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.

Jon Shenton: The Spring Trainers

/in /by

Over the past week or two I’ve noticed as I’ve left work for the commute home that it’s getting lighter, writes Jon Shenton. The seemingly everlasting spell of only being at home in eternal darkness is coming to an end: spring is on the way!

It also means that the flat turf season is looming into view and I used the equine flu downtime to do a bit of much needed spring cleaning on my flat systems portfolio. More of that to come over the course of the next few months. Until then, let’s have a brief delve into a few thoughts and potential patterns regarding the spring-time National Hunt game.

Before I start in earnest, it does need noting that the relatively dry winter, coupled with equine flu, means that seasonal based angles may not be as relevant as trainer plans may have been shifted through necessity. Sadly, we’ll only know in a few months, but I still think there is strong merit in finding training operations which typically go through the gears over the next few weeks.

In the spirit of not changing the habit of a lifetime, I’ll kick things off with a massive data table, containing the trinity of A/E, Win(SR)% and ROI.

 

What are we looking at here then? Essentially, this is a table contrasting March-May trainer performance with all other times of the year in terms of A/E, SR and ROI. My usual 20/1 cut off applies (that is, I am ignoring all runners >20/1), and the trainers illustrated all have seemingly strong spring records, certainly in comparison to their performance across other times of the year.

The data are sorted by variance in A/E performance between the March-May period and the other months. I think by showing this contrast it helps highlight those yards truly peaking at this time of year.

 

Matt Sheppard

For example, Matt Sheppard sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb, with an A/E variance of 0.75, a SR variance of 14.5% and a ROI variance of 91%. At a high level, absolutely everything about these data point towards a promising angle, including the fact that it is another under the radar yard which always comes as a nice bonus.

Here is Sheppard's record from 2012 onwards, by year.

 

Not many negatives there!

However, there are always a few simple checks to apply, especially on a seasonal angle. A good starting point to achieve that is to check the performance by individual month, hopefully validating that our spring record is superior to other periods.

By splitting out by month we’ve found something potentially of interest. Firstly, the A/E in February is touching 1.8. This was not part of our original data set. The A/E in May is also less impressive (although still very reasonable) in relative terms at 0.97. The conclusion from this is that the radar needs a slight adjustment, potentially shifting to the left of the calendar a tad. Taking account of the February data makes sense, perhaps at the expense of jettisoning May. I’m not willing to expunge that month yet, as there may still be merit in drilling down into the data further.

First port of call for the zoom is to analyse Sheppard’s record by race type.

 

Striking difference?  I think so.  Look at that chase record in comparison to the other NH race codes. There’s a very strong 37% strike rate, A/E of 2.15 and a return on investment of very nearly 129%. At SP, too, with Betfair SP returns better by another 20 points!

Incidentally the May record for chasers is five wins from 26, A/E of 1.25 and ROI of 38%. Moderate in comparison to Feb, Mar and April, maybe, but still bankable.

The table below shows the February, March, April numbers only, leaving it as your call on whether to include the month of May.

 

Suggestion: Back Matt Sheppard Chase runners in Feb, Mar, April (and optionally May) at 20/1 or less

*

Chris Down

It is going to be very hard to follow that angle with something quite as compelling. Still, nothing ventured, nothing gained, eh? Let’s establish a better understanding of the data relating to Chris Down's Cullompton (Devon) yard.

Whilst checking a few contextual pieces of info I noticed something worthy of attention. The graph below shows the volume of runners from the yard by month. That clearly looks like a trainer that gears up for the months of April and May in particular, potentially keeping their powder dry over the January and February period where they have relatively few runners.

 

There clearly could be a multitude of reasons for this. One logical possible may be that in general horses trained by Mr Down prefer quicker ground than the typical NH animal, hence a focus on spring-time runners.

The table below shows all yard runs since 2012 (at 20/1 or less SP, irrespective of month). Interestingly, 56% of all runners were on ground officially described as good or quicker. This compares to 42% across the whole National Hunt population.

We can look at this in two ways. Firstly, this yard purely gears up for the spring. Secondly, and alternatively, this yard could simply be waiting patiently for good ground and the fact it is spring is merely incidental.

It is probably of limited relevance what the key reason is as the data are clear. However, it’s always of interest and importance to have an underlying logic when selecting or deselecting variables in your search for profitable punting angles. In this case there is a clear demarcation between Good/Good to Firm results and those on the more traditional ground conditions of National Hunt racing; but not enough for an angle.

So, back to the original spring data. The table below clearly illustrates a yard that focuses on competing over the smaller National Hunt obstacles in the main: this is in keeping, perhaps, with horses who prefer faster ground.

NH Flat and chase runners are low in volume and no firm conclusions could ever be drawn on such a small sample size. However, what we do know with certainty is that hurdle performance is strong. We don’t know for sure that NH Flat or chase form would follow suit if we had more data so for that reason I’m happy to exclude them.

There is another factor worth consideration, and it can be of interest with the smaller, arguably more regionally focused trainers such as the Down operation. The table below indicates the results of the yard by general area within the UK.

Evidently, this is a trainer who prefers to keep things close to his Devon base. Performance on the tracks determined as being in the South West is markedly more impressive than the rest of the country. Approximately two thirds of runners are saddled in this region, too, which of course makes sense from a transportation perspective.

For the record those courses are Cheltenham, Exeter, Newton Abbot, Taunton and Wincanton. Although data points are limited, the record in “central west England” (which is to say, Hereford and Ludlow) and Wales (Bangor, Chepstow, Ffos Las) appears to hold up too which makes sense given their proximity to the Devon base of the yard. Whichever way we think about it, runners from Chris Down's stable travelling away from its South West base perform poorly in comparison.

 

Suggestion: Back Chris Down Runners over hurdles at 20/1 or less where they are running in the South West, Wales or Central West England.

 

For completeness and perhaps your own manual adjustments here is a table of performance by specific track.

*

Mark Walford

Finally for today, we head to the dual-purpose yard of Mark Walford. Based in York there are approximately 30 horses in training currently across both flat and national hunt racing. At face value, performance on the level is a tick or two behind the performance over obstacles with roughly double the volume of winners in the National Hunt sphere from a broadly similar number of runs.

 

Adopting the monthly split approach illustrates peak performance in April through to June (arguably with an interesting period in the early throes of the NH season in Oct/Nov). This means another radar refinement: effectively ditching March and adding June to the equation.

The official going spread is again of interest:

 

That’s consistent enough and, angle wise, it doesn’t really change things. I’ve included the table as, like the Down yard, there’s a notably high proportion of runners on good ground, doubtless caused in part by the months in question. I did check if the yard's record on good or quicker held up all year round to see if that was an angle worth progressing but, in truth, it didn’t. In terms of volume of runners, winners, and A/E, the core months of April, May and June are where it’s at!

The data also show us (table below) that the Walford yard is one where horses appear to be better for a recent run.  So, in terms of angle I’m going to tighten it by selecting only runners who have had an outing in the last two months / 60 days.

 

Suggestion: Back Mark Walford runners at 20/1 or less in April, May and June where the horse has run in the last 60 days

*

That's all for this edition. There are a few potentially interesting angles to be found when evaluating some of the other trainers on the main list for spring form published at the top of the article. At the very least I think all of these yards can have a small upgrade associated with any of their runners during this part of the season.

- Jon Shenton

Pace Wins The Race: 6f All Weather Handicaps

/in , /by

In my most recent article, we looked at pace bias in 5f handicaps on the all weather, and as promised here is a follow-up looking at the 6f trip, writes Dave Renham.

For regular readers I appreciate the next few lines in some form or other seem to appear in all my pace articles, but for the benefit of new readers I need to clarify the following: when discussing pace the main focus is the initial pace in a race and the position horses take up early on. At www.geegeez.co.uk there is a pace tab within the racecards for each race, and the stats in this article are based on the site’s pace data. These pace data on Geegeez are split into four sections each of which are assigned points – Led (4), Prominent (3), Mid Division (2) and Held Up (1). For all my articles I concentrate on the numerical values to create a plethora of hopefully useful stats.

The minimum distance of five furlongs gives the strongest pace bias on the flat as previous articles have illustrated. However, there is still a bias to pace horses/front runners over an extra furlong, which I will demonstrate in what follows.

The first set of data I wish to share with you is the overall pace perspective for 6f all weather handicaps with six or more runners (the data for this article has been taken from the last 5 years 2014 to 2018):

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 325 1812 17.9 1.75
Prominent (3) 523 4448 11.8 1.15
Mid Division (2) 155 2003 7.7 0.79
Held Up (1) 357 4886 7.3 0.72

 

These stats give front runners a solid edge – it is not as strong as over 5f but it is still significant. Just for comparison purposes let us look at the strike rates (SR%) and Impact Values (IVs) for 6f and for 5f:

 

Pace comment 6f 5f   6f 5f
  SR% SR%   IV IV
Led (4) 17.9 22.3   1.75 2.04
Prominent (3) 11.8 12.5   1.15 1.15
Mid Division (2) 7.7 6.5   0.79 0.62
Held Up (1) 7.3 6.7   0.72 0.61

 

Over 6f front runners are still winning 1.75 times more often than average so we still have a decent starting point.

The main data for this article covers all-weather six-furlong handicaps with 6 or more runners. I then split the data into different field sizes – 6 to 8 runners; 9 – 10 runners; 11 or more runners. I did this ‘runner split’ for the 5f all-weather data in the previous article, and over that trip bigger fields produced the strongest front-running bias. As it turns out, this is replicated over 6f too:

6 to 8 runners

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 536 104 19.4 1.41
Prominent (3) 1093 167 15.28 1.11
Mid Division (2) 304 27 8.88 0.66
Held Up (1) 988 107 10.83 0.79

 

9 to 10 runners

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 548 100 18.25 1.73
Prominent (3) 1351 163 12.07 1.15
Mid Division (2) 549 43 7.83 0.74
Held Up (1) 1477 113 7.65 0.73

 

11 or more runners

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 728 121 16.62 1.98
Prominent (3) 2004 193 9.63 1.14
Mid Division (2) 1150 85 7.39 0.88
Held Up (1) 2421 137 5.66 0.67

 

The IV for front runners increases as the number of runners increases. This is somewhat counter-intuitive and is therefore worth bearing in mind.

The article that discussed 5f all weather sprints looked at each course and distance individually. Once again this is the plan here, as different courses have different layouts, and also there are differences between certain track surfaces too. Let's start with Chelmsford and work through alphabetically.

Chelmsford

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 58 278 20.9 1.97
Prominent (3) 71 562 12.6 1.19
Mid Division (2) 31 422 7.3 0.71
Held Up (1) 44 671 6.6 0.62

 

Just over a fifth of the 6f handicap races (SR 20.9%) at Chelmsford have seen the early leader going on to win. This compares with a strike rate of 26.3% over 5f: not quite as strong but with an IV close to 2 the front-running bias is still clear.

It has already been noted that in bigger fields at all of the all-weather courses the front-running bias seems to be more evident. This is certainly the case here: in races of 11 runners or more at Chelmsford, the front runner has prevailed an impressive 21 times from 87 giving a strike rate of 24.1% and an Impact Value of 2.93.

The draw seems to be material here, too, with those horses drawn nearest to the inside rail performing best when taking the early lead (all 6+ runner races). That makes sense as they will be taking advantage of the shortest route. Horses that have led early from one of the three lowest draws in these big field Chelmsford 6f handicaps have won 25% of their races with an Impact Value of 2.28.

 

Kempton

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 72 388 18.6 1.85
Prominent (3) 107 938 11.4 1.14
Mid Division (2) 41 542 7.6 0.78
Held Up (1) 84 1123 7.5 0.75

 

The 6f trip at Kempton has a decent number of races each year giving punters plenty of opportunities to get involved. Front runners have a clear edge here and, as with Chelmsford, field size accentuates this.

In 6f handicaps of 11 or 12 runners (12 is the maximum at Kempton), front runners have secured 39 wins from 176 runners (SR 22.2%) with a very high Impact Value of 2.53. However, the draw data suggest there is no clear advantage to front runners drawn near to the inside rail (low).

 

Lingfield

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 68 297 22.9 2.07
Prominent (3) 76 590 12.9 1.16
Mid Division (2) 32 380 8.4 0.79
Held Up (1) 50 745 6.7 0.61

 

The statistics for Lingfield seem to suggest front runners there have the biggest edge compared with the other five UK all-weather courses. Any front runner here that is well fancied has done extremely well: horses that were either favourite or second favourite and led early over 6f here went on to win 39 times out of 80 runners equating to a win rate of nearly 50%.

 

Newcastle

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 23 143 16.1 1.74
Prominent (3) 34 394 8.6 0.94
Mid Division (2) 17 197 8.6 0.97
Held Up (1) 40 485 8.2 0.89

 

Coincidentally, the front running IV over 5f at Newcastle is also 1.74. Front runners do have an edge here but it is not a course I personally get heavily involved with, as the straight track for all distances up to a mile makes it a unique test of an all-weather horse in Britain. That greater emphasis on stamina produces the reverse to Kempton and Chelmsford, with front runners struggling in bigger fields.

 

Southwell

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 33 166 19.9 1.85
Prominent (3) 102 690 14.8 1.38
Mid Division (2) 7 124 5.6 0.57
Held Up (1) 17 491 3.5 0.32

 

A reasonable IV of 1.85 for front runners, but it is also worth noting that horses which come from midfield or off the pace really struggle here just like they do over 5f. One other area worth sharing with you is when a front runner also happens to be in the top 5 of the Geegeez speed ratings, it has won on 22 of 79 occasions (SR 27.9%) producing an IV of 2.50.

 

Wolverhampton

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 71 540 13.1 1.33
Prominent (3) 133 1274 10.4 1.06
Mid Division (2) 27 338 8.0 0.87
Held Up (1) 122 1371 8.9 0.9

 

Comfortably the poorest stats for front runners are at Wolverhampton, where there is a very small edge only and little to write home about. Indeed, pace seems to be far more balanced across the run styles at Wolves than at any of the other tracks.

*

Before I finish, in other articles I have used the various figures to create course and distance pace averages. I do this by adding up the pace scores of all the winners at each course and dividing it by the total number of races. The higher the average score, the more ‘biased’ the course and distance is to horses that lead early or race close to the pace.

Here are the 6 furlong handicap C&D pace averages for the six aw courses:

 

Taking all the data into account, six furlong handicaps on the all weather do offer ‘pace’ punters a potential edge. It is, unsurprisingly perhaps, not as strong as over five furlongs, but still strong enough to give clued in bettors a good leg up on the opposition. All we need now is to find a fail-safe method to predict the front runner...

- Dave Renham

Pace Wins The Race: 5f All Weather Handicaps

/in , /by

We still have several weeks of the all-weather season left so I have decided to look to see how strong the pace bias is on the sand, writes Dave Renham. I have not previously looked in detail at all weather pace bias in my Geegeez articles so now seemed as good a time as any.

