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.
Last night, I broadcast the second in a series of four web TV shows. The quartet aims to help geegeez.co.uk readers - now viewers - get to grips with the power housed inside Geegeez Gold. And, also, to improve as punters in a more general sense.
The first one, recorded last Sunday evening, was on the general approach to betting and can be watched here.
Last night's show is viewable directly in this page from the link below. In it, I cover:
- Racecard icons and customization
- When to use the breeding/sales icon
- What to look for with the trainer icon
- How H2H can help understand the 'hierarchy of the herd'
- How to slice and dice trainer, jockey and sire performance history
- Proximity form as an alternative to finishing position
- Setting up Instant Expert, and the limited data red box trap
- Pace, especially setups to be aware of
- Draw on the all weather, and those advantaged and disadvantaged
- and a fair bit more besides
It's bang on 90 minutes long, and you don't need to watch it all in one sitting; but I recommend you watch it. I think it will improve your understanding of our awesome Gold toolkit. Click the video below and take notes!
Matt
p.s. you can use the full screen 'square' icon bottom right on the recording to increase the size of the video box.
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/webtv2.jpg320830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2018-10-15 07:37:512018-10-15 07:39:15[REPLAY] The Racecards & Form Tools Web TV Show
As I’ve alluded to in previous articles I would consider myself more of a flat game specialist, writes Jon Shenton. However, with the onset of winter and the monumental battle of wills around when to put the heating on, perhaps you could argue that my timing is less than impeccable in terms of becoming a contributor to Geegeez.
Data are data, though – and in some ways the fact that I’m not invested so much in the history, the characters and the equine stars of the show arguably means I can be more objective about what I’m looking at. In other words, the data can speak for themselves. Every day is a school day and I’m hopeful that I can build some profitable and interesting angles to keep things ticking over during the cold, dark months when I’m wrapped in a blanket because I’m too tight to fire up the boiler!
In this article, I will try to unearth a bit of early season value with regard to the winter game. That said, and as a starter concession, I still can’t work out officially when the National Hunt season starts.
As ever a reminder that analysing past performance is no guarantee of future spoils; but, as a minimum, it should help in generating ideas and approaches for evolve our knowledge and therefore our betting skill.
Let’s start with a broad-brush approach evaluating National Hunt runners by trainer during the months of October and November. This time all the data have been crunched using the Query Tool on this very site, any runners on or after 7th October 2018 are not included.
The table above displays trainers ordered by the best return on investment (ROI) at starting price (SP). Encouragingly, there are nine of them returning over 10% without diving any deeper.
Top of the tree and first cab off the rank is Henry Oliver, the Worcestershire-based trainer who is returning a very substantial 61% over the period in question: it’s stating the completely obvious but that’s worth more than a quick glance. First stop is to check the context of this apparent seasonal bounty, it may be that Mr Oliver is an all year-round cash cow.
If you backed every Oliver NH runner from January 2012 you would have a neat 5% return to SP with 90 winners from 534 bets. Not quite ‘cash cow’ status but there are certainly worse ways to put your money on the line. The below graph shows how the 26.7 points of profit is split by month.
First thing to note is that, like a number of NH trainers, the summer months are fallow for Oliver’s charges. December aside, Oliver is operating at a profitable level over the winter months and I wouldn’t put you off tracking all stable runners over the core NH season so certainly a trainer to follow.
However, we started searching for early season value and clearly November sticks out like Brian Blessed playing hide and seek, returning 94% profit to ROI. The 20% October ROI is worth noting, too.
Trying to dive deeper into those autumnal runners, evaluating variables such as obstacle type, race class, horse age or date of recent run doesn’t generate anything of real material value. If you’re nit-picking, Oliver’s horses are 0/11 for runs greater in distance than 2m 6f in those months and 5/58 overall, something to keep an eye on.
The last metaphoric hurdle is to understand the consistency aspect of the performance.
The table below shows Oliver’s October/November runs by year. Maybe a little streaky but scintillating performance in 2013, 2015, and in particular 2017, with a bit of a washout in 2016. Only one losing year though (excluding 2018 thus far for hopefully obvious reasons) means that this is solid enough to go on the list!
Suggestion: Back all Henry Oliver runners in October/November at 20/1 or less
The second luminary of the list is Fergal O’Brien, who quite simply has the best (in my opinion) and most entertaining twitter profile of all of the trainers, well worth a follow (@FOBracing) if you’re active on that medium. The stable contains relative household names such as Chase The Spud, Cap Soleil, and their first Grade 1 winner Poetic Rhythm to name but three of them.
There is no doubt the yard has impressive credentials and performance has been very strong over recent years. If you backed every single stable runner at SP from January 2012 you’d walk away with 3.7% more cash than you invested.
I think there are angles aplenty when it comes to O’Brien, most of which are for another day but with specific reference to the early season view there are a couple of options to home in on for profit. The first is National Hunt race code
All profitable, which is nice. The pertinent angle for me though is his performance in bumpers, where O’Brien has nearly double the volume of winners than expected with a 186% return to boot. Yes, the sample size is small, but within the data there are ten winners from horses making their debut (from 22), indicating that the yard gears up to get quality horses (or horses ready to win) out on the track in the months of October and November. Generally speaking, the later in October, the better as the record is 1/11 from the 1st-16th.
Profit in relation to hurdles and fences is quite small over those two months; however, if we zoom in a little closer there is a quite telling split in monthly performance, again it looks like the stable is peaking in November.
It’s not an absolute rule, and certainly doesn’t mean that a horse on the track on the 1st November is in different shape to one on 31st October, but it does indicate generally that as we start heading towards the big November Cheltenham meeting, the O’Brien yard picks up pace and is a definite one to follow closely.
Suggestion 1: Back all O’Brien NHF runners in late October/November at less than 20/1 SP
Suggestion 2: Back all O’Brien Chase and Hurdle runners in November at less than 20/1 SP
Moving to the trainer in the bronze medal position in the opening table, Harry Whittington: the Lambourn-based outfit is growing rapidly, currently housing nearly 50 horses with an increasing number of runners per year. I like these yards that are growing, it often means they’re on an upwards trajectory and are worth closer review.
First port of call is checking the race type in the table below, a small number of runners but the bumper aspect doesn’t look entirely compelling so I’m happy enough to exclude and keep a watching brief.
Again, evaluating the profile of Whittington’s hurdle and chase runners across the whole year gives an interesting picture in terms of P&L. The graph below shows that very same P&L by month to a £1 level stake, it’s fair to say that Q4 looks quite compelling – another yard that’s fast out of the blocks for the new season.
If we analyse the October to December runs in terms of race class as a differentiator there is a further shard of light to assist profitable punting.
The basement C5 races are easy enough to ignore in punting terms, most of them crossing over with the NHF group we already discounted; the Class 1 & 2 are less straightforward, particularly if the yard’s expansion means they may be knocking on the door of the higher echelons of the racing ladder. Here and now I’d be inclined to back the C3 & C4 horses and track the C1/2 runners for signs of improvement or add to a shortlist to back on their relative merits.
Suggestion: Back all Harry Whittington’s October, November and December Chase/Hurdle runners at less than 20/1 in Class 3 or 4 races.
The final trainer I’m going to run through from the initial table is Venetia Williams, largely due to her volume of runners: to deliver a 17% ROI across 440 runners in the months of October/November from 2012 onwards is impressive and merits closer scrutiny. That’s not to say all of the other trainers are not worthy of further investigation and I’d definitely be inclined to sharpen the focus on Messrs Pauling and Keighley in particular. Have a play on QT yourself and maybe post anything of interest (or otherwise) in the comments below.
Returning to Venetia Williams, the Grand National-winning trainer has a profitable record during the months in question, but the below table tells a stark tale. Clearly, Williams has a knack for getting her cavalry of chasers ready early in the season
Again, if we look specifically at the month, the record in November is much stronger than that of October.
Perusing the “Venetia” page at her website www.venetiawilliams.com the following sentence caught my eye:
“Since then Venetia's career has flourished. Never one to expose her horses to the high risk of summer ground, each year Venetia can be seen with the big Saturday winners during the core NH season”
There is a common belief that Williams’ runners love soft turf, and the statement above also seems to indicate a preference to avoiding the risks associated with summer ground. On Geegeez we like facts to back up a theory, so the table below shows Venetia’s chase runners in November by official going.
While there is confirmation that Williams’ runners prefer a softer surface, it is worth noting that the stereotyped ‘hock deep’ runner from this yard fares less well than those encountering merely ‘winter ground’, i.e. good to soft or soft.
There is one mild concern with the overall angle though, namely 2017 performance, showing a loss of 28%, this is also on the back of a moderate 2016. It could be this angle has run its natural course, albeit I will be adding it to my own armoury this November. Williams had a very quiet spell last winter, alluding to a potential problem in the yard so I’m just about happy enough to strike a line through 2017. This is one for keen observation though.
Oh, and incidentally the Saturday assertion in the quoted sentence does have a degree of credence too.
Suggestion: Back all Venetia Williams November Chasers on Good to soft or softer ground with a 20/1 or less SP (with caution)
- Jon Shenton
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/HenryOliver.jpg320830Jonny11https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngJonny112018-10-10 10:44:102019-02-04 10:17:04NH Season Fast Starters
The Laughing Gnome or Richard Johnson after nine cups of coffee..?
Last night I presented a live broadcast via the wwww. (wonderful world wide web).
It was about 'getting started'.
Actually it was about a lot more than that, and doubtless has some value regardless of where you're at with your betting and/or whether you're a geegeez subscriber or not.
It runs for 90 minutes but you can watch the whole thing in 45 minutes to an hour...
You see, I'm not used to doing this sort of thing, and one observation I have of myself is that my delivery was probably marginally slower than ideal.
Happily, youtube has this covered with a 'speed' control bottom right [click the little cog wheel to access the control].
Here, you can choose to watch me at 1.5x (where I sound like Richard Johnson on a caffeine high) or even 2x (where I invoke the spirit of David Bowie's Laughing Gnome)... or good ol' normal speed, where I sound like me, only a bit more nasal (seasonal snots, sigh).
The show covers:
- "The Art of the Possible"
- Mindset
- Staking
- Time
- Overwhelm
- "The process"
- and an overview of the Geegeez Gold platform
And you can watch it below.
p.s. this is your LAST CHANCE to get the discounted Winter Gold season ticket, OR annual discount, OR trial month then current monthly price. From Wednesday morning, the offer is closed and the monthly cost rises for anyone not already locked in to existing pricing structure.
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/mattlaughinggnome-e1538995881695.png307830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2018-10-08 10:51:322018-10-08 10:51:32[REPLAY] The ‘Getting Started’ Web TV Show
Here at geegeez.co.uk we have a premium service called Geegeez Gold. This post is dedicated to trying answer as many of your most frequently asked questions as I can think of. If I've missed one, either add a comment below or contact me and I'll add it in. Straight in, then, with the most obvious...
Q. What is Geegeez Gold?
A. Gold is a comprehensive service for people who bet on British and Irish racing. It includes racecards, form tools, reports, tipping, a tracker, query tools, and more besides. If you bet on racing in Ireland or the UK, Gold has something to help you do it better, regardless of how you bet.
Q. What happens at the end of my Gold trial?
A. If you decide take a trial rather than the bargain 'season' tickets, once your trial finishes, you will automatically be billed the monthly subscription. You may of course cancel at any time, including during your trial. And remember, the subscription rate you sign up at will be the rate at which you're locked in for as long as you remain a subscriber, regardless of future price rises.
Q. What if I forget to cancel?
A. It happens. We're all busy. If you forget to cancel during your trial period, contact us within the first month of full subscription and we'll arrange a refund of your payment (assuming you haven't been using the service, of course).
Q. Where do I start with Geegeez Gold?
A. Gold is a comprehensive package. It's designed that way. For some, it can be difficult to know where to start. The answer is different for everyone. The most sensible place to start is to pick up where you left off with whichever service you previously used.
For example, if you like to receive tips, then start with Stat of the Day, posted on site (and accessible from the home page) around 6pm each night before the next day's racing. Then check out the tipping threads in the forum, and check in on The Shortlist report (accessible from the reports menu).
If you're more interested in form, check out our racecards - and all of the content hiding behind the icons. Then take a look at the tools - Instant Expert, Draw and Pace, as well as Full Form Filter. Then get stuck into the Query Tool.
Or if you're just looking for a couple of interesting horses, use the reports. The Shortlist is a simple one with which to get started, but the real 'juice' can be found reports like Trainer/Jockey Combo, Handicap 1st Time, and Trainer Change reports (amongst others). It is well worth checking out Report Angles, too, once you're up to speed with our reporting suite.
The important thing is to take your time, and not to try to 'reinvent yourself' overnight.
See how we have enhanced the things you already do and use when betting, and build from there.
Q. Is there training for Geegeez Gold?
A. Yes! We have a range of Gold tutorials in your My Geegeez area. Also there, you'll find a 'READ THIS FIRST' link. Obviously, I recommend you read that first!
Then, make sure you check out the User Guide, also linked from My Geegeez. That's a big document these days so I'm not expecting that anyone will read it from cover to cover; but if you're using a new feature, flick to the relevant section to ensure you're 'doing it right' and that you're not missing anything.
Finally, we have our Gold Playbook. This is a series of videos and blog posts showing specific strategies and tactics for using various elements of the Gold toolkit. Oh, and I write on the blog every few days with further pointers.
Again, take your time with Gold. "Only fools rush in", as Elvis once wonderfully warbled. There's no rush.
Q. What if I get stuck?
A. If you've checked out the various help features and/or you don't know where to look for an answer, drop us a line! Chris, Steve and myself are always happy to help people get the best out of Geegeez Gold. And, unlike some faceless racing bureaucracies, we're real people who really care about your racing and betting enjoyment and success. So do get in touch whenever you need to. Our contact link is here.
