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.

2019/20 Football Season Preview / Bets

/in /by

2019/20 Football Season Betting Preview

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

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

And the returns were as follows:

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

 

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

**

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

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

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

Premier League Relegation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

League One Promotion

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

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

They ought to be a force.

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

League Two Promotion

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

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

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

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

The wager

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

**

Fantasy Football: Geegeez Super League

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

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

Here's how to join in

Go to https://fantasy.premierleague.com

Create your team, then...

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

ohc84f

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

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

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

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

Good luck!

Matt

Punting Angles: Haydock Racecourse

/in /by

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

 

Haydock Going

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

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

 

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

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

 

Haydock Course Constitution

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

 

 

Haydock Trainer Angles

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

 

 

There is much upon which to mull here.

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

Haydock by race distance

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

7 furlong races

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Haydock Straight Track races

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

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

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

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

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

Taking the minimum trip alone in the first instance.

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Closing thoughts

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

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

 - JS

Report Angles: How To Find Value Bets in Seconds

/in , /by

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

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

I hope you like it.

Matt

Tony Keenan: Blinkered Thinking

/in /by

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

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

Performance by headgear worn, Irish racing 2010-2019

Performance by headgear worn, Irish racing 2010-2019

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Blinkers

Use of blinkers, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

Use of blinkers, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

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

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

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

 

Cheekpieces

Use of cheekpieces, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

Use of cheekpieces, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

 

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

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

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

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

 

Visor

Use of visor, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

Use of visor, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

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

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

 

Hood

Use of hood, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

Use of hood, selected Irish trainers, 2010-2019

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

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

- TK

Dave Renham: Top jockeys’ pace profiles

/in /by

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

 

Recap

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

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

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

Mid Division – horses that race mid pack;

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

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

 

Overview

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Front Runners

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now William Buick:

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

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

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

 

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

Onto de Sousa:

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

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

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

 

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

Finally onto Danny Tudhope:

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

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

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

 

A Frankie Snippet

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

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

 

Prominent Runners

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Midfield Runners

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

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

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

 

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

 

Held Up Runners

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

TJ Combo by Run Style

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

 

Andrea Atzeni / Roger Varian 

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

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

 

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

 

William Buick / Charlie Appleby 

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

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

 

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

 

Jim Crowley / Charles Hills 

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

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

 

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

 

Frankie Dettori / John Gosden 

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

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

 

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

 

James Doyle / Charlie Appleby

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

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

 

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

 

Adam Kirby / Clive Cox

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

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

 

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

 

Ryan Moore / Sir Michael Stoute

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

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

 

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

 

Oisin Murphy / Andrew Balding

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

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

 

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

 

Silvestre de Sousa / Mark Johnston

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

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

 

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

 

Danny Tudhope / David O’Meara

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

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

 

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

 

Summary

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

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

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

- DR

Geegeez Annual Survey 2019: Results

/in /by

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

So, what exactly were your responses?

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

'Length of service'

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

 

Membership level

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

 

 

How long have you been a Gold subscriber?

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

 

Would you recommend Gold to a friend?

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

 

How often do you use...

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

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

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

 

Do you think Gold offers value for money?

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

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

 

What new stuff would you like?

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Do you read geegeez.co.uk tipster reviews?

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

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

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

 

How often do you read the following?

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Another free format question. Word cloud inbound!

 

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

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

This is very awesome. Thank you!

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

 

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

Over to the lexic0-cumulostratus...

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

In which decade were you born?

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

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

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

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

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

*puts soapbox away*

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Gender

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

How long have you been betting on horses?

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

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

 

Conclusions

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

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

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

Matt

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

Your first 30 days for just £1