Read all sorts of commentaries and tips across a range of racing disciplines on the most popular horse racing blog in Britain, from staff and guest writers.
In this post, I want to share a new feature which is going to be available very soon. I also want to politely remind you that today (Friday 27th January) is the last chance to secure your discounted (for life) Annual Gold subscription.
Let's cover that off first.
Geegeez Gold is continuing to invest in innovation. After this week's latest 'bell and whistle' enhancements - Pace Predictions on the pace tab, and Proximity Form on Full Form Filter - we have a much bigger enhancement in early stage testing. More on that below.
Unlike some publishers, we don't increase our prices for existing subscribers. Instead, we prefer to reward commitment and early adoption, by offering our best subscription rates to our most loyal community members, and by guaranteeing that the price at which you sign up is the price you pay for the lifetime of your subscription.
This means that, regardless of what new features we introduce or how much a subscription might cost in the future, you get the lot for the price now. That's only fair, after all, because without your investment in Geegeez Gold, we are unable to re-invest in you.
So, no big fanfare, but just to say that today is the last day you can lock in your subscription for 68p a day (£249 annually). From tomorrow, the annual price rises to £297 (81p a day), which still offers two months free against the annualised monthly subscription of £360 (99p a day). That's the very best value you can get, so if Gold is something you currently enjoy, and/or if the new feature highlighted in the video below excites you, then now is the time to upgrade.
Oh, and if you're currently a free subscriber, you can use that same link to upgrade directly to Gold Annual. One fee, swallowed (!) now, gives you full 'access all areas' for the entire year of 2017 - both flat and jumps, UK and Irish - and into January 2018. Nothing more to pay.
Enough already, because I think you probably already know if this is something you want to do... If you're still unsure, here's a sneaky peek at a 'COMING SOON' feature...
.
What do you think? Anything in particular you'd like to see included? Leave a comment and let me know.
I backed a winner yesterday. Believe me, if you've endured my recent form that's more a resuscitation than a boast or, heaven forbid, an aftertime.
Anyway, it won at 10/1 after I'd backed it at 7/1 (ever the judge, me), and it reminded me of an old post I wrote which was the inspiration for yesterday's bet as well as many other good ones in the interim.
That post is below, refreshed and updated - including a very appealing update on the systematic suggestion originally posited on 31st January 2014, three years less a fortnight ago.
**
Heavy horses are a breed apart
Rain, rain, incessant infernal rain. It seems just now - and, actually, at around this time most years - that pretty much all of the jumps racing is either abandoned or run on heavy ground.
Moan, moan, grumble, grumble, go the form students. "This ground throws up all sorts of freak results", etc etc, blah blah.
Well, guess what? It's a load of old cobblers. What those naysayers are implying is that they find it difficult to deal with a change in the ground. Me? I love it, because it often makes the job of handicapping easier, not harder.
Let me expound on that.
Heavy ground is the most extreme level of sodden turf on which horses are asked to race. Whilst it takes on varying degrees of mud and splosh depending on the track, it is always more testing than merely 'soft' ground. So, whereas most horses can be expected to perform, at least to some degree, on middling terrain - good to soft, good, and good to firm - only a subset of the equine population will perform close to their optimal on very quick or very slow turf.
In this study, I'm going to focus specifically on National Hunt handicap races, for two reasons:
1. There are not that many flat handicaps run on heavy ground (though results are similar to the below)
2. In non-handicap events - novice races and the like - it is as likely that a horse outclasses its rivals as it is that a horse 'out-acts' its rivals on the prevailing squelchy grass
Let's first look at the performance of horses in handicap races being run on heavy ground. The table below is sorted by number of previous heavy ground wins.
National Hunt Handicap performance by previous heavy ground wins
As we can see, the vast majority of horses have yet to win on heavy ground, and many of them will have never encountered such a test before. Indeed, after failing on a first attempt in the deep, many will never encounter such a test again.
Materially, note the correlation between number of heavy ground wins and the win percentage in subsequent heavy ground handicaps. Ignoring the small group of 5- and 6-time heavy ground winners that failed to score a further mud success, we can see a fair relationship between number of heavy ground wins and subsequent heavy win strike rate.
Whilst that is fairly logical and, in itself, not especially helpful, what is perhaps more surprising is that following multiple (two-plus) heavy ground winners in National Hunt handicaps run on heavy ground is a profitable strategy to embrace blindly, at Betfair SP or early prices at least.
Let me emphasise that with the following table:
Comparison of multi-mud winners versus 0 or 1 win
The American author, James Quinn, talks throughout his book, The Complete Handicapper, about 'the rule of two'. This rule, again entirely sensible and a very good way of avoiding bad value bets, is predicated on the market overreaction to a single instance of an event.
That could be a single good run, a single heavy ground performance, or a single bad run. Or anything else which has not been replicated or built upon before or since. Hence the two-plus heavy ground wins proviso demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that a horse is likely to run to form on that sort of surface, all other things being equal.
How to optimize this knowledge
Getting to within 5% of parity at starting price with a simple stat like that opens a window of research opportunity through which we may be able to spot pockets of value.
Poor run last time out
One trick here, from a value perspective, may be to see if horses with a poor finishing position last time can improve the ROI. Focusing only on those runners which finished outside the top five on their previous start has a profound impact on the figures.
2+ heavy wins, outside the top five last time out
Firstly, it reduces the number of bets to roughly a half. Secondly, it retains an acceptable strike rate of 11% win and 27% place. Thirdly, the ROI is now around 10% on a meaningful number of bets at industry SP.
Mature. But not over-ripe...
Without tampering questionably with the dataset it is worth evaluating performance by age, as there do seem to be a fair number of octogenarians (in horse years at least) asked to persist with a fading career on heavy turf. The data bear that out:
Multi-heavy NH 'cap winners, not top 5 LTO, by age
The strike rates for horses in the prime of their careers - from ages seven to ten (using the more reliable place strike rates as guidance) - are significantly better than their older and younger counterparts.
And, in case you were wondering, that shape is not replicated when one removes the 'heavy going' factor. Overall, horses tend to place at a fairly consistent percentage (c.25%) under the other conditions outlined above from ages four to six, before dropping to 24% aged seven, 23% at eight and 21% at nine and ten. Older than that and the general population running in this context hit the board at less than 20%.
It probably makes sense that most horses would mature into sloggers at a slightly later time than those naturally equipped to race on faster terrain, and that is certainly what the data say.
Focusing only on those horses aged seven to ten with proven (multi-winning) heavy ground form in NH handicaps who were outside the top five last time gives this:
Multi-heavy winners, aged 7 to 10, in NH handicaps, who missed the top 5 LTO
A 25% ROI on 1000 bets at starting price is pretty nifty. But, clearly, any approach with a 12% strike rate will suffer extended losing spells, and the figures above include two fairly painful downturns in 2010 and 2013.
One way to take the edge off that is to consider betting each way. Although not always a good strategy, with these fellows making the frame 30% of the time, it will definitely keep the shorter of bankroll engaged for longer, and help to ride out the worst of the inevitable corrections.
Backing each way at 9/2 or bigger in 5+ runner fields (i.e. each way races) gives 84 wins (10.1%) and 227 placed horses (27.28%) from 832 bets, for an SP profit of 335.12 points. Obviously, backing each way requires a two point stake (one win, one place), meaning the ROI is slightly diminished at 20.14%, but that's more profit overall and a more consistent draw.
"The Rules"
The 'rules' then, such as they are, go like this:
- Heavy ground National Hunt handicaps (hurdles or chases)
- Multiple (2+) previous heavy ground winner
- Finished 6th or worse, or failed to complete, last time out
- Aged seven to ten
In terms of explaining the 'system' in a sentence - something you should be looking to do when developing your own mechanistic approaches - we can say the following:
"On extremely testing going, look for proven ability from a horse in its prime that may have been badly outpaced last time"
I appreciate that, for some, the age brackets and last day finishing positions may seem too arbitrary. Fair enough, though it is worth noting a 'tapering' in the datasets at the edges of the ranges which lends a credibility to the numbers.
Regardless of that, one thing is clear: if a horse has shown it can win on heavy ground, and it ran a clunker last time, be prepared to forgive that clunker back on the quaggy stuff.
**
Finding this kind of horse
So, how to find these diamonds in the mud? Why, with the geegeez racecards of course! Here's an example from last week.
Courtown Oscar fits the bill snugly
The Instant Expert tab reveals that Courtown Oscar was one of only two horses to have previously won twice or more on heavy ground, the other being Bryden Boy. But looking at their respective last time out figures, we can see that Bryden Boy won whereas Courtown Oscar was pulled up.
Courtown Oscar finished outside the top five last time
Also, take a look at how Oscar performed on heavy ground the last time he encountered it.
Impressive handicap previous on heavy - he won again
Courtown Oscar won at 8/1.
And if you look at the top form line in the image above, can you see who was second? Yes, Bryden Boy, the other multiple heavy ground winner.
The exacta paid £87.60, and no, of course I didn't have it!
[As an aside, One For Arthur - who Oscar beat on his previous heavy start - won the Warwick Classic Chase at the weekend; and Bryden Boy sandwiched his second place to Oscar with heavy ground scores either side. The form looks pretty solid!]
So, to recap, in order to find these horses:
Look for meetings run on heavy ground (and be sure to check for going changes when the weather is closing in)
Check Instant Expert ('win' button) for two or more going wins on heavy
Check age and last time out finishing position on the card
Er, that's it
You might also want to look at the overall previous form profile on heavy ground and, obviously, the depth of competition in the race from a going perspective. Though, looking purely through the system lens, that is not necessary.
**
Instant Expert and Full Form Filter are two components of the Geegeez Gold visual form book. If you're not currently a subscriber and would like to know more about what we offer, you can discover us here.
Good luck!
Matt
p.s. there's one runner today of interest in the context of the above... 😉
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/heavyground.jpg350660Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2017-01-17 09:23:142020-04-30 17:59:07The Value of Heavy Ground Form
There is understandable excitement when a high-class hurdler proven in open company goes chasing, writes Tony Keenan. The horse may have been Champion or Stayers Hurdle level with a mark in the high-150s or even 160s and the expectation is that they will translate that form to fences. However, I’m generally sceptical of this kind of prospective chaser, working off the truism that it is difficult to teach older horses new tricks.
Just as in the human world where a young child can pick up a new language with relative ease, older people tend to struggle with learning a foreign tongue. It makes sense that this would apply with horses too. The typical national hunt horse might start its career in bumpers at the backend end of its fourth or fifth year, run two or three times before being put away for novice hurdles the following season where it might have four or five runs. As a then six- or seven-year-old, it would then go chasing rather than stay over hurdles. Those horses that do stay over hurdles seem at a disadvantage as a larger proportion of their short careers are spent doing something other than chasing and this lack of practice can prove detrimental to their prospects over fences.
That’s the theory at least but with all theories it’s best to test them against a body of evidence. Ideally, I wanted to look at the record of horses going chasing that had varying numbers of hurdles runs but unfortunately the excellent HorseRaceBase didn’t have the facility to run that system which must be the only thing missing from their database; if any readers have access to other databases they might like to look at the figures for themselves. So instead I took a different tack and decided to look at the records of the best chasers in Ireland along with the best hurdlers (non-novices) that went chasing in the same jurisdiction.
I began with the 50 top-rated chasers in Ireland currently, a listed that is topped by Don Cossack on 177 and completed by Mozoltov on 149. Of those top 50, only five were better over hurdles than over fences and in many cases the differences were minimal; they were Champagne Fever (chase 156, hurdle 157), Rule The World (153, 156), Shaneshill (153, 156), Zabana (153, 155) and Identity Thief (150, 159). Of the 27 chasers rated highest, only one (Un De Sceaux) had more than one season over hurdles and the average seasons spent hurdling across the top 50 was 1.2, the average hurdle runs being 6.6. The vast majority of our top chasers have gone over fences directly after their novice hurdle season with their average hurdles mark being 141.9 and their average chase figure 156.6, an improvement of just over a stone, and a number we’ll return to later. This improvement is readily explainable as there is only so high most novice hurdlers can rate given the races in which they run.