Q. Can I join in on the forum?
A. Please do! We welcome new users introducing themselves and getting as engaged as they wish on our Gold subscribers' only forum. We have just two simple rules, to which we expect everybody to adhere: no pitch, and no bitch. So please don't be selling stuff (yours or someone else's) and please be nice.
Happily, everybody on our forum aligns with those basic principles which makes it a pretty friendly place to hang out. There is also some excellent tipping going on there, and some brilliant ideas and angles being explored. We'd welcome your involvement. Here's the forum link, which can also be found from the top (red) menu bar.
Q. What else do I need to know about Geegeez Gold?
A. geegeez.co.uk is an independently run site, designed and built by racing bettors for racing bettors. All of the writers and developers, and the creator, bet regularly on horse racing. As such, we 'get' what people want. (We also get that because I regularly survey subscribers asking how we can add more value).
We don't have the mega brand of the big boys, but nor have we sold our souls to bookmakers. This is a site where punters win, as simple as that. Our tips are winning tips, where subscribers can actually get on at the prices; our ratings work, because they're not so over-exposed as to be factored into the market as soon as they're published; our tools look at form differently - and more deeply - providing insights not available to the market as a whole.
We do things differently at Geegeez. We do things better.
And we're not going anywhere. geegeez.co.uk has been online since 2008, and has over 30,000 email and website subscribers. The number of Gold subscribers is growing by the week as word is getting out about our superior features. I'm very proud of the community feel at geegeez.co.uk, and of the 'best in breed' product we've built for people, like you, who bet on British and Irish racing.
When you join us, you are becoming part of something worth being a part of. Now that's refreshing, wouldn't you say? 😉
Q. What is the best deal?
A. Geegeez Gold is priced to be accessible to anyone who has even a vague interest in making a profit from their betting - and enjoying the process. But it is a premium product, (favourably) comparable to services which currently cost more than £100 a month. We charge £36 a month, which is a third of the price of those other, more clunky (but still decent) services.
An annual subscription is the best value, users benefiting from two free months per year (£360 annual rather than £432 - remember, other similar services charge more than £1,250 for a year's sub!)
Finally, if you're not sure whether Gold is for you, take a one month trial for £1. If you love it, you'll roll onto a monthly (or annual, if you selected that option) subscription at the end of your first month. Obviously, you may cancel at any time; and if you forget, drop us a line and we'll help you out. No dramas.
So what is the best deal? They're all excellent value as you can see, but the very best value is reserved for those making the longest commitment.
Q. Help! My question hasn't been answered!
A. No problem. I've tried to cover just a few of the high level questions in this post. There will be many more I've not answered. Please leave a comment and/or drop us a line if you need another question answering - we're here to help.
For now, thanks for taking time to read this page, and good luck.
As a retired gentleman Trevor likes a bet; in fact I first met him in a Bookmakers shop around ten years ago, writes Mark Littlewood (@SmarterSig). He wasn’t a profitable punter but his daily walk into town for a bet, some banter and a cup of tea was a regular ritual. Trevor has one quality however that bookmakers do not like, he has a brain in his head. He demonstrated this by expressing to me an interest in becoming more successful with his betting.
How many punters have you met who seem to want to validate their own failure rather than improve their own betting? Trevor was not one of them and he was about to take his first steps towards profit.
He first asked me what the single most important thing was he could do to improve his bottom line, how could he at least perhaps break even and maybe even win long term. I asked him how he bets, what is his daily routine.
It is a familiar one to us all. He makes his picks around 8am, has some breakfast and then strolls into town around 10am to his favourite bookmaker which at the time happened to be Paddy Power. It sometimes changes, if the manager makes him unhappy for some reason. He will then switch to Ladbrokes, Coral, Fred or Hills. If there is one thing FOBTs have given punters it is more shops to choose from, but it is probably the only thing. Trevor will write out his bet taking the odds the bookmaker is currently offering at around 10.30am.
So what can Trevor do that will improve his bottom line. Study more form? Follow a tipster? Invest in some fancy speed figures and follow them? My first line of advice was none of these. What all punters should do to improve their betting is to take the best price available.
I suggested that Trevor checked which bookmaker has the best odds amongst his bookmakers and make the effort to grab those prices. If he could include online bookmakers then his prospects would be even better.
Trevor managed to do this (although not via online books) and admitted that he felt better off financially. The second thing I got Trevor to do was check out Betfair and once again Trevor was not only open to this idea but came back to me amazed at some of the prices he was getting.
Okay, so far this is all anecdotal although I can assure you perfectly true. The real question is how much better off is Trevor and could he do even better with his bet placement choices? To test this I gathered 10:05 am prices for all High Street and online bookmakers for a period of just over two weeks starting around the St Leger meeting. I wanted to see how better or worse off the profit would be with various bet placement strategies. First of all I wanted a baseline to compare to. I decided on profit and loss to bookmaker SP on all horse who had a 10:05am average price of less than decimal 10.0 (9/1). To keep things simple I only considered races where, from 10:05am onwards, there were no non runners up to race off time. Both Flat and NH were analysed.
AM av’g Price < 10 in betting to bookmakers’ SP £1 bets
Bets PL Returns to £1
1236
-£87.35
£0.93
From the above we can see that during this period if we had 1236 £1 bets we would have lost £87.35 which equates on average to getting 93p back for every pound bet. What we would really like to see from a betting strategy is that last column to be above £1.00; the purpose of this article is to see which method of bet placement moves us closer to £1.00 when betting blindly.
So how can we improve matters before we even consider how we are picking our bets? Well what if we do what Trevor is now doing. What if we bet at best 10:05am prices rather than bookmakers’ SP. The first question is, which bookmakers should we realistically consider? Trevor is not going to have accounts with every available checkable bookmaker. Perhaps a look first at betting to best price at 10:05am with the main High Street shops, namely Ladbrokes, Coral, Hills, Fred and Power.
AM av’g price < 10 in betting to best 10:05am price with main high street firms
Bets PL Returns to £1
1236
-£77.71
£0.94
Excellent, a small improvement: a loss of £77.71 which equates to a return on every pound of 94p.
However what if Trevor is willing to really do the leg work and open accounts with all online Bookmakers? For these results I have excluded all exchanges except Betfair exchange and Betfair Sportsbook.
AM av’g price < 10 in betting to best 10:05am price with all firms
Bets PL Returns to £1
1236
-£30.95
£0.97
It is worth noting that we will need larger samples than this to feel confident about whether that £0.97 is a realistic figure but what we are really interested in at this stage is the relative behaviour of these numbers. Is one strategy is better than another and, if so, by how much?
Let us be a little more realistic. Trevor may not want to have over a dozen online accounts. Perhaps he is only prepared to open two or three. The question now becomes one of which two or three bookmakers should he open online accounts with. A count of how often each bookmaker is top priced or joint top priced on a race should tell Trevor where to have his two or three accounts. The chart below shows this count for the period under examination.
The above chart suggests Trevor should have accounts with BetVictor, Betfair and Bet365 in addition to his high street shops
Let us now take a look at how Trevor would have performed if he took the easy option and simply placed all the bets at Betfair SP. This can be done with a single click in the morning and then the rest of the day is his.
AM av’g < 10 in betting to Betfair SP after 5% commission deducted
Bets PL Returns to £1
1236
-7.13
£0.99
Betting all horses with a 10:05am average price less than 10.0 in the betting at Betfair SP produced a negligible loss of £7.13, which equates to a return of £0.99 for every pound invested. Once again I emphasise that this small loss is unlikely to uphold but the difference in performance from the other approaches is what we are interested in and there appears to be a clear disparity.
Furthermore, any regular punter on Betfair will not be paying the full 5% commission.
Many people will be surprised to find that the easy Betfair SP option outperformed all the other scenarios. Moreover, there is no chance of you getting your account restricted or closed betting to Betfair or Betfair SP. Seems that the old adage of "don’t work hard, work smart", applies to your betting as well.
Finally are there any bookmaker-based betting approaches that can beat Betfair SP? Well, so far there is one but it would rely on getting Best Odds Guaranteed (BOG) with any of the High Street Bookmakers at 10:05am. Where BOG is offered on a race you can take a price and if the SP is bigger your bet will be settled at the bigger price. There are some challenges with this as various time caveats come into play when offering BOG; and, more materially of course, it is the first thing to go when you show any sign of intelligent punting. Still, the results are solid for as long as one can sustain them.
Av’g price < 10 in betting to best high street only and BOG at 10:05am
Bets PL Returns to £1
1236
+44.83
£1.04
If you are not a long term winning punter then these figures suggest that when and how you bet can make a major impact on your loss figures.
What if you are a winning punter? Unless the current bookmaker climate changes you may well be forced onto Betfair anyway, but in the meantime I would advocate placing small breadcrumb bets on Betfair alongside your normal bets to gauge the difference in overall performance.
If there is interest in this article I will follow it up with a look at whether the intelligence of the market or wisdom of the crowds can be harnessed to produce a profit.
- Mark Littlewood
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/EducatingTrevor_chart.png523865Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2018-10-02 09:00:582018-09-29 09:35:55Educating Trevor: Shopping for Value
About a week ago I was thinking about topics to turn my hand to, playing with possible angles and messing around with data, writes Jon Shenton. Given that winter is coming™ I was looking through general National Hunt stats and I stumbled across the below potentially revelatory information.
All chase runners with an SP of 20/1 or shorter by trainer (from 1st January 2012 to 8th September 2018)
The data is sorted by ROI at SP and only includes trainers that had 100 or more runners over fences in the review period. Summarising all of the data, that’s 4890 runs in total with a decent £812 profit at a £1 level stake - a return of 17%. To be honest I pore over data constantly and I can’t remember seeing anything this blatant, immediate and maybe obvious before, in fact I’m kicking myself I hadn’t clocked it previously. My only partial defence is that I have a slightly odd penchant for a class 6 Southwell AW handicap as a betting medium, clearly I should widen my focus to the chasing game!
Just before we plough on, let me explain the 20/1 upper limit choice: in basic terms, when looking for angles, quite often you can find what appear to be mightily profitable paper systems, but they are skewed by one or two big winners. Now, one could reasonably argue that they are a component of the angle, however, I prefer to look for good solid reliability and hopefully sustainable profit, especially when trying to get a handle on a large data set such as ”all chase races” as we are reviewing in this article.
Back to the data, there are plenty of familiar names involved and also as you might expect, plenty of smaller yards potentially flying under the radar. In theory backing all runners from all of the yards systematically may yield a return but underneath this high-level view there should be interesting pockets of gold where a sharpened focus could improve the yield.
So how can we zoom in? Well we could just analyse each trainer individually and sequentially, hunting for micro angles. Maybe if we have unlimited time that would work but I have deadlines to meet, bills to pay, a family to talk to and a day job to think about.
I think in this case a quick look at consistency of performance over each calendar year may give a better view of the trainers to follow in the chase field. The table below gives that summary, blatantly and unashamedly ripping off an Instant Expert type view to assist in landing the individual nuances in the data.
P&L performance by year for a £1 level stake by trainer (All chase runners with an SP of 20/1 or shorter by trainer (from 1st January 2012 to 8th September 2018)
First thing to note, 2018 as a whole so far is certainly disappointing in comparison to previous years. It may be seasonality, i.e. we are only part way through 2018 and perhaps a number of these trainers hit their straps in Q4 so there could be juicy profit to be had over the next few months. It may be that the market is now wising up to the yards’ chasing proficiency. It may be reversion to the mean. It may be that the dataset was happenstance in spite of the 100+ runners stipulation. Or It may be something else entirely!
The original reason for pulling that view of the data was to find trainers upon which to focus; to look for those with a high degree of consistency both in strike rate and profit. We’re not really interested in flash in the pan performance: for instance, we can see that Kerry Lee makes the list purely on the back of a Hollywood 2016.
All of the trainers in the table with a comment of either “Consistent” or “Improving” are worth prioritising in the first instance but, for the sake of brevity, I’m going to concentrate on three: Dai Burchell at the top of the list, Michael Scudamore and Nigel Hawke. Perhaps I’ll visit some of the others in a future edition!
Dai Burchell
I have a confession to make. Until starting this research I had genuinely never heard of, knowingly backed, or even looked at a Dai Burchell horse. I follow the flat more closely than the jumps – that’s my excuse – but even so! Anyway, for those in the same hitherto ignorant boat as me, the yard is based in Ebbw Vale, has around a dozen horses in training currently and has been operating since 1983. Dai and I have something in common too: apparently, we both enjoying walking around castles, perhaps our paths have crossed before unwittingly.
A keenness to learn more about Burchell reveals he is clearly a chase specialist, his hurdle strike rate being less than half as good. The yard’s sole bumper runner barely merits mention.
Dai Burchell National Hunt Runners by race type (from 1st January 2012 to 8th September 2018)
As I’ve mentioned in a previous article one of the first things I check where a trainer is concerned is how their fleet perform after a layoff. The table below shows Burchell’s chase runners split by days since last run.
Dai Burchell Chase Runners by days since last run with an SP of 20/1 or less (from 1st January 2012 to 8th September 2018)
If a Burchell horse hasn’t had a run in 76 days then it doesn’t win. Granted there are only 18 of them so not a reliable number but the fact that the place percentage is also lower than the rest of the sample I’m happy enough to ignore it, leaving us with the following.
Dai Burchell Chase Runners at less than 20/1 SP with a run within the last 75 days (from 1st January 2012 to 8th September 2018)
A 24%-win rate and 78% ROI by backing all Dai Burchell chase runners if they’re fit (i.e. ran in the previous 75 days). Ordinarily I’d take that any day of the week, but there is a very substantial elephant in the room that needs addressing. This is a small yard and this seemingly bulletproof performance is down to a small number of horses winning multiple times.