Just in case you have not read my previous articles on pace I will briefly summarise a few things. Firstly when I discuss pace my main focus is the initial pace in a race and specifically the position horses take up early on. Most of you will be aware that on geegeez.co.uk racecards there is a pace section, and the stats in this article are based on the site’s pace data.

This info is split into four groups - Led, Prominent, Mid Division and Held Up, and after each race all the horses are assigned points in regards to which position they took up early in the race. Leaders get 4, prominent runners 3, horses that ran midfield 2, and those held up score 1. Just over 96% of all UK and Irish runs since 2009 have been scored, the other 4% unable to rated from the comment. For clarity, at the time of writing, 1,169,760 of 1,218,499 comments have been scored.

In previous articles, I have highlighted certain distances / race types that generally favour front runners both on the flat and over the jumps. My first five articles looked at 5f handicaps where pace bias is arguably at its strongest, but I did not look in detail at any course data for the six UK all weather tracks – my main focus was turf handicaps. Hence, a touch belatedly perhaps, it is time to address that now!

The first set of data I wish to share with you is the overall pace stats for 5f all weather handicaps with 6 or more runners (the data for this article has been taken from the last 5 complete years, 2014 to 2018):

 

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 254 1137 22.3 2.04
Prominent (3) 360 2874 12.5 1.15
Mid Division (2) 67 1026 6.5 0.62
Held Up (1) 183 2735 6.7 0.61

 

These figures clearly illustrate the advantage to horses which have led, or disputed the lead, in 5f all-weather handicaps. In fact, the Impact Values - a measure of how much  more likely than normal something is to happen, 1 being 'normal' - suggest that 5f handicap pace bias is slightly stronger on the all weather than it is on the turf.

The main data cover all handicaps with six or more runners; I have next looked at splitting these data into groups – 6 to 8 runners; 9 – 10 runners; 11 or more runners. Here are my findings:

 

6 to 8 runners

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 119 459 25.9 1.86
Prominent (3) 138 956 14.4 1.04
Mid Division (2) 22 249 8.8 0.64
Held Up (1) 65 757 8.6 0.62

 

9 to 10 runners

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 85 446 19.1 1.81
Prominent (3) 146 1083 13.5 1.28
Mid Division (2) 30 435 6.9 0.66
Held Up (1) 68 1125 6.0 0.57

 

11 or more runners

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 50 232 21.6 2.60
Prominent (3) 76 835 9.1 1.10
Mid Division (2) 15 342 4.4 0.53
Held Up (1) 50 853 5.9 0.71

 

It seems therefore the front running bias is as its strongest when there are more runners. An IV of 2.6 for front runners is extremely high for races of 11 or more runners.

Of course, each all weather course has its own unique confirmation and, consequently, its own set of stats. Here is a view on the courses individually, presented in alphabetical order:

Chelmsford

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 51 194 26.3 2.26
Prominent (3) 40 346 11.6 1.00
Mid Division (2) 22 252 8.7 0.78
Held Up (1) 30 410 7.3 0.63

 

Just over a quarter of the 5f handicap races at Chelmsford have seen the early leader going on to win. This is a very high percentage and worth noting. It is also worth pointing out that in races of 11 or more runners 9 of the 27 races (SR 33.3%) have been won by the front runner (IV 3.84). Not only that, another ten have been placed. Hence just over 70% of all front runners in these bigger field races have finished in the first three.

 

Kempton

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 23 84 27.4 2.36
Prominent (3) 24 170 14.1 1.22
Mid Division (2) 4 72 5.6 0.49
Held Up (1) 8 177 4.5 0.39

 

It is a shame that Kempton seem to have so few 5f handicaps these days as the front running bias is at its strongest here. There is a decent inside draw bias here also and it should come as no surprise that front runners from the lowest three stalls have secured 11 wins from 33 (SR 33.3%). The IV is 2.88 for those well drawn pace setters. Hold up horses have a dreadful record also which is worth mentioning too.

 

Lingfield

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 54 208 26.0 2.13
Prominent (3) 57 377 15.1 1.24
Mid Division (2) 16 227 7.0 0.59
Held Up (1) 31 436 7.1 0.58

 

Lingfield is another of the all weather courses to demonstrate a strong front-running bias over 5 furlongs. Additional insights are hard to find, although early leaders who were drawn 1 (the lowest draw) have produced 14 wins from 36 (SR 38.9%).

 

Newcastle

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 22 137 16.1 1.74
Prominent (3) 37 393 9.4 1.03
Mid Division (2) 11 183 6.0 0.67
Held Up (1) 40 473 8.5 0.92

 

Newcastle has the weakest front-running stats of the six all weather courses, almost certainly linked (like Southwell) to it being a straight five as opposed to running around a turn, but an Impact Value of 1.74 still indicates front-runners do have an edge. Hold up horses perform quite well here so it is not a course and distance I personally get too involved with.   

 

Southwell

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 27 142 19.0 1.81
Prominent (3) 94 730 12.9 1.23
Mid Division (2) 4 102 3.9 0.41
Held Up (1) 14 342 4.1 0.40

 

The second lowest IV (1.81) for front runners, and again the straight nature of the track is likely a factor at a course where pace setters do well at other distances. Note that horses which try to come from midfield or off the pace really struggle over the five at Southwell. I have found no major additional angles to profit from, but ultimately steer clear of horses that regularly are held up.

 

Wolverhampton

Pace comment Wins Runners SR% IV
Led (4) 77 372 20.7 1.90
Prominent (3) 108 858 12.6 1.16
Mid Division (2) 10 190 5.3 0.52
Held Up (1) 60 897 6.7 0.61

 

Decent front running stats for Wolverhampton, too. Front runners when drawn close to the inside rail, (draws 1 to 3), have scored 32 times from 132 races (SR 24.2%) with an IV of 2.14.

*

Before I finish, we can use these numerical figures to create course and distance pace averages. I have done this by adding up the pace scores of all the winners at each course and dividing it by the total number of races. The higher the average score, the more ‘biased’ the course and distance is to horses which lead early or race close to the pace. This hopefully gives us the final piece of the jigsaw. Here are the 5 furlong handicap pace averages for the six aw courses:

Hopefully this article has demonstrated how strong the front running bias is on the all weather over the minimum trip of 5f in handicap races. The four turning courses offer a huge edge in my opinion. My next article is going to look at 6f handicaps on the all weather so watch this space!

- Dave Renham

Jon Shenton: Heading Further Leftfield

/in /by

This is the second of a two part article. In the first piece, which can be found here, I highlighted a number of training operations worthy of a second glance if their horses ran well enough last time to finish in a placed position.

This follow-up will explore the other side of the equation: trying to find those trainers whose horses perform well after a moderate or disappointing run, specifically having finished unplaced last time out (LTO).

 

The Leftfielders

You may recall I named this group of trainers the “leftfielders” for what are obvious reasons, hopefully. In basic terms, these yards appear to deliver a winner seemingly irrespective of whether the horses ran well last time out or not. In the same format as that last article, the table below covers National Hunt handicap runs from 1st Jan 2012 where horses have had a starting price of 20/1 or shorter.

 

 

The data is split by trainer, showing performance by horses that placed last time out (left hand block) and horses that were unplaced LTO (right hand block). This table of leftfielders is sorted by the variance in performance between the two separate datasets. In this case it’s showing the yards who are exceeding market expectation with their runners who were unplaced in their last race.

And here is the same info represented graphically (using A/E).

 

 

I find some of this data striking. All these yards outperform market expectation with runners that had a moderate/unplaced last run. That’s certainly interesting, however, the real insight for me is the variance in comparison with their in-form runners.

Perhaps it’s labouring the point but if we take Joanne Foster’s data, the A/E of her placed LTO animals is 0.55 (based on market evaluation of 8 wins from 86 runs) and the A/E of her unplaced equivalent is 1.48 (based on 26 wins from 157).  That's a variance of 0.93 in A/E performance between the two datasets. The graph shows the scale in difference with the Keevil, Stronge, Coltherd, Dalgleish and Spearing yards all showing notable deltas between their placed & unplaced performers.

Another way of appraising the data is by analysing strike rate. The graph below illustrates the same dataset but by winning percentage across the placed/not placed variants.

 

 

Here we can see that not only do these trainers beat the market with their unplaced last time entries, but their strike rates are at least comparable with their more in-form (as measured by last day placing) charges. In other words, last time out finishing position is less relevant for these yards. Taking the Foster yard again, a horse placing LTO prevails in its next race 9.3% of the time, compared to 16.56% for those unplaced last time. Whichever way you look at it, that’s a big difference and should be ripe for punting angles.

Let’s zoom in on the Joanne Foster data as a case study. The Yorkshire-based stable is another small, focused outfit. Exactly the sort of yard that I like to follow. Having had a total of 39 winners from 407 runs in National Hunt racing (since January 2012) the ability to track the stable runners and performance closely should be attainable. Incidentally, nearly a quarter of the yard's runs have been at Sedgefield (15 wins from 97 with a ROI of 0.1% at starting price) so entries at that track from Foster should always be noted.

Returning to the placed/not placed data, there are three aspects of the Foster yard that I think can be drilled down upon to make the healthy starting point of her overall unplaced LTO data (27 wins from 156, A.E 1.48, ROI 33% to SP) potentially even more profitable.  They are starting price, going and days since last run.

There are three data tables below showing the splits:

The reason that I’ve shown the three separately with the same data (the 27 wins from 146 runs) is that if we'd gone through sequentially it could seem like a heavily back-fitted approach. By keeping the larger data set and analysing the variables against that broader info we can be slightly more confident that the data is indicative of a general trend in performance.

The numbers outlined by the red border in the tables show moderate performance, which I’m happy enough to remove from the equation. Horses returned at an SP of 17/2 or greater have a 5-from-90 record losing 19% of funds overall; while horses running on “non-winter ground” have a 5-from-56 record, and those having had more than 45 days off the track are a wretched 1-from-32.  All of these 'chuck outs' are rational and explainable too.

Removing the red border runners gives us:

 

 

A very small micro angle – but a high strike rate (39%), A/E at 2.53 and 166% ROI. One of the reasons I’ve laid out the components is that the angle is probably strong enough for you to choose which elements or not you’re comfortable including or excluding. For me, I’m going for it, this is in my systems portfolio until further notice!

Back Joanne Foster runners at 8/1 or less, on Good to Soft or softer where the horse has run within the last 45 days

 

I could go into more detail on any of the trainers on the master table at the start of the article hunting for micro angles! After all, there are some massive names on there (Gordon Elliott, and Anthony Honeyball of this parish, to name but two). However, the key message is that all these yards have a propensity to deliver irrespective of a low-key last run by one of their charges.

When trying to unpick a handicap race we all like the comfort blanket of a nice recent run for our potential wagering proposition. But over the past year or so my mentality is changing / has changed and I take my comfort from data such as this instead.

Finding a horse from one of these yards that I like and which bombed LTO gives a ripple of excitement, after all I think I know something that the punting masses generally don’t. Naturally, it doesn’t always work and clearly an unplaced run LTO can be a symptom of a horse with limitations or being out of form rather than an off day. Nobody said it was easy!

 

Like Shelling P's

As I’ve been writing this, looking out of the window on another frosty Leicestershire morning, something else has occurred to me. As an extension of the theme I’ve been wondering if there are some of the training establishments whose horses bounce back specifically from being pulled up in their last run.

My hypothesis would be that some trainers could offer instructions to the jockey to pull up more readily than others (it could of course be the jockey too), or that they are more inclined still to run a horse when the weather conditions have gone against the horse, or, well, for any number of other reasons. Regardless of reason or theory, it’s worth a quick look.

 

 

Now isn’t that interesting?  The table shows trainers where a horse was sent off at an SP of 20/1 or less and had pulled up in its previous run. To qualify for the table an A/E of greater than 1.00 is required.

There are some National Hunt behemoths on here: Nicholls, Henderson, Tizzard and Hobbs for example. It does make sense to an extent. They generally house animals with greater talent so you’d expect them to be more capable of bouncing back after a bad run in comparison to other stables. It does appear, though, that the market might not always fully factor that in. That’s perhaps understandable; after all backing a horse with a P as its latest entry on the form-line requires a degree of bravery. However, in general terms there will be value plays where these trainers listed in the table are in the game.

The clear leader here is David Pipe so let's have a look at his data in more detail.

31 wins from 161 runs, A/E 1.75 and ROI of 62%.

We could leave it there, that’s strong!  But let’s check a bit closer anyway.

Here is the distribution by starting price.

 

A bias towards the shorter end of prices here, it appears as though we are on relatively safe territory ignoring all runners at 12/1 or greater, where a combined record of 3-from-65 and a £20 loss to a £1 level stake is persuasive enough for me. That leaves the following consistent performance over several years (notwithstanding the solitary runner in 2019 so far).

 

 

And Just like that another micro is added into my portfolio:

Back David Pipe runners sent off at 11/1 or less and which were pulled up in their previous run

Sometimes it can be that easy finding angles, other times I can sit for hours searching high and low for snippets worth exploring.  I like this one though and am looking forward to seeing how it pans out over the coming weeks, months and maybe years!

That just about wraps up this edition. A final word, though. If you have any theories or hypotheses that you think might be worthwhile looking into please drop me a line, either via the comments below or on twitter

I can’t promise I’ll investigate everything but I’m sure there is some gold worth panning for in the collective minds of geegeez.co.uk subscribers / readers.

Speak soon!

- Jon Shenton

Stat of the Day: The 2018 Review

/in /by

A little over four weeks ago was the end of SotD's seventh full calendar year since its inception as a non-tipping piece back in November 2011. I should possibly clarify for those who haven't been with us all that time!

SotD was designed to give some statistical pointers as to how you could frame a bet without relying purely on the formbook or the racecards, which as we all know were (and largely still are ) inadequate back then. So, whilst we don't expect all of them to win, we do expect a fair run and often the stats we quote will pinpoint winners elsewhere too, so it's really more than a tip.

We know that we acquire lots of new subscribers every year thanks to previous years' successes from this service and also due to more savvy punters looking for better data, information and racecards than they'll find anywhere else on the 'net, so a brief overview of SotD is as follows...

Whilst form and other variable parameters come in to play when normally making a bet, SotD's first port of call is find runners who fit a stat (or usually a number of stats) suggesting they will go well.

We aim to have the selection online in the early evening before racing (preferably by 6.00pm) where possible but occasionally due to home-life, travel plans and/or holidays, it can be later, but there's a selection every day except Sundays and we don't take Bank Holidays, Easter nor Christmas off!

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

What we do have is a consistent approach that aims to highlight one value selection per day and although this "one-a-day" stats-based approach to bet selection suffers all the obligatory peaks and troughs associated with betting on horses, we did manage to make a profit yet again in 2018, but it was a real tough slog and easily our worst year so far, which was made even more acute following on from 2017's stellar performance!

Normally at this point, I'm typing this out with a fairly satisfied smile on my face, but the bulk of 2018 from Easter onwards gave me little to smile about to be honest and the only real cause for celebration is that we managed to secure another yearly profit, our 7th on the bounce. We're rightfully proud of our 7 year record for what is essentially a free add-on to the Gold toolbox package, but we're aware that 2019 needs to be better.