Next, I looked at the record of the best Irish horses who spent at least two seasons over hurdles that later went chasing. Starting with the 2006/7 season to present, there were 31 such horses and they are listed below with their peak hurdle and chase marks (for those that didn’t get official marks I made an estimate based on what they achieved):
Horse
Hurdle Mark
Chase Mark
Difference
Chase Runs
Chase Wins
Taglietelle
154
125
29
5
0
Monksland
157
149
8
7
2
Identity Thief
159
150
9
3
2
Alpha Des Obeaux
158
147
11
5
2
Diamond King
157
148
9
3
1
Lieutenant Colonel
156
149
7
4
1
Gwencily Berbas
151
130
21
3
0
Briar Hill
155
142
13
4
1
Kitten Rock
160
148
12
4
4
Tiger Roll
150
146
4
10
3
Rebel Fitz
155
155
0
9
6
Un De Sceaux
156
172
-16
10
6
Oscars Well
162
152
10
12
2
Rule The World
158
150
8
15
1
Tarla
150
144
6
6
2
So Young
158
115
43
2
0
Whatuthink
152
143
9
21
1
Donnas Palm
161
140
21
17
2
Blackstairmountain
152
147
5
6
2
Oscar Dan Dan
151
128
23
4
1
Shinrock Paddy
150
136
14
10
0
Powerstation
157
130
27
9
2
Muirhead
158
143
15
21
3
Catch Me
164
141
23
10
1
Aitmatov
160
131
29
8
0
Sizing Europe
167
177
-10
31
17
Jered
158
142
16
8
1
Harchibald
166
143
23
1
0
Sonnyanjoe
150
116
34
5
0
Adamant Approach
151
142
9
16
4
Rosaker
154
120
34
1
1
The most obvious point to make about classy hurdlers going chasing is that they regress for the switch to the tune of about a stone. There are exceptions, notably Sizing Europe, but also Un De Sceaux and Rebel Fitz; but as a general rule this is probably a negative move which brings up the question of why connections might want to do this. If the motivation is that the horse will improve for fences, the evidence suggests this is unlikely but if it is simply that they want to pick up some soft races back against novice chasers then it is probably a fair move; the horse may have reached its ceiling in open company over hurdles and be disqualified from races it can win whereas the switch to fences opens up other avenues.
Jumping would be a concern with these switchers but it is not necessarily backed up by the statistics; this group of classy hurdlers had a fall/unseat rate of 8.1%, which is below average. I covered this in an article last year and the national average in the period covered is around 10%. That said, I do wonder if these horses are more careful at their fences than those who went chasing earlier in their careers.
Of the 32 horses listed above, Noel Meade had seven of them (Monksland, Donnas Palm, Muirhead, Aitmatov, Jered, Harchibald and Rosaker) and it’s hard to make a case that any of them were much of a success over fences: Muirhead may have won a Munster National but that feels fluky along the lines of Tiger Roll’s win the in the same race and Rule The World’s Grand National victory this past year. If any punter found that pair, I admire your perseverance and hope your bank was still intact!
Willie Mullins had six such horses and Un De Sceaux has been a triumph, especially given his early jumping woes, but Henry De Bromhead is the one that stands out. From a single classy hurdler going chasing, he produced Sizing Europe which gives hope for the long-term prospects of currently injured Identity Thief who fits a similar mould.
It has been understandably difficult for these classy hurdlers, many of whom will have competed and even won at Grade 1 level over hurdles, to compete at the top level though there is an interesting contrast to how such horses do over different trips. Both Sizing Europe and Un De Sceaux won a number of Grade 1 chases around two miles as did Blackstairmountain, Barker and Mansony. The record of such horses over staying trips however is dismal with only Zabana at the most recent Punchestown Festival winning a Grade 1 chase over three miles or further.
Interestingly, this is backed up by the hurdles record of the winners of the feature chases at the Cheltenham Festival. Recent winners of the Champion Chase like Sire De Grugy, Dodging Bullets, Sizing Europe and Moscow Flyer all spent an extra season over hurdles but we have to go back to Imperial Call in 1996 to find the last Gold Cup winner who didn’t go straight over fences after its novice hurdle season.
All of which brings us nicely on to the current season where Thistlecrack is making a mockery of any such concerns in the staying chase division. But great horses will always make general rules seem silly and I’d be more interested in how the more typical classy hurdler going chasing will do. In the current season, we have seven such horses and the early returns have been ordinary. The group comprises Taglietelle, Identity Thief, Alpha Des Obeaux, Diamond King, Lieutenant Colonel, Gwencily Berbas and Briar Hill. While Identity Thief might yet make the grade over fences – he has both trip preference and trainer in his favour – most of the others are likely to compete over further and history points to them falling well short of their hurdles high in this sphere.
- Tony Keenan
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/thistlecrack.jpg320830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2017-01-09 21:52:472017-01-09 21:52:47When Classy Hurdlers Go Chasing…
Saturday saw us reach the end of the fifth full calendar year for Stat of the Day, which was Geegeez' first real venture into daily tipping.
We know that we acquired lots of new subscribers over the year thanks to previous years' successes, so a brief overview of SotD is as follows...
Whilst form and other variable parameters come in to play when normally making a bet, SotD's first port of call is find runners who fit a stat ( or usually a number of stats) suggesting they will go well.
We aim to have the selection online by the time most people rise for breakfast, where possible and it's usually done well before midnight the night before the meeting.
We try to find runners priced around the 3/1 to 6/1 mark at BOG prices and look for some value in the odds achieved. A large proportion of our selections run at much shorter odds than we advise and constantly beating SP is a key in making long-term profits. Basically, our profit figures aren't massaged by some freakishly long priced winners, nor is our strike rate bolstered by a string of odds-on jollies.
What we do have is a consistent approach that aims to highlight one value selection per day and although this "one-a-day" stats-based approach to bet selection suffers all the obligatory peaks and troughs associated with betting on horses, we have managed to make a profit yet again this year.
Without blowing the collective trumpets of myself, Matt and now Steve, we're very proud of the figures accrued to date and we can safely say there aren't many (if any!) better services around. In fact, most paid-for services would kill for our figures.
Where possible, I'd like SotD to cover your subscriptions to Gold, making the rest of the site free to use as you see fit and in 2016, a level stake of £5.38 was all that was needed to cover a £249 per year annual subscription.
Number of bets/selections/pts wagered: 294 (quite a few non-runners this year) Winning Bets: 70 Strike Rate: 23.81%
Yearly Profit: 46.24pts Profit on Stakes Invested: 15.73%
These are quite impressive figures considering we give a selection every day rain or shine, if we say so ourselves and we'll be doing our level best to maintain our success in 2017.
Thanks for sticking with us/SotD,
Chris, Matt, Steve and the whole Geegeez team.
***Stat of the Day is just one component of the excellent package available to all Geegeez Gold Members, so why not take your £1/30-day trial now?
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/sotd2.png320830Chris Worrallhttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngChris Worrall2017-01-01 01:14:052020-05-02 06:51:37Stat of the Day: The 2016 Review
'Tis the season to be jolly, fa la la la la, etc. And in this post, I come bearing gifts. Taking my cue from the three kings in the nativity story, there will be Gold (natch!), punting sense, and mirth.
Gold
Our flagship service, Geegeez Gold, is now fully https after a few teething issues the last couple of days. Thank you for your forbearance with that, and I'm really sorry if you had to experience a few irritations during that process.
Everything is now even more secure going forward, and we will be further enhancing the Gold feature set in the New Year with some exciting upgrades.
As always, they are being designed with speed and ease of use in mind; and we have some interesting innovations that I've not seen anywhere else, so hopefully those will be fun and - more importantly - open up new windows of insight across the form study vista. More in January...
****
Punting sense: Reverse Handicapping
Intro: Screw The Trendy Kids; and Be Wrong More Often
There is a growing perception among the 'trendy kids' on twitter and the like that celebrating the backing of a good winner after the race is to be frowned upon, maybe even lampooned. I do not share that view. We all know life is hard enough without some smart arse pissing on your chips when you've had the ability/good luck to land on a nice price. So I say carry on celebrating... but please, no BOOMs, OK? 😉
Anyway, what has that to do with anything? This post is called 'Reverse Handicapping' for a reason, so let me get to it.
We all spend time, to varying degrees, before a race finding our selection. The smart ones spend time before that finding races which lend themselves to justifying the subsequent form study time investment - not all races do, right?
In a majority of cases, assuming you don't habitually back odds on shots to the exclusion of all longer-priced propositions, you will be wrong. So will I. Indeed, in my case, as someone who bets at average odds around 13/2, I'm wrong the vast majority of the time.
But that's not the point is it? The point is to make it count sufficiently when we are right to pay for all the losers and leave enough on the table for beer and chips. So if I average five losers for every 13/2 winner, and I have 600 bets in a year, I will return 750 and a profit of 150 points, or 25%.
In this fictional example I am backing 83% losers. Five out of every six bets are beaten. And it doesn't matter a jot, because the winners are covering the deficit with a healthy dollop of jam on top.
So the first thing to say is, allow yourself to back losers. Be comfortable with that. Not too comfortable, of course, but know that the route to profit is generally found buried beneath a bramble bush of beaten beasts.
In the above example, the true average odds of the backed horses should have been 5/1. That they averaged out at six-and-a-half-to-one relates that they were value plays, something we can only generally know with hindsight and once a body of evidence upon which to judge the value case has accrued.
So far so intangible, so let's attempt to nail this to the floor. How do we get better at spotting value?
How do we get better at spotting value?
When I worked as a software project manager back in the day, one of the buzz concepts was CI: Continuous Improvement. Like most management 'disciplines', and especially project management, CI was a cottage industry (there's another CI!) built around CS, common sense. That's not to be confused with BS, which was at least equally prevalent...!
Continuous improvement should be ubiquitous in our endeavours. In everything we do, we should strive to better ourselves. In relationships, in work, in our hobbies, and so on. You don't need me to tell you that.
But in order to measure improvement, we have to review two things: what we thought would happen, and what actually happened. When betting on horses, we have to compare our knowledge and awareness of the horse we backed (what we thought would - actually, could at the right price - happen) in the race that we backed it, and the result (what actually happened).
To do this we need three things:
A desire to understand, and evolve our punting ability
Experience to see what was right and wrong about a given wager/value opinion
Enough information to justify the initial view, and also to understand the outcome
When I started out betting on horses, I very soon got over the "they're all cheating" malaise that afflicts lazy punters. To be clear, some do cheat, but our job is to understand those operating within the shaded areas and to deploy that comprehension for our own advantage. We do that not by 'inside information' or anything surreptitious (real word) or skulduggerous (made up word), but by observation.
Ultimately, where experience is in short supply or, as in my case, the brain regularly fails, data - especially when it is presented as knowledge - saves the day.
What is reverse handicapping?
These are the keys to reverse handicapping, a simple process predicated on reviewing one's bets against the actual outcome of the race and asking questions of oneself.
Not all losers are bad bets. In fact, if you're about halfway decent at punting, about half of your losers will be good bets where you didn't get paid. Let me say that again, in a slightly different frame: most halfway decent punters will have more losing good bets than winning ones.
As I am fond of saying - ad nauseum to regular readers - any horse can win any race. Once you grasp that wholeheartedly, it comes down to whether the horse is more or less likely to win than his odds imply.
It is not then about backing the most likely winner, necessarily. It is not then about backing the best horse in the race, necessarily. It is about consistently backing the horse (or horses) whose true chance of winning is most favourably misaligned with the available odds.
The more you look at races that have been run; the more you commit to continuous improvement; the more you scrutinize your own selection rationale, the better you will get at punting on horses (or, indeed, at whatever activity in which you have committed to improve).
Examples
At this stage, my point is still rather general and theoretical. So let's take a look at some of yesterday's more unpredictable results - ostensibly at least - and see if they could have been backed and, separately, whether they represented value. Before that, though, one from the olden days...
Example 1: Foinavon 100/1
An apposite example from yesteryear, on the day after Foinavon's jockey, John Buckingham's passing is that horse's 1967 Grand National victory. Foinavon won at odds of 100/1, exclusively because of a pile up at the fence which now bears his name. He was a total no-hoper and should likely have been nearer 1000/1 - indeed, if Betfair existed then, I'm certain he would have been available for the max.
But a 'black swan' event, a totally unpredictable outcome half a rung down from an act of deus, bequeathed upon him an unimpeded passage not permitted to any of his rivals. He won because of that. In spite of him winning, and in spite of his apparently huge odds, he was rubbish value.
Takeaway: Big odds do not generally a value bet make
**
Example 2: Barton Gift 28/1
While we're on the subject of gifts, was Barton a gift from the layers? Or an ungettable rag? Before I answer that, let me say that I did not have a bet yesterday, so I did not back any of these horses and nor did I back any losers against them.
To Barton Gift, who was running in a marathon handicap chase. He was already a course and distance winner, had a win record over fences of better than 26%, won in better class/over a similar marathon trip three starts back, and had prevailed twice beyond three miles on the soft side of good in his last six starts.
Against that, he had been well beaten on his first two starts this season, and he was five pounds higher than his last winning mark (114 vs 109), but he should surely never have been 28/1.
If reading the form isn't really your thing - i.e. you don't really qualify under point 2. above - which horse or horses would you have wanted to side with based on the following? Consider their 'form fit' and their odds...
Looking at the prices and the form profiles, Barton Gift was over-priced.
Indeed, Steve flagged the same thing in his Race of the Day post which happened to look at this race.
Oh, and look, there's 28/1 Barton Gft on The Shortlist report, one of only four horses nominated on there yesterday:
So yes, this horse absolutely could have been backed. And he was terrific value after just two excusable defeats since his last marathon outing, a win.
Takeaway: Don't be put off by the price if the form is there, especially if recent reversals can be legitimatelyexcused.
**
Example 3: Tellovoi 16/1
In this Class 4 mile race on the all weather at Chelmsford, Tellovoi was winning for the first time in twelve starts, and for the first time on the all-weather for almost three years. I can tell you now that I would not have backed this horse. But I can see how he won here.