In fact, if we look at the 34 winners we have only 11 unique horses accounting for them, with such luminaries as Rebecca’s Choice, Ratify and One For The Boss getting their noses in front a total of 15 times between them. There have been only 16 individual horses running for the yard since 2012 so to have 11 different winners is a strong performance, but even so it does make the data evidence slightly less compelling.
Having said that, what we know for certain is that Dai Burchell has a small, highly effective unit of chasers, who can win on a regular basis. They’ll certainly be going in my tracker or angles to flag each time they run for deadly serious consideration.
Michael Scudamore
Let’s look at one of the more mainstream names, the Welsh National and Cheltenham Festival-winning trainer MJ Scudamore, who has horses such as Mysteree and Kingswell Theatre associated with the yard. My eye was drawn to this trainer on account of a profitable return in each of the last four years – significantly so in each of the last three years – and look to be on an upward curve, at least at first glance.
As with Dai Burchell, the record of Scudamore runners in chases is far superior to hurdles and NH Flat: his hurdle strike rate is 9%, less than half of the chase equivalent. The hurdlers also have an ROI of -60% compared to the 27% profit on chase runners.
Digging deeper into the record over fences there is a great deal of consistency across the usual factors I’d initially use to home in (days since last run, race class, horse sex, age etc). There is, however, one area which merits attention.
MJ Scudamore Chase Runners at 20/1 or less SP by month (from 1st January 2012 to 8th September 2018)
The above graph clearly shows a fallow period through the summer jumps period, which is perfectly understandable: the yard keeps ticking over, but the focus is seemingly to gear up for the main season over the winter months. The strike rate trend is mirrored by profitability, April to September runners collectively delivering a yield of -9%.
If we take Scudamore chase runners from October to March we’re left with a nice return of 64% at SP (78% Betfair Exchange). The yard certainly has a bigger scale than Burchell with 46 horses in training, according to scudamoreracing.com.
Again, the 42 winners include multiples, with 18 unique horses delivering them.
One final thought on this section relates to recency bias. Very often when churning through data (trainer data especially) one check I do is to differentiate between whether a horse placed last time out. For some trainers form of the horse can be less relevant, they are better at bouncing back from more moderate runs (maybe as they drop down the handicap). Below shows the differential for the Scudamore chasers through the winter months.
MJ Scudamore Chase Runners at 20/1 or less Oct-Mar by whether they placed LTO (from 1st January 2012 to 8th September 2018)
No discernible difference in strike rate but the P&L is much healthier for horses that didn’t hit the frame in their previous run. The average SP for a winning horse placing LTO is a shade over 10/3, whereas for those off the board on their most recent run, the winners return an average 15/2 SP. Recency bias in numbers? I hope to review this in more detail over the coming months.
Recency bias or not, don’t be put off by a recent moderate run by a Scudamore chaser.
Nigel Hawke
The final trainer subject to a more detailed review is Nigel Hawke, who is based in Tiverton and has a team of nearly 30 horses in training. Whenever I hear or think about Nigel Hawke the first thing that springs to mind is geegeez.co.uk’s Trainer Snippets report, specifically with regard to last time out winners. Hawke’s name seems to be a permanent fixture on there! So, first port of call is to check that and, given his general strong record over fences, I’d expect to see a nice angle looking specifically at LTOW’s.
Nigel Hawke Chase Runners at 20/1 or less SP where they won LTO (from 1st January 2012 to 8th September 2018)
Sure enough, the theory holds water: a small number of runners but solid enough. As a slightly off-topic bonus, below is the record of Hawke’s LTO winners running over hurdles over the same period, a very similar story. Conclusion: Nigel Hawke last time out winners are worth backing irrespective of obstacle type
Nigel Hawke Hurdle Runners at 20/1 or less SP where they won LTO (from 1st January 2012 to 8th September 2018)
Back to Hawke in general chases, here is his record by class of race
Nigel Hawke Chase Runners at 20/1 or less SP by race class (from 1st January 2012 to 8th September 2018)
As can be seen, Class 5 – the basement level in National Hunt – race performance is fairly wretched by comparison to all other classes. I’m always comfortable taking these factors into account when it’s either at the elite end or the opposite (let’s call it grassroots) levels.
By focusing on Class 1 to 4 races only we are left with 46 wins from 212 runs (21%) and a starting price ROI of 44%, the 46 wins delivered by 19 different animals.
Summary
There are a number of generally profitable trainers over fences in the review period and using a quick check of consistency to zoom in on particular yards, I would flag three angles worth putting in the notebook for the winter months:
Dai Burchell chase runners if they’ve had a recent run (in the last 75 days)
Michael Scudamore chase runners running from October through to March, focusing on those that had a moderate last run (didn’t place)
Nigel Hawke’s chase runners in Class 1-4, and all last time out NH winners
- Jon Shenton
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/MichaelScudamore_withtheclan.jpg319830Jonny11https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngJonny112018-09-19 10:32:002019-02-04 10:17:20Chasing A Winter Profit
After writing five articles on 5f turf handicaps it seemed sensible, as we were heading into Autumn, that I would start looking at pace in National Hunt racing, writes Dave Renham.
For readers who have not read my pace articles before I will precis what pace in a race means. When I talk about pace my main focus is the initial pace in a race, and the position horses take early on. geegeez.co.uk has a pace tab for every race and the stats I am sharing with you in this article are based on the site’s pace section data.
The pace data on Geegeez is split into four – Led (4), Prominent (3), Mid Division (2) and Held Up (1). The number in brackets are the pace scores that are assigned to each section.
For this article I am concentrating on course data and creating pace figures for specific course and distance combinations – my focus for this piece is handicap chases of 2m 1½f or shorter. In some research 7 or 8 years ago, I noted a bias to front runners in these races – not as strong as some flat race front- running biases, but a bias nonetheless.
The first set of data I wish to share is the overall pace stats for handicap chases of 2m 1½f or shorter (minimum number of runners in a race 6):
Pace comment
Runners
Wins
SR%
Led
1936
362
18.7
Prominent
4145
608
14.7
Mid Division
1423
144
10.1
Held Up
4459
388
8.7
We can see that horses which led or disputed the lead early have a notably higher strike rate in these handicap chases. Prominent racers have a good looking record too, while hold up horses tend to struggle.
Another way to illustrate the data is through Impact Values – the best explanation of an impact value or (IV) is one I read many years ago in a book by Dr William Quirin, called Winning at the Races. He stated that impact values “are calculated by dividing the percentage of winners with a given characteristic by the percentage of starters with that characteristic. An IV of 1.00 means that horses with a specific characteristic have won no more and no less than their fair share of races”.
To help explain IVs further let us use the ‘led’ stats in this article to illustrate the idea. As can be seen in the table above horses that have led early have won 18.7% of these races.
Summing all of the pace data, there were 1502 winners with a pace score* from a total of 11963 runners with a pace score which gives an overall win percentage of 12.56%.
If we divide 18.7 by 12.56, then, we get the impact value for leaders – this gives us an impact value of 1.49.
*Pace scores are derived from in-running comments. In about 5% of cases it is impossible to discern the early position of a horse from its in-running comment
Here are the impact values for each pace category:
Pace comment
Impact Value
Led
1.49
Prominent
1.17
Mid Division
0.81
Held Up
0.69
Using either win percentages or the slightly more sophisticated Impact Values give us the same overall picture: in handicap chases of 2m 1½f or shorter there is a clear advantage to a more prominent running style – the closer to the lead early, the better.
As when I looked at 5f flat handicap pace data, there are significant differences in the course figures for these contests too with some courses being more suited to early leaders/front runners than others. Here are the courses with the best strike rates (25 front runners minimum):
Course
Front Runners
Wins
SR%
Hexham
68
24
35.3
Taunton
39
13
33.3
Huntingdon
42
13
31.0
Lingfield
32
9
28.1
Wincanton
40
10
25.0
Plumpton
45
11
24.4
Sandown
46
11
23.9
Ludlow
82
19
23.2
For the record, Haydock’s strike rate for front runners was 38.9%, but there were only a handful of races (14). Now let us look at the courses with the best impact values which should give a more accurate measure of front running bias:
Course
IV for Front runners
Hexham
2.96
Taunton
2.42
Huntingdon
2.31
Cheltenham
2.29
Lingfield
2.05
Hereford
1.93
Ludlow
1.81
Wincanton
1.80
Carlisle
1.80
Catterick
1.70
Sandown
1.68
The order is similar, but Cheltenham appears in 4th place in this list compared with a lowly 23rd placing on the SR% list. The simple reason for this is that chases of this type at Cheltenham have many more runners on average compared to all other racecourses. This perfectly demonstrates why Impact Values are so important and statistically meaningful.
Hexham’s front running bias is very strong – indeed it should be noted that hold up horses have a dreadful record there winning just 6 of the 56 races from a total of 174 runners (IV 0.29).
At the other end of the scale here are the courses with the poorest stats for early leaders/front runners in handicap chases of 2m 1½f or shorter:
Course
Front Runners
Wins
SR%
Newcastle
44
6
13.6
Bangor
38
5
13.2
Ayr
55
7
12.7
Musselburgh
25
3
12.0
Southwell
94
11
11.7
Wetherby
50
5
10
Aintree
43
4
9.3
Newbury
40
3
7.5
Ascot
48
2
4.2
Very poor figures on the face of it for Ascot, Aintree and Newbury. Again, though, the impact values will provide a more complete picture. The table below shows courses that have a front runner IV of less than 1.00.
Course
IV for Front runners
Newcastle
0.98
Musselburgh
0.96
Ayr
0.91
Southwell
0.91
Aintree
0.90
Wetherby
0.72
Newbury
0.58
Ascot
0.36
It provides further evidence that the Ascot figures for early leaders are indeed very poor, but interestingly hold up horses have not dominated at this course. The impact value for hold up horses at Ascot has been 0.91 – it is prominent runners (horses that track the pace) with an IV of 1.62 that have had most success in such races at Ascot.
This article to date has focused on front runners. Now I want to try and give a more rounded profile for each course. To do this I have created course pace averages as I did in my second article on 5f flat handicaps. I create course pace averages 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 or race close to the pace early. Here are the data:
Course
Total Races
Course Average
Hexham
56
3.18
Taunton
32
3.03
Ludlow
67
3.01
Sandown
32
2.97
Wincanton
30
2.97
Carlisle
36
2.92
Newton Abbot
69
2.86
Huntingdon
32
2.84
Lingfield
24
2.83
Haydock
14
2.79
Hereford
26
2.69
Plumpton
37
2.68
Southwell
64
2.64
Exeter
22
2.64
Leicester
40
2.63
Towcester
47
2.62
Kelso
72
2.60
Perth
32
2.59
Uttoxeter
54
2.59
Sedgefield
80
2.59
Worcester
99
2.59
Ffos Las
18
2.56
Chepstow
45
2.56
Catterick
35
2.54
Stratford
53
2.51
Doncaster
21
2.48
Newcastle
37
2.46
Bangor
30
2.43
Warwick
23
2.39
Cheltenham
35
2.37
Ascot
32
2.34
Wetherby
35
2.34
Market Rasen
12
2.33
Ayr
43
2.33
Aintree
31
2.32
Newbury
31
2.32
Musselburgh
20
2.30
Cartmel
36
2.17
It can be argued that these pace averages give a greater overall pace ‘feel’ to each course – it remains clear though that Hexham and Taunton are two courses where there is a very strong pace bias, early leaders there being more than three times as likely to prevail.
Being able to predict the front runner in handicaps chases of 2m 1½f or shorter at these two courses and, to a lesser degree, at Sandown, Wincanton and Carlisle – should provide a number of value betting opportunities this season. There are other courses that offer a strong edge too, of course, but these stand out particularly.
I hope this article has been of interest and as with most things in life, the more you ‘put in’, the more you tend to ‘get out’. I will personally continue to work hard researching pace angles because it has the potential to really pay dividends.
- Dave Renham
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Hexham_chaser.jpg320820Dave Renhamhttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngDave Renham2018-09-17 08:00:182019-04-23 08:10:46The Importance of Pace in ‘Speed’ Handicap Chases
A horse race can be over and done with in little more than a minute but the betting market for said race takes much longer to unfold, over 24 hours in most cases, writes Tony Keenan. It may be heresy to true fans of the sport, but most punters spend more time watching markets than races, with knowing when and how to execute bets an important skill. During this article I’m going to try to look at the evolution of a standard market on an average Irish race from start to finish, considering some of the factors that influence it and suggest what punters might bear in mind when timing their bets.
Overnight Prices
The starting point for most Irish betting markets now is the first batch of overnight prices between 4pm and 6pm the evening before the race; in most cases, Paddy Power Betfair are first up, followed by Bet365, Sky Bet, BetFred and Ladbrokes Coral in that broad order with the smaller firms coming in afterwards. A striking feature here is the timing; these prices are going up roughly six hours after declarations came through at 10.30am which is a really narrow window and certainly a massive difference to the age when prices went up the morning of the race.
Compilers working to produce odds in this timeframe are under pressure, some having to price up on a hundred horses for the following day, with simple math revealing that is little more than three minutes per horse. How many replays can you realistically watch in this time? Many will be skilled practitioners who watch tons of racing but the modern odds compiling environment means they are doing more with less and it is not unreas0nable to ask how deeply they get to study each horse or race; unlike punters who can pick their battles, they have to put a number to every horse that they will lay to at least some degree.