A full month-by-month analysis of SotD's results can, of course, always be found at
http://www.geegeez.co.uk/stat-of-the-day-month-by-month/ , but the overall picture for 2018 was as follows:

Number of bets/selections/pts wagered: 292 (two fewer than 2017!)
Winning Bets: 67 (well down from 83 in 2017)
Strike Rate: 22.95% (2017 = 28.23%)
Average payout from winning bet : 3.57/1 (2017 = 3.89/1)

Yearly Profit: 14.16pts (2017 = 112.05pts)
Profit on Stakes Invested: 4.85% (2017 was 38.11%)

Our overall bottom line is still very impressive and one that both Matt and I (it's a team game) are rightfully very proud of, but we're well aware that 2019 needs to be better for both of us and more importantly for you, our loyal subscribers.

That said, the first four weeks of this year have gone well and we're already guaranteed to be in front for the at the end of next month, so we're now hoping to kick on and make 2019 something more like 2017 than 2018!. The challenge now, of course, is to extend January's form for as long as we can throughout the year.

Thanks for sticking with Geegeez and SotD,
Chris, Matt and the whole Geegeez team.

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

Click here for more details.

Video Walkthrough: Picking out a Place 6

/in /by

I've always been a big fan of placepots, and these days I play Place 6's at Colossus Bets most days. The reason for that is related to the better features and also the ability to frame syndicates, which I regularly do.

In the video below, I walk through how I scope up a meeting. It contains a good few pointers on strategy, and some tactics I deploy as well. As it turned out, it was a losing bet. Worse still the race that went down I was influenced in a way I very rarely am: by a whisper for a horse! Even worse still, I gave the winner - a horse with no form - a big shout on a trainer angle. Sigh. The dividend was £360, and my ticket is shown beneath the video.

Hopefully you'll find something of interest in the recording. And if you'd like to play Colossus Bets pools yourself - I recommend them - there's more info here:

Account Registration

  1. You need a Colossus account. If you haven't got one, you can sign up here and Colossus will fund your account with the same amount you bet in your first 72 hours, up to a maximum of £100. YOU MUST USE THE REFER A FRIEND CODE TO GET THE BONUS (SEE BELOW).
  2. You can be a friend to geegeez by using the 'Refer A Friend' code, geegeez - Colossus will then send a small rebate to us from their takeout when you bet. They welcome winners and you absolutely do not need to lose for us to get our small commission. In fact, they give us a tiny bit more when you win, which is why I'm keen to promote them. So please, take down some of the big pots, would you?! 🙂
  3. Here's the signup link again (and thank you).

Matt

 

 

Jon Shenton: From one place to another?

/in /by

I’ve been meaning to check this out for ages, writes Jon Shenton. With a bit of downtime over the Christmas and New Year period (if you can have downtime with three kids) I finally got around to pulling my thoughts together to test a few theories with some lovely data.

I’ve always been curious about whether there are some trainers where we can get a better view of a horse’s likely performance based on its form in recent runs.

In fact, I have touched on it in some of my earlier pieces on this site. Using data such as the LTO Winner element of the Trainer Snippets report here on geegeez.co.uk we know that some yards are more adept at backing up a win with another victory. In this article, then, I will broaden the search a little to placed form, rather than evaluating last time out winners only.

Let’s get straight into having a look at a few numbers.

The data below shows all National Hunt Handicap runs at 20/1 or less since 1st Jan 2012 (up to 11th Jan 2019) split by whether the horse placed last time out (LTO). I’ve selected handicaps only largely to avoid the inconsistencies associated with horses on their first few runs. There may be an argument to expand this, but one has to start somewhere.

The key here is that A/E and ROI are virtually the same across both datasets. From a punting perspective you’d lose just short of 15% of your cash backing all horses that placed LTO, and a similar level of damage would be inflicted if you only backed horses that did not trouble the judge during their last venture.

The main difference is strike rate, a horse “in form” based on last run prevails 16.66% of the time as opposed to 11.44% if it was off the board that last day.

Broadly speaking, a winner that placed last time out returns a starting price of about 4/1 on average.  One that didn’t place the last day has an SP of 13/2 or thereabouts.  Considering both aspects perform consistently in A/E and ROI terms the market appears to be getting it right.

Let us now drill down somewhat, by yard, in search of trainers worth tracking in specific circumstances.

To do that I’ve pulled together a fairly large master data table showing performance with horses that placed last time, and data showing where the horse hasn’t hit the frame in their last race, and merged it together by trainer to try paint a picture. Still with me? Good!

To make sense of it all I’ve categorised things into three areas of interest and will discuss each in turn.  The categories are as follows:

  1. The Outperformers: trainers who generally are beating the market irrespective of what their charges did last time out
  2. The Rollers: these guys appear to roll when their animals place in their previous run and follow up with another good run
  3. The Leftfielders: these yards appear to deliver a winner seemingly irrespective of whether they run well last time out or not

In this article, I'll review the first two categories, starting with...

The Outperformers

The first theme or thread represents general outperformers, which is to say handicap excellence all round.

Just to explain the tables and data in more detail first.  The “block” to the left shows the trainer performance for horses that placed last time out in terms of runs, wins, actual vs, expected and return on investment.  The “block” on the right shows the performance of all runners that failed to make the frame in their last appearance.

The column on the far right (A/E var PL – NP) shows the difference in A/E performance between horses placed and unplaced last time out.

This should be an elite list, and for that reason it’s small in size. These yards have an A/E of 1.00 or greater irrespective of horses placing or not last time, with a positive ROI across the board to boot. To qualify they needed to have saddled a minimum of 50 runners for each aspect at an SP of 20/1 or less.

If we take the Kenneth Slack yard, horses which placed last time won 23 of their next starts from 86 runs. That was right on expectation against the market (A/E 1.01) whilst recording a small profit of about 7%.

His unplaced last time runners were 20 from 79 in terms of wins in the review period, but this time A/E is 1.35 and ROI is close to 50%.

A Slack runner based on these numbers is always worth a second glance.  However, it seems as though the horses’ last race performances may be irrelevant to how well they’re likely to run this time. The win strike rates are very similar, too (c.25-26%), but because the market seems to be factoring in the last run form there is more value in backing the runners who did not place on their last outing.

All of the above five trainers are Outperformers, consistently beating the market irrespective of whether their horses’ previous run indicates they’re in form – as evidenced by a placing – or not. At the top of the tree is Tom Lacey, though the market is now catching up with his progressive stable. As things stand backing all Lacey’s runners blind is a still a rewarding enterprise… just! The bird, however, may have flown.

Interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly, Nicky Richards is outperforming expectation across nearly 800 runners. That merits further investigation another time but, for now, following this yard closely is the recommendation.

 

The Rollers

Just by way of a quick refresh, a Roller is a trainer who performs strongly where their horses hit the frame in their most recent start, in comparison to the ones that were unplaced.

The table below shows trainers with 50 or more runners in each category (placed or not last time out). Data is sorted in order of the variance in A/E performance between the placed and not placed LTO (the far right column).

Some of these variances are mighty in scale.

For those that are more visually stimulated, the graph below shows the same data as the table in terms of A/E performance by trainer. The blue blocks represent horses placed last time, the orange line representing those that did not. It shows the range of difference in performance by trainer, the size of variance getting smaller as we work left to right across the graph.

Right at the top we have James Evans (H J Evans http://www.hjamesevans.co.uk), a relatively modest (in terms of size) operation based 20 or so miles away from Cheltenham.

Modest in size maybe, but if an Evans horse placed LTO they enjoyed a 21 from 69 win rate, A/E of 1.67 and ROI of 112%

Compare this to those unplaced in their previous outing:

12/146, A/E 0.71 and ROI -24%.

That’s a stark difference potentially illustrating that this yard takes its time to get horses ready but, once firing, they look worthy of support.

Drilling a little deeper, the James Evans yard in its entirety has only ever had one winner at greater than 14/1 (UK NH racing) so we can refine slightly.

I’m happy to leave it there, this angle has been profitable every year apart from one so that will go into my systems to follow library from now on, a simple angle:

Back James Evans runners with an SP of 14/1 or less that placed LTO

 

Another trainer with a stark difference in performance based on last time out placing is Caroline Fryer (17/56 placed LTO 28% SR vs 6/78, 8% SR not placed LTO http://www.carolinefryerracing.co.uk). Hers is another team with a select number of horses running under rules. On closer inspection there is a slightly different story to tell here, however.

Of those 17 wins from last time placers, ten relate to a single horse, Riddlestown. Now a 12-year-old his last run was on Boxing Day. It may be that age is catching up with him but he’s still going into my geegeez tracker. When he’s had a competitive run (placed) in the recent past (30 days or sooner) he is 10/31 so I’ll be keeping an eye out for an uptick in performance. Riddlestown has an entry at Leicester on 22nd January, so I will be watching closely for signs of improvement with a view to potentially following him next time.

Every trainer on that list above merits further analysis, especially those who fly under the radar of the general masses (which I think is the case for most of them).

A yard I’ve followed with some success in the past is that of Iain Jardine (http://iainjardineracing.com), though admittedly more on the flat where Jardine has a strong record in staying races. That is particularly true where his horses are fit (had a recent run) and have been backed (10/1 or less). So it’s not a huge surprise to see him on this list with his NH runners.

Taking his ‘placed in previous run’ data for National Hunt (30/106) and refining I’d expect a similar pattern to his flat runners to be apparent: a recent run and relatively well supported in the market.

I’m not going to show the data table (you’ll have to trust me!) but there isn’t a winner in his dataset sent off at greater than 10/1, albeit only from 13 runs.  A similar pattern to the flat runners so I’m going to ignore those for now, though I am mindful of the small sample size.

The table below shows the 10/1 or shorter NH placed LTO runners by days since last run.

I’ve used coloured font illustrate some of the subjectivities when dealing with data.

The Green section is easy, it clearly shows that if a Jardine horse sent off at 10/1 or shorter was placed in a very recent run (20 days or less) it is worth following.

The other sections are less clear, the red font illustrates those horses that have been off track for more than 60 days: one winner from only 7 runners sent off at 10/1 or shorter, so inconsequential. Personally, considering the overall profile of the data I’m happy to leave a short-priced Jardine placed last time out runner alone if it’s not been since within a two-month period.

As you may have speculated already the amber section is most open to interpretation, with ten wins from 44 runners and a very small SP profit to a level stake. I think in this case I’d probably leave alone, primarily to limit the number of bets and to keep a more focussed portfolio. However, with exchanges and BOG it may be that backing these ‘three weeks to two months off’ runners will turn a healthy position.

Iain Jardine NH Handicap runners with an SP of 10/1 or less that have run in the last 20 days, placed LTO

 

This article and the data referenced within is broad brush stuff. For example, in the high-level data there is no consideration of factors such as when the horse’s last run was, which grade, distance, class, etc. Form must be more relevant when those things are positively aligned with today’s task.

Next time I’ll look at the “Leftfielders”.  There is a raft of interesting stuff to discuss with these yards.  Word count and a determination on my part to try and be a bit more succinct means I can’t do it justice today! Until next time, happy punting.

 - Jon Shenton

 

 

 

 

The Importance of Pace in Three Mile Handicap Chases

/in , /by

After a break of a few months I am back to look at some more pace angles in an attempt to find potentially profitable avenues, writes Dave Renham. My last pace article looked at handicap chases at up to 2m 1½f; this time, I will focus on longer distance (2m 7f to 3m 3f) handicap chases.

The data I have researched is from the past five years (2014 to 2018) for UK racing, using the Geegeez Gold Query tool.

When I talk about pace I mean the initial pace in a race, and specifically the position horses take up early on. The pace data on Geegeez is split into four – Led (4), Prominent (3), Mid Division (2) and Held Up (1). The number in brackets is the pace score that is assigned to each section.

The first set of data to share contains overall pace statistics for handicap chases of 2m 7f to 3m 3f for the period of study (a minimum number of six runners in a race).

[N.B. It should be noted that when using the Geegeez Query tool you currently need to enter the parameters 3m to 3m 2f. The Query tool uses increments of 2 furlongs and when you put in 3m - 3m2f it actually covers races from 2m 7f to 3m 3f]

 

Pace comment Runners Wins SR% IV
Led (4) 2282 430 18.84 1.68
Prominent (3) 4894 626 12.79 1.14
Mid Division (2) 2076 160 7.71 0.75
Held Up (1) 5086 406 7.98 0.71

 

 

Despite the fact we are looking at long distance handicap chases, we can clearly see that horses which led or disputed the lead early have a definite edge. Prominent racers have a fairly decent record too, while horses more patiently ridden early tend to underperform.

 

Best performing tracks for front runners (2m7f - 3m3f handicap chases)

As when I looked at 2m – 2m 1½f pace data, there are significant differences in the course figures for these contests, with some courses being much more suited to early leaders and front runners than others. Here are the courses with the best strike rates in terms of front runners at the circa three mile range (minimum 25 front runners to qualify):

 

Course Front Runners Wins SR%
Carlisle 54 15 27.8
Sedgefield 26 7 26.9
Taunton 67 18 26.9
Kelso 62 16 25.8
Newton Abbot 69 17 24.6
Wincanton 79 19 24.1
Hexham 84 19 22.6
Plumpton 62 14 22.6
Lingfield Park 32 7 21.9
Ascot 48 10 20.8
Newcastle 45 9 20.0

 

For record the strike rate for Fakenham for front runners was 28.6%, but there were only 21 races so it has not been included in the table due to too small a sample.

Looking at the courses with the best impact values (IV) offers a potentially more accurate measure of front running bias. [For more information on Impact Value, click here]

 

Course Impact value for Front runners
Carlisle 2.46
Taunton 2.28
Kelso 2.20
Ascot 2.14
Hexham 2.14
Wincanton 2.09
Sedgefield 2.06
Newton Abbot 2.00
Cheltenham 1.95
Hereford 1.89
Uttoxeter 1.88
Lingfield Park 1.85

 

 

As can be seen, the strike rate and IV lists are very similar, with Carlisle, Taunton, Kelso, Ascot, Hexham, Wincanton, Sedgefield, Newton Abbot and Lingfield Park appearing on both.

 

Poorest performing tracks for front runners (2m7f - 3m3f handicap chases)

At the other end of the scale below are the courses with the poorest stats for early leaders/front runners in handicap chases of 2m 7f – 3m 3f:

 

Course Front Runners Wins SR%
Fontwell Park 52 7 13.5
Cheltenham 67 9 13.4
Huntingdon 56 7 12.5
Aintree 33 4 12.1
Bangor-on-Dee 66 8 12.1
Wetherby 57 6 10.5
Sandown Park 39 4 10.3

 

Sandown and Wetherby have not been favourable for front runners it seems, but again let us delve into the Impact Values to help to substantiate the picture. The table below shows courses that have an IV of less than 1.20 for front runners/early leaders.