Firstly, Tellovoi has plenty of 'back class'. He was rated as high as 93 on the all-weather in April 2014. Since then he's had a couple of trainer changes, and has largely run over inadequate distances. The key to this chap though is the pace of the race. Tellovoi wants to be on the speed. In three of his previous four starts he raced at Newcastle, a track that is shaping up to suit closers down its interminable straight mile.
Here at Chelmsford, where pace is favoured - especially uncontested pace, things were more agreeable. So too was a draw in stall two. As we can see from the below, he was the clear pace angle on a track where that was advantageous.
So today was the day when the cards fell kindly for Tellovoi and his connections. This is one of those races where, if I had have had a bet, I doubt I would have backed the winner.
But, importantly, reviewing the outcome afterwards would have - has - reinforced my understanding that an uncontested lead on this pace-favouring course/distance combination is a powerful thing.
Was Tellovoi value? Not for me. He was probably a fair price, based on the shape of the race, but he has had a few other setups that ought to have suited since last he won, and he's failed to get the result.
Takeaway: You can't get them all right, but there is almost always a case to be made for the winner, and a lesson to be learned for the future.
**
Example 4: Arize 12/1
I love this filly. She's so game. I would have bet her had I taken a look at the cards yesterday. Virtually guaranteed the lead, she was a winner here under similar circumstances just three starts back. In between times she was forced to do too much to get her way on the front, and capitulated as most need-the-lead sorts do under such pressure. Also note that Arize had the highest speed rating (SR) in this field and had every chance of running her 'blaze, hang tough, then fade' fractions to replicate it.
Watching the race back, it's fair to say that Tegara was unlucky - undone somewhat by her inexperience, and perhaps by being such a big girl around these relatively tight turns - but the fact remains she's 0 from 2 in handicaps now and has only got her head in front once in five starts. Odds-on about that type is something I want to oppose habitually.
Arize was great value, and has now won two of her last four, both here, both from the front, both with uncontested leads, and both at prices (50/1 (!), and 12/1 here).
Takeaway: ALWAYS consider the pace set up. Any horse with an uncontested lead at a course/distance which favours pace is dangerous in handicap company.
**
Example 5: Master Of Heaven 7/2
It's all been a bit retrospectively rose-tinted to this point, so I wanted to consider a shorter priced horse whose value case could readily be argued againstbut who won anyway.
Jim Boyle's Master Of Heaven was very well backed in a poor race (Class 7) where he had stall one. Having shown a little more dash in his previous two races, he might have been expected to optimize the advantage of his inside berth. But he was far from the only pace angle in the race, even if the most obvious pressers were drawn very wide:
Master Of Heaven was a 13-race maiden coming into this, and had been beaten twenty lengths on his most recent start, over most of half a mile further than he raced today. He had been beaten only six lengths on his sole previous try at the course and distance, and that was off a rating nine pounds higher than here.
The reality is that plenty of people expected him to improve, or run to his best form - whichever it was - but I cannot touch horses like this with a bargepole. Nor indeed, generally, races like this.
Had someone put a gun to my head and forced me to bet, I'd have played White Dog, who had the pace to lay up and bits and bobs of form. He finished nowhere, having failed to defy a ten month layoff.
Takeaway: One of the greatest things about racing is that, unlike in poker, we don't have to ante up for every heat before deciding if we want to play. We can just skip to the races where we think we have a good 'hand' and leave the rest alone.
Summary: So what?
If we want to be better value judges, and give ourselves a genuine chance of turning a profit from betting horses, we have to learn from our victories, but especially our defeats (seeing as they will happen far more often).
There are takeaways from all races, even if occasionally it will be, "I have no clue how that horse won, and moreover my horse ran like stink because, with hindsight, my reasons for picking him were flawed."
If we understand why the reasons were flawed - perhaps (most likely) it was poor race selection, maybe we misjudged the pace setup, possibly we excused runs that we shouldn't really have forgiven (at the price) - then that experience goes in the bank and iterates our ability to gauge value for the next time. And so it goes on.
This process of 'reverse handicapping' WILL make you a better punter. It's an important process, a key stage in taking accountability for your betting, and might be something to which you'll commit yourself (if you don't do it already) in 2017.
Good luck!
****
Mirth: Merry Christmas from Geegeez (and good ol' Chinelope)
MERRY CHRISTMAS from all of the team:
Me (Matt Bisogno), Chris Worrall (Stat of the Day, Head of Reviews, right hand honcho), Nige Keeling (daily news), Mal Boyle (Placepot Pointers), Tony Keenan (Irish views), Tony Stafford (Monday Musing), Steven Oliver (Race of the Day, soshul meejah, support), Andy Newton (Saturday TV Trends), and the entire service review team.
Not forgetting our awesome website developers, Nige D and Paul C; and Peter May's marvellous speed ratings.
A big thank you from me to them, and to YOU, without whom none of this is possible.
Merry Christmas!
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/goldfrankincensemyrrh.jpg320830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2016-12-23 12:04:312016-12-23 12:28:01Gold, Punting Sense, and Mirth
I wrote the below piece on 4th September 2014. But, in light of yesterday's verdict in the Jim Best case, it is both topical and prudent to revisit it, and consider - as well as the man himself - the wider implications, and what we as punters need to do to stay on the right side of such plots.
***
It was a contentious day at the office for British racing yesterday, as a plot unfolded in dramatic circumstances.
The race in question, a handicap hurdle at Southwell, looked a typically low grade Wednesday heat, the ten declared runners all being rated 100 or lower. Notably, trainer Jim Best was responsible for two of the ten. Tony McCoy was due to ride Into The Wind, the second favourite, and Rhys Flint would pilot apparent outsider, Saint Helena.
But, between declaration time on Tuesday and off time on Wednesday, a suspicious sequence of events transpired...
First, the more fancied of the two Best runners was withdrawn on account of the ground. Next, with McCoy now apparently without a ride in the race, Flint was 'jocked off' Saint Helena and the champion assumed the steering duties. All the while, market support for Saint Helena was strong, from before the notification of Into The Wind's absence right up until off time.
Saint Helena, a 9/1 shot in the morning, was eventually sent off the 11/10 favourite. As it transpired, she won, just, requiring all of McCoy's strength and race-riding nous to get the job done.
If you fail to see anything untoward in the above, that's probably because you're not party to Saint Helena's form history. A six year old mare, Saint Helena was good enough to win three times on the flat, off ratings as high as 79, and all on good to firm ground.
In her seven prior hurdle starts, she had run no closer to a winner than when a 69.75 length eleventh of twelve in her last race. That was a novice hurdle, and it was the latest bid from the trainer to get this horse handicapped.
**
The racing game in Britain and Ireland is predicated upon a few good horses running in stakes and conditions races, with the vast majority of the remainder running in weight for ability races once they've qualified.
The qualification criteria to receive an initial handicap rating are fairly straightforward, on the face of it at least:
In most cases a horse will have run on three occasions before being allocated a handicap rating. When handicapping a horse for the first time, it is necessary for there to be a clear correlation between the horse’s various performance figures and the handicap rating. Ideally from a handicapping perspective, the three qualifying runs would all be to a similar level, allowing a degree of confidence that the initial handicap rating is accurate.
If a horse returns performance figures of 60, 60 and 60, the Handicapper would almost certainly award an initial handicap rating of 60. The difficulty arises in three very different performance ratings, particularly in the case of a good run followed by two moderate performances. Generally the Handicapper will err on the side of caution with a handicap rating, giving emphasis to the best performance figure as long as that race looks solid.
Obviously, the official handicapper has a frequently horrific job in trying to nail form jelly to the ratings wall. And this was a case in point. Saint Helena, clearly a talented animal on the basis of her flat form on fast ground, had run seven times - four more than the minimum requirement - almost exclusively on soft and heavy, before being awarded an initial handicap rating.
Spot the difference between the win/placed flat form and the mark-seeking hurdles efforts. (Click the image to enlarge)
Saint Helena: Spot The Difference
The British Horseracing Authority, via the on course stewards, called Jim Best in before the race, to explain the absence of Into The Wind. They then called him in after the race to explain the 'apparent' improvement in form of Saint Helena.
The released notes on that second 'chat' are thus:
The Stewards held an enquiry to consider the apparent improvement in form of the winner, SAINT HELENA (IRE), ridden by A P McCoy and trained by Jim Best, which had never previously been placed. They interviewed the trainer who stated that the mare, who had been a very buzzy type in the past, settled better today and had benefited from a break of one hundred and twenty-five days since her last run. He added that the mare was suited by the firmer ground on this occasion. Having heard his evidence they forwarded his explanation to the British Horseracing Authority so that the previous performances of SAINT HELENA (IRE) could be reviewed. The Stewards ordered the mare to be routine tested.
It is almost certainly true that Saint Helena was "better suited by the quicker ground" - after all, her best flat form was on quicker. Equally, she looks sure to have "benefited from a break of one hundred and twenty-five days since her last run" on the basis that she might have actually been trained for race fitness during that time.
The case has been referred to High Holborn, and we'll see what the beaks in town make of it.
**
An interesting story for a Wednesday in its own right, the Jim Best plot saga is actually a little older than 24 hours or so. Indeed, Best has multiple 'previous' for such coups, almost all with a matching fingerprint.
A quick 'system builder' query for Jim Best-trained, Tony McCoy-ridden horses running in handicap hurdles without a prior win for the trainer reveals a 47% win rate (15 from 32). Amongst this group of horses, all of which received the McCoy assistance for the first time, were the likes of:
6/08Noble Minstrel form F0775 - mark of 72 awarded - 58 days off - wins at 4/1
1/09Rocky Ryan form 005 - mark of 90 awarded - 61 days off - wins at 15/8
6/13Planetoid form 089F70 - mark of 85 awarded - 169 days off - wins at 5/6
8/13Sugar Hiccup form 00070P - mark of 79 awarded - 239 days off - wins at 5/6
7/14Money Money Money form 40P0 -mark of 80 awarded-250 days off-wins at 5/1
8/14Kiama Bay form 09503 - mark of 104 awarded - 91 days off - wins at 7/4
9/14Saint Helena form PP9P080 -mark of 82 awarded-125 days off - wins at 11/10
And the similarities don't end there.
Consider Planetoid. This was a horse that was due to be ridden by Mattie Batchelor, a Jim Best stable stalwart, but with a (seemingly) lamentable record of 0 wins from 71 rides for the yard.
What atrocious luck then to experience "car trouble" on the day of Planetoid's success, having ridden him on three of his unsuccessful prior starts. Lucky for connections, at least, that McCoy was there to take the spare mount. Ahem.
Here are the stewards' notes from Planetoid's win after interviewing the trainer about the apparent improvement in form:
The Stewards held an enquiry to consider the apparent improvement in form of the winner, PLANETOID (IRE), ridden by A.P. McCoy, and trained by Jim Best, which had never previously been placed. They interviewed the trainer who stated that the gelding had problems with his jumping last year and has been given a break in order to re-school him over hurdles. He further added that PLANETOID (IRE) was suited by this quicker ground and running for the first time in a handicap. Having heard his evidence they forwarded his explanation to the British Horseracing Authority so that the previous performances of PLANETOID (IRE) could be reviewed. The Stewards ordered the gelding to be routine tested.
And these are the stewards' notes after Sugar Hiccup's win:
The Stewards held an enquiry to consider the apparent improvement in form of the winner, SUGAR HICCUP (IRE), ridden by A.P. McCoy, and trained by Jim Best, which had never previously been placed. They interviewed the trainer’s representative who stated that the mare was suited by the faster ground and, having been off the course for 8 months, had been freshened up. Having heard his evidence they forwarded his explanation to the British Horseracing Authority so that the previous performances of SUGAR HICCUP (IRE) could be reviewed.
Finally, here's Money Money Money's post race stewards chat:
The Stewards held an enquiry to consider the apparent improvement in form of the winner, MONEY MONEY MONEY, ridden by A P McCoy, and trained by Jim Best, compared with its previous run at Fontwell on 13 November 2014 where the mare finished tenth of thirteen, beaten 110 lengths. They interviewed the trainer who stated that the mare had benefited from a break from racing and appeared to appreciate the better ground.
**
What it means for punters...
So a very clear pattern emerges to these Best 'job horses' and, in a racing jurisdiction so heavily based around the art of handicapping, it is a part of the punter's job to be aware of trainer behaviour. Jim Best is not the only exponent of mark manipulation. In fact, some higher profile handlers on the level - Luca Cumani and Sir Mark Prescott, for instance - are positively admired for their ability to 'get one ready'.
When betting in handicaps, punters must ALWAYS be aware of the material differences between today's race and a horse's recent efforts. That's where value lies, perhaps not in heavily gambled animals like Best's, but certainly with the smaller stables who are having a few quid on but passing serenely under the radar.
First time in a handicap always merits attention, especially when combined with a material change in circumstance, such as a step up in trip or markedly differing ground. A break between qualifying for a handicap rating and running in a handicap can also be a sign of expected improvement. After all, if a horse runs a week after qualifying for a mark, that doesn't leave a lot of time to get the beast fit, does it?