That degree is a major issue for many but let’s get real here: no one, unless you have access to a whale account, can get at these prices to any scale. And it is hard to see why it would be any other way; the limits in almost every sport are low when odds are initially posted and when punters talk about restrictions at this time, it could be that they are referring to limits which have be reduced across the industry for overnight prices. Even the very act of looking to bet the night before could be enough to get your account factored.
Not that I have any problem with someone looking to place a bet overnight: the reality in punting is that if you can get on, you will, and if you can’t, you have to sit and suffer. It would be punting utopia were everyone to wait until a set time the following day before striking a bet but this can be an inherently selfish game and there will always be someone looking to front-run your bet. A better question to ask might be how cheaply you are going to reveal your opinion, provided that opinion is of some value, and if you are playing overnight it is not unreasonable to think it might be, recreational punters rarely bothering at this stage of the market.
Taken as an entire group, the bets struck overnight are negative expected value for the firms; over time, they lose on overnights. The loss-leading aspect of this might be surprising for some but they are not in it for any real liabilities and the aim to get the prices right for the next morning when a great volume of bets and turnover comes in, particularly if said company has a retail estate. It is not unreasonable to think that every bet of size at this point, with size being relative, ticks the market one way or another.
A couple of points to finish up this section: overrounds are higher at this juncture so the question can be asked why laying bets overnight isn’t profitable? I suspect this is because they will only be laying the one, two or three horses that are wrong and the field book will be anything but balanced; the idea of a balanced book is more fantasy than reality in most cases but at this stage it can be particularly lop-sided.
There is also the issue of possible price manipulation which is something I’ll return to throughout this article. Most readers will know that bookmaking firms are heavily influenced by what happens on the exchanges but in most cases, the markets for the following day have next to no volume in them at this point. One could post up a bet that is under the available price that might cause a series of cuts but perhaps a better way to manipulate a price at this stage is to bet a horse in the race on a few marked accounts in the hope that your real selection may be pushed out so it can be backed at a more advantageous price. Plenty of firms will have an auto-cut approach to some accounts that are betting at this time.
The Next Morning
The theory for some of the firms with the overnights, as well as offering a service to their customers, is that any creases in their prices will be ironed out by morning. The point at which these prices become profitable to lay is open to question; it certainly won’t be very early on but the hope would be that by mid-morning they will have a set of prices that can be laid to some degree of confidence. It is worthwhile reminding ourselves of how little volume of the total betting turnover is actually done up to this point with the final figure of what is bet on the show never ceasing to amaze. In terms of singles only, the figures are likely to be about 5% overnight, 10% morning up to midday, 20% rest of the day through to fifteen minutes before the off, and as much as 65% on the show. This will vary depending on the make-up of each company but the importance of having things right for the time of the race is clear.
Overrounds will go down a little at this stage – if you take an Oddschecker screen grab of the typical race at 7pm the previous night and 9am the next morning there will be more pink [i.e. horses drifting] in the latter. The overall pricing is less defensive now with the obvious ricks generally being quickly ironed out, and this is also the time when some liquidity comes into the exchanges with Matchbook being a notably bigger player in this regard over the last few months; how long this will last, one never knows, but it does offer some volume now at the front end of the market at least.
It is also now that the prominent tipsters start to influence the market and for Irish racing that means Andy Holding on Oddschecker and Gary O’Brien on AtTheRaces. Both are excellent judges though I’m sure most punters can emphasise with that sinking feeling when they have put up something you fancied and you are forced to take shorter than you wanted. Holding tends to use times and sectionals a lot and I have noticed that his column has been going up a little later over the past few months, around 9.30am rather than around 9.00am. That may seem like a relatively meaningless difference but if you can get into a shop in that half an hour period you may be able to bet your selection before he puts it up though finding an office that opens before 10am in Ireland remains a challenge with Saturday the only exception. As an aside, I sometimes think that Saturday might be the best day to bet on Irish racing and not only because of the earlier shop opening. Saturday is the main racing day of the week in the UK and the Irish racing may not be getting quite the attention that it should from odds compilers and traders with prices lasting longer than they typically might.
The shops will all be open at this time and again many of the bets struck here will be negative expected value; bigger operations will be looking to get runners out and about and market moves now by definition are probably more meaningful as they can simply get more money on as the limits are raised and there are more avenues to place a bet. Plenty of the money staked on Irish racing is actually bet in UK shops and this is simply a numbers game with the UK having vastly more shops and related opportunity to get on.
Gary O’Brien can be all over the grid in terms of when his tips are posted on the AtTheRaces website but more often than not it is after shop opening. He is an example to all punters that you don’t need the early earlies to win as he proves very profitable despite many of the prices having been picked over. The prices about his selections invariably shorten but it tends to take more time than those from Andy Holding, likely because they are put up later in the day when the markets are slightly more robust. O’Brien’s selections tend to be form-based and he simply has an excellent knowledge of the Irish formbook, price conscious but not obsessed with the odds. Often he will put up an 8/1 shot that was 12/1 at one point but goes off 9/2 and we all should probably try to avoid the psychological anchoring that prevents us from taking the shorter price because we have missed top price as it can still be value.
Minimum Bet Liability
The latest wrinkle to be thrown in the morning trading is the minimum bet liability (MBL); at this point Paddy Power/Betfair, BetVictor and Sky Bet are guaranteeing online customers bets that can win up to £500 from various times across mid-morning and applied to different race grades. BetVictor’s conditions are about the best as it is across all races and includes an each-way option, and it may be reasonable to expect other firms to come on board with similar MBLs sooner rather than later: this is a copycat industry where approaches like cash-out and extra places have become available generally across different companies. An interesting facet of the BetVictor guarantee is that it applies to Irish racing as well as UK racing with Paddy Power Betfair doing similar on some but not all Irish meetings. This is somewhat surprising as Irish racing is traditionally viewed as toxic within the betting industry, something that is probably more perception than reality. Nevertheless, the perception is sufficiently widespread that it needs to be acknowledged.
The reasons for bookmakers adopting MBL are unclear. Certainly it has created a degree of good PR at a time when the whole sector has been getting a kicking from regulators though it may also be an admission that they were over-zealous in their restrictions, shutting down people they shouldn’t have. The Horseracing Bettors Forum deserves credit for their role too and, for all their efforts in other areas, it is likely that their achievements in addressing restrictions by which they will be judged. As to the sum of £500 or euro equivalent, one can only hope it’s a start rather than an end-point. A liability of £500 when having £200 on a 5/2 shot seems fine but it’s only a pony on a 20/1 rag and in reality punters have no issue walking into an Irish shop and getting that bet laid in the morning unless you are a Barney Curley lookalike. Punters do have the advantage of using MBL across a range of companies and a total liability that gets into the thousands is more respectable.
There are however some potential consequences to this. The whole idea of a guarantee is that it is open to all and that includes all sorts of arbers, robotic and human. I used to believe the arber argument was a bookmaker smokescreen to deflect from restricting winning customers, but I have spoken to enough people at this stage to realise that it is a real problem. Arbers bring nothing to the table but take out plenty; some will be content to trade out of a small profit on the exchanges while others have now twigged that holding the bets they make at prices over the exchange lay side [so called ‘line trackers’] offer positive expected value and will prove profitable over time. Betting companies are constantly closing robotic arbers though they face their share of human ones too, online and in shops, which are more difficult to regulate. It is reasonable to ask yourself where you stand morally on this; I think they don’t put in any work and, while it is easy to always see the bookmakers as villains, arbers are hardly innocents and allowing them free access to MBL makes little sense. As ever, differentiating them from genuine, opinion-based customers is the challenge.
Another potential game-changing aspect to MBL is how the bigger punting operations will use (and perhaps abuse) it. These groups are looking to take out large sums for their bets and perhaps MBL will mean they will hold their money until mid-morning and then try to smash a price. The logistics of how they would do this are not public knowledge but it is not unreasonable to suggest they could get access to 50 accounts with a bookmaker which, times £500, quickly becomes at £25,000 liability. Can the bookmaker refuse the guarantee if all the bets are co-ordinated to land at the same time? Again, the issue of possible price manipulation comes into play; would pre-MBL bets on marked accounts be used to push the price of the real fancy when mid-morning comes or could the exchanges be used to achieve a similar end?
How the bookmakers deal with this is a fascinating aspect. Perhaps some will be brave enough to ‘create an arb’ and lay their MBL prices when they are over the odds on the machine. They would need to have some confidence in their traders and compilers to do so and it would be much more likely on good racing than bad racing; Irish racing, sadly, probably falls more into the latter category. That’s a much more traditional model than we’ve seen in recent years and there are plenty in the industry who would simply tell you that if you’re over something on the exchanges, you’re just wrong. All of this leads to worries about what this will mean for the ordinary decent punter, price sensitive and likely winning a few quid but who has been restricted. They are the target market of MBL or at least should be but will they merely have access to a set of prices they don’t want?
When asked about some of these issues, Matt Scarrott, Director of Sportsbook at BetVictor, said ‘BetVictor acknowledged that the perception amongst some punters was that bookmakers are too quick to reduce stakes to a tiny amount or refuse all horse racing bets from certain customers. We entered into dialogue with Matt Bisogno of the HBF earlier this year, to see if any common ground could be found on that subject. We were keen to offer a guaranteed bet across all UK and Irish Racing regardless of the grade of the race and we were also keen to give closed customers the right to participate in this Guaranteed Bet market. At the time of writing several hundred previously closed accounts have been ‘reopened’ so that they can bet on this market. We are reviewing the market’s on-going performance as you would expect. Whilst in the vast majority of races we offer identical prices in the main book and the Guaranteed Bet book, we reserve the right to price certain selections differently, dependent mainly on the shape of the race. We also reserve the right to close (or re-close) customers for trading reasons, although currently we have not rejected any requests to reopen and have not reclosed any accounts.’
On The Show
As we have seen, the show is still when the bulk of betting turnover comes, though prices here can again be manipulated for relatively small sums. Exchange trading – unless said exchange is seeding their markets – will be relatively light for all but the better racing until 15 minutes before the off so it is not particularly hard for someone that way inclined to knock a horse from say 11/8 to 2/1 in the run-up to the show with the idea that the horse can then be bet back with the firms when prices come through and limits are their highest. That 0.625 of a point makes a massive difference if you are having a large bet and this does reveal a weakness in the approach that tracks the exchanges too much; yes they can be a useful guide but they can also be used to leave a false trail.
Despite the markets having been open for over 24 hours, there are still big swings in prices near the off, not least because this is the only time some major players can get on. It is generally accepted that the exchange prices at the off are efficient and over time a true reflection of actual win probability. I would tend to that view in the main but remember that the initial show is not as accurate and there are opportunities in this window for an edge. Furthermore, an important point is that they are generally efficient over time; they will not be correct in every case.
There are still cases when they are not accurate and as many different reasons why: maybe the connections of one horses just don’t punt to the same degree as another, perhaps a major punter who has travelled in for the race is planning a big bet but the ground changes making his horse vulnerable but can’t help himself and plays anyway. Beating the Betfair SP is well-known as a good way to judge your punting beyond simply overall profit and loss but it is not the only way and it can pay to be open to horses that the market just doesn’t fancy. They can and do win.
- Tony Keenan
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/tradingroom.jpg320830TonyKeenanhttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngTonyKeenan2018-09-10 19:16:512018-09-10 21:17:14Tony Keenan: Watching the Markets…
Tipping Services. We all know of them. Many of us follow one or more, and many of you will follow Stat of the Day, geegeez.co.uk's own "anti-tipping" service which is currently enduring a difficult run. Let's call it a correction.
In this post, I want to talk about tipping services generally. Not about how to tell a good one from a bad one, or what measures you should put in place to protect yourself from unscrupulous charlatans. You can find that (useful) info elsewhere if you need it; or you can be assured that the services we trial and review here are almost always legit (after several hundred reviews there is the occasional bad apple in the barrel, sadly, but we do a lot of legwork to save you the time and effort).
No, I want to talk about the psychology of following a tipping service.
When we sign up to a tipster, we are essentially deciding to trust someone else's opinion. There should be good reasons for that, reasons way beyond the bold claims of an email or a sales page. Reasons even beyond solid proofed results over a notable period of time. We need to be clear about things like losing runs, how selections are arrived at, when they're delivered, whether quoted prices are attainable, and so on.
*
The Trouble with Hugh Taylor...
As an example, Hugh Taylor of Attheraces is a superb tipster, perhaps the best public picker in the game. But... he makes his picks on the morning of the racing, which for many people is a no go due to work or other commitments; and the prices, often only available in one place, evaporate in seconds; and even if you're able to get those prices, your betting accounts very quickly get marked and then restricted.
In other words, following Hugh Taylor simply isn't something which is feasible beyond a few short weeks. That's not his fault, but we need to be clear that those superb - and legitimate, to a degree - results are published for academic purposes only, as nobody can achieve them or anything much like them for very long.
Ditto to a lesser degree Pricewise, although the Racing Post no longer publishes an advised price because the nature of a price being printed in the newspaper the next day while markets continue to operate overnight is anachronistic.
So we need more than just good results to have success following a tipster.
*
The answer vs the working out
When we were back in school, maths exams would award marks for getting the correct answer. But there would generally be at least as many marks available for showing your "working out". That is, the rationale you followed and the means by which you arrived at the number you ultimately scribbled on the paper.
Tipping is the same. Some guys send the name of a horse and invite you to get on with it. No reasons, just a name. That's all well and good when they're winning - actually, it's not, but the malaise of this method is masked under such a scenario - but as soon as the losing run comes, what is there to fall back on?
Even if the deliverer of those names is really good, how can you know that?
It's my opinion that the best tipsters explain how they arrived at their selection. In that explanation may be more nutritional value than the pick itself, often much more.