 

Course Impact value for Front runners
Fontwell Park 1.03
Bangor-on-Dee 1.01
Huntingdon 1.01
Sandown Park 0.95
Wetherby 0.92

 

 

Just five courses with moderate IVs and, essentially, these figures suggest that front runners at these courses win roughly as often as they should given a fair playing field (an IV of 1.00 is ‘standard’). Hence, according to the Impact Values the remaining 36 courses all have an edge for front runners varying from a small edge to a considerable one.

 

Course Pace Averages (CPA)

So far, I have focused solely on front runners, but now I want to try and give a more rounded course and distance profile for each course. To do this I have once again created course pace averages.

These are complied by adding up the Geegeez pace scores of all the winners at a particular course and dividing it by the total number of races. The higher the average score, the more biased the course and distance is to horses that lead early or race close to the pace. Here are all the courses listed, in course pace average (CPA) order:

 

Course CPA Course CPA
Fakenham 3.14 Sandown Park 2.65
Sedgefield 3.06 Uttoxeter 2.64
Hereford 3.00 Chepstow 2.64
Taunton 2.93 Hexham 2.61
Ascot 2.89 Musselburgh 2.61
Doncaster 2.89 Exeter 2.60
Wincanton 2.88 Kempton Park 2.60
Lingfield Park 2.88 Newbury 2.57
Market Rasen 2.88 Towcester 2.56
Plumpton 2.87 Fontwell Park 2.53
Cartmel 2.83 Catterick 2.52
Warwick 2.82 Huntingdon 2.50
Stratford 2.80 Leicester 2.50
Perth 2.76 Ffos Las 2.49
Newcastle 2.75 Cheltenham 2.49
Kelso 2.74 Wetherby 2.46
Southwell 2.73 Bangor-on-Dee 2.43
Carlisle 2.73 Aintree 2.42
Newton Abbot 2.71 Worcester 2.41
Haydock Park 2.69 Ayr 2.23
Ludlow 2.69

 

These averages arguably give a more overall pace ‘feel’ to each course – as noted earlier, Fakenham (which tops the list) has had few races in reality.

It is interesting to note that Carlisle is only joint 17th on this list having been top in terms of front runner stats. This is because 20 of the 46 races have been won by horses that gained a pace figure of either 1 or 2. The fact that there have been 15 wins for front runners has been negated somewhat by this, aided notably by the moderate performance of prominent runners (just 6 wins from 46 races).

Taking all the information at hand, I would suggest that the following four courses offer the strongest pace bias – Sedgefield, Ascot, Taunton and Wincanton.

 

Ascot’s overall figures are worth sharing as an example:

Pace comment Runners Wins SR% IV
Led (4) 48 10 20.83 2.14
Prominent (3) 78 10 12.82 1.33
Mid Division (2) 51 1 1.96 0.22
Held Up (1) 108 6 5.56 0.57

 

Having all the Ascot stats at our fingertips helps to illustrate how strong a bias there has been in recent years with 20 of 27 races won by horses that led early or raced prominently – this equates to 74%.

 

2m7f - 3m3f handicap chase pace data, by field size

Before I close, I want to share some different ‘splits’ in terms of number of runners. The data I have looked at for this article has come from races with 6 or more runners, so is quite a wide range. In the following three tables I have split the 2m 7f – 3m 3f handicap chase pace results into races of 6 to 8 runners, 9 to 11, and 12 runners or more.

6 to 8 runners

Pace comment Runners Wins SR% IV
Led (4) 1233 267 21.7 1.51
Prominent (3) 2296 347 15.1 1.05
Mid Division (2) 548 63 11.5 0.82
Held Up (1) 1967 202 10.3 0.72

 

9 to 11 runners

Pace comment Runners Wins SR% IV
Led (4) 703 111 15.8 1.55
Prominent (3) 1643 188 12.4 1.12
Mid Division (2) 746 60 8.0 0.80
Held Up (1) 1867 147 7.9 0.77

 

12+ runners

Pace comment Runners Wins SR% IV
Led (4) 346 52 15.0 2.12
Prominent (3) 955 91 9.5 1.35
Mid Division (2) 782 37 4.7 0.67
Held Up (1) 1252 57 4.5 0.64

 

Interestingly, the 12 or more runner group has comfortably the highest Impact Value for front runners, notwithstanding the understandably lower strike rate. Therefore, these data suggest that the front running bias increases as field size increases. I wonder who would have thought that?

  • Dave Renham

Newcastle Punting Pointers: The Angles of the North?

/in /by

In my last article I accidentally stumbled into unpicking all-weather course form and the relative importance of it at each track in the UK, writes Jon Shenton.  It wasn’t my intention to evaluate anything in that area; however, when exploring a vast ocean of data sometimes you end up going where the wind takes you as thoughts develop around the words and numbers on paper.

If you didn’t read that article (link here), a tentative conclusion was that a previous course win was more indicative of a likely follow up victory at Newcastle than any other all-weather surface.

Until that moment I had very limited interest in the tapeta at Gosforth Park as a vehicle for punting. Aside from the odd evening “leisure” bet, almost universally doomed to failure, I’ve hitherto watched perplexed from afar.

To my untrained eye the victors seemed to be pattern-less in terms of my usual all weather starting points of pace and draw, the immaturity of the surface also meaning data regarding trainer, sire and anything else you can think of is less reliable from which to build even vague conclusions.

So, when the intel from that last article showed Newcastle in a favourable light it got me thinking: it was time to have a proper delve into the delights of the northeast venue.

There is a uniqueness regarding Newcastle compared with its AW cousins. Namely, that it has a straight mile. Apart from Newcastle’s five to eight-furlong and Southwell’s five furlong straight track all other races on AW in Britain and Ireland are contested around a bend.   This could be of potential interest for a number of reasons. As I’ve already alluded to, the usual staples of pace and draw could be less important without a turn than we see at other AW venues?

 

Why could pace and draw be less relevant at the Newcastle straight track?

To start with, on a straight track all of the horses compete over exactly the same distance.  This is not the case when racing around a bend where inside draws have a shorter distance to run.

Imagine an Olympic 200m final around a tight bend where all athletes start at the same point.  Not even a peak Usain Bolt content on fried chicken could overcome a lane 8 / car park draw unless he was running against people like me.

As well as the emphasis of draw on a turning track the AW tracks typically are tight in nature, with shortish home straights. This often leads to greater extremes of front runner bias. Thus finding a competitive front running animal with an inside draw on the AW is usually a compelling wagering proposition.

All of this points to Newcastle being a fairer test over the straight track than the other artificial surfaces racing around a turn. Fairer for the runners and riders, but trickier for punters?

Could it be that factors such as course form, pedigree or trainer angles play a more significant part in determining the outcome of a race? That’s all supposition at the moment, but let’s dive into it.

A continuation of the course form theme seems like as good a place to start as anywhere.

 

Course Form at Newcastle

A quick refresher, the graph below is from the previous article, it shows the adjusted strike rates at UK all-weather courses split by horses’ number of previous wins at the same track.  The adjusted view was to reflect/standardise the effect of different field sizes. In other words, a race at Newcastle should be harder to win as the average number of runners is 10.9 whilst at Chelmsford it’s a more meagre 9.05.

 

 

The green line to a clear degree illustrates that Newcastle previous winners have a higher probability of a future win than course winners at other AW tracks.

By adopting the same method but splitting the Newcastle races by straight/round track performance we hopefully will find something of interest. Firstly, we need to take field sizes into account.  Straight track races are popular with an average of 11.28 entrants per event, 1.11 more than the round track average field size of 10.17.

 

NEWCASTLE Avg Field Multiplier
5-8F STRAIGHT 11.28 1.16
8.5F+ ROUND 10.17 1.05
OVERALL 10.90 1.12

 

Using the same format, the graph below shows the profile of previous course winners’ strike rates by distance of race.

 

 

I think this is quite insightful.  There appears to be an indication that previous course form is more valuable in predicting a winner over the straight track of 5 to 8 furlongs, than it is over the longer trip.

Now the volume of runners is quite small, particularly on the round course where two or more previous course wins are concerned but there is definitely enough to upgrade a previous course win on the straight track in comparison.

 

Pace on the straight track

Lesson number 1 in Geegeez.co.uk land is that pace is a game changer in punting life.  It’s certainly been a key component in my improvement in race reading and is just about the first thing I look at when trying to evaluate any equine contest.

We’ve already generated the supposition that front running pace bias may not be as important at Newcastle as it is on the other UK all-weather tracks due to the fairer nature of the straight; but do the numbers back that up?

 

Well, yes. The above chart is eye-opening. It illustrates the Actual/Expected performance by pace score for each of the all-weather tracks in the UK. The data covers all 3YO+ and 4YO+ handicaps and all races up to 8f in distance.

You can see the old adage of “pace wins the race” is pronounced across all of the tracks apart from Newcastle.

The blob annotated with “a” above shows the fate of hold up horses on the straight track at Newcastle. There is clear daylight between their performances when compared with late runners at every other track. In fact, horses that are held up actually fare well even in comparison to their front running rivals at the track. Certainly, trailblazers are not the be all and end all that they can be on some tracks, as the blob “b” illustrates.  Both front runners and hold up horses have an identical A/E performance of 0.99.

Lumping in all races from the minimum trip to the mile is potentially dangerous and clearly analysis by specific trip length may lead to slightly different and more solid conclusions.  However, in terms of proving a point that race profiles are different on the straight Newcastle track to the typical AW ones I think this does enough. The bottom line is don’t be put off by a horse stalking from the back of the pack at Gosforth Park.

 

Draw

Hopefully it’s reasonably understandable but evaluating full draw implications of a straight vs. round track is a tough ask for an article of this length given the variables in distance, race type, number of runners and the like.

That said, by way of a quick guide, below is a broad-brush summary of Newcastle draw performance.  It only considers handicap races of 10-12 runners.  It’s also important to note I’m using actual draw position (i.e. accounting for non-runners), not racecard draw number.

 

 

What does the above tell us? In truth, not a great deal! Maybe, just maybe, there is a hint of bias towards the wings of the track, especially for races over 5, 6 and 8 furlongs. Sometimes this makes sense as races develop against a rail and perhaps that is what is at play here.  But… for no obvious reason the 7f distance contradicts other distance data by suggesting there is a hint of middle track bias. In conclusion, it’s all pretty marginal and if you find the right horse, with the right profile, the draw at this course appears to be less relevant than most in terms of stall position.

 

Sires

It’s quite early to draw meaningful conclusions on stallions to follow at Newcastle but the below table shows some potentially emerging talent.

It’s derived from geegeez.co.uk’s Query Tool and illustrates all runners at 20/1 or less; and to qualify for the table an A/E of 1.25 is required, as well as a 10% ROI.

 

The volumes are generally too thin to draw firm conclusions and build bankable, watertight angles, especially as some of the performance will be driven by individual animals repeatedly winning. Even so, it’s a good list to keep in mind to help generate a shortlist when evaluating a race, particularly when form, or course form, is at a premium.

There is merit in just pulling out a couple to discuss briefly. The most successful couple of sires on the Newcastle all weather, in terms of winner numbers, are the renowned Sea The Stars and the progressive Lope De Vega.

 

Sea The Stars

Firstly, Sea The Stars… His progeny’s 15 wins are comprised of 13 individual horses.   John Gosden’s Champion Stayer, Stradivarius, is the most illustrious, having recorded his first success (on his third run) at Newcastle, over the straight mile. That is the very same course and distance that stablemate Enable made her debut on, incidentally. Clearly, Johnny G likes to blood a top class type on the tapeta here.

In fact, it’s not uncommon for horses of real quality to get an early spin on the Gosforth Park sands. The apparent level playing field of the track is a feature which attracts some of the elite stables to test their youngsters at a formative stage of their careers.

Reverting to Sea The Stars, below shows his progeny runs by race code.

 

Not bad all round but there is a clear distinction between AW and Turf data. If we zoom in a little further and evaluate the performance by the UK’s different AW venues, we get the following.

 

Here we see that Newcastle is driving the superb AW performance. Yes, Southwell, Chelmsford and Lingfield all show promise and we should take note of the offspring of Sea The Stars when they run at those venues. But Newcastle is where it’s at.

 

Lope De Vega

Lope De Vega was campaigned exclusively in France under the tutelage of Andre Fabre and doesn’t on the face of it have a particularly strong all-weather pedigree. However, much like Sea The Stars, his progeny has performed generally better on the artificial surfaces, in win strike rate and profit/loss terms at least.

Newcastle performance is strong (see the table below), but so too are Chelmsford and Wolverhampton. The surface at the midlands track is also Tapeta so that makes some sort of sense (albeit that it was polytrack until 2014). If you delve into sire records, quite frequently a good Newcastle record can be indicative of a better than average Wolves one and vice versa. The Chelmsford one is harder to explain, though it may be simply that Lope De Vega is a top class sire all round.

 

 

If we take that trio of courses and check P&L performance over different trips, we can see below that Lope De Vega offspring are less productive over 5 and 6 furlongs than other distances.

 

 

So, I think we have a potentially nice micro here: Lope De Vega progeny, 20/1 or shorter, 7-14f at Chelmsford, Wolves or Newcastle. 27.6% strike rate, 52% ROI to level stakes with strong A/E and IV numbers. The table below shows the precise numbers.

All Lope De Vega at 20/1 or less, 7-14f at Chelmsford/Wolves/Newcastle:

 

Trainers

A final word on the trainers who have taken to Newcastle’s newish surface, the above table shows those yards who have had 25+ runs, an A/E of 1.00 or above and an ROI of 10%+.

 

Before I talk about the table a couple of mentions for trainers not on the list. As stated earlier a number of elite trainers use Newcastle as a proving ground for their potential stable stars. John Gosden has had 75 runners (at 20/1 or less) including Enable, Without Parole and Stradivarius. Sadly though, and for obvious reasons, these are all quite well found in the market. Hugo Palmer is another who is inclined to send runners north as part of their education and development, but without profitable import for punters.

To those actually in the table, where there is a mix of northern track specialists and selective southern raiders. Sir Mark Prescott and William Haggas both clearly send animals up to the north-east that have a fair chance, and it is somewhat surprising to see these practitioners showing a level stakes profit. Moreover, as their strike rates at 31% and 38%, and related Impact Value numbers of 3.02 and 3.53, demonstrate, they’ll keep you in the game more readily than most.

The more local names of Menzies, Tate, Whitaker, Bethell and so on are all worth tagging too, although with only a handful of winners I wouldn’t necessarily generate micro angles to follow until there is a greater body of evidence.

Good luck, thanks for reading, and a happy new year to you all.

 - Jon Shenton

Geegeez Gold Case Study #1

/in , /by

I received an email yesterday from a subscriber, Jack, who was struggling to make Gold work for him. He had a fairly set way of doing things on another site (absolutely fine, of course) and the migration to Geegeez was a challenge. Of course, we humans largely resent change - I certainly do!, so there's needs to be a good reason for making the switch. I like to think that we offer a plethora of such good reasons.

Anyway, in answering Jack's email, I thought the content might be useful to others, so I've reproduced his questions and my responses below. I will try to do occasional case studies like this to help introduce the various elements of Gold, and how you might incorporate them into your own betting.