A drop in class can often help, as can to a lesser degree the fitting of headgear (especially a hood). These are considerations the smart bettor must make, and they are part of the game. Making those considerations in the microcosm of trainer patterns can be most instructive, and there are no Jim Best's in the list of 'most effective first time in a handicap hurdle after a break'.
No, sir. That list, which in truth probably never existed until now, contains four high profile National Hunt trainers: Nigel Twiston-Davies, Evan Williams, Anthony Honeyball, and Philip Hobbs. How many Class 5 Taunton handicap hurdles do you suppose they've carved up between themselves? And yet, these events pass largely without comment or question.
I guess the key difference is that Best's modus operandi is to take a proven flat performer and 'bugger about' with it to get the mark, whereas the jumps boys are dollying around in novice hurdles and bumpers beforehand. Which is worse, or better? I'm not sure.
What it means for the authorities...
The exaggerated game of cat and mouse between trainers and the official handicappers is one of great importance to the sport, both from an integrity, and from an interest and engagement perspective. And, the truth is that there is very little the authorities can do about things, as they stand.
Jim Best operated within the current rule set.
It is perfectly acceptable for a jockey change to occur when a better option becomes available due to a non-runner in the same race (cf. "25.3.5 the substitute Rider was declared to ride another horse in the same race but the horse is unable to run" from the Rules of Racing).
It is perfectly acceptable for a horse to be self-certificated on account of the ground, or indeed anything else, as long as the trainer does not breach a 15% of declarations threshold (cf. "8.3 For any Trainer, where the rate of non-runners in Jump races measured as a percentage of the Trainer's declarations in Jump races is 15% or more, the Authority may suspend the Trainer's ability to self-certify non-runners in accordance with Rule 97.3 for up to twelve months." from the Rules of Racing).
It is perfectly acceptable for a horse to 'apparently' improve markedly, as long as the trainer or his representative can explain the improvement after the race, should the local stewards deem it appropriate.
To borrow that hackneyed Dickens quote from, I think, Oliver Twist,
If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.
The BHA's eyes have been opened by experience. They are all too aware of the issue here. They spoke to Best both before and after the race; and they are due to call him in again in due course to discuss the matter further. (That said, they're still due to discuss the Planetoid run with him, fifteen months after the race. Perhaps they can discuss them, along with Sugar Hiccup, Money Money Money, and Kiama Bay, as a job lot... with the emphasis on the word 'job').
The key question for the BHA to answer themselves, rather than necessarily bring Best to book, is around the allocation of a handicap mark. It is usual practice for a horse to receive a mark after three runs, if not winning once or placing twice before that time. The handicappers already have discretion to await further evidence, and this discretionary power has been invoked in six of the seven cases mentioned above.
I am led to believe by the twitterati that Saint Helena's seven runs before a rating was allocated constitutes something of a record. But, while that insistence of further evidence is to be admired - and may be the solution to the problem ultimately, at least in part - it is unclear why the 'capper relented after seven inscrutable efforts.
It should be reasonable for the official handicapper to require as many runs as is necessary to give an opening mark or, alternatively, to give a deliberately cautious mark - to the tune of two stone, let's say - in agreement with the trainer. All trainers have a dialogue with the handicappers, and I imagine the next chinwag between David Dickinson, under whose remit most of the above cases fell, and Jim Best will be interesting...
Perhaps a horse should be initially required to run in three handicaps within x% of the race distance of those it raced in to qualify for a mark. That might make it more difficult for trainers to run horses over the wrong trip. Or perhaps a horse must run over the trip for which it is most obviously bred - with a percentage of latitude - prior to being awarded a mark.
These suggestions are somewhat left field, and I'd hate to see any of them introduced for the simple reason that they'd be a triumph of job creation, whilst most likely opening up new loopholes for trainers to figure out and subsequently exploit.
Nope, I think that whilst the governance of self-certification and the allocation of initial handicap ratings can - and must - be improved, the game can - and should - be allowed to continue largely unimpeded by further legislation.
We now all know the hallmarks of a Jim Best punt, so at the very least, the next time one is afoot, we can get involved!
Matt
p.s. what are your thoughts on this most contentious of issues? Leave a comment and let us know.
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/doyourjimbest.jpg320568Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2016-12-13 07:53:182016-12-13 11:30:18The Best Exploiter of ‘The System’?
My first memory of watching racing on TV is the 1991 Grand National. My father had backed the eventual runner-up, Garrison Savannah, but my puritan eight-year-old self was horrified at the thought of losing hard-earned money on horses jumping over things, writes Tony Keenan. My mother’s background as a banker and consequent financial rectitude played its part in that but dad was at pains to point out after his bet had finished second that he had backed him ‘each-way, the only way.’
I have no real recollection of racing on TV in years afterwards until the 2002 2,000 Guineas. For me, that will always be Hawk Wing’s Guineas regardless of who won, and the post-race discussion about whether or not he had been beaten on merit was fascinating. The complexity of pace, draw and race position - and their respective roles in the outcome - piqued my interest and when I found out you could bet on whose version of the race you believed I was hooked. So I followed Hawk Wing through that summer from the non-staying second in the Derby to the underwhelming Eclipse win to his defeat by Grandera at Leopardstown, a meeting I define as my first proper trip to the races and a losing one at that; I had not learned that ‘each-way was the only way’ though a starting price of 8/11 likely precluded against that bet in any case.
That initial race, covered at the time by Channel 4, was the start of something that is now an obsession. In the years since I’ve been down every rabbit hole of racing analysis imaginable, from trends to trainer patterns to pace to replays to sectional times. I’m just the sort of fan sports should aim for, committed to the game and willing to spend money and time, studying form, listening to podcasts, betting on horses and paying into racecourses. But that sort of consuming passion had to start somewhere and engaging the interest of embryonic fans is one of the many challenges that ITV Racing will face as the station starts its run as racing’s terrestrial broadcaster in 2017.
Racing can be an insecure tribe, constantly questioning its position in the broader sporting world, and this naval-gazing attitude has predictably emerged in the months leading into ITV’s return to covering the sport. We are comprised of so many different interests from owners to trainers to jockeys to breeders to punters and all have their own concerns about how the sport should be covered; just as everyone has an opinion on teachers, because everyone went to school, so too does everyone have a view on racing coverage as everyone watches it. I naturally tend towards the punters’ point-of-view who make up the majority of the TV audience but are often seen as a necessary evil by other parties.
No matter what our agenda may be, it is important to remember that there is a more general audience out there beyond the racing bubble that has, at best, only a passing interest in the sport. They need to be recognised to some degree. There is part of me that would love ITV to simply cater to the racing nerd audience and the people I speak to about horses would likely support that view wholeheartedly; whether it would serve the broader health of the sport is another matter. Striking the balance between this general audience and the more hardened racing fan is another major challenge faced for those stations covering racing.
There are difficulties arising from the inherent nature of the sport itself. In contrast to something like football, racing tends to be made up of frenetic bursts of action that last a matter of minutes interspersed with longer periods of analysis and chat; this is the case for terrestrial stations at least that rarely cover more than two meetings on a given broadcast and thankfully prevents it from becoming mere betting shop fodder with one race blending into the next over a period of hours.
Then there are more the more generic challenges that any sports coverage faces in the current media climate. We are in an age where we can watch sport live via devices other than television and we are told that viewing figures may not be trustworthy as so many people are watching through other channels than the traditional coverage. Points like that are fair but genuine fans will, in the main, still want to want to watch the coverage live if at all possible; it is impossible to miss the result in the social media age and in any case watching a sporting event on your phone is a deeply unsatisfactory experience with streams tending to be herky-jerky and unreliable. Mainstream coverage remains important and, as James Willoughby pointed in an excellent article on the Thoroughbred Daily News website, deserves to be treated with seriousness.
It is hoped that ITV will bring this sort of seriousness to their coverage. Their position as a legacy station, the button on the remote that people reach for out of habit, should provide a boost in viewing figures above what the less mainstream Channel 4 could manage. The hiring of Ed Chamberlin as host was a significant acquisition and gives the sport a broader appeal; that the presenter has a background in the bookmaking industry and odds-compiling is even better. But there are areas that I hope will be addressed by the station, chief among them being the excessive reliance on ex-pros on the broadcast team.
The initial list of ITV presenters comprises a hefty dose of insiders; looking at their press release, we have Tony McCoy, Francesca Cumani, Mick Fitzgerald, Hayley Turner, Jason Weaver, Luke Harvey and Frankie Dettori. Regardless of one’s opinions on the merits or otherwise of the individuals on that list, it’s hard to get away from the belief that such people bring a certain tone to the coverage. While I acknowledge the need for some insiders, the concern is that too many of them leave the general audience ‘on the outside’ which in turn leads to them changing the channel. While station chiefs will argue that these people bring insight to the coverage it comes at a cost and that is excessive deference and a tendency to close ranks when one of their number are challenged; no one likes criticising their friends after all, even when they are clearly in the wrong.
There are many other voices out there in the racing world that could be used to bring fresh angles. One such is the official handicapper, Phil Smith, who has his share of critics but has proved to be brilliant TV on his occasional ‘Ask the Handicapper’ slot with Matt Chapman. There is something fascinating about a man who believes he is never wrong and Smith has never been afraid to voice strong opinions which Chapman excels in drawing from him; as an aside, Chapman should prove a fine addition to the ITV team.
Smith’s area of expertise is of course ratings and I wonder if they could be incorporated more into the broadcast; the modern sports fan loves nothing more than some numbers that help build informed content. All too often broadcasters fall into the trap of recency bias and get excited about the winner of a race that has just happened without placing it in its proper context. If we had a handicapper, official or otherwise, putting a number on that horse in the minutes after the race, provisional though it would have to be, would it not add to the quality of analysis? Not only would we be able to understand where the horse fits in with its peers but also, in the case of championship races, where it falls in the pantheon. There are plenty who bemoan the pointlessness of comparing horses across generations but one of racing’s great selling points is the depth of its history and this should be embraced.
All this brings me inevitably onto the role of data. There is much good work being done with the use of data to analyse racing, blowing many of the myths about the sport up in the process, but the problem in putting this onto the TV is presentation. Data like sectional times needs to be presented in a palatable way that the audience can understand and not sound like an Open University tutorial. Punters make up the bulk of the viewership and they want to know how the numbers can help them to back winners. In general, I think you need outsiders rather than racing insiders to cover this part of the broadcast; the insiders are often sceptical of the numbers, entrenched as they are in the traditional approaches of the sport. Furthermore, these outsiders seem more willing to criticise the participants in the sport, something that in the main is sorely lacking. This is not to say there should be criticism for criticism’s sake but I would love nothing more than a well-argued case that a jockey gave a horse a poor ride backed up by a sensible sectional timing-based argument or the critique of a trainer’s handling of a horse that is based in fact.
Finally, there is the most basic aspect of any sports broadcast: the live pictures of the events themselves. ITV Racing should not suffer from having the terrible angles that AtTheRaces present from some of the Irish tracks - like Punchestown, Leopardstown and Down Royal - where all too often we are given prolonged shots of the backsides of horses running away from the stands. Arty close-ups are a complete no-no and as far a possible the audience needs to see the whole field, preferably in high definition. Some punter, somewhere, has had a bet on a horse in that race, even the 999/1 rag on Betfair, and he wants to see his horse and understand what is happening.
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/chapmansmith.jpg320830TonyKeenanhttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngTonyKeenan2016-12-06 11:43:542016-12-06 11:43:54Tony Keenan: Some Views on Garnering Viewers
Trainer Snippets is one of the newer Geegeez Gold features, and it's a brilliant insight into how trainers operate. I've written about the content before here, but was asked if I could record a video on the subject of Trainer Snippets. Well, Barry, happy to oblige (and thanks for the prompt).
In this video, I explain what Trainer Snippets are, the two places to find them, and why and when they're useful. I also highlight a few examples using this afternoon's racing.
I also reference A/E and IV in the video, with a link to more info on that. For expediency, .
Anyway, on with the show. I hope you find it useful...
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Trainer-Snippets_101016.png4951080Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2016-11-21 11:10:482020-05-16 19:51:27VIDEO: Using Trainer Snippets for Profit
The ideal holiday for a National Hunt enthusiast in the late 1930s had to be a fortnight on the English Riviera, writes Ian Sutherland. It was long before the birth of summer jump racing, and August marked the start of the new season. South Devon had no fewer than five racecourses within 20 miles of each other, with Newton Abbot, Exeter and Buckfastleigh all early starters. Totnes, at the southern end of what is now the South Devon heritage railway, raced the following month, whilst Torquay held its annual fixture at Easter.
Buckfastleigh was the perfect place to watch racing. The track was a little over a mile around. The stands were at the highest point on the circuit, giving a panoramic view over the whole course. Most races were over a distance of either 2m 154 yards or 3m 418 yards, meaning they started just before the stands. This was followed by a downhill plunge to one of the sharpest bends anywhere – more a corner than a bend – which could catch out even the most experienced jockey.