For example, last week while sitting in for Chris on Stat of the Day, I flagged a horse called Secret Return at 8/1. He was sent off 3/1 favourite but finished nowhere. Now 8/1 is normally a good bit bigger than we post on Stat of the Day, but I wanted to share the name of someone I felt would be worthy of note in coming weeks. Here's what I wrote:
I wanted to highlight a new trainer who is definitely one to keep onside regardless of how today's (longer odds than usual) selection runs. His name is Paul George, and he's the son of Karen George. Since taking on the license he's hit the mark with some big priced winners, including 33/1 and 50/1, from just 18 starters so far.
Four of those 18 have won, and it would have been five but for Essgee Nics unseating - in a National Hunt Flat race - when leading inside the final furlong. Obviously with those big priced winners, George's figures are positive: he's +83.5 so far.
Like I say, Secret Return was well enough beaten on Saturday (though remains one to keep onside), but since then Paul George has run two horses, one of which won at 8/1 (the other was beaten at 28/1).
George has started really well and those who took the hint will have recouped their losing stakes from Saturday and then some. That's what I mean by the value in the working out.
It's the same every day with Stat of the Day where Chris crunches a plethora of data and produces noteworthy takeaways on an almost daily basis. Even when the picks are not winning - more on that in a minute - there are things to note for followers' own wagering. And, to be fair, it's the same with Hugh Taylor's tips. And with anyone else worth their salt.
*
Why follow a tipster?
So, why follow a tipster? As with most things in life, there are many paths that lead to such a decision. Some people are too busy to spend time in the form book, others don't trust themselves, and still others are simply not interested in the racing and see betting merely as a means to getting a few easy quids.
That last-named group are usually the first to cry foul, because they're not invested in the game and consequently derive no joy from the passage of a race: the result is all for them. No thrill, just bottom line. They take no accountability for their actions but, rather, want to outsource the getting of money whilst also abdicating the responsibility for the investment. Each to their own and all that, but there's little for such types here at geegeez.co.uk.
Most Gold subscribers who follow Stat of the Day also make their own selections from the data content we provide. One supplements the other, with the weighting varying from user to user. And, even in a losing run, those subscribers are informed along the way, the old grey matter inevitably absorbing snippets from day to day.
But, as I've hinted, following a tipster is not an abdication of responsibility. On the contrary. If you work for someone else, or someone else works for you, both of you are accountable for achieving - or not achieving - your goals.
The tipster follower's obligations include trialing a service before diving in (to check the volume of bets is acceptable, that the staking and time of delivery suits, that the odds range and associated losing runs are tolerable, etc etc); having a bankroll in line with expected downturns (and actually committing to using it); and making a strong determination to trust the service provider.
*
Negative reinforcement
That last point is important. Most people who follow tipsters have lost money in a similar scenario before. Many will have repeated this cycle a number of times. As such, there is an expectation of failure very soon after joining a tipster who has suffered a handful of losers. Those previously burned - whether it was their fault or not (and, sorry, but generally fault lies at least in part with the tipster follower) - decide to bail early in the process to avoid what they perceive as an inevitable crushing loss.
And then they move to the next service.
And guess what?
Rinse. Repeat.
This is just stupid, right? If that's you, please stop. Just step out of the tipster arena and try and pick your own winners. Or do something else entirely. Because your fear of failure is preventing you from any chance of success.
Again, if that's you, please don't be upset by the message. Think about it. Think about how you engage with tipsters and what you can do differently to give yourself a better chance, either in the tipster sphere or on your own.
Because here's the thing: most people join tipping services when the service is trumpeting a significant winner or winning run. Sadly, we've already missed that nirvana moment, and typically they are few and far between.
"After a good run, expect a bad run; after a bad run, expect a good run"
That adage was told to me aeons ago and I've always kept it in mind. Nobody and no endeavour is immune to variance, to "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune".
*
Roger Variance
Variance is a statistical measure of how far data is spread out. There are more complex (and more accurate) definitions, but that will do for us here. In the case of racing results, it helps understand winning and losing runs and is relatable to average odds of winners and average win strike rate.
Let's take the classic coin toss example.
Heads has a 50% chance of winning, as does tails. But over the course of three spins, one or other could easily 'win' all three spins. However, over the course of 10,000 spins we'd expect something extremely close to a 50/50 split of heads/tails winners (assuming the coin is legit, etc). It is possible from that data, via standard deviation and other stuff I don't really understand, to calculate expected losing runs.
Using a set of verified results from a tipster service - or from one's own betting performance - we can perform a similar exercise.
The point here is more general, up a level. It is this: in any given sequence of bets there will be winning and losing runs which are out of line - often far out of line - with the overall average performance.
Five consecutive spins landing on heads is double what we'd expect, and thus tails has had no wins. But we wouldn't go changing the odds on tails coming in next, would we?
It's the same with long term proven tipping services. They will have winning runs, and they will have losing runs. Over a meaningful period of time, those will largely even out.
It might even be argued that the very best time to join a proven service is when it is in the teeth of a losing run.
*
What of Stat of the Day?
So Stat of the Day has had a rubbish August, part of a moderate summer overall. That's hard to swallow, especially for newcomers to it: they've not had the golden spring or winter which preceded the current downturn to sustain them.
Have a look at this chart.
In the context of just over 2000 bets spanning nearly seven years, we can see that the current downturn is only the third worst overall. The worst was between October 2015 and May 2016. But note how by the end of 2016 the losses were eradicated, and by May 2017 that downturn was a distant memory.
Likewise in late 2012 and into early 2013, there was a slide. By the end of 2013, that was reversed and a largely unabated winning run sustained itself until mid-2015.
The trend (dotted) line is really clear in this graph, meaning there is a very strong overall correlation between time (and, given the metronomic one-a-day nature of SotD, number of bets) and profit.
Assuming nothing has changed in the selection methodology - and NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE SELECTION METHODOLOGY - the reversion to the norm will come.
We have lots of very long-term subscribers who love Stat of the Day. The reasons are in its consistency - relatively, of course, see above - and in the general availability of prices, and in the explanation behind every pick, and in the accessibility of the service (published tea time the night before racing), and in the reliability of the tipsters and the plaform, geegeez.co.uk, on which they are published.
*
Summary
Tipping services are an up and down game. There are some good ones out there. I don't mean the over-exposed ones where you can't get on; but rather services like Racing Consultants and Cleeve Racing and, yes, Stat of the Day.
All of those services have losing runs. Losing runs do not invalidate the prior and future success of the services; they just twist your melon, man, as The Happy Mondays might conclude.
So, if you want to follow a tipster, do your due diligence (or allow us to do it for you) and know that it can be bad before it's good.
Good luck!
Matt
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/img_5b90f4ca57cc0.png362756Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2018-09-06 10:06:032018-09-07 10:39:38The Ups and Downs of Tipping Services
In the second part of this two part article, part one available here, Jon Shenton digs into Mark Johnston's performance record in search of profitable betting angles. Here he looks at older horses as well as Johnston's favourite course.
Older Horses
Roughly 70% of Johnston’s runners are 2- and 3-year-olds so perhaps there is less focus on his older horses. The vast majority of these more mature runners’ activity, as you might expect, is in handicaps (all bar 150 or so runs, which have a losing ROI of c.25% at SP). It makes sense, then, to concentrate on the journeyman handicapping cohort for further review.
Mark Johnston older horses (aged 4-9) in handicaps by race age restriction, from January 2013
Age restriction
Runs
Wins
Win%
P/L (SP)
Place%
ROI (SP)
P/L (BF)
ROI (BF)
A/E
3yo+
530
69
13.0
82.1
33.0
15.5
277.6
52.4
1.02
4yo+
919
130
14.2
-218.4
32.5
-23.8
-136.4
-14.8
0.85
The table above shows the split of the runners in the two age groupings for eligible handicaps, and it is apparent that a Johnston 'older horse' in a 3yo+ handicap is worth a second look. In fact, if we split things down further by age of runner, we can see that the focus ought to be on 4- or 5-year-olds in 3yo+ handicaps. The table below illustrates the breakdown by age:
Mark Johnston trained older horses in 3yo+ handicap by age of horse from January 2013
Horse Age
Runs
Wins
Win%
P/L (SP)
Place%
ROI (SP)
P/L (BF)
ROI (BF)
A/E
4
382
56
14.7
135.2
32.2
35.4
319.1
83.5
1.12
5
82
12
14.6
8.9
32.9
10.9
20.2
24.6
1.11
6
31
0
0.0
-31.0
41.9
-100.0
-31.0
-100.0
0.00
7
17
0
0.0
-17.0
41.2
-100.0
-17.0
-100.0
0.00
8
17
1
5.9
-13.0
23.5
-76.5
-12.7
-74.5
0.69
9
1
0
0.0
-1.0
100.0
-100.0
-1.0
-100.0
0.00
Horses aged six and older have a record of 1 win from 66 races, losing 95p in the pound over time. In fact, checking the record of Johnston 6-year-olds-plus in all handicap races (including the 4yo+ category) makes for ugly reading with just 13 wins from 155 runs, something of a red flag when seeing horses such as Final or Watersmeet taking their place in the stalls next time.
The 4/5-year-old performance also comes with a major health warning sadly, in that there are a couple of long odds winners buried in there - at 66/1 and a couple of 33/1 shots too - which are enough to inflate the profit level significantly without negating the angle entirely. Ordinarily these could and probably should be ignored: it is not generally good policy to rely on a few Hail Mary’s to land so I’d probably take these out of the equation. That may be a risk averse mindset but I have a preference for higher strike rates, and more reliable data-driven wagering.
That extra reliability can be attained by trying to establish which may be the better quality horses within the data. In very general terms the higher the weight carried (or ranking of horses' official rating in the race) the greater the chance of that horse winning in a handicap.
If we analyse these 4/5-year-olds in terms of position in weights (excluding jockey claim) we get the following breakdown:
Mark Johnston 4/5-year-olds in 3yo+ handicaps by position in weights (excluding jockey claim), from January 2013
Pos in weights
Runs
Wins
Win%
P/L (SP)
Place%
ROI (SP)
P/L (BF)
ROI (BF)
A/E
1
104
22
21.2
40.7
47.1
39.1
54.4
52.3
1.24
2
64
14
21.9
16.5
31.3
25.8
23.8
37.2
1.48
3
75
12
16.0
16.3
34.7
21.7
29.8
39.8
1.06
4
43
4
9.3
-14.5
25.6
-33.7
-10.7
-24.8
0.72
5
39
5
12.8
-11.8
25.6
-30.2
-6.2
-15.9
1.01
6
31
1
3.2
-18.0
25.8
-58.1
-14.7
-47.4
0.30
7
20
1
5.0
-10.0
10.0
-50.0
-7.6
-37.9
0.49
8
22
3
13.64
6
31.82
27.27
11.43
51.95
1.51
As can be seen, horses in the top three in the weights are worth closer scrutiny, and I suspect that Johnston, with his vast army of young horses, knows better than most how to place his slightly older fleet to maximise probability of a strong run.
Courses: Goodwood
Mark Johnston’s positive training record at Goodwood is well documented: 53 victories over the past six years from 355 runs, with a pretty healthy 14% profit if you backed every single one at SP.
There are some cautionary tones to heed, however: during 2018 we’ve seen the best strike rate (18%) but the worst wagering return since 2013, with losses of 19% at starting price. Few braindead simple approaches last very long, and perhaps the market has wised up and adjusted, or perhaps it is genuinely a case of the shorter priced horses landing (average price of winners in 2018 is approx. 5/2 compared to the overall 13/2 or thereabouts). One to keep an eye on as usually Johnston's second- and third-string entries can be relied on to hit their mark during the season, and especially at the Glorious - sorry, Qatar Goodwood Festival - meeting.
Overall, there are not many Johnston horses that go to Goodwood at huge prices. Indeed, only 23 have gone off with an SP of 20/1 or bigger, and not a single one has even hit the frame. It seems sensible to be apprehensive of any horse at these prices, with the yard apparently knowing more about what is expected than many in the betting media and indeed public.
Another consideration when evaluating trainers is checking how their runners perform in relation to their layoff: how many days they have been off the track. The table below shows the breakdown of all Johnston's Goodwood runners split by the last time the horses stretched its legs in competitive action.
Mark Johnston Goodwood runners (20/1 or shorter) since January 2013, by days since last run
Days Off
Runs
Wins
Win%
P/L (SP)
Place%
ROI (SP)
P/L (BF)
ROI (BF)
A/E
2
4
0
0.0
-4.0
50.0
-100.0
-4.0
-100.0
0.00
3
1
1
100.0
2.5
100.0
250.0
3.1
305.9
3.45
4-5
11
1
9.1
-3.0
18.2
-27.3
-1.2
-11.1
0.74
6-10
59
11
18.6
0.0
52.5
0.0
4.0
6.8
1.27
11-15
67
12
17.9
23.4
41.8
34.9
33.3
49.7
1.34
16-20
52
14
26.9
68.8
48.1
132.4
84.0
161.5
1.89
21-25
38
5
13.2
8.0
36.8
21.1
15.7
41.4
0.90
26-30
21
0
0
-21
23.81
-100
-21
-100
0.00
31-45
31
1
3.23
-21
12.9
-67.74
-20.28
-65.42
0.24
It could be argued that the data alludes to the fact that Johnston has a plan in mind when sending horses to this particular corner of the Sussex countryside, getting them there in peak condition through a relatively recent tuning run, 11-25 days looking optimal. Backing in line with this improves the strike rate to nearly 20% and a SP profit level of 64%. Horses that haven’t run for more than 25 days have a rather lean record of three wins from 69 runs (not all data included in the table) so should be considered unsympathetically based on that evidence; evidence which is supported by the fact that Johnston famously keeps his horses fit on the racecourse rather than at home, so greater absences may be assumed to infer an issue of some sort.