OK, here goes - Jack's note first, and then my reply:

Hi Matt

Thanks for taking the time out for this. As I said to Chris I don't know how you guys manage to fit everything in to 24 hours/day!!??

Anyway here goes.

I use Classes 3 - 5 handicaps up to 1 mile on the flat and Classes 2 & 3 handicap chases up to 3 miles over jumps. Prefer to see no 3YOs in flat races and so prefer the 4+ races to the 3+ but they're a bit scarce after the first month or two. 3YOs can make big improvements as they grow stronger with age and gain experience but unfortunately there's no way to calculate that.

On the flat I like to find horses which have previously run well at the course and distance and have a chance when comparing today's OR to their last few runs and hopefully their run/s at today's CD, using the admittedly over-simplistic 1lb/1pt OR for each length beaten no matter the distance. I prefer the race to be at the same class or below that of it's usual races.

As an example if we stick with Joegogo in the 7.45 at Chelmsford on Thursday I can immediately see that 6 runs ago it ran in a class 3 over CD and came 4th of 6 but only beaten 2L, that it is now 6pts OR better off in today's race and, hovering over the race to bring up the comments, I note that it led in that race, faded late on and lost 2 places. I would expect it to do better in this weaker race so should at least make the frame. Looking at its last 3 races there are conceivable (admittedly a bit feeble) excuses for all of them! 3RA Wolves - came after a break so maybe not completely wound up, 2RA Southwell couldn't get the lead, LTO Lingfield, not a course brilliant for front runners and faded in final furlong over 6f. Now back at 5f.

Will be interesting to see if Adam Kirby again takes the ride although I would prefer a good apprentice to a) take a bit of weight off and b) hopefully deflect the bookies/other backers away from the horse - Adam's presence on it's back would probably lose a couple of points but would at least point to the horse being fit and well and having a chance.

All the above takes me only a minute or two, having done it for so long.

I would then switch to GeeGeez Gold to check the draw, pace and to quickly find out how the other runners in the previous Chelmsford race did as well as its last 3 races. Unfortunately this can only be a rough guide as without digging deeper there's no way of telling if those that have run since did so in better or worse races. If a horse/s still looks promising on Gold I would then go back to the RP to do the deeper digging.

Over the jumps I simply look for horses which have been running in better class races than today's. Not too bothered about the OR. Look to back those which have previously done well at the same type of course as todays, if not having run there before e.g. tight left/right handed, left handed galloping etc. So if a horse has been running well at say Market Rasen, Ludlow and Taunton I wouldn't be in a rush to back it at a left handed galloping course. Having backed horses since Blakeney won the Derby back in 1968 I know all the courses by heart so that only takes a couple of seconds. I don't bother over much with either the distance (as long as it's under 3m) or the going over jumps as I've missed winners doing that. I think the 'sloggers' come into their own once past 3m and find it difficult to evaluate those races.

In both codes I don't check how the trainer's doing - if badly then maybe today's runner will be the catalyst for a revival in stable fortunes! And if a 7lb claimer hasn't scored yet then maybe today's the day! So maybe I look a bit too much on the bright side! Also, as Gold has good info on trainers, jockeys and combos etc, I do realise that I'm not using it to its full extent but think that sometimes simple is better.

As I mentioned before all the above does not take long on the RP site as I've been doing it for years and I can fairly quickly go through all the runners in a race but it seems much slower for me when I use the Gold site. Maybe it's just a case of getting quicker as I use Gold.

The other thing that bothers me about Gold is that sometimes the draw advantage seems to come from relatively few races, especially when compared to FlatStats as I mentioned before. I like the way FlatStats lays it out e.g.'472 horses from 44 races analysed. Date range: 11-Jan-15 to 06-Dec-18' and followed by the charts. As it's free for this I tend to use it quite often.

Well that's enough of my ramblings and please don't spend much of your precious time looking for ways to help - I'm probably beyond help anyway!

All the best

Jack

 

Some really good and interesting points - and here is my reply...

 

Hi Jack

There is nothing in what you do that cannot be done on Geegeez. Regarding race selection, you can use the filters on the cards menu – I’ve filtered for C3-5 flat handicaps today in the first image below.

 

Race card menu filters for handicap, race code and race class

Race card menu filters for handicap, race code and race class

Course and distance form: best view is Full Form, where you can select the ‘course’ and distance’ filters. Joegogo Chelmsford example below. I’ve also checked Proximity Form there, which gives a traffic light view of how well the horse ran based on race distance and beaten lengths. Also on Full Form, you can see DR and RS columns: they tell you the draw – in this case six (of six) – and run style, in this case Led. Filtering a horse’s form by wins and/or places often highlights a pace preference/requirement; it also offers clues as to whether a horse ran well from a poor draw, or poorly from a good draw, etc. Finally, at the right side of the form line in Full Form, you can see that the race in question has R W P W% P % - that shows the subsequent form of the race. In this example, 18 runs, 0 wins and 3 places. So not spectacular in truth.

 

Full Form with Proximity form, Course and Distance checked

Full Form with Proximity form, Course and Distance checked

 

Checking Instant Expert will reveal overall form at the respective course, distance, class and field size (going too). The final column compares today’s OR with the horse’s last winning OR in this code. Again below is Joegogo, where we can see he’s four pounds below his last winning OR on the all-weather. (I have my settings to last 2 years form, and race code/hcap contextual – i.e. when it’s a handicap, this view is only showing me handicap form, and when it’s all-weather, it’s only showing me all-weather form; when it’s both, it’s only showing my AW handicap form).

 

Instant Expert shows form against the race conditions, and also an OR comparison against the last win in this code

Instant Expert shows form against the race conditions, and also an OR comparison against the last win in this code

 

For the jumps, you could use the Class Move report as a starting point – it’s here – and sort by those dropping in class. See image below. The reports are a treasure trove, and it’s worth spending a little time messing around with them, as you’ll discover all sorts of ‘ins’ to various races.

 

Class Move report can be sorted to show those horses stepping down (or up) the most in grade today

Class Move report can be sorted to show those horses stepping down (or up) the most in grade today

 

Regarding looking for horses which have done well on today’s type of course, again Full Form has filters for course direction, general profile and specific profiles, so you can easily see how your potential class droppers have fared on similar tracks. I personally think trainer form is more important than you do (!), but I always check the place percentages as well as the wins. They tell far more of a story than the headline win numbers. (We have green and red form indicators on our racecards, but I never use those without checking the place data, as I say).

Going for me is only important when it’s heavy or good to firm (jumps, firm on the flat). Extremes isolate the proven types, and I have a ‘rule of two’: once may be a fluke, twice almost certainly was not.

On the matter of draw, I think one needs to find the right balance between enough data in the sample, and the data being relevant to today’s race conditions. For example, looking at seven runner races is not useful when considering a 16 runner race. Looking at all data is not terribly useful when considering a soft ground flat race (the draw bias can change almost 100% from firm to soft at some tracks). We have dropdowns on our draw tab, but more than that we have ‘guide lines’ which show ‘all going’, ‘all field sizes’, and ‘all races’, so you can see how the ‘micro’ dataset relevant to today’s going and field size maps against the bigger (but less specific/relevant) datasets. I’ve included an example from Southwell today, where you can see that the overall draw data (fainter lines) would mislead you when compared against the specifics for today – also note that I again tend to use place data as it is more comprehensive.

 

The fainter lines show that the overall draw data might mislead a bettor. There is very little bias against today's conditions.

The fainter lines show that the overall draw data might mislead a bettor. There is very little bias against today's conditions.

 

I do appreciate it’s a fair bit to take in, and obviously it’s different from RP because there’s a heck of a lot more on our site. But I think you’ll be able to absorb these different elements quickly enough if working on them one by one. Gravitate to Geegeez rather than trying to do it all in one go, that’s my suggestion.

Hope that’s helpful,

Matt

****

And that was that.

It won't be possible for me to go into such detail for all who want some pointers - and, naturally, the first port of call is the User Guide and/or the videos I recently recorded. All of that helpful content can be found on your My Geegeez page.

But I will try to occasionally share something like the above.

If you're not currently a Gold subscriber and you've read this far, you must be interested in what you might be missing. Hopefully this has been an appetising little taster. If you've never tried Gold before, you can get access to everything for your first 30 days for just £1.

CLICK HERE TO CHECK US OUT >>

Good luck!

Matt

Your Questions, My Answers

/in , /by

Last week, I invited you to send in your questions. About geegeez.co.uk, about racing, about betting. And you did. In your droves. So today, I've recorded a video to answer them all. It's long - two hours - so underneath the video box is a list of the questions and subject headings, as well as some resources to which I've referred in the recording. I hope you'll find (at least some of) it useful.

Matt

p.s. I've also managed to create a podcast version should you prefer to listen to the audio.

n.b. The number before the questions below is the point in the video at which you'll find that answer.

Your Questions

The number before the questions below is the point in the video at which you'll find that answer.

*Race Types and betting*

1:45 - How do you work out handicaps? - Kevin Clarke

Click here for a blog post about how to look at handicap races

22:55 - My Question is I am not sure what I am looking for in looking for winners.  I use first expert to sort out horses that fit the greens this is the dogs. Then I look at pace to see if the selection has the credentials then I go to draw if flat and look at that. Then I pretty much lose the plot what do you look for after this.  Thanks love the videos learnt so much From Geegeez. - John A

27:40 - I am a massive Placepot nut , any advice on this type of bet with regards to Gold would be much appreciated.  What do you think of Colossus Bets which now offer this bet and any advice on the Cash Out option ? - Simon B

How to win the placepot

Geegeez placepot ABCX ticket builder

How to use the ticket builder

36:15 - I wonder if you could come up with a good query tool to able to lay a short price horse successfully.  I do lay, I am down money and I need to turn things around. - Gerry M

- First up I enjoy reading your articles. My question is what feature in geegeez you would use and how would you use it to find small priced lays if that is possible. - Murray S

43:00 - Would you kindly expand on the relative values of Pace in Chase, Hurdles and NH Flat. I'd find that very helpful. Many thanks. - Keith B

Article on pace in 'speed' handicap chases

46:55 - What do you do to improve your strike rate - James T

49:35 - I would like to see more guidance on how you as an expert would go about picking a selection or 2, maybe a guided bet for a Saturday and big meetings. - Steve S

51:25 - Breeding and sales data snippet there is numbers after the stallion name, like 6,7f. What that figure means? What is your personal opinion about a very big break before start? Like over 200 days. I mean in the betting perspective. Is it better to leave those kind of horses without a bet? Thank you for excellent site! - Jussi A

54:15  - Hi Matt, forgive me if I’m wrong but I didn’t notice the ‘bringing it all together’ section on your last web tutorial thingy.  I’ll admit to still struggling with gold as there is so much to look at & whilst i feel like I understand all of the individual components of full form, pace, draw & the reports,  I’m still really struggling to know which ones to give the most weight/credence to & which ones to ignore as obviously they’re all pointing at different horses. If you could show how you sit down & attack a race cold or what starting points you use that lead you to a bet then that would help somewhat I think. I feel like you say ‘that horse could be of interest depending on other factors’ for example but then we didn’t really see you carry on that selection process to the end in any of those web shows. I appreciate you may have reservations about doing that as there’s so many different ways of using gold & you don’t want to ‘prescribe’it to us but I feel, if like me, you’re a new member who has previously tried & failed to make gold work for them, it’s incredibly frustrating to know that the relevant information is in there but i just can’t land on it with any confidence! - Iain M

59:07  - So, all in all, I’m probably in the mode of not being able to see the wood for the trees, almost too much information and not knowing how best to use it.  I’m also probably guilty of looking for big priced winners rather than just winners and of the old fear of missing a winner so backing it regardless. As a rule, I have always been led by Horses for Courses, Ground specialists and runners back to a winning handicap mark and since joining Geegeez I do like the TJ combo. So, I guess this is a very open ended ‘question’ and probably not one you can easily answer, but given all of the above (and below) can you give me a steer to start making this excellent service pay for me a bit better please?  I’m not looking to retire early or win a million, just nice steady returns and a bit of fun along the way. - Lee

*Technology *

1:03:30 - Can you see yourselves developing a geegeez mobile app in the future? Roy N

*Features*

1:05:15 - First time headgear (report, and QT)

1:07:20 - Is it possible to add to the racecard, a going filter, to see if any of the red/green figures are changed, and the form figures can relate to such an update? Instant expert does show most of this but not if the trainer's or jockeys record without having to use full form screen. - Terry S

1:10:30 - why does the contextual breeding data/trainer data etc update so late in the day before the race?  Before I used Geegeez I used to pick my horses at around 11am (just after declaration) and then place the bets in the evening. My mornings and evenings are busy so this worked best for me. I understand that you obviously wouldn’t change the way you do things just or me, but is it possible for this data to be uploaded earlier in the day? - Tom F

1:12:20 - would it be possible to add in a horses current Official Rating onto Full Form? Just that when you're looking at its past ratings, you need to minimise the window to look at the race card to see its current OR. - Eddie K

1:12:40  - Hi Guys, can I check the previous high /low prices of horses inplay ..ie if a particular horse has generally shortened in running - Michael M

*Staking / Tipsters*

1:13:30 - I am really  disappointed with SOTD , I am a yearly subscriber, it is very difficult to get BOG without being gubbed , however I do like you and your apparent honesty that's why I rejoined, but this service Stat Of The Day, leaves a lot to be desired, as I understand SOTD is found using your stats , so what does it say for using your stats. I hope that this does not come across as a knee jerk reaction , but this has been a long time coming, you asked for comments so here is mine ! - David H

1:18:40 - Do you have a forum/ group chat where you and other members send out their selections for the day? - Joe D

1:19:30 - I follow 3 or 4 racing tipsters, all have long term profitable records. However often they will tip different horses in the same race. What strategy should one adopt? Cover all, (split stake or not?) and therefore reduce overall return. Or if they tip same horse, should i increase stake? I would use separate betting banks, but wonder whether better to focus on just one tipster? - David E

1:21:28 - For many years l believed that doubles, trebles etc., were a mugs game and always stuck to win only successfully until l read somewhere that if you knew what you were doing with your selections they could be lucrative so brought this into my betting and found this so far to be true. What is your opinion on this? - Thomas

1:24:35 - I believe that you once wrote that raising stakes during a losing run was better than raising them during a winning run. Is my memory right. If not, what are your thoughts on staking. - Barry C

1:28:30 - When a new service goes live, why do all the tipsters I follow, have to blitz it, day afterday after day? It's blimmin annoying ,and 9times,out of 10, it turns out to be less than useless. But I'm at the stage now, where I am just deleting, and unsubscribing;  so you can guess that I've missed some of the ones that, actually work.  Could you just tell me, are they being paid ,for mentioning that service(which they've said they have proofed for infinity years)??  Actually, my own service is amazing: You'll never get any winners, but at least I'm up front, about it!! - Steven S

*Regulation*

1:34:10 - Around the time of Goodwood Matt Chapman suggested that there were several odd SPs. Who determines the SP? Is this something the Bettor's Forum is concerned about. I think most bettors will put up with the occassional horse which wins out of the blue having been well backed. They like the idea of an old fashioned coup landed. The idea that the whole system is skewed against them is a different ball game. - Ben S

1:38:20 - As I consider the going on the day to be very important.Is there a way to get round the lies that most Clerks and the Bha are sending out. All the best and thanks for all the help over the years, - John

1:43:30 - I was told that Sportsbook at Betfair was covering single bets, with a pay out of up to £500.00 without having your account closed, is this really true? If so what about multiples, would they stand a higher amount on these? I am thinking mainly of football bets. By the way who owns Sportsbook or managers it? - Philip P

1:44:30  - Could I ask if you have heard of any bookies who have gubbed or restricted accounts offering reasonable bets on Class 1 or 2 races? - William J

1:46:30  - I have had my account with Skybet restricted although I don't think I have won much from them. Is this common as for the stakes I am using I cannot imagine I am much of a threat. I do only bet a small number of bets per year, maybe 70-80. - Geoff W

*Research*

1:47:15 - I'd like to be pointed in the right direction regarding using the query tool please. I am sure this is a feature I do not use due to not understanding it - Paul E

1:49:05 - Thanks for being so open with your wealth of knowledge … much appreciated . I am a “systems” man and was just wondering what I should be accepting as a minimum figures for my systems if I would want to make it work on a more professional basis  =  win % /  roi % sp / roi % bfair /  “ a/e “ and or “chi”  ?? (are the last 2 the same ?) - Brian C

1:53:35 - Would it be possible to re-do the QUERY TOOL recording I get the gist of it but your teaching has a lot to be desired. I take you have never taught in a class room as you have no synchronisation what so ever or lesson plan talk about wing and a prayer Or as you put it WINGING IT - Frank R

1:55:15 - I understand A/E and I/V at least in so much as anything over 1 is good. But if A/E is say .81 and I/V is say 1.3 does  that indicate a  negative stat .....I'm presuming that it does. - Mick S

Southwell Statistics: Horses for Courses?