Chris Pitt, in his account of lost racecourses, A Long Time Gone, had the problem described to him by regular Buckfastleigh jockey, Bernard Wells. "It had one of the sharpest bends on any track. After passing the winning post, you'd go down a sharp hill which felt like riding down a coalmine and then there was an acute right angled bend at the bottom. You had to go wide and swing into the bend. If you tried to follow the rails around you'd finish up outside the course on the A38, as happened to me once on French Knot. The first time I rode her was at Buckfastleigh when she jumped a wire fence and landed on the main Exeter to Plymouth road."
That was bad enough back in his day, but imagine it now, when vehicles are thrashing down the dual carriageway at 70 mph! Actually, if you can slow down a bit towards Plymouth once you pass the turn off for Buckfastleigh, you can see the remains of the stand up on the hillside. And if you want a closer look, pop into Dean Court Farm Shop to ask. There's a track that runs from what was the entrance to the course alongside the finishing straight to the stand.
The remaining stand at Buckfastleigh racecourse
This stand proved to be a bit of a white elephant, as it was built in 1950, only ten years before the racecourse closed, after 77 years of operation. In its very early days Buckfastleigh held just that one meeting in August, but in 1886, after just three years, a Whitsun meeting was added. This proved popular, and as the advertising poster of the time (kindly shown to me by Richard Cooper, whose family owns the racecourse site) shows, by 1901 special excursion trains were running to the local station from Exeter, Newton Abbot, Torquay, Plymouth and Kingsbridge.
It's no great surprise that a permanent stand was soon put up for spectators, though in fact, it proved to be anything but permanent. The wooden structure was dismantled in 1927 and sold to Torquay United FC, where it was ready for supporters’ days before their first ever fixture in Division Three South of the Football League. There it remained in regular operation until just five years ago. Why the racecourse sold it is a mystery. There's no indication that they needed the £150 Torquay paid; indeed, the regular good attendances argue that there was a continuing need for it. Instead, for twenty-odd years, temporary wooden stands were brought in for each meeting and then taken away and stored until the next one.
Racing at Buckfastleigh in 1955
There was no shortage of runners either. This photo, taken in 1955, shows a field of 13 passing the stands, and racecards of the time indicate there were regularly 12-18 horses competing. The stables on the course itself have been demolished, but a similar block still stands at Dean Court Farm at the bottom of the course. Between them they could house close on 100 horses, though they held little attraction for local trainer/jockey of the 1920s, Bert Gordon. He always walked his runners the four miles over the hills from South Brent.
The final day's racing, on 27 August 1960, drew in more than 4,000 spectators. Bernard Wells and French Knot successfully negotiated the sharp bend and, although they could only finish third in the handicap hurdle, the jockey did ride a winner on the day. The Whitsun meeting a few months earlier had seen a first training success for 21-year-old David Gandolfo, when Sunwood took the South Devon Selling Handicap Hurdle. How many of the 1500 winners "Gandy" had during his fifty year training career would have come at Buckfastleigh had it survived? And who would think that one of the ways the course would maintain a link into the future would be by the naming of a home on the housing development that now occupies the site of the trainer's old yard after his first winner?
By this time, Lord Churston, the landowner who had leased Dean Court Farm for three hundred years, had decided to sell off that part of his estate. Only after the land had been auctioned off, for what was felt to be an inflated figure of £150,000, did it become clear that the sale marked the end of racing at Buckfastleigh. Richard Cooper explained, "The investment company that bought the land also purchased the buildings, hurdles and other equipment. They clearly wanted to continue racing there. What they hadn't understood was that this did not include the licence to run fixtures under the rules of racing, and as the authorities were seeking to reduce the number of meetings, there was no chance of the licence being transferred separately”.
At the time, meetings were already in the calendar for 1961. These were moved to Exeter and Newton Abbot. Soon, the grandstand seats and turnstiles had also gone to Exeter, whilst the number board made its way to Newton Abbot.
Yet Buckfastleigh refuses to give up entirely. The Coopers, having bought Dean Court Farm in 1963, acquired the racecourse land some years later. The remains of the stand would likely fall down without the support of the trees, and it's taken a clever switch from running right to left handed for the two point to point meetings which take place each Spring. But the spirit of Buckfastleigh remains, and long may that continue.
It's Newmarket's Future Champions Weekend today and tomorrow, comprising eight races restricted to two-year-olds only. Such contests are notoriously tricky from a betting perspective, because we have little or no form to go on. Worse, most of the contenders are still unexposed to a lesser or greater degree meaning they can be expected to improve on what they've demonstrated so far. So how do we frame a puzzle like this?
The first thing to say is that, personally, I'm not a massive fan of such heats. I prefer an established level of form in the book, with only one or two possible (and predictable) improvers: for instance, a low grade handicap with a horse stepping up markedly in trip and another running for the first time in a handicap after a month off the course.
But still, there are times when I'm forced to have a view on races with little form, the most everyday of which is when selecting a six race placepot sequence.
Here are six ways to get a handle on a minimal amount of form... Oh, and by the way, most of these approaches apply equally to a novice hurdle at Chepstow in January as they do to a juvenile Group 1 in October at HQ, so keep an open mind in terms of the usable context of these hints.
1 Horse Form
The most obvious and logical place to start is always the form book. Incomplete as the picture may be, the basic ability indicators are located right there. The Instant Expert, which I would never use as 'alpha and omega' for this - or indeed any - job, does offer a view on the story so far. As you can see from this example, taken from tomorrow's Autumn Stakes, it is only a partially complete puzzle.
Autumn Stakes Instant Expert
Note two things in particular:
The large number of grey boxes. These denote the absence of form for a given horse under one or more of today's conditions. For instance, Rodaini has yet to race over the distance of a mile, nor in a field of 8-11 runners. That latter point is a touch misleading because he's won in a seven runner race and a twelve runner race, too. [Side note: I personally use field size - and going - primarily when the race is run on an extreme, i.e. very small field or very large field; heavy or firm going]
The number of red boxes where there is only one run to go on. It is extremely dangerous to draw strong conclusions from the evidence of one run, especially using the 'win' view on Instant Expert. Take a look at these two views of The Anvil:
The Anvil should not be discounted in spite of a line of red on the 'win' view
On the win view, it would be easy for an inexperienced - or cursory - eye to discount The Anvil's chance. But the place view, superimposed below for contrast purposes, reveals a very different opinion on his prospects.
Closer inspection of his most recent form line informs that he was a fast-finishing second over course and distance last time out in a better race: a Group 2 compared with today's Group 3.
However, getting back to the main image, we can also give Montataire a chance. He is the most exposed in the field, with eight runs already to his name, and he's achieved more than most of these. The question is whether he is now susceptible to those who have a lot more to come and, on the evidence of his last run - behind The Anvil - the probability is that he is.
2 Speed Ratings
Although, like with the form in the book, the race times in the book are a retrospective on the contenders which fails to account for future improvement, they can be very useful for two reasons.
Firstly, it is often hard for the casual punter to discern between one set of form figures that read '11121' and another. Naturally, we should be more sophisticated in our outlook than that but, largely through conditioning - looking at very partial racecards in the printed press, predominantly - the eye still wanders to the numeric string at the left of a horse's name.
Ratings, especially speed ratings in juvenile races, help us to form a hierarchy from the pile of similar looking form figures.
Secondly, because most two-year-olds are inexperienced and immature, they tend to race 'with the choke out' (i.e. the go as fast as they can for as long as the can, with limited ability to proportion their energy for the task in hand). This means that most juvenile races - typically run at five to seven furlongs before October - are not tactical and the numbers are generally more reliable than might be the case in longer runs.
Here's an example for this afternoon's Cornwallis Stakes, to be run over the minimum trip of five furlongs. Battaash is the highest rated on Geegeez Speed Ratings (SR column, his rating 94), and we can see that his only poor run was on soft ground. We can also see that he's 16/1.
He's not raced on good to firm ground before, so that's a question mark - one that we will look at shortly - but he might be overpriced. At least we know he can run fast in what will be a fast-run event.
Top Speed Rating, and 16/1 in the Cornwallis Stakes
3 Subsequent Form Value
Another way of separating the good 123's from the not so good 123's is to look at what has happened to the other runners in those races since the wins and places were achieved. Here at geegeez, we use something called 'Then What?', which you can see in Battaash's form lines above, and also in the below: a view of the form for those to have previously run in the 4.20 this afternoon, a maiden fillies' race.
Which of the runs so far have worked out best? 'Then What?' has some suggestions
In the above, there are a couple of very interesting points to note. First, the favourite, Highland Pass, has run relatively slowly (48) thus far, and none of the three horses to come out of her races since have made the frame. It's a very small sample but doesn't light my fire when invited to accept 7/2 about her chance.
Compare that with the 68 and 65 rated fillies - the top two speed figures in the field (though plenty are making their debuts today, more on that shortly) - and she has some stepping up to do.
Vigee Le Brun is top rated, and her run has seen one winner from four to exit the race to date. Note, however, that her prior start was on soft ground, versus good to firm today.
The 65 filly is Paradwys, whose two runs have worked out well. Moreover, the most recent was over seven furlongs on good to firm, on the July course here at Newmarket. Clicking on the form line opens up the result, where we can see that all of the runners to finish in front of Paradwys that day to have run again since, have won. Now that's more interesting; and she's a 12/1 chance!
Will punters be in Paradwys this afternoon?
4 Trainer Form / Patterns
First time out, second time out, first time in a handicap, second time in a handicap, up in trip. When a horse does something new, or we have little form to go on, the habits of the trainer can help fill in some of the blanks.
A horse called Fleabiscuit runs in the Group 1 Fillies' Mile this afternoon. She's run once, and she won. No horses have emerged from that race - less than two weeks ago - so how do we know if Fleabiscuit has a chance today?
Her speed figure gives her plenty to find but, with just one run to her name so far, she could step forward significantly. Take a look at her trainer's form:
Trainer Hugo Palmer's record offers plenty of hope
Hugo Palmer is in perma-good form. He's been scoring at a near 40% rate in the past fortnight, and better than one in four over the entire month. He has the champion jockey-elect riding for him, and note Palmer's 'snippets' in the blue box above.
They show his performance over the last two years under certain relevant conditions. For example, we can see that he's got a nigh on 30% win rate with last time out winners. Moreover, he has a 27% strike rate with horses making their second racecourse start.
These are rock solid numbers, as we might expect from geegeez's implied man of the year. Fleabiscuit is probably not experienced - or talented - enough to win a race of this stature so early in her career. But she's not definitely not, and at 20/1 her trainer's record offers cause for optimism.
5 Sire Form
Earlier in this post, I mentioned a filly called Vigee Le Brun, whose one run came on soft ground, as opposed to today's good to firm. How could we know if she'll act on today's surface? The short answer is that we cannot know that; but what we can do is look to her sire for clues.
As with trainers above, geegeez also publishes Sire Snippets, attempting to shine a light on the two-year performance of stallions. Here's Vigee Le Brun's sire, Dark Angel:
Dark Angel's Sire Snippets in the context of this race
We can see that Dark Angel has a close to 12% win rate overall in the last two years, which is incredible on 2264 runners. We can also see that two year olds and sprinters perform above the overall benchmark, at 12.22% and 12.63% respectively.
But what we can't see is how Dark Angel progeny have fared on good to firm ground. The reason for this is that the going can - and often does - change from when we publish this data to race time. Fear not, however, for we have that covered.
On the main race card, the going can be changed from a dropdown, and the revised going will reflect in both Instant Expert and Full Form Filter. In this case, we don't need to change the going, so we'll head straight over the FFF.
Dark Angel 5 year going form
As you can see, I've selected the Sire option top right, chosen Vigee Le Brun from the horse dropdown, then 5 year form, and going.
The Race Record box shows me Dark Angel's five-year record on today's (good to firm) going. It's 12.74%, which is again some way above his two year batting average overall, offering hope to backers of this filly.
I could also take this a step further and add distance to the filter, to see how Dark Angel's have fared over seven furlongs in the last five years.
Dark Angel five year distance and going form
Interestingly, this drops the win percentage back a good bit, and upon checking the two year form I noticed that it is even lower, so that would be a concern.
Full Form Filter is a very flexible tool, and its sire option is one of the most under-used elements of the entire arsenal.
6 The market
At the end of the day, in races where there is limited racecourse evidence on which to base a judgment, the market can be an insightful predictor. With a filly like Vigee Le Brun, I'd be very interested in whether she had taken support in the early skirmishes. Checking an odds comparison function, such as the 'Odds' tab on Geegeez, will shed some light.
Both Paradwys and Vigee Le Brun have taken support
During the time I've been writing this post, we can see that both Paradwys and especially Vigee Le Brun have taken support. They're not the only ones to be fancied, but this certainly helps - with confidence if nothing else - in making a wagering decision, allied to what we've learned for ourselves in points one to five of course!
**
Many people, including myself, use Gold mainly when the level of form is thoroughly exposed. But I hope the six suggestions above offer some food for thought in terms of how we can get a few inside lines on those where it is all in front of them. Gold is full of hints, tips and pointers, for all types of race. We just have to go a little 'off piste' in some situations. 🙂
Matt
p.s. Gold trial: 30 days access to the full Gold toolkit, speed ratings, tips, forum threads, reports, tracker, prize tipping league and more. One pound.