Summary
A fair amount of rummaging around the Johnston battalions since 2013 has kept me very busy, although it has still left a feeling that I’m just scratching the surface. Hopefully there are a few angles of interest, or at least some food for thought for development of your own approaches. As ever with analysis of this nature sample sizes can be small, but that’s the beauty and challenge of it all: trying to figure out if these snippets of data and patterns can be used as a basis to bet in the future, in this case to pinpoint some of Johnston’s next 4194 winners!
Possible angles and betting opportunities (from part one and two of this article)
Johnston First Time Out 2-year-old fillies over 5-6.5f, especially during the months of May to August
Previous 2yo winners in novice races if they have had a recent run throughout spring and summer
Winless 3yo runners with five or fewer career runs in 3yo handicaps
4/5-year-old runners in 3yo+ handicap races, particularly if they are in the top 3 official ratings / weights
Goodwood runners shorter than 20/1 that have had a recent run (ideally 10-25 days)
Tread carefully with Johnston runners in nursery handicaps and any older horse (6+) running in a handicap.
- Jon Shenton
POST SCRIPT 3rd September 2018: My mate Ben Aitken has taken the Mark Johnston theme and run with it a little further, looking at performance by run style. Regular followers of Geegeez Gold pace content may be able to guess at the findings, but they're pretty striking all the same, and can be checked out here.
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mark_Deirdre_Johnston_RoyalAscot.jpg320830Jonny11https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngJonny112018-08-30 07:36:482019-02-04 10:17:30Predicting Mark Johnston Runners, Part 2
When Poet’s Society delivered win number 4,194 for Mark Johnston in the Clipper Logistics Handicap to cement his position as winning most trainer in UK racing history, I read a number of tweets about the impossibility and frustration in predicting how his sizeable battalion of horses perform, writes Jon Shenton.
This rang true: having searched high and low in the past for potential Johnston angles I’ve found it hard to see the wood for the trees. Perhaps the sheer volume of runners essentially evens everything out? Surely though there must be something in that vast amount of data worth discovering? Armed with a renewed vigour I put the kettle on, fired up a database (the excellent horseracebase) and got to work.
The first question to ask, and answer, is, “where do you start?”. To me there is a certain logic in evaluating the yard by age groups, so in flat racing terms it makes sense to run the rule over Johnston’s ample contingent of 2-year-old runners in the first instance.
Two-year-olds
The volume of horses travelling through this yard from a young age is phenomenal. By my calculations there are on average around a hundred new 2YO debutants from the stable per year. Backing them systematically is a complete no go as that would result in a loss of 17% at SP, however if we look at distance as a differentiator, we start to get a different feel:
Mark Johnston debutant 2yo's split by race distance (1st January 2013 to 24th August 2018)
Distance
Runs
Wins
Win%
P/L (SP)
Place%
ROI (SP) %
P/L (BF)
ROI (BF) %
A/E
5f & 5.5f
145
30
20.7
-6.9
40.0
-4.8
10.0
6.9
0.94
6f & 6.5f
163
28
17.2
4.2
36.2
2.6
40.9
25.1
1.04
7f & 7.5f
156
20
12.8
-35.9
27.6
-23.0
-18.4
-11.8
0.81
1m & 1m.5f
67
5
7.5
-44.8
35.8
-66.8
-43.2
-64.5
0.68
1m1f & 1m1.5f
4
0
0.0
-4.0
0.0
-100.0
-4.0
-100.0
0.00
1m2f & 1m2.5f
3
1
33.3
-1.2
66.7
-39.0
-1.1
-36.3
1.49
Immediately we can see that the 5-6.5f debutants more or less break even to SP with a reasonable return to Betfair SP. In my experience this is usually a good starting point for further investigation and with BOG on the table there would be many worse ways to wager than backing these all blindly. However, I very much doubt you’re reading this to more or less break even, so let’s see if there is a better indicator in the data to improve punting performance.
Assessing Johnston’s debutants by gender is very interesting, as the table below indicates:
Mark Johnston’s debutant 5f-6.5f runners by gender (1st January 2013 to 24th August 2018)
Gender
Runs
Wins
Win%
P/L(SP)
Place%
ROI(SP)
P/L(BF)
ROI(BF)
A/E
Colt
169
23
13.6
-74.0
33.1
-43.8
-62.6
-37.0
0.7
Gelding
2
1
50.0
6.5
50.0
325.0
11.2
559.0
2.7
Filly
137
34
24.8
64.8
43.8
47.3
102.3
74.7
1.3
In anyone’s book that’s quite a variance between colts and fillies (despite the 325% ROI I think with a sample size of two, we can ignore the geldings). A debut MJ filly wins a quarter of the total runs and returns nearly 50% on SP, and that’s very much backing blind territory if you are that way inclined. Certainly such types are worthy of marking up when you’re betting in a race containing a Johnston debut juvenile filly.
Digging deeper, backing those fillies from May to August improves the picture, the runners early in the season generally underperforming, as do many fillies at that time of year.
Mark Johnston 2yo first time out fillies running May-August between 5f-6.5f in distance
Year
Runs
Wins
Win%
P/L(SP)
Place%
ROI(SP)
P/L(BF)
ROI(BF)
A/E
ALL
98
26
26.5
79.3
45.9
81.0
115.5
117.8
1.5
2018
18
6
33.3
5.8
66.7
32.2
7.3
40.6
1.3
2017
20
5
25.0
39.0
35.0
195.0
60.0
299.8
1.7
2016
24
4
16.7
5.8
33.3
24.3
10.3
42.7
1.1
2015
17
6
35.3
18.5
52.9
108.5
22.3
130.9
2.1
2014
10
4
40.0
16.5
70.0
165.0
22.0
219.6
2.4
2013
9
1
11.1
-6.3
22.2
-69.4
-6.3
-69.8
0.7
The same underperformance applies to horses making their first strides in the autumn, which may be being geared up for 3YO handicaps the following season and potentially running to get a mark (more on those unexposed types later).
So, by backing Johnston first time out fillies over 5-6.5f from May to August a return on investment of 81% would have been achieved; just for clarity this covers both Maiden and Novice races.
Looking beyond the first-time out angle, considering novice races only (Johnston’s record in nursery handicaps is par at best so ignored for the purpose of this article) there is more of potential interest.
Since the expanded novice programme was introduced in 2016 to encourage more sightings of maiden race winners, it is worth a check to see if Johnston is making use of these races by evaluating the performance of his previous winning horses. The table below shows those runners in novices that have got their noses in front in their fledgling two-year-old careers.
Mark Johnston novice runners from 2016 to date with a previous career win
Runs
Wins
Win%
P/L(SP)
Place%
ROI(SP)
P/L(BF)
ROI(BF)
A/E
92
36
39.13
18.4
66.3
20.0
26.9
29.2
1.13
Three-year-olds
Considering the Classic generation, it was actually quite hard to find a robust angle but there is potentially something in evaluating unexposed horses in handicaps with very little in the way of solid form. Taking all of Johnston’s 3yo runners in 3yo only handicaps we have the following:
Mark Johnston 3YO runners in 3YO only handicaps from 2013 to date
Runs
Wins
Win%
P/L(SP)
Place%
ROI(SP)
P/L(BF)
ROI(BF)
A/E
1736
262
15.09
-316.7
32.4
-18.2
-154.5
-8.9
0.9
That overarching dataset is miles away from a profitable or even remotely interesting angle; however, if we look for potential lurkers, horses that the market may overlook due to previous underwhelming performance there might just be a sliver of light to work with.
Mark Johnston 3YO runners in 3YO handicaps by number of career wins from 2013 to date
Career wins
Runs
Wins
Win%
P/L(SP)
Place%
ROI(SP)
P/L(BF)
ROI(BF)
A/E
0
405
70
17.3
11.4
35.8
2.8
46.8
11.6
1.05
1
619
91
14.7
-184.8
31.5
-29.9
-121.1
-19.6
0.84
2
384
69
18.0
-31.2
35.2
-8.1
8.1
2.1
1.03
3
224
25
11.2
-54.5
28.6
-24.3
-33.2
-14.8
0.79
4
82
5
6.1
-44.1
23.2
-53.8
-42.1
-51.4
0.51
5
20
1
5.0
-16.5
20.0
-82.5
-15.9
-79.7
0.44
6
2
1
50.0
3.0
50.0
150.0
3.1
154.3
2.13
7
1
0
0
-1
0
-100
-1
-100
0.00
The top line is interesting. Horses that have no previous career wins running in a 3YO handicap for Johnston are marginally profitable if you back them all, and they have a respectable 17% strike rate too. There are several ways to potentially sharpen from this starting point. However, to stay with the unexposed theme, evaluating the horses’ total number of career runs might be considered a logical way to delve in a bit deeper; fewer runs should mean less predictable?
Mark Johnston 3YO handicap runners from January 2013 with no career wins, by number of career runs
Career runs
Runs
Wins
Win%
P/L(SP)
Place%
ROI(SP)
P/L(BF)
ROI(BF)
A/E
3
91
19
20.9
8.0
37.4
8.8
16.7
18.3
1.21
4
87
21
24.1
45.9
40.2
52.7
56.8
65.3
1.41
5
60
11
18.3
16.0
36.7
26.6
26.6
44.3
1.03
6
51
7
13.7
-15.5
27.5
-30.4
-12.5
-24.5
0.88
7
37
7
18.9
-0.1
37.8
-0.2
1.8
5.0
1.22
8
29
1
3.5
-27.4
34.5
-94.4
-27.6
-95.3
0.23
Maybe fewer runs = more predictable! No career wins, fewer than 6 career runs, 30% profit thank you very much. Even if ploughing in on them all isn’t for you it’s a smart move to put an unexposed Johnston 3YO on your shortlist or at the very least be wary of them if you have another fancy in the race. This chart shows win strike rate, and ROI (SP/BSP) by number of previous starts for Mark Johnston maiden three-year-olds.
Those with more than eight career runs have a 4/50 win record and represent an incredibly poor way of investing.
Possible angles and betting opportunities:
Johnston First Time Out 2-year-old fillies over 5-6.5f, especially during the months of May to August
Previous 2yo winners in novice races if they have had a recent run throughout spring and summer
Winless 3yo runners with five or fewer career runs in 3yo handicaps
In part two of this article, I look at older horses and a course where the 'Always Trying' bandwagon are particularly potent. You can read that here >
- Jon Shenton
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/MarkJohnston_recordflatwinners.jpg314830Jonny11https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngJonny112018-08-29 11:02:112019-02-04 10:17:41Predicting Mark Johnston Runners, Part 1
This is the fifth instalment in a series of articles looking at pace bias in 5f handicaps, writes Dave Renham. In previous articles (the first of which is at this link, subsequent ones linked to from there) I have looked at a variety of angles including examining courses, as some offer a stronger front running bias than others; I have looked at the Geegeez pace ratings and how top rated pace horses have performed in terms of win percentages and profit/losses; I have also looked at predicting pace.
The Actual Front Runner
In this article I am going to focus solely on the actual early leader (front runner) of each race to see whether there are any patterns or decent angles that can be gleaned from the data. I have looked at 200 races once again focusing on handicap races with 6 or more runners. I have not used races where it was unclear who led early (this happens roughly 3 times in every 100 races). At this juncture, it is important for me to note that I term the front runner or early leader to be the horse that takes the lead within the first furlong. If a horse has led for 50yds and then is overtaken I assume the front runner to be the horse that took the lead after 50yds, not the horse that led just for 50yds. For the record in most sprint handicaps the horse that takes the lead in the opening strides is still leading after 1 furlong.
My first idea was to look at the leaders and what their position had been in the Geegeez pace ratings. To recap, horses on the Geegeez pace-card have their last four runs highlighted with the most recent run to the left and each horse has an individual total for their last four runs. 16 is the maximum score and 4 the minimum (this is assuming they have had at least 4 career runs).
To begin with I decided to split the runners into “thirds” like I have done in the past for draw bias. Hence in a 12-runner race, pace rated 1 to 4 would lie in the top “third” of the pace ratings, those rated 5 to 8 in the middle “third”, and those rated 9 to 12 in the bottom “third”. It should also be noted that I also adjust the pace positions when there are non-runners – for example in a 10 runner race if the 3rd highest pace rated horse is a non-runner, then the horse rated 4th becomes 3rd, 5th rated becomes 4th rated, etc. Here then are the figures where the leaders/front runners came from in the pace ratings broken into ‘thirds’:
Top third of pace ratings
Middle third of pace ratings
Bottom third of pace ratings
69.5%
24%
6.5%
As you can see the early leader came from the top ‘third’ of the pace ratings roughly 7 races in 10; in addition horses from the bottom third of the pace ratings took the early lead just once in every 15 races on average. This is a positive result – perhaps the result we might expect, but it is good to see that the Geegeez pace ratings clearly help in terms of pinpointing the area where we are most likely to find the actual front runner. It is also interesting to note that in races of 12 or more runners the early leader came from the top third of the pace ratings just under 75% of the time; in races of 8 runners or less this figure dropped to 64%. This suggests, albeit with relatively limited data that using the pace ratings to try and find the front runner works best in bigger fields.
To add some more ‘meat to the bones’ I have split the pace ratings into halves rather than thirds and the table below shows the breakdown:
Top half of pace ratings
Bottom half of pace ratings
85.5%
14.5%
Hence, when you are trying to predict the front runner in a 5f handicap, the Geegeez pace ratings look the best starting point. If you can essentially narrow the potential front running candidates down to 50% of the field or less, you are giving yourself a much better chance of predicting the early leader.