/in /by

There are few racing betting mediums as divisive as Southwell All-Weather, writes Jon Shenton. I know people who barely acknowledge its existence, and yet, in the other camp, are people like me: I absolutely love it with every fibre(sand) of my being!

Indeed, I love winter all weather racing, full stop. It’s probably as a result of me getting some (well earned) gardening leave from January to March 2017, when I really started to immerse myself in the world of racing. Those halcyon days of studying my new toys (Geegeez Gold being the main one) in the morning and watching the racing in the afternoon on ATR will live long in the memory.  I was drawn to Southwell because it seemed a bit easier to navigate than the complicated world of National Hunt racing.  No vagueness on ground, no fences or hurdles to consider, and a whole stack of course form to evaluate.  Perhaps some moderate, relative early success helped too.

Whilst it may not be to the taste of everyone, supporters assert that the deep, stamina sapping test provided by the track offers a unique challenge and adds to the rich tapestry of UK racing. Arguably, it serves as an outlet for horses to show their ability who aren’t ordinarily suited to other racing surfaces.

It also has the important attraction of familiar names returning year after year, which as we know isn’t then norm for the racing on the level. It may be a stretch to claim superstar status for the main protagonists, but there are legends such as La Estrella (16 wins from 21 runs at the course) and General Tufto, who has run no less than 125 times on the fibresand over the last 10 years. 125 times and still counting!

To be honest, that’s even more frequently than I’ve attempted to explain odds and probability to my poor, not really interested, long suffering and very tolerant partner. Yes, on occasion I’m surprised I have one too! Anyway, let’s crack on. What follows are a few thoughts and insights which I hope will inform your Southwell wagering hereafter.

 

USA Bred horses at Southwell

It’s relatively well documented that horses with a pedigree originating from the good ‘ole US of A are worth consideration on the fibresand.  There is certainly logic in this given the perceived proximity between the Southwell surface and the dirt tracks of America.  The table below illustrates track runners by sire origin, for all races in 2012 onwards (three major countries only included)

 

Origin of Stallion Runs Wins Win% P/L (SP) Place% ROI (SP) A/E
(GB) 7881 892 11.3 -1815.6 29.3 -23.0 0.86
(IRE) 5919 700 11.8 -1327.8 30.1 -22.4 0.85
(USA) 1248 225 18.0 155.6 38.8 12.5 1.03

Southwell (AW) runners by country of origin, 1st Jan 2012 to present

 

The picture is pretty clear: US-bred horses outperform their UK- and Irish-bred counterparts significantly, winning more often (18%), beating market expectations (1.03) and returning a profit (12.5%) at SP.

Having said that it’s not ‘backing blind’ territory in my opinion, especially given the fact there are some exceptionally big priced winners in the sample. The biggest of all was a 100/1 shot, the Derek Shaw-trained Hammer Gun, who is definitely worth putting in the tracker for future Southwell entries as we will see shortly.

The Hammer bolted up in that particular race and, if you’re going for the Hail Mary play, I can think of worse places to do it than backing a US-bred runner at Southwell who is unproven on the surface.

As USA horses have a positive record at the track it would make some sense for American stallions to have similarly favourable numbers.

The below table shows sire records at Southwell for the same period.  This time I’ve only considered runners with a maximum SP of 20/1.  The usual reasons apply: I’m looking for angles which will return with a modicum of regularity.  Whilst there can be value at larger prices if you look hard and wait long enough, it’s not a game I want to play, or perhaps I can’t afford too long between drinks.  20/1 works for me, I know some of you prefer shorter. If you do, the data is there in the Geegeez Query Tool – go play!

 

Stallion Runs Wins Win% P/L (SP) Place% ROI (SP) A/E
Key Of Luck (USA) 67 15 22.4 21.8 47.8 32.5 1.39
Dubawi (IRE) 79 26 32.9 64.2 45.6 81.2 1.34
Ballet Master (USA) 53 9 17.0 1.3 43.4 2.4 1.30
Poets Voice (GB) 53 11 20.8 35.2 54.7 66.4 1.26
Refuse To Bend (IRE) 64 16 25.0 -5.2 40.6 -8.2 1.23
Speightstown (USA) 85 20 23.5 8.2 51.8 9.6 1.21
Street Cry (IRE) 129 35 27.1 40.5 50.4 31.4 1.21
Invincible Spirit (IRE) 130 32 24.6 22.0 37.7 16.9 1.20
Showcasing (GB) 55 10 18.2 24.0 45.5 43.6 1.12
Captain Gerrard (IRE) 105 21 20.0 54.3 40.0 51.7 1.10
Clodovil (IRE) 58 11 19.0 3.8 34.5 6.5 1.10

Sire performance at Southwell (AW) 1st Jan 2012-present at 20/1 SP or less

 

The table of top Southwell AW stallions has smattering of USA sires on the list, no major shock there. And, in the case of Street Cry, he was raced on dirt in America and latterly Dubai, winning the Grade 1 Stephen Foster in US and the Grade 1 Dubai World Cup in Dubai.

Ordinarily I’d now be searching through these data, trying to find a few nice angles to share and adopt over the next few months. In general, though, Southwell is a different proposition. Angles still have relevance but the number of course specialist horses can paint a different picture. I’ve already referred to the fact that one of the joys of the track is the number of repeat runners. Taking the top of the stallion charts (Key of Luck) we can see where the problem lies in angle creation.

 

This graph shows all of Key of Luck’s runners by individual animal, illustrating runs (blue) and wins (orange). The conclusion rapidly emerges: all of Key of luck’s progeny wins have been delivered by three individual horses, with 14 of the 15 coming from The Lock Master and Serenity Now! Even the most prolific stallion on the list, Street Cry, sire of the Australian darling, Winx, has a third of his victories from just two horses, namely Tatting and Fluctuation.

Based on this I don’t feel like many genuine angle opportunities exist in sire data. The samples are too small and the number of progeny involved are insignificant in many cases. No, for me, finding the right individual horses is the key. Then tracking and following them closely can be a productive method with which to approach the fibresand puzzle. Having said that, any Key of Luck or Street Cry progeny running at Southwell are still of interest and I’ll be watching them all closely and backing where conditions appear to be right.

 

Southwell trainers

Like any track across the world there are handlers who seem to know what is required for the unique Southwell test. Using the same approach as the sire table above here is the equivalent view for trainers, again sorted by A/E.

 

Trainer Runs Wins Win% P/L (SP) Place% ROI (SP) A/E
Carroll, D 101 24 23.8 37.6 41.6 37.3 1.63
Fell, Roger 55 11 20.0 33.8 38.2 61.4 1.48
Bailey, A 84 17 20.2 59.8 40.5 71.1 1.29
Furtado, Ivan 60 12 20.0 18.0 33.3 30.0 1.28
Brown, D H 67 15 22.4 -6.8 43.3 -10.2 1.25
Nicholls, D 103 22 21.4 32.9 37.9 31.9 1.25
McCabe, A J 184 34 18.5 31.1 36.4 16.9 1.19
Dwyer, C A 82 19 23.2 14.3 53.7 17.4 1.16
Shaw, D 251 44 17.5 5.5 41.8 2.2 1.15
Burke, K R 118 28 23.7 28.7 40.7 24.3 1.13
Kirby, P A 60 11 18.3 -11.6 40.0 -19.3 1.11
Butler, John 75 19 25.3 9.8 45.3 13.1 1.10
Bowring, S R 209 33 15.8 -12.4 35.9 -5.9 1.09

Southwell (AW) runners by trainer from 1st Jan 2012 to present at 20/1 or less SP

 

As is becoming tradition it feels right to have a quick delve into the top name on the list, in this case Declan Carroll.  The Malton-based trainer sends a high proportion of runners to the Nottinghamshire track. Indeed, the only course that is frequented more by his team is Thirsk, relatively local to the outfit.

Again, like the Key of Luck data, on the face of it, it seems that backing the Carroll stable representatives blindly is a good idea. In truth, it might be: there is a healthy strike rate, fantastic A/E performance and a reasonable return on investment.  On closer inspection though, we run into a familiar theme.

 

 

This graphical representation shows Carroll horses that have had 3 or more runs on the fibresand track from 2012 onwards at an SP of 20/1 or less; we can see quite clearly that Monsieur Jimmy and Shearian with their six wins apiece (the orange line) account for over half of the trainer’s wins during the nearly six years analysed. I think this illustration reinforces the fact that successful horses generally return to the track time and time again.

In other words, there is a selection bias in these small samples. It’s a repeat of the sire analysis scenario, and again begs the same question: is it worth following specific yards on the fibresand, or is it worth following specific horses?

The answer is difficult, as are all such responses to small sample sizes skewed by individual elements. What is not in doubt specifically is that Carroll knows what it takes to nurture a successful Southwell career for a horse and, once he knows he has one with the right aptitude, he isn’t afraid to keep running them.

By way of example, let’s examine the record of Shearian at the course under the tutelage of Carroll (he was with Tracy Waggott previously).

 

 

Impressive stuff. In spite of a remarkable track record, Shearian still, however, went off at a price of 15/2 on the 12th November this year. This, despite him winning in his previous run over course and distance.  Granted, he hit the crossbar on this occasion, in a grade where he’d largely struggled, but netted the rebound three days later with a comfortable victory back in Class 6. However, considering his price shortened significantly on the 12th throughout the day the bet represented potentially great value.

That value was present due to his previous eight runs (four on tapeta, four of turf) being fairly unproductive. To Shearian followers that is absolutely of no consequence whatsoever: his lamentable record away from Southwell is 61 spins for just two wins, both as far back as 2013. The cynic in me would point towards a summer of official rating reduction in preparation for a bountiful winter campaign cruising around the Rolleston venue, his AW rating having reduced from 73 to 65 over the period in question.

I recognise that you can always find examples to fit any given narrative; however, it does seem that Southwell form offers more reliability for predicting future prospects at the track.

 

Horses for Southwell

I’d love to be able to statistically assert and prove that course form is more important at Southwell than most places and I think I can do that, at least partially.

The graph below is quite simple in what it’s trying to show but not so easy to explain.  It contains data for all AW runners, by track, from January 2012 for 3YO+ and 4YO+ handicaps only.  I’m selecting these age groups due to the likelihood of more horse runs, and logically more course form to check. It’s the journeyman (or woman) type of horse that I’m interested in here.

Anyway, the graph below shows win rate by how many victories a horse has had at the track previously:

 

 

The thick blue line represents Southwell.  What it depicts is that, compared to the other all-weather tracks of the UK, a previous course win means the horse is more likely to win again at the same track. Newcastle is an interesting newcomer, and runs it close, albeit sample sizes are tiny for the three and four previous wins data points for that course.

This statistical evidence is all well and good, but it still doesn’t quite sit right. That is due to the fact that field sizes could have a bearing on the data.  If we take the black line above (Kempton) we can see that it languishes at the bottom, or close to it, across all bandings.

The only reasons that can be the case are either that Kempton has larger field sizes, i.e. more horses running equals lower strike rates, after all only one horse can win (dead heats not withstanding); or because course form doesn’t stand up as well as elsewhere.  The fact Kempton is “poor” in all categories does point to it having a higher than average number of runners per qualifying race.  The table below confirms this, to some degree at least:

 

Track Average field size Multiplier
Southwell 9.15 0.94
Chelmsford 9.02 0.93
Wolves 9.66 1.00
Lingfield 9.21 0.95
Kempton 10.52 1.09
Newcastle 10.89 1.12
Overall 9.70 1.00

Average field sizes for AW races from 1st January 2012 onwards

 

Kempton does indeed have notably larger fields than the average AW line up. Interestingly, however, so does Newcastle, a potential course specialist track in the making. So what does this mean, and for what can we use it?

In the table it confirms that a win at Newcastle is harder to get than a win at Chelmsford, and indeed anywhere else in the UK all weather landscape, based purely on field size. To prevail at Newcastle a horse has to be the best of 10.89 animals on average. At Chelmo, the cream of the crop rises above 9.02 horses, a significant 1.87 (17%) fewer.

To try and obtain a like-for-like comparison of course form, effectively taking field size out of the equation, we have to boost Newcastle and Kempton performance to take account of the higher volume of runners per race. Conversely, we’ll be downgrading Chelmsford, Lingfield and Southwell accordingly by deploying the multiplier column in the table above.

It leaves the following picture:

 

 

These data appear to show that in the pursuit of finding winners previous course form is considerably more valuable on the tapeta of Newcastle than other all-weather courses.  The new surface at Gosforth Park is still relatively new having only been in place for racing for just over two years, so the picture may change over time; but the fact that all races at up to a mile are on a straight track is a notable difference from the remainder of the all-weather scene and may contribute to it emerging as a "specialists' track".

However, even with the adjusted numbers previous course form still holds up well in comparison for Southwell.

Of course, this doesn’t necessarily directly translate to profitable angles, as course specialists are often well found in the market after all. But using data intelligently to assist in constantly improving our race reading ability has to be a good thing. If we find a course specialist with a favourable looking setup in terms of pace and draw (for another article, or check out Dave Renham’s excellent general series), we’re looking at a bet on the assumption that the price is reasonable. 