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Oddstab_new2.png13491845Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2016-10-07 10:30:452017-06-23 18:14:34How to Find Winners When There is Little Form in the Book
As you'll have no doubt heard, a piece of software called The Value Machine has been launched. You will doubtless have heard the profit claims, and may know that Kieran - its creator - is closing the software down this evening... for the time being at least.
But what exactly is The Value Machine? And how do you operate TVM? Most importantly, what can it do for you?
I've been running the software since it went live, and I've recorded a short video demonstration of The Value Machine, which I hope answers all those questions. The software is available for a two week trial for just £7. Further, that trial is fully covered by a money back guarantee. So, if you didn't know what TVM was/is all about, I hope you find this little video useful.
Ayr's Western meeting is headlined by the Gold Cup, a very high class six furlong handicap. Such is its popularity that the meeting also hosts not one but two consolation races, the Silver and Bronze Cups.
What that means is a reasonable body of big field evidence from which to conjecture about the draw. Geegeez Gold also has some pretty neat tools to support those ruminations.
First, we need to establish the likely going. With a largely dry forecast, the ground should be somewhere between good and good to soft by Saturday, when the Silver and Gold Cups are hosted. Today, the official going is soft, good to soft in places. We'll use the history of all big field six furlong sprints since 2009 at the track.
Ayr 6 Furlong Draw (Overall)
Here's how the high/middle/low split looks in six furlong races of 16 runners or more since 2009 at Ayr:
All 16+ runner 6f races at Ayr since 2009
As you can see, low is marginally favoured over middle, which in turn is favoured over high. That's based on place percentages across a sample of almost 600 runners.
Ayr 6 Furlong Draw (Good, Good to Soft, Soft only)
Because we have a reasonable (relative to other course/distance combinations) sample size, we can restrict our going range to something closer to this weekend's reality. In this image, I'm looking only at soft to good ground:
Ayr big field 6 furlong races on good, good to soft, or soft ground
Here we can see that low is still favoured, though not by as much, with high some way behind. All of these views show the place percentage, which allows for a slightly largely sample of placers than winners. Focusing only on winners would show a similar 'low and middle dominating high' perspective.
A More Granular Look...
So that's cut and dried then, no? Low to middle favoured. High can win but historically not so much. Sadly, it's not quite as simple as that. Look at this race-by-race breakdown of the draw positions of the placed horses in 16+ runners six furlong races run at Ayr on ground ranging from good through to soft, since 2009.
Ayr 6f place draw breakdown, 16+ runners
What is striking - to me - is how 'random' the spread of stall positions is. But look more closely and you might be able to discern a 'cluster' effect: groups of proximitous stalls appearing in the same result.
Holy Clusters, Batman!
Last year, the Gold Cup first four were in stalls between four and nine; and the Silver Cup saw three of the first four home in adjacent boxes two to four. Indeed, in the image below we can see how prevalent this place clustering actually is.
Ayr 6f big field place clustering
Note the red comments, where three or all four placed horses came from a small portion of the draw. This starts to look anything but random. And yet, we still have the challenge of establishing, ahead of time, where these 'pockets of success' might be. The crucial thing is that, over the course of seven years, they have - on different occasions - been spread across the track.
What About Pace?
So perhaps there is no discernible draw bias. Is that possible? In the below table, I've added some early pace information. Below the table, I'll explain what it means.
Effect and location of early pace in 6f big field Ayr sprints
This was somewhat labour intensive, and is a little bit subjective, in terms of using pace comments to determine those with early dash in the races. However, as a totality, I think there are some interesting findings.
The green numbers in the placing boxes are placed horses that had early pace in the race. The stall positions, quantity, and placed quantity, of early pacers are in the three right hand columns.
Of the 460 runners to contest these 19 races, 76 filled out the first four placings (16.5%). The 131 early pacers (28.5% of the runners) managed to claim 29 of the 76 top four placings (38%), which is a third higher than random.
So we can be reasonably confident that early pace is generally favoured in these races, something borne out by Gold's pace tab:
Performance, by run style, of all 6f races at Ayr since 2009
The table below the blobs shows a clear linear relationship, especially on place percentage, by run style. Early leaders are almost twice as likely to win than random, while those held up perform significantly below expectations. Of course, the 'tail end Charlie' group includes a lot of no-hopers in open race company, which over-emphasizes the point but, nevertheless, a prominent/front rank early position is generally advantageous.
Although the data are far from unequivocal - sadly, pigeonholes rarely work effectively when trying to solve the biggest racing puzzles - it would seem that pace is a more important commodity than draw, although being drawn close to some 'community pace' looks a solid advantage.
Who's going to win? Bronze Cup
This is the bit where I put my money where my mouth is. Using the info above, as well as the Instant Expert and various other bits and bobs, I'll offer a suggestion or two. Keep in mind that the scope for egg on face here is high, so caveat emptor!
Pretty much all of the early zip looks to be low, as you can see here:
Ayr Bronze Cup: pace looks to be low
Here's what the Instant Expert makes of the form in the book:
Instant Expert's view of the Bronze Cup
Ocean Sheridan, drawn nine, and a fan of softish ground, has shown he can handle big fields and is a distance specialist. He represents a northern trainer who targets the meeting, and should run a big race at around 10/1.
Giant Spark has an obvious chance, one which is very well accounted for in a quote of 5/1.
At bigger prices, Marjorie Fife's Best Trip could blaze a trail for a long way, and come out best of her three entries. 25/1 should give a run for your money at least.
A good egg on face avoidance strategy is to take one from 'the other side' just in case (!), and Adrian Keatley's Anonymous Lady has plenty of juice in her quote of 25/1. Keatley showed yesterday he's in fine fettle, and has a belting overall record at the track.
Adrian Keatley's Anonymous Lady may be drawn on the wrong side, but she has a decent profile otherwise
Who's going to win? Gold and Silver Cups
Here at geegeez, we try to teach people to fish, as the old adage goes, and we have top of the range rods and bait inside Geegeez Gold. So it is that, with a nod of encouragement, I invite you to do your own angling for a tasty fish supper in Saturday's races. If you come up dry, don't carp about it though (groan)!
Good luck,
Matt
p.s. Geegeez Gold is £30 monthly but, for the next few days only, you can secure a huge discount by signing up as an annual subscriber. £197 gets you twelve months' access here: http://www.geegeez.co.uk/invest-in-gold/
Please note: Annual subs will rise for new annual subscribers only to £249 from next Monday, 19th September. If you're on a trial, or have already upgraded to Annual, you will be unaffected by the price rise and will be 'grandfathered' in on the soon-to-be old rate for the term of your subscription. (NB it is your responsibility not to let it lapse!)
Here's that link again: http://www.geegeez.co.uk/invest-in-gold/
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/anonymouslady_keatley.png3851849Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2016-09-16 10:56:042016-09-16 11:45:33Ayr Sprint Cups and the Draw…
4.45am. I couldn’t sleep. It had been teeming down for hours. The heat and humidity seemed sub-tropical in this little enclave of Hackney, reminiscent of faraway climes.
I’d fidgeted for hours, thoughts swimming – drowning, more like, in the monsoon outside my bedroom window – after events of the evening before.
Not wildly sentimental, though far from immune to affairs of the heart either, it had been an emotional few days. An all too rare weekend foray to Dorset, son Leonardo in tow, to visit my dad – Leon’s nonno – was bathed in sunshine, both literally and metaphorically. Though I never speak it, it comes to mind often that, at this stage in our lives, one never quite knows when it will be the last such trip.
Those thoughts were granted more resonance on Monday when an offer was finally accepted on my late mother’s house, thirteen months after her passing. Though not especially close to her, she’d appeared more prevalently in my consciousness in recent times, for reasons that the shrinks could go to town with, doubtless. We only have one mum, after all, and Leon only had one nonna.
But nonna’s gone, and this was a surprisingly sore reminder.
In truth, twelve hours ago, none of this was in the forefront of my mind. I was watching the second race at Carlisle, praying for rain. He needs rain, does our lad. Half of our lad is owned by myself and three other Geegeez syndicateers: Jim, Pete and Charlie. The other half is owned jointly by his trainer, Wilf Storey, and his former owner, and breeder, Ray Tooth.
Just an average plodder on good ground – below average, truth be told – he’s ten pounds better on soft, and most of a stone and a half more of a man on heavy going.
Let it rain. Please let it rain. The Racing UK chaps were of the view that, if the forecast was correct, it would be heavy by the last race. Our lad was in the last race.
And then it came. A heavy shower passed over the corner of Cumbria in which Carlisle’s racecourse is reposed. The talk was of stamina-sapping conditions, of attritional scraps up the hill that hinders tiring progress through the final furlong. Perfect for our lad.
Except it wasn’t. The winners were not the soft and heavy ground horses. Not the known ones anyway. Most had never encountered such an apparently deep surface before. Race times were slow but not funereal. No, not funereal, let’s go with another word. Not pedestrian.
And then there was the pace in our race. Despite the big field of fifteen – you get another place for sixteen, eh? – there was little to no known early pace in that large group of middling stayers. That was a worry for a chap as one-paced as our fella. Still, hope springs eternal, and it was good to soft, soft in places, after all.
The trip, a mile and three quarters, the big field, the track and the going were all largely in his favour, and he’d have his best chance for a while of going close. When he won at Hamilton, it was soft and they went the sort of breakneck gallop that had him off the bridle from the gate.
It might sound odd to the fleetingly familiar with racing, but that’s when we knew he had a chance: when they went so hard early that our boy could barely keep tabs at the back. A bit like Zenyatta, though a thousand pounds below her level, he just keeps galloping when the rest can no longer raise a leg.
It was the same at Nottingham last season when confronted with heavy ground. He sluiced through it. Big feet, probably. And here, for the first time since Hamilton, was a race with his name on it.
I wagered accordingly. Not heavily: after a few recent reversals, the punting belt had been tightened, and here it was only released a couple of notches. But still enough to score most of three grand if he prevailed. After all, he was a 22/1 chance. Except he wasn’t. If there was genuinely any real juice in the turf, and if at least one horse pushed on, he was more like a 6/1 shot. But 22/1 was the price on offer. That’s called value, they tell me.
Post time came, 7.15pm on 13th September. The triskaidekaphobics would have a field day. Our chap, occasionally recalcitrant at the stalls in recent outings, was first in, quiet as a mouse. A couple of minutes later, the other fourteen loaded, he was last out, slumbering when he should have been lumbering from the boxes.
But he had his position, two or three from the tail and, although they didn’t go a searching gallop, the field was strung out – fifteen lengths first to last after a quarter mile, thanks to the rag, Belle Peinture’s, interjection.
Perhaps it was the longer trip, because in spite of the washing line formation our boy was still lolloping along on the bridle. They’re not going quickly enough, I muttered to my disinterested wife and child, who had been obliged to suffer the unscheduled interruption to cBeebies.
Come on Kevin, make your ground, don’t give them a start in a foot race you can’t win… I do babble when watching our boys.
Kevin – Stott, a jockey considered good enough to get the Godolphin leg up 126 times to date – gave him a peach of a ride. Making his move half a mile out, Nonagon came with a surprisingly smooth run, widest of all as they fanned across the track into the straight.
At the two-furlong pole, he was going best, with the debatable exception of the 2/1 favourite. Shortly before the furlong pole, his run petered out, quickly, desperately disappointingly. My initial reaction was that he didn’t stay, that his one run used him all up, or perhaps that it wasn’t quite soft enough.
But then it all unravelled, initially unbeknown to me.
Even in the mobile age, there remain communication problems. I had taken Leon for bath and bed time, missing a call from on-course Jim. When I returned downstairs, I read his cryptic text message:
“Sadly horse broke down. Not sure what happens next. Phone out of juice. Will call when I get home”
Shit. Broke down? What does he mean, broke down? He finished sixth, just didn’t quite get home. Surely.
Both Jim and Wilf were incommunicado as they drove back to York and Muggleswick respectively, so it was an agonising wait for news, which came shortly before 10pm, when I got hold of Wilf.
Wilf is 78, the same age as my dad, and a horseman of the old school. A bloody brilliant horseman, a farmer, and a lover of animals more generally. He’d not be soft, having weathered the fat end of four score County Durham winters, most of them tending the land.
But he had the husk in his voice of one who had taken a blow, emotionally. Mainly, I think, he felt for his daughter, Stella. She does so much of the labour with the Storey horses, her dedication and work ethic, well, stellar. She’d been in tears at the course apparently, and was inconsolable when they’d got home.
Nonagon suffered a ruptured tendon, presumably somewhere between the quarter mile and furlong poles, and it was bad. Sufficiently bad that, in Wilf’s opinion, he should have been euthanized at the track. “But they don’t like that”, he said, referring to the racecourse administrators.
So our boy, in deep distress and under heavy sedation, was loaded back onto the horsebox. Mercifully, a small mercy, the return trip was less than ninety minutes.