As I have mentioned in previous articles, front runners in sprints over this minimum trip do have a huge edge – in this sample 22.5% of all races were won by the early leader and 51.5% of front runners made the first three. Hence the more often we can successfully predict the front runner the better.
In terms of the 200 early leaders in this sample, I next looked at their last two races and combining these last two pace figures (maximum of 8). Here are the findings:
Pace total (last two runs)
Number of races ‘led’
8
47
7
44
6
50
5
37
4
16
3
2
2
4
Thus, 70.5% of all leaders had scored 6, 7 or 8 points in total when combining their last two pace scores. This data has a similar pattern to the top ‘third’ data for the last four races, as one would expect.
Just imagine if you were able to predict the front runner in every race - you would make a huge profit. Indeed if you could achieve this correct prediction around 70% of the time I would estimate you would still make very healthy profit; remembering even if the horse you picked as the front runner does not actually lead, it can still win!
In my fourth pace article I noted that just under 40% of top pace rated horses did actually lead; I did not though look at horses that were 2nd or 3rd pace rated. This time I have, and in 146 of the 200 races (73%) the early leader had been in the top three of the Geegeez pace ratings.
As I hope you can see, the Geegeez pace ratings do give an excellent indication of pace set up in a race. Whether you use the top third method; the last two runs method, or the top 3 in the ratings method.
In Play Options
There are of course other punting options in terms of front running ideas. One such idea is to trade the front runner ‘in play’. The argument for this approach is logical – front runners lose around 3 and a half times more often than they win so why not trade? Horses that lead in 5f handicaps generally contract in price so why not try to make the most of this fact? Now you could trade to achieve a free bet – eg back the horse at 11.0 pre-race and lay in play at 6.0. If the horses loses you get your stake back; if it wins you have a winning bet at 5/1.
Another option for traders is ‘dobbing’ - dobbing is a term I came across a few years back – I am not sure where it originates from, but basically ‘DOB’ means ‘double or bust’. Essentially if our bet/trade is successful, we double our original stake, if it is not successful we ‘bust’ or lose our stake. It may be easier to explain by giving you an example:
Let us imagine you back a horse pre-race at 8.0 for £10; in order to create a potential DOB you try and lay at half the odds for double the stake – so a lay at 4.0 for £20. If the horse hits 4.0 or lower in running, your lay bet will be matched and regardless of the result you will win £10 (less commission). Here is the simple maths behind the two potential winning outcomes - if the horse goes onto win the race you get £70 returned from the ‘back’ part of the bet; you lose £60 on the ‘lay’ part of the bet giving you that £10 profit; if the horse does not go onto win, you lose your £10 stake from the ‘back’ bet, but gain £20 from the lay stake – again giving you a £10 profit. Naturally, if the lay part of the bet is not matched you will lose your £10.
There are other ‘in play’ trading methods/options/ideas when it comes to front runners, but I don’t want to get bogged down looking at too many of these. Suffice to say, front runners tend to contract in price; some see their price drop dramatically.
In relation to this, one thing I wanted to look at was at what point was the early front runner overtaken? The longer a leader leads over 5f, in general the shorter the price will become ‘in play’. Here are my findings:
At what point was the front runner overtaken?
% of leaders
Not overtaken (led all the way)
22.5
Overtaken in final half furlong (within 110 yds of the finish)
14
Overtaken between the furlong pole and half a furlong from the finish
19
Overtaken 1.5f from the finish to the furlong pole
23
Overtaken between the 2 furlong pole and 1 and half a furlongs from the finish
13
Overtaken before the 2 furlong pole
8.5
This should make pleasing reading for would be ‘in play traders’ – over 55% of front runners are still leading at the furlong pole; nearly 80% are leading 1.5 furlongs from the finish. There will be many of you reading this who have seen your horse lead at the furlong pole only to get swallowed up or beaten close home; perhaps now you have a trading option/idea which could potentially take away some of that pain in the future!
Actual front runners by odds
Finally, I looked at the prices of the horses that led early. Here is a breakdown:
There were 61 leaders that started 5/1 or less;
There were 52 leaders that started between 11/2 and 9/1;
There were 51 leaders that started between 10/1 and 16/1;
There were 36 leaders that started 18/1 or bigger.
So a relatively even split. Again this is almost certainly good news for ‘in play’ traders as there is excellent scope for trading front runners that start big prices. Indeed of those bigger priced runners (18/1 or bigger) 17 of the 36 were still leading at the furlong pole (a handful of these went onto win).
I hope you have found this article interesting and given you further food for thought. Maybe there should be a Geegeez competition next flat season to see who can pick pre-race the highest percentage of front runners in 5f handicaps. In fact it doesn’t have to be restricted to 5f races – maybe 5 to 7f races. Anyway, one for Matt to think about perhaps!
- Dave Renham
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ElAstronaute_Goodwood2017.jpg316830Dave Renhamhttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngDave Renham2018-08-20 07:35:322019-04-23 08:11:05The Importance of Pace in 5f Handicaps: Part 5
As some readers will know, I have been a member of the Horseracing Bettors Forum (HBF) since its inception in late 2015; and more recently I became the Chair of that group.
Last week I was interviewed about HBF, geegeez.co.uk and a range of other horse racing betting-related subjects, and those videos are now available below. It's in three parts, the first being the longest. See what you think.
[N.B. The interviews were content for a bookmaker website so please forgive the branding within them, it's not an endorsement - though, to balance that, I don't have any negative opinion of them either. And, to be clear, I received no payment from, and am not affiliated with, them in any way. Phew, right here are the vids...]
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/HBF.png318830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2018-07-20 08:48:032018-07-20 08:48:03A Voice for Racing Bettors
I emailed the geegeez.co.uk mailing list yesterday to alert them of a brand new betting opportunity which is currently loaded in favour of the punter. While that short-term situation may change in the not too distant future, there are other solid reasons to stick with this innovative firm - and especially to get stuck in right now.
This has all come about due to the end of a seven year exclusive license Fred Done (Betfred) had on pool betting on UK racing. Friday 13th July was supposed to hail the brave new era of pool betting as a result of Britbet, a company created by racecourses to generate revenues for racecourses: "By racing, for racing" as their strapline almost got it right.
However, Britbet were usurped at the eleventh hour by a shadowy collective operating under the somewhat presumptuous title of "Together for the Tote" (TftT hereafter). As a result of not actually knowing who is behind this consortium or what their proposition is, either for the customer or indeed for racing, it is pretty hard to be 'together' with them, and rather easier to demand they show a little - actually, a lot - more of their hand.
Regardless, in the short term, their arrival on the scene has meant Britbet have deferred on revealing their own suite of products to rival totepool until at least October. Why is this relevant? Well, quite apart from the interesting, perhaps typical, racing back story - the words "p155 up" and "brewery" again spring to mind - there is a sort of vigilante offering which has emerged.
'Vigilante' is not quite the right word, because Colossus Bets are a stand up firm that has been in business for a few years now, operating predominantly in football markets where they have a £1 million jackpot wager.
What they also have, which is what attracted Britbet to them in the first place, is an industry-leading tech platform. In fact, it's not just industry-leading, it actually laps the opposition. Colossus were doing cash out, and partial cash out, before it was cool to do cash out; they offer consolations in many of their markets when you go close but one (or sometimes two) let you down; and they have a 'syndicates' feature which enables 'captains' to create a ticket and crowd fund it. That's what I emailed about yesterday, and what a number of you joined me in.
The technology is slick, as is the interface - on both desktop and mobile - but what about the bets?
It's very early days so things can be expected to progress from this opening gambit. But a current provision of 'place 6', which exactly replicates the placepot but with a lower takeout (20% versus 27% on Fred's ticket); and win bets for sequences of four and six races ('Pick 4' and 'Pick 6'), with consolations for 5/6 and 4/6, and 3/4, offers plenty of appeal.
In the long-term the products will be judged by their liquidity - how many people bet on them, and how much they bet - but for now there are guarantees which extend beyond the actual amount of money wagered. These 'seeded' pools make for good value: essentially we're talking about a 'top up' of free money, akin to a small rollover.
And the dividends have been significantly out-performining SP and the placepot.
The three syndicates I ran yesterday yielded a pretty good return on investment in the two winning bets (the other was a five out of six job where the placepot was not won - anyone with one of the three placed horses in leg four (12/1, 14/1 twice) would have scooped the whole pool. Pool scooping, even on small pools, is a very satisfying thing...)
I took 20% in each of the syndicates - captains can take anything from 10% to 50% - and geegeez.co.uk readers took the other 80%. As you can see, my outlay was around £80 and the return roughly £275. Nothing life changing, but a decent profit for not doing anything remotely ground-breaking. Indeed, our £80 ticket collected £979.48 for players.
A couple of nice early strikes in the Colossus Bets place pools
And I did personally have a crack at the Southwell Pick 6, with its £15,000 rollover and four short-priced favourites. I bravely (*stupidly) banked on Gustav in leg two, who failed by a fine margin to get back up; and that after Classic Jewel had done the same in the opener with a third as much running-on money as the winner. I dropped about £90 across 15 ABCX tickets using the geegeez pool bet ticket builder. Ho hum.
With just £3,000 actually wagered on Sunday on top of the rollover, the dividend was a massive £5,577.06 for a £2 line. The same £2 at SP paid just £779.63.
Close to a decent payout on the Pick 6
Ultimately, these pools have to wash their face for the provider, so it will be interesting to see how liquidity grows in the next few days and weeks, and also to what level the pools are guaranteed. But the fact that the takeout is notably less than the traditional placepot is a big ongoing plus.
As things stand, I'm putting all of my pool bets through Colossus until such time as the dividends suggest that's no longer sensible. As you can see, that's the right thing to do currently, unless you think there's going to be a greater than 3000/1 dividend.
Day 1 (Friday)
Day 2 (Saturday)
Day 3 (Sunday)
.
Day 4 (Monday)
How do you get involved with these great betting opportunities?
Account Registration
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).
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?! 🙂
Joining one of my syndicates is easy. Click this link, choose which one you want to play and for how much, and that's it.
If the page says 'No syndicates available', that means it's filled up already. You can 'follow' me on there, and I'll also tweet out when I've created a syndicate ticket on the @geegeez_uk handle.
At this stage, I'm not committing to a particular time of day nor even that I will necessarily put syndicate tickets up (I also bet privately into some of these pools, and suggest/recommend any placepotters reading this do likewise).
But it is very likely there will be tickets to join if you'd like every day this week, and probably for every meeting - or at least as many as I have time to cover. [I do have some quite handy time-saving info-packed tools to call on... 😉 ]
It's going to be a fun few weeks, and will also be really interesting to see how tote fights back and how the TftT/Britbet story unfolds. Do join the party if it sounds like your kind of thing!
Matt
p.s. I'm writing a few notes on the syndicate action on the forum at this link. [Gold subscribers only in the forum, I'm afraid].
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CB_830x320.jpg320830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2018-07-15 20:39:452018-07-17 11:04:25**THE hottest betting opportunity right now**
On 5th July the first of more than two hundred nurseries - 2yo handicaps - programmed for 2018 was staged, at Haydock Park. They are a feature of the second half of the calendar year and, due to the unexposed nature of many of the runners, have often been considered off limits to large swathes of punters.
But nursery handicaps are just like any other group of races: they have distinct characteristics which require a primary focus in certain key areas. Happily, there are plenty of data on which to chew and from which to attempt to draw meaningful inferences.
In this post, I'm going to focus on nurseries since 2014 - four years' worth - and in the UK only. I'll exclude the five races already run in 2018 at time of writing, so we have complete years from 2014 to 2017.
During that time 8618 runners contested 972 races, none of which culminated in a dead heat. There are therefore 972 winners in the sample. Average field size can quickly be calculated as 8.67, meaning plenty of opportunities for each way punters (609 of the 972 races had eight or more runners). Let us try to determine some characteristics which separate the winners from much of the rest of their fields. To do that we'll start with an old adage I heard in my formative punting years, but first some context...
"Back the top weight in 2yo handicaps"
I don't know who first coined this, or why. It is predicated on good sense inasmuch as horses tend to win handicap races in descending order of weight rank. That is, the highest weighted horse wins most often, the second highest weighted horse wins next most often, and so on. But nothing so straightforward was ever missed by the market, meaning backing top weights in handicaps will send you skint quicker than an afternoon playing find the lady on a grubby street corner.
Ignoring those races - amateur riders and the like - where horses are asked to carry in excess of ten stone (the pattern is the same), the below shows the effect of weight carried on win percent in all flat handicaps in UK between 2014 and 2017.
Win strike rate in UK flat handicaps, 2014 to 2017, by weight carried
That is what one might call a pretty robust correlation. More weight equals a greater chance of winning. But here's how that chart looks when expressed as return on investment at starting price...
Return on investment at SP in UK flat handicaps 2014-17, by weight carried
What this basically tells us is that, ignoring the most lightly weighted horses, there is a vague consistency in losses down to around 8-04 (eight stone four pounds). In other words, although more weight equates to more winners, from a betting perspective it amounts to similar losses almost regardless of the equine's impost.
[In the image above, I hovered over a data point merely to illustrate that further intel can be gleaned from these charts; there is no specific relevance of highlighting the 9-13 group of horses].
The above preamble is intended as context for what follows, namely a similar perspective on nursery handicaps. This is how the diffusion of weight affects a horse's chance of winning in such races:
UK nursery handicaps, 2014-17, performance by weight carried [max 9-07]
In the image this time, I've included one of the variables on the left hand side, so you can see I've truncated the weight range at 9-07. This is because there are a handful of runners which carried more than that, some of which won at 100% (i.e. one from one), thus skewing the line.