 

A Dozen Fibresand Masters

Let’s wrap things up. Much of this article has referred to course form and the longevity of horses who run at Southwell on a repeated basis. The below table shows some of the stars who thunder around the Notts oval with regularity. Each has had at least one run at Southwell during the past 12 months, and the table is sorted by A/E, with a minimum of 10 runs required to qualify.

 

Horse Runs Wins Win% P/L (SP) Place% ROI (SP) A/E
Custard The Dragon 10 6 60.0 18.8 80.0 187.5 2.75
Hammer Gun  11 6 54.6 111.6 63.6 1014.4 2.64
Piazon 13 6 46.2 20.3 61.5 155.8 1.90
Luv U Whatever 21 9 42.9 15.6 81.0 74.3 1.41
Stand Guard 14 6 42.9 -3.7 71.4 -26.6 0.88
Captain Lars  15 5 33.3 5.3 33.3 35.5 1.37
Philba 12 4 33.3 5.5 66.7 45.8 1.87
Shearian 21 7 33.3 25.6 47.6 122.1 2.28
Razin Hell 22 7 31.8 26.3 59.1 119.6 1.61
Royal Marskell 16 5 31.3 21.6 50.0 134.9 1.89
Pearl Nation  13 4 30.8 -0.1 61.5 -0.9 1.14
Samtu  13 4 30.8 29.3 46.2 225.0 1.43

 

Record breaking Stand Guard has since retired and there may be one or two others who have hung up their racing shoes, but the list should still be broadly active and, hopefully, profitable. Piazon and the aforementioned Shearian have already got their 2018 winter campaigns off the mark and I’m sure some of the others will be troubling the judge in the coming months. I’ve got a keen eye on Hammer Gun, and Samtu if reverting back to the flat, in particular. Here’s to a productive Southwell campaign for us all and a bit of Hammer Time over the festive period!

 - Jon Shenton (@jonnyshents on twitter)

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about wind ops?

/in /by

The pursuit of optimising ability in racehorses has stepped forward in leaps and bounds through the past decade. Training methods, pharmaceuticals, and surgical intervention have all progressed apace in the quest to squeeze every drop of talent from ever more expensive thoroughbreds.

But, from a wagering perspective, these advancements are largely hidden from sight: there is no official record of injuries; training patterns are discernible only from a deep dive into the form book; and the influence of veterinary care is entirely 'black box' for the average punter.

One vulnerability in racehorses, especially in larger ones, is a difficulty breathing when under significant pressure from exercise. Technically known as DDSP (dorsal displacement of the soft palate), it is the temporary movement of a piece of fleshy tissue into an area through which oxygen flows. In other words, it causes a restriction to the amount of air a horse can breathe in during the business part of a race. Seeing as oxygen is needed to keep the muscles working, this is a bit of a problem.

Those who raced horses historically sought to address the issue via a procedure called tubing, whereby, as the name suggests, a metal tube was placed directly into the airway allowing air to bypass the obstructed area. However, tubing became outmoded with the evolution of internal surgical procedures and, in October 2012, 'tubed' horses were no longer permitted to race in Britain.

Whilst, as usual, there were derisive howls at the time - change is always greeted in such a way in the racing fraternity (and, in fairness, in most other walks of life) - the rise and rise of the 'wind op' quickly ensured that horses hindered by breathing difficulty during racing had another potential mitigant.

There is an array of possible interventions which vary in gravity; and, until the beginning of this year, the general public had no awareness as to which horses had had surgery, still less which procedure was undergone. Happily, and partly as a result of calls from the Horseracing Bettors Forum, a group attempting to improve the lot of British punters and which I currently chair, the BHA fended off the Luddite clamour from within racing to pronounce that, from January 19th, wind surgery (in its generic form) was required to be declared at the time of entering the affected horse.

There was the usual dissent from within the ranks, including from otherwise sensible and generally cautious individuals such as the excellent Gary Moore, who proclaimed, "It will be about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike, a complete waste of time."

In fairness, many of his peers took a more pragmatic stance, and punters (and breeders and other owners and trainers) have been aware of the vet's intervention for ten months now. Whilst the public is not privy to exactly which operation has transpired, it is generally reasonable to assume that the appropriate level of procedure for the affected animal has been undertaken.

So, ten months in, what do we know?

Let's start with the caveats. As mentioned, we don't know which procedure took place and, naturally, all procedures are not alike. So it may be that intervention A has a much higher success rate than interventions B or C. At time of writing, we must assume that proportionate action was taken and that the outcome of that proportionality across the impacted population is the same, by and large. That may very well not be a correct assumption, but in the land of the blind and all that...

Secondly, ten months into this new degree of awareness, we are still dealing with a relatively small sample size. From January 19th to November 18th there were 4,007 UK runs by horses which had had wind surgery. To be clear, that might be the first or 21st run after surgery. That is in the context of 79,861 total UK runs, which is as close to 5% of all runners being impacted by wind surgery at some point as doesn't matter.

On that point, a third proviso. I have yet to see two wind surgery data sources with the same numbers. We've done a good amount of work with ours, and I'm pretty confident that our data are cleaner than other sources I've seen; but it may very well not be precisely perfect. That doesn't really matter when looking for general patterns: this information will never be used to inform a life or death situation, but it may lead a punter to weight in favour of one horse over another. And it may not. The ultimate caveat is caveat emptor: your money, your choice. As always.

OK, scene set, what of the data?

Overall performance by runs since a wind op

Here is the overall picture, in terms of win strike rate by run number after wind surgery. Again, for the sake of clarity, 1 is first run after surgery, 2 is second run after surgery, and so on; 0 means the horse has not undergone wind surgery.

Win strike rate, by runs after wind surgery, all UK runners 19/1/18-18/11/18

Win strike rate, by runs after wind surgery, all UK runners 19/1/18-18/11/18

I wanted to start with a chart because I think it shows a quite interesting pattern, viz. the slow but steady improvement in the win strike rate of horses who have undergone wind surgery, up to their fifth post-surgical run.

That fifth start column looks an anomaly, and in the absence of any sensible theory to explain its high performance, I'm happy to ignore it as such.

Here is the tabular version, this time with other data elements presented:

Table view of horse performance by wind surgery run, 19/1/18-18/11/18

Table view of horse performance by wind surgery run, 19/1/18-18/11/18

It may be interesting to note that, on first run after wind surgery, while the win strike rate improves, the place rate is notably lower. Again, I'm not sure whether this is anything but an anomaly, notwithstanding that there are over 1100 runs in the sample. Generally speaking, horses who have undergone wind surgery place at a slightly higher rate than whose which have not, but not necessarily on that first run post-intervention.

In truth, what we see here is that there is little more than a marginal gain overall as a result of wind surgery. But there are just about enough data to look into sub-divisions of the superset, so let's do that.

Impact of wind surgery by race code

The first cut of the data I'd like to review is by race code and, specifically, comparing flat races with jumps races. Now, check this out:

 

The starting point - left hand side - of the line is the control, i.e. no wind surgery for the horse. National Hunt (NH) horses strike at a slightly higher rate generally because NH races have fewer runners generally. But look how the lines diverge as they move away from the control.

The orange line, representing performance by number of runs since wind surgery in flat races, gets progressively worse and never out-performs the 'no intervention' control group during up to four subsequent starts.

Conversely, the blue line shows that the impact of wind surgery on National Hunt runners is increasingly positive up to the fourth run subsequently (and indeed beyond, not shown here).

The pattern of the data is clear but explaining it is less straightforward. My best guesses are that a) the selected interventions on flat horses are of the more cosmetic type, or at least at the lower end of the range of procedures available; and/or b) that wind surgery in flat horses is a 'desperation measure' when an exasperated - and doubtless notably less wealthy than pre-purchase - owner has exhausted all 'homeopathic' options.

I couldn't say that either of those theories is credible, and perhaps you have an alternative to throw into the mix. If so, do please leave a comment below to that effect.

Impact of wind surgery by length of layoff

One dissection which could shed some light on the severity of intervention is days since a run, the theory being that the longer the layoff the more pronounced the procedure. There are, of course, many reasons for time off, notably the changing of the seasons and summer/winter breaks (the most obvious and opportune time to intervene in this way), but it is still worth reviewing the numbers.

In this case, I am interested specifically in W1, that first start after surgery, and how it compares with horses running off a similar layoff but without ever having had wind surgery.

Comparison of flat to NH, W0 to W1, by time off course, UK 19/1/18-18/11/18

Comparison of flat to NH, W0 to W1, by time off course, UK 19/1/18-18/11/18

The above, slightly confusing, table allows for comparisons between various things. The data are broken down by race code and length of time off, and includes only horses which are having their first run post-wind surgery (W1) or which have never had wind surgery (W0). As can be seen, there are some very small sample sizes here, so additional caution is advised.

Looking first at the 'Flat W0' group - horses running on the flat which have never had declared surgical intervention - we can see that horses returning to the track within two months of their last run (Flat W0 0-60) fare a lot better than flat runners laid off for longer. That is consistently true for both win and place, the win element reflected in a positive impact value of 1.06.

Comparisons with the flat W1 group are tenuous due to the tiny samples in that set but, for what it's worth, there does appear to be a contrast, especially in the 0-60 window. Horses returning to the track within 60 days after wind surgery on the flat have significantly lower win and place percentages. The flat W1 61-120 group offers mixed messages, but using the slightly larger body of place evidence suggests that these runners are also under-performing.

But look at the longer layoff W1 flat horses - those absent for four months or more - and you'll note that there are across the board improvements on their W0 counterparts, albeit that the 180+ place numbers are the same.

If any conclusions can be drawn from that, and I am unconvinced that they can at this stage, it might be that the impact of (presumed, based on length of absence) minor wind surgery on flat horses is somewhere between neutral and negative.

With National Hunt horses, where there has been no wind surgery, we can see that the longer the layoff the less likely a horse is to win: horses backing up a run within four months having an impact value of about 1.04, whereas those returning after four to six months off drop to an IV of 0.97, and those absent for six months-plus are at 0.9 in IV terms.

Compare that high to low trend line with the National Hunt W1 runners, and we get an interesting - if less clear - pattern. Like their flat counterparts, the W1 quick returners win less often than the W0 quick returners; but, thereafter, those returning after a breathing operation out-perform those that are not.

The sample sizes are small here, and I don't think there is any confident inference to be drawn.

Impact of wind surgery by race class

Is it possible that horses running in a given race class fare better than others? Could such action allow classier horses to prevail more often, or is it more likely to positively impact low grade animals? Or does race class have no bearing?

 

On very limited sample sizes, it seems that there is an uplift in impact value in the better races - Class 1 and 2 - and that, otherwise, impact in terms of IV is minimal. First time after wind surgery may be worth marking up in better races.

Impact of wind surgery by race distance

I wanted to look at whether the extent of the stamina test faced by a horse, as opposed to more of a speed test, would be material from a wind surgery perspective. In the below, I've grouped all runs post-intervention as W+, and compared it with the W0 control once more. I've also broken down by flat and National Hunt, flat W+ tables first.

Performance of "W+" horses on the flat, by race distance and race distance group, 19/1/18-18/11/18

Performance of "W+" horses on the flat, by race distance and race distance group, 19/1/18-18/11/18

This is a deeply inconclusive set of figures, the comparison with W0 runners bearing that out below. That said, it may be reasonable to argue that flat horses running beyond a mile derive more benefit from wind surgery than those racing at shorter distances.

 

Perhaps the NH perspective will shed a little more light:

Performance of W+ horses in National Hunt races, by distance

Performance of W+ horses in National Hunt races, by distance

 

That's more like it. The race distance Impact Value comparison between W+ and W0 horses articulates the point more succinctly.

 

The blue bars represent the performance of National Hunt runners whose wind has been declared as addressed at some point. They have a performance edge, in terms of Impact Value, at least up to about three and a quarter miles. After that, the data are as inconclusive as they are sparse.

 

Impact of wind surgery by trainer

Some trainers are keener on wind surgery than others, though that may be on the 'off chance' it might eke out an iota of improvement rather than based on a deep consideration of the particular horse. This table shows all subsequent runs by horses since they first had officially declared wind surgery (i.e. W+).

W+ performance by trainer, 20+ runs, sorted by Impact Value

W+ performance by trainer, 20+ runs, sorted by Impact Value

 

As can be seen, Nicky Henderson appears somewhat selective with his use of breathing intervention, thus far at least; whereas others, perhaps notably Dan Skelton, are more inclined to tweak. In Dan's defence, plenty of his horses have run multiple times - he'd be far more of a campaigner than Henderson for example - and, furthermore, the results Skelton has achieved from his wind op runners are excellent, particularly so given his is more than twice the next biggest sample size in the set.

Looking only at W1-W4, and 15+ runs to qualify a trainer into the table, gives us this:

Performance by trainer, 1st four runs after a wind op, 15+W1-4 runners only

Performance by trainer, 1st four runs after a wind op, 15+W1-4 runners only

 

These tables are presented 'as is', readers invited to consider their content for themselves.

Please keep in mind that the sample sizes are tiny and have every chance of not being replicated in the future. Nevertheless, they at least offer a flavour of which handlers (or their owners) might be keenest to explore the procedural route. Further, there may be a note of caution around trainers whose overall performance is significantly better than that of their runners in this context.

 

Conclusions

This article contains a lot of words, numbers, tables and charts but, ultimately, very few solid conclusions.

Perhaps the most reliable takeaway is that wind surgery appears to be more effective in the National Hunt sphere than on the flat, and that there may be an increase in performance from first to second, second to third, third to fourth, and fourth to fifth runs post-surgery over jumps. Maybe also that horses returning from a 60+ day layoff (and likely a more material intervention - let us hope we have more specific information with regards to the procedure undertaken in the near future, such that we don't have to guess on this) are more likely to benefit from the W1.

Again, these are not confident inferences from the data, nor are they a route to blind profit; which solitary data element is? The key here is to understand the general impact of a factor and to incorporate it into your betting.

Blindly backing W1 or W2 or W3 or W4 or W5 runners will send you skint as sure as night follows day; but knowing that in some circumstances those runners may be expected to demonstrate a small uplift on previous performance levels is a powerful insight which can contribute to improving your bottom line.

We are a mere ten months into this project - what has happened for years can be vaguely quantified now for the first time - and there remain insufficient data to take unequivocal positions; but some clear patterns are emerging. The savvy bettor will keep them in mind.

- Matt Bisogno

 

p.s. this article was researched using Geegeez Gold's Query Tool. It is available to Gold subscribers as a part of your existing subscription. Moreover, all users have access to extensive notation of wind surgery on our racecards. Here is an example of a horse having its fifth run post-wind surgery. To access geegeez.co.uk racecards click here. To take a trial of Geegeez Gold, click here.

Geegeez Gold Video #4: Asking your own questions

/in /by

In this fourth and final video in the series, I want to share with you our Query Tool, and specifically how you can put it to work answering the questions you have about racing.

Before that, if you've not yet checked out the first three videos, I'd recommend watching those first.

Click here for Video #1: The Success Mindset

Click here for Video #2: Become a Gold Card VIP

Click here for Video #3: Finding In's from the Reports

And now to today's video...