The prognosis for Nonagon is terminal, I’m afraid. The injury is severe, and he is unlikely to see evening stables tonight. Writing that wells me up. It shouldn’t do. I mean, he’s just a horse.
Except, of course, he’s not “just a horse”. They’re never “just a horse”. To his owners – Jim, Pete, Charlie and myself – he’s our soldier, our boy, our lad: a horse who tried his guts out every time he stepped on a race track. You can’t teach them to try.
Nonagon was a slow racehorse, but he could be slow for a lot longer than most others could be a beat quicker; and, in the right circumstances, that made him look like a Rolls Royce. A working man’s syndicate’s Rolls Royce.
If we owners, who waltz up on race day to swill the gravy and dream of the kudos of the winners’ enclosure, are upset, then spare your sympathies for Wilf, and mostly for Stella, whose love and care made the story possible.
Nonagon, like all of Wilf and Stella’s horses, was a cast off. Asked to do too much too soon – well, early return on investment is so important in a racehorse, isn’t it? – he injured a tendon as a two-year-old. That tendon.
Wilf patched him up, and gave him a year and a month in a field. At the end of it, he had an autumn three-year-old who might make a racehorse at four, Nonagon’s body allowed the time it needed to mature and to mend. His trainer always maintained he had ability, especially in the early days when that precious commodity looked conspicuously absent.
And, after a tongue-swallowing incident when running his best race to that point at Ripon, he had that most rudimentary of aids - the tongue tie - applied on every subsequent start (except the time at Newcastle when the stalls team couldn’t get it on him).
It helped him breathe. It helped him win two races. And it helped him bring a hell of a lot of joy to his owners, his trainers, his breeder and his matchmaker, Tony Stafford, whose introductions joined all the preceding parties in this unlikely union.
Horseracing is the ultimate numbers game, awash with lows that, as the cliché hackneys, make the good days so sweet. We have to celebrate the good days, a point emphasised and underscored by the dark dawn to which I awoke to scribble this half-baked homage.
It could have been worse. After all, Nonagon is just a horse.
Matt
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/nonagon.jpg320830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2016-09-14 07:23:312016-09-14 10:35:53Farewell to a Friend
Few things are more frustrating than having a chunky Rule 4 deduction from a good bet, where you didn't even fancy the horse which was withdrawn.
Naturally, the chance of your bet winning is enhanced by the reduced number of rivals, and in any case you might have been wrong not to 'like' the withdrawn horse. But still, it's a situation that is frequently frustrating.
So, in today's video post, I want to highlight a way to put the boot on the other foot.
This strategy is actually about race selection as much as anything, and I know that is an area many readers struggle with - after all, there is rather a lot (ahem) of racing.
Enough with the verbiage and on with the show... click the video below to find out how to put the "Reverse Rule 4" to work for you.
If you have any questions or comments on this, do scribble them below, and I'll try to answer them.
Matt
p.s. For those who may be interested, below is the slide deck from the presentation (though most of the value is in the video walkthrough).
As regular readers will know, the habits of trainers are of unending fascination to this website and its writers. In this post, we'll consider a generally overlooked angle: the performance of trainers with their first and, particularly, second time starters.
Some handlers have their newbies primed for a big run first up, while others prefer to take their time. So who are the pick of the peer group in each category, and how can we best utilize this knowledge?
A word on the 'method'
Before we attempt to answer that question, a word on the approach. As with all types of horse racing form study from a statistical perspective, our world is imperfect, mainly because there are insufficient data upon which to pontificate. The below is thus afflicted by this issue but should still provide food for thought.
Note that you don't need to be interested in this section to get value from what follows, but for those who are interested in such things, these details flesh the skeleton.
I want to look at trainer performance relative to their overall figures for both win strike rate (expressed as Impact Value, a comparison of the relative frequency a trainer does something (in this instance) versus how often it happens overall), and punting utility (expressed as Actual vs Expected, a measure of the value of those occurences).
The sample is made up of British flat races (turf and all weather) from the beginning of 2014 to the end of 2015. First up, let's get some control figures: overall numbers against which to compare all trainer-based subsets thereafter.
There were 12,586 winners of 12,566 races during the two-year period, which the speedy amongst you will have figured is due to the presence of twenty dead heats in that time. The races were contested by 112,780 runners, giving us an overall win strike rate for all races of 11.16%.
Trainers with a strike rate of 11.16% have an Impact Value of 1.00, or 'normal'.
But this is not enough. Indeed, it is not really much at all. We are almost all punters, so it makes sense to look at value, too: actual vs expected will give us what we need. (For an explanation of actual vs expected - or A/E for short - and Impact Value (IV), scroll down to 'A Measure of Utility' in this post).
The overall A/E for the sample is 0.86, where 1.00 equates to a 'neutral value' position. (Note, 0.86 does not imply a loss of 14%. Rather, it is a value index which tries to accommodate the 'future repeatability' of that which it is measuring in its output).
Summary so far: UK flat horses won at an overall rate of 11.16% (IV 1.00) in the calendar years 2014 and 2015, and their collective value was computed as an A/E of 0.86.
To the trainers...
Let's now look at individual trainer performance during the sample period where, to be considered, a trainer must have saddled at least 100 runners.
256 of them met that criteria, with 149 winning at less than 11.16% and therefore having an IV of lower than 1.00. More materially from a betting perspective, there were 38 trainers whose overall A/E was 1.00 or greater. Remember, the higher the number, the more value is perceived in the data.
In an ideal world, we want a high strike rate and a sustainably profitable bottom line. That is to say, we want a high A/E and a high IV. Predictably, this is the easiest combination for the market to detect, meaning that sooner rather than later the available odds in such cases depress even if the strike rate remains constant. Thus, the value is squeezed out of the angle.
Happily, there are always new trainers - and current trainers adopting new techniques - which means that there is always the prospect of remaining half a stride ahead of the bookmakers.
The below table shows those trainers whose A/E and IV were both 1.10 or higher overall, meaning both a healthy relative strike rate and 10% or greater value projection.
Trainer
Bets
Wins
Win%
SP P/L
A/E
IV
Mulholland, N P
116
24
20.69%
65.98
1.65
1.85
Newcombe, A G
123
16
13.01%
-9.25
1.31
1.17
Moss, Garry
140
21
15.00%
21.87
1.29
1.34
Wadham, Mrs L
100
17
17.00%
47.38
1.19
1.52
Jardine, I
202
28
13.86%
56
1.18
1.24
Powell, B G
332
43
12.95%
91.37
1.16
1.16
Wigham, M
167
30
17.96%
11.11
1.15
1.61
Quinlan, N
139
18
12.95%
-11.12
1.15
1.16
OKeeffe, Jedd
196
26
13.27%
-4.87
1.12
1.19
Charalambous, P
114
15
13.16%
66
1.11
1.18
Gallagher, J
239
31
12.97%
31.26
1.11
1.16
Price, R J
150
20
13.33%
-24.42
1.1
1.19
Notice that it is possible to have shown a loss in the sample period and yet still be projected as value going forwards.
These data are interesting of themselves, and mark out the likes of Neil Mulholland, Garry Moss, Lucy Wadham, Ian Jardine, Brendan Powell, Peter Charalambous and John Gallagher as worthy of note under the right circumstances. What we'll see shortly however, is that those circumstances do not equate to first and second time starters. [Such knowledge offers an even greater opportunity to profit from their runners when favoured setups do apply].
**
First Time Starters
In 2014 and 2015 there were 8,029 first time starters on the flat (turf and all weather) in Britain. 627 won, giving a first time out win strike rate of 7.81% (thus 7.81% equates to IV 1.00). They collectively returned an A/E of 0.82.
Looking only at those trainers with twenty or more first time starters in the period, top of the pile in terms of win strike was Saeed bin Suroor with a spectacular 24.66%. But those winners equated to an A/E of just 0.98, meaning his newbies actually won a smidge below market expectation. In other words, everybody knows the Godolphin trainer's first-timers are well drilled and generally 'expected'. The value has been sucked from this group as a whole as wagering propositions.
Compare that with Martyn Meade, a (still) under-rated Newmarket trainer with some smart animals in his care. His five winners from 41 first time starters had an IV of 1.56 (i.e. won 56% more often than the general population of first time starters) and an A/E of 1.44.
Sample sizes are generally pretty small, so caution is advised, but there are some playable stats right here.
Trainer
Bets
Wins
Win%
SP P/L
A/E
IV
Kelleway, Miss Gay
24
4
16.67%
55
2.7
2.13
Given, J G
33
5
15.15%
40.5
2.44
1.94
Meade, M
41
5
12.20%
65.75
1.44
1.56
Duffield, Mrs A
63
7
11.11%
35.5
1.36
1.42
Muir, W R
44
4
9.09%
-0.25
1.32
1.16
Meehan, B J
88
9
10.23%
38
1.3
1.31
Tate, James
74
10
13.51%
16.62
1.16
1.73
Evans, P D
79
7
8.86%
-30.8
1.08
1.13
Smart, B
38
4
10.53%
-6.5
1.06
1.35
Gosden, J H M
234
46
19.66%
52.6
1.05
2.52
Dods, M
55
7
12.73%
-1.74
1.05
1.63
Fahey, R A
258
38
14.73%
37.25
1.03
1.89
Lanigan, D R
31
3
9.68%
25
1.03
1.24
Beckett, R M
132
17
12.88%
-5.25
1.02
1.65
Guest, Rae
34
4
11.76%
12.17
0.99
1.51
Suroor, Saeed Bin
146
36
24.66%
4.44
0.98
3.16
**
Second Time Starters
Much is in the public domain with regards to trainer performance with debutants, whereas there is far less market subsumption in the realms of second time starter records, as far as I can tell. This notion appears to be supported by the appearance at the top of the 2nd time out charts of some seriously big hitters in the training ranks.
This time, the overall win strike rate for second time starters is 13.4% (IV 1.00). But look at the strike rates of Luca Cumani (31.94%), Charlie Appleby (29.02%), and Sir Michael Stoute (26.17%). Hugo Palmer is another emerging force here, among some lesser names whose recruits step forward markedly for the experience - and often the education - of a prior run.
There is a lot to get guardedly excited about here, as it is apparent that some handlers' ability to coax maturity from first to second run has been largely overlooked by the market. You don't really need me to draw inferences by now, with the below table speaking for itself. For those taking time to mull it, there should be rewards forthcoming.
That said, a couple of handlers well worth a mention are David Evans, whose one-in-six win rate (and perfectly symmetrical one-in-three place rate) with second timers has been worth a chunky dividend; and Karl Burke, whose once-raced brigade make their mark almost a quarter of the time.
Trainer
Bets
Wins
Win%
SP P/L
A/E
IV
Dalgleish, Keith
51
12
23.53%
22.89
1.99
1.76
King, A
20
4
20%
12.91
1.61
1.49
Evans, P D
78
13
16.67%
94.88
1.54
1.24
Guest, Rae
30
8
26.67%
20.17
1.53
1.99
Burke, K R
79
19
24.05%
49.76
1.45
1.79
Muir, W R
46
9
19.57%
10.73
1.4
1.46
Candy, H
50
13
26%
-12.75
1.34
1.94
McBride, P J
22
4
18.18%
-8.12
1.34
1.36
Cumani, L M
72
23
31.94%
7.72
1.32
2.38
Elsworth, D R C
28
5
17.86%
-6.29
1.26
1.33
Meade, M
34
7
20.59%
8.71
1.23
1.54
Palmer, Hugo
50
15
30%
22.89
1.21
2.24
Bell, M L W
80
17
21.25%
65.86
1.2
1.59
Quinn, J J
51
8
15.69%
-22.82
1.16
1.17
Chapple-Hyam, P
45
9
20%
-2.51
1.15
1.49
Meehan, B J
80
14
17.50%
23.15
1.13
1.31
Barron, T D
40
10
25%
12.92
1.1
1.87
Fanshawe, J R
65
10
15.38%
-25.6
1.09
1.15
Cox, C G
82
16
19.51%
-14.14
1.08
1.46
Walker, Ed
60
11
18.33%
-26.27
1.08
1.37
Balding, A M
138
26
18.84%
-16.27
1.06
1.41
Appleby, Charlie
193
56
29.02%
3.19
1.05
2.17
Dods, M
51
8
15.69%
-17.37
1.02
1.17
Botti, M
140
26
18.57%
-10.26
1.01
1.39
Stoute, Sir Michael
149
39
26.17%
9.08
1
1.95
Hills, B W
31
7
22.58%
-4.69
1
1.69
**
Bringing It Back Together
What I really wanted to do here was to compare trainers' first run stats with their second time figures to see if there is anything interesting to be gleaned. My interest was piqued in this by the surprisingly strong second time performance of 'Filthy' Luca Cumani and Sir Michael Stoute.
I've watched the "do not use the whip at any cost" rides many of Sir Michael's horses have received on debut and, as can be seen above, there has been vindication of the visual perception in the data. That was the seed from which these ramblings germinated.
At the foot of this post is a big table, which has some additional columns that require explaining. The table shows the 2nd time out performance for the 93 trainers to have had at least twenty 1st and 2nd time starters in the sample period.
