy in a world that increasingly fails to 'get it'.

And, if that wasn't enough, Cheltenham Thursday - so often the poor relation of the four day meeting - was able to sustain the Festival feel-good factor through the day's other championship event, the Stayers' Hurdle. This time it was Andrew Gemmell, a racing nut who has been blind since birth, who was the centre of attention.

His Festival had already been noteworthy when Discorama, a horse he part owns, ran a brave second in the National Hunt Chase. But this lad, owned outright and a strong favourite for the long distance hurdle crown, was the one that carried his hopes and dreams. Trained by Emma Lavelle and ridden by Aidan Coleman, both seeking their first Festival Grade 1's, those who could watch the race were left in no doubt from some way out about who would win; at least not until a horlicks at the last which would have floored a more fatigued horse.

Gemmell, reliant on the on-course commentary, would also have heard a cacophony of gasps to attest to the late drama which unfolded at the final flight. But Paisley Park, and Coleman and Lavelle, and Andrew Gemmell were not to be denied this joyful moment on Joyful Thursday.

What a day of racing that was. Alas, racing is never all 'up'.

*

Triumph and Disaster

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same

Kipling's these days almost trite verse about the journey to manhood will rarely have been more apposite than in the case of the boy-man Joseph O'Brien and the emerging brilliance of his four-year-old, Sir Erec. O'Brien is more than a chip off the old block, he is a carbon copy of the determination, diligence and intelligence of his father, Aidan.

Not 26 until May and rider of the winners of two Derby's, a 2000 Guineas and a St Leger, he already has a Classic victory and a Melbourne Cup win as a trainer. Although not named on the license at the time of Ivanovich Gorbatov's Triumph Hurdle win of 2016, he was widely rumoured to have been the trainer then; this was his chance to get a first Grade 1 win at the Festival.

But disaster tragically did strike. On the landing side of the fourth flight, Sir Erec broke a leg - I'm not sure how, I haven't been able to bring myself to watch the recording yet - leading to his inevitable euthanizing.

As I've already said, I'm an animal lover and a fan of the sport. In these days of heightened sensitivity in all walks of life - it sometimes feels like we're returning to a 17th century puritanical era - harmonising those two attributes, animal lover/NH fan, is increasingly difficult to explain to those who don't follow the game.

How can you love a sport where horses of the quality, beauty and, yes, purity of Sir Erec are allowed to be sacrificed? It's a deep and nuanced question, and it has different answers depending on who is asking. It's a huge issue, maybe for another day, but suffice it to say that I was reminded of Our Conor and that difficult day, and the nausea in the pit of the stomach remained through the rest of Friday afternoon.

But there is more to life. Indeed, JPOB probably couched it better than anyone when he was quoted as follows:

Horse racing in the moment is everything, but when we pull our heads from the trough and see the stuff going on outside...

*

Gold Cup win no silver lining

We need to talk about Willie. Again. Some won't hear of such as what is to follow, but the evidence is growing and only faintly masked by the excellent performance of Al Boum Photo in winning the Gold Cup. At a time when, as mentioned already, racing is fighting a battle against a rising tide of animal welfare sympathisers, faller - and especially fatality - rates are something which are going to be closely scrutinised.

Any horse can fall of course, and misfortune is as accepted as it is unwelcome in the winter game. But some incur greater levels of misfortune than others. To paraphrase the peerless Oscar Wilde (without intention to belittle the subject),

To lose one horse may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness

The Mullins stable saddled two of the three horses fatally injured at last week's Festival.

Obviously that's a tiny number and could easily be noise. Indeed it is very likely noise in and of itself. But, when looking at larger datasets, we see a similar pattern. Here, for instance, are the fall/unseat rates at this year's Festival:

Total Fall/Unseat - 32/498 (6.4%)
WPM Fall/Unseat - 5/59 (8.5%)

That's still a tiny sample, so let's expand to 2009+ at the Festival, eleven years and all of the data in geegeez.co.uk's Query Tool:

Total Fall/Unseat -  368/5315 (6.9%)
Total Fall/Unseat excl WPM - 327/4852 (6.8%)
WPM Fall/Unseat - 41/463 (8.9%)

Regardless of how many more competitive runners the trainer has, this is a significant outlier at the top of an unwelcome chart. Comparing with his most immediate Cheltenham Festival peers - Messrs. Elliott (14/181, 7.7%), Henderson (19/401, 4.7%) and Nicholls (23/321, 7.2%) - fails to improve the picture by relativity.

And yet still some may contend that the samples are too small. So, as one final set of data, here are the fall/unseat figures (chase races only) for all starters in UK and Irish races since 1st January 2015 for a select group of top trainers:

 

 

The obvious next question is, "Why?".

It is not for me to answer that: I don't have any 'in' on the yard nor do I think value is added by speculating on the basis of nothing. However, I will reference this quote from the trainer regarding Cilaos Emery, a horse who missed the Festival, that might just offer a window on this world:

He pulled a muscle schooling in Navan the other day. That's why you didn't see him this morning. We'll have to wait and see how he's going to come out of it. If he doesn't come out of it in the next seven days, then I think we might have to draw stumps for Cheltenham. That's a disappointment, but when you school them you take your chance.

When you school them you take your chance...

*

Give Back Friday

On a wagering note, the week went well for me personally, and also for keen followers of the previews I penned on here. 40/1 advised William Henry was an obvious highlight from an odds perspective, though I was far more invested in shorter-priced runners, including my biggest bets of the week on Road To Respect - who blew his chance by bungling all of the last three fences - and Native River, who ran a creditable race which was only good enough for fourth. I'd had an overstaked each way bet on Anibale Fly at 33/1 which took some of the heat out of the Gold Cup situation but that, and small nibbles at big prices on Hazel Hill, could not quite cover the Friday losers elsewhere.

The County Hurdle (We Have A Dream 2nd at 25/1), Grand Annual (failed to have a small bet on the 66/1 winner, first time I've not backed him in four spins in this race) and Martin Pipe (over-staked bet on Dallas Des Pictons 2nd at 7/2) are races where you're not supposed to pick up. In fact the first and last of that trio were perfectly gettable - just not by me.

Adding into that a personal and perennial inability to identify the winners of either the Gold Cup or Triumph Hurdle, and the crap shoot that is the Albert Bartlett and oftentimes the Foxhunters as well, you'll see why I consider it 'Give Back Friday'; though of course that assumes that you've borrowed some off those lovely bookie types from Tuesday to Thursday.

*

How was it for you? Feel free to leave a comment below - I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Matt

 

Your first 30 days for just £1