Early NH Season, Part 2

/in /by

A few weeks ago, my last article focused on National Hunt trainers who fly out of the gates in the autumn, writes Jon Shenton.   When compiling data and researching angles for that edition there were a few other areas of interest which I’d like to touch on today.

A key aspect that was considered for the aforementioned piece was evaluating where trainers had a runner returning to the track after an absence of more than 180 days, or about 6 months.  The thinking is that some trainers will have horses wound up and ready to go after a summer absence, while others’ animals generally come on for a run, taking a long-term view of the season ahead.

The below graph shows the total volume of runners returning to the track after a layoff of that magnitude.  Clearly, now is a good time to dive into which trainers are ready to go or otherwise.  As can be seen, we are in peak season for long absence returners.

Graph illustrating number of horses returning to the track after a break of 181+ days, since 2010, by month

 

Bargepoles and Scary data

My general approach is to always try and provide a few pointers to find a reasonable return over the medium to long term.  However, there is definite value in identifying horses through which to strike a line: data for those inclined to lay in other words.

The first stop is what I’d uncharitably term a ‘bargepole list’. The table below comprises of trainer records in terms of horses making a reappearance after more than 180 days off the track.  50 runs is the minimum level for inclusion and I have sorted in reverse A/E, accounting for all runs from the start of 2010 onwards.

 

Trainer performance for all runners from 2010 where the horse last ran 181+ days previously

Trainer Runs Wins Win% P/L(SP) Place% ROI(SP) A/E
Jewell, Mrs L C 51 0 0.0 -51.0 5.9 -100.0 0
Menzies, Rebecca 52 0 0.0 -52.0 11.5 -100.0 0
Young, Mrs L J 62 0 0.0 -62.0 11.3 -100.0 0
Carroll, A W 81 1 1.2 -72.0 11.1 -88.9 0.17
Stephens, Robert 56 1 1.8 -39.0 17.9 -69.6 0.24
Newton-Smith, A M 51 1 2.0 -40.0 11.8 -78.4 0.25
Dennis, David 73 2 2.7 -61.8 12.3 -84.7 0.3
Wintle, A 57 1 1.8 -48.0 10.5 -84.2 0.31
Brennan, F J 55 1 1.8 -26.0 10.9 -47.3 0.34
Henderson, P 79 2 2.5 -63.0 12.7 -79.8 0.37
Dyson, Miss C 99 2 2.0 -71.0 9.1 -71.7 0.37
Easterby, T D 62 3 4.8 -36.3 22.6 -58.5 0.37
Thompson, V 53 1 1.9 -44.0 11.3 -83.0 0.38
Davison, Miss Z C 57 1 1.8 -36.0 10.5 -63.2 0.41
Normile, Mrs L B 67 1 1.5 -54.0 9.0 -80.6 0.43
Goldie, J S 68 3 4.4 -42.0 19.1 -61.8 0.44
Candlish, Jennie 129 5 3.9 -90.5 22.5 -70.2 0.47
Frost, J D 76 2 2.6 -37.0 7.9 -48.7 0.47
Bewley, G T 62 3 4.8 -42.8 27.4 -69.0 0.49

 

That’s a combined 30 wins from 1290 attempts with a A/E performance on average of 0.30.  Ordinarily I’d like to keep table data to a top 10 or so, but in this case, it felt a bit like a civic duty to share it all!

It goes without saying that if you’re backing a runner from these stables under these conditions that you need a very compelling reason to argue against the data. Obviously, it doesn’t mean that they can’t win – and horse can win any race – and, as ever, sample sizes are sub-optimal. Treating all of these stable runners with caution under these circumstances is advised.

The yards contained on the bargepole list are generally of the small/mid-range in terms of size.  Of greater interest may be to evaluate some of the household names of the game with the same conditions applied.  The table below contains larger outfits (100+ runs and not included in the first list above).  All have A/E rates of 0.8 or lower for horses where they are absent from competitive racing beyond the 180 days limit.

 

Trainer performance for all runners since 2010 where the horse last ran over 180 days previously (min. 100 runs at A/E less than 0.8)

Trainer Runs Wins Win% P/L(SP) Place% ROI(SP) A/E
Gordon, C 110 5 4.6 -48.1 18.2 -43.8 0.51
Webber, P R 188 8 4.3 -104.5 17.6 -55.6 0.51
Keighley, M 145 9 6.2 -61.6 22.1 -42.5 0.51
Dobbin, Mrs R 127 7 5.5 -83.0 21.3 -65.4 0.58
Williams, Ian 180 13 7.2 -72.5 25.0 -40.3 0.59
Hammond, Micky 110 5 4.6 -75.2 14.6 -68.3 0.59
Smith, Mrs S J 308 24 7.8 -104.2 26.3 -33.8 0.65
Russell, Lucinda V 332 27 8.1 -147.5 27.4 -44.4 0.66
Richards, N G 220 24 10.9 -68.5 35.0 -31.2 0.67
Hill, Lawney 120 10 8.3 -41.1 24.2 -34.3 0.67
Down, C J 106 4 3.8 3.5 17.9 3.3 0.67
Case, B I 102 6 5.9 -34.2 22.6 -33.5 0.7
Phillips, R T 115 5 4.4 -53.0 19.1 -46.1 0.71
Wade, J 166 10 6.0 -76.3 22.9 -45.9 0.72
Alexander, N W 169 12 7.1 -84.1 20.1 -49.7 0.73
Greatrex, W J 250 40 16.0 -106.7 37.2 -42.7 0.73
Wadham, Mrs L 118 13 11.0 -6.3 31.4 -5.3 0.74
Jefferson, J M* 163 20 12.3 -63.5 33.7 -39.0 0.75
Mullins, J W 175 11 6.3 -70.5 19.4 -40.3 0.76
Bailey, Caroline 100 7 7.0 -34.8 22.0 -34.8 0.77
Moore, G L 317 32 10.1 -144.1 24.6 -45.5 0.79
Dickin, R 116 7 6.0 -41.3 17.2 -35.6 0.79

*J M Jefferson yard now overseen by daughter, Ruth. It remains to be seen whether she adopts the same patient approach

 

A lot of these are undoubtedly considered elite level exponents of the training game.  They all will have short priced horses making their seasonal reappearance right about now.   Across the board the win strike rate is a moderate 8%.

On a personal level, awareness of this data has resulted in a modification of my betting habits over the last few weeks.  Sure, sometimes using intel such as this will leave you kicking yourself as you leave a winner out but it’s all about getting a few more right than wrong in the long-term.

 

Winter Sunshine

Enough with the negativity. Let’s find a few rays of winter sunshine. Using the same 180 days off the track criteria with the addition of only considering runners at an SP of 20/1 or less (to prevent one or two big winners skewing the data) I’ve curated the following, more optimistic, data set.  This time I’ve sorted by ROI: bottom line profit is the ultimate goal after all. To qualify for the winter sunshine list at least 50 runs are required, a minimum of a 10% ROI at SP and a minimum of a 10%-win rate.

 

Trainer performance for all runners since 2010, 180+ days layoff, SP 20/1 or shorter

Trainers Runs Wins Win% P/L(SP) Place% ROI(SP) A/E
Bridgwater, D G 98 21 21.4 53.7 41.8 54.8 1.47
Easterby, M W 51 11 21.6 24.9 35.3 48.8 1.65
Hales, A M 74 12 16.2 34.0 35.1 46.0 1.42
Pauling, Ben 100 25 25.0 37.6 45.0 37.6 1.24
Honeyball, A J 119 26 21.9 41.2 43.7 34.6 1.14
Walford, Robert 59 10 17.0 18.9 30.5 32.0 1.33
Scott, J 118 20 17.0 30.4 39.8 25.8 1.23
Symonds, Tom 64 10 15.6 13.6 43.8 21.2 1.09
Williams, Evan 339 60 17.7 64.0 39.2 18.9 1.07
Scudamore, M J 74 11 14.9 13.3 35.1 17.9 1.27
Leech, Mrs S 74 10 13.5 12.8 27.0 17.2 1.14
OBrien, Fergal 189 38 20.1 29.7 42.3 15.7 1.12
Dartnall, V R A 119 19 16.0 15.8 40.3 13.2 1.09

 

A much more interesting set of results for backers, all pretty positive and all worth further investigation.  As usual it’d be remiss not to have a quick dive into the most profitable on the list, in this case the Cotswolds-based trainer, David Bridgwater.

 

David Bridgwater runners after a break of 180+ days, SP 20/1 or shorter by year

Year Runs Wins Win% P/L(SP) Place% ROI(SP) A/E
ALL 98 21 21.4 53.7 41.8 54.8 1.47
2018 7 2 28.6 19.0 71.4 271.4 2.41
2017 3 1 33.3 2.0 66.7 66.7 1.18
2016 13 1 7.7 -7.0 23.1 -53.9 0.71
2015 25 8 32.0 15.0 44.0 59.9 1.65
2014 15 2 13.3 0.5 40.0 3.3 1
2013 20 3 15.0 20.0 35.0 100.0 1.4
2012 6 1 16.7 -2.0 16.7 -33.3 1.23
2011 6 2 33.3 5.8 66.7 95.8 2.27
2010 3 1 33.3 0.5 66.7 16.7 1.89

 

Judged on this criterion, “Bridgie” has clearly peaked between 2013-2015 in terms of volume. However, he still appears to get his horses primed after a layoff these days, just in lower numbers.   Perhaps the increased activity during the peak years were as a result of his stable star The Giant Bolster finishing 2nd, 4th and 3rd in consecutive Gold Cup’s at Prestbury Park, thus raising the profile of the operation.  Delving slightly deeper into the data the performance is strong in the rank and file classes of NH racing (4 and 5), with 19 winners from 70 runs, ROI of 106% at SP. That’s probably an angle to keep in the back of your mind I suspect, rather than to follow blindly.

Picking another yard in a semi-random way (as I have an affinity for them) let’s check the Ben Pauling outfit. Willoughby Court signalled a change in fortunes with regard to my woeful Cheltenham Festival record back in 2017 and I’ve been following them ever since that momentous occasion.  The expanding yard is coming off the back of its most successful season and is clearly going in the right direction.

The beauty (or one of them) of evaluating data such as this is that it can act as a gateway into a deeper understanding of a trainer, generating a different angle or view to what was initially expected.  Let me illustrate:

Pauling’s 25 wins from 100 with a 37% ROI looks overwhelmingly positive (and it is), however, here is the breakdown by month 

Ben Pauling runners with 180+ off the track at SP of 20/1 or shorter by month

Month Runs Wins Win% P/L(SP) Place% ROI(SP) A/E
January 4 1 25.0 9.0 50.0 225.0 2.08
February 4 0 0.0 -4.0 0.0 -100.0 0
May 5 2 40.0 -1.0 40.0 -20.0 1.3
June 3 0 0.0 -3.0 66.7 -100.0 0
July 1 0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -100.0 0
October 20 1 5.0 -14.0 35.0 -70.0 0.27
November 46 13 28.3 11.2 50.0 24.4 1.31
December 17 8 47.1 40.4 52.9 237.5 2.31

 

Look at October in relation to November and December.  They are pretty powerful numbers (small sample small-print applies).  In fact, they’re so powerful I have the strong inclination to check all of Pauling’s runners, irrespective of whether they’ve had over 180 days rest or not.  The graph below shows the split of profit and loss by month for all of the stable’s runners at 20/1 or shorter.

 

Ben Pauling P&L performance by month for all NH runners at 20/1 or shorter from 2010 onwards

 

The first thing to say is that the trend from the 180+ data is very much a representation of the whole yard’s performance.  Backing every Pauling entry during November and December appears to be a very promising area in which to potentially invest the kid’s university funds.  The whole stable appears to go into overdrive as we get towards the dying embers of the calendar year.

As a final and potentially arbitrary step, the Pauling record in Nov/Dec with fillies and mares is very poor with just one win from 28 runs.   Checking the overall year-round performance with the fairer sex there have been a skinny 5 wins from 68 runs, losing over 70% of funds invested.  As a result, I’ll happily exclude fillies and mares from the angle: training these has unique and different challenges, so exclusion can, I feel, be justified. That leaves the overall angle performance as per the table below.

 

Ben Pauling November/December male runners by year with, SP of 20/1 or shorter

Year Runs Wins Win% P/L (SP) Place% ROI(SP) A/E
ALL 205 56 27.3 104.7 46.8 51.1 1.35
2018 5 1 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 1.75
2017 72 18 25.0 14.2 47.2 19.7 1.17
2016 56 13 23.2 2.1 41.1 3.8 1.17
2015 36 15 41.7 54.3 52.8 150.8 1.72
2014 31 8 25.8 35.1 51.6 113.3 1.57
2013 5 1 20.0 -1.0 40.0 -20.0 1.56

 

In summary, backing Pauling male runners in November and December at 20/1 or shorter returns 51% to SP with a healthy strike rate of over 27%.  Maybe the market is catching up and pickings have certainly been slimmer over the past year or two.   Having said that, the yard is definitely still one to keep close to your thoughts as soon as we move into November.

Another trainer from the Winter Sunshine list, this time entirely based on volume, is Evan Williams.  The Vale of Glamorgan handler has delivered 50+ National Hunt winners every year since 2010 and is on track to do so again in 2018.

There is little doubt that this is an operation that gear themselves to getting horses out fresh and ready in October and November.   Using the P&L graph again, below is the distribution.

Evan Williams P&L performance by month for all runners 180+ days off the track, 20/1 or shorter, since 2010

 

A nice profit has been gleaned in the focus months; unlike Pauling, however, there are other potential periods of interest. Also, whilst the Pauling yard is historically flying with all runners in months 10 and 11 there is a clear distinction in Williams’ stable between fresh and already active animals.

 

Evan Williams Oct & Nov runners by month from 2010 by days since last run, SP 20/1 or shorter

Days since LR Runs Wins Win% P/L(SP) ROI
180 days or less 456 78 17.1% -84.0 -18.4
181 days or more 190 45 23.7% 84.4 44.4

 

As a result, we only want to consider the fresh horses from the yard, even though performance for the other horses is far from terrible.

If we want to sharpen up further, the trainer hasn’t had a victorious horse at odds of greater than 16/1 from 11 runs in this dataset.  There might be a big one out there though, as always, it’s personal choice in terms of appetite for risk and reward.

In summary, backing all Williams charges with over 180 days off the track in Oct/Nov at 16/1 or less would yield 53% at SP, delivering £95 profit from a £1 level stake.

I’m fully aware that October is in the rear-view mirror in 2018.  However, this year the stable was exceptionally quiet during the month in terms of qualifiers, finishing with a record of 0/5.  My guess would be that the exceptionally dry summer and autumn may be pushing this (and other) yard’s general routines back a few weeks, patiently waiting for winter ground.  If that is the case, then Team Williams may burst into life as the squad start hitting the course over the next few weeks.

Obviously, it doesn’t always work like that, it’s just part of the evolving punting puzzle that we all know and love.

Good luck!

 - Jon Shenton

Your first 30 days for just £1