We can see the trend generally follows the 'all age' flat handicaps superset. Below is the impact of weight on ROI in nursery handicaps, and as can be seen it offers a far less clear picture:
ROI by weight in UK nursery handicaps, 2014-17
Not only do lower weighted horses win less often, they also lose more cash. Meanwhile, at the top end of the weight spectrum, we have a couple of spikes either side of nine stone that creep comfortably north of break even. Of course, in the general sense it's not especially helpful because there's no reason why horses carrying 9-01 should be more profitable than those carrying 9-00: it's just a quirk of the data.
But there is something of an ROI cliff at around the eight stone mark, and horses carrying less weight than that in nurseries can generally be treated with contempt. The reality is that many of them are simply not good enough to ever win such a race, perhaps any race.
Getting back to our "back top weights in nursery handicaps" starting point, the next chart shows win strike rate and return on investment (SP) by weight rank:
Win percent and ROI by weight rank, UK nursery handicaps, 2014-17
Ignoring the obvious outlier (rank #19) with its big priced winner, the blue bars show how win strike rate diminishes as we drop down the weights; and the orange bars show how one would have lost less by sticking to the higher weighted runners.
As interesting as this may (or may not) be, it is academic for those of us looking to butter our bread. As with absolute weight, so weight rank confirms that one will lose money more slowly rather than win money following higher rated, and therefore weighted, horses.
The value of experience in nursery performance
All juveniles intending to run in nursery handicaps must have either won their first two races or run at least three times. In both cases, the lack of racecourse evidence and/or experience can lead to horses improving significantly as they strengthen up and get the hang of things. And, yes, as they are presented with a test for which they might have been bred.
We can examine the bearing this has on nursery handicaps by looking at performance by number of career runs. Here, received wisdom says that a horse's best chance of winning may be when stepping into handicap company for the first time. But the data do not bear that out:
Nursery handicap debutants (0) win at a rate of 10.77%, whereas those having their fourth nursery start or more win 13.1% of the time. Those with intermediate levels of experience win incrementally more. There is then a correlation between amount of handicap experience and an increased win chance. But what of profitability?
Here, an interesting picture begins to emerge, although still somewhat ambiguous. Looking at exchange prices, we can see that not only are those with more nursery experience more likely to win but, unlike those carrying bigger weights, they are also profitable to follow (at exchange prices).
Greater experience in nursery handicaps should be considered a plus for a horse.
The virtue of ratings
Although there are occasional blind spots in the public consciousness such as, arguably, the benefit of experience in nurseries, a better way to get an edge is to create or derive some information not available to the masses. That could be a system, methodology or a set of ratings.
Geegeez Gold publishes Peter May's 'SR' ratings under license and they reveal some interesting things in the context of nursery handicaps. This next chart shows nursery win rate by SR rating rank:
Win strike rate by SR rank, UK nursery handicaps 2014-17
The top rated horse in nursery handicaps in the four year study period won 18.44% of the time for an SP profit of - drumroll please - 0.95 points! While nobody ever went skint taking a profit, an ROI of 0.1% is more for your institutional investors than us profit-minded adrenaline junkies.
But it is a pretty good starting point to look at thing like race distance, weight, going, field size, market rank and class. One needs to be a little careful not to fit the story around the data, but it might be reasonable to assume that shorter distances - and therefore more consistently truly run races - would fare better from a rating perspective (when that rating has both a speed and form element within it). Likewise, perhaps bigger fields should yield better results for the same reason. And, based on earlier conclusions, those carrying more weight may be expected to at least win more often if not show a profit. Finally, perhaps ratings will manifest themselves as a marketable differentiator of class.
SR and Race Distance
Starting with race distance, we get some credence to the 'shorter distances are better' perception, as follows:
Top-rated SR, by race distance, UK nursery handicaps, 2014-2017
The pure sprinters at five furlongs have won almost one in four when top-rated, and have been profitable to back blindly to boot. Indeed, taking all sprint race distances - which I generally classify as seven furlongs or shorter - we see a pleasing hit rate, supported by a solid place strike rate, and a solid ROI:
Runs
Wins
Places
Win %
EW %
Win PL
EW PL
ROI
A/E
IV
708
137
288
19.4
40.7
69.66
1.64
9.84
1.02
1.73
SR and Weight Carried
Next we can see the distribution of top rated nursery runners by weight carried. Top weight in such races is generally allocated 9-07, and it is interesting (though not altogether surprising) to note the strong coincidence of top weight - which equates to top official rating - and top SR rating.
Distribution of top-rated SR nursery runners, by weight, UK 2014-2017
But what of profitability? Here, an interesting anomaly emerges:
Impact of weight carried on top-rated SR horses, UK nursery handicaps 2014-2017
Those 9-07 horses, with their confluence of top public and private ratings, are notably unprofitable to follow. My assumption for this relates to the public element - that is, officially top-rated - and to the aforementioned 'back top weights in nursery handicaps' mantra espoused by so many for so long.
What is more interesting is that immediately below the top rated/top weighted, there is a full stone range in the weights where backing top SR runners yields both a high strike rate and an SP profit. Nevertheless, I'm not entirely comfortable with discounting the top weights: the pursuit of sustainable profit is rooted in sensible logical analysis. Conveniently discounting strands that don't fit is a surefire way to secure disappointing outcomes thereafter!
SR and Going
I struggled with this one a fair bit when I saw the output. Why? Because there is a correlation in the data that looks plausible. But I just cannot find a way to explain it. Here's what I mean:
Top SR in UK nurseries, 2014 to 2017, by going
The firm ground category consists of six runners, of which none won (as you can see from the above), but five were placed! Good to firm and good ground have produced slightly lower win strike rates than slower surfaces but the place strike rates are broadly comparable, leading to my discomfort in 'conveniently' excluding faster turf.
Lawns on the soft side of good or slower, and all weather surfaces, have been highly profitable. I will leave it to the reader to attempt to justify quick turf runner excommunication...
SR and field size
What of field size? My hypothesis is that bigger fields, and therefore more reliably run races, should yield better results, in terms of profit if not strike rate (there obviously being more horses to beat in the latter case). The data don't really support the hypothesis, however:
Runners
Runs
Wins
Places
Win %
EW %
Win PL
EW PL
ROI
A/E
IV
2-5
114
39
59
34.21
51.75
5.98
-4.84
5.25
1.15
1.53
6-8
326
68
142
20.86
43.56
6.87
-29.74
2.11
1.06
1.47
9-12
364
51
135
14.01
37.09
-6.90
-56.51
-1.90
0.84
1.44
13+
118
12
33
10.17
27.97
-5.00
-10.37
-4.24
0.84
1.46
We would of course expect strike rate to diminish as the number of runners increases; but the theory of more truly run races leading to better results for top SR horses holds little water, notwithstanding that all runner groups are within fine margins of break even one side or the other. In short, there's little of positive or negative utility in field size.
SR and class
My premise with regards to class is that the ratings may fare better in better class races; the rationale is that in such races, where many unexposed recent winners or good grade placers lock horns, the winner may be underestimated by the market but not by a private handicap (which is, in essence, what any set of 'unofficial' ratings are).
This time the theory does seem to stand a test.
Class
Runs
Wins
Places
Win %
EW %
Win PL
EW PL
ROI
A/E
IV
2
91
16
37
17.58
40.66
28.08
36.91
30.86
1.25
1.73
3
77
19
32
24.68
41.56
11.17
-3.20
14.51
1.18
1.77
4
195
42
83
21.54
42.56
3.28
-23.84
1.68
1.02
1.53
5
291
52
113
17.87
38.83
-40.20
-78.02
-13.81
0.96
1.57
6
268
41
104
15.3
38.81
-1.38
-33.31
-0.51
0.84
1.63
Without wanting to get too unequivocal, there are some strong looking patterns. Actual versus Expected, a measure of the value proposition (more info here), slides in a linear manner from best class to worst, with Class 2 to 4 offering degrees of positive expectation.
In profit terms, all bar Class 5 have made a surplus at exchange odds, and even the 40 point-losing at SP Class 5 fares close to even at exchange prices. A focus on better races looks a beneficial means of deploying the Peter May SR figures in nurseries.
SR and the market
There are so many ways to slice and dice the dataset, and one more is to overlay market information: odds and / or odds rank.
Odds
Runs
Wins
Places
Win %
EW %
Win PL
EW PL
ROI
A/E
IV
Odds on
20
14
16
70
80
3.79
2.50
18.95
1.18
3.78
Evs to 2/1
100
39
62
39
62
-1.41
-16.39
-1.41
1
2.78
85/40 to 7/2
200
59
109
29.5
54.5
32.07
13.87
16.04
1.15
2.37
4/1 to 6/1
237
32
88
13.5
37.13
-48.50
-100.73
-20.46
0.8
1.25
13/2 to 10/1
213
15
61
7.04
28.64
-77.00
-118.82
-36.15
0.64
0.66
11/1 to 18/1
112
9
27
8.04
24.11
20.00
16.00
17.86
1.16
0.8
20/1 +
62
4
11
6.45
17.74
65.00
85.25
104.84
1.7
0.73
This is quite interesting, there appear to be three distinct areas: a profitable and high strike rate top of the market; an under-performing mid-market, in both profit and strike rate terms; and a surprisingly robust 'long tail' for those who can suffer losing runs in the pursuit of big winners.
The thirteen winners priced at 11/1 or bigger SP paid an additional 109.94 points at Betfair SP. Even taking out the 50/1 scorer (95 BSP), Celestine Abbey, still leaves 64.94 extra units of profit at BSP. But anyway, if you're backing the rags, why would you exclude the best of them?!
Conclusions / Pulling it all together
From the beginning of July to the end of the calendar year, there is a nursery handicap - or two, or three - almost every day. Knowing how to play the odds specifically for such races is an edge most punters don't bother to look for; and it is one where a few rules of thumb may help separate out a lot of the losing chaff.
The first relates to weight: those horses carrying eight stone or less won less than 5% of the time, and lost a massive 57% of stakes at SP across 356 runners. The story is broadly similar longer term: since 2009, 58 from 1142 were able to win (5.08%) for an ROI of -43.46%. Ouch.
Treat nursery runners carrying eight stone or less with grave suspicion.
In terms of experience, more is definitely better, both in terms of winning chance and profitability. In the four year sample period, it was shown that horses won more often with each additional run in nursery handicaps and, moreover, that with at least two prior nursery starts were profitable to back at exchange prices.
Favour experienced handicappers in nurseries.
So far so generic. But still, using nothing more than a daily paper, you ought to be able to find qualifiers for a system - more than eight stone, more than three prior nursery runs - that has made a profit of 27.46 points at starting price and an enormous 251.9 points at Betfair SP in the four year review period.
How can Geegeez Gold's ratings assist?
We've seen earlier in this article how our SR figures are most effective in shorter races, specifically at up to seven furlongs. Back top rated SR horses carrying more than eight stone at distances of seven furlongs or shorter has yielded 136 winners from 689 runners (19.74%) and a profit at SP of 71.66 points. I don't have the exchange data yet, sadly, but this group includes the two biggest priced winners from the 11/1+ analysis above, those two being worth an additional 51.31 points at Betfair SP. So let's be conservative and call it 150 points profit on 689 bets (21.77% ROI).
I couldn't justify logically leaving those 9-07 top weights out, but if you can, you might be able to replicate the better historical rate of 114 from 585 for 102.67 points at SP. <<< Caveat emptor: you need to be comfortable that there's a legitimate reason to exclude the top weights.
Focus on top-rated SR horses at distances up to and including seven furlongs.
Going was likewise difficult to assimilate: the data say strongly that top-rated SR's perform best on softer than good or all weather surfaces, but there is no obvious reason why faster surfaces should yield lower strike rates and poorer ROI's. Of course, the fact that we geegeez.co.uk licenses the ratings means they are 'black box' to us and, therefore, that we/I cannot discount that there is something in the algorithm to support what those data say. I'm still struggling though...
It may pay to focus on softer turf and all weather...
Those are three solid guiding principles which are worth committing to memory/the notebook:
1. Treat nursery runners carrying eight stone or less with grave suspicion.
2. Favour experienced handicappers in nurseries.
3. Focus on top-rated SR horses at distances up to and including seven furlongs.
For fun, and as something to add to my QT Angles watch list (facility coming soon, I promise!), I'm going to add the following which may make more experienced punters cringe even though I hope I've sufficiently explained/excused/caveated/apologised for each element in what preceded:
- More than eight stone and less than 9-07 (top weight generally)
- Top-rated on SR
- Seven furlongs or shorter
- Softer than good, or all weather
It looks very good, but it may be that the veneer hides something less credible. Please handle with care...
Year
Runs
Wins
Places
Win %
EW %
Win PL
EW PL
ROI
A/E
IV
2014
86
16
35
18.6
40.7
86.70
96.92
100.81
1.04
1.66
2015
107
26
45
24.3
42.06
6.55
-2.16
6.12
1.26
2.17
2016
86
16
34
18.6
39.53
25.16
15.42
29.26
1
1.75
2017
114
30
53
26.32
46.49
40.09
36.41
35.17
1.42
2.33
ALL
393
88
167
22.39
42.5
158.5
146.59
40.33
1.2
2.02
I will personally also manually check for levels of experience when such runners crop up, as we don't currently have such variables in our Query Tool.
**
Nursery handicaps are a significant part of the flat programme book in the second part of the season, and I hope that the above has offered a few morsels worthy of consideration when playing such races.
Good luck!
Matt
p.s. this post was put together primarily with the aid of Geegeez Gold's Query Tool, which enables users to ask questions of our database and to display the answers to those questions in numerous table or chart output formats. Gold subscribers can try Query Tool here.
geegeez.co.uk uses cookies to improve your experience. We assume that's OK, but you may opt-out from the settings. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.