The table is sorted by trainer, with the following columns bearing explanation:
Diff - The trainer's perforance ratio of second time out winners against his/her overall strike rate
Diff 1TO - The trainer's perforance ratio of second time out winners against his/her first time out strike rate (a dash '-' means no first time out winners)
A/E Diff - The A/E differential against the trainer's overall A/E figure. That is, do a trainer's runners offer more (or less) value first time up than overall? And, if so, by how much?
A/E Diff 1TO - The A/E differential against the trainer's first time out A/E figure. That is, do a trainer's runners offer more (or less) value second time up than first? And, if so, by how much?
Again, readers can draw their own conclusions from the table. However, an example may help to get the ball rolling...
Trainer
Bets
Wins
Win%
Diff
Diff 1TO
SP P/L
A/E
IV
A/E Diff
A/E Diff 1TO
Appleby, Charlie
193
56
29.02%
1.39
2.47
3.19
1.05
2.17
0.17
0.32
Charlie Appleby wins 1.39 times as often with second time starters than his overall strike rate. Moreover, his once-raced entries score almost two-and-a-half times (2.47, to be precise) as often as his debutants.
Charlie's 2nd timers have been marginally profitable to follow as a group (SP P/L of +3.19), and their value - as gauged by A/E - is higher than overall (0.17), and notably higher than first time starters (0.32), from the same stable.
We can say fairly confidently that Charlie Appleby's horses come on considerably for their first run, as a rule. However, there may be little of punting utility in this example (unless you are a layer of Appleby's newbies).
Names to note: Based on the sample period, trainers whose horses have notably stepped forward from first to second run - and can reasonably be expected to continue doing so - include Michael Bell, Karl Burke, Keith Dalgleish, David Evans, Rae Guest, and Hugo Palmer.
The full table is appended below.
**
And Finally...
Geegeez Gold records the two year trainer performance for a range of subsets, including 1st start, 2nd start, distance move, last time winner, 1st handicap start and 2nd handicap start. This data is provided inline in the racecard as well as in its own report.
Trainers' 2nd time out record in the past 2 years is one of many snippets featured inline
p.s. what stands out from the data for you? Leave a comment below and share your thoughts.
Trainer
Bets
Wins
Win%
Diff
Diff 1TO
SP P/L
A/E
IV
A/E Diff
A/E Diff 1TO
Appleby, Charlie
193
56
29.02%
1.39
2.47
3.19
1.05
2.17
0.17
0.32
Appleby, M
41
1
2.44%
0.18
1.10
-35.00
0.40
0.18
-0.48
-0.02
Baker, George
28
1
3.57%
0.32
-
-24.00
0.43
0.27
-0.43
0.43
Balding, A M
138
26
18.84%
1.25
2.56
-16.27
1.06
1.41
0.18
0.35
Barron, T D
40
10
25.00%
2.03
3.25
12.92
1.10
1.87
0.29
0.58
Beckett, R M
129
25
19.38%
1.13
1.50
-7.59
0.91
1.45
-0.04
-0.11
Bell, M L W
80
17
21.25%
1.82
8.60
65.86
1.20
1.59
0.43
0.83
Botti, M
140
26
18.57%
1.50
3.28
-10.26
1.01
1.39
0.22
0.39
Brittain, C E
29
0
0.00%
0.00
0.00
-29.00
0.00
0.00
-0.70
-0.53
Brown, D H
46
4
8.70%
0.87
0.82
-33.51
0.58
0.65
-0.20
-0.31
Burke, K R
79
19
24.05%
1.77
2.19
49.76
1.45
1.79
0.54
0.62
Candy, H
50
13
26.00%
1.85
3.44
-12.75
1.34
1.94
0.45
0.50
Carroll, A W
25
1
4.00%
0.38
-
-12.00
1.27
0.30
0.42
1.27
Cecil, Lady
35
7
20.00%
1.57
2.80
-14.02
0.91
1.49
0.27
0.39
Channon, M R
113
12
10.62%
0.96
1.27
-38.88
0.78
0.79
-0.08
-0.21
Chapple-Hyam, P
45
9
20.00%
1.64
4.30
-2.51
1.15
1.49
0.37
0.62
Charlton, R
81
13
16.05%
0.96
2.11
-4.67
0.73
1.20
-0.11
0.05
Cole, P F I
47
5
10.64%
1.01
5.43
-6.27
0.95
0.79
0.19
0.62
Cowell, R M H
45
0
0.00%
0.00
0.00
-45.00
0.00
0.00
-0.77
-0.82
Cox, C G
82
16
19.51%
1.44
2.05
-14.14
1.08
1.46
0.19
0.23
Coyle, Tony
33
0
0.00%
0.00
0.00
-33.00
0.00
0.00
-0.91
-0.53
Cumani, L M
72
23
31.94%
1.73
4.54
7.72
1.32
2.38
0.41
0.52
Dalgleish, Keith
51
12
23.53%
1.76
6.46
22.89
1.99
1.76
1.04
1.58
Dascombe, Tom
85
11
12.94%
1.10
1.28
-1.85
0.78
0.97
-0.01
-0.04
De Giles, Ed
21
0
0.00%
0.00
0.00
-21.00
0.00
0.00
-0.99
-0.97
Dixon, Scott
25
1
4.00%
0.43
0.56
-4.00
0.51
0.30
-0.37
-0.74
Dods, M
51
8
15.69%
1.32
1.23
-17.37
1.02
1.17
0.17
-0.03
Duffield, Mrs A
59
4
6.78%
0.71
0.61
-44.02
0.58
0.51
-0.23
-0.78
Dunlop, E A L
79
9
11.39%
1.36
4.73
-38.89
0.93
0.85
0.31
0.48
Dunlop, H J L
38
5
13.16%
1.58
-
10.75
1.73
0.98
0.92
1.73
Easterby, M W
42
0
0.00%
0.00
-
-42.00
0.00
0.00
-0.80
0.00
Easterby, T D
90
2
2.22%
0.26
0.33
-48.00
0.22
0.17
-0.53
-0.95
Ellison, B
49
3
6.12%
0.62
3.00
-41.37
0.60
0.46
-0.20
0.25
Elsworth, D R C
28
5
17.86%
1.25
2.02
-6.29
1.26
1.33
0.18
0.29
Evans, P D
78
13
16.67%
1.49
1.88
94.88
1.54
1.24
0.70
0.46
Fahey, R A
256
21
8.20%
0.61
0.56
-168.89
0.44
0.61
-0.46
-0.59
Fanshawe, J R
65
10
15.38%
1.00
2.23
-25.60
1.09
1.15
0.15
0.11
Given, J G
32
4
12.50%
1.13
0.83
7.00
1.25
0.93
0.33
-1.19
Gosden, J H M
209
54
25.84%
1.16
1.31
-21.53
0.91
1.93
-0.03
-0.14
Guest, R C
25
1
4.00%
0.41
-
-8.00
1.12
0.30
0.22
1.12
Guest, Rae
30
8
26.67%
2.11
2.27
20.17
1.53
1.99
0.72
0.54
Haggas, W J
159
43
27.04%
1.26
1.71
-18.04
0.92
2.02
-0.04
-0.02
Hannon (Jnr), R
346
76
21.97%
1.53
2.22
-66.82
0.97
1.64
0.11
0.29
Harris, R A
22
1
4.55%
0.76
1.05
-19.25
0.87
0.34
0.20
-0.14
Hills, B W
31
7
22.58%
1.51
6.99
-4.69
1.00
1.69
0.12
0.72
Hills, Charles
150
17
11.33%
0.91
1.22
-73.73
0.62
0.85
-0.22
-0.21
J-Houghton, Eve
48
2
4.17%
0.44
1.00
-41.25
0.41
0.31
-0.41
-0.18
Hughes, Jo
42
0
0.00%
0.00
-
-42.00
0.00
0.00
-0.59
0.00
Ivory, D K
23
2
8.70%
0.75
1.17
-11.62
1.00
0.65
0.00
-0.52
Jarvis, W
25
3
12.00%
1.29
1.44
-1.87
1.10
0.90
0.32
-0.34
Johnston, M
212
44
20.75%
1.29
1.49
-8.58
0.92
1.55
0.04
0.06
Kelleway, Miss Gay
22
1
4.55%
0.51
0.27
-20.71
0.33
0.34
-0.52
-2.37
Kirk, S
43
3
6.98%
0.64
1.05
-1.50
1.01
0.52
0.03
-0.43
Knight, W J
31
3
9.68%
0.88
1.50
-5.50
1.01
0.72
0.17
-0.08
Lanigan, D R
27
3
11.11%
0.61
1.15
-20.12
0.61
0.83
-0.33
-0.42
McBride, P J
22
4
18.18%
1.48
-
-8.12
1.34
1.36
0.52
1.34
McCabe, A J
23
1
4.35%
0.59
0.59
-21.67
0.37
0.32
-0.38
-0.30
Meade, M
34
7
20.59%
1.38
1.69
8.71
1.23
1.54
0.24
-0.21
Meehan, B J
80
14
17.50%
1.35
1.71
23.15
1.13
1.31
0.15
-0.17
Millman, B R
29
4
13.79%
1.52
2.14
-3.50
1.96
1.03
1.07
0.51
Mohammed, I
32
0
0.00%
0.00
-
-32.00
0.00
0.00
-0.85
0.00
Moore, G L
34
3
8.82%
0.69
1.59
-17.17
1.10
0.66
0.12
0.32
Moore, J S
55
2
3.64%
0.49
1.06
-47.50
0.68
0.27
-0.24
0.00
Morrison, H
53
6
11.32%
0.75
2.15
-2.10
0.72
0.84
-0.30
-0.21
Muir, W R
46
9
19.57%
1.62
2.15
10.73
1.40
1.46
0.47
0.08
Noseda, J
49
9
18.37%
1.06
1.41
-21.82
0.83
1.37
-0.02
-0.03
OMeara, D
63
10
15.87%
1.19
1.43
-10.00
0.93
1.18
0.03
-0.01
Osborne, J A
60
3
5.00%
0.38
0.85
-43.00
0.47
0.37
-0.39
-0.32
Palmer, Hugo
50
15
30.00%
1.78
2.90
22.89
1.21
2.24
0.19
0.35
Perrett, Mrs A J
44
5
11.36%
1.05
1.63
-18.50
0.74
0.85
-0.07
-0.43
Portman, J G
45
4
8.89%
0.98
2.18
68.00
1.31
0.66
0.45
0.31
Prescott, Sir Mark
69
8
11.59%
0.65
1.53
-32.41
1.04
0.86
0.07
-0.01
Quinn, J J
51
8
15.69%
1.53
1.76
-22.82
1.16
1.17
0.38
0.25
Ryan, K A
125
19
15.20%
1.29
1.95
-22.86
0.85
1.13
0.02
0.24
Shaw, D
29
0
0.00%
0.00
0.00
-29.00
0.00
0.00
-0.75
-1.43
Simcock, D M
94
12
12.77%
0.79
1.48
-42.50
0.75
0.95
-0.24
0.00
Smart, B
39
5
12.82%
1.20
1.22
-2.75
1.01
0.96
0.15
-0.05
Stevens, Olly
34
3
8.82%
0.86
3.08
-18.50
0.80
0.66
0.00
0.44
Stoute, Sir Michael
149
39
26.17%
1.49
3.49
9.08
1.00
1.95
0.15
0.36
Suroor, Saeed Bin
123
36
29.27%
1.17
1.19
-9.99
0.89
2.18
-0.08
-0.09
Tate, James
72
12
16.67%
1.13
1.23
-25.57
0.80
1.24
-0.02
-0.36
Tinkler, N
26
2
7.69%
0.93
-
-13.00
1.63
0.57
0.69
1.63
Tompkins, M H
20
0
0.00%
0.00
0.00
-20.00
0.00
0.00
-0.70
-2.27
Tregoning, M P
35
3
8.57%
0.64
1.58
-16.25
0.57
0.64
-0.37
-0.31
Turner, W G M
32
2
6.25%
1.22
1.88
-11.09
1.01
0.47
0.36
0.63
Usher, M D I
29
0
0.00%
0.00
0.00
-29.00
0.00
0.00
-0.87
-1.39
Varian, Roger
133
28
21.05%
1.12
2.22
-27.77
0.86
1.57
-0.05
0.22
Vaughan, E F
20
1
5.00%
0.40
1.25
-14.50
0.47
0.37
-0.51
-0.26
Walker, Ed
60
11
18.33%
1.21
2.31
-26.27
1.08
1.37
0.09
0.11
Wall, C F
37
2
5.41%
0.36
1.89
-18.00
0.60
0.40
-0.45
-0.01
Williams, Ian
25
3
12.00%
1.05
-
8.58
2.22
0.90
1.29
2.22
Williams, S C
34
2
5.88%
0.51
1.00
5.00
0.70
0.44
-0.13
-0.60
https://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/charlieappleby2-1.jpg320830Matt Bisognohttps://www.geegeez.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/geegeez_banner_new_170x78.pngMatt Bisogno2016-08-26 16:12:092016-09-01 08:58:39Trainer Angles: Point and Shoot vs Education
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.
